A response to Professor Johnson's Post

To sell or not to sell? Questions: Should John smith sell the names? (Be sure to answer the poll to the left of this post.) Also, Does the AMA Statement of Ethics address this issue? Go to the AMA website (American Marketing Association) to see whether their statement of ethids relates to John  Smith's dilemma.  Do you think this is a common dilemma? 

John Smith should NOT sell the names.  Although he is faced with an ethical dilemma, the AMA statement of ethics does indeed address this issue, and clearly states under the Fairness category:  (we will) Seek to protect the private information of customers, employees and partners.  I am sure that this is a common dilemma, but maintaining trust from customers and being fair supersedes the will to make money, even if your company is going under.

Response to Colin Raaberg's Post

Pizza Hut Crazy Cheesy Crust

Pizza Hut has an answer to get bigger sales and increase profits...More cheese. This answer has inspired a new pizza that The chain on Wednesday is introducing a new pizza that comes surrounded by 16 semi-circles of cheese that can be pulled off and eaten separately. The "Crazy Cheesy Crust," which will be available for several weeks, is 16 half circle breadsticks with cheese on them. Pizza Hut has always been know for pushing the limits and possibilities of crust and cheese, and this latest creation may very well be the "monalisa" of cheesy crust pizza they've been working toward. it will be interesting to see if they can market it in a way that makes it the new standard of their pizzas.

How and to who should Pizza Hut market this new pizza to, and what techniques should they implement?

 I believe that Pizza Hut should market this new pizza towards college kids, and families because of the amount of half circle breadsticks.  Think of the average family of four, a mother, father, and two kids.  Each family member could get an equal share of the pizza, and in the college kids case, the cost could be divided up between 4 friends.  While marketing their new product, they should stress the share-ability of this new pizza, so as to make it a pizza that will be ordered for gatherings.  This way, the pizza can be shared among many people, potentially expanding their customer base. 

Response to Roland Rumrill's Post

Here is the original post:

I found this ad for American Eagle Outfitters. (Please watch) http://creativity-online.com/work/american-eagle-outfitters-skinny-skinny-jeans/31047 It is an ad for skinny jeans. At the end of the video there is a link to the AEO website. When you try to purchase these jeans, a pop up informs you they are out of stock and if you give them your email they will let you know when they are back in stock.  

This has probably generated a lot of traffic to their web site and perhaps even some purchases of products that are “in stock”, which is their intent. But is this type of ad fair to consumers? Does it cross any ethical or legal boundaries?

I do not believe that this type of ad is unfair to consumers, because not every company will be able to keep up with product demands, which shouldn't mean that they have to take down their advertisements as soon as they run out of product.  It does however cross ethical and legal boundaries if the company places an advertisement with the intent of getting the customer to purchase other products, when they know that they are out of stock of the advertised item.  There is a rough boundary between whether or not it is ethical to still advertise for items that are no longer in stock.  

The Science of Branding

Brands are one of the biggest aspects of today's companies that marketers focus on, and for good reason.  A good brand is invaluable, and is a key component in gaining and retaining customers.  Many companies today are spending more and more money building their brand, and ensuring that everyone who purchases their products will see the brand as a symbol of trust and reliability.  For example, the Nike Swoosh is imprinted in the minds of millions as a symbol of trusted footwear, for the right price.  In spite of people paying high prices for particular brands, many consumers such as myself have resorted to purchasing cheaper generic brands such as the items Walgreens and Walmart have to offer.

Because of the current ecomomic situation, and the climbing number of consumers switching to generic brands, do you think that these cheaper options will take over the market, consuming more expensive brands that can't lower their prices? Could this lead to a greater number of outsourced jobs as a result?

A response to Pam Galante's post

Do you think that it is possible for companies to recover from serious cross cultural blunders? Can you think of examples of companies (or even individuals) whose reputations have been ruined permanently or temporarily because of their misunderstanding of a culture/language?

 Of course I think it's possible for companies to recover from blunders like this, but not without incurring monetary and reputational costs.  One example of such a misunderstanding is when the swedish furniture company IKEA named one of it's desks FARTFULL, obviously implying that the desk is unclean or smelly.  Although if fixed quickly, blunders like this may not hurt the companies reputation it is a waste of time and money to have to take a few steps backwards and fix problems like this.

Self Regulation vs. Governmental Regulatory Agencies

"Do you believe self regulation is more or less effective than governmental regulatory agencies?  Why?"

 I believe that Self Regulation is much less effective than governmental regulatory agencies simply because regulatory agencies would generally have higher standards.  This is because if Self Regulation was all that was necessary, standards could be as low as they wanted, such as cleanliness, wages, product quality and workload.  In many cases it would be much cheaper to self regulate because you could cut corners and focus on the profit, instead of having any sort of corporate responsibility.  In some ways however, self regulation can benefit in ways that governmental regulations cannot, such as higher standards, ethics, and creativity in the workplace.  If a company wants to make regulations on itself that exceed governmental regulations it could end up making the company and the consumer benefit mutually.  
 What are some ways that Self Regulation could be more effective than Governmental Regulations, and why?

A response to Haley Bannon's post

Have you ever found yourself being persuaded to purchase a product after noticing the ads while surfing the internet?  

Yes of course I have, Especially when it comes to school books.  When I search the internet for cheap books for school, immediately sites like facebook or google tailor their ads towards my interests and recent product searches, offering me discounts and different sites to buy my books from.  They are pore persuading simply because they know what type of item that I am looking for.  It is a fantastic marketing technique that benefits both the customer and the seller.