Response to Corporate Branding Article

I found this article to be fascinating. The author is right about political branding.  I think that this is a brilliant idea for presidents, however, not as good of an idea for America.  When a politician creates a brand of his/herself, that becomes an idea that can stick to the public's mind.  This image may very well be sustained despite actions which counteract that particular brand image.  I also think that when people can easily attach on to a particular image, or brand, they are much less likely to actually do the research to discover what is really going on.  It's very easy to find on the internet about things Obama has done that are the complete opposite of what he said he would do.  There are many appalling events that have happened in his presidency, and I very rarely hear the average person discussing these events.  Most people I know believe that the president is doing and acting in the way he promised, or they don't care at all.  I find the author has an interesting point when she says that young people who rallied for him during the elections will become jaded and less likely to vote again.  I believe that a lot of these young people aren't involved enough to know exactly what is going on, and many of those who do know will give up on politics for at least the time being.

Question:  How do you feel about the relationship between President Obama's actions and the brand image he portrays?

Response to Drew Fararr's Post About Starbucks

I think that Starbucks often get a bad reputation without good reason.  (Does anyone remember the half a dozen totally false rumors about Starbucks not supporting United States troops?)  Starbucks does a lot to try and help socially.  If you watch reviews on Glassdoor.com, you will see that Starbucks is a company full of mostly happy employees.  Starbucks provides advancement opportunities and bonuses, along with pay above minimum wage.  Starbucks also has recycling programs in place and community involvement programs.

Rainforest Alliance

I frequently purchase Naked Juice smoothies.  Not only do I feel good about what is in the packaging (fruits with no preservatives) but also I feel good about supporting the company.  Right on the package is a stamp of approval from the Rainforest Alliance and a very cute frog.  This got me to thinking about that stamp as a marketing tool.  The Rainforest Alliance certifies companies based on sustainability friendly policies. These certifications are designed to generate ecological, social, and economic benefits.  I find the Rainforest Alliance to be a very useful tool.  It is a form of marketing for companies, but also helps generate more sustainable practices and encourages companies to be more environmentally friendly.  Though today not everyone always considers whether a product is environmentally friendly when we purchase it, this is a step in the right direction.  The more prevalent such a program becomes, the more likely it will make a difference in buying patterns, which will encourage more companies to participate, which will fuel the cycle and [hopefully] eventually create a more sustainable world.

Additional info:
http://www.rainforest-alliance.org/certification-verification

Response to Ariana's Post

Flash Mobs

I think that flash mobs are a good marketing technique as long as they are not overused.  As Ariana stated, this technique attracts a lot of attention.  Also, it's pretty refreshing entertainment that will be circulated as people record it on their cell phones and post it to YouTube or Facebook.  However, I have a mild concern that flash mobs could be overused to the point where people begin to treat them as a nuisance, like commercials.  This would counteract the best aspect of the flash mob technique - its innovative attention-grabbing.  

Customer Service as Marketing Technique?

I stumbled upon an article from Forbes about the concept of customer service as the new marketing field.  I definitely agree with this.  With the internet and social media rapidly expanding, companies must now, more than ever, impress every single customer they provide a good or service to.  On the internet, you can easily search a particular product, read reviews about the product, and make a buying decision based on what other people are saying about the product.  Whenever I consider making a substantial purchase, I consult the  internet to properly judge if I am paying for a quality product.  Also, a company's reputation is highly dependent on both the quality of it's product/service and the company's other decisions that involve ethics or the environment.  One mistake can end up splattered all over Facebook, and suddenly a huge portion of your customer base is lost.  Marketers need to be a part of every step of the product development, because the product's own quality will help to market itself on the internet.

Link to article:
http://www.forbes.com/sites/theyec/2011/12/28/why-customer-service-is-the-new-marketing/

Respond to Matt DaCosta's Post

Cause-related marketing relationships are good for the community in the ways you described and more.  The more subtle effects include bringing the affected community together (because everyone likes to see famous people, especially if they are helping a cause close to their hearts.  Also, cause-related marketing relationships raise awareness and money for a particular cause.  A disadvantage that you could consider regards the corporation's reputation.  If a reputable company chooses to support a particular charity, and later that reputable firm is caught red-handed or even just suspected of unethical behavior, that controversy will negatively affect the reputation of the non-profit organization despite that organizations participation status in the questionable behavior.

Case of John Smith

Case of John Smith.
Questions: Should John smith sell the names?  Also, Does the AMA Statement of Ethics address this issue? Go to the AMA website (American Marketing Association) and look at their Statement of Ethics. What in the Statement relates to John Smith's dilemma?

No.  The AMA Statement of Ethics does address this type of issue when it states "Foster trust in the marketing system."  Selling the names may seem like it could be ethical because he would be saving those jobs; however, it would clearly destroy trust between the company and the public.  If such trust was destroyed, the public could react in a negative way toward John's company.  It would not end up mattering if he had or had not sold the names - the bad press would lead to bad business and more layoffs eventually.