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?