In Response to Kristen Begin

If people realize JC Penney is making more of an effort to go green...should the company expect a revenue larger than that of their 2010 catalog sales? What are some other reasons that would convince JC Penney to get rid of a $454 million dollar sales opportunity? Do you think this was a wise decision made by JC Penney administrators?

Kristen asked if JCP will see an increase in revenue because of their new efforts to go green and whether JCP chose to pass up a sales opportunity or not. I think that you have to consider how people feel right now financially and whether or not they are going to purchase because they need something or because they're reminded that they "need" something.

Also, how big of an impact is "going green" these days? It feels to me more like green-washing sometimes when companies market their efforts to be green. On the other hand, it is obviously more green to skip the catalogs, but it's also a cost-saving effort. Maybe corporate felt that individual stores would survive without the extra marketing efforts, so they're cutting back to save some cash for marketing once people are ready to buy again.

I always believe that cutting down on mailers is important, not just because it saves the company money, but it's one less thing that customers receiving the mailers throw away. How many of them are actually recycled? Why do they even really need to exist in the first place? I don't think I've ever seen a JCP mailer...

What other companies are doing this? It seems like some companies are set in their ways (who doesn't get a weekly victoria's secret catalog??) and others are changing. Does this affect your purchasing decisions?

How Much Can PR Cover?

I get a weekly update in politics and business from The Economist, and I happened to notice a story at the very bottom of it. Typically, I like The Economist because it seems pretty close to an unbiased source of news. This is the last part of the weekly update:

Out of fashion

John Galliano was sacked as Christian Dior’s lead designer for professional misconduct. This came after a video surfaced of Mr Galliano apparently making anti-Semitic remarks to customers in a Paris restaurant and declaring “I love Hitler”. Mr Galliano was admitted to the French Legion of Honour in 2009.

When I read this, I was shocked! When I hear about anti-Semitism, I think about Kramer from Seinfeld a few years back, and before that, not much.

I question how much help PR can be for this person of status. How will this affect him in the long run? Public Relations nightmares can be really long lasting. He's been fired, but how much damage will he have to deal with at this point?

In Response to Erica Murray

Do you think the taller and skinnier can is contributing to a negative portrayal of body image?

I do not see this new type of can changing any thoughts about body image. If you think about it, the can itself does not look like a person. The fact that we relate an inanimate object or a product to a human being seems kind of wrong in the first place. I think the question is, do we relate ourselves to the products because Pepsi is marketing products in this way, because we feel that we have a personal connection with a product (that seems somewhat destructive), or because the National Eating Disorders Association is telling us that it is a person?

I wondering if we can really consider who is to blame for the relationship between a can of soda and a person, and where it started? Is it a bad thing to market a product as if it were a person? For example, is it bad to represent a phone as a person? ( ex: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SKG4B7wFJUo )

In Response to Ashley Guidi

I ask you, how many times do you question a news story when it is published in national papers or viewed on TV? Do you put your faith into the integrity of others?

I took a class here at Keene that taught me a lot about the intricacies of marketing, called Persuasion with Dr. Nigel Malcolm (Communications class). It definitely opened my eyes to the possibility that not everything I hear on TV is true, but it was not the first time I felt this way. I guess I always try to cut out the biases myself, but who knows if that really works?

Honestly, I don't understand why Taco Bell would actually substantiate the story and therefore tell a lie. It seems like a silly PR-stunt that might have big payoffs, but might also tarnish the reputation of the company. It also might stir up feelings of anger from people who are very "pro-USA," who don't want national monuments to be caught up in the money-making stunts of big corporations, who might even be considered partially responsible for this recent economic crisis.

As far as listening to the media, I think that it's important for people to ask a few questions of the stories that they are skeptical of: "Why is this story on TV? Is it there to advertise a company or inform me about something important? Does this story really change anything? What might be the bias of the network? Why does this matter to me?"

What questions do you ask yourself when you watch TV? Or do you?

Writing as an Entrepreneur

I'm going off the M-blog post about entrepreneurs and other businesspeople enjoying marketing success as a result of writing books. (This)

As the daughter of two successful entrepreneurs - my parents own a candy store, and the granddaughter of entrepreneurs, I have to admit that the stuff is in my blood, and marketing is a constant struggle today.

Knowing how much time my parents spend keeping the website up to date ( www.chocolatedelicacy.com ), keeping facebook in check, and creating monthly advertising packages to send to papers, websites, etc., I certainly see marketing as a challenge. If you consider the difference between a published author/entrepreneur and a regular businessperson, it is very easy to assume that one is more credible than the other. Also, in reference to the psychiatrist, what better marketing can you have than the Today Show?

My question is, what lengths would you go to in order to market yourself as an expert or your business? Would you ever consider publishing a book or is the process too daunting for entrepreneurs with limited time?

Supply and Demand... Cruises to Egypt

The focus of my blog will be about the following article: http://www.foxnews.com/leisure/2011/02/18/travel-agency-marketing-history-making-egypt-cruise/

To sum up the article, the cruise line Azmara Club Cruises was asked by customers if they could make a cruise to Egypt so that the customers could "see history in the making." First of all, how is it really ethical to direct a cruise to a place where there is political turmoil? Second, how ethical is it to market that someone can watch history happen? Apparently because of the zero-supply of cruises (since they were all rerouted to protect the safety of their passengers), the demand has shot up and people want a part of the action.

I have two friends from high school in Egypt right now. Both of them chose to stay because it was exciting and different. I understand that when you've committed to a semester abroad, it's not easy to just go back to school in the states and cancel your plans. However, doesn't it just seem so American to want to butt into the political issues in other countries? Why is it that we feel so safe being a part of riots in another country? Would we be safe in a violent protest stateside? I doubt it.

My concern is the fact that marketing for this cruise is based on an idea that is most likely very limited. I suppose that they would be making history in that the cruise-liner would be the first back after the Egyptian revolution that just took place. How else is a person watching history in the making during this cruise? I have no idea, and I think that the marketing seems "off" to me. I also have a feeling that if things are not settled by the embarking date (November), then it's probably a bad idea to head over there on a cruise.

My question is this: why would someone want to go somewhere that is politically out of whack and how can you market something like this, ethically?

New show "Skins" on MTV stirs up drama for marketers

http://www.crainsnewyork.com/article/20110124/FREE/110129943#

I recently heard about the new show on MTV named Skins, and was a little shocked by the idea that children under legal age are being portrayed on national television in a way that is revealing and called by some "pornographic." When I heard that a lot of companies advertising on MTV asked to be pulled off the air during the show, I was not surprised. It seems like PR is a huge part of marketing. A company treads carefully when its reputation is questioned through its endorsements.

"It's a show replete with all sorts of problematic and offensive content like illegal drug use, illegal activity, foul language and essentially nonstop sexual content," Mr. Isett said. "Compounding that is the fact that the actual actors portraying these characters on the show are in fact children, and it's also equally clear that the show has been marketed to children."

The show Skins just seems wrong on so many levels. First of all, what were companies thinking when they opted in (or at least didn't opt out) of a show that portrayed teenage sex, promiscuity, illegal drug use/activity and bad language? I doubt that Subway could really be considered at fault and I'm sure they just wanted a piece of the advertising/marketing pie that MTV offers, but come on! What's the point of MTV airing all of the "above the influence" ads if they promote just the opposite?

I guess my big question is what would you do if you were being pressured to remove your commercial from the air during a show? Is it worthwhile to submit to the pressure of parental groups? Why is it so necessary to respond to them and do they really have enough power to hurt your business?