Response to Nick's post on Infomercials

'What is your take on infomercials? Are they a good marketing tactic for a company?'

I do not see infomercials being a very successful marketing tactic. I find them more annoying than useful. They all try to push across the same message, about how great their product is in the most obnoxious way possible. They can be very difficult to take seriously at times. I never end up paying any attention to them, because they can be so repetitive. The prices are always the same too. No matter what the product, it always seems cost $19.95; plus you get a second one free or some other related product free. I just don't understand how anyone can really fall for these ads.

Have you ever bought a product from an infomercial, or know anyone who has?

Adidas's Kevin Ware T-shirts

Adidas has stopped selling T-shirts featuring the jersey number of injured Louisville guard Kevin Ware, calling it a "logo issue." The shirts read "Rise to the Occasion" with Ware's number 5 substituted for the "s" in "Rise.

Louisville had stated that they waived the royalties for the shirt so it would not be profiting from Ware's injury. Adidas agreed to make donations to the schools scholarship fund. 

The bigger element of this story is that an on-going lawsuit against the NCAA and Electronic Arts over the rights to use player's images without compensation claims that Louisville should not be able to sell the shirt. The money from the T-shirt sales going to the scholarship fund does not change things. If they did not ask Kevin's permission, then they can not sell the shirt. If they did ask Kevin permission and he said yes, then Kevin would be ineligible. The whole thing seems a little bit out of hand and more complicated that it actually should be. Louisville should be able to sell the shirt with the profits going to charity or their scholarship fund in my opinion. However, with that lawsuit going on and the debate on whether college athletes deserve to be paid for their efforts, situations like this will remain complicated. 

Who do you think has more right to sell the Kevin Ware T-shirts, Adidas or Louisville?

Response to Kaley's post on Channels of Distribution

'Do you feel one channel of distribution could be more beneficial to a company or will it always vary depending on the product, service, or company?'

I believe that it can always vary based on the product, service, or company; but also I believe their will always be those companies where one channel of distribution works the best for them. Companies with that one channel have found enough success using it, would not have to worry about adding another channel to improve the business.  Also they may not have the means to create another channel another either. Telemarketing, mail-order and catalog shopping, shop-at-home television networks, and online shopping are examples of direct channel distribution. These are usually successful companies employing just one channel and managing to stay relevant. It proves that utilizing just one marking channel can be successful.

Can you think of a company that successfully utilizes all four marketing channels? (direct, retailer, wholesaler, and agent/broker)

Marketing Channel Discrepancies

Marketing channels aid in overcoming discrepancies which concern quantity, assortment, time, and space created by economies of scale in production. A discrepancy of quantity is the difference between the amount of product produced and the amount an end user wants to purchase. This is countered by storing and distributing the product in the appropriate amounts that the consumers desire. A discrepancy of assortment occurs when a consumer does not have all the items required to receive full satisfaction from a product. To overcome this, marketing channels must assemble many of the products necessary to complete a consumer's needed assortment in one place. Temporal discrepancies occur when a product is produced but a consumer is not ready to buy it. Inventories must be maintained in anticipitation of demand in order to prevent this. A spatial discrepancy is the difference between the location of a producer and the location of widely scattered markets. Marketing channels overcome this by making products available in locations convenient to customers.
To me it seems like the discrepancy of quantity would be the hardest one to manage and would be the one to occur most often. I feel like companies tend to overstock their inventories, especially when they may be first starting up. When a company first opens a new store or introduces a new product it could have a difficult time in determine how well to stock products. This would easily result in the company having more product than is desired by the consumers.

What do you think is the most difficult marketing channel discrepancy to overcome?

Response to Tammy's post on multi-segment targeting strategy

Tammy poses this question at the end of her post: Do you think multi-segment targeting strategy can have disadvantages? What do you think they are? 

I believe any strategy that is employed will always have the potential for disadvantages, and multi-segment targeting is no exception. Tammy mentions the the main disadvantage being cannibalization, thus creating competition between the company's own products. This competition can be good or bad for the company, as she also says. I do not see it being that much of a disadvantage though. Competition between their own products can be more manageable than with other companies. They would have more control over what was happening, and they would still be making money. Worse case scenario, focusing on what product, could potentially end up wiping out another product that was very successful in the past. 

Can you think of a company where cannibalization has come into play with their products?

Southwest Airlines Ad

This is a new spring ad for Southwest Airlines, in which they are trying to sell the idea that they work really hard to be the greatest airline. Illustrating how different individuals follow different paths as they move through life.  The message that they are wanting to get across is basically that the people who work at Southwest chart their own path, never stop moving forward, and never give up. Not only are the employees like this according to the ad, but it's what the airline is all about.
In my opinion, I think Southwest presents this message very well. I liked how they incorporated the chorus of "Some Nights" into the ad. It gave the commercial some life and change the tone of it. It kept me interested in it, I am sure it has had the effect on several others.

What do you think of this ad? Does it change the way you view Southwest Airlines?

Response to Will's post on the marketing of spring break

Do you think the idea of spring break is marketed to students?

I would say yes, it sure can seem that way. When you think of spring break, you can see how it is directly associated with the idea of going somewhere warm and partying for a college student. Students are always wanting to get away from their studies and enjoy warm weather. I think how it is referred to as "spring" break has a great deal with that. Students hear spring, and think of the snow melting and the weather warming up. It puts the idea in their head that winter is over, and makes them want to spend time outside in the sun. However, spring break at school does not always bring with it warm weather. This is where the traveling comes in. People realize that if they really want to get the spring break experience they want, they must go somewhere such as Florida. 

If Spring break was labeled under a different name, that didn't bring up the idea of warm weather, would it have a different effect on college students?