In Response to Abby Hajec

I posted about a company very similar in social responsibility with Whole Foods. I have to say, though, I appreciate the way Whole Foods treats its employees more so than the one I blogged about and I realize you didn’t include a very interesting fact I read about it a while ago so I just wanted to add it in.

As of January 1, 2007, the CEO of Whole Foods, John Mackey, dropped his annual salary from $1 million to $1 because he felt that he had already made enough money from the company and had come to a point in his life where he “wants to work for the joy of it and not for money”. All of his future stock options he would be eligible to receive are now being donated to charity as well.

Furthermore, the stock options of a company are usually given mostly to the top executives but John Mackey has spread them throughout the whole company. This shows how much he appreciates his employees and the work they do for the business.

 This is an amazing company and they do so much for our community, donating money to charities in so many other ways as well. I am glad you chose this company as your socially responsible one because I really appreciate everything it has done for our society.

Honest Tea: Honestly Socially Responsible

Honest Tea is a healthy and flavorful drink company founded by Seth Goldman, an inventor of tea who was looking for a healthy and natural tea that wasn't flavorless like all the other ones he had tried. Honest Tea's mission statement is "Honest Tea creates and promotes delicious, truly healthy, organic beverages. We strive to grow with the same honesty we use to craft our products, with sustainability and great taste for all".  Goldman has created a socially responsible company because of 3 reasons:

1.      Honest Tea is environmentally friendly because they use energy-saving CFL bulbs (energy conserving light bulbs), reclaimed bricks that were going into a landfill, have bamboo plywood desks and recycled rubber flooring and the company has purchased renewable energy credits to counteract the carbon dioxide created during production and transport.

2.      Goldman installed showers to encourage employees to use the bike given to them to bike to work. Also, the marketing team employees are given Saturn VUE hybrids to attend community events and do daily marketing work.

3.      Finally, Honest Tea has a program to prevent landfill buildup called "Upcycling Honest Kids Drink Pouch Brigade" where they transfer used drink pouches sent back from customers into stylish tote bags. $.02 cents is then donated to the charity of the customer’s choice for every drink pouch that is returned for conversion.

Do you think Honest Tea is socially responsible? 

Coca-Cola Top Secret Recipe

In this article Bill Kirby talks about the fact that the owner of Coca-Cola, Robert Woodruff, made up the idea that the popular carbonated sugar drink, Coca-Cola, had only one mysterious secret recipe. Kirby emphasizes that this is impossible and that the people making the drink obviously know what goes into it and not just “four men knew the formula”.  Although, he thinks that this is a brilliant marketing ploy; the idea that there is one unchanging formula that no one else knows or can figure out, but customers can taste its mystery.

The article was a little confusing but the proposal that I got from it is that mysteries make money. The secrecy of a product that no one else can figure out allows customers to become increasingly intrigued. I know that Coca-Cola has been known to dissolve a whole steak over night so I can see why the company would want to keep the secret ingredients under wraps. I does make me wonder though, why is the fact that the Coca-Cola recipe this such a big deal? Don’t all vendor s want to keep what makes their product special top secret so it cannot be duplicated?

In Response to Nikki Perry

I believe that Puma's new bag will only be beneficial for the company. This bag will show customers that Puma is environmentally conscious and will let customers feel better about their purchase.  The company will be using recyclable packaging as well as using less energy in electricity, oil, water, diesel, paper and plastic. The only negative part about this strategic plan is that I don’t think a majority of customers will make the decision to purchase from Puma solely on the fact that they are environmentally friendly. I think the new bag will be a perk, rather than a deciding factor when choosing between similar products by other brands. Then again, I do know some people who only purchase “green” products so Puma may now be their first choice!

In response to Ashely Guidi

This is a very interesting topic and really does make you wonder how far you would go to advertise/make some money. I have never heard of forehead advertising but I would imagine that the only people willing to do this are ones in desperate need of cash or someone who loves tattoos and has a bunch on themselves anyways that it doesn't even make a difference to have another one on their forehead.

The more I keep thinking about this topic, the less I could imagine myself getting a tattoo on my forehead for any amount of money. I certainly would not do it for %10,000 though. That isn't nearly enough money to have my forehead permanently inked.

I honestly would have to say that I would want millions of dollars to do that. Nothing below 5 or 6 million dollars. Even saying that I get freaked out.

I do have to say, though, if a company can get someone to do that for them, someone who is always going to be in a social scene and never cover it up somehow, then good for that company. That is going to bring in a lot of activity, or at least familiarity of the company, because so many people will want to research the business on that person's forehead. I would want to know!

How do people do that for $10,000, though!

Superbowl commercials; worth the price to market?

Millions and millions of dollars are spent on commercials during the superbowl, this year's superbowl XLV, racked in millions, just as the years before.

The question I have seen being asked on many other marketing blogs though is; does advertising during the superbowl really benefit companies that much? Is spending 2 to 3 million dollars for 30 seconds to advertise a product at a particular time really more beneficial than advertising on a different station at the same time?
John Tantillo, President of the Marketing Department of America says “The cost for one Super Bowl ad in 2010 could buy up to 600 30-second ads in the New York City market or 800 30-second ads in L.A.”. I would only argue that superbowl ads are easy to find after the game night when people are looking for the best and worst of superbowl ads. The ads are in the spotlight more than any other commercials at that time and become a part of American football history.

The companies that tend to have the amount of money to spend this much on advertising are the well-known ones that advertise their product every year during the superbowl. These companies tend to spend more effort on having a high-quality or funny commercial rather than hoping to get more customers. 

So, do you think advertising during the superbowl is beneficial to the companies involved in this sort of marketing?

To the right is my favorite superbowl commercial this year!

Tantillo. John. (2011, February 4). Five Reasons Why Superbowl Advertising is a Waste of Time. Marketing News Blog.  Retrieved from http://www.marketingpower2.com/blog/marketingnews/

In response to Cory Secore

I have often thought about this too. Whenever I see ads for well-known products that almost everyone uses; I wonder if the company really needs to be spending their money on advertising for it. Almost everyone already knows that brand name and that product, so why spend the money?

After doing a little thinking I have come across a couple reasons as to why companies may do this. One is constant exposure. When I see advertisements for Coca-Cola all the time, and even though I don't drink coke or soda in general, maybe when I go to buy one, for once, that will be the brand name I know and am familiar with. Since I know that this product is well known and that people seem to enjoy it, I drink that one. I may not know what the other sodas taste like because, hey, I never drink soda; so I go for the more promising choice.

The other reason I came up with was that, for first timers seeing that product, such as a little kid watching TV for the first time and he sees an ad for Budweiser and although he can't go out and purchase it, he is exposed to it. He becomes exposed to it over and over again for years and years and when he gets into high school and college and people are most likely drinking around him, they're probably drinking the most well-known beer because they haven't been drinking long enough to experiment with others. They just know that, again,
Budweiser is a safe bet because they have seen it being advertised and supposedly tastes good.

The commercials are comical for those particular reasons, as well. They're getting on the good side of peoples' minds. People will think of this product in a good light rather than not being exposed to the product at all.

All in all, those are just a couple reasons I could think of. It was always a question mark to me as well but after sitting down and thinking about it I have decided that whether a little or a lot, any exposure for a company is better than no exposure.