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?