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?