I just read about a scent marketing campaign which was executed last year to market a new toothpaste for Pepsodent. The scent campaign was carried out a movie theater where sample tubes of toothpaste were handed out, there was a faint scent of mint in the movie theater and there were commecials ads for the toothpaste before the movie. This was the first example of using scent marketing in a movie theater in Sweden. It would have been interesting to ask the audience what they thought about this involuntary exposure to a scent - did the consumer resent this or did they find it refreshing? This poses an interesting question of where do we draw the line for permission marketing and consumer consent for scent marketing campaigns. More to come from Sweden.
4 comments:
Interesting stuff.
I can't wait to hear more from Sweden!
Merci,
you are making a good point about "permission marketing". Scent marketing may be considered intrusive when there is really no way to escape - other than holding your breath and run.
You may want to advertise a "scent enhanced" movie, so the audience has a choice. You can hand out samples so the audience can decide to try the product at home. But with unleashing a scent on a captive (or better "captured") audience you may do yourself more damage than a favor.
It only takes one hypersensitive member of the audience and you will have a huge problem on your hands. I don't want to come across contradicting our own efforts and industry but putting the consumer/audience/customer in control is essential when it comes to scent marketing.
Cheers!
Harald H. Vogt
Scent Marketing Institute
http://www.scentmarketing.org
Thanks Harald for your comment. Has the permission marketing issue been raised among your clients/ colleagues? The air is a free space but who "owns" the marketing on free air? Have environmental aspects of creating artificial scents been made? Unfortunately, I won't be able to call in on the tele-conferences due to the 6 hour time difference between Sweden and New York - hopefully, there will be some news/ feedback posted from the outcome.
Merci,
it has been mentioned indeed -- but there has always been more reaction than action on the subject.
Isn't Greenland considered "free space"? I had an interesting meeting with a gentleman from Argentina, we came to talk about the Falklands and why Great Britain is so fiercely defending some barren islands and a couple of thousand sheep living there. He told me it's because it's "projection" towards Greenland and that it entitles England a claim on a (no matter how small) sliver of Greenland. Interesting, huh...
How about the freedom of outer space? Who can send up a satellite? Does who lands on the moon - or any other planet- first own the real estate?
I think discussing the ownership of ambient air becomes even more difficult. Do the advocacy groups for the diabetic, homeless and obese own it? Because they complained about the scent of cookies in bus shelters in San Francisco. Clearly not! I would say. But it doesn't mean that we can ignore them.
That discussion will not be over anytime soon, it will get even more convoluted.
But we will deal with it sensitively and keep you posted on the progress.
By the way, the conference call's will be available as podcasts shortly.
Cheers
Harald
Post a Comment