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.
Tuesday, March 1, 2011
Week 7: Guilty until Proven Innocent
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/02/fashion/02dior.html?_r=1&ref=global
The topic of this blog relates to the above article but it also relates to many situations involving businesses and public perception. I want to talk less about the specifics of the fashion industry and focus more on the focus that companies put on their public appearance and how they navigate difficult situation when they arise.
According to this article, one of the head designers for the high-end fashion label, Dior, has been fired. His termination came after a video surfaced of the designer at a bar saying, “I love Hitler.”
I think this situation has become more prevalent in today’s society because of the ability for news and gossip to spread so fast over the internet. Obviously the head designer made a mistake. He should have understood that as a public figure every thing he does is being monitored. This is even more important now that every cell phone has a video camera and so many people are learning how to spread “news” on the internet. The internet is both powerful for marketing purposes as well as dangerous when the information is harmful to a company or person. How do you think companies should handle public relation situations like this?
Another question is, should Dior have reacted as they did? They suspended the designer immediately, and eventually terminated him after more evidence began to surface. Is firing the designer the right thing to do? What do they think this will do to their image? Does removing the designer hurt or help their image more?
I think that in today’s big business public perception has become very important. When a situation like this arises in today’s marketplace I feel like the first step is to suspend the person that is being investigated and then the second step, is usually termination. In the US the defendant is innocent until proven guilty, but many times when the situation is in the public eye, even if the defendant is innocent, he is treated as if he is guilty.
The topic of this blog relates to the above article but it also relates to many situations involving businesses and public perception. I want to talk less about the specifics of the fashion industry and focus more on the focus that companies put on their public appearance and how they navigate difficult situation when they arise.
According to this article, one of the head designers for the high-end fashion label, Dior, has been fired. His termination came after a video surfaced of the designer at a bar saying, “I love Hitler.”
I think this situation has become more prevalent in today’s society because of the ability for news and gossip to spread so fast over the internet. Obviously the head designer made a mistake. He should have understood that as a public figure every thing he does is being monitored. This is even more important now that every cell phone has a video camera and so many people are learning how to spread “news” on the internet. The internet is both powerful for marketing purposes as well as dangerous when the information is harmful to a company or person. How do you think companies should handle public relation situations like this?
Another question is, should Dior have reacted as they did? They suspended the designer immediately, and eventually terminated him after more evidence began to surface. Is firing the designer the right thing to do? What do they think this will do to their image? Does removing the designer hurt or help their image more?
I think that in today’s big business public perception has become very important. When a situation like this arises in today’s marketplace I feel like the first step is to suspend the person that is being investigated and then the second step, is usually termination. In the US the defendant is innocent until proven guilty, but many times when the situation is in the public eye, even if the defendant is innocent, he is treated as if he is guilty.
Thursday, February 24, 2011
Response to Stephan: Week 6
After talking about the 20% leniency with percentages of what we're getting out of our daily foods makes me think of what else we allow. I remember learning in one of my classes last year about milk and meat.
Milk has a puss count, a certain amount of puss is allowed to be processed through with milk. Even though the milk is pasteurized, I don't think many people would enjoy the thought that puss is being processed through for us to drink.
Another thing I learned was that meat has a hair allowance. The meat we eat is allowed to have a certain amount of hair processed through. Supposedly hair is not digestible, so why are we allowed to eat it? This I feel is a little worse than the puss count, because puss, to me, is like yogurt bacteria and we eat that with no problems. However, knowing that I am 'allowed' to eat meat makes me think. I just don't get how it's allowed, even though it's a small amount it is still a little disturbing to think about.. Ignorance is bliss.
What other allowances in food/drug are out there that people might not want to know about?
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Your conclusion that ignorance is bliss is an accurate one. I agree that companies, especially in the food and drug industries, seem to be allowed to get away with "murder". Whenever there is a pharmecutical ad on TV the list of side-affects seem to be worse than the actual problem the drug is trying to cure. I think its amazing that a company is allowed to advertise a drug and then at the end say that one of the side affects is death. One, that seems like a sign that this drug is not safe for use, and two that seems like a liability for the drug company. Somehow the rules against drug companies seem to allow for these types of side affects as long as they mention it at the end of the ad.
Milk has a puss count, a certain amount of puss is allowed to be processed through with milk. Even though the milk is pasteurized, I don't think many people would enjoy the thought that puss is being processed through for us to drink.
Another thing I learned was that meat has a hair allowance. The meat we eat is allowed to have a certain amount of hair processed through. Supposedly hair is not digestible, so why are we allowed to eat it? This I feel is a little worse than the puss count, because puss, to me, is like yogurt bacteria and we eat that with no problems. However, knowing that I am 'allowed' to eat meat makes me think. I just don't get how it's allowed, even though it's a small amount it is still a little disturbing to think about.. Ignorance is bliss.
What other allowances in food/drug are out there that people might not want to know about?
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Your conclusion that ignorance is bliss is an accurate one. I agree that companies, especially in the food and drug industries, seem to be allowed to get away with "murder". Whenever there is a pharmecutical ad on TV the list of side-affects seem to be worse than the actual problem the drug is trying to cure. I think its amazing that a company is allowed to advertise a drug and then at the end say that one of the side affects is death. One, that seems like a sign that this drug is not safe for use, and two that seems like a liability for the drug company. Somehow the rules against drug companies seem to allow for these types of side affects as long as they mention it at the end of the ad.
Wednesday, February 23, 2011
Week 6: Social Media Prescene and Small Businesses
I am using this article as the inspiration of my post.
http://www.businessinsider.com/small-business-news-your-social-media-presence-2011-2?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=referral&utm_campaign=Feed:+businessinsider+(Business+Insider)
As a small business, using social media as a marketing tool is becoming more important. However, according to the article above, it is not for every situation. I think it is important to think about these issues, especially when dealing with CampusMom. I personally think CampusMom can see the most ROI on there marketing, by creating a strong online presence.
The article talks about some of the specific reasons why a company might not want to use social presence for marketing. The first is that the company does not have the resources. Although online marketing is cost efficient the article mentions that the only thing worse than having no online presence is having a BAD online presence. At the moment I think that CampusMom falls into the latter.
Also the article mentions the audience. Small business always need to be aware of who they are targeting with their ads. If a company is targeting older individuals, like 60+ social networking may not be the most prominent place to advertise. This could change rapidly as more people from all demographics begin to move online. In Campus Mom’s case, their target market is also one of the largest users of social networking. College freshman make up a large portion of the online population and as technology progresses the size of this market will increase even more.
Do you think that Campus Mom has a strong online presence? Do you think that this article supports Campus Mom’s use of social media as a marketing tool?
http://www.businessinsider.com/small-business-news-your-social-media-presence-2011-2?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=referral&utm_campaign=Feed:+businessinsider+(Business+Insider)
As a small business, using social media as a marketing tool is becoming more important. However, according to the article above, it is not for every situation. I think it is important to think about these issues, especially when dealing with CampusMom. I personally think CampusMom can see the most ROI on there marketing, by creating a strong online presence.
The article talks about some of the specific reasons why a company might not want to use social presence for marketing. The first is that the company does not have the resources. Although online marketing is cost efficient the article mentions that the only thing worse than having no online presence is having a BAD online presence. At the moment I think that CampusMom falls into the latter.
Also the article mentions the audience. Small business always need to be aware of who they are targeting with their ads. If a company is targeting older individuals, like 60+ social networking may not be the most prominent place to advertise. This could change rapidly as more people from all demographics begin to move online. In Campus Mom’s case, their target market is also one of the largest users of social networking. College freshman make up a large portion of the online population and as technology progresses the size of this market will increase even more.
Do you think that Campus Mom has a strong online presence? Do you think that this article supports Campus Mom’s use of social media as a marketing tool?
Friday, February 18, 2011
Week 5: Response to Kristen Begin
We've all been interrupted from our favorite shows and movies by the all too familiar television commercials. But, recently, businesses are being forced to start coming up with new, and more creative marketing techniques. With the fairly recent launch of DVR, many advertisers believe that the effectiveness of the 30-minute promotional messages will be lost. Companies are pushing the exploration of different media inputs for their ads, and some are looking to boost a larger part of their marketing straight to the web, decreasing their television advertising budgets over the next three years.
Though many businesses and citizens alike will agree that television is a pretty big part of society, and the marketing world, and will remain strong, advertisers are being challenged to come up with new and innovative ways to target their markets. But, with the cost of advertising, especially on television, adds yet another challenge. Should companies continue to spend billions of dollars on advertising, when surveys are showing that the effectiveness of television ads are decreasing? Or should they rely more heavily on finding some other way of communicating to potential customers?
http://www.marketingtoday.com/research/0306/tv_advertising_less_effective.htm
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
I think companies will spend more money on advertising, but like you said, it will be in a different format. I have strongly felt that the internet is going to end television and cable. Whatever you watch on cable TV can pretty easily be found online, and this process is only getting easier. So I agree that web advertising is the “new frontier.” however, I think advertisers need to do it in a smart way. There is nothing more annoying than having to sit through an add on Youtube just so I can watch a video. I think the ability to advertise during the time someone is watching a video online is an opportunity that companies don't have on television. Ads that do there job on the sides of webpages or through small, possibly interactive windows are the most effective. There are beginning to be some ads in iPhone apps and these ads are specifically designed to integrate into the apps as much as possible.
So I think that television and cable in general will not be able to survive the new market that is internet media. The internet’s ability to provide functionality and the advertisers opportunities to creatively integrate advertisements into online content creates a very enticing opportunity for cable companies to make the switch.
Though many businesses and citizens alike will agree that television is a pretty big part of society, and the marketing world, and will remain strong, advertisers are being challenged to come up with new and innovative ways to target their markets. But, with the cost of advertising, especially on television, adds yet another challenge. Should companies continue to spend billions of dollars on advertising, when surveys are showing that the effectiveness of television ads are decreasing? Or should they rely more heavily on finding some other way of communicating to potential customers?
http://www.marketingtoday.com/research/0306/tv_advertising_less_effective.htm
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
I think companies will spend more money on advertising, but like you said, it will be in a different format. I have strongly felt that the internet is going to end television and cable. Whatever you watch on cable TV can pretty easily be found online, and this process is only getting easier. So I agree that web advertising is the “new frontier.” however, I think advertisers need to do it in a smart way. There is nothing more annoying than having to sit through an add on Youtube just so I can watch a video. I think the ability to advertise during the time someone is watching a video online is an opportunity that companies don't have on television. Ads that do there job on the sides of webpages or through small, possibly interactive windows are the most effective. There are beginning to be some ads in iPhone apps and these ads are specifically designed to integrate into the apps as much as possible.
So I think that television and cable in general will not be able to survive the new market that is internet media. The internet’s ability to provide functionality and the advertisers opportunities to creatively integrate advertisements into online content creates a very enticing opportunity for cable companies to make the switch.
Wednesday, February 16, 2011
Week 5: Facebook Revolution
I am writing this blog as a reaction to this article.
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/15/business/media/15facebook.html?_r=2&smid=tw-nytimes&seid=auto
I find it interesting how large of a role social networking, specifically Facebook, is playing in the revolutions that are taking place in the Middle East. The amount of “power” that Facebook has in keeping people connected has been demonstrated over the last few months. People have organized rallies and protests through Facebook and Twitter that have help the removal of both Tunisian and Egyptian Autocratic rule.
Also, this article talks about Facebook’s hush approach to the dealings in the Middle East. Although I see the use of Facebook for such radical reasons as a positive use of a networking tool, I understand Facebook’s apprehension. Being associated with a particular political ideology becomes tricky when a company is trying to remain impartial in order to attract the most people to their site. If Facebook adopted a political agenda they would risk alienating themselves from particular idealogical groups.
Domestically, people could interpret Facebook’s association in a negative way. Internationally, the countries that are suffering through the revolutions could strike back against Facebook and limit its use on in their country. This would reflect badly on Facebook as well as hurt its entrance in to untapped foreign markets. Facebook has been quickly spreading throughout the world, even in third world countries and a ban on Facebook could greatly affect Facebook’s integration into life in certain countries.
I think this applies to our case study with Campus Mom as well. Although we are not going to be starting any revolutions, the way Facebook has been used on such a large scale could be an example of how Campus Mom can reach customers. Although Campus Mom has a week online presence, the activity and focus on social networking can be increased, resulting in a large marketing reach. It did not take long for the Egyptian Revolution to take advantage of Facebook’s hundreds of millions of users.
What do you think about the use of Facebook, and social networking for a political purpose? Do you think Facebook is handling the situation correctly? What other uses for social network have yet to be realized?
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/15/business/media/15facebook.html?_r=2&smid=tw-nytimes&seid=auto
I find it interesting how large of a role social networking, specifically Facebook, is playing in the revolutions that are taking place in the Middle East. The amount of “power” that Facebook has in keeping people connected has been demonstrated over the last few months. People have organized rallies and protests through Facebook and Twitter that have help the removal of both Tunisian and Egyptian Autocratic rule.
Also, this article talks about Facebook’s hush approach to the dealings in the Middle East. Although I see the use of Facebook for such radical reasons as a positive use of a networking tool, I understand Facebook’s apprehension. Being associated with a particular political ideology becomes tricky when a company is trying to remain impartial in order to attract the most people to their site. If Facebook adopted a political agenda they would risk alienating themselves from particular idealogical groups.
Domestically, people could interpret Facebook’s association in a negative way. Internationally, the countries that are suffering through the revolutions could strike back against Facebook and limit its use on in their country. This would reflect badly on Facebook as well as hurt its entrance in to untapped foreign markets. Facebook has been quickly spreading throughout the world, even in third world countries and a ban on Facebook could greatly affect Facebook’s integration into life in certain countries.
I think this applies to our case study with Campus Mom as well. Although we are not going to be starting any revolutions, the way Facebook has been used on such a large scale could be an example of how Campus Mom can reach customers. Although Campus Mom has a week online presence, the activity and focus on social networking can be increased, resulting in a large marketing reach. It did not take long for the Egyptian Revolution to take advantage of Facebook’s hundreds of millions of users.
What do you think about the use of Facebook, and social networking for a political purpose? Do you think Facebook is handling the situation correctly? What other uses for social network have yet to be realized?
Wednesday, February 9, 2011
Response to Abby: Week 4: Superbowl Ads
Millions across the United States watch the Superbowl for not only the football game, but to rate the commercials. From this years Superbowl, which aired on February 6 2011, you wouldn't have even guessed that the car industry had previously declined. There were commercials for many various car manufacturers: from GM to BMW. My question to you is, how effective do you think these Superbowl commercials really are for car manufacturers?
There is a very large competition between brands during the Superbowl each year, but I have come to realize that car manufacturers have the biggest! Having only 30 seconds of fame, I can imagine how hard it is to get your selling point across. One of the commercials that stood out the most to me, and I can imagine it did to others, was the Volkswagen commercial with Darth Vader. It can be seen below. I wasn't aware this was even a car commercial until halfway into it. The music made you tune in until you knew exactly what it was for. What car commercial do you think stood out the most?
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I agree, the VW commercial was my favorite. I also wasn't aware it was a car commercial until the very end. I recently remember seeing an article about the different types of commercials in this superbowl. Usually beer companies dominate the commercial spots, however, this year car commercials made up around 50% of the total commercials. I think that car companies are beginning to see the financial recovery and the Super Bowl commercials are evidence of the car manufacturer's new confidence.
I also noticed, although I can't claim to have watch every commerical, that there was an increase of European imports and domestic cars and less, Japanese imports like Honda and Toyota. Could this be due to, specifically Toyota's, bad press over the past year?
There is a very large competition between brands during the Superbowl each year, but I have come to realize that car manufacturers have the biggest! Having only 30 seconds of fame, I can imagine how hard it is to get your selling point across. One of the commercials that stood out the most to me, and I can imagine it did to others, was the Volkswagen commercial with Darth Vader. It can be seen below. I wasn't aware this was even a car commercial until halfway into it. The music made you tune in until you knew exactly what it was for. What car commercial do you think stood out the most?
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I agree, the VW commercial was my favorite. I also wasn't aware it was a car commercial until the very end. I recently remember seeing an article about the different types of commercials in this superbowl. Usually beer companies dominate the commercial spots, however, this year car commercials made up around 50% of the total commercials. I think that car companies are beginning to see the financial recovery and the Super Bowl commercials are evidence of the car manufacturer's new confidence.
I also noticed, although I can't claim to have watch every commerical, that there was an increase of European imports and domestic cars and less, Japanese imports like Honda and Toyota. Could this be due to, specifically Toyota's, bad press over the past year?
Monday, February 7, 2011
Week 4: AOL Huffington Post Merger
My inspiration for this weeks post is this WSJ article:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704858404576129234044123852.html?mod=WSJ_newsreel_technology
About the AOL, Huffington Post Merger.
The article states that AOL and the Huffington Post have merged, with the Huffington Post making $315m on the deal. The article also mentions that AOL is looking to expand its news, entertainment and digital content.
AOL was once the internet equivelant for me. When I thought internet, I thought AOL. Before facebook, this was how people were using the internet to communicate and stay up to date. However, for reasons that I do not know, I feel that AOL lost a lot of its momentum coming in to the digital age. It now represents images of “acient” technology and the terrible dial-up noise.
This change of perspective and business practice that AOL has gained from the merger I think is a step in the right direction. By changing their service to be more digitial information, they are able to once again use their name to help market themselves as internet leaders. The Huffington Post has been doing a great job as an internet-only newspaper, one of the first of its kind. With AOL’s size, and the Post’s innovation and business model the merger could be great for both companies. It is important that the services that customers are receiving does not change drastically. For instance, if customers are requred to pay for the new services, it could do damage to the Post’s reputation.
I think it will be interesting to see, in the coming months, how AOL and the Huffington Post collaborate and move forward with their merger. I think both companies can benefit , and complement each other if they can agree on a particular business model that is customer orientated. With the influx of information readily available on the internet, and websites like twitter that allow users to share imformation freely and quickly, AOL and the Post have interesting road blocks in their growth. But the potential is there.
What do you think? Is this merger good for the companies? Do you think anything will change? Do you think that this could lead to great innovations?
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704858404576129234044123852.html?mod=WSJ_newsreel_technology
About the AOL, Huffington Post Merger.
The article states that AOL and the Huffington Post have merged, with the Huffington Post making $315m on the deal. The article also mentions that AOL is looking to expand its news, entertainment and digital content.
AOL was once the internet equivelant for me. When I thought internet, I thought AOL. Before facebook, this was how people were using the internet to communicate and stay up to date. However, for reasons that I do not know, I feel that AOL lost a lot of its momentum coming in to the digital age. It now represents images of “acient” technology and the terrible dial-up noise.
This change of perspective and business practice that AOL has gained from the merger I think is a step in the right direction. By changing their service to be more digitial information, they are able to once again use their name to help market themselves as internet leaders. The Huffington Post has been doing a great job as an internet-only newspaper, one of the first of its kind. With AOL’s size, and the Post’s innovation and business model the merger could be great for both companies. It is important that the services that customers are receiving does not change drastically. For instance, if customers are requred to pay for the new services, it could do damage to the Post’s reputation.
I think it will be interesting to see, in the coming months, how AOL and the Huffington Post collaborate and move forward with their merger. I think both companies can benefit , and complement each other if they can agree on a particular business model that is customer orientated. With the influx of information readily available on the internet, and websites like twitter that allow users to share imformation freely and quickly, AOL and the Post have interesting road blocks in their growth. But the potential is there.
What do you think? Is this merger good for the companies? Do you think anything will change? Do you think that this could lead to great innovations?
Wednesday, February 2, 2011
In Response to Diana Schaller (Week 3)
I guess my big question is what would you do if you were being pressured to remove your commercial from the air during a show? Is it worthwhile to submit to the pressure of parental groups? Why is it so necessary to respond to them and do they really have enough power to hurt your business?
-----------------
It is interesting that you mention Skins. Originally it was a teen drama in the U.K. The content in the British version has more sex, drugs, etc. However, the British advertisers and audiences did not have the reaction to the show that American advertisers and audiences have had. The British version of Skins was on TV for at least 4 seasons, if not more.
As an advertiser, submitting to pressures from parental groups is only in the best interest of the company. although the Tiger Woods example is different in many ways, it is similar to how the companies endorsing Tiger Woods reacted. As soon as Tiger made a mistake his sponsors immediately tried to "save face."
Businesses, especially ones who market to children and teens (like Skins sponsors,) want their product or service to be associated with a positive image. So when parents are angered, it is the parents that have the money. I guess I can understand the quick reaction by sponsors, however I have always been partial to the idea that, "Any Press is Good Press." Skins has recieved more notice from being provocative than it would have as a sub-par MTV drama.
-----------------
It is interesting that you mention Skins. Originally it was a teen drama in the U.K. The content in the British version has more sex, drugs, etc. However, the British advertisers and audiences did not have the reaction to the show that American advertisers and audiences have had. The British version of Skins was on TV for at least 4 seasons, if not more.
As an advertiser, submitting to pressures from parental groups is only in the best interest of the company. although the Tiger Woods example is different in many ways, it is similar to how the companies endorsing Tiger Woods reacted. As soon as Tiger made a mistake his sponsors immediately tried to "save face."
Businesses, especially ones who market to children and teens (like Skins sponsors,) want their product or service to be associated with a positive image. So when parents are angered, it is the parents that have the money. I guess I can understand the quick reaction by sponsors, however I have always been partial to the idea that, "Any Press is Good Press." Skins has recieved more notice from being provocative than it would have as a sub-par MTV drama.
Monday, January 31, 2011
Week 3: Publishing Books as Self-Promotion
I think, historically, that having a piece of writing (whether a book or a journal) published immediately adds credit to the author. The idea is that the publishing companies take great care in reviewing each book before it is published. This makes books seem credible by nature.
Whether this is true is up to interpretation, however I think that being published is a smart way to promote yourself as an expert on a particular subject. The WSJ article mentions a dentist who says, "If you write a book, you are an expert...Who would you rather go to? Someone who has written a book, or someone who hasn't?" I think this question is an important one. The credibility gained after being published is definitely a defining characteristics when looking for an expert. If it was a choice between two identical candidates, where one person was a published author and the other was not, I believe the author would be the most popular choice.
I think the use of digital publishing is also a great way to add a second form of income from the expertise that a person has gained. The article calls this “invisible income.” I really like the idea of an entrepreneur utilizing as many options as possible to create the most profit. By releasing a book, with little overhead cost like digital books, the author is able earn the most profits. I support this earning strategy. Does anyone think that writing books to gain credibility is wrong?
Whether this is true is up to interpretation, however I think that being published is a smart way to promote yourself as an expert on a particular subject. The WSJ article mentions a dentist who says, "If you write a book, you are an expert...Who would you rather go to? Someone who has written a book, or someone who hasn't?" I think this question is an important one. The credibility gained after being published is definitely a defining characteristics when looking for an expert. If it was a choice between two identical candidates, where one person was a published author and the other was not, I believe the author would be the most popular choice.
I think the use of digital publishing is also a great way to add a second form of income from the expertise that a person has gained. The article calls this “invisible income.” I really like the idea of an entrepreneur utilizing as many options as possible to create the most profit. By releasing a book, with little overhead cost like digital books, the author is able earn the most profits. I support this earning strategy. Does anyone think that writing books to gain credibility is wrong?
Saturday, January 29, 2011
Response to Dan's Week 2 Type A blog
Price- Price is a very complicated variable because it is one that is not completely in your control. One way that you can have some control over what you get paid is being willing to work for a lower price than your competition. This is a strategy used to get the job over others and it is done with the thought that over time you will see a pay increase. Another strategy that there is a fine line with, is trying to go for the biggest salary you can get. This if successful comes with a huge reward but if not you can over price yourself and end up not getting the job.
----------------
In response to your post about the marketing mix in the job market, I have decided to focus just on the price variable. Although the employee has the option to work for a lower price, there is a fine line between selling yourself short and being too greedy. I think that as a college student working for less money, especially in this economy, is the better idea. this way you increase your chances of beating out the competition for the job and give yourself the opportunity to prove yourself in the job and earn higher wages as time goes on. However, there are many people looking for jobs, most of whom, will have more years of experience than I will have exiting college. So even working for less money might not be the deciding factor in the job hunt.
----------------
In response to your post about the marketing mix in the job market, I have decided to focus just on the price variable. Although the employee has the option to work for a lower price, there is a fine line between selling yourself short and being too greedy. I think that as a college student working for less money, especially in this economy, is the better idea. this way you increase your chances of beating out the competition for the job and give yourself the opportunity to prove yourself in the job and earn higher wages as time goes on. However, there are many people looking for jobs, most of whom, will have more years of experience than I will have exiting college. So even working for less money might not be the deciding factor in the job hunt.
Wednesday, January 26, 2011
Week 2: Marketing Mix in Job Hunt
When job searching, using the “marketing mix” as a guide to how to market yourself is an effective technique. I think it forces me to think about the details and formulate a “plan of attack” in order to have the best impact as an applicant.
First I think if you think of yourself as a product that you are trying to sell to employers you can break down your positive, and potentially negative attributes, and work on ways to emphasize your positives. What is the quality of your work? What are other “features” about you that makes you different? What is your work style or ethic? How much do you cost? These are all important questions to think about before applying for a job because they give me a removed insight into my own thoughts of my application.
Place is also important. Where do I live? Where is the work? How large of an area, or commute am I willing to agree on? What are my transportation details? These questions not only help the employer understand certain logistics of my application but they help me understand external commitments and factors that could influence my decisions as a job seeker.
Promotion is the main idea behind “winning” a job in this market. By promoting myself I increase the chances of finding a match. However it is important to think about the cost of promotion and the scope of the promotions. I will need to research the market or business sector that I am interested in joining and then focus my promotional efforts on specific areas and details to maximize my efficiency. I don't want to be promoting my skills in film production in a place that doesn't have a market for my services.
Finally price is a major consideration. I can use my price as enticement if I am willing to be priced lower. I can also add some value and create more profits if I promote myself with a slightly higher price. When discussing personal price I think it is important to not undersell yourself but also understand competition. If starting work at a lower price gets me the job the opportunity to grow as an employee, it may be more beneficial than a slightly higher paying, dead end job. How do you think these elements influence a job applicant?
Tuesday, January 25, 2011
Week 1 Response to Matt Panicali
Matt's Response:
I would have to say the main difference between marketing, advertising and propoganda is the purpose of each of the terms. In all three instances, the goal is to convince the audience of something. The difference, however, is what exactly your are trying to convince the audience of.
I think the goal of marketing is an attempt to sell something to your audience. Whether it be a product, a service, or something else, the goal of marketing is to convince the audience that your product or service is better than anyone else in your specific market. For example, if you were trying to sell a car you would "market" the car on t.v., magazines, etc.and tell the audience all the positive aspects of the car and why it is the best choice for anyone currently in the market for a new car.
The term advertising on the other hand is similar to marketing, however it is not necessarily an attempt to profit financially from selling a good or service. Advertising can simply be means of making an audience more aware of something that they may not have been aware of before they saw your advertisement. For example, the "Above the Influence" advertisements that encourage kids to say "no" to drugs are not an attempt to sell anything to its audience but rather to convince them of the dangers of drugs.
Finally, while advertising and marketing attempt to convince an audience that what they have to say is right, the goal of propaganda is to convince the audience that what the opponent or enemy has to say is wrong. Propaganda, is often false and an attempt to bring a negative image of an enemy or opponent to the audience. For example, the Nazi regime used propaganda to convince the public that the Jewish community was the enemy and needed to be destroyed.
While the goals of all three terms is to convince an audience of something, the difference comes in what the audience is being convinced of.
-----------------
I agree with your view on Propaganda. Often it is false and the information is presented in a way that plays on fears and is aimed to confuse and scare a group of people into a particular way of thinking. However, I think it is helpful to not always think of propaganda as a "good vs. evil" scenario. Often I feel propaganda is a slow moving form of marketing that is reliant on creating a subconscious anchor. Propaganda has a negative connotation but it can be used in positive ways. unfortunately this is not always the case. I think propaganda is most effective on the weaker minded, more easily influenced crowd. this could explain why many of the implementations of propaganda have been by "bad guys" in order to control their subordinates.
I also understand your point of the difference between the three terms being the end product, service, and/or idea that the consumer is being marketed towards. I also think that the degree of specificity of what product, service or idea plays into which of these terms is being used.
I would have to say the main difference between marketing, advertising and propoganda is the purpose of each of the terms. In all three instances, the goal is to convince the audience of something. The difference, however, is what exactly your are trying to convince the audience of.
I think the goal of marketing is an attempt to sell something to your audience. Whether it be a product, a service, or something else, the goal of marketing is to convince the audience that your product or service is better than anyone else in your specific market. For example, if you were trying to sell a car you would "market" the car on t.v., magazines, etc.and tell the audience all the positive aspects of the car and why it is the best choice for anyone currently in the market for a new car.
The term advertising on the other hand is similar to marketing, however it is not necessarily an attempt to profit financially from selling a good or service. Advertising can simply be means of making an audience more aware of something that they may not have been aware of before they saw your advertisement. For example, the "Above the Influence" advertisements that encourage kids to say "no" to drugs are not an attempt to sell anything to its audience but rather to convince them of the dangers of drugs.
Finally, while advertising and marketing attempt to convince an audience that what they have to say is right, the goal of propaganda is to convince the audience that what the opponent or enemy has to say is wrong. Propaganda, is often false and an attempt to bring a negative image of an enemy or opponent to the audience. For example, the Nazi regime used propaganda to convince the public that the Jewish community was the enemy and needed to be destroyed.
While the goals of all three terms is to convince an audience of something, the difference comes in what the audience is being convinced of.
-----------------
I agree with your view on Propaganda. Often it is false and the information is presented in a way that plays on fears and is aimed to confuse and scare a group of people into a particular way of thinking. However, I think it is helpful to not always think of propaganda as a "good vs. evil" scenario. Often I feel propaganda is a slow moving form of marketing that is reliant on creating a subconscious anchor. Propaganda has a negative connotation but it can be used in positive ways. unfortunately this is not always the case. I think propaganda is most effective on the weaker minded, more easily influenced crowd. this could explain why many of the implementations of propaganda have been by "bad guys" in order to control their subordinates.
I also understand your point of the difference between the three terms being the end product, service, and/or idea that the consumer is being marketed towards. I also think that the degree of specificity of what product, service or idea plays into which of these terms is being used.
Friday, January 21, 2011
Marketing, Advertising, Propaganda. Week 1
What is the difference between marketing, advertising and propaganda? All three of these terms can be used to describe a method of persuasion. However, the terms are very different. For one marketing is a more general term. Our book talks about how marketing is the process of creating, distributing, promoting, and pricing of goods or services. Marketing is more applicable to the release of brand new goods or services, rather than a storied product because it is a complete process. A product like the iPod, when it first came out, was put through the entire marketing process. Consumers were unfamiliar with a product like the iPod so Apple had to take additional steps to market their new product and create a familiarity and loyalty that has surpassed any consumer electronic device to date.
Advertising is a more specific form of marketing. Where marketing involves the creation and distribution of a product, advertising is primarily promotional. Advertising is a more specific marketing strategy that is used once a product or brand has already been accepted by the consumer market. A company like McDonald’s is more focused on its advertising than its more general marketing strategy because consumers are familiar with the products that McDonald’s distributes. The advertising strategy for McDonald’s is more to repackage or revamp old products while also keeping the company in the mind of the consumer.
Finally, propaganda is more of the promotion of an idea. Propaganda sometimes receives a negative connotation because of its historical usage by the Nazi party in WWII. However, propaganda happens every day all around us. For example, the US government uses propaganda to try to win favor for certain political agendas. One of the largest examples of US propaganda would have to be the Uncle Sam “I Want You” campaign. Propaganda is more similar to marketing, in that it includes the creation and distribution of a “brand.” However, the firm behind the propaganda is using branded images and messages to promote their own, often political, agenda. Although these terms are similar in their definitions each one stands on its own as a specific strategy to persuade a consumer market into buying or believing what the business or political party want them to.What is your take on Propaganda and its use? can it be used for good?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)