A Company Taking Advantage of Relationships or Reaping the Rewards of a Niche Market?

There was an interesting article in the February 14th issue of Businessweek, Cheating, Incorporated by Sheelah Kolhatkar.

Although completely unethical, the implemented marketing and branding was created with some thought. The personal idea for the company was spawned after he discovered that 30% of users for online dating services were posing as single yet were still in a relationship. The company, which has grown 13 percent since Craigslist shut down its "adult services" portion of the site, capitalized on a niche market gaining 8.5 million customers in 10 countries. After applying some market research on women (the company's target demographic) and infidelity, their website was created to lure these customers through creating a site where women feel "they were the focal point." Consider consumer behavior and the significant increase in registrations after certain holidays (Day after New Year's: 78% Men, 22% Women)(Day after Valentine's Day: 52% Men, 48% Women)(Day after Mother's Day: Women 77%, Men 23%)(Day after Father's Day: 87% Men, 13% Women)

Although obtaining customers might be rather effortless, gaining financial supporters and advertising spots have been more difficult. There is a concern among investors that connection with this company will ruin their perceived character.

Many ads are banned from television advertising. However, the owner feels that the company has suffered an "injustice" through refused ads and the fact that they are unable to purchase the word "infidelity", a word they consider to be their brand, as a key word related to internet search engines. Consider watching the short blurb titled       "Banned Commercials Superbowl 2011 in Dallas" before making a decision regarding this rejected ad.

Please consider some of these questions in your comments.

• What do you think about their marketing strategy? 
• How would you convince clients to invest?
• How does this company attract you as an investor, if the possibility even exists?
• Should the ad have been denied by Fox for airing during the Superbowl?
• Should rejected ads be based upon content of the ad specifically, the company's product/service or both?

Super Bowl 2011 Social Media Mistake?

According to Nielson Company Super Bowl 2011 was able to attract record viewers...211 Million. During Super Bowl 2011, it was disappointing to see that very few advertisers incorporated social media into their 30 second spot.

So, what are the demographics of the Super Bowl and does it truly make a difference whether the advertiser incorporates social media into their ad?

Demographics comparing SuperBowl 2010-2011 from pifeedback.com:














According to Lightspeed Research:

• Out of 18-34 year-olds planning to watch the Super Bowl that own smartphones two-thirds intended to use them while watching the game.
• Of those, 59% were planning on sending emails or text messages about the game, while 18% planned on checking out the ads on their phones.

You can view and rate the social media inclusion of the Super Bowl Ads.
Referring to a USA Today article from 2010, here are a few significant statistics for the Focus on the Family advertisement:

Website: Following the ad, the website traffic increased 40 times the normal volume. It received 50,000 unique visitors and 500,000 hits.

Social media. The controversial ad began generating social media conversations before the actual Super Bowl date. From December 1, 2009 through the Monday (3AM) following the game, the company achieved more "Super Bowl advertising-related social-media conversations than any other advertiser or brand." The "Support Tebow's Super Bowl Ad" Facebook page, created by the Americans United for Life advocacy group allured 230,000 fans.

These (mostly large) corporations are run by professionals...what were they thinking? This is an example of missed opportunity but there's always next year.

What do you think?