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?

Response to Sarah Allen

Can high quality, expensive products and services be "good value"?

I agree with Sarah that customer value and customer satisfaction are interdependent. Her views are similar to mine in which we see that if a customer purchases a product or service and is satisfied with the quality, their customer value will be high.

However, it is the second half of her post that I do not entirely agree with. She states that “if a high quality product is only available at a high price, people will not perceive that as good value, nor will a low quality product selling for a low price.” I disagree with this to some extent. When looking at this from a technology perspective I can see how a customer would view a high quality, high priced laptop as a good value. In order to understand why exactly a product or service is as expensive as it is, you need to have knowledge of that product or service. As well as being an business management major, I am also majoring in computer science. I am able to understand what specifications would make a certain laptop be considered “high quality” and then because of that, I can also understand why that laptop is more expensive than others.

Looking at the quote from Sarah’s post, “…nor will a low quality product selling for a low price” makes me think of something that I know is a low quality product or service that is also at a low price. The first thing that comes to mind is the Dollar Tree. The Dollar Tree is a store that sells a variety of things all for $1 or less. Being a poor college student, I have shopped at the Dollar Tree for things like gift bags, wrapping paper, birthday cards, balloons, etc. I know that nothing is the Dollar Tree has spectacular quality and I never expect much when I purchase something, but in my head I think “well, it’s only a dollar!” Occasionally a gift bag will rip or the handles will tear through the paper. These are understandable mishaps. I do not see anything from the Dollar Tree as low value because I don’t have high expectations for the quality and the prices are extremely low.

What are other examples of expensive or inexpensive products/services that are perceived as "good value"?

Sarah's post can be found here.

Response to Bb Question #2

Customer Satisfaction & Customer Value

Customer satisfaction and customer value are interdependent. Customer satisfaction cannot be achieved without also achieving customer value. Customer satisfaction is a mental evaluation of whether or not a product or service has met the expectations and satisfied the needs of the customer. Customer value is the relation between the benefits received from a product or service and the sacrifice made to be able to have those benefits. In other words, it is determining whether or not the product or service is the quality that the customer expected and if it was at the price they were willing to or able to pay. 

Both customer satisfaction and customer value involve quality and meeting expectations and needs. Without having customer value, achieving customer satisfaction is not possible. For example, if you were looking to buy a used car and found a 2000 Honda Accord you would expect it to have high mileage and perhaps something needing fixing. These assumptions are based on the year and would be understandable (meet your expectations) and you would have good customer value and satisfaction. However, if you found a used 2011 Honda Accord you would expect it to have low mileage and probably not need any sort of maintenance in order to pass state inspection. It would be understandable that it is probably significantly more expensive than the 2000 Accord but if there were multiple things that needed fixing and had high mileage for a 2 year old car, you would have poor customer value (the 2011 Accord was of poor quality and you paid more than it was worth) and also poor customer satisfaction (the 2011 Accord did not meet your needs or expectations). 

Can you think of a situation where customer value and customer satisfaction would NOT be interdependent?