Response to Jocelyn Fredrick's Lean In Post

            

Do you think it is important for woman to be working together to make a stand in a man’s world? 



               While I'm not sure how these "Oprah sessions" work or how one would go about to get into one, I do believe that it is important for women to work together to make a stand in a "man's" world. There is a large disparity between men and women in the workplace that favor the men and (speaking from a male perspective) men are not going to go out of their way to fix the gap. Life is full of inequalities that a person is given at birth; it will only be changed by those that must endure those inequalities. For inequalities between men and women that means that women must be the ones to change and fight these inequalities, not men. Seriously, if you have an advantage over your competition are you going to go out of your way to "level" the playing field? That's a rhetorical question by the way because the answer to that is NO. If that's not your answer then you, my friend, are in for a rough trip as a business major. This "book club" kind of social group will increase women's connections within the business world and bring them one step closer to and equal playing field with men.

Sex Sells for Airlines

                  In an article by Ramy Inocencio Frances Cha the age old question of "do sexy flight attendants sell seats" is asked. The answer for the Thailand airline, Nok Air, seems to be yes. Early in the year they began a campaign with a photo shoot of their flight attendants in bikinis (for those who don't know, Nok Air's flight attendants start their job at the age of 23 with beauty and weight regulations, and don't last more than 5 years on average). They posted the shoot on Facebook and immediately received 200,000 likes. It also increased their international passenger percentage from 10% to 18% and created huge publicity for the small domestic airline.  While the "sexy" stewardess has long gone the way of the dinosaur in America and most countries in Europe, it is standard practice in Asia. Most airlines in Asia have similar unofficial requirements for their stewardesses and aviation schools of the region preach physical fitness. For me personally I do not take issue with this. The labor pool to pick from is so vast that airlines can make whatever requirements they want and there will still be too many qualified applicants to hire. While there are moral and ethical issues behind such practices, there is no legal issue at stake. Nok Air and other Asian airlines are trying to be more appealing to their target market and they feel that this way is the best way to do so. Who are we to say they're wrong?

My question to whoever read what I wrote is this:
Do you believe that there should be laws in place to stop this? Also (if you are against the above mentioned practice) in America why aren't there laws that don't prevent models from having unofficial physical requirements?

Or, with the above question in mind, answer me this:

 If a company is trying to promote or create an image for themselves what makes it acceptable/unacceptable for them to promote/create it?  

http://www.cnn.com/2013/03/20/travel/asia-flight-attendants/index.html?iref=allsearch 

Response to Gina Palomba's Post

Do you think reference groups reduce the search and evaluation of decisions? 

Speaking from a personal perspective i believe reference groups do reduce search and evaluation. The first source of information I go to in deciding a product to purchase are my friends. I go to them first because I know time personally and know that the only bias they have with products are from their personal experience with that product. With expensive or long term products, like a laptop, I may then go to other unbiased sources such as personal reviews or third party and specialist reviews of product. Overall though in any product in which I need help in evaluating a product I will go through primary reference groups.

Zip Code now considered Private Information

          In an article by A. Pawlowski of NBC news two states have declared that asking for an individuals zip code violates their privacy laws. The reasoning behind this is that companies are using people's zip code, along with the other information the customer provides, to find out the customer's address, phone, number, and other personal information. With this information they can bombard the customer with advertisements such as catalogs, discount cards, and other such marketing techniques. While the article does not go into identity theft, it is another aspect of this issue that should be considered. If companies can take that information to find where someone lives, how much would that information help someone steal your identity? While I have never considered my zip code as personal information--if it can be used to track where someone lives and make it easier to attain personal information that would otherwise be unknown to someone--it appears that with the continuous advances in technology it is just as important to protect as personal information. It also makes me wonder what other seemingly benign information that I wouldn't hesitate to give out can be used to get my personal info and steal my identity.

 http://www.nbcnews.com/business/should-you-tell-stores-your-zip-code-privacy-advocates-say-1C8912007

A company asking for a zip code is just another tool they use to better understand and target their customer. Do you believe that companies should be allowed to ask for zip codes or do you think it should be considered personal information and why?   

Response to Allison Ray's post

Have you ever gone to buy something online, and once you see the shipping price decide not to buy it anymore? Are you more likely to search for a product offered on a website with free shipping site wide, rather than a website not offering free shipping site wide? 

I have shopped online and and decided not to buy something because of the shipping price. The only reason I chose to buy online over going to the store is because there is a significantly cheaper price. The shipping cost only factors into buying something if it makes the overall cost is more than or close to the regular price of the item at store value. This usually type of scenario happens when i need something rushed. If I need it rushed, but the price for it is more or about the same as the price at the store, I will always buy it from the store. Like any consumer I am more likely to shop at an online store if there is free shipping than one without free shipping. I have also at times bought more items than i originally intended because the store offers free shipping/free express shipping if you buy a certain amount.

Branding in America

          The article by Naomi Klen about how branding has entered every part of American culture. It was interesting to look at elections, war, and politics from a marketing perspective. Normally you don't think of war from a marketing perspective, but with the amount of coverage possible today to show citizens back home what is happening over there it is important to market the war so that the government continues to get support. Learning from the Iraq War, the government changed their marketing tactics to make it and strategy so that they gain support not only from people back in the United States but also in Afghanistan. With the "Hearts and minds" campaign the marketing tactic has been not show strength, but rather aid. Through marketing their brand which this philanthropic approach the American government is attempting to garnish support from the locals to win the war.             

 Even though branding is usually exclusive with corporations it seems that there is branding with everything in the world, from religion to individuals. Can you think of other areas that practice branding and how do they do it?









http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2010/jan/16/naomi-klein-branding-obama-america

Response to Parker Hayes Post

Do you think government agencies are always thinking about what is best for the consumers? Or is there something or someone else at the top of their priority list?

I believe that government agencies are not always thinking best about consumers. In any type of system of structure that involves money and power there will always be some form of existence of corruption. No structure is perfect, and thus even in government agencies policies and rules will be put in place that will not have whats best for the customer in mind, but what's best for the company. While these imperfections are unavoidable the existence for these agencies is still necessary because without them then there would be no one thinking about what is best for the consumer in ethical terms. While companies do self regulate, it is more the fear of getting caught doing something wrong and paying for it than the actual well-being of the customer--especially when it could negatively affect their profits.