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?
Wednesday, March 3, 2010
Friday, February 26, 2010
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?
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?
Monday, February 22, 2010
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?
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?
Friday, February 19, 2010
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.
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?
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?
Friday, February 12, 2010
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?
Thursday, February 11, 2010
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?
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?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)