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.

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?