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?