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.
Friday, February 15, 2013
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 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.
Wednesday, February 6, 2013
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.
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.
Tuesday, February 5, 2013
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?
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?
Wednesday, January 30, 2013
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.
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?
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?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)