In Response to Ethan Gage...

How important is having a well known face for an organization?

Having a well known face for an organization and its products is extremely important. Think about insurance for example. Progressive, State Farm and Farmers Insurance all have their actors and actresses that are the faces of their company. If I saw "Flo" on T.V. anywhere then I would automatically know it was a Progressive commercial.

By having a face for your company's products you are marketing that product to stick in the minds of consumers. Sometimes it is difficult to simply advertise the product alone. If perfume and cologne companies simply video taped a bottle of perfume it would not be very intriguing.  So, they higher models and actors to portray what it is like to have that specific product.

With Burger King hiring those new faces for their products, the consumer feels as though the "faces" of the actors have accepted the product as a good product. So, they feel more inclined to buy this product if they believe in what that actor stands for.

Is it possible that the way these companies market their "faces" for their products is completely opposite of how they should market? Should a celebrity really be in the same commercial as a cheeseburger? Where is the relevance?

Guess How Much Facebook Makes Off You?

In this interesting article written by Kevin Spak, it is explained that Facebook makes a little less than five dollars off of each person that is on Facebook according to their last report. How is this possible?

Well a majority of it is from advertising. Since Facebook had 901 million members according to their last report, everyone wants to advertise on Facebook. It seems that Facebook has made a marketing empire for themselves by accident. Who would of thought that a simple social media site could turn into making $872 million last period in advertising?

It is quite weird to think about Facebook as a marketing strategy for other companies when we simply use it to interact with our friends. But, it is in fact a genius marketing strategy for companies to advertise on Facebook. This way they are getting millions of views of their ads and people that enjoy them will share it with their other friends, free of charge to the producers of the advertisement.

The increase of advertising on Facebook is beginning to get annoying in my opinion, when will it be too much? Is it possible for Facebook to lose members when it becomes more focused on advertising businesses rather than our social lives?

In Response to Shane Norris...

Can you think of any other industry where this same pricing action occurs? 

The phenomenon of the fast food pricing situation that you wrote about is almost humerus.  I have seen something like this happen as well. As consumers we are trained to only go after the lowest prices when there is a competitors product that is a direct substitute for the one we are purchasing. But, what happened to the saying, "time is money?" In my eyes, you are only going to be spending around a dollar more if you go to one of McDonald's competitors like Wendy's or Burger King. One dollar is most certainly worth twenty minutes of time.

I began thinking about your question and realized that gas stations have the same situations occurring. I have literally seen two gas stations next to each other and one is priced one cent less than their neighboring station. The line for the station priced one cent less had huge lines while the other one remained basically vacant until they lowered theirs one cent as well. Then the line started to die down.

How can it be possible that as consumers we are willing to focus so much on prices like these situations, but then we go ahead an spend so much more than we have? Could studying the lowest prices of products be a way of making ourselves feel better for our splurges in spending?

The Overspent American

In class yesterday we watched a very interesting video about the endless cycle of consumerism in our country. I don't think anyone knows exactly when or why we switched from the regular work schedules of the past to people working up to 80 hours a week. The video seemed to explain that do to our increasing spending habits, we work to compensate for that spending. The more money you make the more money you're going to spend.

After facing some of the questions we were asked to answer, it seemed evident that we really changed in 2003 when the "new consumerism" traits started to occur. This new consumerism is a result of companies simplifying their marketing strategies and blasting consumers with multi-media advertisements. Since people generally aspire for a lifestyle that is hard to achieve, it makes sense that people are willing to work 80 hour weeks in order to live the lifestyle of the "Gates's."

The problem with this is that since the mansion you purchase, sports car you drive and designer clothes you wear are tangible objects, they physically show the rest of the world how successful you are in a subliminal way. The people that see that you have these things do not know how much money is in your bank account. Or how much debt you have on your credit card. So, consumers in our country are constantly bringing on debt in order to purchase these flashy products in order to achieve the sense of prosperity that they have longed for.

In our modern day, it is apparent that the "Overspent American" is getting worse. Do you think that things will continue on that path? When will it eventually be too much?

In Response to Molly Keereweer...

What other troubles may Volvo face by hiring their new spokesman mainly to gain customers of young and Chinese populations?

Jeremy Lin has definitely been getting his name across due to his famous "Lin-sanity" term. But, I am not sure if this is going to be as successful of a marketing plan as Volvo thinks it can be. My reasoning behind this is that Jeremy Lin is so new to the NBA. He has hardly had enough time to really make an impact in the game. Plus, by using someone who is still currently playing in the NBA may pose some difficulties. For fans that are opposed to the New York Knicks this could be a reason not to buy a Volvo. 

On the other hand, it could be successful to the Asian community. There has been a very high volume of Asian's attending the NY Knicks games at Madison Square Garden recently. They seem to have a lot of pride in the fact that Lin has been so successful. So, the advertisements could reach out to them well. 

Athletes have always been a popular choice for promoting products. Do you think that Jeremy Lin is the right decision for Volvo's new marketing scheme?  

Can Dollar Shave Club Cut Gillete?

After this years Superbowl a lot of the students in our class posted about the different advertisements that aired during the game. One of the advertisements that had its debut was the Dollar Shave Club. The Dollar Shave Club's ingenious commercial explained how can get quality razors and razor blades for only $1 a month. Now, months later, people are wandering if they really have what it takes to take on company's like Gillete and Shickk that are already so implemented in the razor market. Well, this article explains how this comedic approach to men's hygiene could take down the leaders.

Due to Dollar Shave Club's marketing techniques hit the public hard. Entrepreneurs are betting that they can make it because they raised over $1,00,000 in seed funding. They also signed up 12,000 members in 48 hours after their debut commercial.

Could it be possible that by creating such a joke-based commercial it created a larger impact than if they tried to sell their product more seriously? What type of marketing strategies should other companies learn from this?

In Response to Tyler Mcwhirk...

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

We cannot deny the inevitable. Technology is something that is growing at such a rapid rate that sometimes we can't even look back on how drastically things are changing in our society. To take an example as simple as movies. Just a few years ago VHS movies were the common source of movies in a household. Now, people are watching Blue Ray movies on their Blue Ray player connected to their flat screen plasma T.V. Efficiency is something that our society is obsessed with.

Now, take this example and reflect it towards coffee such as Tyler did with Starbucks. Coffee used to a drink that was simply, "coffee." You could go anywhere and just get a cup of coffee. Now, there are tons of flavors, types and variations of the sort. Plus, there are places such as Starbucks that offer prestigious cups of coffee for the staggering price of around $5. This alone shows how innovation is constantly around us. The fact that Starbucks is creating mobile payments in their drive through locations does not surprise me.

Starbucks needs to think strongly about their marketing for this because it could get to the point where it really is too much for a cup of coffee. Sure, Starbucks has their certain target market of people. But, if Starbucks gets too into the technological side of things, they could lose customers. I know that when I have been at Starbucks a few times, it is nice to see that the baristas know exactly what they are doing and specialize in coffee. If Starbucks slowly takes out the amount of human interactions with the customers, they will no longer provide a service but a product. Most consumers will not pay as much for a product as compared to a service.

Do you think that it would be better for a company such as Dunkin' Donuts to invest in something like mobile payments? Would it be more successful than Starbucks?

 

Yahoo Lays of 2K Workers.

The only surprise I got after reading this article was the surprise of actually seeing the word "Yahoo." I haven't seen or even thought about Yahoo in quite some time. Of course Google is way ahead in the game but it seems even Bing is having more luck getting their name out there than Yahoo. So, why the layoffs?

In the article, CEO Scott Thompson explains the reason for them. He said he wants to create a new Yahoo that is, "smaller, nimbler, more profitable, and better equipped to innovate." Although this sounds like Yahoo really knows what they are doing, it most likely has to do with the fact that they have been constantly having flat revenue growth and a declining number of hits.

It seems that Yahoo's marketing may actually be one of the large problems that got them into this mess. When Bing first came out they were advertising all over the place. It seems hopeless that they could ever surpass Google but they are definitely gaining a good reputation. They even made their way onto the MTV show "Ridiculousness" with Rob Dyrdek. Google has been making more and more innovative moves within their company as well as obtaining YouTube. Google has also been advertising greatly.

So, why is Google advertising more than Yahoo when Google is obviously more successful? This question should have been addressed by Yahoo marketers already. They have failed to find their way into television ad's or any billboards while there competitors are doing so frequently.

Since this wave of layoffs is just the beginning of Yahoo downsizing, what do you think that Yahoo could do in the future to market better and attempt to create some new sources of revenue?

In Response to Molly Keereweer...

How might this credit card have an effect on past, present and future customers?

In regards to Living Social, this could be a fantastic marketing concept. The fact that you questioned the past, present and future customers is very wise considering all of the the different times of customers will be effected by this move. 

For the past customers they could find this change to be a great reason to go back to Living Social. If there was something about the company that they didn't like before, this may be a good reason to go back. For the present customers it opens up a whole new world to Living Social that they have never seen before. Innovation is absolutely key for every business to succeed because society is general is constantly wanting something new. The future customers could now finally begin to see Living Social as a company that is worth looking into further or even to invest into. 

This idea that Living Social has is actually quite close to something that we talked about in class as an idea for Monadnock Buy Local to try. By having a set card for your customers to shop at certain stores, it opens up more business to local businesses or in Living Social's case their affiliated stores, as well as creating loyalty with the customers and producers alike. 

All in all, this has the potential to really get Living Social out there as a successful company. Do you think it would be easier to have a card like this for a company like Living Social or for a local initiative like Monadnock Buy Local?

Texas Rangers Would Like You to Pay $26 for a Hot Dog

Anyone who that has ever been to a MLB ballpark or any other professional sporting arenas has experienced over priced food and beverages. But, in this article, it explains how the Texas Rangers are now planning on taking that to a whole other level. With their new $26 hotdog. They need to create multiple marketing strategies to their consumers if they want to be able to charge this kind of cash for something so simple. Of course, it isn't any regular kind of hotdog.

This hot dog called a "Boomstick," named after the bats that Nelson Cruz uses, is going to have over a pound of beef, cheese, chili, onions and a special bread flown in from France. The question is, do consumers at ball games really care about that stuff?

The prices before this were already very high and people were willing to pay the amount because going to a professional sports game is considered a special event for most. But, this is preposterous. The Rangers are also attempting to serve Asian food, but only when Yu Darvish is pitching. It is clear that the Rangers need to re-think their marketing strategy for their food and beverage services.

In my opinion, they should be attempting to lower the prices in order to bring in more customers in general. After all, the main source of income they make is from the tickets themselves. It would be something different if the New York Yankees boosted their products, which they in fact have, but the Rangers do not have nearly the amount of money or fan base to bring in as many customers to the game.

Would you pay that much for a hot dog at a baseball game? Do you think the Rangers will be able to make money from these price raises or actually lose money from it?

In Response to Aislynn Sherry...

Which campaign do you think is more successful? Or will be more successful? Do you think these ads are useful and preventative at all?

The Above The Influence advertisements have always been a campaign that is most certainly out of the ordinary. While watching television channels such as MTV and other of the sort, viewers tend to be of a certain young age. This is when demographics come into play. These viewers are used to getting nailed with advertisements promoting sex, drugs and all other variations of the party scene. So, it is definitely influential to promote abstinence to these viewers since it gives off the complete opposite lifestyle they are used to. I personally have seen multiple Above The Influence advertisements and if at the very least they get me thinking. 

With this being said I definitely think that the Above The Influence advertisement campaign is more effective. They have successfully marketed their cause by creating a genius marketing strategy. It is definitely concentrated towards teenagers and young adults. They took advantage of what all the other companies were advertising on these programs by taking a completely different angle. By catching their consumers off guard, they are able to plant the images of their ad in their minds. Some of the advertisements even make the viewer feel guilty for having done certain activities under the influence. Although they seem to have been successful, there are some flaws. 


Above The Influence can tend to advertise situations that are fairly unrealistic. Sometimes they try and give off the persona that things are so simplistic and healthy if you stay above the influence. But, I believe that if they created real world situations showing that things can be okay, but in moderation, it would be much more beneficial. Personally speaking, if I saw an Above The Influence ad that was corny and childish, I would disregard it. People our age know that getting a bunch of people together for a pizza party on a Friday night wouldn't fly with your peers. But, if us consumers were able to see that instead of "blacking out" on the weekends, there are ways that you can have just as much, if not more fun by taking things in moderation. These ads would in fact have to physically show a portrayal of these events. 


Is my view towards advertising wise for Above The Influence? Would you feel more inclined to make a slight change in your partying habits if the ads were not blaming you for your past substance abuse but rather simply encourage a less drastic form of partying?

Pick Up Your Phone, Your Tattoo is Vibrating.

Ever think there is just no way that mobile phone companies can innovate anymore? Well, think again. Nokia has begun making moves towards a new type of personal interaction with your cell phones. The answer is tattoo's. Within the article, Mary Papenfuss writes how Nokia would do this. It is shown that Nokia would create tattoos with "ferromagnetic" material. So, this material would be able to vibrate when you received a call or message. It is said that eventually it could have different pulse patterns to indicate different things. So, there would be no need to constantly check your phone, your tattoo would simply tell you when you needed to.

This whole idea seems very futuristic and quite impressive. But, the marketing aspects to this is what is really going to make or break this new idea. How can Nokia create a broad enough target market to actually make money off of this? Nokia would have to thoroughly examine demographics and psychographics to reach the proper market. Afterall, tattoos are definitely something that not everyone has and is also not accepted by a lot of the older generations. The market for this product would definitely be homogenous meaning that it would be marketed towards individuals or organizations with one product need. Since having tattoos is something that only relates to people that have tattoos or have interest in getting tattoos, their target strategy would have to be very concentrated.

It seems that technology as innovative as this would require a high price. If this is true Nokia may be setting themselves up with a disaster. If a concentrated target strategy is necessary then you already have limited possible consumers. Then, you have to realize that is a homogenous product so it only has one use. With these two set backs you also have to take into account the fact that a lot of people simply do not want tattoos of any kind. Could this actually become something successful for Nokia?

In Response to Brooke Lacasse...

Would you be swayed to drink more milk because of the person who is on the advertisement? What else could the milk companies do to promote drinking the product?

It seems evident that the reason that Got Milk chooses the specific person that they are using for their advertisements is to target a specific group of people. But, people are definitely swayed to drink more milk depending on the person who is on the advertisement for a number of reasons. 

The main reason is that for the most part, when people see Got Milk ads, they do not automatically crave milk. It is a bit different than other advertisements for food or drinks that are appetizing or refreshing because if the consumer is either hungry or parched when they see ads for McDonalds or Coke, they may immediately have a craving for one of those products. But, milk is a bit different because it is so simple and general. Plus, most American's do not crave milk since it is not the tasty, sugary drink we have been waiting for. 


When consumers see Got Milk ads they are focusing on the model. It can be a man or woman of any age and Got Milk has definitely used a very large variety of models for their ads. I know that if I saw a healthy looking man or woman in their ad, rather than an unhealthy looking person, I would be more inclined to want to drink milk. The model is meant to give off the impression that if you drink milk you can look like him or her. So, Got Milk needs to focus more on their target market when deciding which model to use. If they are putting the advertisement in a magazine such as Men's Health, then it should be a fit male that gives of the persona of someone that the person reading it would want to be like. 


I think milk companies could have more television or internet commercials that explain the benefits of substituting a glass of milk with a glass of soda. While doing so, it wouldn't hurt to have an actor that is fit and healthy to represent what could happen if you drank milk instead of soda or another sugary beverage. Do you think that actual commercials would help milk companies promote their brands better than the simple "milk mustache" pictures that Got Milk promotes?

CVS Gave Kids Cancer Drugs by Mistake

CVS Pharmacies have grown to become a huge business that tends to maintain the name of a quality and trustworthy pharmaceutical company. Well, if you thought this, think again. In the article, written by Mark Russell he explains that CVS accidentally prescribed kids with the breast cancer drug, Tamoxifen instead of a fluoride pill to resist tooth decay. Children from 50 families in New Jersey were exposed to this drug mix up.

Tamoxifen is meant to decrease levels of estrogen in the person taking it. Fortunately, CVS stated that there should not be any serious side effects to taking this drug. It was actually CVS who realized that there had been a mix up in the different drugs and contacted the families to tell them and apologize. The catch is that CVS still has no excuse for the mix up.

I personally deal with CVS every time I need a prescription that my doctor wrote me off for. Reading about this story has already made me think twice about using them in future for pharmaceuticals. Although this was not a devastating mistake, do you think that it could ruin some of the reputation that CVS has upheld? What would happen to company if this happened again except with a more serious matter?

In Response to Chris Beland...

Do you think they will sustain their growth further? or do you think they will slip back down like the other 4 companies that reached that half trillion market cap?
 
I definitely believe that Apple has the potential to grow even farther than the half trillion market cap they just achieved. The reason for this is that Apple in innovating all of their products constantly. Comparing them to a company like Microsoft who has slipped back down is somewhat irrelevant at this point. At the time of Microsoft's huge boom, they did not have nearly as many competitors as there are in the market today. Apple being one of them. In the modern market Apple has proven that they can go above and beyond the competition constantly, and with multiple products. They were the first to use the sleek designs in their products that have become so popular. Their iPhones, iPods, iPads and even MacBooks all have a design in their physical appearance and interface that all the other companies are attempting to copy.

With this being said, it is apparent that they have more room to thrive. But, I also believe they will have to hit a cap at some point. If they don't, then they have the absolute best innovation and marketing skills possible. It seems that with all companies that really start to get big quickly, they die down. Society is general loves fads. Apple has proven to be a company that is constantly creating new fads by creating new models of their products that are tailored to the popular demand of the consumers. Could it be possible that Apple is an exception to the other companies that were just fads? Are they on the right path to creating a monopoly in the technology market?

Windows 8: Consumer Preview

Microsoft dropped a consumer preview (beta) of their new Windows 8 today. The responses are mixed amongst professional IT critics but one thing is for sure, it is revolutionary. In the article, many say it is a risk for Microsoft to launch something this different from not only their usual interface, but from all other existing ones in the market.

The reason for this is that Microsoft puts a lot of faith in their new "Metro" system which does away with the previous Microsoft "Desktop" completely. This is an extremely bold move because Windows has not been nearly as innovative as some companies such as Apple. The "Metro" system is an interface that is designed to work on both tablets and PC's and allows for instant streaming and downloading of Apps that can be purchased from the easy to use App store. Some are saying that the interface is very similar to the new interface that the XBOX 360 is using. (Which happens to be powered by Microsoft as well.)

Seth Rosenblatt of CNET stated that "It's by far the most integrated and most capable operating system Microsoft has ever put out, there's a speed and responsiveness to Windows 8 that no other version of Windows has ever had."

But, some critics also say that since it is so different, it is also very different. Could Windows 8 be a huge breakthrough for Microsoft from its innovation? Or, could PC users frown upon the innovation since they appreciated the previous simplicity? 

In Response to Professor Johnson...

Should John Smith sell the names? Also, Does the AMA Statement of Ethics address this issue? What in the Statement relates to John Smith's dilemma?

After reading the Statement of Ethics that the AMA runs under, it seemed quite apparent that John Smith should not sell the names. Ethics aside, when marketing, there is always an interaction with a producer and a consumer. If business is simply just business, the producer has to satisfy the consumer. If John Smith is interacting with people for survey purposes, then they are now his customer. Smith is trusting them to make their honest judgment about cars and in turn the surveyors are trusting Smith's firm to keep their information confidential. It really doesn't matter if it is the right thing or not to sell their information because if Smith sold it, then the surveyors would recognize that his firm is not trustworthy. After this, word of mouth could completely jeopardize everything that the firm does.

There are three main principles under the AMA's Statement of Ethics that must be followed by all marketers. They are: "do no harm, foster trust in the marketing system, and embrace ethical values." The principle that relates to John Smith's dilemma the most is embracing ethical values. The reason for this is because it is all about building relationships with the consumer. And while doing so create a confidence in them about the integrity of marketing.

          Core Values: Honesty, Responsibility, Fairness, Respect, Transparency and Citizenship.

If John Smith sells the surveyors information he will be in violation of all of these ethical guidelines that are meant to create a successful marketing interaction for both the producer and consumer. It is definitely a good thing that Smith wants to use the money in order to save some jobs for his employees, but this is the wrong way to do it. Could it be possible that if he sold the information it could cause even more harm to his firm than having to fire a few employees?

French Making In-Car Breathalyzers Mandatory

France plans on making in-car breathalyzers mandatory. What first comes to mind is all of the different political stand points that this could take on. But, in the article, it is explained that it is purely to help reduce the amount of under the influence deaths in France.

In the past decade, deaths have already halved to around 4,000 deaths a year due to safety precautions. Now, with the new mandatory law, the President Nicolas Sarkozy plans to get that number down to 3,000. Drivers that are caught driving without the $2 single-use breathalyzer will be sentenced a $23 fine.

Since no country has ever made in-car breathalyzers mandatory, there are tons of marketing opportunities. Automotive companies that are attempting to advertise their newest model car as one of the safest yet, could advertise that it comes with an in-car breathalyzer. This way, the new owner of the car would not have to worry about buying one.

Another opportunity is that the law states that you must have at least a single-use breathalyzer at all times. But, there are some people in Europe that are definitely out having drinks more than every once in a while. So, they might want a multi-use one. Or an extremely accurate one. So, this opens up a market for technology companies to create the best, most affordable and easy to use in-car breathalyzer for consumers in Europe. Who knows, this could eventually be a law that becomes enforced in the United States.

 Living in a college town and seeing people get into cars when they shouldn't makes me think that it might not be such a bad idea to enforce that law as soon as possible in the United States. Could this new law in France open an entirely new market for in-car breathalyzers?

In Response to Molly Keereweer...

Do you think this gap-toothed phenomenon will soon be a thing of the past? or will it stick around and make a name for itself?

I definitely think that this new trend could be something that sticks around for a while. If not this, then another flaw will become prominent in the modeling world. One explanation for this is that consumers of these products that are getting modeled are in fact not perfect. No one is. But, these companies in the past have attempted to make models look as if they were perfect.

The interesting part of the "gap-toothed" sensation is that the modeling agencies still make the models look good. They are giving off a persona that you can have physical flaws but still be sexy and confident. Or even drive a Mercedez-Benz such as you showed in your blog.

Is it possible that consumers can now relate more towards these models do to their distinguished flaws? Could this marketing technique provide a boost in profits for these companies with their new target market?

Google Gets Europe's "OK" to Buy Motorola.

Google has officially been cleared by European regulators to purchase Motorola Mobility Holdings. This venture cost them a whopping $12.5 billion dollars making it the largest investment of hardware Google has ever had. Within the article, Mark Russell writes that Google will still be monitored for anti-trust.

Google stated that one of the most appealing things about their take over of Motorola is their various patents and patent applications. 17,000 patents and 7,500 patent applications to be exact. The European regulators fear that as time goes on, Google will abuse these patents and license the technology at unfair prices.

Regulators fear that Google could infuse these patents with their Android patents to create an unfair market for these devices. It could potentially enable emerging companies to create and innovate new products due to the violation of these patents.

But, although Google has gotten by the regulators in Europe, China, Taiwan and Israel have not yet approved the deal. Without knowing what these other countries are going to decide, what do you think would be the best decision? Also, is Google becoming too much of a powerhouse? How can they be regulated more thoroughly?

In Response to Jaycelyn Kay-Pfenning..

Why do some logos without the company name work for Apple, and not for others, perhaps like Starbucks? In Starbucks' case, is it because their new logo has nothing to do with coffee or for some other reason?

Well, very similar to what you previously stated, Apple's logo literally represents their companies name. So, when consumers see the logo they know the brand is Apple and are going to actually say the word even if they have never actually heard of the companies name. When consumers of Starbucks see a person carrying the coffee cup on the side of the road, they will no longer be able to read the name "Starbucks Coffee." This is a huge disadvantage in my eyes. Although the Starbucks logo is fairly well known in a lot of places, it is definitely not something that everyone knows. For a company that is looking to expand even greater than they have already, you would think that they would want to have more consumers reading their companies name instead of less.

The fact that Starbucks logo is a mermaid is also a huge set back. There are various companies that advertise their products with logo's that are not relative to the product and air commercials that also hold no relevance. It can work for some companies but not for others. One example is Geico. Geico, the insurance company, is notorious for airing commercials that have nothing to do with insurance. Although one of their "mascots" is the gecko, they have commercials featuring pigs and people dancing, etc. These all have nothing to do with insurance but it has been successful for Geico so they keep doing it.

With Starbucks they really should have reconsidered their marketing technique. When Starbucks first came out people would say, "I am going to go to Starbucks." Now, it is common for people to say, "I'm going to get a Starbucks." This is one way in which Starbucks has become a powerful competitor in the coffee market. By people saying I am literally getting a Starbucks it gives off the persona of generalization. Similar to when someone says, "Pass me a Kleenex." Meaning they want any sort of tissue that you can get for them.

The prestigious name of "Starbucks" in my eyes is the companies real marketing tool. The logo is just something nice to look at. Their name means everything now and now that they took it off the cup they may have worse problems than just having some disgruntled customers. Do you think a possible option for Starbucks could be to change their logo to just the name and take out the mermaid in general?

Kodak Is Done Making Cameras

Could Kodak really put a halt on making cameras? According to the article, Kodak actually plans on seizing their production of cameras, including digital. Their plan is to stop production on all cameras, pocket video cameras and digital picture frames. Currently, the digital camera sector of Kodak is pulling in 3/4's of the companies revenue. But, Kodak claims that they must stop the production of these things in order to cut costs.

The executives of the company are saying that this move is a "logical extension" because it will save the company more than $100 million a year.

In the future, Kodak plans on placing their efforts towards licensing their brand name, photo printing and desktop printers. This is a huge deal because Kodak is the company that in fact invented the hand held camera. They recently filed for chapter 11 bankruptcy protection last month.

Within our marketing class we observed multiple companies that were able to create markets for their products originally but were unable to keep up with the innovative tendencies of their competitors.

What do you think that Kodak could have done differently in order to remain a constant competitor in the digital camera market? Also, what did companies such as Canon do to remain constantly ahead of the game?

In Response to Aislynn Sherry...

Do you think that the creativity and "flashiness" or the actual message sent to viewers is most important? And are these commercials sometimes overkill or are they appropriate?

 It is actually quite hilarious that a lot of viewers of the Superbowl are not even football fans. In fact, some could not care less who wins or loses. But, one things remains constant. Everyone loves the commercials. It is safe it say that some people just watch the Superbowl for the "funny" commercials. 


It seems that both the flashiness and the message of the commercial really matter. One prime example is Budweiser. Every Superbowl I always see the traditional Budweiser commercial featuring the ever impressive Clydesdale's. As a viewer, it seems that Budweiser is both trying to have a vivid visual interaction with the viewers to create a "wow" factor. But, it also gives off the feeling that Budweiser is a very nice company because they have these beautiful horses. Plus, if their are these great horses then the beer must have a rustic feeling when you drink it. 

The thoughts behind commercials can sometimes be a complete mystery when you actually think about it. The Clydesdale's have absolutely nothing to do with beer. Yet, as viewers we still enjoy the commercial and although it does not give us that instant craving to go out and buy Budweiser beer, it sticks with us subliminally so that the next time we are out getting beer and see the label, our thoughts on it could change. 


In this day and age I do not think that the Superbowl commercials are overkill. Even commercials that air everyday are completely ridiculous but it still must drive an increase in sales of some sort or they would have stopped airing it. By now viewers of the Superbowl expect to see commercials that are like none they have seen before and about as overkill as you can get while still being entertaining. 


Similar to your comment on YouTube, how is the increasing commercials on the web going to affect the amount and quality of commercials on television? Could the internet be the new television and T.V.'s become irrelevant?

Starbucks New Frontier : India

Starbucks Coffee which everyone knows to be an upscale coffee chain has finally made moves into India's markets. Within the article, it is explained that Starbucks will open their first store in September and may have up to 50 stores open by the end of the year. Also, eventually India could have up to 3,000 Starbucks stores all around India.

Why the decision to expand to India? Easy. Due to India's large amount of youth in their population, cafe's have recently been booming. The problem that Starbucks seems to face is that the coffee in India is extremely cheap. For example, according to the article, "Café Coffee Day's small cappuccinos cost about $1." From my experiences at Starbucks I know that their small cappuccino could be three times that price or more.

This is similar to hardships that Walmart has and still is facing in China's market. Walmat expanded to China and attempted to create a shopping experience that was much nicer than what the Chinese were originally used to but to still have low prices. This was unsuccessful because the labor costs in China are so minute that there was no way Walmart could have the same brands and products from America and charge such a low price.

It seems that Starbucks has two options. They can either lower their prices to that of their competing companies, or they could keep their prices and hope that they get a upper-class market to bring success to Starbucks in India. What do you think would be the best decious they could make to prosper in India?

In Response to Molly...

When did you realize that what you want to do with your college degree is something you are naturally talented at?

I am majoring in Management and minoring in Economics. Luckily for me, I knew I wanted to achieve a degree in business even before I came to Keene State. I came to school having already declared my major and minor and I have not strayed past it.

Not only does my passion for business help out with how I gained my natural talent in the area but I have also had multiple mentors to get to where I am today.

My father has been doing business in New York City for longer than I have been alive. Varying from real estate to sales, I grew up learning about the multiple areas of business that New York had to offer. He never worked on Wall St. but everyone knows that New York City is home to tons of extremely prestigious and successful business head quarters. Also, my uncle is a Financial Advisor in California. I had the privilege of interning with him the past three summers and learning the ins and outs of the financial world. So, all of this has driven me to have natural talent when working in the business world.

With this being said, have you had important figures in your life that contributed to your natural talent of your degree?

Introducing a New Product.

About a year ago I came up with an idea that could be a possible new product for appliance companies. Although this really has no interest to me, I believe it could be very successful and efficient if implemented correctly. It seems that a certain trend for laundry washers created by companies such LG are getting more and more "green" and modern looking. But, innovation should be about efficiency, not just looks and helping out the environment.

My idea would be to create a product that appliance manufactures could use to store both laundry detergent and fabric softener in. This product would have the capability to hold up to a gallon of both liquid detergent and fabric softener. Once the customer turned on their washer and selected their type of cycle (Normal, Delicates, etc.) as well as the level of clothes being washed (Large or Small loads) the detergent and fabric softener would automatically be dispersed into the clothes. There would have to be a device that controlled the level of detergent and fabric softener dispensed. With this device customers using the new appliance would not have to constantly put detergent in the machine every time they washed their clothes.

Without having an actual company to buy this product, I would need multiple marketing strategies. Since I have already distinguished what my product and place is, my next step is to focus on promotion and price. After the prices for the raw materials and production were recognized, I can then focus on the price that I would sell my product for. Rather then sell these devices separate from the appliances, it would most likely be in my best interest to contact appliance companies such as LG to try and create a contract to be the sole users of my device for use in all of their signature appliances. This would guarantee me a certain wage which is favorable.

Once I find a suitable buyer for my product, the promotion stage would kick in. Advertising would most likely be the largest contribution to my products sales promotion. The advertisements would focus on how efficient the product is and how much time and hassle the consumer would save by switcher to my product and its designated appliances. Then it just up to the consumers to create a publicity for my product.

Product, place, promotion and price are great guidelines to zone in to creating a successful product. But, there are also uncontrollable factors. (Demand, Economy, etc.) How can a producer use the four "P's" to set themselves up for success even when the uncontrollable factors come into effect?

Marketing vs. Advertising vs. Propaganda.

Without being able to properly research the three groups of marketing, advertising and propaganda it difficult to create a conclusion on how they differ from one another. The normal reaction to this would simply be that the three coincide with one another constantly. In my opinion, advertising and propaganda take two separate directions away from marketing but must always begin with marketing.

Marketing is the backbone to both advertising and propaganda. Marketing consists of tons of research to figure out which market sector your group, organization, etc. would advertise or use propaganda towards. Through marketing, some of the steps that the organization would have to figure out is the market in which they want to impact, the message they want to get across and their budget.

Once an organization can complete their marketing techniques, then they can move forward to the form of advertising or propaganda they wish to create. In my eyes, advertising is creating a message towards a consumer group that tells the consumers what they should or should not do. For example, Apple may say in their advertisements, "Our MacBook Air is the lightest laptop ever." This tells the consumer that if they are looking for a light laptop then they should most certainly consider purchasing the MacBook Air laptop.

Propaganda on the other hand is not always directed at a specific consumer group. Also, it can have multiple meanings. While, advertising is created to get across one specific message. Propaganda can be in the form of art work, such as a graffiti, or even just a poster. Although the creator of the piece of propaganda usually wants to get across some sort of a point, it is up to viewers of the piece to decide what to make of it and let it effect them in the way they choose.

With this being said, what seems to be a more convincing piece of marketing? Propaganda or advertising?