5/20/2021 IGNITOR Student

:…… offbeat humor or using blatant sex appeals. However, please read the [MC Focus, which de-
scribes a case where creating awareness did not assure that consumers will move further up
the hierarchy toward purchasing the brand and potentially becoming loyal repeat purchasers.
NOTES
Creating an Expectation
Mere brand name awareness generally is insufficient to get people to buy a brand, particu-
larly when consumers already possess a solution to a consumption-related problem or remain
unaware that a solution is available. Advertising and other marcom elements must instill in
consumers an expectation of what product benefit(s) they will obtain from buying and expe-
riencing a brand. It should be noted that an expectation from the consumer's perspective is
based on how the brand has been positioned.
In the case of Pegetables, consumers are basically promised that Pegetables is a delicious-
tasting and nutritious snack for dogs that is made with real vegetables (see the com-, carrot-,
and celery-shaped items). This is how Pegetables has been positioned, and this is the expec-
tation that Pegetables’s brand management team wishes to implant in the target audience's
collective mind. To the extent consumers develop this expectation, they may undertake trial
purchases of Pegetables to learn for themselves (based on whether their pets seem to enjoy
the product) whether it lives up to its promise.

Encouraging Trial Purchases

Sales promotions and advertisements sometimes work together to encourage trial purchases,
often by influencing consumers to switch from brands they currently are purchasing. As “the

' ' i_m_c. f o c u s

. -
I I - _-

ln response to dietfads eschewingthe intake of carbohydrates (ag. , the Atkins and South Beach
diets) that were highly popular during the early 20005, the Miller Brewing Company undertook
an aggressive advertising campaign by comparing Miller Lite against AnheuserBusch’s Bud
Light. Using humorous but hardhitting TV ads, Miller Lite's advertisements attempted to
persuade consumers that that brand should be their preferred choice because it contains
only onehalf the carbohydrate content of Bud Light. This campaign had a substantial impact
on Miller Lite's market share, which rose while Bud Light‘s share declined.
But prior to this particular ad campaign, Miller had attempted to boost sales of Miller Lite
by running a campaign with blatant sex appeal. The campaign was dubbed "Catfight" based
on the campaign's initial spot in which two scantily clad women fought and shed clothing over
whether Miller Lite tastes great or is less filling. A series of additional spots presented sexy
Women in confrontational scenes arguing over Miller Lite's relative merits. The campaign
generated considerable buzz as well as controversy in feminist circles and elsewhere for its
treatment of women as sex objects.
However, of primary relevance in the context of the present discussion is the fact that,
although brand awareness of Miller Lite increased during the Cattight campaign, actual sales
declined by 3 percent. In a meeting with financial analysts who track the performance of
Miller‘s various brands, the president of Miller Lite had this to say about the ad campaign in
a retrospective analysis: “Awareness is not the problem, but actual [purchase] consideration
is the problem and challenge and opportunity. We want to ensure that the [advertising] spend
we put behind the brand is leading toward actual consideration and not just continuing to
build awareness.”

son… Sounæ Hillary.Churu,- "Will-ler, Lose: 'Çullilht,‘ Buzz Dom: Lin-me: Advertising Age, lune 2.2003, s,. 51..
88 Material

https://reader.ignitorlearning.com/#/book/ff1a9b80—8f7c—4436-b4ad-6669ffd72907/core/content-player/ed363abd-1eb3-b147-7814-56d95ae17... 96/295