On the one hand it is true that non-traditional marketing can offer great opportunities and has shown great results. It has many advantages that I already listed and mentioned in the answer 1 and 2. Among all other big advantage, non-tradional marketing enable marketers to attract consumer’s attention which is really imported. Moreover the brand is not the one directly communicating on the product: journalists, medias, or consumers will do the job communication for the brand which makes the communcation message even more credible! But on the other hand, I think traditional marketing should still be taken into consideration while preparing the future communication strategy of BMW, especially because of all the drawbacks non-traditional communication entails. Non-traditional communication is quite risky. In fact even if the investment is lower compared with traditional communication tools it doesn’t mean the investment will be more profitable. The efficiency and the success of the campaign is quite uncertain. What if the film is a flop? (see example on exhibit 11 and compare it to the investment on exhibit 14). Actually it is really hard to predict if this is going to work or not. It might be better to prepare a plan B using traditional marketing. Even worse, using non-traditional marketing can do more harm than good to your brand.Like explained above, the marketers do not have a perfect control on it: medias or viewers might not like your product and critic it before you even launch the product! The repercutions might be very detrimental for your marketing strategy. For this reason I would say that McDowell should reconsider is decision and combine both non-traditional and traditional communication like in the Phase I Launch Plan..
Please join StudyMode to read the full document