In Response to Cody Crawford's May 2nd Post

Image taken from: http://nintendoeverything.com/52392/toys-r-us-buy-2-get-1-free-game-sale-starting-this-weekend/

Why do you think so many consumers such as myself fall into the trap of bundling?


Bundling and deals are both a good and bad thing; they are good in that the consumer can get more for their dollar, yet bad when considering the overall higher amount of money spent than originally intended. As a consumer, I both enjoy and hate these types of "sales," yet as a marketing student, I admire the company for their tact with these deals. All in all, the deals really are just that - a deal - that can't really be passed up. My father is notorious for falling into these bundling traps. Whenever there is a sale on meat, he comes home with more than we have room for in the freezer. However, in the long run, these bundles are beneficial for both the consumer and the company, due to the increase in profit (be it monetary or physical in form) for both sides. One just has to be careful - it's easier than you'd think to buy something just because it's on sale, even when you don't need it!

The Imminent Death of the Post Office

I recently read an article on www.esquire.com that spoke of the possible death of the postal service. As seen in the article, the "postal service is not a federal agency. It does not cost taxpayers a dollar. It loses money only because Congress mandates that it do so. What it is is a miracle of high technology and human touch. It's what binds us together as a country," (see link below). The postal service has been in existence since Benjamin Franklin was appointed as the first Postmaster General in 1775 - one year before the signing of the Declaration of Independence in 1776. However, the postal service hasn't turned a profit since 2006. This is due in part to the rising frequency of electronic communication between the citizens of the United States. With less and less people making use of the postal service, they are getting less income.

In my opinion, the physical delivery of mail is an important part of American culture, and it shouldn't be allowed to die. There are some things in this country that, while outdated, deserve preservation for use by the minority. Not everyone in the country has access to electronic communication yet, and other forms of physical mail delivery, such as UPS, "will cost you fifty dollars," for just a the mailing of a single letter.

What's your opinion on this? Do you think the US Postal Service should be allowed to die, or kept around?

All information taken from: http://www.esquire.com/features/post-office-business-trouble-0213?src=spr_FBPAGE&spr_id=1456_6699548

In Response to Jake Atherton's April 20th Post

What do you think of the new logo? Is it better than the old one? Will it give them a competitive advantage over the other movie studios?

Personally, I like the new logo. It is much more "epic" and provides the viewer with the perception of a larger company with more power. However, like Jake mentioned, it really depends on the films Lionsgate produces from here on out. It's just a logo. The general public doesn't go to the movies because of the company producing it - they go for the movie itself.

Response to Class Question, "To Sell or not to Sell?"

Taken from http://www.cob.niu.edu/ama/ama_1.png

If John Smith decides to sell the names and numbers of those surveyed to a car dealership, it would directly violate a part of the AMA's Statement of Ethics - specifically, honesty. It is for this reason that I believe that John Smith should not sell the names. Although it would bring in some revenue, it would be unethical, because the people who filled out the questionnaire were under the impression that the information was intended for the Ohio Department of Economic Development. This is most definitely a common dilemma among those who hold private information of large groups of people. However, ethical decisions are not always made.

In Response to Jake Atherton's April 6th Post

Have you ever bought a product from an infomercial, or know anyone who has?

I actually worked for a company that sold products on television. I worked as a customer service telephone operator. The experience wasn't exactly what I call fun - but I definitely learned a lot from it. Some of the products were of okay value. Overall, I think that products marketed on TV are of low value, and shouldn't be trusted to last for a long time. 

"Microsoft signs Android patent deal with Foxconn"

In my Management Information Systems class, we recently watched a video about Foxconn, a Chinese  company that is notorious for the creation of Apple products in horrible working conditions. Employees are subject to extremely low pay and long hours, as well as housing and meal plans which they have to pay for themselves. There have been reports saying that Microsoft has just signed an agreement with the company as well.

Do you think that this is a good or bad thing for Microsoft, seeing as how the company could get some bad press from this arrangement?

All information taken from:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-22182597

In Response to Brooke Callaway's April 10th Post

Do you think K-mart has a clever way of keeping viewers interested in what they are trying to sell? 

I think this marketing strategy works very well. People remember what makes them laugh, and it's only natural to want to share what makes you laugh. However, whether or not laughter translates into revenue is a whole other issue. In this case, the laughter doesn't take away from the message, making this an effective commercial.

"HBO: Game of Thrones Piracy is a Compliment, Doesn’t Hurt Sales"

According to an article I read on www.torrentfreak.com, the wide-scale piracy of the popular HBO show Game of Thrones doesn't hurt HBO financially. In fact, it helps. According to the director of the show, David Petrarca, "shows like Game of Thrones thrive on “cultural buzz” and benefit from the social commentary they generate. Piracy, he said, helps to oil those wheels, [...] 'I probably shouldn’t be saying this, but it is a compliment of sorts,' HBO programming president Michael Lombardo told EW. '[Piracy is] something that comes along with having a wildly successful show on a subscription network.'" (See link at bottom).

What is your opinion on this? Do you think piracy of TV shows is okay?


http://torrentfreak.com/hbo-game-of-thrones-piracy-is-a-compliment-doesnt-hurt-sales-130401/

In Response to Nick Vita's April 4th Post

With annoying hosts that talk way too fast and act way to excited about everything, these infomercials can lead customers away more than bringing them in.  What is your take on this infomercials? Are they a good marketing tactic for a company?

In my opinion, infomercials are not intended for my demographic (i.e., the younger generation). They are in place to exploit older customers with extra money to spend on these products. I worked in the customer service department of the company made famous by the "One-touch can opener" and the "Faraday Flashlight." Almost every single person who called in was elderly (certainly not a member of my generation). So to answer the question posed above, they are a good marketing tactic, depending on the target market.

What's your take on infomercial and direct response marketing?

Netflix Stock Takes Hit

I recently read bit of news (link at end of entry) that questions whether Netflix, the instant movie and TV show streaming service, has reached its peak as of late. Netflix's stock "recently fell below the moving average for the last 30 and 50 days. That set off alarm bells for so-called momentum investors. 'They ride the charts and when a stock starts to lose momentum they move things around,' Janney Capital Markets’ Tony Wible says. Some also may have wondered whether Netflix might be nicked by Warner Bros’ quiet introduction of its WB Archives Instant, a streaming service for its old movies and TV shows. Major investor Carl Icahn dispelled one rumor, telling CNBC that he hasn’t been selling his shares."

My family just recently signed up for Netflix, and so far, I love it. However, it has been out for quite a while, and it is possible that the service has reached the majority of its audience as of late. Personally, I think the company may just be slowing down a bit. I doubt it will "fall from grace" anytime soon.

Do you think that Netflix is going to fall in terms of share price in the near future, or do you think this is just a small hiccup for the service?


All information, as well as the above image, taken from: http://www.deadline.com/2013/04/netflix-shares-hit-investors-worry-lost-momentum/

In Response to Jonathan Tomachick's March 8th Post

Do you find yourself doing the same when you shop? Have you ever had to cut another shopping trip short because of splurging for sale items the week prior?

I often get sucked in by sale items, especially when they are products that I have purchased in the past, and been pleased with the results. A perfect example would be this past weekend, when I went food shopping. There was a two-for-one sale on a type of cookies that I like. I previously had no plans to purchase these cookies, but the sale lured me in. However, I ended up realizing that I don't need them before I left the store, and put them back where I got them.

I've never really let my spending get to the point where I have to make large sacrifices; I just try to shop smart and only buy what I really need.

When was a time that you or someone you know spent far too much in a splurge-like shopping spree, and had to make sacrifices because of it?

"The Noob Guide to Online Marketing"

I was doing some basic research on marketing as a whole, and found a very interesting infographic (link below) describing the ins and outs of online marketing; everything from social media to pay-per-click (PPC). Out of these, I found that social media seemed to hold the "most" importance, containing the most "to-do" items out of all eight sections of online marketing. I found this interesting when considering social media's youth in comparison to many other online techniques. Yet it makes sense - the majority of a company's potential customer base utilizes social media. As an added bonus, its free.

What do you think to be the most important item within the infographic? Why?

Guide Itself: http://assets.unbounce.com/s/images/noob-guide-to-marketing-infographic-1800.png
Found on http://unbounce.com/noob-guide-to-online-marketing-infographic/

In Response to Jake Atherton's Post

What do you think of this ad? Does it change the way you view Southwest Airlines?
(Video linked at end of post)

In my opinion, this ad is a very powerful one, which is marketable to a large portion of the American public. By using a popular song, the "American Dream" theme, and positive information, it communicates to the public that Southwest is a trustworthy and valuable company. After viewing this ad, it definitely makes me feel comfortable with choosing Southwest over competitors, regardless of what little actual information was communicated to the public.

Retail Customer Monitoring Technology

Image taken from http://www.economist.com/news/business/21571452-

security-cameras-are-watching-honest-shoppers-too-we-snoop-conquer

I read an article about how retail stores have been (for quite some time) using their security cameras not only to ensure theft prevention and safety, but to gauge how many customers are in the store at a given time, aiding in shift scheduling, as well as product placement around the store. The growing demand for  this kind of technology has provided retailers with more extensive - and in my opinion, creepier - additions to their stores. Almax, a mannequin production company, have created mannequins that have the ability to "...look back at customers with camera eyes, noting sex, age and ethnicity." Technology like this allows managers to make strategic decisions to make their stores more marketable and appealing to their target market.

What do you think of this technology? Do you feel it is a violation of privacy, a useful tool for retailers, or a little of both?


For more information on this topic, visit http://www.economist.com/news/business/21571452-security-cameras-are-watching-honest-shoppers-too-we-snoop-conquer

In Response to Nicole Rutigliano's Post

What do you think of them coming up with a drink "not for women?"

I think that this type of marketing strategy could definitely work, no matter how crude it is. I think it is obvious that it is a parody of our society and how dieting is seen as "unmanly." There isn't anything "not for women" about the drink besides the marketing strategy. However, the strategy could also backfire, in that Dr. Pepper is ignoring half of their potential market. Women could be offended by this strategy, and drive them away from not only Dr. Pepper, but all of Dr. Pepper's products.

"Apple iWatch, Wearable Devices Seen Taking Off"

I recently read an article about the possibility of Apple coming out with a new device that you wear around your wrist much like you would a watch - yet this device would function more like an iPod or iPhone.

"[ABI research] says that with a wave of new gadgets set to hit the consumer market, wearable devices could soon become the norm within five years. ABI also forecasts that the wearable computing device market will grow to 485 million annual device shipments by 2018.
Reports Thursday say Apple made a patent filing with the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office in August 2011 that hints it's developing a flexible touch-screen device that fits around a user's wrist. Some analysts say an "iWatch" rollout will come this year, as IBD has reported. Google (GOOG), meanwhile, is launching an augmented-reality smart-glass product called Google Glass," (See bottom for link).

I think that as long as Apple markets this product as so much more than just a watch, the sales should skyrocket. However, consumers could very easily construe this piece of technology as simply an overpriced watch. It's up to Apple's marketing team to come up with a way to communicate the value of this new and innovative idea, while at the same time, compete with Google's "Google Glass," a up-and-coming equivalent to a HUD (Heads-up-device).

How do you think Apple could market an iWatch effectively?

Source:
http://news.investors.com/technology/022113-645212-abi-research-says-apple-iwatch-product-breakthrough.htm

In Response to Jake Atherton's Post

Wouldn't a company feel more in control following it's own regulations, rather than the governments?

Although a company would feel more in control following it's own regulations, if these were the only regulations that the company had to follow, it is possible that these would be incredibly biased based off of the companies wants and needs, and thus be skewed and corrupt, catering to these needs and ignoring equally important issues that would hinder the profitability of the corporation. Nevertheless, both types of regulation keep a healthy balance.

Self Regulation vs. Governmental Regulation

Do you believe self regulation is more or less effective than governmental regulatory agencies? Why?

In terms of self regulation, I really think that it depends on the circumstance. Matters that involve legality and strict laws that help keep things safe, especially for the general public, should be both self regulated by organizations and by the government. However, there will always be loopholes for organizations to exploit within government regulation. Self regulation is at the discretion of the company itself, and is therefore more accurate. Yet of course, there will always be a need for governments to regulate things, in order to keep things just.

In Response to Jake Atherton's Post

Would a company really risk using a charity like Product (RED) to cover up for it's poor image? Couldn't it be catastrophic for the business, like ruining it's reputation for good?

I definitely think that a company could risk using their support of a charity to cover up for it's poor image. No matter what, it could always be argued by the company that they weren't doing so; there is no concrete way to  prove that a company is utilizing a charity to look good. Unless concrete proof of this were to surface, such as a record of a conversation between a high level employee and an outside source explicitly saying so, this technique wouldn't cause much backlash.

Product (RED)

Open-Ended Questions

1. Personally, I think that Gap's partnership with Product (RED) will improve its image, yet I have to agree with the critics. Gap's involvement with Product (RED) is definitely an attempt to spit-shine the company's image while continuing to do business as usual. If Gap had really wanted to do something positive, they would have spread around their donations, perhaps to other funds, or to The Global Fund itself, rather than use Product (RED) to gain publicity and a warm feeling from customers to boost sales in the long term.

2. The (RED) campaign has utilized various types of technology that has contributed to the media coverage, marketing efforts, and public discussion of the campaign. Some examples of this are getting high-profile celebrities to support the cause and partnering with companies such as Gap. By having Gap (RED) clothing, Gap gets good press and (RED) gets marketed to the public. Celebrities such as Bono and Oprah also market (RED) to the public, yet on a larger scale. "According to the Product (RED) Web site, 'Each company that becomes (RED) places its logo in the embrace and is then elevated to the power of red.'"

3. I definitely believe that the criticism of the (RED) campaign is justified. By spending 100 million of their proceeds on marketing, people would be better off directly donating to The Global Fund itself. The campaign could without a doubt lose supporters as a result of this news.

Would you donate to the (RED) cause by purchasing (RED) products? Why or why not?

In Response to Jake Atherton's Post

Would you being willing to take a chance buying a product or service that has a small shot at exceeding your expectations greatly? What are the determining factors in this decision for you?

Pretty much the only determining factors in a situation such as this would be 1. the price and 2. the product or service itself. If the product or service is relatively cheap, then even if it doesn't meet my expectations, I haven't lost much. Additionally, if the product or service is something that won't have a great affect on me in the long-term, I would be more inclined to take a risk with it. For example, if a product such as trash bags were to be on sale, I would most likely take a chance with them, knowing that there is a possibility that they would rip. Yet if a service such as some required work on my car were cheap, I would be much more hesitant to try it out, due to the fact that I may be putting myself at risk of harm or otherwise.

Customer Satisfaction and Customer Value

Are customer satisfaction and customer value interdependent or mutually exclusive? Can satisfaction occur simultaneously with low customer value?

According to MKTG 6, customer value is "the relationship between benefits and the sacrifice necessary to obtain those benefits," (p. 7). In other words, is the product worth paying for? Meanwhile, "customer satisfaction is the customers' evaluation of a good or service in terms of whether that good or service has met their needs and expectations," (p. 9). Obviously, the two hold some interdependence. A part of customer satisfaction, specifically the expectations of the customer, may have a direct connection to customer value, e.g. the price of the product. However, it may still be possible for satisfaction to occur simultaneously with low customer value. A product may deliver the expected result regardless of the price. A great example of this would be a need, rather than a simple want, such as gasoline. No matter how much the price fluctuates, customers will always be getting the same expected result and the same amount of satisfaction; i.e. a working motor vehicle.

Can you think of any other products where satisfaction and low customer value are both present?