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?
Wednesday, March 30, 2011
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?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)