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?