Response to Jackie Cook's Post..

“ If you are just as shocked as me, read the article. There really are people like this out there that do take brand loyalty this seriously. What do you think? Do you know someone with a brand logo tattoo? Would you, yourself ever consider getting one?”

This is the article that Jackie posted http://www.marketingpower2.com/blog/marketingnews/2010/04/why_do_customers_tattoo_themselves_with_the_brands_they_love.html#more

I am surprised but I can’t say I’m shocked. Not going to lie, I know people who have brand tattoos. I have friend who has the Harley Davidson tattoo very similar to the picture Jackie posted in her blog. I can’t say I would ever get one on my body, but different tattoos have different meanings to different people; I can’t pass judgment. I do agree with the article when it states that people do it for different psychological reasons. I think it does make people feel like they are in a specific group. It makes them feel elite, like they are part of a community and that is their identification. I also think people do it because they have a strong loyalty to that brand.

Every person who has a tattoo had different reasons for getting that specific, permanent ink done; myself included. Some people get words and, I guess, some people get brands. I would love to ask the people with brand tattoos how they feel about it now; if there is any remorse a month, 6 months, a year, or 3 years after it’s on the body. I’d be interested in the response.

How do you feel about this article? Would you ever get a brand tattoo? Is this brand loyalty at the maximum?

Continuation/Wrap Up

So a continuation on the last post…
We were talking about how musicians are looked down upon by giving in to sponsorships and advertising. I’m a football guy so of course I was watching the NFL Draft last week. I noticed that before the draft even took place, they had college athletes (soon to be former college athletes) in Under Armor commercials and in ads for shoes. These commercials were made and played before these players were even drafted, before they inked their contract, and before they even stepped on a professional football field. Teams, companies, and advertisers do not think twice about offering a college player $50 million fresh out of college. These kids are the same age as us making more in one year than I’ll probably see in my lifetime. And we’re criticizing the musicians? If they’re marketable that is not their fault. Let them make their money.

Here is the video i was talking about http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oulAaW4OjDY

So the year has finally come to a close and marketing is done. I think the thing I will take away from this class the most, is how people view and react to a company; whether it be their product or advertisements or anything else. All year we have be talking about how we respond to certain brands, certain videos, or certain products. By being knowledgeable on the subject of marketing, I will be able to react to certain situations. I will be equipped with the knowledge on how to improve/maintain an effective marketing strategy. To me, that seems to be the most important thing for my future.

What did you take away from this class that will help you in the future?

Response to Jackie Cook's Post..

“ Do you think some advertisements are inappropriate or are they just adding humor to attract more consumers? Do you feel like you personally are affected by advertising?”
I think it is a little of both. I think some advertisements do add humor to the message. On the other hand some messages are a little on the racy-side. I thought it was interesting when Jackie stated that advertisements are starting to promote sex along with the product. A good example is a commercial for Cadillac cars. In the commercial the woman says, “When you turn your car on, does it return the favor?”; we all know where she’s going with that. Sex sells there is no doubt about that; it always has. Companies are starting to run these advertisements because they realize they can get people to watch them. How many guys turn off or change a commercial for Victoria Secret? Or even with an attractive woman advertising anything? And how many women change the channel when a ‘hot guy’ is on the screen? It’s just human nature and marketers realize if they can stop you from flipping the page or changing the channel then they are one step closer to getting you to purchase their product.

I don’t think all the commercials or advertisements are perfectly acceptable but I do understand where companies are coming from. I don’t think every advertisement affects me but I’m sure there are a few that might change my thought process. I think it also depends on what mood I am in when I see a commercial too. On a certain day I might be more apt to spend money if I see something I like compared to a different day. It’s crazy to deny that you’re not affected by commercials and advertisements.

Do you think commercials are starting to ‘cross the line’, or is this just the way it is? When was the last time you were affected by advertising?

Are Musicians Selling Out?

We had a discussion in class about whether or not musicians are selling out by using sponsorships and doing commercials. Professor Johnson used the example about the Black Eye Pea’s (see picture) incorporating BlackBerry Messenger, Pepsi, Verizon, and other companies into their concerts. Personally, I don’t consider it selling out. I don’t even think twice when I see logos, brand names, or certain products in videos. Everyone is in the business of making money and the artists are just like everyone else. Athletes have been doing it more years and no one considers them to be selling out. LeBron James, fresh out of high school, inked a $93 million contract with NIKE and he wasn’t considered a sellout. Athletes get paid and sponsored to play, why can’t artists get paid and sponsored to perform? We even see sponsorships at music award ceremonies. It seems like before every commercial we hear, “and this part of the AMA’s is brought to you by…”. I don’t see the issue with it. What’s the difference between an athlete wearing an Under Amour logo and a musician using the HP Touch Screen computer in a video? There are plenty of musicians in the industry that don’t take part in sponsorships and are “staying true” to themselves. I get that but let’s face it, we’re in a ‘get money or die trying’ era. In our generation we have been focused on money from the start. Money puts food on the table and it allows us to purchase things. Sponsorships are just part of the business. We see Budweiser logos at Fenway Park I don’t see why we can’t see Pepsi logos at venues all around the country.

I just don’t see an issue with it. I don’t consider the musicians to be selling out and to be honest I don’t think twice when I see the Sponsor’s logos in videos or at concerts. If they can make millions of dollars I think we should let them. We shouldn’t judge the people for being marketable. What do you think? Do you think it is considered selling out or is it really no big deal?

In Response to Jackie Cook's Post...

“ I believe that Twitter could be an opportunity for many companies to promote their business and get themselves out there more. What do you think? Do you think Twitter will become the new Facebook? Do you think all companies will begin to ‘Tweet?’”

I absolutely think Twitter will become the new Facebook. Most companies already use Facebook to promote and interact with customers. If companies could tap into the millions of Twitter users and followers, then they would really be able to expand their business. The electronic era is now upon us and like I said with the millions of followers/users on Facebook and Twitter, it leaves a huge opportunity for companies to expand their consumer base. The interaction between the customers and companies could prove to be very beneficial. Opening lines of communication can be key. I thought it was interesting that Starbucks used Twitter to promote their environmental philosophy. I also thought it was interesting that they used ‘Tweets’ to promote their ideas on reducing paper cups. I feel the first few companies that join Twitter-before the rest of the competition catches up-will really be at an advantage. Since only a few companies are signed on for the new Twitter advertisements, people will be paying more attention to those companies and following what they do. Getting ahead of the curve can be extremely beneficial to the companies and can help form an advantage throughout the market. I wasn’t able to find any statistics yet about how much business Starbucks had yesterday (4/15) due to that ‘free coffee if you bring in a tumbler’ idea, but I bet you it was more than usual. It will be interesting to see how quick the companies draw to Twitter to advertise their products. But all in all, I feel it will only be a matter of time before Twitter and Facebook are one in the same.

How do you feel about companies advertising on Twitter? Do you think it can be beneficial or is it a waste of time?

Major Advertising Media

Advertising is present wherever you look. There are major advertising media: newspaper, magazines, direct mail, radio, television, internet, and the yellow pages. All have advantages and disadvantages associated with them. An advantage of the newspaper is that it reaches large audiences. Also it must be purchased to be read, which is beneficial to the company developing/providing it. Also, an advantage is that it is frequently published; on a daily or weekly basis. Another advantage can be that it is favorable for cooperative advertising and merchandising services. But just like anything else, there are always negatives to positives and newspapers have disadvantages associated with them as well. A disadvantage of newspapers is that there are limited reproduction capabilities and they have short lives. A huge disadvantage of newspapers is that they are not selective for target markets. With the large advertising volume, it can limit the exposure to any one advertisement which will definitely pose as a disadvantage.

An advantage of a magazine is that there is good reproduction. Another couple advantages are that they have a good life, they have a level prestige associated with them, and they are great for leisure reading. A good example is TIME magazine. There is a level of prestige associated with TIME based off of their years of experience and quality materials. Another good example is Sports Illustrated. People get sports illustrated to read in their “down time”. There are a few disadvantages associated with magazines. High cost is one disadvantage. Another disadvantage is that there is a 30 to 90 day lead time. In the magazine industry there is a high level of competition with limited reach. Magazines also communicate less frequently.

Direct mail has several advantages. There is little wasted circulation with the advertisers controlling the circulation. Direct mail is also highly selective and can be highly personal. Advertisers are able to address the household when sending mail instead of a general group of people; plus advertisers choose who they want their letters sent to so they don’t waste their resources. It is also great for advertisers because it can be hidden from the competition. Another advantage is that there are few distractions associated with mail. A disadvantage associated with direct mail is that it can be discarded as “junk mail”. Just because it is sent to someone, they have to choose to read it which ends up being a disadvantage. It can also be very expensive. Another disadvantage is that it can lack editorial content to attract its readers. People also determine it to be an invasion of privacy.

Radio advertisements have several advantages as well. An advantage of radio is that is reaches 95% of consumers. Radio can also be highly mobile and flexible. Another advantage is that there is a relative low cost associated with the advertisements and the ads can be changed rather quickly. For example, it is much easier to change a radio ad than an ad on a billboard. There is also a high level of demographic and geographic selectivity. An advantage is that it requires the consumer to use their imagination. Everyone has heard the radio ads and started to form an imagine in their head on what the product looks like, does, etc. There are a few disadvantages associated with radio advertisements. One disadvantage is that there is limited attention from the listeners because they are usually doing other activities. I know when I listen to the radio I am usually in the car or working or doing something else that requires my immediate attention; the radio is usually on to break the silence. Also a disadvantage is that there are limited buying procedures with radio ads. The advertisements also have short lives.

Television also has several advantages for advertisers. Television reaches large audiences. Again there is demographic and geographic selectivity. There is also the advantage of having dual audio and video. For example, you hardly ever turn on the television and see a commercial that has no audio associated with. There is always someone talking or music playing. Advertisements on the television are also hard to ignore which can end up being an advantage. Again, there are disadvantages for television. One disadvantage is that it can be extremely expensive. A second disadvantage is that the size of the audience is not guaranteed. Some people refuse to watch commercials, so when their show takes a break they flip to another station. The message on television is also highly perishable. Another disadvantage is the amount of prime time television can be limited. Companies sign on for time slots but they are not guaranteed the slots from 8 p.m.-10 p.m. every night. The last disadvantage is that they can’t select who watches the commercials and who doesn’t.

Internet is another form of major advertising. An advantage associated with the internet is that there can be immediate response. It can also have the potential to reach the precise target audience. People who want view it will and people who don’t want to see the ad will go to a different website; pull medium. There is also the advantage to track customers and build databases. The last advantage is that it is a highly interactive medium. One huge disadvantage of the internet is that the costs of precise targeting are high. There can also be inappropriate ad placement. Another disadvantage is that the effects are difficult to measure. The last disadvantage is that people are starting to draw concern to security and privacy issues.

The yellow pages have advantages associated with them as well. There is a wide availability when advertising through the yellow pages. There is action and product category orientation. Another advantage is that it is a relatively low cost. The ads are also nonintrusive and there is longevity with the yellow pages. People tend to keep their yellow pages for a full year before the new yellow pages come out; they also might keep them longer than that. A disadvantage associated with the yellow pages is market fragmentation. The yellow pages are also extremely localized. Take the yellow pages in Keene for instance; they cover southern New Hampshire and some of Vermont and that’s it. Another disadvantage is that there is a slow updating process and a lack of creativity. Another disadvantage is that it requires a lot of space for a company to be noticed.

Which major media source do you think is the best? I personally feel direct mail or the internet. People read a lot of their information online and if you can get an ad that people think is interesting you can receive a lot of feedback. But I also like direct mail because it forces people to at least look over your ad before they discard it. If you were a company looking to advertise, which media source would you use?

Response to Sarah Hall's Post on Buying Process..

“Have you experienced all of these steps before? Have you had any cognitive dissonance? If so what was it and what did you do, did you keep the product, give it to a friend, or return it?”

I think I pretty much speak for everyone when I make the statement that everyone has suffered from cognitive dissonance at one point or another. The last purchase that I made that I had cognitive dissonance about was…a pea coat about a year and a half ago. I usually think things through before I buy anything. If I want something bad enough or I need it bad enough, I’ll get it and won’t think twice. But for some reason, I decided I wanted a pea coat. I found a cheap one, and emphasize on the word cheap, online and decided to buy. I got it in and didn’t think much of it until the first couple weeks into winter. I beat it up pretty good and then all of a sudden, the pilling of the wool began. Then the buttons started to get loose. I realized at that point that I probably should have ordered one through my family and spent the money to get the right quality. I ended up ordering another one, paid the extra money, and now I’m happier with the second one. I kept the other one but only wear it when I know it’ll get beat up. I learned my lesson, spend the extra money. Or examine the product before I buy it. I won’t make that mistake again.

This is the shortest post ever but I’ll turn the question on you: have you experienced all the steps before? Have you had any cognitive dissonance? If so, what was it and what did you do: did you keep the product, give it to a friend, or return it?

Branding

Branding is everywhere we look. The definition of a brand, as defined in the book, is a name, term, design, symbol, or any other feature that identifies one marketer’s product as distinct from those of other marketers. Brand names and brand marks help make the term brand. Brand name is the part of the brand that can be spoken and brand mark is the part of the brand not made up of words. The documentary “Overspent Americans” states that we buy items based off the brands or logos that we see; that can be called brand loyalty. Brand loyalty is defined as a customer’s favorable attitude toward a specific brand. There are 3 degrees of brand loyalty: brand recognition, brand preference, and brand insistence. Brand recognition is a customer’s awareness that the brand exists and is an alternative purchase. Brand preference is the degree of loyalty in which a customer prefers one brand over competitive offerings. And brand insistence is when a customer strongly prefers a specific brand and will accept no substitute.

People have their preferred brands and will stick with them. I personally prefer NIKE over Adidas and Chevys over Fords. I think some of it is how you are raised but most of it is the level of quality you come to expect from a brand. You expect that level of quality whether it is in shoes, shorts, or t-shirts. Or maybe you come to expect a certain fit from the brand. I feel people associate quality with certain brands. People also expect a higher quality from higher prices. If you pay $100 for a shirt at Armani you expect a level of satisfaction out of it. You recognize an Armani label and you already have an idea of the type of product it is. You might realize it is an alternative to a Hart Schafter & Marx (an expense alternative) and give it a try. If you are satisfied with the brand you form a loyalty to it.

My family owns a clothing store and we deal with brand loyalty all the time. Yes, there is plenty of clothing out there that we can get a great deals and mark up to make great profits; but we chose not to. We recognize quality in a brand and we form a loyalty to it. We have loyalty to U.S. made clothing. The prices might be higher and there might not be a thousand different patterns but we know there is a level of quality that is unmatched. We don’t necessarily carry the popular brand names if we don’t feel it will live up to our expectations. We’ve made it as long as we have because our clothing last, and when people recognize our name they associate a level of quality it. Examining and researching product before we purchase is necessary. Like the t-shirt example in that documentary, all 3 shirts could be the same but people chose based off of the logo; doesn’t mean that the quality is any different though, people choose off of preference. Customer and retailers alike form brand insistence to products.

How do you feel? Do you come to expect certain things from certain brands? Do you prefer and insist on certain brands or are you open to anything?

Response to Jackie Cook's Post...

“What was the last product you purchased? Under which category of consumer goods would you classify it as? Explain.”

Let’s see, the last product I purchased was a new phone. This classifies as a consumer product because, as Jackie stated, it satisfied a personal need not a business need. I did not need a new phone for my place of business. I got a new phone because I personally wanted it. This purchase could be classified under 2 of the consumer product categories: shopping and specialty. I did my homework in figuring out which phone I wanted, which phone would meet most of my needs, and what amount I was willing to pay for it. I had no problem spending money on a phone if it met all or most of my requirement; I also put in a great deal of time researching the various brands and models of phones to make sure I got the best possible option for my personal needs. This could all be classified as shopping.

This purchase also fell under the specialty classification. A new phone posed a unique characteristic to me. I also did not have a problem putting in the time, effort, and money to obtain this product; as I previously stated. As Jackie stated, a purchase of a product may fall under several different categories; each product does not have its own classification. For example, a car could fall under a shopping, specialty, and unsought classification all at the same time. Unsought because maybe the persons car broke down (sudden problem) and now they are in need of a new car; whereas before the break down the person did not see the need of looking for a new car. It also falls under the shopping classification because the buyer is willing to put in the effort to research and buy the new car. Last, the specialty classification because once they make a decision they are willing to go to any means necessary to obtain a product. Certain purchases can be classified under certain categories by the needs they meet and how far the consumer is willing to go to meet those needs. A product might meet a certain classification for one person but it could meet an entirely different classification another.

So now I as the same question to you: what was the last product you purchased? Under which category of consumer goods would you classify it as? Explain?

Consumer Buying Decision Process and Consumer Problem Solving Process

The consumer buying decision process consists of 5 stages: problem recognition, information search, evaluation of alternatives, purchase, and postpurchase evaluation. This is a process that people make when they realize there is a problem and they need to address it. This process can be broken off at any point when the consumer decides it is not worth it.

Do you really think we go through this process all the time? I think it all depends on what kind of problem solving response we use. If we use the routinized response-where we don’t have to think much about buying frequent, low cost items-then I feel we can skip through stages of this decision process. For example, we realize we’re out of ketchup. Once we recognize this problem, we go to the store and buy another bottle, skipping over the information search and evaluation of alternatives. This makes purchasing the item easier and eliminates the cognitive dissonance in the postpurchase evaluation. The 2 topics of consumer problem solving process and consumer buying decision process are heavily intertwined. I personally feel in some cases you have to use one in order to finish the other.

For instance, another example would be buying a new car. You would definitely use the extended problem solving process for this because you would want to make sure you’re getting the best deal possible. You would recognize the problem of needing or wanting a new car and start into the information search. This process would be extremely important because you would want to be well educated before spending a lot of money. You would definitely take into account all of the possible influences that affect this process. You would be aware of your physical surrounding; an SUV might be more practical than a Lexus, you would take into account your role and your family; a 6 passenger vehicle would be better for kids than a coupe; and you would also rely on your own perception and motives. Once you figured out what you were looking for you would engage in evaluating alternatives, something that is done in the buying decision process and in extended problem solving. One brand may have more features than another, or a certain brand may have a higher level of safety and customer satisfaction than a leading competitors. Once you eliminated alternatives you then purchase the car (product) and start on the postpurchase evaluation. Depending on the frequency of the item or the amount of money spent, you might run into more cognitive dissonance. You probably wont feel as guilty buying a bottle of ketchup as you might buying a $70,000 Lexus.

Depending on which problem solving process you use, it depends on how in depth your buying decision process is. When you constantly or frequently purchase an item I feel there is no subconscious process, you buy it and go; you don’t think twice about it. But the items that are purchased less frequently or even rarely, you engage in deeper levels of problem solving and buying decision processes.

How do you feel? Do you feel we always engage in the processes whether we know it or not?

Response to Jackie Cook's Post on Consumer-Solving Processes..

“What do you think about these three consumer problem-solving processes? Which one seems the most important to you and which one do you use more frequently?”

I feel people use all three processes-routinized response, limited problem solving, and extended problem solving-some more than others. Routinized response is the most commonly used process. People use this all the time when buying groceries or other household products. If a consumer is comfortable with a product there is no need to second guess it; it becomes routine. I feel I use this process more than the other two. As a college kid, I do not buy cars or laptops on a regular basis. I buy food and beverages, all of which take little or no thought.

I use limited problem solving only when looking to switch brands or a product. I get my information from the internet or family and friends to help me come up with a decision. I may also use this process when buying text books for classes. I may do a little research to see if I can buy the text book cheaper online or in a store. But, this does not happen as often because (as of right now) I am satisfied with all of my current products. Minimal research is needed because items are not as expensive.

More expensive items need the extended problem solving process. When I was deciding on which college to get my education I did months of research; college tours, online research, researching what the college has to offer, etc., etc. When getting ready to spend a large amount of money people want to make sure they make the right choice. If I was to buy a car or invest money, I would do a thorough amount of research to make sure I had an educated decision. This process is not as frequently used as routinized because people do not buy cars as often as they buy groceries.

Which process do you feel you use more?

Overspent Americans

“Overspent Americans” talks about how American lifestyles and spending habits have changed throughout the years. The United States was considered to be, at one point, a “leisure society”; there was even talk of switching to a 4 day work week. Too much time on our hands seemed to be the major problem throughout the states. Then, Americans were trying to “keep up with the Jones’s” or “the Gates’s”. Possessions started to turn into status symbols. Everyone was trying to keep up or one-up their neighbors. Firms took some control over the employees and things started to change. Classes were starting to be grouped by “personal possessions” (depending on who you talked too). American’s now a days face tremendous credit card debt. The documentary determines that some Americans buy items based solely on the brand name or the status it carries in society. Buying items by what you needed changed to buying items by what you wanted. “Living within your means” was soon thrown out the window. Brands and logos were chosen over quality and durability. Things have changed.

I agree with some of the documentary. The documentary states that purchasing certain items can pose as a status symbol to peers or co-workers. The example of SUV’s in cities helps define this. SUV’s are designed with four wheel drive to help get through snow or mud, but people in the cities were starting to buy these vehicles based on the status symbol they carried. People don’t care whether they are more expensive or impractical; they buy them because they are the “it” thing at the time. Another good example was the t-shirt test. Different company labels on the shirts influenced the way people ranked them, even though all three shirts were exactly the same. Jewelry is flaunted as to show you have the money to buy it; a necklace can be seen but figures in a bank account cannot. People buy brands because they were recognizable. Cars, clothes, jewelry, or homes are shown off and flaunted. They are status symbols.

“Work hard, play even harder”. That is what we hear in today’s society. Musicians and actors speak those very words whether on a song or in a movie. Media is a big influence on people today. We see celebrities on television with fancy cars, expensive jewelry, million dollar houses, and fashionable clothes. Like I previously stated, brands of clothing or cars can influence what consumers buy; price doesn’t seem to be a factor. The documentary states that 25% of people with $100,000 of annual income say they do not have the money for basic necessities. When did $100,000 not become enough to provide the basic necessities for your family? I could live off of an income of $100,000. I wonder how many people in that percentage have expensive cars or large houses. “Living within your means” is something that we have gotten away from. We work 50 hours a week and we feel we need to spend money to show that. I can’t be a hypocrite because if I’m working long hours and getting paychecks on a regular basis I’ll buy things I probably don’t need. I might be more willing to entertain the idea to eat out or rent more movies or whatever because I know that money is sitting in my pocket. American’s do not realize how much debt they are actually in, according to the documentary. We all need to determine the difference between needs and wants. Something I feel like I need (a new cell phone) my end up just being a want. I can’t pass judgment because I do some of these things, but I can see where this documentary is coming from.

How do you feel? Do you think this documentary is accurate? Are these issues blown out of proportion? Do we have a spending problem?

Response to Mallory Beam's Post on The John Smith Scenario..

“Do you feel as if John should take the risk and sell the names?”

I agree with you that he should not sell the names. He has a responsibility to live up to the Statement of Ethics provided by the American Marketing Association. He needs to either contact the people he interviewed and let them know he has been asked to share their information or he needs to let them know there is a possibility of sharing the information when he conducts the initial interview. He needs to live up to the ethical standards of honesty, responsibility, trust, respect, and fairness. He needs to respect the privacy of the 2,000 people he interviewed. He needs to be honest with the people he interviewed that he is giving away the information. He also needs to be fair with them and give them the option. Either way he decides to go he needs to take responsibility for his actions.

I feel he shouldn’t sell the names without contacting each and every person he surveyed. Yes it would be costly and very time consuming but it would be the right thing to do; otherwise you might lose future business. Ethically it would be the right thing to do. What do you think?

The John Smith Scenario..

"Should John Smith sell the names? Does the AMA Statement of Ethics address this issue?"

This would be a tough situation for John Smith because he has to make a tough decision: does he break the trust of the people he surveyed and sell the names? Or does he keep their privacy and lay off his own workers? If he breaks the privacy he gets to keep his employees on, but in turn could hurt the people he surveyed and in turn hurt his future business. The American Marketing Association has a Statement of Ethics pertaining to the actions of marketers. The marketers need to think of their actions, as abiding by the ethical standards, when dealing with customers, stakeholders, etc. John Smith is a marketer so yeah I would say the AMA addresses his issue.

I feel he shouldn’t sell the names. Selling off the information without alerting the people he surveyed would be unethical. The AMA Statement of Ethics talks about the “honesty to be forthright in dealing with customers”; if he wants to sell the names he should be honest and upfront with the 2,000 people. The Statement of Ethics also talks about the ethical norm of “Do Not Harm”. John would have to think about the people he could potentially be harming. Yes, some people might not care if they get contacted by the car dealership but some of the people might be hurt. If John told them he could ensure their privacy and he was only using their information for his benefit, and then he sold it off to a dealership, it could hurt some people. Then he would have to take responsibility for his actions (he has to take responsibility for all of his actions anyways), another point the AMA addresses.

I think if he really feels the pressure to earn the $8,000, he could call up the people he surveyed and get permission to give up their information. That process would be extremely time consuming but it would also be ethical. He would be honest with the 2,000 people by taking responsibility and hoping to cause little to no harm. I feel he shouldn’t sell off the names without abiding by that process; if it’s too time consuming for him and not worth it, then forget about the $8,000. What do you think? Should he sell off the names for his workers? Is it ethical?

Response to Sarah Hall's Post on The Articles..

"What is better for companies, direct mail, or electronic?"

I feel there are benefits to using electronic and direct mail. Electronic mail allows companies to contact a large group of people at a relatively cheap cost. It also allows you to access information and change information in a matter of minutes, compared to direct mail. Technology is of the present and email is a popular way to keep in touch and to keep updated. Kids now a days have email accounts to keep in touch instead of sending letters via Postal Mail. But a downside to electronic mail is that customers can instantly delete it without reading it and without giving it a second thought. Another downside is that emails can get annoying; spam and fraudulent emails filling up your inbox can take away from the important messages.

Direct mail gives a sense of personalization though. Receiving postcards in the mail addressed specifically to the customer can make the customer feel important and appreciated. Yes, envelopes, postcards, and postage stamps can be expensive but it can also leave a lasting impression on the recipient. I can say from experience that I will be more willing to do business with a company if I receive a letter in the mail alerting me of promotions, sales, or new arriving items. Also, direct mail has to be handled before it is thrown away. Someone will always have to look at the letter before throwing it in the trash; and those brief seconds of handling the mail can sway the customer one way or another. Direct mail will always be around and people will continue to use it. But direct mail has a couple downsides in the sense that it can be expensive and time consuming. The technology of electronic mail is ever changing and will have an effect on direct mail. But like I stated already, most people will have an apartment or home and attached to that is a mailing address; postal mail is never going away.

I don’t feel that electronic mail is better than direct mail and vice versa. Both have advantages and downsides to what they do for a company and a customer. I think companies should use both systems; alert someone in emails of sales and promotions while mailing customers to let them know of their importance to the company. If companies can find a balance in both mailing systems, I think it would be extremely helpful.

Shiny Sud's Video

I finally got around to watching the Shiny Sud’s video and I got to say, I think it went a little over the line. I can see what Method was trying to show. I understand that we don’t necessarily know what chemicals our cleaners leave behind. By making the Sud’s “stalker-ish” it gets across the message that not all cleaners are safe; that is definitely clear. That being said, I can see where people might be offended by this. Method could have provided this message in a different way. Show that the suds never leave, but they do not have to show them when the women takes a shower, you know?

“All publicity is good publicity”. I feel that this saying is completely true in this case. Some people will find this video funny and some will find it offensive. When Method Co-Founder Eric Ryan said the journey “has been really fun”, he must be trying to put a positive spin on the situation. He stated how he received “some negative responses to the video but overall it was pretty positive”. Who did he test the video on? Men? Women? Both? Out of most of the women in our class, the majority found the video offensive; I don’t see that changing outside the class. I didn’t personally find it offensive, but I definitely see where women would. Also, I feel our society has made videos like this acceptable. We air offensive, violent, and raunchy videos on television and the internet all the time. It should be no surprise when a company comes up with a video like this and we should not be surprised at the content (not necessarily the message) it carries. I don’t feel it’s right, but I see why they can “get away with it”.

I do feel the video was irresponsible marketing. They knew what they were doing by releasing the video and they must have felt that the response, good or bad, would be positive to the company. It probably has made a lot of people look deeper into Method; to see what their mission is and to research their products. In that sense, the video was successful. As to the offensive content, I feel it was irresponsible. What do you think? Was releasing the video out of line? Do people have the right to be offended?

Response to Jackie Cook's Post...

“What do you think the future is for barcode scanners? Do you think they will become advanced enough for everyday use or will they fade out again?”

I feel it all depends on how the user can scan the barcodes. Like you stated from the article, “the newly designed product was too clunky”, and “companies exercising CueCat found that it was not portable or easy and actually in some cases they believed it was more trouble than just doing a search through a Web address”. Yes, technology has improved since 2000 to the point where we can now scan codes from our phones; but what if customers do not have a phone with that capability? Do they resort to the old scanner from 2000? Will the technology be universal for all cell phones or will the companies only worry about making it accessible for certain models/brands?

Technology is not my only concern with barcodes, marketing the barcode process can also be a downside. I never knew about scanning barcodes before reading the article and I would highly doubt I was the only one. Potential or current customers not knowing about this technology could hurt the companies that are using barcodes. CueCat was released back in the year 2000 and 10 years later it still has not caught on. Maybe because people do not know enough about it or maybe people just prefer to wait until they get home to get online, I don’t know.

I feel there are still problems with using barcodes and until they get resolved barcodes will fade out again. What’s your take on the situation?

Attendance Blog for 2/23/10..

What are some of the benefits of direct mail compared to electronic means of marketing?

There still are benefits in using direct mail. Electronic marketing is convenient because it allows companies to send out mass emails at pretty cheap costs. It allows you to attach pictures and files at the click of a mouse. Even with those advantages, direct mail still has benefits in today’s world. Direct mail gives a “personal touch”. As stated in the articles, when companies reduced/eliminated direct mail they saw a decrease in sales. Customers called up to make sure they weren’t off the mailing list. Companies saw a drop in sales by as much as 25%. To me, direct mail sends a message of importance. Knowing that a company took the time, energy and money to send me a message in the mail shows me that my business is important to them; that I’m not just another email. I would be more likely to pay attention to a letter or postcard in the mail rather than a message in my email inbox. Email messages can be sent straight to a junk folder or “can be deleted without a second thought”. People can look at the subject of the email and delete it if it doesn’t appeal to them where as postcards or flyers have to be handled and looked at before thrown in the trash. Emails can also be sent from hackers/scanners and can contain viruses. Direct mail doesn’t contain viruses, direct mail doesn’t have any direct connections to fraudulent websites and direct mail can’t be hacked. Although direct mail can cost the company more, direct mail has a “direct” affect on the customers, as the articles state.

Bar codes (addressed in one article) seem so promising, but what are some of the possible concerns with their use?

Bar codes seem like they potential to be effective because technology is ever evolving in today’s society. Being able to scan a code and then view a website or information revolving around the product can be convenient, but can also have its downsides. Not everyone has a picture phone to take a picture and if they do they might not have the internet capability of viewing the site. Another potential problem, people might not even know about this bar code development. Before reading this article I never knew about using bar codes. Everyone knows what a bar code looks like, but how do we know which bar codes connect information on the internet? And how do we know we’ll even be interested in the products once we get to the site? Not everyone is going to like the same things and not everyone will be interested in the same websites. Not every person will buy the magazines that contain the bar codes either, that’s another concern with using this system. How do you come up with ways to market this technology to a large group of people? There are several things that need to be figured before bar codes catch on.

Do you think e-marketing techniques will replace traditional forms of marketing (direct mail, phone calls, newspaper ads/promotions)?

I don’t think electronic marketing will replace traditional forms of marketing. People will still read their favorite newspapers, people will still subscribe to their favorite magazines and people will continue to receive postal mail. For those reasons I feel traditional marketing will always be effective. Even if people buy their newspapers and magazines online, there will always be postcards and flyers in the mail. Plus, people like the “personal touch” of postal mail. I feel traditional mail will always stay around.

Besides the types of business and examples that are mentioned in the article, what are some other companies who would benefit from direct mail efforts? How would they benefit?

Small businesses would benefit from using direct mail. For examples in Keene, Stoneman jewelers, BrewBaker’s Café, and Ted’s Shoe and Sport would all benefit from using direct mail (if they don’t already use it). If companies were to send out postcards or letters to update customers (or potential customers) on current sales, promotions or new inventory in the stores it could help increase sales. By giving the customers a sense of exclusiveness, people might be more willing to shop there more frequently. Other companies that could benefit from using direct mail would be up and coming businesses. If you trying to build a successful customer base you need to market yourself anyway you can. Direct mail, email, or radio ads would all be helpful in getting yourself out there. But for reasons I’ve previously stated, you might not want to use strictly email; direct mail has more potential to influence customers (in my opinion). But all in all, small businesses would benefit from using direct mail.

What do you think? Do you think electronic marketing will eventually force out traditional marketing? What other businesses would benefit from using direct mail?

Response to Mallory Beam's Post...

“Do you feel as if marketers are going to become more ethically and socially responsible in the future or stay focused on strictly making money?”

I think it’s great that companies/schools are starting to focus more on ethics. By addressing ethics at the lower levels will help develop values for the future. I don’t exactly know how this will all play out though. Money rules everything in this day in age. I feel companies are starting to pay more attention to ethics, but I don’t know if abiding by ethics will overtake making money. I hope that people will focus more on “what’s happening” rather than receiving a bonus, but only time will tell.

I feel we’re taking the right steps in developing and re-establishing ethics. By publishing articles and teaching classes that relate to workplace ethics will only help further this process. Will ethics ever come before money now a days, only time will tell. But all in all, when the day ends, I feel most people are more concerned with the paycheck.

The Market for Tiger Woods

Everyone knows Tiger Woods. Just about a year ago Tiger was the most marketable and richest athlete ever. He had endorsements with Gatorade, Buick, Nike, AT&T, Gillette, and Accenture Waver. He had his own video game and was featured in many magazines (ex. Vogue). Tiger had a squeaky-clean image, so there was not a thing that Tiger touched that didn’t sell. He is a household name; even now we refer to him simply by his first name, Tiger.

And then the unthinkable happened. We all know the situation: Tiger crashed his Escalade, he tested positive for Ambien and alcohol, his mistresses surfaced and the rest is history. Even if you haven’t followed the situation that closely, everyone has seen the news reports and everyone has heard the basic information revolving around Tiger. Almost all of his endorsements were pulled, or put on hold, and his image was dirtied. Will his image be forever tarnished? Will his market-appeal ever be restored?

I am an avid sports fan so I felt like blogging about this situation. Tiger made his mistakes (I’m not backing up the guy because I feel what he did was absolutely wrong, I’m just playing devil’s advocate here) and he should absolutely pay for his actions, but he is not the first athlete/actor to do these things. Other famous athletes have had affairs; Michael Jordan, Magic Johnson, and Larry Bird for example. And other athletes have had incidents which involved alcohol or the abuse of it. Michael Jordan is one of the most respected athletes in all of sports. His Air Jordan brand has no problem getting athletes or actors to market the sneakers and clothes, and getting them to sell. At 11 a.m. et. On Friday, Tiger will make his first public statement since the incident in November. Is this his road to recovery? Why is Tiger’s image suffering so much? Is it because he is in a different sport (as opposed to the NFL and NBA)? Do you agree that Tiger’s image should have been pulled off the market and do you agree that he should have lost his endorsements? Will he ever have the same appeal?

Response to Sarah Hall on Technology

"Is technology all good?" I agree with you that technology has pro’s and con’s. Technology is not exactly all good. But technology is good in the sense that things get accomplished quicker. Being able to text message or email allows someone to communicate in the matter of seconds. Being able to advertise on the internet is also is positive. People are able to post their advertisements or web pages in the matter of hours. Like we discussed in class yesterday, the internet is a far easier way to reach people; instead of taking a lot of time to put up a billboard in a singular area. Technology has evolved from 8 tracks to cd’s to iPods, land line phones to cell phones, dial-up internet to high speed broadband, and hand written letters to email to instant messaging to text/picture messaging. But I also agree with the fact that there are con’s involved as well. Once you post something on the internet it is there forever; you might be able to delete it but once it’s cached, it can always be found. Being online also allows people to post whatever they want about you or your business. Wikipedia allows someone to post whatever they feel is relevant. For example, I was on Wikipedia the other day and I saw that Abraham Lincoln was shot in the head by an alien and then transported back in time; what is that all about? There is also a website that allows you to humiliate and belittle your classmates or teachers, I can’t say that is a positive. Another con of technology, anyone anywhere can get your personal information. Being able to pay your bills online is quick and convenient, but having your identity stolen and bank account drained is not. And you also made a good point that cell phones are causing issues. How many people have been killed or injured by talking on a cell phone, texting, or getting hit by someone on who was on a cell phone? I agree with you that technology has it pro’s and con’s but I do not think technology is all good. Do the pro’s out way the con’s, or vice versa? What are some other examples?

Issues with Toyota

Has everyone seen the Toyota Truck commercial with the truck getting pushed off the cliff, landing on the rocks below, and then driving off as if it were indestructible? Or what about the commercial with the truck towing 10,000 pounds up a ramp and stopping all the weight as it goes back down? How many people have family members or friends driving around in a Toyota vehicle? Toyota has built a reputation for durability and reliability. They strive for top quality and being the best in the business while providing you with something affordable. It is no surprise that environmentally friendly products are the “it” things right now, so it was no surprise when Toyota came out with the eco-friendly Prius model. The Prius was promoted as user-friendly, eco-friendly car. The Toyota Tacoma was known for the long lasting durability. Now there is a major recall on the Prius; they have determined that the gas pedals are sticking and the brake lines are defective (or an electrical issue of that nature-they haven’t released it yet). The trucks had a recall a few years back dealing with the frame; they realized it was a problem and were buying the trucks back for up to double the blue book value. I know I have family members who own a Tacoma, Prius, Camery, etc. and I am concerned about the construction of their vehicles.

The Toyota cars have had several accidents over the last 2 years dealing with the sticking gas pedal. The extreme acceleration has led to deaths, why didn’t Toyota make the recall right away? Why did they continue to produce the model when they knew they were having problems? That doesn’t seem too ethical to me. Now they found out that the chip that controls the brake lines has a defect as well(still waiting for a comment on that). The newest commercial talks about how they are now working harder than ever to fix the problem, how they are shutting down the plant to figure things out, and how they are putting the customers first(here is the link to the newest commercial if you want it:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XZoBfpm1zHg). My question is: why didn’t they do this 2 years ago? I know the American-made dealerships have their problems too, but when Toyota labeled themselves as on the most reliable cars, they needed to make sure they had their things in order. When they knew there were problems with the gas pedals 2 years ago, I feel they had a responsibility to address the issue and handle it; not push it off until it got worse. The economic responsibility, to make a profit, seemed to outweigh the legal and ethical responsibility. If you say your vehicles are of the “highest quality”, you have a legal and ethical responsibility of living up to it. Now I feel they have even more responsibility to deal with the heat, handle the customer complaints and face the music. My aunt called the dealership last week and asked if they could take a look at her gas pedal and their response was, “if we feel your vehicle is at risk, we’ll contact you”. How do they know that her vehicle isn’t faulty? And better yet, the new commercial talks about doing what’s best for the customer and working around the clock to fix the problem, when the reality is the customers won’t know if they need to replace their gas pedals for several weeks; they will receive a notice in the mail to drive down to the local dealership. Are their commercials telling the whole truth or are they just telling the customers what they want to hear? Is it false advertising? Have their commercials been lying for several years? I’m questioning the values of Toyota. How do you feel Toyota should handle this situation?

Toyota knows they made a mistake and that’s why they are putting on a full court press with their commercials on television. They are saying they have the “highest quality” and the “safest and most reliable” vehicles for over 50 years. I understand problems and recalls happen. I personally feel that you have an obligation to deal with the problems when they happen and not push them off. It seems to go against the ethical and legal responsibilities we read about in the book. How do you feel, what’s your take on the situation? Is Toyota living up to the Social Responsibilities-Economic, Philanthropic, Legal and Ethical? Is this blown out of proportion or is there more to this issue that I am missing?

Comment: Jackie Cook Environmentalism

I agree with everything you wrote about environmentalism. I forgot about the Poland Springs bottle being more eco-friendly by cutting down on plastic and using more recycled materials. It seems like all types of companies are becoming more environmentally friendly; from car companies to computer companies to beverage companies. It is true that if companies do not have the financial resources to stay current with the technology then they will fall behind. But if companies do have the money to become eco-friendly, that will only help their image in the markets that are now looking for environmentally conscious products. It’s no surprise that our culture and markets want eco-friendly vehicles and products to help protect our environment, or what’s left of it. I couldn’t agree more with you, environmentalism is an opportunity.

I Feel Environmentalism is an Opportunity

“Is environmentalism more of an opportunity or threat for marketers?” I thought having to pick one side or another, at first, was going to be difficult. I could see pro’s and con’s with both sides of the argument but wasn’t a 100% sure on what I felt. So I toyed around with the idea for a little while before I came to my final conclusion: it is an opportunity for marketers.

I feel that it can pose both as threat and as an opportunity, but I feel the pro’s of environmentalism outweigh the con’s. I see it as an opportunity because if you can come out with something environmentally-friendly then that forces the rest of the competition to catch up. Look at Toyota, Ford and Honda for example, they came out with eco-friendly vehicles/hybrids and that immediately forced other car companies to come up with a similar model. Lexus and Range Rover, high end car companies, even decided it would be in their best interest to make an eco-friendly vehicle to target that specific market. Sport Utility Vehicle (SUVs) sales started to drop right away; even though Ford makes Expeditions, they also make a Hybrid version of the Escape-I guess they saw the light. By developing these kinds of vehicles, they created an advantage-even though it was relatively brief-over the market. These cars were taken seriously when gas prices went through the roof; we all remember paying over $4 for a gallon of gas AND I’m sure a good amount of us at that time wished we had a hybrid instead of a gas guzzler. Those were HUGE opportunities to seize, and as far as I’m concerned, those examples definitely outweighed the negative aspects.

The pro’s of having an environmentally friendly vehicle does not stop at decreasing the amount you pay for gas; they also cut down on greenhouse gases put back into the atmosphere. Almost everyone has heard some sort of report on the harmful effects of greenhouse gases and the pollutants in the air we breathe. Car companies took into account this information while designing these vehicles to be eco-friendly. Who wants to breathe in pollutants? Realizing this, car companies saw an opportunity and seized it-at least I’m assuming. Although these are just a few examples, I see all of this information as relevant; I took into account all of this in making my decision.

Other examples are organic foods to cut down on processing, paper companies who are using recycled materials instead of cutting down more trees, special plants for recycling batteries and etc., etc… Dell and Hewlett Packard have social and environmental responsibilities built in their mission statements to help do their part in maintaining the environment. They use more recycled materials in making their laptops, they recycle old computers for free, and they use more recycled materials in packaging and shipping to cut down on processing. All of these things are basic examples of companies doing their part in helping out the environment. They all saw some sort of opportunity and decided to run with it. So after that long winded explanation ( I know it feels more like a paper than a blog post, but c’mon now it’s my process ), how do you feel? How do you see environmentalism? Are there more con’s than pro’s?

Sarah Hall 4 P's of The Marketing Mix

Sarah,
I agree, how far-or how long- would someone commute before they moved? Or would they be willing to move? That is something that someone, the “product”, needs to take into consideration when looking for a job. I agree with you that location is an important part of the job search process. You also brought up the salary and would it be enough compensation for the services you do, and I feel that is one of the most important aspects of getting the job. Typically the salary makes or breaks the job because if the money is great you might be willing to commute up to an hour. And on the other hand, if they money is only adequate you might see what else is out on the market. If the “product” gets the job offer, the “price” would/will play the biggest factor in the decision making process; I feel it revolves heavily around the “price”. And for the last question, making yourself stand out is the best thing you can do. Have a good resume, show the employer your work history, a good appearance and approach, and confidence are some things you can do to sell yourself to your future employer-at least in my opinion. Do you agree? Are there any other “things” or techniques that you apply so you can successfully sell yourself?

4 P's

If the person is the “product” then the “place” would deal with the job. I feel that the location of the job plays a big role. How the person finds transportation to the job and the coverage of the job all play pretty big roles. If the job is located in the heart of down town and the person is from the woods in the country, then that might not work to well in a city market; plus they would usually have to travel a good ways to get there, so what is the cost if it doesn’t work out?

When it comes to “promotion” the person needs to advertise themselves to the hiring company; personal selling will be a big thing. If someone goes up against a 100 other people applying for the job, they better do a very good job on selling themselves to the higher-ups. They better put on a full-court-press showing off themselves in order to get that job-personal opinion. Another thing to keep in mind, how they will be publicly and how will they be with publicity. What would be the costs associated with that?

The last P is the “price”. Do they need to talk about the price? In this scenario the person is the product so what would be the cost to get this person in you store; something to keep in mind. Will they be willing to take discounts, or pay cuts, and will they want allowances, or bonuses. The credit terms of the company and the person are also things that would be considered; will the person want to be paid weekly, bi-weekly, do they want direct deposits, etc. etc. What would be the final cost of getting this person in the door and working for the particular company? These are the things that come to mind for me. What do you think? Agree or disagree?