After watching this video I was suprised to see so how many people actually did not speak up and I wondered if I would of done the same. A lot of people in the video seemed to be in a hurry especially since the store was loacted in downtown New York but is that really an exuse to be overcharged. This video also points out how many people don't even pay attention to how much they are being charged at the chasier. For instance one customer checked her reciet way after she purchased her t-shirt and didnt even realize that she was overcharged. This was an interesting experiment, and I think if you know you are being overcharged do not be afraid to speak up even if you feel bad. So my question is to you, would you fight for your right?
-------------------------------------------------------
I agree that some people are too preoccupied to pay attention to such a small detail in their everyday life. I once was with a friend at a mall while he was purchasing a gift. When he went to the cashier he handed her the gift and began texting. The next thing I notice is the cashier scanning the gift multiple times. When the total came to around $20 (for a $4 item) my friend didnt notice until I mentioned something. The cashier acted dumb and then fixed the problem, however if I had not mentioned anything my friend would have been charged $20 for a $4 mug.
Thursday, April 21, 2011
Product Placement in Film
http://www.latimes.com/entertainment/news/la-et-greatest-movie-20110421,0,9310.story
The article above talks about product placement in films. The story references the film Pom Wonderful Presents: The Greatest Movie Ever Sold, which is due in theatres on Friday. The film exploits the product placement marketing strategy in films by financing a documentary only with funds raised through product placement.
The article also talks about a man whose job is to analyze marketing opportunities in films for product placement, and also make sure that his clients are represented appropriately on screen.
I think this article is interesting because I think we are either unaware or used to seeing the barrage of products on television and in movies. I work at Yankee Publishing, and a story I heard was the TV show, “The Office,” wanted to use a Yankee Publishing product in an episode. They sent the request to the VP of Yankee and also included a script so the company could evaluate how the product would be represented in the show.
Do you think a company should be able to use TV and film as a marketing technique? Do you think a show should let the company cut out scenes if the product is not represented properly? Does the type of representation matter?
The article above talks about product placement in films. The story references the film Pom Wonderful Presents: The Greatest Movie Ever Sold, which is due in theatres on Friday. The film exploits the product placement marketing strategy in films by financing a documentary only with funds raised through product placement.
The article also talks about a man whose job is to analyze marketing opportunities in films for product placement, and also make sure that his clients are represented appropriately on screen.
I think this article is interesting because I think we are either unaware or used to seeing the barrage of products on television and in movies. I work at Yankee Publishing, and a story I heard was the TV show, “The Office,” wanted to use a Yankee Publishing product in an episode. They sent the request to the VP of Yankee and also included a script so the company could evaluate how the product would be represented in the show.
Do you think a company should be able to use TV and film as a marketing technique? Do you think a show should let the company cut out scenes if the product is not represented properly? Does the type of representation matter?
Friday, April 15, 2011
Reply to Dan: Eye-level placement
After recently making a visit to Shaw's Supermarket I noticed how they use product placement to their advantage. The most noticeable thing that stood out to me occurred when I walked down the cereal isle. Cereal is a product that you can really set clear distinctions on by age groups. Supermarkets like Shaw's are aware of this and apply a concept called "Eye Level Shopping" to their advantage so that customers with specific wants see what they want right away. Eye Level Shopping is the concept that when you walk down an isle like the cereal isle that depending on your age and height, that whatever brands are at your eye level are put there strategically. Cereals that are geared more towards adults like Raisin Brand are placed on the upper shelf while cereals that are meant for kids like Luck Charms are placed on the bottom shelves. Supermarkets do research into finding out the average height levels of all the age groups are strategically place their boxes of cereal according to the data they collected. Another way they use eye level shopping is with items that are on sale. If your walking down the cereal isle and at your eye level on the shelf are boxes of cereal that are on sale you are probably going to be more willing to buy them. For example if I were to be walking down the cereal isle and there were boxes on sale that were on the bottom shelves I may not notice them because my eye level and I would not buy them for that reason.
I think that this is a very affective tool that supermarkets use and it is an extremely important aspect of shopping. The more that items are at my eye level the more I'm going to notice those products and not the products on the bottom shelves. I think that this concept is effective but I am wondering if other people think this way as well, or if placement on shelf levels don't matter to them when they are shopping?
---------------------------------------------
I think placement is extremely important, especially in supermarkets. I think your example about the cereal aisle is good. The cereal aisle has always overwhelmed me when I walked down it. With the repetition of colors, and shapes and pictures, the cereal aisle could be seen as a study in the importance of packaging as well. Going along with what you said about eye-level placement you can also notice the specific demographic that certain box designs are after. The higher-placed cereals are more grown-up, stressing health and nutrition. The lower cereals are bright, flashy, provide games, and are enticing to children because of their playful appearance. It amazing that such a common product, like cereal, has such a wide variety of marketing strategies behind it. Entering into this market would be difficult in my opinion because of the difficulty in differentiating yourself from the rest of the market.
I think that this is a very affective tool that supermarkets use and it is an extremely important aspect of shopping. The more that items are at my eye level the more I'm going to notice those products and not the products on the bottom shelves. I think that this concept is effective but I am wondering if other people think this way as well, or if placement on shelf levels don't matter to them when they are shopping?
---------------------------------------------
I think placement is extremely important, especially in supermarkets. I think your example about the cereal aisle is good. The cereal aisle has always overwhelmed me when I walked down it. With the repetition of colors, and shapes and pictures, the cereal aisle could be seen as a study in the importance of packaging as well. Going along with what you said about eye-level placement you can also notice the specific demographic that certain box designs are after. The higher-placed cereals are more grown-up, stressing health and nutrition. The lower cereals are bright, flashy, provide games, and are enticing to children because of their playful appearance. It amazing that such a common product, like cereal, has such a wide variety of marketing strategies behind it. Entering into this market would be difficult in my opinion because of the difficulty in differentiating yourself from the rest of the market.
Wednesday, April 13, 2011
The End of The Flip
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/13/technology/13flip.html?_r=1&ref=global
Recently, Cisco Systems concluded production and sales of the FlipHD video camera that was so popular over the last 4 years. Although technology markets mature more quickly than other markets, the demise of the Flip has been quick and sudden. Why did the Flip become defunct so quickly?
The Flip was originally marketed as a super affordable, easy to use, HD camcorder solution for everyday use. Capitalizing on the Youtube craze, the Flip was aimed at allowing consumers an easy way to upload high quality content to the video sharing site. However, with the speedy advancement of smartphone technology, the Flip has quickly become obsolete. The new iPhone shoots HD video, as well innumerable amounts of other tasks for the consumer, for the same price as the Flip. The problem seems to stem from the inaction, or inability for the Flip business unit to adapt to the changing market place, and the changing consumer demand. The article argues that this is partially due to Cisco’s lack of experience with consumer goods. Why do you think the Flip failed? Did you own a Flip? Are you still satisfied? What could Flip have done to survive?
Recently, Cisco Systems concluded production and sales of the FlipHD video camera that was so popular over the last 4 years. Although technology markets mature more quickly than other markets, the demise of the Flip has been quick and sudden. Why did the Flip become defunct so quickly?
The Flip was originally marketed as a super affordable, easy to use, HD camcorder solution for everyday use. Capitalizing on the Youtube craze, the Flip was aimed at allowing consumers an easy way to upload high quality content to the video sharing site. However, with the speedy advancement of smartphone technology, the Flip has quickly become obsolete. The new iPhone shoots HD video, as well innumerable amounts of other tasks for the consumer, for the same price as the Flip. The problem seems to stem from the inaction, or inability for the Flip business unit to adapt to the changing market place, and the changing consumer demand. The article argues that this is partially due to Cisco’s lack of experience with consumer goods. Why do you think the Flip failed? Did you own a Flip? Are you still satisfied? What could Flip have done to survive?
Friday, April 8, 2011
Response to CJ: Value of Branding
What’s in a brand name? Are you truly spending the extra money for quality or social status? The usual answer that we are just buying it for the brand name rather than the quality. We won’t as a society admit that we just buy stuff to show people that we can afford nice things are trying to be what society is considering ‘in’ at the time. When you look closer at the actual ‘quality’ of a product there isn’t much of a difference if any. You can up to $35 for an article of clothing that is virtually identical to a $12 piece of clothing from a Wal-Mart. When a consumer goes into a clothing store they never go up to a shirt and the first thing they look at in the consideration of buying the shirt is this shirt going to last a long time. There are the exceptions but most people will buy it just for the brand name, the article is on sale or they are brand loyal.
The only way to get companies to put more into their quality is to force the companies to remove all their brand names and symbols off the outside of the clothing. They only thing that will distinguish one companies clothes from the others is how well it’s made. This sounds all good but wouldn’t be practical. No one wants to look the same as every other person. They want to be different and have that difference of social class. If someone works as hard as they possible can and wants to buy nice things then they should. They have proven that they deserve what they’ve worked for and should be looked at being higher up then Joe-Do-Nothing. So how do we make a fair competition?
---------------------------------------
I think the inherent value in a brand name has become half of the reason that people purchase certain things. Why would people spend more money on something just because of a name? Using clothes as an example, I think in our capitalist society, not only do we wear clothes to cover up, keep us warm, or look good, but we also wear clothes to represent a status. We wear clothes for personal reasons but also in order to impress people and give ourselves value. That is where the value of brands exists. Many branded clothing companies provide their customer with a status value that buying cheaper clothes doesn't provide. This status is part of what these companies are selling and in our society it is important to differentiate yourself and create a sense of value around your persona. People do not like brands because they seem unnecessarily expensive however, branding and status are essential parts of our culture and they allow us to express ourselves, and our value, individually.
The only way to get companies to put more into their quality is to force the companies to remove all their brand names and symbols off the outside of the clothing. They only thing that will distinguish one companies clothes from the others is how well it’s made. This sounds all good but wouldn’t be practical. No one wants to look the same as every other person. They want to be different and have that difference of social class. If someone works as hard as they possible can and wants to buy nice things then they should. They have proven that they deserve what they’ve worked for and should be looked at being higher up then Joe-Do-Nothing. So how do we make a fair competition?
---------------------------------------
I think the inherent value in a brand name has become half of the reason that people purchase certain things. Why would people spend more money on something just because of a name? Using clothes as an example, I think in our capitalist society, not only do we wear clothes to cover up, keep us warm, or look good, but we also wear clothes to represent a status. We wear clothes for personal reasons but also in order to impress people and give ourselves value. That is where the value of brands exists. Many branded clothing companies provide their customer with a status value that buying cheaper clothes doesn't provide. This status is part of what these companies are selling and in our society it is important to differentiate yourself and create a sense of value around your persona. People do not like brands because they seem unnecessarily expensive however, branding and status are essential parts of our culture and they allow us to express ourselves, and our value, individually.
Wednesday, April 6, 2011
Natural Disasters and Supply Chain shortages
http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-quake-supply-chain-20110406,0,5806342.story
The above article is discussing the problem, recently intensified due to the Japan earthquake, of corporate reliance on supply chains that are thousands of miles away. In addition to the terrible tragedies and nuclear problems that have been caused by the earthquake, Japanese silicon wafer suppliers have also been affected. In Japan one company, Shin-Etsu, produces 20% of the worlds silicon wafers, a key component in semiconductors. The impact of the earthquake on this industry could effect the car, phone, and computer industries directly in the US.
The problems arise when corporations are so reliant on one channel of supply, especially when dealing with highly complicated and technical components. In terms of marketing, these companies, especially car companies, are going to have to play down the impact of the earthquake on their supply. Cars such as the Toyota Prius are expected to increase significantly over the next couple of months because of the lack of supply for the cars internal computers. What should companies do to hedge the impact of natural disaster against their suppliers? Are there any alternatives to Japan for technology manufacturing? How will the shortage affect the progress of technology over the upcoming months?
The above article is discussing the problem, recently intensified due to the Japan earthquake, of corporate reliance on supply chains that are thousands of miles away. In addition to the terrible tragedies and nuclear problems that have been caused by the earthquake, Japanese silicon wafer suppliers have also been affected. In Japan one company, Shin-Etsu, produces 20% of the worlds silicon wafers, a key component in semiconductors. The impact of the earthquake on this industry could effect the car, phone, and computer industries directly in the US.
The problems arise when corporations are so reliant on one channel of supply, especially when dealing with highly complicated and technical components. In terms of marketing, these companies, especially car companies, are going to have to play down the impact of the earthquake on their supply. Cars such as the Toyota Prius are expected to increase significantly over the next couple of months because of the lack of supply for the cars internal computers. What should companies do to hedge the impact of natural disaster against their suppliers? Are there any alternatives to Japan for technology manufacturing? How will the shortage affect the progress of technology over the upcoming months?
Friday, April 1, 2011
Resonse to Chris Cheever
Recently Apple launched their iPad 2 which Steve Jobs appearing briefly from his medical leave. An article from cnbc.com stated that "Shares of Apple jumped immediately following reports of Job's presence." Now I know Steve Jobs is a god among men when it comes to the technological development field but I personally think he is vastly over idolized. Since his sick leave, Apple stocks have dropped slightly but once he made his appearance they jumped back up and even rose. This, to me, seems slightly dramatic. There's much more to Apple than just Steve Jobs, and just because he is ill or makes some sort of appearance does not mean that there is either trouble or some sort of magnet for investment. I personally think this is a pattern seen throughout various companies, Microsoft for example.
Now my question is are these corporate and technological geniuses over idolized? Or are people not looking past the face of these companies?
_______________________
I agree that some Excutives, expecvially in the technology sectors, are over idolized for their genius. I think that it is unhealthy for a company to get their customers that dependent on a face in order to feel confortable about the company. In the instance of Apple, because the stockholders are so dependent on Steve Jobs, when he isn't around the company takes a stock hit. I think it would be smarter for companies to put the value of the company more on the performance and products than on the appearance of one executive.
In the same breath I think the way Steve Jobs has become iconic in the tech world has helped Apple while he is there. Whenever Apple is about to release a new product there seems to be a tangible buzz of excitement. I think this is in part due to how Steve Jobs represents the company. However I think it is important for Apple, as well as other companies to understand that a company can outlive a man, and a backup plan is important if they want to maintain the success they have been seeing.
Now my question is are these corporate and technological geniuses over idolized? Or are people not looking past the face of these companies?
_______________________
I agree that some Excutives, expecvially in the technology sectors, are over idolized for their genius. I think that it is unhealthy for a company to get their customers that dependent on a face in order to feel confortable about the company. In the instance of Apple, because the stockholders are so dependent on Steve Jobs, when he isn't around the company takes a stock hit. I think it would be smarter for companies to put the value of the company more on the performance and products than on the appearance of one executive.
In the same breath I think the way Steve Jobs has become iconic in the tech world has helped Apple while he is there. Whenever Apple is about to release a new product there seems to be a tangible buzz of excitement. I think this is in part due to how Steve Jobs represents the company. However I think it is important for Apple, as well as other companies to understand that a company can outlive a man, and a backup plan is important if they want to maintain the success they have been seeing.
Wednesday, March 30, 2011
Blog A: Urban Superstores
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/30/business/30aldi.html?_r=1&adxnnl=1&ref=global&adxnnlx=1301500815-E5ThXRfpwS11g3tnExpvow
The above New York Time’s article is discussing Wal-Mart’s difficulty in setting up a store in NYC. It is also highlighting a newer discount retailer, Aldi, and their quick and smooth entrance into the market, specifically NYC.
The article mentions Walmart as the bad guy. The author seems to suggest that Walmart is having trouble entering the urban market because they are seen as a big, bad, bully that no one wants to mess with. On the other hand, german based Aldi, is working with the city and the private owners of the leased buildings. The close relationship that Aldi has created has made there entrance into the market easier.
Lately Aldi has been focusing on its city market. When Aldi first started it was about 25 stores in 1976. Recently they have expanded to over 250 and they have primarily focused on urban areas. I think this is smart because of the lack of “superstores” in urban areas. Due to lack of space, urban areas provide problems for Walmart. However, Aldi provides a more specific inventory to their customers allowing them to provide many items in a smaller space. Not only does this allow them to move in to urban areas, but it also keeps costs down.
Aldi focuses on providing cheap, non-branded, specific groceries to its customers. It has a fraction of Walmart’s inventory yet they claim to meet the needs of the everyday shopper. My question is, Will Aldi remain successful? Is the urban/city market the one to go for? What does this mean for Walmart?
The above New York Time’s article is discussing Wal-Mart’s difficulty in setting up a store in NYC. It is also highlighting a newer discount retailer, Aldi, and their quick and smooth entrance into the market, specifically NYC.
The article mentions Walmart as the bad guy. The author seems to suggest that Walmart is having trouble entering the urban market because they are seen as a big, bad, bully that no one wants to mess with. On the other hand, german based Aldi, is working with the city and the private owners of the leased buildings. The close relationship that Aldi has created has made there entrance into the market easier.
Lately Aldi has been focusing on its city market. When Aldi first started it was about 25 stores in 1976. Recently they have expanded to over 250 and they have primarily focused on urban areas. I think this is smart because of the lack of “superstores” in urban areas. Due to lack of space, urban areas provide problems for Walmart. However, Aldi provides a more specific inventory to their customers allowing them to provide many items in a smaller space. Not only does this allow them to move in to urban areas, but it also keeps costs down.
Aldi focuses on providing cheap, non-branded, specific groceries to its customers. It has a fraction of Walmart’s inventory yet they claim to meet the needs of the everyday shopper. My question is, Will Aldi remain successful? Is the urban/city market the one to go for? What does this mean for Walmart?
Friday, March 25, 2011
Response to Britney: Charlie Sheen
From a marketing perspective, despite Charlie Sheen's popularity, I still feel as though I wouldn't want this person to represent my product, or television station. I just can't help but wonder if negative marketing is just as good as positive marketing. Based on Sheen's success in marketing himself, I absolutely agree with him, he is winning; but are consumers? Is it a good thing that consumers are paying attention to what Sheen is doing and enjoying it? Could it be possible that negative marketing is actually effective marketing?
I would also not want Charlie Sheen being the “face” of a show on my network. this popularity that Sheen has been able to create will not last and he seems to be on a self-destructive past. One has to look at Charlie Sheen’s past to understand the type of person we are talking about. He has been in Hollywood for many years and I think the fame and fortune just built up and he eventually snapped like many stars before him.
I think sheen should take care of himself during this period. But I also agree that he should also take advantage of this marketing opportunity. He should seek to make as much money from this ordeal because he will unlikely have a career once he fizzles out and he will be in court for the foreseeable future, for which this money will be handy.
It is good for Sheen to be doing what he thinks is the right thing in his life. Sheen is not the only one benefiting from his recent outbursts. The internet is alive with t-shirts, posters, and other profitable goods that everyday people are earning money from. Only time will tell how “poisonous” or “nurturing” this new fame will be for Charlie Sheen.
I would also not want Charlie Sheen being the “face” of a show on my network. this popularity that Sheen has been able to create will not last and he seems to be on a self-destructive past. One has to look at Charlie Sheen’s past to understand the type of person we are talking about. He has been in Hollywood for many years and I think the fame and fortune just built up and he eventually snapped like many stars before him.
I think sheen should take care of himself during this period. But I also agree that he should also take advantage of this marketing opportunity. He should seek to make as much money from this ordeal because he will unlikely have a career once he fizzles out and he will be in court for the foreseeable future, for which this money will be handy.
It is good for Sheen to be doing what he thinks is the right thing in his life. Sheen is not the only one benefiting from his recent outbursts. The internet is alive with t-shirts, posters, and other profitable goods that everyday people are earning money from. Only time will tell how “poisonous” or “nurturing” this new fame will be for Charlie Sheen.
Wednesday, March 23, 2011
Week 9: "The Overspent American"
What are the latest items of conspicuous consumption today? Do we see a continuing trend in what the video identifies as the “overspent American”? How does marketing today play a role in these trends today?
----------------------------------------------------
“The Overspent American” was an interesting look at an economy that is overspent. According to the film the big three items that we spend our money on are, cars, houses, and clothes. In class we agreed that technology is also an item that Americans consume greatly.
These items are what Americans spend the most money on, and are likely to continually spend their money on these items in order to keep up with the “Joneses.” I thought it was interesting to see how the American spending trend has moved away from keeping up with financial peers and has moved towards keeping up with the rich and affluent that are glorified on TV.
This is what “overspent American” is discussing. Not only are Americans spending more money than ever before, but they are spending their money on items that are above their pay scale. According to the film, this creates a vicious cycle of working more, to earn more, to spend more, only to work more to cover the debt. This is an unhealthy cycle that has contributed to the financial crisis we are in today.
I see marketing as one of the main contributors to the overspent American. People are trying to emulate the lifestyles that they see in the media. In America often times these lifestyles are those of celebrities and the upper middle class. This leads to the middle and lower class Americans to envy the luxurious lifestyles of the affluent and re-create them in their own lives. By marketing this rich lifestyle americans are consuming more, which is the goal of the marketing, but americans are consuming more above their means. This is perpetuating the financial crisis we are in. What do other people think? Do you think marketers are to blame? Are American consumers to blame? Or is it the affluent?
----------------------------------------------------
“The Overspent American” was an interesting look at an economy that is overspent. According to the film the big three items that we spend our money on are, cars, houses, and clothes. In class we agreed that technology is also an item that Americans consume greatly.
These items are what Americans spend the most money on, and are likely to continually spend their money on these items in order to keep up with the “Joneses.” I thought it was interesting to see how the American spending trend has moved away from keeping up with financial peers and has moved towards keeping up with the rich and affluent that are glorified on TV.
This is what “overspent American” is discussing. Not only are Americans spending more money than ever before, but they are spending their money on items that are above their pay scale. According to the film, this creates a vicious cycle of working more, to earn more, to spend more, only to work more to cover the debt. This is an unhealthy cycle that has contributed to the financial crisis we are in today.
I see marketing as one of the main contributors to the overspent American. People are trying to emulate the lifestyles that they see in the media. In America often times these lifestyles are those of celebrities and the upper middle class. This leads to the middle and lower class Americans to envy the luxurious lifestyles of the affluent and re-create them in their own lives. By marketing this rich lifestyle americans are consuming more, which is the goal of the marketing, but americans are consuming more above their means. This is perpetuating the financial crisis we are in. What do other people think? Do you think marketers are to blame? Are American consumers to blame? Or is it the affluent?
Wednesday, March 9, 2011
Week 8: Travel Incentives for Employees
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/08/business/08incentive.html?_r=1&ref=global
I am writing this post about the above article. The article is discussing the reemergence of vacation incentives for employees who contribute to the companies bottom line. This means that when an employee performs well, the company is awarding paid vacation trips. The question is: is this good motivation for employees?
I personally think that as an employee I would rather be awarded a financial incentive, or promotion rather than a paid vacation. For one, I think the vacation would not cost the company as much as they are claiming it would be worth. Somehow I feel as if the company would try and turn a profit, or at least save money by using this motivational tactic.
Secondly, I would feel uncomfortable being forced to take a designated vacation. Like I said before, I think that incentives are good motivation but only when they meet the needs and wants of the employee. Therefore I think that that “forced vacations” seem suspicious.
Companies are also downplaying their incentive programs in the press. The article claims this is an attempt to not appear too lavish. What do you think? Do you think paid vacation trips is a effective motivational tool? What incentives would you like to see as an employee?
I am writing this post about the above article. The article is discussing the reemergence of vacation incentives for employees who contribute to the companies bottom line. This means that when an employee performs well, the company is awarding paid vacation trips. The question is: is this good motivation for employees?
I personally think that as an employee I would rather be awarded a financial incentive, or promotion rather than a paid vacation. For one, I think the vacation would not cost the company as much as they are claiming it would be worth. Somehow I feel as if the company would try and turn a profit, or at least save money by using this motivational tactic.
Secondly, I would feel uncomfortable being forced to take a designated vacation. Like I said before, I think that incentives are good motivation but only when they meet the needs and wants of the employee. Therefore I think that that “forced vacations” seem suspicious.
Companies are also downplaying their incentive programs in the press. The article claims this is an attempt to not appear too lavish. What do you think? Do you think paid vacation trips is a effective motivational tool? What incentives would you like to see as an employee?
Thursday, March 3, 2011
In Response to Chris Hill (Week 7)
This weekend my roommates and I decided to get Netflix. Netflix is a service that allows you to stream movies instantly from home with out having to buy or rent it. I'm sure most people are aware of this however most people aren't aware of what it can do to your life. Since my roommates and I got Netflix we've done nothing but sit and abuse it all day long. Most of us had homework but found it impossible to get anything done with Netflix now in out lives. After a few days of this we decided that it wasn't the movies we were addicted to it was the fact that we could watch whatever whenever. The more I thought about it the more it made sense, how often do you pick one thing over another because of how fast or convientent it is? The faster cell phone, faster car, faster internet service which would you choose the faster and more convenient or the slower more time consuming one? Don't get me wrong not all things are supposed to be fast but in some industries its important, and this trend of being able to deliver instantly is taking over. Netflix almost put Blockbuster out of business because people preferred to have the movie now and not have to go and pick it up. More and more banks are offering online bankins which gives users more options and abilities then they did before. This new trend is becoming a must for some businesses we as american consumers are no longer happy with services that can't keep up with our busy lifestyles. The internet has changed the world allowing us to pack more into less time and making it easier to do so. As technology changes and becomes more advanced we want or businesses to advance too. Are you happy with this change in business or do you prefer to go out and do your shopping, banking, or socializing?
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I agree that the convenience of the internet has begun to make its way into areas of our lives that we never thought would be affected. With Netflix, not only is the service fast and convenient, but the selection and price is hard to beat. If you pay $8 a month you have access to thousands of movies that are ready to stream instantly. With a $2 upgrade, you then can have DVD’s delivered straight to your house. This convenience has consumers happy but has put the entertainment industry in a state of panic. How do production companies make money off of a subscription service that many people could steal off of their friends? Also, what does the future market look like? The film going experience has become less glamourous and more of a technical achievement with IMAX and 3D. How are film studios going to keep selling tickets when all I have to do is sit at my computer and watch a movie instantly? Unfortunately this instant gratification is only going to get worse, and we won’t go backwards technologically. Does this mean that instead of movie theaters, studios will just stream their movies online? Does this take away from the experience and “magic” of movies? We will have to see.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I agree that the convenience of the internet has begun to make its way into areas of our lives that we never thought would be affected. With Netflix, not only is the service fast and convenient, but the selection and price is hard to beat. If you pay $8 a month you have access to thousands of movies that are ready to stream instantly. With a $2 upgrade, you then can have DVD’s delivered straight to your house. This convenience has consumers happy but has put the entertainment industry in a state of panic. How do production companies make money off of a subscription service that many people could steal off of their friends? Also, what does the future market look like? The film going experience has become less glamourous and more of a technical achievement with IMAX and 3D. How are film studios going to keep selling tickets when all I have to do is sit at my computer and watch a movie instantly? Unfortunately this instant gratification is only going to get worse, and we won’t go backwards technologically. Does this mean that instead of movie theaters, studios will just stream their movies online? Does this take away from the experience and “magic” of movies? We will have to see.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)