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.

A response to Kendra's post

Media and Marketing affecting self-esteem question:
Do you think a person should be strong enough to deal with media and stereotypes on their own or should the media and marketing strategies be changed? Do you think companies feel bad for false advertising and taking advantage of people buying products to improve their appearance? Do you think if “regular” people had always been featured in advertisements that there would be less self-esteem problems in America?

I think that people should be able to pick and choose which marketing tactics that they fall for, after all, it's your choice whether or not you want to dress or look a certain way.  I do believe that companies heavily influence these actions, but that's just the name of the game, right?  I don't believe that most companies feel bad for advertising to people, they are simply offering products and services and giving examples (even if they are far-fetched).  I do however believe that if the average person was featured more often in advertisements that there would be less self esteem problems in America, but people would naturally gravitate towards buying products where the people look better. 

Product (RED)

1. I believe that Gap's partnership with Project (RED) is definitely going to improve their image by promoting corporate responsibility, and the effects are already starting to pay off-just take a look at the revenues. 
2. Myspace, The Ipod Nano, and the MotoRazr are a few examples of modern technology that was used to promote Product (RED).
3. I believe that the campaign could potentially lose followers because of the relatively low amount of money actually donated to the cause, but 25 million dollars is quite a pretty penny in my eye, and although industry observers might expect a backlash, I do not believe it would make such an effect as to shut the whole thing down. 
Do you think that because only $25 million was actually donated to the cause, and $100 million was spent on marketing, that there will be powerful acts to shut down the operation? why?

Customer Satisfaction vs. Customer Value

Customer value and customer satisfaction are dependent on one another.  When a person purchases a good or service, they are assigning a particular level of value to the product or service.  In turn, they expect a similar rate of satisfaction from their purchase, which will vary depending on how much the customer values it.  To use the Iphone as an example, Customer value is usually very high, because it is a well sought after device that has nearly unlimited uses.  However, if customer satisfaction was low, they would refrain from buying the Iphone, and search for another product that they highly value.  Customer value directly links to customer satisfaction, and vice versa- they are interdependent.  With low customer value comes low customer satisfaction, but you get what you pay for.

Which factors do people take into account when determining customer value?

A response to Drew Ferrar's post

The question is: Would you be satisfied with a product that is suppose to do amazing things yet it you take it home and it is a piece of junk?
 My answer is no, this would seem obvious to most people, but it happens everyday and companies lose customers to this tragedy all the time.  Nobody should be satisfied with a product that underperforms, however if it is simply a miscommunication and the customer cannot properly use the product, than it is the companies job to provide easy to use directions/training.  When my mother first got her smartphone, she was angry because the bills were so high and she wasn't valueing the device at the proce she was paying.  After I showed her all the features that she could use, and how much time it could save her in a day, she learned to appreciate the product and valued it more.  In turn she was more satisfied and willing to pay the price.