In Response to Chris Beland

I do not think that it will ever be possible for BP to regain a good reputation. To be honest, I'm not sure if they ever did have a "good" reputation. But, now that they have compromised the well being of the people who live in the gulf region, as well as the ecosystem, I believe the damage is irreparable. The best thing they can do now is to remove their oil operations from the Gulf region, and try to repair the region. They certainly owe a great deal to the region both financially, and culturally. If I am not mistaken I saw on the news that they had reached a settlement with the "victims" of the oil spill. This will help the victims out, but, ultimately the damage done will never be totally resolved.

Will mobile drive more e-commerce revenue than PCs?

The argument of whether mobile phones will overtake PC's has begun to become more of a "when" question, than an "if". The technology within mobile phones increases continually, therefore so will the functions that are able to be performed on the phones. On my phone I have an Ebay app, where I can search for items right from my phone. There is no need to take the time to log onto my computer, so why would I use anything other than my smartphone?

The true answer to the "when" factor is reliant upon the organizations that provide the services. Not all suppliers have the capabilities for consumers to purchase goods from their smartphones. But, eventually they will be forced to conform to this or else they will lose market share. So, it is only a matter of time until smartphones totally dominate the e-commerce industry.

Personally, although I do have the app on my phone I would rather go onto my PC to do my shopping. The screen is larger, and I can navigate more quickly than I can on my smartphone. As smartphones increase in size and quality I could foresee a change in my preferred mode of online shopping.

How long will it be before people no longer have PC's, and only have smartphones?

In Response To Aislynn Sherry

I also believe it is very important for companies and organizations to change their company objectives and marketing objectives as their product and competitors change. It is especially important for a company like AT&T to change frequently because their mobile phone industry could be one of the  most dynamic industries there is. New phones and technology are constantly appearing, and without constant improvement they will be left in the dust.

Although change is necessary, I believe it is still important to keep your core business principles. It is important to keep a positive brand image in order to retain customers. Especially in such a competitive market such as mobile phones where customers are constantly changing suppliers and looking to where they can get the best deal. Change is good, but too much change can jeopardize your image, and your relations with your customers.

Are there some industries that require no change within an organization?

Conspicuous Consumption

The video we watched in class this past week was the second time within the week that I had been introduced to the idea of conspicuous consumption. Although the principle of this had been familiar with me, I had never been able to put a name to it. Conspicuous consumption is the idea of people purchasing or acquiring items that will enhance their social status, or the view others view them. An example would be purchasing a t-shirt with a logo on it, rather than a nameless t-shirt that is made of the same material and size.

Everybody has made a decision like this, and more often than not the consumer will choose the item with the desirable logo if they are similarly priced. As mentioned in the video, it was not until pretty recently in our history that items have begun advertising logos on the outside of items in easily visible places. With the increased competition within markets it has become more and more important to maximize advertising and promotion for a product. Brand name has also become increasingly important as the competition within markets increases.

Companies that established good brand names early in the revolution of advertising and promotion on memorabilia have continued to maintain them for the most part throughout time. Nike is a perfect example of this, by continuing to have success from the 1980's until the present day. They are known worldwide, and there logo is one of the most recognizable there is. There are many occurrences where they make sales just because of their brand name alone. If you placed 2 identical sneakers in front of someone and they were the same price, but one had a Nike swoosh  on it, I can almost guarantee that they would choose the Nike shoe. Whether or not this good, bad, or indifferent, it is in fact reality.

Do you think conspicuous consumption will become worse as time goes on? Or have we reached the peak?

In Response To Evan Woollacott

There is no doubt in my mind that technology is expediting the rise of trending within the smartphone market. One year ago I bought a new Blackberry, which at the time was as good as any phone on the market. Now, it is looked at as an inferior phone in comparison to the new smartphones. The competition between brands today is rapidly expanding, and if you are not moving forward you will be left behind. Mobile companies often lock you into long multi year contracts, but what if they gave you the option to upgrade to new phones more often within your contract? I think this would be a great way to increase revenue, as well as make your clients more satisfied with their contacts. I know I would personally spend some extra money if I had the opportunity to upgrade from my Blackberry.

In five years, will tablets and smartphones surpass PCs in e-commerce sales?

There is no question that the sale of smartphones and tablets are on the rise, and continue to surge. The question is, how long until they totally eclipse the PC market? You rarely hear about a consumer itching to buy a new PC, but you commonly hear this regarding the iPad ir iPhone. These new technologies are trending, and are much easier to use and transport than their elder counterpart. 

I believe that there still will be a large market for PC's though, due to the fact that businesses and education facilities will still be desiring stationary modes to access the internet. PC's are much better suited for this type of work, most importantly because they are capable of retaining more information, and do not need to be portable. Personal sales of PC's will take the biggest hit. Personal usage of internet is more catered towards portability and  easy access, which is provided with tablets and smartphones.

If you think back 10 years, laptops were just being integrated into society and cell phones were very simplistic. In the past 10 years we have developed both into highly intelligent information systems that are capable of doing just about anything we desire. What will our technology look like 10 years from now? There is no way of predicting where technology will take us, but if we look back on how far we have come, there doesn't seem to be any imitations.

How long do you think it will be until PC's are totally extinct?

In Response To Chris Beland

Facebook deciding to go public is an inevitable decision that everybody saw coming. I believe it is in the best interest of Facebook to go public, and the owners of stock while it was still private will become instantly wealthy. There is no doubt in my mind that the stock will continue to rise, but the question is for how long? If you rewind time 8 years Facebook was just a fledgling company, in a market that was absolutely controlled by MySpace. Jump ahead to the present and you would be hard pressed to find someone who still used their MySpace account. Trending is something that is constantly occurring, and I'm not sure if Facebook has the longevity that everyone thinks. Speaking of trending, Twitter is the new kid on the block and has a growing following that is poised to compete with Facebook. I believe over time the price of stock in Facebook will begin to decrease, but, I would certainly look into buying some share in Facebook in the meantime, and flip some cash quick. But, I certainly would not put my whole retirement fund into the Facebook basket.

How long do you think Facebook has left atop the social networking throne?

Burger King Commercials

Burger King is an important member of the fast food industry which has concreted itself as an oligopoly in the North American market. By oligopoly I mean that there are few players in the market, and it is almost impossible to join this market. Within this particular market there is a lot of competition, and often times establishments are located within close proximity of one another.

Due to the fact that most companies offer the same product at relatively similar prices, it is very important that the companies market effectively so they sway consumer opinions. Burger King has recently launched a new set of ads through which they highlight new products that they have created. They have chosen famous icons such as Jay Leno, David Beckham, and Mary J Blige as spokespeople. They each have their own individual commercial,  and the commercials will alternate on the air.

Burger King has done well by choosing these well liked celebrities, and I believe they will help sell product. This new strategy of putting a "face" on their brand is something that is new to the fast food market. I believe this could be a turning point in acquiring market share from competitors such as Macdonalds, and Wendys. I know when I saw the commercial on TV I was intrigued by the product, and thought higher of it because of the well known representative.

How important is having a well known face for an organization?

In Response To Aislynn Sherry

I do believe that Wal Mart has reached a maturity stage, but I still believe that it is a cash cow and will continue to be successful for many years to come. Humans need to consume food, and supplies in order to survive. Wal Mart will continue to offer low prices, and reasonably good products for the money. This will allow them to stay atop of the retail market, and continue to dominate the market. Because the one thing that all humans have in common is that we like things cheap, and we like them easily accessible.

I do not see Amazon as a reasonable threat in the near future, because of the lack of technological prowess that a large majority of the population has. But, I do see this changing in years to come when the younger generation becomes older and all of the population is able to operate a computer and use other technological devices. Until then I do not see Wal Mart having any issues with losing their market share.

Mazda Social Media Buzz

Mazda's new line of SUV's will be hitting the market in the North America this summer. This is not surprising, because every year for as long as I can remember this has been occurring, But, one main difference is the way through which they plan to generate interest in their product. Mazda has decided to release some sneak previews for their new products and has employed the members of its organizations to introduce them to the world early via social media.

Sites like Youtube, Facebook, and Twitter will be the main channels through which this is accomplished. Mazda has employed this strategy in hopes of creating a large buzz throughout the North American market prior to their release in July. With the amount of competition in the SUV market in North America, this seems like a very smart idea. North America is a predominant region for this type of vehicle, and where almost all of Mazda's SUV's will be sold. The rest of the world has not caught on with the "big car" phase, for many reasons which include gas prices, and personal needs or desires. Also, even though many Americans complain about the gas prices, but the USA is in the top 25 of countries with the lowest gas prices.

The need for early implementation is necessary because of how competitive the SUV market is in North America. SUV's are some of the most expensive cars, and in turn gross the highest amount of profit. By implementing an early marketing strategy, and creating social media buzz, Mazda will have an advantage on the competition. Social media is without a doubt the easiest, and most cost effective way that an organization can market. It is easily accessible to not only the America, but everyone who has internet access. Utilizing this aspect of marketing is a way in which companies can save money, and maximize the amount of publicity that they are able to receive.

Has social media now overtaken television as the best way to advertise?

In Response To Chris Beland

Red Bull is arguably the best advertised product in recent years, and is somewhat comparable to big names such as Coca Cola. Last spring while I was studying abroad I had the chance to travel Europe, and Red Bull is hands down the leader in the energy drink market there as well. Their marketing strategies are exciting, and catch the attention of viewers. The Red Bull logo is also very eye catching and looks pretty cool. If you go to the skatepark in downtown Keene I bet half of the teenage skateboarders have Red Bull stickers on their boards. I can guarantee you they are not sponsored by Red Bull, but the logo looks cool and they want to associate themselves with the product. This was the goal of its founders, and they have accomplished this by sponsoring extreme sporting events and given their brand a good image.

Is there any way that Red Bull could lose market share in the near future?

Advantageous Vulnerability?

At a recent marketing convention a keynote speaker was discussing how showing vulnerability can be advantageous to the marketing strategy of an organization. Consumers are likely to side with a company with whom they can relate to. Everybody knows that every human has flaws, and by showing them every once in a while organizations. By doing this organizations are also making their product look more "authentic" which depicts an image of higher quality.
The most recent example I can personally think of regarding this marketing strategy has been through the pizza company, Dominos. Dominos has recently revamped their marketing scheme by incorporating new styles of pizza that seem authentic and handmade. They have also stressed the "handmade" aspect and have increased their quality. Another way in which they have tried to reach out to their consumers is by incorporating low level employees into their advertisements. This is trying to show consumers that Dominos has a relatively flat corporate structure, which I doubt is the case in real life. But, judging by their commercials you would not guess that would be the case.
The incorporation of this strategy has increased sales and has done wonders for the organization. They have improved their reputation and increased their market by incorporating a sense of vulnerability and change, that people can relate to. Many organizations are sure to follow suit, and change to this more "vulnerable" marketing strategy.
At what point could portraying vulnerability hurt an organization?

In Response To Chris Morin

Gas prices are continually climbing, and I have seen projections online that a gallon of gas could reach $5 in the summer months. I agree how scary it is that we are so greatly affected by the Middle East, even though they are on the other side of the world. Dependence is a scary concept for America, because we as Americans would not be able to survive without the oil from the Middle East. There would be decreased production, transportation, heating, and an overall lower quality of life. This is something that Americans will not accept, and honestly, we are at the absolute mercy of the Middle Eastern oil companies. The lofty claims of politicians who want to lower gas prices sound great, but are virtually impossible to accomplish in real life. There are too many extenuating circumstances which are out of their jurisdiction. Smart cars are a great invention and could be a great thing if American consumers decide to not buy a big SUV or truck. Unfortunately I do not see this trend occurring anytime soon. I will end this response with the question, will the price of gas ever be returned to prices that were common before our economic recession?

Honda Gets Personal

Honda has recently launched a marketing campaign through which they had consumers create "bucket lists" of things they would like to do or accomplish before they die. They then entered the consumers into a drawing for a new CR-V, and some consumers were fortunate enough to acquire a new vehicle. The target market that Honda was trying to reach was the 20-30 age group, in hopes of gearing their marketing campaign around the important decisions that they are making which shapes their lives.

The campaign also had a commercial that aired during the super bowl and starred Mathew Broderick, who was the star of the 80's movie "Ferris Bueller's Day Off". The film is about a high school student who chooses to play hookie rather than go to school, and finds himself going on an exciting adventure. This is also a movie that the target market can relate to, and be knowledgeable of. By using Broderick as a spokesperson Honda hopes to convince their target market to live spontaneously, and according to Honda they can help achieve this by purchasing their product. I end this blog with the question, is it foolish for companies to target such a specific group, when trying to sell a generalized product?

This is an all around good idea for a marketing plan. Although their target market may be geared towards the younger generation, everybody wants to live spontaneously and live an exciting life. Therefore, all consumers will want to be a part of the potential outcomes that could occur if they choose Honda. With the resurgence of the American motor industry, Honda is looking to enhance its sales in the North American market, which has always been a lucrative market for them. Through their creative marketing schemes I believe it will not be long before they achieve their sales goals.

In Response To Evan Woollacott

Your excerpt on clothing through advertising is spot on. The short answer, yes, visually stimulating marketing helps make the consumer feel more attached to the product and will increase desire to purchase more. This is a great marketing tactic for both the bar, and the brewers. The purchasing of the t shirt will be far more beneficial when thousands of people see the shirt throughout its life span.

While at the bar, a consumer will feel much more likely to purchase more beverages if they feel they have "won" something and have not had to pay for it. This will result in more business for the bar, and more beer sales for the companies. It is a fact, everyone loves free stuff.

The most difficult part of this type of advertising is finding the point at which your advertising is beneficial to the company. You don't want to spend more than the advertising is taking in. The hard part is to judge where your revenue is being generated from. I end this response with the question, is a bar the most ideal place to give away memorabilia?

Pizza Hut Vs. Dominos

Pizza Hut and Dominos are two of the largest pizza distributors in America. These two companies have revamped their marketing strategies over the past few years in hopes of becoming more desirable in the eyes of their consumers. In a recent article http://www.dmnews.com/pizza-heavyweights-build-brand-affinity-and-vie-for-customer-loyalty/article/229098/ the two companies were analysed and their marketing strategies were tested. It was decided that Dominos had the higher customer satisfaction rating.

When two very similar companies produce goods that are very similar, it is important that their marketing strategies are well thought out. Dominos has recently gone on a marketing binge in order to enhance sales. They have advertised more, and improved their advertising. They have now implemented customer and employee thoughts and ideas in their commercial. This makes the consumer feel much closer to the product, and much more likely to support their business. It also gives the feeling that the organization is small, and they truly care about their customers. This is a small strategy that can have a positive effect on all who view their advertisements.

Pizza Hut has implemented new marketing strategies as well, but not to the extent of Dominos. I feel that Pizza Hut's new stances and deals are just because they have been forced into them by their competitors, such as Dominos. This results in lack of ingenuity, as well as an image that is not as desirable. Dominos utilizes the online market, such as by enhancing their online ordering process so that you can track the progress of your pizza.

Convenience and image are certainly on the side of Dominos, we shall see if this image can be held. I end this blog with the question, as a consumer, how often do you base your decision off of the image of the company rather than the quality of the product itself?

In Response To Aislynn Sherry

The prospect of having a car that drives itself sounds wonderful to all potential consumers. The extra amount of time an individual could potentially have free would allow for a much more productive day. There are many employees who commute long distances every day, if this time could become "productive" time, than a lot more could be accomplished.

The main concern I have regarding this is how effective a machine would be at making so many subjective decisions. Humans have the capability to make all of these decisions while observing their surroundings. I question if a machine could do the same as effectively. Also, I am curious as to how much longer distances could be covered in a car that was operated by a much more "cautious" conductor of the vehicle.

If this technology gets developed it could provide a large financial boost to the automotive industry. This would provide some much needed income to their recent hardships. Another idea that I like about this is that very few, if any, jobs would be sacrificed by this new innovation. Most people are private owners of vehicles, and conduct them personally.

Would the invention of the "smart" car have that large of an impact on the auto mobile industry? Or would the large price tag make it difficult to sell the product?

Evolving Marketing Strategies

Since the invention of the computer, email has been a very important part of companies advertising strategies. Billions of emails are sent daily, and they offer deals and discounts that are very beneficial to their customers. But, technology is constantly improving and consumers needs are changing jointly. Social and mobile advertising is becoming more competitive with every passing year. Consumers have easy access to these two, and it is not going unnoticed by companies.

Although social and mobile advertising is a flourishing industry, companies should not forget what has earned the trust of their companies in the past. There is no need to change practices if the ones currently being used are effective. But, it is important to keep progressing into these newer industries because eventually they will be the most effective means to market your product.

Consumers use what is most convenient for them. There is no consumer that will take the longer route when they can take the shorter one for the same price. Companies need to tailor their strategies towards the needs and tendencies of their consumers. There is no point in wasting money towards marketing strategies that are not effective. This also comes down to how alert and skilled the members of a marketing group are. It is their job to d research and analysis of the market and alter advertising towards their findings.

I'm not sure if it is better at this particular time to change marketing strategies towards social and mobile while email is still very effective. A slight integration of the two strategies over time may suit an organization better. I end this blog with this question, will there ever be a marketing strategy that never becomes "outdated"?

In Response To Michael Thompson

I think the best decision for Google to do would be to buy out Motorola. The market in Europe is a perfect fit for Google to potential monopolize the mobile phone market. Apple is not a huge player in Europe, although they are constantly gaining market share throughout the globe. If Google could use the patents that Motorola already owns and manipulate them to make a new breed of super phone they would be very successfull. Also, the iphone has become such a success in America and innovations need to occur or else Apple will totally control the mobile phone market.

I understand your concern with the lack of approval in Asian markets. But, Asian markets are controlled much more by government regulations, I think the money is made in the free markets of Europe and America. Although the Asian market is the largest, the parameters to enter their markets legally would be far too costly and not worthwhile.

I think competition between the big mobile phone players is a good thing for the consumer. Phone prices are extremely high at this moment in time, and competition may decrease the demand, which in turn could decrease some prices. The question I end this reply with is, is competition within a market always good for the consumer?

Discount Advertising Leads to Large Impact

It is common knowledge that commercials that air during the super bowl are the most expensive commercials on television. This year the super bowl was the most viewed super bowl of all time. There were many entertaining commercials, but the commercial that has arguably received the most attention was a beer commercial http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/old-milwaukees-end-run-around-super-bowl-advertising-02092012.html. But, it is not from the usual suspects like Budweiser and Coors. This commercial is an advertisement for the Old Milwaukee brewing company http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tejGMPAShdY.

Old Milwaukee was a large company many years ago, but has come upon hardships in the recent decades. A part of their rebirth strategy has been an advertising merger with Will Ferrell's production company, Funny or Die. This particular commercial was of Ferrell walking through a field and catching a can of beer and pening it, than the commercially abruptly ends. This seems like a pretty normal commercial, except for the fact that it was only played in one small town of northern Nebraska. The commercial aired in North Platte, Nebraska and cost a total of $1,500 to air the 30 second commercial. National commercials for the same amount of time cost around $3,000,000.

The company claims that it was trying to "pay homage to great Old Milwaukee towns". This commercial however has received more discussion than any other ad that was played during the super bowl. Immediately after the commercial was played, someone released it on the internet and it immediately became a viral video sensation. The ad has been viewed 760,000 times on youtube, where Budweiser's top super bowl commercial was only viewed 320,000 times.

This advertising strategy is brilliant because Old Milwaukee has received twice the publicity online, and spent less than 1% of what their competitors paid. This is the ultimate cost effective marketing strategy possible. But, there was no guarantee this particular video would become popular. This is a very original marketing strategy, and really gives hope for capitalism that this low budget company can compete with the big players in their market.

I end this blog entry with this question, can effective advertising grow even if it is done on a budget?

In Response To Evan Woollacott

Regulations that are imposed upon advertising is a very intriguing topic, and I am glad you chose to reflect upon this. The first question I have is, who decides these regulations? One singular organization decides these, wouldn't it be more beneficial and fair to have multiple organizations regulate what is allowed to be aired on television?

As I think back on all the beer commercials I have watched, I too find it hard to believe that I have never seen a sip of beer be taken on a commercial. The beer companies have become so good at glorifying their product that they can portray a desirable image for their beer without having it be consumed. Often times it is poured in slow motion into a glass, or poured slowly out of a glass and it makes their product look very desirable.

I do not feel the regulations for these commercials affect their product at all. They are still able to portray the message they desire, and everybody in their market has to abide by the same standards so nobody has an unfair advantage. Although some regulations may be rather unnecessary, I feel this regulation is not a game changer. Their message is still clear, and effective. I end this post with the question, is it fair that one singular organization determines what is right and wrong within advertising?

Online Ads to Surpass Print in 2012

Technology is constantly changing the way we live, and determining the decisions we make. This upcoming year it is predicted by marketing experts that online advertising will finally eclipse print advertising. Print advertising has been prevalent in modern society for the past hundred or more years. It is quite a significant accomplish when you think that it's run of dominance will finally end. According to http://www.emarketer.com/PressRelease.aspx?R=1008788 online advertising expenses are projected to reach $39.5 Billion.

In the big picture of advertising, it is more logical for organizations to market towards online clients. Almost every household has access to a computer, and virtually every American is computer literate. It is much more common for someone to browse the internet, rather than browsing through a magazine or flyer. Americans are also far less patient and want speed prevalent with every activity they perform. The internet allows them to achieve this, while being able to find anything they desire at one single click of their mouse.

I feel moving towards online marketing is necessary in order to keep, and increase a desired amount of market share. When I was younger, I remember receiving many advertisements in the mail. Now it is very rare to receive one in the mail. Computers are taking over, and it is not uncommon to no longer have a landline telephone in a household. This also eliminates another long time form of advertising. As the years pass by I only see online advertising increasing more and more each year. Especially now that many websites are funded strictly through the advertising revenue that they generate. The question I will end this blog with is, Is there any scenario in which print advertising is still desirable in comparison to online advertising?

In Response To Evan Woollacott

Your last blog entry about "Snookie" from the new hit T.V. show Jersey Shore has greatly interested me. I agree with your stance that she is an idiot and am bewildered that well respected companies would let her endorse their brand. Ultimately, when a celebrity endorses a product they now have control over the image of that particular product. From an image standpoint I am shocked that an organization would choose such an undesirable representative.

I thoroughly agree with your Charlie Sheen reference and that he has flourished while using his "bad boy" image. Every human has issues, and I think everybody enjoys watching people who have more issues than them, and make themselves feel better. Ultimately, any publicity is good publicity. I believe this is why organizations are turning towards using these stars who attract so much attention, regardless if it is positive or negative.

Some stars have different standards though. For example, Charlie Sheen is an actor, and his true character is rarely seen by the public, therefore the public associate him with his characters that he plays on television. His true character, although rarely seen in person, is known by the public. But ultimately is irrelevant because peoples views are tainted by his alter ego. Ndamukong Suh, who is a defensively lineman for the Detroit Lions, was a representative for the Chrysler motor company and was featured on many commercials this past summer. He had some hardships on the field this fall, and was tainted as a dirty player. I then noticed I no longer saw him in Chrysler commercials. They terminated him from their commercials because he was now known as a dirty player. The public view him by his actions on the field, and not how he truly is in real life. When in fact he is a very soft spoken person and very kind in real life. But, his image is forever changed to to his actions on the field. This is ultimately what has propelled Sheen's career, but has squashed his. This is a poor double standard, but is the sad reality of the "advertising" world that we live in.

How the public views you in relation to what you do has a huge impact on your marketability. In Suh's case, he is drowning, in Sheen's, he is flourishing. I end this blog entry with this question, Is any publicity truly good publicity? Regardless of it's nature?

Progression of Social Networking

Social networking websites now affect billions of people throughout the world. It seems like it would be impossible to stay in touch with everyone in our lives without such websites. These websites provide free access to any of our friends or acquaintances at a given second. The thing that makes these websites so popular is that they are free, and with ever expanding competition this no cost way of communicating may be in jeopardy.

Facebook, arguably the most popular social networking website, has recently decided to change to publicly traded stock  http://www.keloland.com/News/NewsDetail6376.cfm?Id=127182. This means that their profits will increase, and it will be capable for anyone to purchase shares in the company. This also poses many threats to the current free status, and in the future users may have to pay for their ability to use Facebook. With competition increasing, there is a need to make the website better and create new ideas in order to expand business and keep users on Facebook. By going public their revenues will increase, and they will have more spending power to innovate and create the best possible website. Although their intentions have not been made public, there is a great potential that users could potentially be paying for access in the future.

Another large issue will be the potential business they may lose if they charge clients. Personally as a Facebook user myself, I would not pay to use their services. Although the website is very convenient, it is not important enough to lose my hard earned money over. From a business stand point, their revenues may not change from losing all of the users who decide not to pay. There will be many current users who still desire to use their services regardless of price. Currently Facebook acquires revenue from advertising, and the lack of users will greatly affect the advertising aspect. Businesses will not pay to advertise somewhere where not as many people will see their product.

The ultimate question to ask is if it is necessary to go public in order to stay at the top of the social networking chain. Personally, I feel this may be a good idea for them at the moment. Twitter is becoming more popular everyday, and innovation is necessary to stay as the industry benchmark. I end this blog entry with the question, is it ethical to change your business principles if it means potentially losing customers, in order to stay ahead of your competitors?

In Response To Evan Woollacott

I agree with your stance that lower prices will help generate more business, and help bring in new customers to their field. The most imperative thing for this particular business to do is make sure that they operate at a very high level and keep the customers. Although in this particular stance new business is good, it will be pointless to reduce price by this much if no new customers will be retained.

Price reduction is necessary in some fields, especially when the level of competition is extremely high. Making large predictions for the upcoming quarter is good, and helps boost morale within an organization. But, it is important to know your team, and realize if they have the potential and work ethic to take on this heightened work load. An organization is only as good as their leaders.

I am not too informed on this current situation, but I understand the principles of the business strategy they are implementing. I would not personally make such bold predictions if I was the leader of the organization. The only exception I would make is if the organization was very close to extinction. Such a drastic reduction in price seems quite lofty to me, and seems like an unnecessary risk to take.

Prior Postage No Longer Longer Required

The United States Postal Service (USPS) has passed a bill within the company that will no longer make it necessary for postage stamps to be required prior to shipping http://www.dmnews.com/direct-mailers-no-longer-need-to-prepay-postage/article/222206/. Now businesses and organizations can have the mail receipts sent to them electronically and a lot of the hassle of stamping is managed much easier. Although from a marketing stand point this move looks great, and will attract tons of business. The business aspect on the other hand risks that a majority of that money could potentially not be paid off.

With the shipping market becoming increasingly competitive in the United States, USPS has taken a large leap of faith within the market by allowing some consumers to charge accounts. Although some businesses rely on credit purchases to survive, this particular business has managed to stay in business for a long time conducting ideally the same practices. Although there are constant cuts of government funding, and layoffs have been relatively prevalent, I don't feel it is a necessary risk to take. Risking already questionable income is extremely dangerous to a business.

I believe they are feeling pressure from competitors in their emerging marketplace. Other big organizations are emerging and providing similar if not equal service. This lack of business is forcing them to switch their policies and market themselves as an easier organization to do business with. Although I do not know their ultimate financial situation, I feel this move could potential help them acquire more business in the future. Only time will tell if unpaid bills will either propel them to the top, or relinquish their place in the market.

Q : Is the risk of not being fully paid for your services worth potentially receiving more business?

Disparities of Marketing, Advertising, and Propaganda

Although marketing, propaganda, and advertising are all given individual separate names, overall they are all quite similar in principle. Marketing is the most generalized, with advertising and propaganda being integral parts of effective marketing. Although I believe advertising and propaganda are parts of marketing, they can not always be mentioned together. In order for marketing to be as effective as possible, it is necessary for all three seperate aspects to work collectively to achieve success.

Marketing is in essence, how an organization portrays their product to the consumers. There is a lot of research and strategy involved in this act, and an organization is only as successful as their marketing strategy allows them to be. It is impossible to sell product if nobody is aware that it exists. As time goes by, marketing strategies develop and change, as well as markets. The internet, which is arguably the largest marketing tool currently available was nonexistent just twenty years ago. This is why billions of dollars are sunk into innovating marketing strategies, because if you are not expanding you will not be able to sell product.

With the ability to acquire similar products, it is imperative to distinguish your product from other product. Propaganda is one way that a company can distinguish themselves from their competitors. Propaganda is simply portraying possible outcomes that will result from using a specific product. A great example used in class this past week was, if you use Axe body spray you will get desirable girls; which could potentially occur in some situations. But, in most situations this is highly unlikely. In simple terms, propaganda is a form of manipulation that the consumers often times overlook which leads to selling units of product.

Advertising is simply enough put as, portraying and giving an image to your product. Propaganda is a big part of advertising effectively, by in theory "manipulating" your consumers. Advertising can be done in many ways, and there are endless ways of making your product known to your consumers. Advertising methods and strategies are constantly changing, as they need to be as human nature and society are infinitely changing. Advertising overall is an underrated part of a business because it is crucial to a company in order to flourish in a capitalist, free market economy like we are fortunate enough to live in.