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?
Saturday, February 4, 2012
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?
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?
Saturday, January 28, 2012
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.
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.
Wednesday, January 25, 2012
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?
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?
Saturday, January 21, 2012
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)