Response to Nicole Rutigliano

Dr Pepper Ten

I can understand why Dr Pepper has come out with a drink "not for women" because there are many men out there that are heavy soda drinkers but may not feel "manly" while purchasing products that are called diet, light, sugar-free, etc. Diet sodas are marketed towards women in particular because we are more worried about calories. However, there are men concerned with calories as well. I think Dr Pepper Ten is a great way for men to get a lower calorie soda in a more "manly" form.

Though the drink is "not for women" I think some women may still go out and buy Dr Pepper Ten. Like Nicole mentioned in her article, I also know people that stay away from diet sodas for fewer "surprises" and they are not all men. I think Dr Pepper Ten gives both men and women an opportunity to drink a soda that is a good balance of diet and regular so they can intake fewer calories but still get the regular soda taste.

Are there other kinds of drinks like Dr Pepper Ten that are in the middle of the diet version and regular version? How is that drink marketed?

Nicole's post can found here.

Response to Tammy Chou

Were you satisfied with a product targeted towards your lifestyle?

Yes I have purchased many products targeted towards my lifestyle and have been entirely satisfied with them. Products that I have purchased and have enjoyed are all of my Nike products. I like to go to the gym and be active and Nike has done a particularly good job marketing themselves to people with active lifestyles. I have Nike everything and haven't been disappointed by any of it. The running shoes are light, durable, and comfortable and the active-wear is comfortable, non-restricting, and wicks away sweat. I have been fully satisfied by all things Nike and will continue to buy Nike products until I have had a few bad experiences.

Have you ever experienced loving a company and then being completely let down by one of their products? Did you continue to buy from them? What influenced your decision?


Tammy's post can be found here.

Self Regulation vs Governmental Regulation

 Do you believe self regulation is more or less effective than governmental regulatory agencies?

Though I believe that governmental regulatory agencies are needed, I believe that self regulation is more effective. Even though company's know that something is illegal, some may still do it anyway if it means they would make a profit. Self regulatory has more influence on company's because it creates an internal conflict that comes down to ethics and values. I think a person is more likely to listen to their gut or head before they listen to the law, specifically when wealth is involved. Though this is not an example with a company, it is an example that most college students would understand. When you hear a song you like and want to put it on your iPod for later or maybe you want to watch a TV show that isn't on Netflix, where do you find the song or the complete TV series? I highly doubt you bought the song on iTunes or went to Walmart to buy each season of the TV show. Most people illegally download music, TV shows, movies, and more online. The following image contains statistics from 2011 on illegal downloading. This clearly shows that people all around the world do not listen to the law when concerned about piracy. People don't want to pay $2 for a 2 minute song or $40-50 for each season of a 7 season TV series. This would be similar to a company not wanting to pay for an appropriate way to dispose of harmful waste because it is expensive so they just dump it in a landfill or into the ocean. Some people do not take part in these things because of their self regulation however not all do. 

What are some companies that actually do follow governmental regulatory agencies?

Response to Arthur Brockelman

Is There Too Much Entertainment in Superbowl Commercials?

I disagree with what Arthur writes in his post about Superbowl commercials. He believes that the advertisements have too much entertainment and little product information. I understand that he thinks that the company/brand/product should be introduced before the very last few seconds of the commercial, however I think that the point of TV commercials, especially during the Superbowl, is to engage the viewer in a storyline, to humor, and to entertain in general. When a viewer sees a commercial for the first time and is following the storyline, they stay engaged the whole time, if it is interesting enough, and are on their toes waiting to see what product it is for. I think that revealing the product at the end makes it more memorable because the viewer is waiting the entire commercial to figure out what it is for. I do think it would be appropriate to show the product in the commercial before it flat out says what it is but not entirely necessary. The entertainment aspect of commercials also generate more awareness of their product. If you see a funny commercial, you are more likely to tell a friend, relative, or co-worker about it. I think that this is more beneficial than an overly informative commercial.

Arthur also mentions that he thinks advertisements should have more information provided. I think that most commercials have an adequate amount of information about the product. If commercials and advertisements were made up of only information, there would be no hook or entertainment to it. One of the differences between advertising and marketing is the amount of information conveyed. In advertising, there is little information provided to the consumer and more persuasion to buy whereas in marketing there is a lot more information provided and little to no persuasion. I feel like there is enough information provided in commercials and a good amount of entertainment in them as well.

What is your opinion on the amount of entertainment in commercials?

Arthur's post can be found here.

Social Media Marketing

3 Must-Know Basics to Managing Your Company's Social Media 

from entrepreneur.com 

There are multiple ways to engage customers with social media, Facebook and Twitter being the most popular. However there are many businesses do not know how to manage their social media. Lindsay Lavine of Entrepreneur.com wrote an article about the basics of managing social media.

The first tip Lavine listed was to listen. She recommends to join conversations and to avoid talking at people. Statistics have shown that companies that post 1-2 times a day receive more interaction (likes, comments, retweets, etc) with their "friends" and "followers".

The second tip is to avoid letting your intern manage your social media. Though it seems like fairly simple task that any intern could handle, interns have little experience at your company and know nothing about the business. Why would you allow someone that knows nothing about your company speak for it? They could accidentally post something inaccurate, offensive, or contradictory to the business's views. If you must give social media responsibility to an intern, the best solution is to heavily monitor it and be sure that you see everything before it is published.

The last tip listed in the article suggests to find the social media that best fits you and your company. There are so many different mediums to choose from and the best thing to do is just pick one to start with and become comfortable with that. If you feel more social media is needed, add another.

Do you think the best kind of social media to use depends on what industry you are in?