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?
Saturday, March 3, 2012
Saturday, February 25, 2012
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?
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"?
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"?
Thursday, February 16, 2012
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?
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?
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?
Saturday, February 11, 2012
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?
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 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?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)