Wednesday, November 18, 2009
Question #8
8. How will you advertise your business? We are going to use many different techniques to advertise our business. The techniques we are going to use includes: television, radio, printed media( billboards, newspaper, magazines, etc.). We will have about two commercials to start out with, and they will air on the major sports channels. Our radio commercials will be about one minute long and will air on 103 WKDF and 104.5 The Zone. For printed media, we will use billboards, newspaper and magazines. We will definatley use The Leaf Chronicle. We will try to put our add in ESPN and SI. Our adds should attract many different kinds of sports fans.
Monday, November 2, 2009
"The Persuaders"
df1.What in "The Persuaders" surprised you? Name one new thing you learned marketing or politics from watching the film. Name one thing you learned about yourself from watching the film. One thing that surprised me is that even though there are laws govering the truth for advertising companies they still get away with saying almost anything they want to get someone to buy something. One thing I learned from the film is that companies overexagerate even more than thought. I learned that I give ads more credit than they deserve. I knew that ad companies lied but i didn't think that they could get away with lieing that much.
2. How would you assess the amount of advertising you see? Too much? Just right? In your view, what difference does it make to know that people today see much more advertising in their daily lives then people 20 or 30 years ago? I see alot of advertising daily. For me, I believe that it is way to much to see an ad every couple of feet. The more ads a person sees about a product the more likely a person will change their mind and possibly buy the product. 20 -30 years ago there wasn't as much advertising, so less people would be persuaded to buy the product. People 20-30 years ago someone could go a day without seeing more than one ad. Today if you see only one ad in a day you must be living under a rock.
3. What surprised you in the descriptions of how much demographic information marketers have about potential customers? What kinds of information would you be willing to share about yourself or family in order to enter a contest? Get a discount? Get online? Get a cell phone? Use a credit card? Would you be willing to revel your name, address, and phone number? What music you listen to or your favorite snacks? The grades on your last report card? How much your parents earn? What medications people in your family take? What kinds of information would you want to keep private? It surprised ne how much information people give up to either buy a product or enter a contest that they probably won't even win. People give up their addresses, and a lot of other personal information that ain't even needed. There are people out there that would give up any information to get something. They don't even check to make sure who they are giving their information to are even real. I would only give up information to someone or a company that I absolutely trust.
4. In "The Persuaders" marketer Kevin Roberts uses the term "lovemarks" to identify brands to which people are loyal even when devotion is not logical. Are there brands to which you are devoted? When you stop to think about it, is your loyalty to any particular brand logical or a "lovemark"? If purchasing a particular brand ain't logical, why would you (or other people) do it?
There are some companies and brands that I am loyal to. For example the brand of jeans that I wear. I don't really care what brand I wear, but I refuse to wear Levi's because of what the company stands for. People are loyal to brands for their own reasons, but sometimes those reasons ain't logical. When I say that, I mean that the reason a person loyalty to a brand doesn't make sense at all.
5. Douglas Rushkoff asks, " What happens when advertisers assume the roles of our writers, journalist, and entertainers?" How would you answer him. When that happens the companies reach certain groups of people who may not have liked their product at first. For example; if someone sees their favorite entertainer on a commercial for a product that they didn't like before, they may think to theirselves " well if so and so likes this product maybe it ain't that bad." That is the reason a lot of people buy the products that they do. What they don't realize is that the entertainer is just being paid to say that they like the product.
6. Advertising executive Douglas Atkins argues that purchasing branded merchendise now provides that same sense of belonging that was once provided by community institutions like schools, churches, civic groups, or fraternal orders. What provides you with a sense of belonging or identity? What role, if any, does marketing play in what you identify with or where you hang out? Really the only thing that gives me a sense of belonging is being aroundmy friends, family, and playing the sports I like. But for some people a certain brand of something gives them a sense of belonging. Marketing don't really play a part in where I hang out. I don't really pay attention to that kind of stuff. But there are people that do care. Some people's lives revolve around marketing.
7. Political consultant Frank Luntz tells his clients that, "80 percent of our life is emotion and only 20 percent is intellect. I am much more interested in how you feel than how you think." Contrast this with Thomas Jefferson's notion that democracy requires an "informed citizenry". What is the potential impact of Luntz political strategy recommendations on the health of democracy? With his political strategy he gets his point across by making someone feel like they need something that they don't rather than informing the person about it. That's what advertisements do. They focus on making the consumer feel like they need the product rather than informing them about the product. That is why people buy things but know nuthing about them.
8. Rushkoff says that political stratigist Frank Luntz " has built his career on a simple idea: It doesn't matter what you want to tell the public, it's about what they want to hear." Do you think the phrases that Luntz develops to "sell" political positions help clarify the issues or mislead voters? I believe that he misleads voters by saying he will do things that they want done but after he is voted in he completly ignores the issue. When someone does that they are pretty much lieing to the country or state. Even though I don't vote I still don't like it when politicians say they are going to do something but don't do it. For example Obama; he said he would pull troops out of Iraq immediately when he got in office. When actually since he went into office the number of troops in Iraq has increased.
9. Douglas Rushkoff asks, " What does it mean when we merge our once seperate roles as consumers and citizens?" How would you answer Rushkoff's question? Given that the U.S. economy is based on consumer spending, is it partiotic to shop? I would't say it's patriotic. Because if you do call it patriotic, you are calling someone who doesn't shop pretty much a traitor. Although shopping does help the economy, it is not patriotic to shop. To call it patriotic would be ridiculous.
10. "The Persuaders" points out that there are laws governing truth in advertising for products and services, but that "politicians can legally say whatever they want." Should political ads be governed by the same laws that govern product ads? Why do you think there ain't such laws? I believe that political ads should have the same laws as product ads. Because it may be a political ad but it is still an ad. And it is stupid to have laws against false sdvertising for product ads, but a man running for office can lie all he wants to in his political ad. I believe the reason there ain't such laws is because the people who make the laws lied in their political ads to get where they are, and probably plan on doing it again. That to me is unconstitutional, and should be changed ASAP!!!
2. How would you assess the amount of advertising you see? Too much? Just right? In your view, what difference does it make to know that people today see much more advertising in their daily lives then people 20 or 30 years ago? I see alot of advertising daily. For me, I believe that it is way to much to see an ad every couple of feet. The more ads a person sees about a product the more likely a person will change their mind and possibly buy the product. 20 -30 years ago there wasn't as much advertising, so less people would be persuaded to buy the product. People 20-30 years ago someone could go a day without seeing more than one ad. Today if you see only one ad in a day you must be living under a rock.
3. What surprised you in the descriptions of how much demographic information marketers have about potential customers? What kinds of information would you be willing to share about yourself or family in order to enter a contest? Get a discount? Get online? Get a cell phone? Use a credit card? Would you be willing to revel your name, address, and phone number? What music you listen to or your favorite snacks? The grades on your last report card? How much your parents earn? What medications people in your family take? What kinds of information would you want to keep private? It surprised ne how much information people give up to either buy a product or enter a contest that they probably won't even win. People give up their addresses, and a lot of other personal information that ain't even needed. There are people out there that would give up any information to get something. They don't even check to make sure who they are giving their information to are even real. I would only give up information to someone or a company that I absolutely trust.
4. In "The Persuaders" marketer Kevin Roberts uses the term "lovemarks" to identify brands to which people are loyal even when devotion is not logical. Are there brands to which you are devoted? When you stop to think about it, is your loyalty to any particular brand logical or a "lovemark"? If purchasing a particular brand ain't logical, why would you (or other people) do it?
There are some companies and brands that I am loyal to. For example the brand of jeans that I wear. I don't really care what brand I wear, but I refuse to wear Levi's because of what the company stands for. People are loyal to brands for their own reasons, but sometimes those reasons ain't logical. When I say that, I mean that the reason a person loyalty to a brand doesn't make sense at all.
5. Douglas Rushkoff asks, " What happens when advertisers assume the roles of our writers, journalist, and entertainers?" How would you answer him. When that happens the companies reach certain groups of people who may not have liked their product at first. For example; if someone sees their favorite entertainer on a commercial for a product that they didn't like before, they may think to theirselves " well if so and so likes this product maybe it ain't that bad." That is the reason a lot of people buy the products that they do. What they don't realize is that the entertainer is just being paid to say that they like the product.
6. Advertising executive Douglas Atkins argues that purchasing branded merchendise now provides that same sense of belonging that was once provided by community institutions like schools, churches, civic groups, or fraternal orders. What provides you with a sense of belonging or identity? What role, if any, does marketing play in what you identify with or where you hang out? Really the only thing that gives me a sense of belonging is being aroundmy friends, family, and playing the sports I like. But for some people a certain brand of something gives them a sense of belonging. Marketing don't really play a part in where I hang out. I don't really pay attention to that kind of stuff. But there are people that do care. Some people's lives revolve around marketing.
7. Political consultant Frank Luntz tells his clients that, "80 percent of our life is emotion and only 20 percent is intellect. I am much more interested in how you feel than how you think." Contrast this with Thomas Jefferson's notion that democracy requires an "informed citizenry". What is the potential impact of Luntz political strategy recommendations on the health of democracy? With his political strategy he gets his point across by making someone feel like they need something that they don't rather than informing the person about it. That's what advertisements do. They focus on making the consumer feel like they need the product rather than informing them about the product. That is why people buy things but know nuthing about them.
8. Rushkoff says that political stratigist Frank Luntz " has built his career on a simple idea: It doesn't matter what you want to tell the public, it's about what they want to hear." Do you think the phrases that Luntz develops to "sell" political positions help clarify the issues or mislead voters? I believe that he misleads voters by saying he will do things that they want done but after he is voted in he completly ignores the issue. When someone does that they are pretty much lieing to the country or state. Even though I don't vote I still don't like it when politicians say they are going to do something but don't do it. For example Obama; he said he would pull troops out of Iraq immediately when he got in office. When actually since he went into office the number of troops in Iraq has increased.
9. Douglas Rushkoff asks, " What does it mean when we merge our once seperate roles as consumers and citizens?" How would you answer Rushkoff's question? Given that the U.S. economy is based on consumer spending, is it partiotic to shop? I would't say it's patriotic. Because if you do call it patriotic, you are calling someone who doesn't shop pretty much a traitor. Although shopping does help the economy, it is not patriotic to shop. To call it patriotic would be ridiculous.
10. "The Persuaders" points out that there are laws governing truth in advertising for products and services, but that "politicians can legally say whatever they want." Should political ads be governed by the same laws that govern product ads? Why do you think there ain't such laws? I believe that political ads should have the same laws as product ads. Because it may be a political ad but it is still an ad. And it is stupid to have laws against false sdvertising for product ads, but a man running for office can lie all he wants to in his political ad. I believe the reason there ain't such laws is because the people who make the laws lied in their political ads to get where they are, and probably plan on doing it again. That to me is unconstitutional, and should be changed ASAP!!!
Wednesday, October 7, 2009
"Is Wal-Mart Good For America?"
1. I knew that Wal-Mart was a place I could go and buy what I needed at one place, and at a low price. I'm always able to go to Wal-Mart When I'm in a hurry. That way I don't have to go from store to store. 2. I don't know anyone who works at Wal-Mart, but my experiences with Wal-Mart have pretty well. The customer service at Wal-Mart is great. I've always been able to go to Wal-Mart and get what I needed at a good price. 3. What most surprised me is that so many people think that Wal-Mart is ruining America. They also think that Wal-Mart is the reason that they are losing their jobs. They believe that Wal-Mart is horrible for America 4. I personally think that Wal-Mart's strategies are somewhat fair. What I mean is that Wal-Mart should keep outsourcing, but they should also keep some using some products that are made in America that way there are still enough jobs. People wouldn't be as mad at Wal-Mart for them losing their jobs. 5. Some new jobs that could be created as a result of outsourcing are things like supervising positions. For example; Wal-Mart needs people over in other countries to supervise the work that are going on. They will need people to make sure that the work is done right. 6. Wal-Mart gains the most. Because the prices are so low, more people would buy more. The more items that are sold, the more money Wal-Mart makes. 7. NO. I will always shop at Wal-Mart. I love going into Wal-Mart and being able to get whatever I want. I can buy electronics, sport equipment, and food at on place. 8. the customers have benefitted from Wal-Mart, due to the low prices. People who have not benefitted from Wal-Mart include people who have lost their jobs working for factories. But people have also benefitted by opening factories in China. 9. one way Wal-Mart can solve the problems is they could start their own sporting goods store. They could defiantly make the company more profitable, and open up new jobs. They could keep factories open in America for even more jobs if they don't count on outsourcing so much.
Monday, October 5, 2009
"Can I Afford to Retire?"
1. What percentage of retirement contributions came from businesses in 2000? What percentages came from workers?
2.What happens if people's planning for retirement does not provide enough income? More than likely the person would have to go back to work. The person would have to go back to work until they have enough money to retire which may not happen.
3.When a business enters bankruptcy, which gets paid first-- worker's pensions or debts owed to banks? Why is this case? The debts to banks are paid first. Because the owners are more interested in saving the company, than paying pensions.
4.According to the film, are people with high incomes or people with low incomes more successful in investing their retirement incomes? I believe the people with high incomes. Because the people with high incomes have more money to save.
5.What options are there for people in the United States who outlive their savings? There are many options but the main ones include returning to work, or maybe even living with a relative. Another option may be moving into a nursing home, or somtimes even the streets.
6. What factors do you think might keep people from saving enough money for retirement? One factor and probably the most common is the person just doesn't make enough money to save that much for retirement. Another factor could be that the person loves to spend money on junk and doesn't thinlk about retirement until it's too late.
2.What happens if people's planning for retirement does not provide enough income? More than likely the person would have to go back to work. The person would have to go back to work until they have enough money to retire which may not happen.
3.When a business enters bankruptcy, which gets paid first-- worker's pensions or debts owed to banks? Why is this case? The debts to banks are paid first. Because the owners are more interested in saving the company, than paying pensions.
4.According to the film, are people with high incomes or people with low incomes more successful in investing their retirement incomes? I believe the people with high incomes. Because the people with high incomes have more money to save.
5.What options are there for people in the United States who outlive their savings? There are many options but the main ones include returning to work, or maybe even living with a relative. Another option may be moving into a nursing home, or somtimes even the streets.
6. What factors do you think might keep people from saving enough money for retirement? One factor and probably the most common is the person just doesn't make enough money to save that much for retirement. Another factor could be that the person loves to spend money on junk and doesn't thinlk about retirement until it's too late.
Friday, October 2, 2009
My Retirement
1.What do you think retirement means? To me retirement means that you don't have to work anymore, because you are living off the money you have saved up. The amount off money you get depends on how much you've saved up.
2.From what sources do people get income when they retire? I believe that the income people get when they retire comes from many sources. Some of those sources include Social Security, your personal savings , and many other sources.
3.Who pays for the health insurance of retired people? I am not really sure . So I ain't gotta clue.
4. Who should be responsible for planning for retirement? What roles should individuals, businesses, and the government play in planning? The responsibility of planning for retirement should mostly be on the individual. Although I believe that the goverment and the businesses should play some role. The government should make sure that the person's social security is there for them when they retire.
2.From what sources do people get income when they retire? I believe that the income people get when they retire comes from many sources. Some of those sources include Social Security, your personal savings , and many other sources.
3.Who pays for the health insurance of retired people? I am not really sure . So I ain't gotta clue.
4. Who should be responsible for planning for retirement? What roles should individuals, businesses, and the government play in planning? The responsibility of planning for retirement should mostly be on the individual. Although I believe that the goverment and the businesses should play some role. The government should make sure that the person's social security is there for them when they retire.
Thursday, September 17, 2009
The Secret History of the Credit Card
1. What do you know about credit cards? People use credit cards to purchase items that they cannot afford to buy with cash, and when they get the bill the relize that they cannot afford to make the payment.
2. How many credit cards would you think that the average person uses? Why do you think people have more than one credit card? I think that the average person has probabaly 'bout 5-6 credit cards; some probably have way more. I think that people have more than one credit card , so that incase something happens to one, they have a another they can use.
3. What information in the documentary suprised you the most?
The thing that suprised me the most was learning about the way the credit card companies did business. I didn't know that they could do half of the things that they can.
4. Do you think that the government should have a role in regulating who can get credit cards and what intrest and fees consumers should pay? If so, who should be the regulators? Who would benifit from such regulation? Who would lose? Explain. I believe that the government should have control over the reasons a credit card company can raise your interest rate, because I think that some of the reasons the companies raise interest rates are just plain STUPID. For example; if you miss a payment on your car, house, or any other bill (other than your credit card bill) the credit card companies could still raise your intrest rate; regardless if you make your credit card payments or not.
5.How, according to the four "normal consumers" in the documentary, does owning a credit card or credit cards affect purchasing decisions? They would use their credit cards to purchase things that they could not afford by paying in cash. For example; one of the consumers used their credit card to fly first class, another would use it to purchase an expensive dress.
6.Who loses and gains the most from credit card companies' policies? Explain. The credit card companies gain the most because they can increase the intrest rate anytime they want.
7. Has the documentary influenced how you might use credit cards in the future? Explain. If i get a credit card i will try to use it only in emergencies.
2. How many credit cards would you think that the average person uses? Why do you think people have more than one credit card? I think that the average person has probabaly 'bout 5-6 credit cards; some probably have way more. I think that people have more than one credit card , so that incase something happens to one, they have a another they can use.
3. What information in the documentary suprised you the most?
The thing that suprised me the most was learning about the way the credit card companies did business. I didn't know that they could do half of the things that they can.
4. Do you think that the government should have a role in regulating who can get credit cards and what intrest and fees consumers should pay? If so, who should be the regulators? Who would benifit from such regulation? Who would lose? Explain. I believe that the government should have control over the reasons a credit card company can raise your interest rate, because I think that some of the reasons the companies raise interest rates are just plain STUPID. For example; if you miss a payment on your car, house, or any other bill (other than your credit card bill) the credit card companies could still raise your intrest rate; regardless if you make your credit card payments or not.
5.How, according to the four "normal consumers" in the documentary, does owning a credit card or credit cards affect purchasing decisions? They would use their credit cards to purchase things that they could not afford by paying in cash. For example; one of the consumers used their credit card to fly first class, another would use it to purchase an expensive dress.
6.Who loses and gains the most from credit card companies' policies? Explain. The credit card companies gain the most because they can increase the intrest rate anytime they want.
7. Has the documentary influenced how you might use credit cards in the future? Explain. If i get a credit card i will try to use it only in emergencies.
Monday, August 31, 2009
Frontline: Into the Meltdown Pt.2
1. Why did the federal government take over Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac?
to help keep the two companies from facing the same fate as Bear Stearns
2. Secretary Paulson decided not to garuntee a government loan for Lehman Brothers as he had for Bear Stearns with the JPMorgan takeeover. What happened as a result of that decision? Lehman Brothers went bankrupt. as a result of that the market began to crash
3. Why did the government give AIG a loan of $85 billion after refusing to loan money for the Lehman Brothers aquisition? AIG was the largest insurance company in America. Letting AIG fall would bring down the economy as a whole.
4. What is capital injection? financial support provided by the government
to help keep the two companies from facing the same fate as Bear Stearns
2. Secretary Paulson decided not to garuntee a government loan for Lehman Brothers as he had for Bear Stearns with the JPMorgan takeeover. What happened as a result of that decision? Lehman Brothers went bankrupt. as a result of that the market began to crash
3. Why did the government give AIG a loan of $85 billion after refusing to loan money for the Lehman Brothers aquisition? AIG was the largest insurance company in America. Letting AIG fall would bring down the economy as a whole.
4. What is capital injection? financial support provided by the government
Frontline: Into the Meltdown Pt.1
1. What caused the housing market to drop in stock prices and loans?
variable rates and bad investments
2. What led to Bear Stearns' financial problem
bad investments
3. What deal did the Federal Reserve strike with Bear Stearns that temporarily saved the company? the government provided secure funding through JPMorgan to help save the company.
4. Why did Congressman Paulson believe that the Federal Reserve needs to let these Financial Institutions fail? He pictured a 1-2 thousand point drop in the DOW. He also believed that the uncertainty was to great. He thought that bailing out the companies , who caused their own problems by being greedy, were getting off easy, and that if the companies do survive , they wouldn't learn from their previous mistakes and would be looking for a bailout each time.
variable rates and bad investments
2. What led to Bear Stearns' financial problem
bad investments
3. What deal did the Federal Reserve strike with Bear Stearns that temporarily saved the company? the government provided secure funding through JPMorgan to help save the company.
4. Why did Congressman Paulson believe that the Federal Reserve needs to let these Financial Institutions fail? He pictured a 1-2 thousand point drop in the DOW. He also believed that the uncertainty was to great. He thought that bailing out the companies , who caused their own problems by being greedy, were getting off easy, and that if the companies do survive , they wouldn't learn from their previous mistakes and would be looking for a bailout each time.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)