Recently, companies such as  Microsoft and Red Bull had installed commercial booths in front of the Creative Learning Building (E11). Targeting KAIST students specifically, these companies advertised their products through various ways such as free give-away events and installations for students to actually experience the products. However, there has been controversy over whether on-campus advertising should be allowed. The KAIST Herald delves deeper into the issue at hand.

Pro: An Unnecessary Hassle over a Win-Win Situation
By: Gyuri Bae

Lately, the pathway leading to the Creative Learning Building (E16) has been bustling with enthusiastic, relatively young advertisers in colorful t-shirts, actively campaigning their brands, notably Microsoft and Red Bull. They installed booths, provided free samples, and even held lottery events for students to win prizes. To some, on-campus advertisers became a source of annoyance and an intruder in the grounds of learning. However, on-campus advertising can actually prove to be beneficial to both sides: a smarter and more efficient way for advertisers to market products to their main target customers, and new, better deal opportunities for the students.

For the advertisers, on-campus advertising is smart marketing, a great idea to maximize the exposure of their product to its primary users. The two products, Microsoft Windows and Red Bull, are particularly well accepted and widely used at KAIST, and it would actually be rare to see a student here that has tried neither. It would not be an exaggeration to say that nearly all KAIST students have a computer and, if not, have utilized the ones provided in the school facilities. It is something that people encounter on a daily basis and thus they are heavily reliant on the software. The Windows operating system (OS) is especially more widely used than the MAC OS by Apple because in Korea, certain sites only open in a Windows OS. Similarly with Red Bull, it is widely consumed by KAIST students who work and study till late in the night and need that boost of energy provided by this heavily caffeinated drink. Before and during midterms and finals week, the school store usually goes out of stock of this energy drink. There are similar brands such as Hot Six and Burn Intense, but Red Bull is still the more popularized one and the much-preferred choice of most. Is it not, then, good marketing to advertise Windows and Red Bull to its most avid consumers?

Moreover, these on-campus advertisements provide a great chance for student to get better deals, and experience and compare the products prior to purchasing. Those who take advantage of the stalls set up can learn more about the product (maybe even discover a feature they did not know about), and enjoy the different aspects of the products without feeling pressured to buy something. Also, those students who did not have the time to go and physically test out the products are presented with that opportunity right on campus, which can save both time and cost. To win the hearts of the students, the booths set up by the advertisers also consisted of raffles, free samples, and surveys. Some products were sold for cheaper prices than on the markets and students were offered with a selection of smart choices in terms of cost and quality. Winners of the raffles were given prizes on a bigger scale: Windows offered their latest (and expensive) laptop as the first prize.

Some people are concerned that on-campus advertising can affect the campus atmosphere negatively, whether it is because the advertisers are in the way or that students may be pressured to buy products, especially when the products may not particularly be beneficial (it has been widely publicized that energy drinks are bad for your health). With all this in mind, it can only be said that students will experience this kind of marketing some time in their lives, probably at a greater degree than now. The ultimate decision of purchasing a product, on-campus or not, is up to the individual students and that responsibility should not be entirely prevented from being taken. If they make a rash decision now, they can learn from it with less severe consequences than they would face later on.

With on-campus advertising, students are able to learn more about the product, making mental comparisons with the product they thought it to be when looked at on the Internet or with older, previously experienced models, and advertisers can expand their publicity and retain a better image and reputation over their competitors, attracting more consumers in the future. It is a win-win situation. So what exactly is the hassle for?

Con: Such Events Must Be Strictly Regulated
By: Geunhong Park

Most people on campus were probably surprised when two brightly colored vans, each bedecked in Red Bull energy drink and Microsoft adverts, pulled right up next to the Creative Learning Building (E11) last month. Many were probably even more surprised when the relatively ordinary looking vans seemed to suddenly unload colorful banners, booths, and numerous advertising workers dressed in costumes and uniforms. The “events” lasted from around noon well into the early evening; Red bull even threw in some small cars in full company livery (dubbed the “Red Bull Wings” team) to drive around campus and hand drinks to students going about their daily business.

Though many people have been taken aback by the sudden festivities, there have (as of yet) not been any complaints; at least none on the online forums. Even with their busy schedules, many students seemed quite happy to stop on the way to their lectures to participate in the free giveaways (especially considering Red Bull’s reputation among students as “energy potions” for all-nighters during exams). Aside from a minor problem with litter generated from the occasion – a consequence of free giveaways featuring highly coveted drinks, a nuisance to perhaps only the KAIST personnel - nobody seemed to be offended or harmed.

Yet one must still stress that these first-time incidents may set precedence for many more to come, some that may prove to have numerous negative effects for the student populace. It is incontrovertible that loud and social events such as these have proven to be unpopular with many students, especially considering the fact that many people on campus are often engaged in academic activities. Only a week after the pomp and gaudy splendor of the advertising campaigns, controversy arose - as always, a seasoned observer might add - over the racket of certain student bands and musical groups near areas where students often studied. Too many simultaneous promotion events or too large a single advertising campaign might easily result in the same outcome. This is increasingly true regarding the fact that the sponsors of such events are usually those outside the school; this may lead to worrisome prospects of advertising dins getting out of control. To even imagine such commotions during exam week or even graduation day would be repugnant for many KAISTians.

At the same time, one must confess that it is also true that the Red Bull and Microsoft campaigns demonstrated that these events could be fun for the students (as many of those who attended could probably attest) and at the same time result in little disturbance to others. This reporter can easily relate to claims that KAIST rarely has many entertainment events for students to attend; thus, these advertising initiatives by companies could actually perform the same function that keeps student musical groups alive despite complaints; they can help students “loosen up” and enjoy, enriching their scholastic experience at the same time.

Looking at other universities too – elsewhere in Korea or the United States (U.S.) for example, these advertisement drives are often a permanent fixture of normal college life. This not only covers initiatives by outside companies, but also those led by the students. Actually, campaigns by student clubs and groups are a large part of KAIST life as well – though again, those by outside companies may be less considerate of student needs and lifestyles.

However, one cannot overemphasize the point that certain strict precautions must be taken in allowing such events to happen within school grounds. Virginia Tech in the US for example has numerous regulations posted online relating to the matter: “all advertising must be in good taste, appropriate for its intended purpose and must not create litter or disruption. The name of the sponsoring organization, event name, date, time, and location must be included… marking on walkways, roadways, or other structures on campus with chalk, paint or any other material is not allowed […] failure to comply with these policies may subject the responsible organization or individuals to fines for property damage or cleanup costs.”

Indeed, if irresponsibly pitched campaigns, as well as the waste and noise they produce, prove to be damaging and highly inconvenient to school workers, students, staff, and property, there is no reason for the school to grant these organizations permission for a second time. Maybe people blindly arguing for the benefits of these advertisement campaigns within the school should first think hard about the potential mishaps that may arise, and should make an effort to stem them by introducing stringent regulations against them.

Copyright © The KAIST Herald Unauthorized reproduction, redistribution prohibited