In Response to Cody's Post About Bundle Deals

In his post Cody talks about bundling deals and how they seem to trap consumers into buying more food than they need. I agree with his stance that these deals entice customers to spend more money at the store. If you see something that looks like a good deal you'll usually go for it even if you don't need the extra food or product. Companies know what they are doing with these deals, it makes consumers believe they are getting a great deal even if they don't need the extra product. Getting a good deal feels good to consumers so they usually go for the extra purchase.

What do you think? Do deals like these "trap" consumers into purchasing more than they actually need?

In Response to Melissa's SMS Post

In her post Mellissa talks about SMS messages getting read more often that emails when used as a marketing tool. I would have to agree with what she said. When I get an email from a company I don't recognize I don't even open it, but when i receive a text message I almost always read it no matter who it's from. I think this is a marketing strategy that is under-utilized using this method over, or in addition to, emailing would yield more retention of information by consumers and attract more consumers in general.

What do you think would SMS messaging be an effective marketing strategy?

In Response to Blackboard John Smith Question

The case of John Smith involved a scenario where John could sell names to a car company. I don't think he should sell the names of people who are likely or very likely to buy a car in the next twelve months. The amount of revenue he would generate would not be enough to save his company for long and it is not worth the breach of ethics it would take to give the names away.

What do you think should John sell the names to try and save his business?

In Response to Kaley Deboer's Social Media Post

In her post Kaley asks whether having social media accounts is an essential aspect of a companies marketing strategy. I believe that it is, more and more of peoples lives are lived in the virtual world. Having social media accounts like a facebook or twitter accounts allows the company to have another outlet to market their company to people who might not be easily marketed to without one.

What do you think is having social media accounts a necessity for marketing of companies?

In Response To Dan's Crowd Funding Post

In his post Dan talks about crowd funding, or kickstart projects. Kickstarter is a website where projects are funded by donations by people who visit the site. In his post Dan questioned whether or not these funding these projects is worth the donation for the people who contribute to them. I think depending on the projects it would be well worth the donation. Depending on the cause, people could be very satisfied with donating a large sum of money, it's about that individuals connection with the project being donated to. In some instances I believe it would be appropriate to share the profits of the project with it's initial donors, such as in Dan's example of funding a movie. I think in that case some of the profits from the movie should be distributed among the donors of the project, since they essentially provided the means to make it happen.

What is your opinion on this matter? Should donors to kickstarter projects be reimbursed should that project succeed on a financial level?

Samsung's Anti-Apple Marketing

Samsung and Apple are direct competitors in consumer electronics, and especially in the sale of smart phones. Samsung recently lost a legal battle with Apple over the use of technology in their smart phones that was patented by Apple. Samsung was  ordered to pay Apple 1$ billion in damages. Samsung seems to be striking back by starting a new ad campaign that pits the iphone 5 and galaxy 4s phones side by side. Apple has tried this tactic before with mixed results. I personally think it is a better idea for samsung to emphasize how it's product is different from it's competitors, not just bashing apple. Differentiating their product from other smart phones would better persuade consumers who want something different from their phones to purchase their product.

What do you think? Could simply bashing Apple help samsung catch up in smart phone sales?
Original Article: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/19/business/media/samsung-apple-fight-moves-to-the-marketing-arena.html?_r=0

Group Buying Offers

Group buying offers are no longer being effective at marketing subscriptions. People are used to seeing offer after irrelevant offer to subscribe that this technique is no longer proving successful. Merchants are also realizing that this techniques are becoming less successful poor retention rates and negative impact on the bottom line aren't worth the one-time uptick group buying offers provide. More targeted personalized offers will need to take the place of group offers for a better effective strategy.

What do you think? Can group offers still be successful or not?

In response to Matt's Flutie Effect Post

In his post Matt reflects on the correlation between athletic success and application rates at school. The Flutie effect is essentially when a school has success or an iconic sports play, more people apply to the school. The numbers show that this is true, probably mostly due to the positive publicity that athletic success gives a school. More people will know about the school the more successful the athletic teams are, and more will apply to the college. Having a successful athletics program is a benefit for any college not only because of the revenue it generates but also for the branding of the college to prospective students.

What do you think? is the Flutie effect real?

In Response to Melissa's Post about April Fools Advertisements

In her post Melissa talks about a number of April fools ads that several companies are running that feature products that would never make it otherwise, such as bacon flavored mouthwash. I think these advertisements, although they are not advertising a real product, are beneficial to the companies. The products are so ridiculous that they bring attention to the commercials, where as otherwise consumers might not pay attention to the advertisement as much. In my opinion this is a good technique to bring attention to the overall brand even if they are not advertising a real product.

What is your opinion? DO you think these advertisements are a waste of time and resources? Or is the brand recognition worth the money spent?

Desensitization and Advertising

We are constantly barraged by advertisements whether it's from television, the internet, or radio advertisements are everywhere. Of these advertisements how many do we actually remember? From a consumer's prospective these ads are just annoying. Consumers are exposed to so many advertisements on a daily basis that they are becoming desensitized to advertising. This is especially true with internet advertisements. This over saturation of adds in the online marketplace means that each additional ad diminishes the value of the collective whole. Despite this companies still pile money into online ads, when they could be just reducing the impact of the ads by desensitizing consumers to them in the first place.

What do you think? Are consumers beginning to becoming desensitized to advertisements? what could be done to combat this?

Marketing Yourself

In today's struggling job market it is more important than ever to market yourself as a valuable asset to companies that you are looking to work for. This can be done in many different ways but one approach is to market yourself as a product or service that you are selling to a company. Define your mission and the benefits you offer. Set your objective, what exactly you want to achieve. Construct observable measurable goals that have indicators that show you are accomplishing or have accomplished your goal. Be realistic in evaluating yourself, what are your strengths and weakness. What opportunities can you take advantage of? What threats are there to you accomplishing your goal? Develop a strategy for how you plan to market yourself, periodically evaluate your efforts to market yourself and make changes if needed.The steps are traditionally applied to marketing a product or service but I believe that marketing yourself is just as, or even more important especially when looking for a job in today's economy.

What is your opinion on this topic? Can traditional marketing techniques be applied to finding a career?

Marketing and No Logo Article

Naomi Klein claims in an article that there is a new trend emerging in marketing. This trend has brands abandoning flashy logos on their products, or abandoning logos altogether, for a more plain looking product. Companies such as Absolut vodka and Starbucks have already tried this technique with positive results. I think this technique could work for other companies as well. Many people don't care about flashy logo's or brands, some are even against them. This technique of straying away from logos or brands would put emphasis back on the quality of the product.

Do you think this technique of dialing back on logo's or branding could work for other companies? Why or why not?

Article URL:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2010/jan/16/naomi-klein-branding-obama-america

In Response to Jon's Annoying Ads Post

In his post Jon talks about several advertisements on television which he finds annoying, then poses the question, are these advertisements effective? I think that is some ways they are but in others they are not. For brand awareness and recognition, I think they can be effective. If a brand has a commercial that  is annoying to a viewer, chances are they will remember what the commercial is advertising, not just the annoying part. In this sense it could be an effective way elevating awareness of the brand. In another sense if the commercial is so annoying that the viewer develops a negative correlation between the advertisement and the brand, the advertisement could drive the customer away. Although advertisements like these can get stuck in your head and create brand awareness, I don't think it is worth it marketing wise to deliberately annoy your audience and possibly drive away viewers.

What do you think? Could these advertisements work? What are some examples of this concept working? Or not working?

In Response To Joe Littlewood "It's Gotta Be The Shoes"

In his post Joe highlights Nike's choice in 1984 to sign a relatively unproven, (at the time) basketball player named Michael Jordan. Nike put all their marketing efforts into promoting the new Air Jordans.
Now hindsight is always 20/20, but at the time this could be seen as a huge risk. If I was Nike's marketing director, I don't think that I would have taken this risk. Although it did pay off in the end, if it failed or Jordan got a career ending injury early on, this could have broken Nike. Taking a high risk high reward approach in business doesn't usually work in the long run but this gamble paid off huge for Nike. If you were running Nike what would you have done? Take the high risk high reward route? Or go with a more safe approach?

Marketing of a New Technology In Cell Phones

Recently I saw an article (Link below) about a new technology that could be adopted in the near future by electronics companies, for cell phones and possibly other devices. This innovation was thought up by Polytron Technologies Inc. They are manufacturers of electronic and optical visionary glass. This technology when applied to electronics enables manufacturers to make translucent, touch screen cell phones out of glass. I think if marketed right this could widely appeal to cell phone users who want something unique out of their phones. The glass is conductive, supposedly making it scratch and shatter proof. What are your opinions on this development in technology of cellphones? How do you think it could be marketed?

http://www.fox44abc22yourvoice.com/story/21307530/polytron-technologies-release-transparent-cell-phone-prototype

In Response To Cody's Post Atmosphere vs. Food In Restaurants

In his post Cody takes a look at the restaurant industry. He says that today in restaurants what you pay for most of all is the atmosphere, not the food. Personally I would have to agree with him. Cody outlines several examples of paying for atmosphere rather than food in his post. Such as paying more at restaurants that are in the city or on the beach. Restaurants can even get by sometimes with average food as long as the atmosphere makes up for it. Although I think it's true that when going out to eat we pay more for the atmosphere or experience than the food, I think there is reasoning behind it. Restaurants in good locations need to spend more on their taxes and/or rent, therefore they need to cover these costs by increasing the price of their.

What is your opinion on this topic? Do we spend more on food or the atmosphere/experience when going out to eat?

Youtube Video Advertising

Youtube is one of the most frequently visited sites on the web. It is a huge target for marketing of many major companies. Most of the ads before videos on youtube have a skip button which you can press after about five seconds, and you can also download ad blocking programs onto your computer so you don;t have to see them at all. My question is, is it worth it for companies to invest their time and money into these advertisements before videos? When they can usually be skipped or even blocked.

Most of the time when people watch videos they skip the advertisements that pop up as soon as possible, most of the time the name of the company or product being advertised isn't even seen. I don't think it's worth companies money or time to advertise in this way, I think the money put into these ads would be better used in other advertising avenues. What do you think? Are these ads before youtube videos worth the time and money invested by companies?

In Response to Katie's Post: Cause Related Marketing

Katie questioned weather we had encountered other successful cause related marketing strategies. An example I thought of was the company WeWood. This company uses a green marketing strategy by making watches out of wood. By using 100% natural materials they were marketing themselves as a very environmentally friendly company. In addition to this, they had a partnership with American Forests. With this partnership they were able to market the fact that with every watch they sold, a tree would be planted. In my mind this was a very effective marketing strategy in addition to making their products out of natural materials. It ended up working on me, I bought one.

Do you think cause related marketing is effective marketing strategy? What other companies can you think of that do this type of marketing?

Gap and Product Red

Gap recently formed a partnership with Product Red to sell t-shirts where 50% of the profits will go towards fighting AIDS in Africa. Although I am a believer that any amount of help for this cause is better than nothing at all. I also believe that this is most likely an attempt by Gap to repair their image after news broke of the company using sweatshop labor in the South Pacific to manufacture its' clothing. Personally, I don't think that 50% of profits are enough. Many companies do partnerships like these with more of a percentage being donated, and most of them are not recovering from a sweatshop labor controversy. I think that a big part in Gap's decision to carry product red shirts is to repair their image, which shouldn't be the primary concern when donating to a cause. Gap is still pocketing half of the money made on these shirts, if they wanted to repair their image this wasn't the right move. I think in order to fix their public image they should have given much more of a percentage. In my mind this didn't repair Gap's problems with the perception of their company.

Do you think 50% of the profits of Product Red's merchandise in Gap stores is enough to fix the public perception of the gap brand? If not what do you think they should have done?

In Response to Jake Atherton: Customer Satisfaction v. Customer Value

I agree with Jake's points in his blog entry. Customer satisfaction comes with high customer value. Customer satisfaction cannot exist with low customer value. If a buyer of a product does not get what they wanted in a product, they will not be satisfied with that product. Customers only buy a product if it satisfies their wants or needs. They want something that not only satisfies these needs, but also does it at a reasonable price. Customer value is the difference between the benefits a product provides and what that person has to give up in order to get the product, be it money or otherwise. Customers are only satisfied if this difference in value is at, above, or near their expectations. This is why, in my mind customer satisfaction can only exist with high customer value. What is your opinion? Can customers be satisfied even if their value of a product is low?

Superbowl Advertising: Entertainment vs. Product Information

The cost of a 30 second super bowl commercial in this years game is estimated at 4 million dollars. It is crucial for companies investing in these types of advertisements that they effectively advertise their product or service. Some commercials can be wildly entertaining, but leave the viewer wondering what exactly was just advertised. My question is are advertisers striking the right balance between promoting their products or brands and entertainment?  Could companies entertain less and sell more?

I'm not arguing that commercials don't need to be entertaining, but there is a fine line between gaining a viewers attention by being entertaining, and losing connection to the product or brand. Some super bowl ads, and commercials in general, leave viewers wondering what exactly was being advertised. These advertisements can be entertaining, but if they don't effectively communicate what the product, service, or brand is about what is the point?

In my opinion advertisements should try to balance entertainment and product/brand information. Many commercials in the super bowl captivate audiences at the beginning of the ad then wait to introduce their product or brand at the very end of the advertisement. This, to me, is an ineffective strategy. If the entertaining part of a commercial is over, viewers tend to lose interest and the brand will not be remembered. I believe an effective strategy would be to aim at entertaining viewers during the beginning and end of advertisements. While in the middle of the advertisement the product or brand information is introduced. This strategy, in my mind, would still hold the audiences attention but would also effectively communicate the brand. What do you think? Are companies striking the right balance between promoting their products and entertaining their viewers during advertisements? What could be done to balance entertainment and product information in advertisements?