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?