response to Apple to rule the world

I do not believe other companies can catch on to the apple wave because apple simply makes amazing products. It was the same way for me with my laptop, I had a pc and i had only used pc's my whole life and use to look down on apple products. Now I currently own a mac book pro and i would never go back to a pc of any caliber. Once you are use to apple products and how they operate everything else just seems inefficient. But apples marketing does play a role, it is like they are in your  face and not at the same time. yes they have their advertisements but more importantly you look around any given room or look at everyones phones and it is now dominantly apple. seeing everyone use them plays into the social marketing as well as word of mouth.

which do you think is more effective, companies advertising or word of mouth.

Ruby tuesday redefining itself

Recently I noticed that Ruby Tuesday was running a series of advertisements suggesting that the have redefined themselves as a more modern eating establishment. In the commercials they show around the restaurant with the changes they have made and they also make a point to mention that it is now " the new Ruby Tuesday". I find this funny though because as I was watching this commercial I realized I never knew much about Ruby Tuesday before. Of course seeing them driving around but I had only been in one, once before. To me the place was never that memorable because Applebees and Olive Garden were my go to restaurants but now Ruby Tuesdays has bought my attention because of their advertising pitch that they made it somehow better then before, so maybe this time they will be memorable.

Is saying that the restaurant has been made new really a good enough sales pitch to attract new customers, or customers who went but have not gone since. Or  do you think they should scrap the chain and find a new one?

response to Advertisements in Schools

Children are sent to school to learn, not to be sold on products at school. I think that children are already looking for distractions in school when they become bored, so adding advertising which is designed to catch someones attention logically only leads to more distractions in the school. But with schools lacking money it seems that money will drive decisions instead of values.

If  your child was in a school with advertisements what would you want them to see? what would you be objected to?

overspending in america

After watching the video in class about overspending, I find it a little sad that marketers and companies are trying to coax people into spending more then they have. Profit is the goal of any company but is there no moral boundary to running a business? I think using advertisements that use differing social classes and a way to sway people into a purchase by saying " upperclass people have this and if you have it, you will be at the same level as the upperclass.". At the same time it is the responsibility of the consumer to spend wisely.

So who is at fault? the marketers and companies for using researched and highly formed techniques to make people buy, or the consumer for giving in to such advertising?

response to Advertisements in Schools

well it appears we have finally reached to pinnacle of selling out in the form of our schools. It is a sad day when the country we live in and the government who is suppose to look out for us, sends money we should be spending on our children and sending it out to other countries. Yes its good to help others but not at the sacrifice of our own children. we cannot be a nation of leaders when other countries like india have more honor students then we have students.

is it wrong to think of our selves first?

Response to blackberry on the way out

I think in this age of rapid technilogical growth is making companies in modern times have shorter life spans. If a major company lasts for a decade they are already doing well, and with the rest of the world coming into this age the rapid deterrioration of many companies will be inevitable. Sadly people will have to prepair for a few large companies that drain the market, and many companies that like black berry die shortly after they come in to the market.

what do you think of blackberrys downfall?

The Hunger games

The use of social media has helped the movie rake in 155 million dollars this weekend. Facebook, twitter and tumblr have all played a vital role in the creation of the media frenzy of the hunger games. Which can only lead to the assumption that social media is rivaling the media. Also in some ways may be replacing the normal media as the way popular culture is influenced.

do you think social media will one day replace regular media?

Starbucks Brings Mobile Payment Capability to the Drive Thru

Yes, we are now at the point where human to human contact is to much to handle and to much to deal with, so now Starbucks will be making mobile purchases available for consumers in the drive through so they do not have to suffer through interaction with an actual person. Needless to say with the rapid and almost unstoppable surge of technology the analog era of human contact is slipping away.

Are we ready to fully rely on technology? or should we at some point say maybe things are not to difficult and we do not need so much extra in life?

Response to Amazon challenges Wal-Mart, one click at a time

For the first time in human civilization we are able to see rapid decline and growth in large corporate structures. With the influx of technology into our society we can now see the product life cycle in action. Wal Mart was at its pinnacle and now will be entering their decline phase unless they can compete with online competitors.

Do you think we are now at a point where companies will last a matter of years instead of a matter of decades?

Response to President Obama Soldiers on Despite Heavy Opposition to Solar Investment.

Like most thing in the political season, everything is done for ratings. If a politician has their name on it, it is most likely campaign funded or campaign driven. Which in reality is very sad, it seems the lust for power in this country and maintaining the status quo is more important then actually accomplishing tasks. take for example why recent presidents do a lot in the beginning of the term, lull in the middle and then towards the end try to be the president everyone wants them to be. Also some politicians are held in place by their convictions instead of their promises. The best way to see who they are actually looking out for is to see where their campaign money comes from. In the case of Obama, he was originally funded  by believe it or not solar companies and alternative energy, which by the way went bankrupt. what do you think of this political game we as a country are forced into every couple of years?

Is it fair to use Behavioral Characteristics to market to people?

One thing that has been on my mind about advertisements is the way marketers use a person sense of guilt , shame and peer pressure to coax them into purchasing their products. For example, colonge and deodereants play off the idea that in our concrete jungles of modern times one may not find an attractive mate with releasing the proper smell, which oddly enough happens to be their products. Also men cannot find women who do not shave their legs "irresistible". So my question is, is it fair to use these sort of primal instincts against people to sell products? Or is it extreamly clever on their part for choosing basic human characteristics?

higher class leads to less ethical choices

A recent article suggests that having a higher social status will lead to less ethical choices. the reasearchers  put people through a series of tests and determined that people find middle and lower classes are more likely to be more ethical and more caring then the people from the upper classes. for example when they were driving, the upper class would cut people off and take more risks due to their competitive nature, while middle class and lower will more so obey the rules.

what do you think of this?

Response to above the inluence

I find these commercials somewhat harmful to the anti drug message. First the commercial where the teenage girl runs into the bathroom and vomits in the toilet, it shows that she has a lack of self control and is conflicted by peer pressure. If she was raised to have more self respect for her self and be an individual she would realize she does not have to get that messed up. But at the same time sometimes going a little over the line is a good stress reliever, to feel like you have lived is better then any board game or after school activity. Second the commercial where the teen is jumping from building to building. the commercial implies that it is safer to jump from building top to building top on your way to school then do drugs. Also they say in the fine print professional stunt person do not try this. so what is the point of even advertising this commercial if the activity can seriously injure you or kill you, the police will arrest you for trespassing, or you have to be professionally trained to do it?

we really know these commercials are pertaining to marijuana and alcohol because of their abundence but do you think these ads would be more succesful if they portrayed being responsible and having self control? All teenagers want is to be accepted and be respected, what i have found is that when you show them acting reponsibly will earn them respect and acceptance they tend to be more willing to change.

Response to Look, no hands! The driverless future of driving is here

The benefit of having cars that can drive them self will greatly improve the traffic jams we currently face. hopefully someday they will design a system of vehicle transport that will feed in information and the system will adjust all cars on the road to handle different traffic situtations at different times of the day. I do think this technology should only be used for congested areas, rural driving should still be left to the individual.

Would you trust this technology?

The Lorax, saving trees and selling suv's

Dr. Susses book the Lorax will be hitting the screen and just like when the book came out it will stir up controversy. Except this time the controversy will be focused around how the partners of the film are using the books message to sell their products. According to BBC news,
       "At a school in Virginia recently, more than 100 school children sat through a reading of The Lorax, followed by a presentation from a Mazda marketing executive who urged the children to persuade their parents to test-drive a Mazda SUV, the Washington Post reported."  The Lorax is partnered up with Mazda in a series of marketing campaings to push their new fuel efficient green vehicles. The Lorax has been used for the last 40 years as a marketing tool and is losing his original message.


Do you think that the companies that use the Lorax to promote their products are hurting the image of the  Lorax?

Response to the case of john smith

I think john should sell the names, in the end he's going to be doing more for his employees buy blurring this line then he would be able to do by being ethical. and when you really think about it what is the car company going to do with the names and numbers? Call them or e mail them, that is by far less damaging then losing everyones job. I think our scale of ethics has not yet developed itself to a point where it can accurately judge the grey areas of ethical distortion. In this case by being unethical to customers John is looking out and doing good for all of his employees.

If you were Johns employees and he said to you, "I can sell these names and we can all keep our jobs or I can be Ethical and not sell them and the company goes under", what would you tell him to do?

A worm in the Apple

       We live in an age where technology has become a standard in our lives, especially within the younger generation. One thing often overlooked is how we obtain such devices. Apples factory Foxconn is in the public eye recently for its treatment of workers. According to Forbes.com there are 235000 workers at this facility and the average wage among workers is about $1.78 per hour. They live in crowded dorm style rooms after working 10 hour shifts in silence. Also suicide nets had to be put up around the building because workers were jumping out of the building and falling to their deaths due to such conditions.

Do you think it is the worlds fault for the demand of these high tech items or do you think it is the business men in america and china for forcing these people to work like this so they can reap all the benefits? Also Should we limit the amount of money individual humans can absorb so that others may benefit from more income?

why is Starbucks invisible in Italy?

Starbucks the world wide coffee company got its humble roots in Italy but it still does not yet have a store in Italy. The marketing man behind the empire Howard Schultz got his idea for the company by walking around the streets in Italy. Starbucks is such a large global company that their marketing plan obviously works but not in italy. He keeps saying he will eventually put one in italy but has yet to do so.  I think it is because the coffee Shops in Italy are breed from the history of the country, but Starbucks has separated from the traditional Italian design and went Global, so the Traditional coffee shops view Starbucks as a sell out.

Do you think Starbucks is a sell out? Also do you think Starbucks would have to develop a custom marketing plan for Italy?

http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/grounds-zero-a-starbucksfree-italy-02092012.html

Response to The Popularity of the Produce Aisle

The primary purpose of this trend is the Halo effect, the placement of products around products of interest in the hopes that the products in question will be pulled in by the gravity of the products interest. The risk of this philosophy is that stores are combining items that are not fresh produce with fresh produce, but also consumers buy more items here because they associate them as being "fresher" because they are so close to the fresh produce. The risk for competitors is they can lose sales because since the produce is located so close to the front of the store impulse buys can take place here. Also since the average shopping budget is spent within the first 20 minuets of the trip the risk of losing business to the halo effect is much higher. For consumers they could be losing out on quality of goods due to the Halo effect, the items could possibly be not as healthy as the items around them. When layouts of stores become slightly underhanded such as the halo effect, it seems as if the companies are relying not only in their products but the gravity of an entire section to sell said items. It seems the Halo effect is here to stay because the problem is a social constraint not a physical one. If people knew that it was simply for this reason that they feel compelled to buy lesser products then it might change the perception of the halo effect and the produce isle.

Does this Halo effect lead to an unfair competitive edge?

I have notice that i look at commercials and advertising in general with a different point of view  now. I can barley sit through a commercial with out feeling I had just had valuable time taken from me. A small amount of commercials seem to be passing their ideas across in a reasonable manner but for the most part they seem to be more or less annoying gimmicks. As time goes on I fear commercials will continue to decline and become more pointless and longer and unable to watch.

 Do you think commercials will continue  to rely on gimmicks to push their products because the products are not good enough on their own or do you think they have good products and use the gimmick to stick the idea in peoples head?

Car Companies' getting a jump start on their Super Bowl Commercials...

In response to

Car Companies' getting a jump start on their Super Bowl Commercials...

I think the companies are relying  on the "punch line" of the commercial. Yes they have important information but they need to relate that information in  a way that grabs the peoples attention. So i would say that it is close to 50/50 when it comes to flashy sales pitch and idea behind the commercial. The idea needs the flash and the flash needs a point and one without the other would just be either a boring commercial or a pointless commercial. But what if it is a case by case basis? Do you think it would be a 50/50 split all the time?

Response to Georgianne L

I think that people have certain talents but takes certain situations to bring them out. so depending on what situations a person is in will determine when their talents come to use.  some people develop talent over time and some people are naturally talented at things that they do not really enjoy and spend their time working at a different talent. But for the lucky few they are talented at what they love. sometimes it just takes people to experience some event and their talent comes out. Is it possible that some need to learn a skill or do people posses the ability with out any prior experience?

" People do not know what they want; they only know what they know."  when thinking of this from a marketing point of view one can only gain the assumption that marketers direct the desires of people. That is, they make things that people do not necessarily need look irresistible, in such ways that people will feel technologically left behind or of a lesser social value by which they wear. The cars they drive to the phone they have, are all social markings and all how marketers get people to buy from them. Buying the attention of people is in someways easy. lets say you want to sell sunglasses, and these sunglasses are a crazy style and difficult to market. Now take those sunglasses and put them on a reality tv star and have them run around and define them as part of a lifestyle. Now that they have that lifestyle associated with them, selling them to people who want to mimic that lifestyle will be easier. That is why companies have endorsements.

As a product i already have a name, features, style and quality. As a place I think thats more what am i capable of. for instance being the boss's go to guy he or she can go to a place i.e me and know something can get done. Everyone promotes them selfs, doing their hair wearing a certain type of clothes and how you act. That is the individuals promotional tool, their personality. And as a product I would need to know how my employer views an acceptable employee. Price is your value. By dressing the part and walking the walk I would show my employer that i am worth what I say I am. Showing up in sweatpants and a tee shirt would send the message that because I do not value my appearance and therefore my value is going down.

Do you think it is fair to make people out to be products? Or is Products just another way of saying different types of people?

Marketing, Advertising and Propaganda are the link between the people and the architects of society. from companies to politicians they all use one of the three to get their messages across. To me it seems Marketing is almost like the research and development stage where they try to get an understanding of what the consumer needs and wants. Advertising is a means to convince someone they need a product or idea. Advertising seems to summarize a certain demographics wants and needs into a stream lined idea to convince the consumer they need or want the product. Propaganda seems to trick people into a socially unacceptable ideas while making them believe they are the right ideas to endorse by the public.

but, where are the boundaries for the three? do they all coincide together or do they have clear and distinct definitions?