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?