I'm Back!

This blog site originally started as an assignment for my undergraduate degree's marketing class. Since I've graduated, I have been getting numerous e-mails about how helpful and informative my blogs were. In all honesty, when I was writing these, I wasn't convinced anyone other than my classmates would read these, but after reading everyone's comments, I have decided to continue to accumulate articles and opinions on subjects I am passionate about and I hope that you continue to share your comments and ideas as well. Thank you again for all the responses, it is overwhelming and motivating and very much appreciated.

The Boss is Here- Robot Style

A company known as iRobot Corp. has created a machine that brings the boss to you in real time. The prime purpose is to allow executives to check in on factory floors, important meetings, and establish a presence though miles away. Is this our new, up and coming, form of management? Will it further spread to employees that can be controlling their own robots from home and will be not be required to come in everyday, if at all? Is this our image of a future successful business model? Is the ability to multitask and      be, literally, in two places at once override face-to-face (in person) contact in the workplace? Furthermore, does this robot invention imply that face-to-face (in person) contact is no longer necessary in our society today? Well... is it?

http://www.bostonglobe.com/business/2013/06/09/robo-boss-irobot-unveils-new-talking-robot-with-boss-screen/BQeY9jlBTKt8XYHZIQgaiM/story.html

In Response to Doug Sack's Post...

     The article Doug posted about Product Placement in Film was very interesting.  I, too, think the general public is very unaware, or just simply doesn't care, about these behind-the-scenes exchanges that go on for product placement in the media.  At the end of his post, Doug asked if companies should be able to use TV and film as a marketing technique.  He also asked if shows should let the company cut out scenes of the product is not represented properly, and if this type of representation even matters at all.
     In general, I think companies that bring their products onto TV shows and movies have developed a very strategic way of promoting their products.  Bringing a product into a scene is relatively subtle.  Viewers may not make a direct connection, or it may just be a subconscious realization all together.  But when they see the product again on the shelf, they are able to relate it back to the episode they saw, or the movie they watched.  With this, there is clearly a great amount of risk involved.  If the film insults or misrepresents a given product, customers will also have a misunderstanding for its uses, benefits, etc.  Many people, unfortunately, believe a lot of what they see on TV, and in this case it can hurt the company long after the episode has been aired, or the movie released.
     Should the company allow their product to be aired through the media, I think it is crucial for them to be able to read through the script and gain an understanding of how exactly their product is being used and interpreted.  The company's reputation and image is at stake, and for cooperation purposes of this exchange, it is important that the show or movie be willing to cut scenes and make adjustments as necessary.  Overall, I think this type of representation absolutely matters!  The majority of people watch television, and episodes are aired over and over again; movies can be rented time and again.  So if the representation of a product is inaccurate, companies that agreed to let films use their products, especially without reviewing the script and image being given about the product, can suffer serious consequences well after the media has released its premiere.

Taco Bell Comes Back Bold After Lawsuit...

 


    Earlier this year, Taco Bell faced a class action lawsuit claiming the "meat" used in their numerous food options were more binders and fillers instead of actual beef.  As you can imagine, the image of Taco Bell suffered, as any company's image would after a lawsuit.  Luckily for Taco Bell, this lawsuit has been dropped. Taco Bell has "...made alterations to their 'marketing and product disclosure'" (William-Ross).
     The company's response to the lawsuit was similar to a discussion held in a previous class.  "...Taco Bell stepped up and launched a bold advertising campaign, first cheekily thanking the public for suing them via full-page ads, then using Facebook to share coupons for 10 million free beef tacos" (Willaim-Ross).  I applaud Taco Bell for confronting the issue to  the public.  But once this problem is admitted, the reputation of the company is always affected.  This is unavoidable.  How can Taco Bell come back from such negative publicity?  Would you say that confronting the issue to the public was a wise decision on the firm's part?

http://laist.com/2011/04/19/thats_enough_beef_lawsuit_against_t.php

In Response to Chris Cheever's Post...

   I think L.L. Bean is really setting up for success when they announced their free standard shipping without a minimum purchase amount.  Ever since Cabela's opened up, L.L.Bean really began to struggle to stay within the industry.  By including free shipping, I think L.L. Bean is not only attracting customers, but they're also coming back with a competitive edge.  Chris posed the question, is this approach appropriate for all companies?  And I would definitely say no, this is not the case for all companies.  For many of the companies that are in a similar situation as L.L. Bean and Cabela's...perhaps.  But it is important to first analyze the demands of products, and the available funds at hand before making such a big decision.  Free shipping has the potential of attracting new customers, and eventually creating a profit for the company.  But, realistically, it  is also very possible that no new customers are enticed, and the company looses thousands, if not more, dollars in paying for the shipping costs.  Therefore, it is important that companies are careful in analyzing their situation, pros and cons, before any offers are made by the company.

Diet Dr. Pepper and Yahoo Team Up...

I recently read an article about Diet Dr. Pepper teaming up with Yahoo to create an online scavenger hunt.  The "Hunt for the Unbelievable" sweepstakes participants enter their "...name, basic demographic information and their e-mail address in order to participate..." (McKeefery) with the hopes of winning the $10,000 travel getaway grand prize.  Participants were to locate and virtually capture the Diet Dr. Pepper characters across the Yahoo web, which also included mobile properties.  The hunt ran through March 31, and the winner is expected to be announced in April.  These two firms are participating in a very interactive way of marketing their products and services.  It's a fun way for people to get to know more about their products, probably with the hopes of gaining a number of loyal customers.

But what about the data they collect?  The article did not say what the firms were using the data for.  It could be something as simple as collecting information to consider a new target market.  But it could also be as untrustworthy as collecting data to sell to other companies.  What do you think about the overall idea of the interactive approach?
http://www.dmnews.com/diet-dr-pepper-and-yahoo-team-up-in-online-hunt/article/199209/

In Response to Abby Hajec's Post...

     I have to say that I wasn't as surprised as I probably should have been after I read this article.  In another class of mine, we discussed data mining- where companies are paid for the information they share with other companies.  For example, credit card companies that are paid to exchange your spending habits with companies willing to pay for the information.  In a lot of cases, this probably helps companies narrow down their target market, and also keeps them aware of the promotional ideas that are and are not working.  It is interesting that this didn't seem to be a big problem with Pandora until they went mobile.  I'm sure through these accounts, Pandora is able to access more information than we are probably aware.  I think the Federal Trade Commission should come up with some type of regulation to put in place.  We, as consumers, are very unaware of what goes on with a lot of the information we provide.  Most of us are not nearly as educated as we probably need to be in order to avoid these situations.  Therefore, we really do need someone, or something protecting us from any inappropriate trading of information.