In response to Drew Farrar's post "What do you think of the commercial? Do you find it humorous or offensive?" K-Mart Ship your pants.

I find the commercial hilarious. One of the better commercials I've seen this year. It catches your attention from the very beginning. The wit and humor strategy is one of the more effective strategies in advertising. Especially since the commercial is one of the funnier ones, it makes you remember the product, the company, and the commercial. Something like this commercial gets attention on YouTube, and friends will show other friends how funny this commercial is. Regardless if you find this commercial funny or offensive, it will get attention from the audience which is the ultimate goal for an advertisement. Can you think of a commercial that actually offended you?

There are plenty of different advertising techniques that we see in commercials. The most popular techniques are plain folks, bribery, testimonial, wit and humor, facts and figures, and bandwagon. Plain folks uses the strategy that any everyday person uses the company's product. Bribery gives an extra incentive to buy the product like, buy one get one free. Testimonial is a strategy to use a famous actor, athlete, or person to advertise the company's product. Just like how Gregg Jennings was a spokesperson for Old Spice. Wit and Humor gives the audience a reason to laugh at the commercial to remember their product or service. Facts and figures gives statistics and factual figures to promote the superiority of the product. Bandwagon is a form of propaganda that tries to get you to join the crowd, and that everyone is doing it. Out of all of these main advertising techniques, which one do you think is the most effective for a T.V commercial?

Dove is trying a new marketing strategy called "Real Beauty" where they take girls that are not supermodel status but use them as the faces for their products saying that real beauty are the everyday girls that buy the product of Dove, not the supermodels that try and sell that. There is a controversy though that Dove is encouraging girls that they don't need to try to be healthy to be beautiful. This could promote a more unhealthy eating style of younger girls, instead of girls trying to be skinny to look like the models we see in everyday lives. The only problem is that younger girls need to focus on a happy medium between the extreme of Victoria Secret skinny and being able to be unhealthy or overweight. There isn't much focus on being healthy, but not to an extreme like a Victoria Secret model. Would it be effective to have a variety of different women (age, ethnicity, weight, etc) to market the same product or company all together?

In response to Allison Ray's post "Do you buy Fiji water or Smart water over a brand like "Cumberland Farms Natural Spring Water?" Even though it is more expensive, why would you buy it?"

All of the water to me is the same. It is all too similar to actually have a preference over which water is the best water. I usually still get a more famous brand like Poland Spring though since they have the most water bottles in a case. I don't shy away from other water bottles if Poland Spring isn't there. It is just the most convenient one for me to get usually. Are there any other products that you think isn't any different from their competitor's product?

In response to Cote Lagerberg "The advertisements themselves are supposed to be based off of what we look up and suggestion of what are friends like. My question is do you think this is an effective form of marketing?"

I think it is a good marketing strategy since they take the pages you like and realize what you are most interested in. For someone that really likes sports, they might like a lot of pages on Facebook about sports. On the side will pop up advertisements of maybe a jersey store and that sports fan could buy one just because they got that idea from Facebook. Anytime you can get an interest of your consumers in a product, I think it is a good marketing strategy. With everyone using Facebook now, Is it more effective to put an advertisement on Facebook, or cable?

Profits & Markups in the Fashion Industry (or, Did Banana Republic Make Money Off My $20 Dress?

Banana Republic is a store with usually higher quality brands. If they sell a dress for only 20 dollars, according to the math done in this article, the dress would only cost the company about 5 dollars to make. Now, I doubt that Gap Inc was making these dresses and selling them for the correct price. This still isn't bad for the company even if they made little profit off of each dress, say 5 dollars instead of 15. They were getting rid of excess inventory quick with cheaper dresses, and this will draw in customers to show that Banana Republic isn't just a store with high quality, high priced items. They actually have an item or two that is a "good deal". Even with the deal the customers are now in the store and are more willing to buy the products since they are already buying one of the products. Do you think it is a good marketing strategy to sell a product for almost no profit value to draw in customers to your store?

In response to Kevin Provost's post, "Do you think if Dodge threw some big gulp cup holders and an automatic transmission in the Dart that it would sell more units?"

I completely believe that they would have. In America the majority of cars that people drive are automatic transmissions. The car isn't targeted to be bought buy americans. It is targeted to be bought by Europeans. Americans, for the most part, aren't going to buy a European style car. They would have to make it more for americans, which would be throwing in an automatic transmission and the big gulp cup holders. Sports cars don;t sell well in america, and the Dodge Dart is just an example of one car that should sell more but won't because of how our society is. When looking for a new car, what is most important to you?

The technology we have today makes it a lot easier for anyone to put their name out there and get famous. A couple of  famous singers already have posted a video of them on youtube and have gotten a record deal because of it. Singers such as Justin Bieber and Carley Rae Jepsen started their careers through advertising themselves on a free public website for anyone to see. The type of marketing and advertisement changes constantly the more evolved we get as a society. Ten years ago no one got famous by putting a video of themselves on the internet. Now people can make millions of dollars by putting their name out there and getting the right person to contact them. Does the ability to get famous lose its credibility because of the internet?

In response to Allison Ray's post. "Do commercials with catchy songs tend to have a greater, longer lasting effect on you? Does it make you picture the product in the commercial every time you hear the song? For me, it leaves a long lasting impression in my head of the product when it is correlated to a song I like, does it do this for you?"

Catchy songs are always a plot to try and get you to remember the product. This happens to me alot. You see a commerical on TV with a catchy song and that song gets stuck in your head. Now, if you hum a tune it could be the catchy song earlier in the day which then reminds of the product that you saw on TV. In my opinion, having a catchy song along with your TV commerical is the best way to get consumers to remember your product throughout their daily activites in their lives. Do you think there is a better advertising strategy than a catchy song to remember the product later in the day?

In response to Heather Young's post. "How big of an influence do you think product placement has when paired with celebrities?"

I think it is huge for a company to get a well known, loved person by a lot of fans. If there is a normal girl trying to advertise a perfume, not many girls are going to jump on the opportunity to buy it right away. Now if Beyonce was advertising that same perfume, at the same price, a bunch of girls will rush to buy it, only because Beyonce advertised it. This is why we see famous athletes, singers, and actors try and sell you something on a T.V advertisement, that they could care less of how it sells. Also, the bigger the name the more money the company will make off of saying that this famous athlete uses this soap, or this famous singer likes this makeup. Have you ever been influenced to buy something just because your favorite celebrity advertised it on TV?

My sister has her own successful business that she runs by herself. She is a personal trainer that gives you advice on how to be more fit, including workouts, diets, habits etc. She has recently gotten pregnant and can no longer do the workouts or eat like a person that is fit. Since she can't demonstrate the workouts, she has lost customers because of it, even though she is fully capable of still working if she had a sit down job. She advertises that she can help like any other personal trainer, but because of being pregnant, as of right now she is unable to teach workout classes or be acitve like a trainer. If you are a new customer and weren't told the personal trainer helping you is pregnant, do you believe it is false advertisement?

Mcdonalds and Burger King are very similar in terms of food, advertisement, and just overall company. One thing that Mcdonalds has is the Ronald Mcdonald House Charities. Mcdonalds has different charitable organizations to show that they care and help out the community. These charities though are used as advertisement to continue to produce the Mcdonalds name to anyone and everyone. I believe that Mcdonalds first opened a charity organization to attract customers into coming into their establishment to purchase more food, more frequently. To a consumer, a company that donates looks like it is more ethical and more inviting to the customer than a place that doesn't donate anything. Is it ethical to tell the customers that the company is donating to charity just to get more revenue?

In response to Julianne Braverman's post:

Do you think that you would be able to give up your cell phone for a day or a week and be able to get through the few days not being connected at all time?

I could definitely survive for a week without my cell phone but everythnig wouldn't be the same. Our generation is dependent on using our cell phones to contact one another every single day. I would hang out with my friends less, and do less activities in general because i wouldn't have a way to contact anyone. There are not many people that could go too long without their phone in our generation. The problem would be socializing without a phone. It is almost impossible in my eyes to be socially connected with everyone and not have a cell phone in today's world.

As a consumer, I feel as if I am not affected by brand names or logos to convince me to buy a product. Companies spend too much time advertising their brand instead of more an advertisement of their product or service. If the product or service is at top quality then people will come regardless of what your brand looks like.Companies like Absolut and Starbucks want to prove that they don't need their famous brands to sell their stuff. Absolut can still sell their alcohol without a brand and Starbucks can open up a coffee shop with a different name and still be successful. Brand names are not what matters. It's how the company is run, and how much demand for their product or service there is. Do you think brand names or logos are an important impact on the selling of the product?

In repsonse to William Redding's question "Do you think this is a good market strategy for Best Buy? Do you think this policy will help with Best Buy's poor stock performance?"

I think this market strategy will be effective for Best Buy. If Best Buy has compition that is offering cheaper prices for goods they sell, then no one will go to Best Buy to buy their products. If they match anyone else, then this garuantees that you can always get the cheapest deal at Best Buy. Best Buy will take in more sales, which will turn inventory faster, and generate more profit. Enough profit for them to get back in the stock market and make a difference in their performance.

The board of directors at Dell Inc recently announced that there company is going private after being public for so long. The company was bought and merged with Michael Dell and Silver Lake. The stockholders are recieving $13.65 per share since their stocks will be useless when the merger happens. The company can now do a lot fo different things since they are their own private company. When Dell was a public company, they had to listen to stockholders, and their critisism since stockholders own part of Dell Inc. The company was falling under stockholder's pressure. The company wanted to turn one way, and the stockholders wanted to turn another. Dell says it is the best move for everyone since they paid over 25% of what the actual shares are worth in the stock market now. Even though Dell had to overpirce their shares to pay the stockholders off, do you think it would be worth it?

In response to Parker Hayes question, "Do you think it is worth it for a company such as GoDaddy to spend 4million dollars on a 30 second spot, where 20 seconds of it is the sound of kissing?"

In my opinion I do believe that it was worth it. The Superbowl, is one of, if not, the most watched event in the world. Also, because of how outrageous there commercial was, it was the only commercial that I remember from the Superbowl. They used their money to the fullest and got the most remembered commercial in the most watched event it could get. The Superbowl is known for it's commercials and since GoDaddy had a memorable one, that draws attention and publicity to the company. Maybe it wasn't all great publicity, but any type of publicity is an advantage for a company. Do you have a commercial that you think was more memorable than the GoDaddy commercial?

1.       A year after Product (RED)’s launch, Ad Age reported that although $100 million had been spent on marketing the campaign, only about $25 million had gone to the charity itself. Industry observers speculated that this could trigger a backlash against the campaign. Do you believe the criticism is justified? Do you think the campaign could lose supporters as a result?

I believe the criticism is justified. If I was a supporter of this campaign I would be furious. This is a campaign where 100% of the profits are supposd to go to charity. Then, it would be ethical to spend only 50% of those profits to advertising, and marketing. If this was true for this company then, at most, the company should have only spent 62.5 million on advertising and marketing. Almost 40 million dollars in advertising could instead have went to a better cause, like charity. This is a type of company that is looked at like they are helping out the world but they are giving the money away to other companies that don't need it, instead of to the charity it is supposed to go to. I would say something to the company if I was a supporter. Do you believe that this company is still as ethical as it seems?

1) Can the marketing concept reach a point of diminishing returns? That is, is there a point at which marketers can offer too much choice to too many consumers (try to satisfy too many needs/wants), or is the proliferation of product choices indicative of successful implementation of the marketing concept?

I believe that the market can reach a point of diminishing returns. Say Skippy's Peanut Butter comes out with newer and more peanut butter flavor options. The demand for peanut butter isn't high enough for the company to make a profit or to be successful if they sell 50 different flavors. Consumers get overwhelmed with too many options that a company has, and sometimes the consumer won't buy any product from the company with too many options. Consumers choose between Skippy's select few flavors and options and that is all that Skippy's need to be a successful company. Anymore production of a different type of peanut butter could put them out of business. Larger companies, like GM have failed for trying to make too many products to not enough customers demanding for their products. Any company can reach a point of diminishing returns,whether they are selling cars, hats, food, etc. If the consumer has too many options a company could be producing a product that could be losing them money. Is there a company that has overwhelmed you with too many different products to choose from?