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/