VOICI UN exemple d'un article situer d'une manière professionnelle dans un recueil (Article 4 : Le marketing sensoriel : la clé pour activer les émotions et
engager vos clients.
Introduction :
Le marketing sensoriel est une approche marketing qui exploite les sens du consommateur pour
influencer son comportement d'achat.
Cette stratégie vise à créer une expérience sensorielle immersive pour séduire le consommateur et
le pousser à acheter.
L'importance croissante du marketing sensoriel est due à la sensibilité accrue des consommateurs
aux stimuli sensoriels. Les sens jouent en effet un rôle essentiel dans la formation de nos
perceptions et de nos émotions.
63
Elaboré par : Emma
Et publié en : 13 Main 2023
Lien : Marketing sensoriel : stimuler les sens du consommateur (adiu.fr)  Ainsi, le marketing sensoriel permet aux entreprises de créer des expériences plus mémorables et
engageantes pour les consommateurs.
Cet article présente les concepts et les applications clés du marketing sensoriel. Après une
introduction, nous examinerons les différents sens qui peuvent être stimulés dans le cadre d'une
stratégie marketing sensorielle. Enfin, nous aborderons les limites du marketing sensoriel et ses
perspectives d'avenir.
Corps :
Le marketing sensoriel est une approche marketing qui utilise les sens du consommateur pour
influencer son comportement d'achat.
Cette stratégie vise à créer une expérience sensorielle immersive afin de séduire et d'inciter à
l'achat.
Le marketing sensoriel peut stimuler un ou plusieurs des cinq sens du consommateur : la vue,
l'ouïe, l'odorat, le goût et le toucher.
La vue est souvent utilisée grâce à l'utilisation de couleurs, formes, textures et images.
L'ouïe joue également un rôle important grâce à la musique, aux bruits ambiants et aux voix.
L'odorat est un sens puissant pour susciter des émotions et des souvenirs, tandis que le goût peut
stimuler l'appétit et l'intérêt des consommateurs.
Le toucher peut être utilisé pour une expérience sensorielle plus immersive.
Le marketing sensoriel trouve des applications dans divers contextes tels que la vente au détail, la
restauration, l'hôtellerie et les transports.
Il est utilisé pour rendre l'expérience d'achat plus agréable, créer une ambiance chaleureuse dans
les restaurants, offrir une expérience relaxante dans les hôtels et améliorer l'expérience de voyage.
Cependant, le marketing sensoriel présente certaines limites. Il peut être coûteux à mettre en place
et son efficacité dépend de divers facteurs tels que le produit, la cible et le contexte.
De plus, il existe un risque de mauvaise interprétation ou de dérangement pour certains
consommateurs.
En termes de perspectives d'avenir, le marketing sensoriel est une stratégie marketing encore en
développement.
Les entreprises continuent d'explorer de nouvelles façons d'utiliser lessens du consommateur pour
influencer leur comportement d'achat et créer des expériences plus engageantes Le marketing sensoriel est une approche marketing puissante pour créer des expériences
sensorielles immersives et engageantes.
Cependant, il est essentiel de prendre en compte les limites de cette stratégie afin de l'utiliser de
manière efficace et responsable.
Tout d'abord, le coût peut représenter une limite du marketing sensoriel.
La mise en place d'une expérience sensorielle immersive peut nécessiter des investissements
importants en termes de conception, de matériaux, de technologie et de personnel spécialisé. Il est
donc nécessaire d'évaluer attentivement les ressources disponibles avant de se lancer dans une
telle démarche.
Ensuite, l'efficacité du marketing sensoriel peut varier en fonction de différents facteurs. Le type
de produit ou de service, la cible marketing, le contexte d'utilisation et la cohérence avec la marque
sont autant de critères à prendre en considération.
Il est important de bien connaître son public cible et de s'assurer que les stimuli sensoriels utilisés
correspondent à ses attentes et à ses préférences.) faire la même  chose avec cete article et traduire en Français (Seminario Internacional sobre Métodos Naturales para el Tratamiento de Aguas Residuales
Universidad del Valle/Instituto Cinara Mara, D. 65
WASTE STABILIZATION PONDS: TIME FOR AGGRESSIVE MARKETING
Mara, D.*
*School of Civil Engineering, University of Leeds, Leeds LS2 9JT, UK
e-mail: <PRESIDIO_ANONYMIZED_EMAIL_ADDRESS>
ABSTRACT
In developing countries waste stabilization ponds have many advantages over other forms of wastewater treatment,
particularly in terms of cost, performance and maintenance. Competing technologies, such as UASBs and constructed
wetlands, are more effectively marketed than WSP, despite the fact that their claimed advantages over WSP are
generally false. WSP specialists need to promote WSP technology much more aggressively because the most
appropriate way to reduce the current global deficiencies in wastewater treatment is by implementing WSP.
KEYWORDS
Costs, marketing, performance, waste stabilization ponds.
INTRODUCTION
Waste stabilization ponds (WSP) are a low-cost, low-maintenance, high-performance wastewater
treatment process that is especially suitable for use in developing countries. This statement is not
new, but it bears repetition as in the wider world outside academia it is insufficiently understood
and too rarely applied. There are, of course, good examples of good WSP in developing countries
(where the need for wastewater treatment is greatest – Figure 1), but there are also many examples
of WSP not being used when clearly they would have been a more appropriate choice.
Why is this? We really need to understand the answer to this question. If we cannot answer it
convincingly, then our promotion of WSP will not be effective, and certainly we will not be able to
compete effectively with those who promote alternative – but often less appropriate – technologies.
We need to know the advantages and perceived disadvantages of WSP, and we need to market WSP
effectively in a highly competitive world.
Advantages of WSP
We need to be able to "sell" WSP effectively, but we must be careful not to overstate their
advantages (the evidence in their favour is commonly so overwhelming that there is a real danger of
overstatement). The advantages of WSP can be simply stated as:
● Low cost, and usually least cost – both capital and operation and maintenance (O&M) costs
● Simple O&M – only unskilled labour required
● High efficiency – very good removal of BOD and excreted pathogens
● Robustness – their large size absorbs high peak or stormwater flows and dilutes influent
toxicants, and they can withstand more O&M neglect than other systems
Perceived disadvantages of WSP
Usually WSP are said to require too much land, to produce effluents with too high a suspended
solids concentration, and to be likely to cause odour.
Land. It is certainly true that WSP require more land than conventional treatment technologies
(activated sludge, biofilters), but really (as shown by Arthur, 1983) it comes down to a simple
question of costs. How much land can you buy for WSP with the money you would spend on
electricity (and other O&M) for activated sludge? In his case study Arthur (1983) showed that WSP were the cheapest option up to land prices of US$
50,000−150,000 per ha (depending on the discount rate used; Arthur used 5−15%). Oswald (1976)
reported that the town of Concord in California made a real estate profit, in real terms, of US$
275,000 per ha over the 20-year period 1955−1975 on the land it had purchased for WSP. It is
always worth remembering, and advertising, the fact that money spent on land is an investment, but
money spent on electricity is money gone forever.
Effluent suspended solids. Most suspended solids (usually >90%) in WSP effluents are algae. In the
European Union WSP effluents are required to have less than only 150 mg SS per litre and ≤25 mg
filtered (i.e., non-algal) BOD/l (Council of the European Communities, 1991) − because it is
recognised that algal SS and algal BOD are different from ‘ordinary’ wastewater SS and BOD. If in
Europe, why not in developing countries? This is a question that we should regularly pose to
developing country regulators.
Odour. Of course, overloaded and/or badly maintained WSP often do cause odour, but this is true of
all biological wastewater treatment processes. We understand the causes of odour in WSP and we
can design anaerobic ponds so that they do not cause odour problems (Mara, 1997). In any case,
conventional wastewater treatment plants often have odour problems, and water companies in the
UK (and doubtless elsewhere) spend considerable amounts of money on odour control at
conventional works (Lovelace, 2003).
Competing technologies
Apart from conventional treatment systems, WSP face competition from UASBs and constructed
wetlands (and also from aerated lagoons, although these are now less common). We should always
make the point, in rebutting these competitor technologies, that WSP provide primary, secondary
and tertiary treatment.
UASBs. These only provide primary treatment and, while they have very short retention times
(~6−10 hours), their cost is much higher than that of a 1-day anaerobic pond as they are generally
constructed in reinforced concrete (whereas anaerobic ponds are commonly just excavated). They
have no advantage, in performance terms, over anaerobic ponds, especially high-rate anaerobic
ponds (Peña Varón, 2002), and when the land area of the secondary treatment unit (often a
facultative pond) is included, they do not require much less land − even less if tertiary treatment
(maturation ponds) is included.  Constructed wetlands. These only provide secondary and/or tertiary treatment, and their cost
depends largely on the cost of the technology used for primary treatment. It is now known that the
plants in constructed wetlands are not required for the removal of BOD, SS, faecal coliforms or
phosphorus, although they do facilitate nitrification (Tanner, 2001). Thus, ammonia removal apart,
constructed wetlands would be better designed as rock filters (Middlebrooks, 1995). Partial aeration
of the rock filters is a viable alternative for nitrogen removal (Johnson and Mara, unpublished
observations).
Improved marketing of WSP
If we are to promote WSP as the technology of general first choice to reduce the global deficiencies
in wastewater treatment shown in Figure 1, then we must market them much more aggressively than
we currently do. We need to marshal the very strong arguments that we already have for their use
and for preferring them to other treatment technologies, and we need to broadcast these arguments
widely. We need to tell the world, for example, that here in Colombia the Ministry of the
Environment uses budget figures of US$ 30 per person served for the capital costs of WSP, but US$
130 per person for activated sludge. There are, of course, many more examples of this kind.
International organizations, for example the International Water Association and particularly its
WSP Specialist Group, need to be much more active in promoting sustainable wastewater treatment
in developing countries − and, of course, this will generally mean treatment in WSP.
CONCLUSIONS
● WSP are, in general, the wastewater treatment technology of first choice in developing countries.
There will, of course, be situations where they are not the most appropriate technology, but these
are likely to be few.
● WSP specialists need to promote WSP technology much more effectively if the current global
deficiencies in wastewater treatment are to be reduced.)