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.

Rolltop Computers

     Technological advances and innovations are, clearly, nothing we're just beginning to learn about.  The focus has been convenience, mobility, and the additions of applications, tools, and capabilities.  Apple computers have recently introduced their lines of Ipads, which is just another example of how much smaller our computers are getting and how great our technology is advancing.  I recently wanted a clip about a rolltop computer, and thought I would share it!  Its size and flexibility allows for a more convenient way of carrying a laptop, which would probably be their number one marketable feature.  Check it out!
  
http://whereispuck.com/2011/03/09/rolltop-computer/#more-489

 After watching the video, what other features could this company market to potential consumers?

In Response to Britney Perkins'...

     I really enjoyed reading Britney's post this week!  Over this past summer, i read Blink for the first time, and loved it!  I was amazed at the decisions we make without even realizing it; ones we can't explain even after the decision has been made.  I, myself, have found my emotions taking over after certain phrases or even foods are mentioned.  But we must also keep in mind, as the book tells us, that some decisions really should take us more time, and our answers cannot be determined by a simple feeling or reaction we have to something.  It is important, then, that we are aware of the types of decisions that can be used when a decision must be made.

Touring to Re-target...

     I recently read an article announcing that the soymilk company, Silk, is driving to ten cities to launch a brand awareness and consumer engagement campaign.  This city sample will learn the multiple uses of Silk product and  be involved in helping Silk collect consumer data that will be used for re-targeting consumers.
     Jen Hartley, Silk's director of marketing, explains that the company was finding that consumers were buying dairy milk in addition to their Silk products.  They say that many users are unaware that their product can be used for cooking and baking and a number of other things.  In order to help gather more data on their consumers, the company is giving out coupons to those willing to participate.  "'When consumers provide that information, they're agreeing to opt-in to our database for Silk", Said Hartley. "So with their permission, we would be sending them e-mails with additional information about our products.'  As part of registering for the challenge, they can select certain preferences, and we can provide certain usage tips and things that would be relevant to the way they use Silk."  (Peterson)  With this information and other promotional tools, they are using ZIP codes for demographic and location analysis; they are using TV commercials and print ads in publications to drive consumers to their SwitchToSilk.com website.  Not only does the website provide coupons for their products, but it also provides a ten-day plan to help consumers switch to soymilk.
     Because the purpose of this new campaign is to identify a new target market, they have identified nutrition "'nutrition conscious' consumers, specifically 30 to 50 year-old women who handle their households' primary grocery shopping..." (Peterson).  Overall, Silk is trying to retrieve a new target market.  But they are also making a big effort to educate consumers about the multiple uses of their non-dairy products.

Do you see this road campaign as being successful for Silk?  Are there any disadvantages for organizing such a campaign?

http://www.dmnews.com/silk-launches-road-tour-to-promote-soymilk-use/article/199424/

In Response to Aubrey Menegus' Post...

     I thought Aubrey asked a really great question to follow up with the movie "The Overspent American".  Personally, I think we can more easily blame this worrisome trouble on the spending habits of individuals.  But I honestly don't agree that the problem stops their.  Our ancestors created this idea of the "American dream".  I think over the years, this dream has been altered little by little, which has blurred our perception on the original idea.  Greed is not a characteristic to be left out, but I think it is only involved because of the competition brought on in living this dream.  I don't believe that marketing, directly, is to blame for this problem.  I think marketing only takes further advantage of the strong desires we have to buy more and more.  Would it help if we were to rid products of their marketing tactics?  Of course.  But I still believe we would see similar problem, perhaps on a less drastic sale.  As a society, I think we need to look at our budgets realistically and confront the fact that we are not all millionaires or billionaires, and that its unhealthy to continue trying to live as those more fortunate do.

Should Ordinary People Replace The Celebs In Social Media?

     After reading a brief article written by Tim Peterson, I was rather interested in the idea that celebrities that help market products could very well be replaced by ordinary people.  The SES Conference and Expo was held in New York this year, on March 22, where key note speaker Duncan Watts explained that "...the influencers with the largest mouthpiece are not always the most cost-effective brand ambassadors" (Peterson).  He explains that "Potentially, anybody can influence somebody else...The real thing you want to do is quantify that in terms of the outcome that you care about..." (Peterson).  By using ordinary people in social media, in other words, you create more of a trust between customer and company.  There is more of a belief that, when an ordinary person is on the screen talking about how great their cleaning product is, that this particular product could also work for you.  Personally, if I saw a celebrity advertising a cleaning product, the first question that would come to me would be- does this celebrity even know what that product does?  They have nannies and maids, so how would they know how much sparkle the product leaves?  By seeing ordinary people enjoy and trust a product, we, as other ordinary people, are more likely to trust it too.
     On the other hand, some celebrities may endorse products that sell simply based on the fact that the celebrity wears it, or owns it, so ordinary people want to too.  Take Michael Jordan sneakers, for example.  Does it then depend on the product you sell?  Should companies try to reach a more trusting relationship with their customers?  Should celebrities still be involved with the social media, or do you agree that ordinary people should start a social media career of their own?

http://www.dmnews.com/rely-on-ordinary-people-not-celebs-in-social-media-ses-conference-expo/article/198897/

In Response to Ashley Guidi's Post...

     I found Ashley's post very interesting.  For the most part, I don't believe people give grocery stores enough credit about their innovative ways of marketing their products and services.  I think the way they market these things are much less obvious to most than the way other companies advertise their products and services.  But do they work?  Absolutely!  Parents give in to their children's whining about a special cereal, parents may see a sale on a particular item, and other customers may just think its something they'll use in the very near future.  I will admit that I myself rarely walk into a store and buy only the items on my original shopping list.  Overall, I definitely think we underestimate the ability of grocery stores to lure their customers into buying items they don't really need.

Starbucks: Bringing in Technology to Make It Even MORE Convenient to Purchase Coffee

     Several weeks ago, I introduced the up and coming idea, and great possibility, of mobile marketing.  The idea of using phone not only for your personal banking, but also for general transactions is becoming more and more popular, and Starbucks is quickly catching on.
     "In February, the company rolled out mobile payment functionality to all of its 6,800 company-operated US stores. The program allows customers to pay by waving their iPhone or Blackberry under the barista's scanner, which reads a barcode in the Starbucks app connected to the individual's preloaded Starbucks card.
"


     Also late month, Starbucks made it easy to distribute gift cards through the internet.  Now, customers can give their friends and family Starbucks gift cards through e-cards!  Starbucks is also using Facebook to advertise and reach their customer base.  Howard Shultz, the CEO of the company, applauded the marketing department of the company, saying that they were innovative, and cost-efficient in their promotional ideas, and that they were successful in expanding their marketing and finding new ways to become more competitive in their industry.  The company feels that they are coming back strong, thanks especially to their active involvement with social media.  They believe it has been a great help in improving their relationship with their customers.
     In December of 2009, Starbucks revised their reward plan into a three-tier loyalty program that lets customers advance the more they used their card.  "It has added 2.5 million loyalty members since its launch and there are 1 million Starbucks customers who have reached the gold-level status (using a registered card 30 times within a year). 
"  As you can see- Starbucks has been very conscious of the way their advertise their products and promote them.  Social networking for companies today can be extremely beneficial.  Are there any disadvantages to introducing all of this digital media and new technology into a company such as Starbucks?  Should they have spread out their introductions to e-cards and mobile payment methods, or is it appropriate that they install them one right after the other?


http://www.dmnews.com/bracing-pace-for-starbucks-cmo/article/197203/

In Response to Lia Moreggi's Post...

     I think a lot of people will deny that any of the "above the influence" ad campaigns have any effect on their thoughts.  But this is what many viewers seem to say about any type of ad- when scientific experiments have proven otherwise.  After watching a quick commercial sponsored by this campaign, I have caught myself thinking about it well after the commercial has passed.  I think it would be great if they included suicide prevention campaigns, because it seems to be an increasing problem in today's society.  I also think that it would be great to see speakers travel around and talking about the consequences of drugs and alcohol in high schools and colleges.  However, I also think that it would be difficult to attract a college crowd.  These are the years that many high schoolers wait for to experience new things when their parents aren't around.  So, the approach to providing knowledge for this group of people would have to be changed a little to better target college students.

Inspiring More Pork Consumers

     Many of us may be able to recognize pork as "the other white meat".  That image, however, may change rather quickly.  After almost 25 years, the National Pork Board has decided to change its name to "Pork.  Be Inspired".  The board plans to offer new recipes and creative ideas to entice consumers to purchase more pork. They say about 82 million Americans eat pork on a regular basis.  In changing the name, and introducing different meals that can include pork, they hope to increase their sales of the formerly known "other white meat". You may be asking the same question I did when I read this- Pork has been around for a very long time, so why change the signature line now?  But the board believes that their larger growth opportunity lies within the households that are already using pork, and that the industry just needs to come up with a more creative way to refresh the marketing strategy.  Do you think they are right in sticking with their client base?  Should they make more of an attempt to attract new pork consumers?  Do you think their new line, overall, will work?  Did it change YOUR mind about pork?

http://adage.com/article/news/pork-tagline-white-meat/149242/

In Response to Nikki Perry's Post

     From articles I have read, and news broadcasts I have heard, it seems that no matter where the proposal of building wind turbines, the process is slowed because of the number of people that oppose the idea.  In my opinion, it's a great idea.  Maine put in a whole set of turbines along a mountain range a few years ago.  Originally, people also criticized the projects ugliness, and all that these energy tools would take away from the spectacular and natural Maine beauty.  Others complained it would be much too loud (even though it was miles away from any town).  In my opinion, people need to realize that fossil fuels will not be available to us forever.  We all need to make sacrifices to help the transition.  And who knows, the wind turbines may only be temporary; until experts can come up with even MORE efficient ways to capture the natural energy available to us.

JC Penney Focuses on Digital Interactions

     JC Penney's 2010 fiscal year net sales were recently released, and show a 1.2% increase from 2009.  The Vice President of investor relations, Kristin Hays, says the reason for the company's recent success is thanks to their delivering digital interactions.  "We're focused on offering personalized impactful digital experiences and dramatically improving the shopping experience on JCP.com."  They've added new features on their website that helps customers easily navigate through their pages, introduced social media and digital coupons and released a new mobile site.  They admit that their reward program has grown to 26 million members.
     JC Penney, though catalog sales totaled $454 million in 2010, they recently cancelled their catalog distribution.  They expect sales to grow at a slower rate because of their decision.  Is this something JC Penney is doing to be more environmentally conscious; perhaps to appeal to more customers?  If people realize JC Penney is making more of an effort to go green...should the company expect a revenue larger than that of their 2010 catalog sales?  What are some other reasons that would convince JC Penney to get rid of a $454 million dollar sales opportunity?  Do you think this was a wise decision made by JC Penney administrators?

http://www.dmnews.com/jcpenneys-sales-increase-in-2010-as-retailer-shifts-focus-toward-e-commerce/article/197087/

In Response to Aubrey Menegus' Post

     The statement that struck me most about Aubrey's article was the statement that the Yahoo CEO made about Facebook being Yahoo's top competitor.  I strongly disagree that these two companies are able to compete against one another.  Yahoo is a search engine, whereas Facebook is a social network.  Their purpose and goals are completely different.  Therefore, I do not think that they can consider themselves competitors.  However, I think Yahoo could greatly benefit from being involved in Facebook's increasingly popular network.  From reading Aubrey's post, it sounds to me like Yahoo is trying too hard to become similar to Facebook (by incorporating things such as the "like" button)  I am not convinced such small, and behind-the-times changes will bring back Yahoo's 10% of users they have lost.  I think Yahoo needs to be much more creative than this, and step outside of the Facebook zone and come up with their own creative ideas and applications that will make their site more appealing to users.  The actions Yahoo is taking to "fit in"  will not help them; what they really need, instead, is to stand out.

Is iTunes in Need of a New Design?

     After a recent consumer survey, the annual Customer Experience Index seems to suggest that iTunes ratings are rather low for the number of people that use its account.  The Index rates a firm based on regular users' opinions on three principles: whether the service meets customer needs, the ease of working with the firm in general, and whether or not the customer enjoyed the interactions with the company.  Amazon and eBay did surprisingly well, ranking in the top 20 spots.  Apple's iTunes service, on the other hand, ended at number 46 of 133 companies.
     What surprised me the most, I think, was the popularity of iTunes.  This system allowed Apple to spread music easily and thoroughly.  ITunes received a lot of feedback as being confusing, overwhelming, and often less than elegant.  The iTunes service doesn't seem to live up to the same sleek design as other Apple products.  A majority of the participants surveyed are casual users, not incredibly technical geniuses. Despite the advanced capabilities of Apple products, shouldn't the firm also be sure to use designs, layouts, and language that is easily understood by casual users?  I think Apple needs to focus on making changes to their services in order to make the general public comfortable with maneuvering through their websites and services.  Do you think Apple should make these changes?  Or are they trying to find their angel customers, and weed out the "devil customers" by using language and designs that are not easily understood?

http://www.businessweek.com/the_thread/brandnewday/archives/2010/01/consumers_dont.html

In Response to Paige Culveyhouse

    The amount of money spent during the Superbowl is clearly not something that is overlooked.  Companies spend millions of dollars on 30 second advertisements.  In all honesty, I don't think companies spend all this money to simply promote their money and gain more revenue.  Sure, they hope that it will entice and encourage viewers to check out some of their products and services, but I think the majority of the reasoning behind these ads is simply for entertainment purposes.  These companies already have a large net profit, since they are able to pay for such pricey advertisements.  So do they really need to be spending it on promoting their name?  I don't think so.  I think companies submit ads to the Superbowl because it's what the viewers want to see.  They want to connect with companies that may share similar interests (i.e. sports) and be more apt to purchase products and services when they relate them to an entertaining commercial they saw at the 2011 Superbowl.  I think viewers like to see that companies are willing to spend money for the entertainment of their customers, instead of being driven ONLY by revenue.

Will Television Advertising Be No More?

     We've all been interrupted from our favorite shows and movies by the all too familiar television commercials.  But, recently, businesses are being forced to start coming up with new, and more creative marketing techniques. With the fairly recent launch of DVR, many advertisers believe that the effectiveness of the 30-minute promotional messages will be lost.  Companies are pushing the exploration of different media inputs for their ads, and some are looking to boost a larger part of their marketing straight to the web, decreasing their television advertising budgets over the next three years.
     Though many businesses and citizens alike will agree that television is a pretty big part of society, and the marketing world, and will remain strong, advertisers are being challenged to come up with new and innovative ways to target their markets.  But, with the cost of advertising, especially on television, adds yet another challenge.  Should companies continue to spend billions of dollars on advertising, when surveys are showing that the effectiveness of television ads are decreasing?  Or should they rely more heavily on finding some other way of communicating to potential customers?

http://www.marketingtoday.com/research/0306/tv_advertising_less_effective.htm

In Response to Matt Panicali's Post...

     As of today, I can finally say that I too have seen Social Networks!  I am astonished at how quickly the site took off, but not incredibly taken aback by its overall success.  Facebook is incredibly popular today, and has been used time and again as a great networking tool.  Not only as an innocent and playfully social networking, but also for business to network.  In my opinion, although Facebook is considered by many to be a "personal space", it's also on the internet which basically makes this target group fair game to marketers.  The advertisements posted on Facebook do not hastle account users, but are just present on the side.  They do not prevent you from seeing a friend's page, or from commenting on a status.  However, if a user is interested in looking through the list to see the different types of stores, products, and services that might interest said user, they are more than welcome to browse.  I think, from a business standpoint, this is a GREAT marketing tool.  Thousands of people use Facebook daily, and you have a chance to reach out to people all over the world through this website that is common ground.

Mobile Marketing?

     When the first telephone was invented, society at the time probably never expected anything like a mobile cell phone to ever be available to consumers.  At the same time, the telephone gave companies an entirely new way of marketing their products, services, and ideas.  Likewise, when the first computer was assembled, no one immediately thought that the laptop would be so popular so soon.  But with the computer and accompanying internet, companies have been able to once again expand their audiences.  Each advancement of technology has not only benefited society overall, but it has also greatly improved and increased the way marketers do their jobs.
     It's no secret that cell phones and other mobile devices have become incredibly popular, especially over the last few years.  So, perhaps it should be no surprise when Google executives estimate that by 2015, about 67% of consumer transactions will be done via some type of mobile equipment. (Martinez)  The population of mobile users is constantly growing, so it only makes sense that companies are working on breaking into this more technologically advanced group of consumers.  But with this new variation of consuming comes a new approach to marketing.
     Should we be concerned, then, with this new possible marketing strategy?  Chances are, whenever you make a purchase from your mobile device, all of your personal information that is usually stored today, will continue to be saved.  With this, companies can gather more information about you as a consumer.  To some, this may sound harmless- producers are learning more about their consumers, which can lead to companies offering more of what their clients want.  However, others may look into this new market strategy as more of an invasion of privacy.  With the internet, spam e-mails were created, companies got a hold of your e-mail and people were bombarded with advertisements, newsletters, and countless other irrelevant things.  So what if they could get a hold of the applications we use on our phones, websites we most often visit, perhaps even places we have been?  Instead of companies being able to view buying patterns based solely on your credit card information, mobile  purchases could quite easily be letting the consumer industry into your personal life.  Are YOU comfortable with Apple, Banana Republic, and Barnes and Noble Bookstore knowing your personal information?  I don't think I am.

http://www.dmnews.com/most-purchases-half-of-transactions-to-be-mobile-by-2015-google/article/195728/

Self Marketing Mix

     A large part of beginning any job search is based on what you, the seeker, want.  Are you looking to be a part of a large firm, or a small business?  Are you looking for an opportunity for promotions, or a title that you can call your own for a longer amount of time?  But a job search involves so much more.  In order to be successful and happy in your new placement, it is also important to take time to reflect on your values, your personal goals, and your dreams.  The marketing mix can help job seekers take time to understand these different parts, and find efficient ways to display your unique characteristics.

     The place is probably one of the first things people thing about when they begin a job search.  Do I want to try something in another part of the country or world?  Or would I rather stay in a place that I am comfortable and familiar with?  Obviously, this decision is critical in order to move forward in the search process.  The location of your future job can also have an effect on whether or not you need to start searching for a new home, or a new mode of transportation.  For example, if you live in the city, you can rely on public transportation, but in the country, you may need to think about financing for a vehicle.
 
     The price is also another important aspect when considering a new job.  Are you willing to work for less in order to outdo your competition?  Or have you set on a minimum asking salary, within reason, to be able to pay off bills and loans?  This may also have an effect on the place you choose to live due to financing and the funds that are available to you.  I would expect price to be one of the more difficult aspects of job searching.  Not only do seekers have less control over their pay, but the subject is rarely brought up in the first initial meeting(s).  Many people find it difficult and rather uncomfortable to talk about.  Therefore, it is important that time is taken to really figure out what your reasonable goals are, financially, and be able to voice those opinions and concerns with your future employer.

     The product in this case, ourselves, is rather straight forward.  This includes the relative basics of a general interview.  What is our background experience?  What kind of degree(s) have we received; and from which school(s)?  Are we able to present ourselves in a professional manner?  This may involve the language we use throughout the interview, to the way our resume is organized.  In this assignment, I believe the product aspect and the promotion aspect work hand-in-hand.  So, lets address some of the subjects that could be included in the promotion category.

     The promotion is quite possibly the most crucial aspect in any job search.  It is also, for the most part, entirely in your control.  This is a seeker's chance to show a potential employer that they are the right candidate for the job.  With this, we must be sure that we come prepared, and be able to successfully and efficiently promote ourselves.  This may include our background, and previous experience(s), but it can also include our strengths and the variety of things that we can bring to the table.  In my opinion, this is the part that requires the MOST thought and reflection.  How do we want our employers to view us?  Is it the type of job that would rather have me portray a comical and laid back self?  Or should I promote my professionalism and attention to detail?  The promotional aspect seems to give us a second chance at describing who we are, and lets us, in a way, control the way people see us- to a certain extent. So, when you're ready to begin searching for that new job...I suggest you spend the most time looking in the mirror and reflecting on the promotional aspect of the marketing mix.

Deciphering the Difference Among Marketing, Propaganda, and Advertising

     Prior to reading the definitions and descriptions of these three words, I have to admit that I had been using the terms marketing, propaganda, and advertising interchangeably.  In my mind, all three were used to lure the public into purchasing a service or product.  However, after reading each of their definitions, and more detailed descriptions of their purposes and strategies, I have come to find them incredibly different from one another.
     From the information I have gathered, marketing is a very strategic approach used by companies around the world.  Its job is to recognize and extract people and clients that are the most likely to be interested in their product or service.  This includes marketing to people in a certain age group, for example, or to a specific group within that, such as females from the age of 20 to 35 who have a full-time job and at least one child.  The latter example is known as a target market- a very specific group that you aim to please with a given product or service.
     Even though the general idea of propaganda is also to entice buyers to purchase a specific good or service, it has a slightly different approach than marketing.  Propaganda often has a negative connotation, and is usually considered the motive behind political commercials and other such sources.  The focus of propaganda is to mainly persuade viewers and listeners into supporting or rejecting the idea or product.
     Probably the most popular examples of advertising are television commercials.  The idea behind this technique is to create a short, but effective message to its viewers.  Instead of marketing, which seems to focus on a more statistic-based level, I would say that advertising is functioning on more of a psychological level.  When commercials flash pictures of fast food, you may not think that the picture has any effect on what you may think, or the way you think about something after you have watched it.  However, as quickly as the photos flash before your eyes, the brain is able to catch these glimpses, and can, in turn, create a variety of different thoughts.  Advertising reaches so many people through the numerous amounts and variations of the mass media.
     After reading and reflecting on the variations available to companies to promote their products and services, the biggest distinction I noticed was the difference in the number of people that were targeted by each of these strategies.  Clearly marketing and, more specifically, target marketing concentrates on a very small and specific group of people.  Propaganda, though they naturally address a larger group, still has a focus group in mind.  For example, in campaign promotions, the candidate typically focuses primarily on a specific party.  Advertising, however, has a much larger target audience.  Though each company has its own niche, advertising in general, because it is used in all different types of sources, a larger number of people are introduced to their messages.  But, after all the money that is spent on all different types of advertising for literally everyone to see, wouldn't it be more efficient to use more of a marketing approach instead?  Wouldn't it, as a manager, make more sense to focus the sales on those that you are confident already trust your product, or can at least be more easily persuaded to switch to your goods or services, as opposed to posting thousands of dollars worth in posters and commercials in hopes that someone will actually notice it and be convinced to immediately switch providers?