Response to Julianne Braverman, Generation Y

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

I think just for a day I would be able to give up my phone.  But anything past that, saying a week or so, I would say there is little to no chance.  I understand with the fact that maybe our society may be a little bit to technology dependent at this point.  But the fact that we are now accustom to these new smart phones and everything, and are always able to be connected, it would be hard to just get rid of that now.  So the fact of giving up my cell phone may not be a choice for me.

No One Forgets a Fashion Label's Name When it's Strange

This article goes into the details of naming a companies line in the fashion industry.  Although I do not have much interest in the fashion industry, it is a very interesting concept.  A lot of fashion lines are just the names of the people who created them, aka Calvin Klein.  But this article talks about how boring that is.  Could this effecting sales?  This article seems to believe that an interesting name will help generate some interest.  Taking "4 circles in a square, 4 corners of city" to be an example.  Although people did have trouble remembering the name, the writer seems to think that almost remembering a name is still getting it more recognized then having it named something bland like a name or a country.  I agree with this writer.  I believe if you have a strange name, that is different from everyone else, it would help spark more interest.  It will stand out above the others, and people might not remember it word for word, but will defiantly recognized better than something bland.

What do you think?  If you had a company would you use something bland like a name?  Or would you put your neck out there a use a "strange name"?

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/07/fashion/no-one-forgets-a-fashion-labels-name-when-its-strange.html?ref=advertisingandmarketing&_r=0

Response to Cody Crawford's Post

It is hard to find a scenario in which a consumer can get a product or service they are satisfied with, but still not be satisfied with the company.  But when looking deeper into it, you can find some cases of this.  Such as a consumer can have a product in which they like the performance, and the price, but the fact that they were treated poorly by the store employees.  If the consumer gets bad attitude from an employee, they will  not be happy with the store, even if they product is great.  Another scenario in which this can be seen is a company that is not socially responsible.  A company can make a great product, but if the consumers find out that the company is not socially responsible, do not care about the environment and the society, the consumer will be turned off by the company.  Can you think of any other scenario's in which this case is true?




Do you think a consumer can get a product/service that they are satisfied with, but then not be satisfied with the company/business?

Self regulation vs. governmental regulation

When looking at the regulation of companies, it seems that governmental regulation is getting weaker and weaker by the year.  It seems that the United States is looking for something to fix this problem.  It has been mentioned that maybe we should let companies self regulate.  In my mind, I think this would be a terrible idea.   Sure maybe we could trust some companies to self regulate, and to do it fairly, but if self regulation was put into place, there would be a ton more of corruption.  Especially when regulating could falter that companies gain, when it would be themselves regulating their company, I'm sure a lot of them would not regulate as hard in order to be able to gain personal profit.   So even though governmental regulation is getting weaker, it still seems to be the best thing we have right now.  We cannot trust a company to regulate against its self, because they would just try to bend the rules in order to be more successful.  What do you think, Trust the government or trust the companies?

Response to Max Senew's Post

When looking for companies that are socially responsible, it seems to be a hard thing to find these days.  This case is especially true for American based companies.  It seems that most companies are more focused on their finical well being then what is happening in the society around them.  But there is one U.S. based company that seems to care about society.  That would be the Walt Disney Company.  Instead of just providing entertainment to us, they also feel a responsibility to contribute to making the world a better place.  Examples from Walt Disney that can be seen is that they run their trains on biodisel made from cooking oil from their own hotels, they established a worldwide conservation fund, and lastly they institute a "green standard" for their employees and cast.  So as seen here, Disney does things to help make the world a little better.  Even though it is hard to come by, it is a good thing to see.  Can you think of any other companies that are more focused on their social responsibilities instead of personal profit?

Product (RED)

When looking at product RED and Gaps relationship, it seems that a lot of good can come out of it for Gap.  When helping out a cause, such as the fight against HIV/AIDS, Gaps seems to be committed to it's corporate social responsibilities.  Some may argue that Gap is just doing this to "spit-shine" the companies image, but when it is said that Gap is just continuing business as usual, it seems to be a little far fetched.  When Gap sells their RED brand clothing, it would make sense to say it is doing business as usual if they are brining in the profits.  But because of the fact that 50%, yes 50% of the profit that comes from selling the RED merchandise, goes to the fight against HIV/AIDS.  But still some people are still complaining that it is only that 50%.  But what people forget is that Gap still has overhead, still has expenses for selling the merchandise that has to be accounted for.  The fact that they are giving this much of the profit to charity shows that they have a sense of responsibility for the public.  There are some companies out there that do almost zero to none charity work.  The amount of cash that Gap brings in, even the 50% of the profits still is a huge chunk of cash that can go towards a good cause.  So  sure maybe Gap  can contribute more, but the fact that people criticize them for doing at least this much charity work is not fair.  Gap is doing an unselfish act, and a good act for society, and they do this but cutting the profit in half.

Response to Jake Atherton's Post

When looking to buy a new product, there a lot of factors that go into me deciding weather to purchase it or not.  First of all, if a product had a small chance as meting or exceeding my expectations, I probably would not be interested in buying that product.  If it can not satisfy my need as a consumer, I do not see a reason to why I would want to get that product.  The factors that go into my choices of what product to buy is what my need from that product is, the price, the reputation of the company making the product, and lastly, how the product can preform to my needs.  I would want to get the product that can live up to my expectations, and can get the job done for my needs.