Lionsgate's New Logo

Lionsgate unveiled a radically different logo recently, disregarding its gates and looking to underscore its new growth. This new logo starts with a big bang-type moment in space revealing the constellation Leo and ends with the Lions gate name breaking through clouds during an eclipse of the sun.

The goal is to make the point that they are now part of a bigger and more exciting universe. I believe this is more intestering logo then their previous one. Its a good change and has the potential attract the attention of more fans, but what it will come down to is whether or not Lionsgate will continue to produce successful movie franchises.

What do you think of the new logo? Is it better than the old one? Will it give them a competitive advantage over the other movie studios?

Response to Jade's post on the Dollar Shave Club

"Would you invest your life savings in an idea that you were fairly confident in? Or would you have to be completely confident?"

I would have to be completely confident, or very close to it. To risk it all like that, I would need a guarantee that I would be making money and not throwing away all the money that I worked so hard to earn. I believe that there are some risks that are worth taking, but then there are risks like putting all of your savings on the line that take a great deal of thought and time to consider the consequences. Which is why I could not do it if I was only fairly confident.

Do you have to be a person with a general high level of confidence to take risks like these?

Brittney Griner a Game Changer for the WNBA?

The WNBA  is attempting to rebrand itself in its seventeenth season, and Brittney Griner has the chance to become the face of the campaign. Its Draft will air in prime time for the first time and the college star Griner is more than likely to be the first player taken. The league has a new logo, an extended television deal with ESPN, and an orchestrated drive to promote three highly visible rookies who will be selected in the upcoming draft; Griner, Skylar Diggins, and Elena Delle Donne.

The campaign to spotlight Griner, Diggins, and Delle Donne is a continuation of ESPN's "3 to See" promotion during the recent college season. It calls for a realization that women's basketball must provide a united front to succeed. 

Griner is so significant because at Baylor she may have had the greatest impact of any player in the women's game; setting an NCAA record for blocked shots, finishing second on the career scoring list, and miking highlight reels with her dunks. The WNBA is hoping she creates a similar buzz at the pro level and thus Phoenix, the team that is expected to pick her in the draft, is scheduled to appear in 6 of the 14 games that air on ESPN and ABC. 

I belive the WNBA has a good plan in place and is heading in the right direction to gaining more interest in the league. Talented players, like the three they have coming into the league, can easily fill the seats in the stands. When you look at the NBA, people will just come to games to see the likes of Lebron James, Kevin Durant, and Carmelo Anthony. The WNBA has a chance achieve this as well, as long as these new players live up to their potential and are able to land new sponsors and marketing deals. 

What do you think of the WNBA's chances of drawing more interest with this current plan in place?

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?