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?