In Response to Tanya Doran

PlayStation Vita
Do you think it is risky to have such a high budget for a device that may not have all the features someone is looking for these days. Example - the Iphone can play video, talk, text, and play games.


In my opinion, the PS Vita isn't that much different from the other hand held gaming consoles out there today. Yes, it does have Wi-Fi and cameras on both sides, a touch screen, duel analog sticks, etc. but these aren't necessarily things that would sell the device. I can agree that it makes the device pretty cool, but the sole purpose of the device is really to be an on the go type of gaming console. So why the huge marketing budget? I think that either Sony either thinks this device NEEDS the extra advertising and marketing or Sony thinks the device will market itself and wants to reap the profits from advertising it to more people. It seems to be an extreme marketing budget, regardless especially because the target market is males in their 20's who are already going to be all over this type of product as it is. I don't think it's necessarily a risky move, I just think that the budget is way out of proportion to how much the device is literally going to market itself.


Why is Sony spending so much money on something that practically markets itself to the target market?

Product Placement in Movies

We've all seen advertising in movies, but I was thinking about it the other day and started wondering when it all started. Turns out, according to this youtube video, that it started back in 1919 in a silent film called The Garage, starring Roscoe "Fatty" Arbuckle. No, I am not kidding you. It first started with Red Crown Gasoline company paying to place their sign on the wall indicated in the video above (toward the beginning of the video).


Product placement or embedded marketing is where goods or services are placed into a context where ads do not usually exist like movies. The trends in advertisement are shifting more toward product placement in place of ads and commercials. Let's be honest... we're all sick of seeing a billion commercials during our favorite shows, often times the same commercials over and over again. So, now instead of commercials, companies are gearing toward product placement within the shows themselves where the product or service even are being used in the content of the video. But product placement doesn't stop there. It's even being used in video games and books! It's all explained here: on HowStuffWorks.com


Do you think that the shift in advertisements from actual ads and commercials to movies, TV shows, and even video games and books is a good change or a bad change? Why or why not?

In Response to Alex Purdy

What is Actually Happening in Apple Factories?

How do you think these large companies like Nike, Apple, and Disney could change their manufacturing and marketing strategies, so they did not have to go overseas to find workers?

Personally, I think that these corporations have enough money from their stocks and customers as it is and that they do not have an excuse for letting the manufacturers they use  under pay workers and make them work in bad, unhealthy and unethical environments. Also because of how successful these corporations are, I think that they could pretty easily move their factories into the United States or away from Foxconn (in Apples case). Apple's products are already highly priced, so I don't think that they should raise their prices, but rather find a new company to do their manufacturing for them instead of Foxconn. This could be in the United States or overseas, but the manufacturing company would have to be reliable and rightly treat their workers. But it could be hard for Apple itself to monitor the working conditions, wages, etc of the workers in the factory as the factory would be owned by a manufacturer, and not necessarily by Apple.

How could corporations like Apple and Nike ensure that their manufacturers are treating their employees ethically?

MTV: No Longer "Music Television"

As we all have probably figured out by now, MTV is no longer a music television channel, but more geared toward reality TV. You may have first noticed the switch when the popular show Total Request Live, better known as TRL, was cancelled in November of 2008 after ten years on the air. Now you can find shows like Real World, Jersey Shore and 16 and Pregnant featured on MTV. But why the change?


Simply put, music is no longer MTV's main priority. "The network -- known more for its scripted reality show programming these days than the music videos and industry it revolutionized" (read more here). MTV is trying to keep up with the times and today's millennial generation. So now, instead of entertaining it's viewers with music video after music video, MTV is focusing on entertaining the audience with reality tv and is embracing its diversity and letting it run wild. The good news is the VMAs are still aired on MTV today and let us dig into MTV's past a little bit.


 With the change of entertainment also comes the new MTV logo and the end of an era for MTV. Originally the logo featured the M with "Music Television" underneath but has now reverted to just the M, which just happens to be the original logo Frank Olinsky had in mind back when MTV was born.




Did MTV make a good switch in entertainment? How does their logo and new sense of diversity tie into the millennial generation?

In Response to Aislynn Sherry

Car Companies' getting a jump start on their Super Bowl Commercials...
For those companies fortunate enough to air an add during the Super Bowl, do you think that the creativity and "flashiness" or the actual message sent to viewers is most important? And are these commercials sometimes overkill or are they appropriate?





I think that both creativity and the message are pretty equally important. Super Bowl advertisements are known for their "flashiness," creativity and even their boldness which would make most people want to watch them just for entertainment, not for the actual message (especially because they are sometimes inappropriate and have somehow become okay for Super Bowl Sunday). So if the company makes their commercials entertaining AND still get their message through, resulting in people buying their product or service, then I think that the company has made a successful Super Bowl commercial. But if that isn't the case, then in my opinion, they would be wasting their time and money on a commercial that is just going to entertain its viewers and not provide any real results.


Why have inappropriate commercials become appropriate for Super Bowl Sunday?

The New Starbucks Logo

I was recently thinking a lot about logos as I was fooling around with Photoshop and noticed the logo I used to use back in High School for my "specialty designed" photos. So I googled recently changed logos and was surprised by the logo trends. But, I was more surprised by the one company that came up on every site Google listed in my search results: Starbucks, who unveiled their new logo last year on January 5, 2011 for their 40th anniversary. What was more surprising was all the negativity toward the Starbucks new logo design.


from http://money.cnn.com/2011/01/05/news/companies/starbucks_new_logo/index.htm 
You can see how the logo has progressed from 1971 to today, starting out bland and detailed but informative in 1971, to bright and detailed in 1987, to a little less detailed in 1992 and now, completely missing the company name and using a simplified version of the old logo.


Now, in my opinion, the new logo is simple and elegant but removing the company name is confusing to me. Why would you create a logo without the company name? ...Especially since the logo Starbucks uses consists of a mermaid, which has absolutely nothing to do with coffee. Although there are other companies which have logos without the company name, but the logos make more sense. For instance Apple's logo which has progressed from:

to over the years.
Apple's logo makes complete and ironically literal sense, an apple represents the company brand name rather than representing that the company makes computers and other electronics.


Going back to Starbucks, I'm not the only one who is confused by the change in logos, the article sited above quotes Starbucks fans who are outraged by the change. So, why are some Starbucks fans angered by the change in logo while others think the change is "a beautiful and compelling way to move the company into the new millennium"? And why do some logos without the company name work for Apple, and not for others, perhaps like Starbucks? In Starbucks' case, is it because their new logo has nothing to do with coffee or for some other reason?

In Response to Danielle Clark

Why Management/Marketing?
Do you think it's important to take a marketing/management class? How do you think understanding marketing can benefit you in your career or every day life?


I definitely agree with you on why having a Management minor is important... So much so that I was originally majoring in Computer Science and minoring in Management and now am majoring in BOTH.


I think that understanding marketing is important for any student or individual trying to get a job or start a career. It's beneficial because you learn how to market yourself in a way that makes you appealing to the industry you're trying to get into. It allows you to further understand what businesses and industries are looking for and what their expectations are of not only their potential customers but of their employees as well.


Do you agree or disagree? Why? Or are there any other benefits to a Management minor/major and/or understanding marketing?