Yahoo News

Lately I have been shocked by the news headline I see on my Yahoo home page. To me, a lot of the information shared is not “news” but that does not stop me from scanning through the headlines and reading particular articles each day. Most of these headlines are depressing accidents or missing persons but some are light and gossipy. It grabs attention of readers with headlines such as, “Topless photo of…” with a beautiful celebrity’s name, which no photo is provided. I feel a lot of the time the articles are posted before the facts are know so they will then continue to update with new information by creating a new article.

A lot of there articles even have spelling and grammar errors. This takes away validity of the article and seems less professional. But I still continue to read them along with many others. It seems they want Americans to stay uninformed of the facts and not be as intelligent as there is dating advice and polls about celebrities outfits, things that are fun sometimes but irrelevant in the long run. It makes me think who chooses what to write about and if they are paid to cover certain topics, people, etc.

Do you think yahoo news is a marketing tool for publicity? Do you think yahoo has the right to publish information in an unprofessional way when thousands are exposed? Why do you think or how do you think yahoo chooses the content of their articles?

Response to Sean's Question: Does the brand name standing for something affect whether you like and/or buy the product?

I agree with Sean that Bud does not have a brand that stands for something due to so many variations. It can be confusing always seeing a new product and having various options, unsure of how they will taste when they are incomparable to the rest of the brand. Sometimes this will impact the brand if they are not an established brand, however that is not the case with Bud.

I do not think the brand name standing for something affects whether a consumer will buy a Bud product. Like Sean said, because he likes the product taste he will continue to purchase the product. I think Bud does a good job expanding their brand rather than scattering the brand name and what it stands for. Bud has taken the opportunity to make a higher alcohol content beer, which for what you are paying for is a better value for the higher content of alcohol and adds a little more class to beer trying to get it closer to liquor rather than a canned alcohol. Also the Bud Light Lime Lime-a-Rita is targeting women who typically are not beer drinkers.

Do you think more companies should add variety or is it better to have concrete products that stand for something? Is either more beneficial to the company or the consumer or both?

Response to Sean's Question: Why are businesses so popular marketing in New York?

As Sean had mentioned in his post, New York is filled with life. Not only is the state large, the population with in New York City is dense. Every person in NYC is chasing something, whether it be an acting or modeling career, a place on Wall street, or just trying to make it in the city. It is the job of marketing to target all those people. Social media helps marketers reach mass amounts of people in such a short period of time. It is efficient and very effective. Everyone wants to be clued in on the latest fashion or the newest thing, everyone is trying to reach the top and out do the others to stand out. Marketers can take advantage of that want people have to sell their products. By people wanting to exceed others they will spend money and be on alert for what is trending in the social media.

            It just makes sense popular businesses would market in New York due to the factors I listed above. By targeting such a broad range of people, using limited resources to reach millions will save the business money but will gain so much due to the large target market. A lot of people in New York are either wealthy or trying to appear as they are succeeding in the city life, so typically money isn’t an issue. This will also be good for businesses because they know people have money to spend on the latest products they are trying to sell. It is their job to get celebrities to back their product and everyone will follow their lead.

Do you think it is right that people care so much about what celebrity’s own/wear? Do you think our society would focus on more important things if they weren’t so focused on material possessions and money?

AMA Should John Sell the Information?

The AMA statement of ethics does not out right say it is not allowed to sell information from the survey. It eludes that is may not be considered ethical or responsible but nothing is mentioned about selling the information. The statement mostly focuses on not telling false information and not being racist, sexist, etc. basically just acting in an ethical way but at the discretion of who is making the decisions.

I voted that John should sell the information. As long as on the survey he did not state that the information would not be given out, I think it is fine to sell the information. I would have a problem however, and the AMA definitely would, with John selling the information if he had told those taking the survey that the information would not be sold or used elsewhere. That would be unethical and the people taking the survey would feel betrayed and would not trust the company again. I also think in a tough situation people usually push the limits on what is “ethical”. By selling the information John saves the company and does not have to lay off members of his business. To me, that is more beneficial than not selling the information as there is nothing stating it is illegal.

I think this is a common dilemma. People want information and money. I think people will try to sell the information they have for money, even if it is not the right thing to do. I often wonder how I get phone calls from blocked numbers wanting me to buy certain things that relate to items I have bought online. Sometimes I think companies sell my information to other companies if I express an interest in a particular type of clothing.

Do you think it is beneficial for companies to sell information? Do you think the backlash of selling the information out weighs the benefits? 

Response to Sean's Question: What's the best way retailers can achieve a healthy profit margin?

I agree with Sean’s post. When I purchased clothes I never thought about the stores profits or how they attained the price they post on the tags. What I think about most is if a price is too high or if it is a good deal. This is how most shoppers determine if they will purchase a product, based on satisfaction and perceived value.

I think the best way retailers can achieve a healthy profit margin is not to begin with too overpriced items. This way more customers will be willing to purchase the items at full price and will be less likely to wait to purchase the item when it goes on sale. Typically stores still make a profit even on sale items because other customers have purchased the product previously and the markup is so high there is still room for profit. However, like Sean had mentioned this is not a healthy profit margin to only rely on discounted sales and the previously made sales. Stores need to find the perfect balance so most of their inventory is sold at few price and the leftover from each season is sold at a discount so the retailer still earns a healthy profit margin.

What if all retailers stopped marking up their prices over 200% from what it costs to produce them? Do you think the industry would benefit from this or in the long run be damaged? 

Producing your own Product Line

While working on my marketing project I have thought about how much easier it is to produce a line and sell it in already existing stores than to open your own store. When opening a store you have to find a convenient location where people will see the store and be intrigued to come in, pay the rent, renovate anything that needs to be fixed or changed to suit your business, and pay salaries for those working in the store. If you create a line you take out all of those costs. What you need to worry about is keeping the price low enough because what I learned from the store in downtown Keene they markup prices 50% from what you sold the products to them, and what they sell them as on the shelves.

I think more people should try to start out with lines and work their way up to a store. By doing this I feel there is less risk, fewer businesses will close, and the entrepreneur will have less debt. I think people take on too much when they believe in their idea, which is not always a bad thing, but in a tough economy it is better to play it safe with finances. But with only having a line and going through another person there is less chance of gaining higher profit. This is an option the entrepreneur will have to decide for themselves to see which is better for them.

Do you think it is better to take the risk and open up a business right away? What would be other problems with only creating a line or opening a store?

Response to Parker's Gold Fish Jingle

I think jingles and slogans are one of the most important aspects of marketing. To have a memorable product can sometimes make the difference between decent sales and an immense amount of sales. For instance, if I was walking down the grocery store and saw gold fish I would instantly remember the commercial and its signature jingle. This would make me remember how delicious they looked in the commercial, making me purchase the gold fish over the unrecognizable pretzels next to it. To answer Parker’s question, the gold fish company came up with the ultimate marketing tool. Everyone loves gold fish though.

Do you think having a standout/recognizable, catchy jingle could make a poor product sell better? What makes a jingle successful versus too corny? 

Samsung-Apple Fight Moves to Marketing

I went to the New York Times website and found this article about Samsung’s marketing strategy to try to beat out apple. The Samsung Galaxy S III has been marketed with full-page ads listing its capabilities in comparison to the Iphone 5, which is put out by apple. Samsung is trying to demonstrate that although apple has the number one spot in the market the Galaxy has more to offer than the iphone. By showing the iphones limitations Samsung is hoping to gain attention to their product and directly "attack" apple in hopes of gaining the number one spot in cell phone brands.

This article also made me realize the downfall of not having specific patents. I did not know apple had a patent for the shape of their phone.  That really makes for inconveniences when the shape of a phone, no matter what brand, is very similar due to the function. This may be what some people take into consideration when purchasing a phone. A company with a key patent really will be beneficial to the company over competitors, even if this should not be such a high component to choosing a cell phone with a lot of capabilities considering the cost.

It must be hard to market a product when the majority of people already own the iphone and have no intention of switching to Samsung. It may be true that Galaxy S III has more technology and features but Samsung has to find a way to target up and coming cell phone buyers to purchase the Galaxy over the iphone. I think this article highlights that having brand recognition is highly important and that apple has that in the cell phone industry. I think it would be discouraging for Samsung to know their product is “better” in regard to capabilities, but is not number one in the market.

Do you think Samsungs ads will benefit their sales? What do you think they can do differently? Do you think any other phone will surpass the iphone? Do you think consumers are blinded to better/new technology because they are caught up in having an iphone?

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/19/business/media/samsung-apple-fight-moves-to-the-marketing-arena.html

Market Coverage

I personally think it is best to have a selective level of distribution within the market coverage. That way, consumers have to do some shopping around but overall it is convenient to find the product and the consumer doesn’t have to go out of their way to make the purchase. If it is too limited where to find the product then it will be a hassle to find the product or will have the consumer put of buying the product rather than grabbing it while they’re out.

Intensive really isn’t probable for all types of products because televisions are not going to be sold at gas stations. However, I do not agree that products should be exclusive. Having to buy a product in a specific place is trying to make the product seem of higher value and make the customers want to try and attain the product. The product can still be kept in an exclusive price range but it does not have to be kept in exclusive stores. More would be sold if it were easier to buy.

For example, Pandora used to be exclusive. Now they are carried in smaller jewelry stores not just at exclusive Pandora stores. The price has not changed but the popularity has increased. This is due to the fact the product is seen by more people and appeals to them when they are browsing in the jewelry store. Consumers may have never thought to purchase one before because they had not seen it. Having Pandora sold in more locations has definitely increased their sales and has been beneficial. I do not think you would lose clients just because additional stores were carrying the products, because the price is still the same, just more convenient to purchase. 

Which market coverage do you think is the most effective? Do you think it varies with the type of product? Is it more about the exclusivity than the actual product? 

Response to Sean's Question: Out of all these principles I just mentioned, which one do you believe is most important for small businesses and why?

I agree with all of the principles Sean included when it comes to small businesses. I think the most important would be getting your name out there. I think this leads to all the other principles. Once the business name is out there clients will be drawn to the company. They will then purchase products. If the product is of good value the customer will then become a repeat customer and the business can build a relationship with the customer. This will then have the customer recommend the business to others, which will cut out the need to focus on a target market due to the right target market being recommended from other customers. This will benefit the business because they will better use their resources since not as much advertising will be necessary to promote the business. With strong relationships with the customers and valued products the customers will bring in more business.

            A small business will need to mostly focus on the start up of their business. When the opening of the business occurs they need to be sure to get their name out there. I think in the end the rest will take care of itself especially in a small town where everyone talks. Getting your foot in the door is really what will determine if the business will survive the first year or have to close its doors.

What is the highest cost to businesses when starting a business? Do you think businesses should better distribute their costs into the different principles Sean had mentioned?            

Response to Matt's Post: Social Media Marketing

I think it is smart for Corporations to use Twitter and Facebook. I think especially

Facebook because the user can have pictures of the business, entertainment they have have to offer and have had in the past, contact information, present deals and specials, and upcoming events. I do not have a twitter so I cannot speak about the Twitter aspect but I feel either would be beneficial especially how Matt pointed out that it is free of cost to advertise your business. However, I do understand the aspect of it becoming too informal and jeopardizing the reputation of the corporation. I think the corporation would have to decide if this type of advertising was appropriate depending on the product or service they provide. If it is too informal or low key then I would suggest other types of advertising.

I think especially small local businesses would benefit because they have less money to spend on advertising than corporations. I also do not think small businesses would jeopardize the reputation of the business because it allows them to reach out to their customers in a more personal way. Small, local businesses will be able to have the social media support of those in the town and with positive reviews and “likes” on Facebook others may be prompted to go to the business.

Fritz could post their daily specials and those following might be more likely to go into the restaurant that day because the special sounds good, where they otherwise may not have thought to go to the restaurant that day. Also, being on social media keeps the business relevant and will keep Fritz on the minds of the people so they will be more likely to want to go to Fritz over another restaurant they may not think to go to. It also adds a personal touch opening up to the public and connecting with the locals who give them their business. I know I have “liked” many businesses from my hometown to show support and it is good to see what is going on and the deals.

What would be another downfall of having a company on social media? Do you think the benefits outweigh the potential downside? 

Dr. Pepper 10

Dr. Pepper 10 is a product put out by Dr. Pepper. In class we talked about how they received a lot of negative attention because the slogan was “It’s not for women.” I can see how this can be taken offense to, I however thought it was part of the commercial with how the scene was a man doing a lot of “manly” things. I thought it was pretty clever so guys would want to try it because it still had all the bold flavor as original Dr. Pepper and they would not feel out of place drinking a lighter soda.

I do think it was too far to make more commercials based off that. I completely understand how they were trying to market diet soda to men by calling it Dr. Pepper 10 instead of Diet Dr. Pepper. I even agree with changing the can so it does not undermine the original soda. I do think they could have had additional commercials that were more generic, targeting any gender.

But what I don’t understand is I have seen plenty of men drink diet coke. Coke is such a popular brand and flavor that diet or original is satisfactory depending on preference. Maybe Dr. Pepper isn't a popular enough soda to try to also had a diet soda and an original. I also think men don’t typically drink diet soda because they do not care as much about their figure as women. I do not think any marketing would make men drink Dr. Pepper 10 unless they were trying to lose weight and really loved Dr. Pepper. If the company was looking for ways to target men they should look into other aspects.

Do you think companies would be more successful if they market towards one gender only? Does the product come into effect, is it who is more likely to purchase the product to begin with?

Response to Sean's Question: What is the Biggest Edge one Business has Over the Other in Marketing?

The biggest edge one business has over the other in marketing is creative ideas. Whichever company can gain consumers interest more effectively will gain a larger profit and do better than their competitors. Time is also a key factor. The quicker a company gets their product into the market the quicker they earn money and the greater edge they have over their competitors who take longer to market their products. I agree with Sean when he said having a group of marketers is more effective because they can pool their ideas. This also goes along with having an edge because the more ideas, the more creative ideas, and the faster they can market their products.

Can companies rely simply on consumers buying or do they need to make the consumers feel they need to buy what they are selling? Is that why consumers are less likely to buy in this economy because they are unsure of what they actually “need”?

Places and the Products Being Sold

Our group project has made me think about how important it is to sell the right product, at the right price, in the right place. Where I live in Wolfeboro, NH everyone assumes those who live there are wealthy and or on vacation. The stores in our downtown consist of fast food restaurants or fancy restaurants and souvenir shops. Everything is over priced and there are no necessities. The downtown is geared for tourists. I could not tell you where to buy a pair of socks in my town, which makes it is very inconvenient. I understand our population triples in the summer so the town caters to those visiting where there is room for a large profit to be made, but in the winter you would think prices would drop and or more useful items would restock the Lake Winnipesaukee T-Shirts that no one who lives in Wolfeboro would actually wear. There is nothing I would purchase in my town unless it was a gift for someone. 

In the past few years the economy has not been as strong and it shows because there is less traffic in town during summer compared to later years. So one can assume the businesses are not doing as well because there isn’t the same volume of people coming into their stores. I would think the businesses would start to swap out some of their inventory for the locals who are always there and looking to save on gas money when they just need to pick up a few things. (Closest stores are about an hour away.) 

Do you think the businesses would be more profitable if they change their prices and or products? Do you think it is good for a town to only rely on tourists to earn profit? Do you think the businesses have to comply with an all or nothing change?

Response to Drew's Question: Has a family member or social setting influenced you in purchasing a certain product?

Yes I have had a family member influence me into purchasing a product, multiple times. My mom and I are very close so I trust her opinion. Whenever I have a problem I typically take her advice. Pertaining to cosmetics, I have very dry skin and she suggested Olay products. I will never again buy another face lotion due to how well their product works. I am willing to pay more than a cheaper drug store alternative because I know it moisturizes my face without it being oily or breaking out. Social media has also influenced me because if I see people "liking" a page or talking about certain products I will be more likely to try them. Anytime I hear another person using a product and see them give it good reviews I will definitely give it a shot.

That is why it is important for a company to have good customer service and strong products. Ways for a company to earn business isn't just through marketing it is after the marketing has gotten a consumer to try the product and satisfying them so they will recommend and speak highly of the product. I think a lot of people hear about products this way and not even through advertisements. Word of mouth travels quickly so a company can only hope they have prepared enough that what is being said earns them more customers to gain revenue. 

Do you think companies earn more business from advertising or from customers recommending and spreading the word about a product?

Companies Pairing up to Create New Products

While I’ve been home over break I have been able to watch more television. I have seen plenty of commercials but have been surprised with the number of companies partnering up with new products. The two that stood out to me were command strips with febreze and venus with olay. Command strips now allow febreze to be stuck up anywhere to give a fresh scent. Olay now has a moisture bar on venus razors for a more comfortable shave.

I have noticed the companies who pair up are equally popular and profitable products. I think that is to attract more or new customers to existing products due to established and trusted brands. These products also are making tasks more convenient without the company having to produce a new type of product, simply pairing with another.

I think this is a great idea. I think companies will benefit from this and increase sales. I use venus razors and olay face lotion. This makes me more likely to try the venus and olay razor to see if it improves my shave over the regular razors.

Do you think it is smart for companies to pair up? Do you think one company benefits more than the other? 

Response to Sean's Question: Does Branding Make the Product?

I agree with Sean’s post. I too had never thought about consumers buying a product because of the label. It does seem like we are paying more attention to the brand rather than the product we are purchasing. I cannot imagine if a product had no label. I buy things because of the brand a lot of the times because I know the quality will be the same. When I am purchasing a product I have never bought before, if I am indecisive between 2 products I will choose the one with better packaging because if it looks better the product will be better is my logic. I also agree that due to the number of brands we are overwhelmed and tend to forget about what we are actually purchasing and not choosing the “better” brand.

Do you think if products had no labels or brands were not as prevalent that consumers would pay the extra money or would they focus more on the product? Do you think there is an actual difference in the product or is it strictly different brand names? 

Brands

In class we have been talking about branding. I think one of the most important accomplishments a company can make is establishing their brand. Once a company has done this they can rely on repeat customers, which is easier than trying to advertise for new customers. With an established brand customers trust the product and may be more willing to try other products put out by the same company. They are typically willing to pay more for the quality of the product they are buying. Establishing a brand mark can be even more powerful because millions know what a simple logo symbolizes. For example the golden arches of McDonalds. Every person in the United States over the age of 2 knows there is a McDonalds when they see the iconic arches.

How do store brands or no name brands still make a profit? Sometimes it doesn’t matter if you purchase the generic brand or the name brand depending on what you are purchasing. I also think in this economy more people are switching to the generic brands to save money. Once the generic brands are tried the consumer may realize there is little to no difference between the products so they will continue to purchase the product because it is much cheaper. Once the generic brand has been tried and is comparable to the name brand the consumer will be more likely the next time to try another product from the generic brand to try to save even more money. Walmarts generic brand Great Value is always cheaper than the other products and consumers consider the taste and quality to be basically the same as brand names for most of the items they are purchasing.

Do you think if the economy stays the way it is generic brands will again become more popular than brand names? Do you think some people are so loyal to their name brands that they will never try a generic brand? Do you think just because a product is brand name it has the right to mark up their prices?

Response to Sean's Question: Is This the Next Big Successful Move in Marketing for Years to Come?

I do think this is the next big successful move in marketing. Because purpose based marketing has become a way of marketing there is competition for all companies to be socially responsible. Every business is going to move toward this trend to stay competitive because it is popular to be green and give back to the environment and community. There is no way companies will digress from this while others are moving forward and becoming more conscious. A customer is more likely to purchase a product of same quality, price, and value when the company is more socially responsible and has positive values then a company who is not.

I think the quote Sean provided perfectly describes what customers want, which shows customers want more from the company they are purchasing from. It makes the customer feel better about themselves for purchasing from a socially responsible company. Especially when more and more companies are in the news with negative press and the access we have to company’s records. 

Globalization Relative to Businesses

Globalization has had a large impact on society today, especially in relation to business. It can create a lot of opportunities for businesses but comes with a lot of additional problems. International businesses create a list of contacts through networking, a broad customer basis, and room for higher revenue. However it can cause stress and has strict regulations to follow.

If a business opens up overseas it has the opportunity to expand and can therefore create higher revenue. It can reach more people, and deliver products in a more efficient way. Shipping products will be easier and cost less for the company. The business can also create the products with lower labor costs adding to the higher margin for revenue.

But with high opportunity there is high risk. The company could take on more than it can handle. The company could lose money if the business is unsuccessful especially if they do not look into foreign customs and gather background knowledge for businesses. There could also be a lack of communication between the two headquarters and the business could suffer. If a business tries to expand too soon there will be a lot of stress to hire qualified employees to run the international side.

I think a business should expand when possible. Business is very competitive and to be a competitor businesses need to be international to keep up societal trends. The world is globalizing at a quick rate and soon everything will be offered worldwide. The benefits of expanding contacts, more efficient shipping, reaching more customers, and lower labor costs seem worth the risk especially when there is a good chance of becoming a successful, profitable international company. To establish an international brand is a great accomplishment and I think all businesses should strive towards this.

What do you think is the biggest risk of becoming an international business? Do you think the benefits out weigh the risks of becoming an international business? 

Environmental Analysis

In starting my Environmental Analysis for Gap Inc. I have found how wide spread the company is. It is hard to know where to start gathering data and to know how much information is enough. The external environment is one of the most important factors for marketers because if they do not understand it, the firm cannot intelligently plan for the future. Along with the marketing mix and other data gathered about the company one can then start to analyze what they gathered and see what is useful. A SWOT analysis is used to show what the company has to offer, what they need to work on and what may lead to problems.

I never knew how much time and effort went into assessing a company to decide what their marketing plan should include. So much data is gathered and analyzed before making decisions. I have gained a lot more insight into what marketers actually need to know before they try to sell a product. I was previously under the impression that anyone who is a good talker can sell anything but the environment, age, social class, and the market itself has a large impact on how easily something can be marketed.

I also never thought about competition and the market when it comes to large companies. Gap Inc. has other brands including Banana Republic, Old Navy, and piperlime just to name a few. It seems they cannot be beat because they have so much to offer at such high quality. It also appears they will never go out of business and do not need to worry about the recession because they have established a brand and everyone will always need clothing.

 I think the most important part of the environmental analysis is the SWOT analysis. In only doing one analysis a lot of factors are taken into consideration. The company will have a clear picture of their strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats. This will allow for less drastic surprises and the company will be able to react and change as needed. It is always good to know what you are good at and what needs improvements so the company can become better rounded and more successful and take chances where they find opportunity and close off the threats.

I think it would have been better for us to research a smaller company with not so many components because it appears each brand stands for something in itself and is hard to analyze data on Gap Inc. without compiling an overwhelming amount of data. 

Is it better to collect more data than necessary or does there come a point where there is so much data that it is confusing? Do larger companies have advantages or is it the people working within the companies who fuel the success in marketing based on the data gathered and analyzed? 

Response to Sean's Question: What do you think businesses would be like if they were all self regulated?

I agree with Sean’s post. Governmental regulatory agencies are more effective than self-regulations. They have more power and have a better handle on strict regulations they put in place and can better enforce them.

At first it would be easier to be self regulated so there is more freedom but in the long run it would be a mistake to take out Government regulations. If all businesses were self-regulated the guidelines would differ from company to company and there would most likely not be a common regulation for all, but specific regulations could be created in a more personalized manner to better suit the specific needs of the company.

But on the down side the companies may take advantage of being in charge and make less strict regulations in favor for themselves to create more profit and make things easier. The regulations would also not have as strong as enforcement as the Government regulations due to lack of money, power, and the want to enforce them. I think some companies would just write out regulations to look good but not actually follow them because there is less of a chance of someone checking up on it. Ultimately, I do not think companies would succeed without Government regulations. 

Do you think the government would ever give up the power of its regulations? What would have to change in the way companies are today for this scenario to even be possible?  

Media and marketing affecting self-esteem

Media plays a large role if our life. We see thousands of advertisements on television, billboards, magazines, and online. These shape the way Americans perceive what it is to be feminine or masculine, our perception is now skewed to unrealistic views and expectations. Beauty is distorted in our country due to what we are exposed to.

Advertisements typically feature men and women who have bodies unlike the average person, have heavy makeup, the latest clothes, and or have been altered in one way or another. Marketing takes advantage of men and women who think “if only…” If only I looked like that, if only I had that outfit. Due to this demand companies capitalize on products that claim to make you lose weight, gain muscle, overpriced makeup that will make you more beautiful, and designer clothes that will make you look better. This gets people to spend money on things having unrealistic hopes for the outcome of the products. It is a waste of money and does not help a person’s self-esteem.

Marketing these products is harmful to society. Companies should not feature only a small percentage of people in their advertisements or should be sure to say when a person is altered in any way in the advertisement (Photoshop or plastic surgery). Not only are companies taking advantage of those who are unhappy with themselves they are allowing people to spend their money on things they may not have money for to be “accepted” in our society.

I am by no means a feminist, and am not trying to be hypocritical due to the fact that I buy some of these products and do care about what other people think of me. Everyone has insecurities but with more and more marketing of these products people are unable to tell what is real and what is not. I have a problem with young girls seeing these commercials and advertisements and becoming self-conscious and having eating disorders to look like the women they look up to. Generations are progressively getting worse due to younger ages being targets for marketing. I did not grow up around this from a young age so I understand the difference but even still am impacted by these stereotypes. These younger generations have been exposed to this all their life.

Women Example: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iYhCn0jf46U

Men Example: (skip to 2:30) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-_I17cK1ltY

Do you think a person should be strong enough to deal with media and stereotypes on their own or should the media and marketing strategies be changed? Do you think companies feel bad for false advertising and taking advantage of people buying products to improve their appearance? Do you think if “regular” people had always been featured in advertisements that there would be less self-esteem problems in America?

Response to Sean's Question: Is money the most important factor in marketing for businesses?

I agree with Sean’s connection to Coors Light beer. They try to market their product by the design of the can and how cold their beer is which any beer can achieve by putting them in the fridge. With other options in the same field a consumer is expected to pick a better tasting beer with better marketing skills attracting them to the product.

I think to an extent money is the most important factor in marketing because you can not market a product without money. But if the company comes up with a very creative way to market their product they have the ability to attract new customers who are impressed with their product, message, or the picture they envision. If the marketing is creative and catchy enough then only a small amount of money is needed to promote because the product and ideas speak for themselves.

It really is about how you attract the customers and how they feel buying a product that is most important rather than the money you spend marketing. Coors Light probably spends a lot of money putting out television advertisements for their beer and marketing their slogan "as cold as the Rockies”, but all the money spent putting their name out there wouldn’t make people purchase the beer if it doesn’t taste good, especially when there are other options. 

I was extremely disappointed with the Super Bowl commercials this year. All of those companies, etc. spent a ridiculous amount of money for a thirty second slot to be viewed nationwide, however, with the exception of a few, I was not interested in any of the products that were being advertised. This is an example of how money can not be more important over creative ideas and good marketing strategies. 

Do the majority of companies allot their resources properly between money spent on the actual marketing of a product and hiring employees to come up with a creative ideas? Do you think some businesses would still be in business today if they had better used their money and had more creative marketing to attract customers, or is this irrelevant depending on the product itself?