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.