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.
Saturday, March 2, 2013
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
Tuesday, February 26, 2013
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.
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.
Wednesday, February 20, 2013
Losing Manufacturing
In a recent article by Maurice Taylor, CEO of tire manufacture Titan,
replied "How stupid do you think we are ... Titan is going to buy a
Chinese tire company or an Indian one, pay less than one Euro per hour wage and
ship all the tires France needs, You can keep the so-called workers." When
asked if he was interested in purchasing a Goodyear tire factory that was going
to close and put 1,000 workers out of work in Amiens, France. This trend of
manufacturing jobs going overseas to countries like China and India is a
problem not just in France, but in most of the developed countries of the
world.
More and more businesses send their manufacturing away because the costs to keep a domestic plant are too expensive, with high employee wages and government restrictions. While the manufacturing jobs going overseas means the customer has to pay less for what they want; it means the customer is out of a job. Much of middle class America was founded in blue collar jobs—jobs that are disappearing. Today it seems that the middle-class workforce of America is white collar. The problem is—or rather the question—are there enough white collar jobs to sustain the American middle-class population? Looking to America's neighbors in Europe, the answer appears to be NO. Since the industrial revolution employment and prosperity of a nation has rested in the manufacturing sector, and while we believe we've moved onto the next revolution with the internet, that fact hasn't changed.
The European Union's unemployment rate is 11%, France's is over 10%, Italy 11%, German 5.5%, United Kingdom 7.7%, Spain 26.2%. The United States is 7.8% as of now. As for the countries that these manufacturing jobs are going to: China 4.1%, India 3.8%, and Vietnam 2.9%. As demand for companies to have workers in the United States and Europe decreasing it appears the governments need to find a new way to market their workforce to a company.
Do you believe that a country’s prosperity is tied directly to its manufacturing industry? Why/Why not? How can countries like Spain and France re-market their workforce to attract business back to their country?
http://www.nbcnews.com/business/us-ceo-france-you-can-keep-your-so-called-workers-1C8448612
More and more businesses send their manufacturing away because the costs to keep a domestic plant are too expensive, with high employee wages and government restrictions. While the manufacturing jobs going overseas means the customer has to pay less for what they want; it means the customer is out of a job. Much of middle class America was founded in blue collar jobs—jobs that are disappearing. Today it seems that the middle-class workforce of America is white collar. The problem is—or rather the question—are there enough white collar jobs to sustain the American middle-class population? Looking to America's neighbors in Europe, the answer appears to be NO. Since the industrial revolution employment and prosperity of a nation has rested in the manufacturing sector, and while we believe we've moved onto the next revolution with the internet, that fact hasn't changed.
The European Union's unemployment rate is 11%, France's is over 10%, Italy 11%, German 5.5%, United Kingdom 7.7%, Spain 26.2%. The United States is 7.8% as of now. As for the countries that these manufacturing jobs are going to: China 4.1%, India 3.8%, and Vietnam 2.9%. As demand for companies to have workers in the United States and Europe decreasing it appears the governments need to find a new way to market their workforce to a company.
Do you believe that a country’s prosperity is tied directly to its manufacturing industry? Why/Why not? How can countries like Spain and France re-market their workforce to attract business back to their country?
http://www.nbcnews.com/business/us-ceo-france-you-can-keep-your-so-called-workers-1C8448612
Wednesday, February 13, 2013
Response to kristin Shea's Generation Y Post 2/13
Do you find yourself in need of a constant new item or toy? Do you find yourself to be a big spender or saver?
I find that for me personally I consider myself to be a saver. To me it is more important to have money in the bank for unexpected events and obstacles than to have the latest gadget. While most of our generation grew up as children in an age of American prosperity the recent recession that has affected this whole nation has changed many within our generation from spenders to savers. Especially within these last five years the value of a dollar is better understood by our generation and the realization that it is better to be comfortable and not worry about money or debt than to have an expensive or new product. While this is not true for everyone I think more people, not just in our generation but in every generation, have noticed a change in their spending habits and have become more wary and frugal with spending.
Regulations 2/13
Do you believe self
regulation is more or less effective than governmental regulatory
agencies? Why?
Self regulation is more effective than governmental regulatory agencies. A company can look internally and assess the ethics and legalities of its own business better than a Government agency because a company's sole interest is in its actions; whereas a government agency has to look over every company, and thus are more likely to miss an unethical practice. Evidence that self-regulation works better that governmental regulations can be found in companies that used to be unethical and made steps to make themselves the top ethical company’s in the country such as GE and GAP. Companies like Nestle are working on their own to try to leave behind their notorious reputation and become more ethical demonstrate the success of self regulation. The main reason self regulation is more effective is that companies that truly self regulate and have become ethical not only follow the law and do no harm to the community, but they are actually helping improve it. The difficulty is in making a company self regulate itself.
Self regulation is more effective than governmental regulatory agencies. A company can look internally and assess the ethics and legalities of its own business better than a Government agency because a company's sole interest is in its actions; whereas a government agency has to look over every company, and thus are more likely to miss an unethical practice. Evidence that self-regulation works better that governmental regulations can be found in companies that used to be unethical and made steps to make themselves the top ethical company’s in the country such as GE and GAP. Companies like Nestle are working on their own to try to leave behind their notorious reputation and become more ethical demonstrate the success of self regulation. The main reason self regulation is more effective is that companies that truly self regulate and have become ethical not only follow the law and do no harm to the community, but they are actually helping improve it. The difficulty is in making a company self regulate itself.
Companies such as Monsanto, Enron, Phillip
Morris USA, and Halliburton are companies that refuse to self regulation even
with the penalties they receive from government agencies. Phillip Morris, the
largest cigarette company in the United States, didn’t put Surgeon General’s
warning label on their
cartons until government regulations forced them. the government also had to force them to no
longer sell cigarettes in vending machines or be marketed toward children in
any manner. in the past 20 years Monsanto has sued farmers that use their seeds for saving seeds from one season's crop
to plant the next, which is a standard farming practice. They also tried
to patent pig breeding techniques so that any farmer who bred pigs would have
to pay Monsanto a gratuity. Monsanto has also
been sued for dumping of toxic waste, committing corrupt foreign practices, and
the harm that some of their chemical products has cause the community. It is for these types of companies that don't
self regulate that the governmental agencies such as the Federal Trade
Commission, the Food and Drug Administration, and Consumer Product Safety
Commission exist to at least make sure that the company is not harming society.
Government Regulations have only existed and been implemented in a relatively short amount of time. Since then many companies have become more environmentally, socially, and ethically conscious. Do you think there will ever be a time when we won't need government regulations? Why?
Government Regulations have only existed and been implemented in a relatively short amount of time. Since then many companies have become more environmentally, socially, and ethically conscious. Do you think there will ever be a time when we won't need government regulations? Why?
Wednesday, February 6, 2013
Response to Matt DaCosta Cause-Related Marketing
In what ways are cause-related marketing relationships good for the community? Are there any instances where they are not?
Cause related marketing is good for communities because the improvement of the community is one of the two objectives for he community. The other objective is to improve the companies public image and profits. Cause-related marketing in theory is supposed to be a win-win scenario for both the community and the company, however in practice it does have the ability to have an opposite affect for the community. The type of a cause-related market that would be bad for the community is one in which the company is producing something that is potentially harmful to the community or hurting the community through the company's method of production. An example of this was the KFC partnership with Susan G. Komen. For every bucket that KFC they would donate part of their sales to the Susan G. Komen foundation. The problem with this is that KFC chicken is very unhealthy and carries with it possible health risks. So while this cause related marketing helped the community in one way, by donating to the Susan G. Komen foundation, it seriously harmed the community in another way by endorsing an increase consumption of fatty deep fried KFC chicken.
Cause related marketing is good for communities because the improvement of the community is one of the two objectives for he community. The other objective is to improve the companies public image and profits. Cause-related marketing in theory is supposed to be a win-win scenario for both the community and the company, however in practice it does have the ability to have an opposite affect for the community. The type of a cause-related market that would be bad for the community is one in which the company is producing something that is potentially harmful to the community or hurting the community through the company's method of production. An example of this was the KFC partnership with Susan G. Komen. For every bucket that KFC they would donate part of their sales to the Susan G. Komen foundation. The problem with this is that KFC chicken is very unhealthy and carries with it possible health risks. So while this cause related marketing helped the community in one way, by donating to the Susan G. Komen foundation, it seriously harmed the community in another way by endorsing an increase consumption of fatty deep fried KFC chicken.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)