Blogger Post 4

Christian Gilbert

Lowe’s Smart Advertising

              When I started with this topic, I only knew the basic differences between how the two major hardware stores advertised. I knew Lowes was more amateur friendly towards their customers while Home Depot aimed to attract the professional. Their main advertising campaigns seemed fairly self-evident, but there I did learn more about how Lowe’s is using clever marketing techniques to perform more effective advertising.

              The unique thing Lowe’s is doing starts with a handy little card. It is not a credit card or business card, it’s basically a purchase tracking card called the myLowes card. What this does is track the specifics of what you purchase, whether it be a certain paint color, size of screws, or type of filters. While this is mainly a very helpful way to help customers track their orders and remember what they need, it also serves a great purpose in how they advertise. Everything that is purchased is stored on a database, allowing Lowe’s to learn your purchasing habits. If you were to be shopping for patio furniture and yard care, the website would actively target you with products and sales in that interest. This is clever by itself, but they use this to create wider sales and marketing by seeing what people are buying. This is something Home Depot is not doing, or at least not yet.

              This has shown me that even though they are still second behind their competitor, they are making a large effort to change that by being more engaged with a larger portion of people. I knew they were more engaging with the lesser experienced, which is a larger population. That can attribute to why Lowe’s is just as large as Home Depot. They also offer more support and knowledge for its customers. They give customers specials like meeting installers every few months and a helpful if not overly involved staff. Knowing now how Lowe’s is playing a more engaging marketing game, it seems like Lowe’s possesses the basis to convince more people to shop there.

              If there is a pressing need for the public to know something about this campaign, it’s that Lowe’s gets advertising. It’s a different world now than when Lowe’s was just a regional hardware shop, and they know how to use today’s tech to benefit them in the most effective way. If you find Lowe’s to be more so the place you would shop, know it isn’t a coincidence. They are playing their hand perfectly and it’s no real wonder why they’re consistently giving America’s #1 hardware store a run for it’s money.

Christian Gilbert

Should Video Games Be Considered Sports?

            In the past decade, the video game industry has really taken off and secured a prominent role in the world of entertainment culture as a whole. Much like any other popular form of entertainment that garners attention of the masses, the gaming industry has accrued its fair share of lively debate. Some of the wildly popular topics of the past included whether games led to violence or if gaming reduced your intelligence. These topics have been battled over enough for lifetimes to come. But recently, a new debate has sprung up that has been gaining equal traction on both sides; should video games be considered sports?

            First side of this argument says that video games are sports. Just like traditional sports, there exist causal and professional gaming. One of the main focuses of this argument looks towards the required skill and strategy of players, where eSports athletes train for months, working on their mental focus, quickening their reaction time, and working out their dexterity (Phan). The next piece of this argument comes in with Major League Gaming, or MLG, tournaments, namely the huge fan-bases these events. In 2014, the League of Legends tournament pulled in 11.2 million viewers, compared to the NHL Finals only reaching 8 million (Phan). The final factor in this argument comes down to what can be considered a sport. Most don’t hold games and sports due to the “lazy” gamer stigma. This side asks to hold the same light to things like chess or golf and what defines these as sports (Phan).

            On the other side of this argument does not consider gaming to be a sport. One of the main focuses on this side is the lack of physical activity, which is considered to be a major aspect of being a sport (Phan). This party next discusses the isolation and numbness that can be experienced while gaming. They also talk about the lack of teamwork which doesn’t apply to eSports teams (Phan). ESPN makes points about eSports being considered more of a competition than sport. It falls within the same category of chess and checkers, activities that warrant skill and finesse but not the same requirements as sports (Maiberg).

            The first of these two targets doubters of gamers and those who give no credit to the gaming community. It also can be aimed at sports channels such as ESPN. The issue is framed in a way that shows the similarities between eSports and other sports on TV, highlighting the training and viewers. This argument treats the opposing side in a productive way, using it as a comparison, and how eSports live up to the standard. This serves the large community of gamers who believe in eSports and want equal treatment for gamers.

            The second argument targets the same people as the first, those who believe in eSports as being real sports. It’s framed in a way that talks down on the tournaments and it’s lack of activity. This argument treats its opposition in a dismissive manner, not giving much credit to games and not taking into consideration the cooperative and strategic aspects of eSports. This argument serves those such as ESPN and other sports supporters.

Works Cited

Maiberg, Emanuel. "ESPN Says ESports Isn't a Sport -- What Do You Think?" GameSpot. N.p., 06 Sept. 2014. Web. 12 Feb. 2016.

Phan, Pauline, and David Marshall. "Debate: Is Gaming A Sport?" Choices. N.p., 07 Oct. 2015. Web. 12 Feb. 2016

Christian Gilbert

Drain Your Brain: Lumosity’s Breach of Persuasive Ethics

                I found an example of breach in persuasive ethics in the form of the Lumos Labs’ Lumosity, the brain-training game developed to enhance a person’s brain function and performance. The issue at hand came in the form of false advertising. The program is said to improve mental performance in work and school, and work to prevent cognitive deficits that are typically found within diseases such as Alzheimer’s or traumatic brain injuries. The implied mental acuity and improvement that is being advertised is apparently not accurate (Underwood).

                The FTC has cited a number of complaints about the brain-game for some time, claiming they haven’t noticed any improvement. Their assessment found that Lumosity did not “have adequate science for the claims that they’re making” (Underwood). The only thing found to happen after periods of “brain-training” is an improvement in the games themselves. There was no actual, real-world benefit that people could see. This led to the claims of false advertising (Underwood).

                The breach of ethics here was that Lumos Labs had been claiming that paying for these games improve your mental prowess when that simply wasn’t true. They convinced people that they could become smarter by doing this when the science does not back up that assertion. There is a blatant disrespect for its consumers in the form of false promises and lost money on something that doesn’t do as is stated. People paid for this service, and if they purchased a year subscription, they paid upwards of $200 for essentially boring games (Underwood). I believe this was a deliberate tactic to convince people to join. Lumosity is not the only culprit out there, and many are accused of doing the same thing. It’s a plan of advertising designed to make people want to improve their minds and become smarter. Without the pull of “being smarter”, there would be virtually no reason play these games.

                The “argument” so to speak here is already clearly defined at this point. As of the beginning of January, 2016, this issue has been handled by the FTC on behalf of numerous people citing this violation against Lumos Labs (Underwood). The context of the argument was directed at Limos Labs, the creators, in the form of a lawsuit by the FTC on behalf of scorned consumers. There was a clear violation of ethical standards; truth in advertising. They put out a product deliberately making false claims and enticing people to purchase the program on the bases of a fabricated outcome. It was simple and blatant lying to the public, possibly because they assumed people wouldn’t be able to prove they weren’t learning. Or, perhaps they thought it would have a placebo effect and people would assume it would work. In this situation, the result of this breach of ethics had a fairly just outcome, in that Lumos Labs was fine for false advertising and the wronged consumers were reimbursed.

Works Cited

                Underwood, Emily. "Brain Game-maker Fined $2 Million for Lumosity False Advertising." Science. N.p., 5 Jan. 2016. Web. 27 Jan. 2016.