In response to Tammy Chou's question: Do you like variety and options when buying something?

I think that having variety when shopping for something is neccessary.  With the world becoming more individualized, it's important that there be a number of different products that satisfy the wants and desires of as many people as possible.  It just seems like good business where the best product will succeed the most and turn the trend for the next hottest thing.  From a sustainability aspect, I think that having a continuous in flow of products is detrimental to the materials we have as resources.  Since there is always a better thing coming out, people tend to use up a product, such as a phone or tv, relatively quickly, discarding of their 'old' technology before it ever defected.  But, I feel confident in saying that there will always be variety for any given product and can't say I'm too upset about that.  There's an option for all needs and requirements.

Personalized Advertisement

As the age of technology continues to bring us smaller and more powerful gadgets, advertisement agencies have such adapted in an effort to continue getting the word out for companies everywhere.  It seems that as the day of the telemarketer has diminished, a new breed of technomarketer has inversely risen.

Whether it was a single website you visited once, technology now adays has the ability to find personal data on computers and other gadgets that allow them access to places in which they can maul you with advertisement.  For instance, checking an email account now adays involves a majority of that time spent shuffling through emails in search of finding one or two actual important emails.  In addition, it seems that cell phone numbers are either sold to advertisement companies or they randomly dial numbers in hopes of landing a sale, or worse fanagling people into giving up their money in hopes of getting more money back.  Although their are laws, acts, or policies which should technically prevent this, there will always be a means of getting around those in favor of getting a companies name out there.

Should outside sources be able to access personal computers to advertise to individuals?

In response to Nick Vita's question: Do you think that humor is the best way to advertise on TV these days, or does it make a company look less serious than it should?
I think that there are certain companies that can effectively advertise on TV with humor.  I think that it has to be done while addressing the company's product in a positive light though.  For instance, the State Farm Insurance commercials that illustrate unlikely scenarios that are covered in under their insurance is a nice median of comedy and product advertisement.  On the other hand, a Dorito loving goat who is driving it's owner crazy from all the chewing isn't the best.. funny, sure, but doesn't really say anything about the dorito.  Unfortuantely with advertising, the general audience can be summed up as a people with a small attention span.  To adjust to this, companies have turned to comedy to try and entertain people with a potential story line that carries out over time.  So, I guess it is necessary, but also takes some of the professionalism away from a brand.  People will do anything for some attention...

Superbowl Commercials 2013

The Superbowl commercials are expected to make you laugh year in and year out.  Whether it's the barage of Bud Light commercials or any other of the handfull of companies that can afford to buy 30 seconds of advertisement, the commercials are sometimes looked forward to even more than the game.  In a way, the comedy provides a type of entertainment for all viewers while slyly leaving brand imprints in peoples' minds.

Unfortunately, not all commercials can be a comedial knock out.  It seems each year, for every one good commercial, there are three or more faliures that leave the nation pondering why these companies spend all this money to make a fool out of themselves.  Nonetheless, the commercials continue to push the boundaries of public broadcasting as in the Godaddy.com's capturing of a very noisy and mildly provocative kiss.  Either way, I still enjoy the whole Suberbowl experience every year and try not to think about how much money is wasted on a 30 second stand-up bid.

Should there be a ceiling as to how much tv stations can charge for airtime during the Superbowl?

In response to Jade Brulotte's question: Do you think a portion of the proceeds going to a Global Fund is acceptable?  Or should all proceeds be given to the fund? (Especially is Oprah and Bono are promoting it)

I think that the portion of proceeds should at minimum be the intended request of 50% for the companies partnering up with the Product Red campaign.  Bono and the other's push for global awareness of HIV/AIDS in Africa is intended to build over time as awareness is increased.  I think that by allowing companies to salvage some of the profits themselves, they would be more likely with continuing their assistance to the cause.  Although I still feel like most, if not all, proceeds should go directly to the cause, I think that in order to maintain a sustainable campaign to fight the HIV/AIDS dillemma in Africa, there has to be some give and take from the companies.  It allows them to make some profits and also broadcast that they are a RED company.

This in in response to Max Senew's post: are customer satisfaction and customer value interrelated?

We basically agree on the fact that customer value and customer satisfaction are similar in the way that they are viewed through the eyes of the business owner.  One thing that I thought was interesting that Max focused on was the difference between the idea and implementation of customer satisfaction within a business setting.  With customer service being a large part of today's focus, I also find it concerning that there is a lack of truth that seems to follow product advertisement; especially among food products.  It seems that somewhere along the line, the food industry has over ridden this idea of customer satisfaction by falsely stating their products have more or less of what people want, rather than actually providing products with the stated claims.  But, I guess where someone fails, another niche opens, allowing for legitimate companies to step forward and provide a honest product.

Will marketing always rely on the mindset to tell customers what they want to hear rather than what they need to hear?

Product (RED)

Overall, I believe that the intentions of Product (RED) are good, but I don't know if Bono and Bobby Shriver went about it in the right manner.  I understand the desire to have a charity that keeps on giving, but I wonder if the methodology of giving a large lump sum outweighs the long-term potential of a charity that continues for five to ten years.  If the fundraiser wanted to continue making money in the future, I also see a problem if it only still promotes via the GAP, Converse, and Myspace.com as these aren't the broadest of markets.  Offering businesses with a larger market base the ability to go 'RED' might help to raise the awareness and profitability of the charity.  Another thing that didn't make total sense was the amount of revenue that the GAP took in ($71 million) and the amount donated ($2.5 million).  I have to assume that the revenue doesn't just include profit as that would be much less than the 50%.  On the other hand, I think that the incorporation of adding the whole new product line of INSPI(RED) shirts and shoes to Converse and GAP was a great idea to get the word out about the charity.  Much like the Livestrong wristbands, it does seem that product promotion corresponding to a charitable cause allows for a better following, and thus more 'donations.'

Is the world turning into a place in which we need to receive rewards for doing right?