Can Nokia win against the iPhone?

Nokia, the world’s largest-volume cell phone maker, recently shocked the world by announcing that it would begin using Microsoft’s Windows Phone 7 platform on its smartphones. Since 2008 Nokia has invested heavily in its own smartphone platform, the Symbian platform. Symbian was intended to power mobile devices and become the basis of an vast mobile device ecosystem. Symbian however found it increasingly difficult to be competitive new platforms such as Apple’s iOS and Google’s Android. Nokia responded by developing a new smartphone platform, MeeGo. During a joint announcement in February 2010, Nokia and Intel shared their partnership to develop the MeeGo platform. The goal was to have MeeGo power Nokia’s future smartphones and prove a worthy competitor of Apples iOS. Unfortunately, MeeGo failed to meet expectations and timelines. In fact, MeeGo has yet to ship in a commercially available product. This has left Nokia without a competitive product in the smartphone marketplace for a number of years.

In a surprising admission, Nokia’s CEO Stephen Elop stated that his company lacked accountability and leadership. He even went so far as to say Nokia struggled to deliver innovations quickly.

This lead to Elop’s announcement on February 11^th,2011, that Nokia would use Microsoft’s Windows Phone 7 platform in its’ smartphones.

Has Nokia made the right decision by abandoning its mobile platform?

Did Nokia make a mistake by choosing Microsoft’s Windows Phone 7 instead of Google’s Android?

Can Nokia find its way to compete with the iPhone?

Will Nokia’s selection make them more competitive in the smartphone marketplace?

CNN: Nokia’s announcement

http://articles.cnn.com/2011-02-11/tech/nokia.microsoft_1_windows-phone-nokia-smartphone?_s=PM:TECH

Engadget: Stephen Elop’s memo

http://www.engadget.com/2011/02/08/nokia-ceo-stephen-elop-rallies-troops-in-brutally-honest-burnin/

GM Opening Up Pandora's Box

GM has recently announced it has decided to partner with Pandora radio to offer streaming radio content in the 2012 Chevy Volt and Equinox.

The move is partially in response to Ford's success in partnering with Microsoft to offer Sync in many of its vehicles, which has been particularly successful in attracting younger consumers.

Dubbed "Chevy MyLink," the system boasts a 7-inch color touchscreen located in the vehicles dashboard.  Going a step further, GM has also partnered with Nuance, which will allow the system to respond to voice commands from the driver to control their cell phones and select radio stations or songs.

GM Executives Dan Akerman and Micky Bly noted an improvement in vehicle technology was a top priority, and GM's ability to keep up with the pace of technological improvement was not something they could do successfully without the right outside partners.

Pandora has already been in conversation with Ford, BMW Mini, Diamler AG, Mercedes, Toyota, and Hyandai, however, GM believes its system is superior in that it allows drivers to control settings on Pandora from the vehicle rather than the connected smart phone device.

Chevy will continue to offer XM radio in its vehicles and coupled with MyLink, drivers will be able to stream graphics to vehicles as well.

Questions to the Class:

1. Do you think GM and other auto manufacturers are sacrificing safety to attract new youthful consumers?  At what point, or under what circumstances would public safety officials become concerned?
2. Do advancements in vehicle electronic systems present opportunities for companies like Apple to potentially broaden its current revenue mix?
3. Do you see these types of offerings transitioning from a focused marketing strategy to a more main-stream strategy as the population ages?  
4. Is it sustainable over time in terms of attractiveness to the consumer and profitability for the manufacturer?
5. Given GM and other manufacturers are outsourcing this technology to outside firms, do you think there is any opportunity for the development of a sustainable competitive advantage?

Mermaids, coffee, and...outrage?

Secondary link: http://mediadecoder.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/10/12/gap-inc-puts-gap-back-in-logo/?scp=1&sq=gap%20logo&st=cse

In March, Starbucks will change its logo. They will be removing the words "Starbucks" and "coffee" from the logo in an attempt to revitalize the brand. As a semi-regular (1-2 cups per every 1-2 weeks) customer, I haven't noticed a change in product or service at all, ever. For me, its always been the same thing, since I started going to Starbucks. I guess I'm surprised that a minor logo change gets this much attention. What's also surprising to me is the fact that there were comments of "outrage" over the logo change. Perhaps surprising is a strong word. Enlightening may be more appropriate. Do Starbucks, or customers in general, align themselves that closely with a brand? Do customers actually think that if Starbucks changes their brand identity via a logo change, that they lose their identity?

Why did Starbucks change their logo? Do you think that the logo change is meaningful? Do customers have a reason to be outraged, or is this over-hyped media looking for something to write about? Is it a trailing marker of the final steps of a strategy, or the first steps of an implementation?

Can Sony and Others Finally Bruise Apple?

Sony announced a new music service, called Qriocity, that will launch Sony into the digital music streaming business. Sony wants to shed its past failures at building iTunes-like music downloading service and delve into what it predicts will be a growing new segment of the digital music industry.

Sony is building this service into all the hardware products that it sells as well as offering it on their playstation network. Sony believes that introducing this service into its already stable and profitable playstation network will help get the new service running faster than starting from scratch.

Sony believes that consumers are tired of the limitations of downloading music and using iTunes for managing their music. As the article states, "The iTunes software has become an almost unbearable drain on computer power. More importantly, the public seems to have lost interest in buying downloads." I am interested to see how well Sony's Qriocity music service will penetrate the market.

Can Sony, as well as other music streaming services make a dent into Apple's market share?

What must Apple do to defend its market share?

Should Apple expand into the music streaming business?

Mediums vs. Emotions: Advertising in the 21st Century

In this Forbes Magazine article, Patrick Vogt explores the “future value of online relationships for brands, and how companies can make stronger connections with customers across multiple media channels.” His argument is that the goal of advertising is to create an emotional bond with consumers and contrasts how social media, internet and traditional TV advertising can be used to create this bond.

Television advertising is still seen by most as the most emotionally resonant advertising medium. In fact, TV ads are making a comeback with television advertising projected to account for over half of all advertising growth in 2011. On the other hand, internet and social media provide the ability to target, track and report data through personalized and relevant messaging. While these digital mediums are fairly uncharted for many brands, success stories like Old Spice show the value in getting online messaging right.

After contrasting these different mediums, Vogt argues that, in the end, the channel doesn’t really matter. While advertising channels change and evolve, the goal of advertising remains the same. As Vogt says, “Advertising success is predicated on igniting a creative spark that flares into an increased share of voice across today's fragmented audiences. Technological innovations come and go, but some things will never change.”

Questions:
1. Do you agree with Vogt’s premise that the goal of advertising is to create an emotional bond with consumers? If so, why? If not, why not?
2. How does Vogt’s argument about the goal of advertising fit with the marketing goal of creating and communicating value to consumers? Does it seem consistent or does it feel like a throw-back to a “selling” view of marketing?
3. What type of advertising does your organization engage in? Which of these mediums (TV, internet, social media) do you use and how successful have they been?

The End of Discount Pricing

In this article Rafi Mohammad argues that companies should avoid offering discounts as a way to increase sales. He uses the example of Pizza companies that have recently reduced their prices and are now offering $10 any size, any number of topping pizzas. These discounts did increase sales for companies such as Dominos and Pizza Hut but how will consumers respond when they have to raise their prices back to $16.00 a pizza?

Rafi argues that companies should use an adaptive pricing model vs. the broad discount pricing model. Adaptive pricing capitalizes on the fact that different consumers have different needs and therefore place a different value on certain products or services. By using adaptive pricing companies can adjust a products attributes to better appeal to a consumer without having to lower the price.

To illustrate the benefit of adaptive pricing Rafi uses the example of Subway and Quiznos. Subway reduced the price of its foot long subs to $5 vs. Quiznos which created an entirely new set of less expensive sandwiches. By doing this Quiznos was able to still charge full price for its signature sandwiches and avoid the dilemma that Subway will face when the economy turns around that they are faced with having to raise prices.

Do you think that the pricing model that Rafi advocates in the article is an effective way at increasing demand while avoiding price decreases?

How can companies like Subway and Pizza Hut raise prices without sacrificing demand when the economy turns around?

Can you think of some other examples of adaptive pricing?

Infomercials - An effective form of advertising?

Some products can be successfully pitched to the public through the usual 30 second commercials inserted into prime time programming. Others, however, may require a little more explanation or promotion in order to appeal to a niche market. Instead of producing a standard print ad or 30 second spot, some companies use a long form video format known as an infomercial. An infomercial is generally a combination of information about the product and a promotional commercial.

An infomercial can be scripted in a number of ways, depending on the nature of the product and the buying habits of its intended demographic. Some infomercials duplicate the format of a television talk show, with either a recognized television personality or a skilled actor portraying a host. The product is usually presented as the topic of an extended interview with the inventor or other "expert." Between interview segments, a more traditional television spot gives viewers more specifics on the product's price and ordering method.

Although a number of modern infomercials have found mainstream acceptance, the infomercial format still has some challenges to face. The claims made about a product in an infomercial, for example, are not always examined as rigorously as claims made during a television news interview. An infomercial can be an effective form of advertising, especially for niche market products.

Infomercials have some advantages over the mainstream advertisements - since they are normally long form, they have the advantage to overcome the obstacles of selective retention. Also they create an environment where the audience is absorbed to make an impulse purchase. At the same time, the infomercials are expensive, risks are higher and the products can be assumed to be cheap.


Questions

What are the benefits and negatives of using infomercial?

Is this form of advertising suited only for certain products/services?

What is the future of infomercial?

Give Michigan a Hand

With the U.S. trying to recover from the economic recession over the last two years, lawmakers in the state of Michigan are trying to jockey for position in the race to win over growing companies. The state recently passed a new 25% state "Small Business Investment Tax Credit" aimed at promoting the growth of small, innovative businesses already located in the state. The ultimate goal is to help Michigan entrepreneurs have financial stability while their firms are in the growth phase of the business cycle, which allows the firm avoid potential risks that may occur when starting a new business.

The program allows qualified investors to apply for a 25% credit on their personal tax return if they made investments to Michigan-based firms who are in the the seed/early stage of development. The article goes on to explain the qualification criteria for investors and how growing firms are categorized by the state.

The Michigan Economic Development Corporation has been involved in a strong marketing effort to bring back jobs to Michigan. Young professionals are looking to leave the state right after graduation since there are few lucrative offers from employers. Start-up firms are difficult to grow and many fail before they break even. Tax credits like this one and the "Pure Michigan" campaigns have tried to lure workers and firms back to the state and believe in the "blue collar" culture once again.

Questions:

1. Do you believe that tax credits like these will promote long standing growth opportunities for firms or is this a quick fix to the problem?

2. Helping technology firms grow was the main purpose of the tax credit; do you think that this is the right market segment or should the state be looking at health-care, automotive, or agriculture (industries the state was built on)?

3. If Michigan is known for its young innovators, how should the state increase loyalty amongst its young professionals?

Google TV - Treading in Unfamiliar Territory

An article posted in The New York Times, Google TV Faces Delays Amid Poor Reviews, gives us a snapshot of some of the difficulties Google has faced during the launch of their new product, Google TV. (http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/20/technology/20google.html?_r=2&src=busln)

With so many Americans fed-up with what seems to be a regional based monopoly for TV and internet providers, there is high demand for a web-based product to step in as a cable or satellite substitute. However, “the biggest promise of Internet television — the ability to watch any show or movie at any time, streamed over the Web — is far from reality with Google TV.” The introduction of Google TV was a glimpse of hope for consumers as the search engine and marketing giant entered the electronics market and provided what was thought by many to be the next wave of TV viewing. Yet, the lackluster product launch has been filled with poor partnership management and product updates. In addition, Google has struggled to land deals with the major TV networks (NBC, CBS, and ABC) to stream full-length programs from their websites, further preventing the product offer fulfillment. The competition in the internet television market is fierce, with Apple TV and Boxee Box by D-Link pushing the industry, as each of these devices provide access to the major TV networks and online streaming through Netflix and Hulu. “Internet video traffic from 3-D and HDTV is slated to increase 13 times between now and 2014, when that eye-popping goodness will comprise 42 percent of consumer video traffic.” (Men’s Health, November 2010)

Questions:

Has Google stretched beyond their core competencies as a web search engine and marketing platform by introducing Google TV into the consumer electronics market?

It appears that Google had a poorly designed marketing plan for the Google TV without a well defined product offering, a lack of strategic alliances with key partners, a advertising campaign to promote customer interest, and a launch ready product that can meet customer expectations. Can Google turn this around as they tweak the software and re-launch the product in the future?

Borders' Woes Help E-Books

(click title to link to WSJ article)

Borders Group is expected to file bankruptcy within days. The filing will include an aggressive plan by Borders which is believed to close as many as 1/3 of their 674 stores in the restructuring. Quite simply, there will be fewer places for consumers to buy physical books. This is expected to speed the pace of online and e-book sales.

Borders handed the online book business to Amazon over a decade ago but only relaunched their own site three years ago. This contributed to their current problems but Borders still is a substantial presence in the traditional book business. "...Borders is probably 8% of sales for many publishers, but on certain titles, Borders could be 20%," said Laurence Kirshbaum, a NY literary agent. This is significant for smaller titles. Mr. Kirshbaum has noticed over the past couple months that publishers have taken a reserved posture towards smaller titles due to distribution concerns.

"Once physical shelf space is gone, it's gone forever," said the CEO of an e-book publishing and distribution company it the article. This will will make the off-handed discovery of books in traditional retailing more difficult.

Word of mouth sales of books will be more significant in the future since sales will not be bounded simply by what bookstores carry. The article stated that the same marketing tools will exist for small publishers as well large ones. It was suggested that these two factors will bode well for smaller titles and smaller publishers.

Do competitors stand to gain in the seeming demise of Borders' stores? Absolutely. Barnes & Noble is estimated to potentially gain $1B in sales if Borders' closes altogether. Independents also stand to gain in markets where a Borders' store closes. When Borders liquidated their U.K. stores in 2009 they had about 4% of the market. The former Borders' U.K. CEO estimated that their sales were roughly evenly distributed between online retailer Amazon and a physical bookstore chain called Waterstones. It will be interesting to see if a similar distribution happens in the US or if the proliferation of e-books in the last couple years alone skews those numbers.

I found this article interesting because a typical Borders' customer relishes in the value proposition they provide. They go to a store, browse, touch, sample, read, eat, drink, study, socialize, surf, etc. For consumers who find their local store shuttered this void will not be filled easily for them. Where they land in the future and spend their dollars will be an interesting adventure for such a classic activity, book reading.

Questions:

1. An online distributor states in the article that Borders has an opportunity to save itself with e-books. Do you agree that a retailer like Borders, with physical stores in its DNA, can successfully adapt to selling digital content? Can they do this profitably? Do you agree with the online distributor that this can save Borders?

2. Who do you feel stands to gain more with Borders closing stores? Chains like Barnes & Noble or even a retailer like Wal-Mart? Online retailers like Amazon? Independents?

3. Is there a new opportunity for a completely new entrant into the market? If so, what do you see this new entrant offering? How would their value proposition entice new customers?

4. Do you think smaller titles are on track with their belief that word of mouth will be more significant than traditional advertising methods in the future?

5. Will this invigorate the book buying population to finally switch to e-books?

“Huawei Wants to Woo the U.S With Cheap Tablets”, Jenna Worthham NYTimes:

“Huawei Wants to Woo the U.S With Cheap Tablets”, Jenna Worthham NYTimes:

This NYTimes BITS (Buisness Innovation Technology Society) blog post is provides a brief introduction cheap tablet computers as presented at the Mobile World Congress in Barcelona. There is an acknowledgment that there is a great deal of competition among tablet manufactures, many with similar features. However competition on price has only recently developed, led by Huawei. Huawei is a low price tablet manufacturer, priced around $300, running on an open source mobile operating system, Android. Though Huawei is not a major player in the United States yet, it is seeking entry using its low cost. Their product will be sold at Best Buy by mid-2011. One key to keep the costs down for Huawei, eliminate mass-marketing campaigns. According to Ross Gan, the world-wide head of corporate communications at Huawei: “we adopted a much leaner approach to these devices. We didn’t set our margins based our massive advertising campaigns that you see for some tablets. Our main goal is to offer value to the product.”

Of interest here is how much weight the consumer is going to place on price and whether the lower price tag is enough to develop Huawei’s market share. An optimized consumer would select those products with the best price/value combination. Assuming that these new low-cost tablets have same functionality as the existing tablets, the consumers should gravitate to these cheaper tablets. However consumers are not always rational. Big ticket items, like a tablet, would draw more scrutiny from the consumer and the consumer, being “boundedly rational,” would be drawn to the established brands. However if the price drops far enough, then consumers may become more lax with their standards and maybe more open to different brands, like the new-comer, Huawei.

1.) Do you foresee a tablet price war whereby consumer’s expectation on price narrows and their allegiance towards specific brands gets tested?

2.) Are their parallels between Apple’s first PCs and its response to “IBM compatible” PC’s to the Apple iPad and its response to other tablet manufactures using Android? Has Apple learned any lessons?

3.) In your opinion, is $300 low enough to draw consumers to a new brand?

How Great Entrepreneurs Think

This article in Inc. Magazine poses insight into the minds of great entrepreneurs and how they approach business opportunities and compares that to the ways successful corporate executives would approach the same situation. Sara Sarasvathy, a professor at the University of Virinia’s Darden School of business set out to understand how expert entrepreneurs think. She interviewed 45 entrepreneurs with successful track records with company revenues ranging from $200 million to $6.5 billion in a variety of industries. She presented each person with a case study on a hypothetical start-up company and asked for responses on 10 decisions that the founder of such a company would have to make when building the venture. She then conducted the same experiment with professional managers at large corporations (e.g. Nestle’, Philip Morris, and Shell to name a few).

The differences between these two groups were quite interesting especially when it comes to each group’s perception on the value of market research when launching a product or a company. Sarasvathy asked “what kind of market research they would conduct for their hypothetical start-up.

The entrepreneur’s responses leaned away from needing to conduct market research. Market research would take too much time and could still be wrong in the end. It would be better to just get out there and try to sell the product. That in itself would be all the market research they needed. If they found a customer for their product, then they found their market. The entrepreneur’s motto is Ready, Fire, Aim. Get out to the market fast and make adjustments on the fly.

On the other hand, the corporate executives were much more likely to desire market research. They want to run a quantitative analysis on the market size and customer segments before pulling the trigger. You could say the corporate executive’s motto is Ready, Aim, Aim, Fire.

Going through an MBA program and working within the corporate world I find myself relating more with the mind set of the executives than the entreprenuers. I feel that market research definately has it's place within corporate America but is this why it takes a long time to get things done in corporations? Have we become too risk averse that we aren't willing to pull the trigger on projects, jump in and make adjustments on the fly?

This leads me to ask the following questions regarding your perceptions on market research.

1. Why do you think successful entrepreneurs discount the need for market research when successful corporate executives value it?
2. If you came up with a great business opportunity tomorrow that you wanted to launch, how much market research would you conduct before moving forward with it? (Rate it on a scale from 1-10 where 1= no market research and 10 = extensive quantitative and qualitative research)
3. Is speed to market more important than conducting extensive market research?

Menswear's Youngbloods Kick It Old School

The article is very relevant to a few of our latest topics in marketing -Segmentation and Targeting and Positioning. Burgeoning new designers are capitilizing on the niche market of offering tailored clothing for men that don't want to be labeled as fashionable but do want to project the right image of themselves. The goal is to concentrate on fit, quality, and understatement. While the bespoke industry is not new its certainly a growing trend. The economic downturn has "unleased a desire ro be uplifted and energized." These designers are positioning themselves to provide exclusivity, simplicity and uniqueness to men that care about their image but not fashion so much. Some of the marketing strategies include partnering with firms of high end products, such as Bentley, who will give you an Astor and Black suit, shirt and tie with any car purchased. The article suggests that men are tired of dressing casual and are rediscovering the joy that dressing up can give. And just like the Ofek and Wathieu's article suggests, there can be opportunities to offer new value propositions that exploit trends that could shake up or grow the business.

My questions:

1) For men: Does the thought of having clothes tailored to fit your needs appeal to you?
2) Does this market seem like a trend or like something that is here to stay.
3) Ladies - Would you invest in the opportunity to dress the men in your life in something other than jeans and khaki shirts?

NFL vs. NFLPA. How about the customer?

Recently if you listen to any radio sports talk or visit any sports web page, I am sure you have heard about the NFL lockout for the year 2011~2012. The team owners and the players association are fighting over their share of money and are not concerned about the customers (fans).

•But it all comes down to one thing: finding a way to split the $8.9 billion. The owners already are allowed to take $1 billion off the top before the players get their nearly 60% share. Now the owners want to take another $1 billion off the top.

•The NFL will stop paying the premiums on the players' health insurance policies. This does not mean they will be without insurance. They can continue their coverage through COBRA and pay the premiums themselves, estimated anywhere from $1,500 to $3,000 per month.

•Here's what the NFL said it will lose in revenue if there is a lockout: $120 million in March, the cumulative figure grows to $350 million in August and $1 billion if the lockout ends right before the season. Then it's another $400 million per week in lost revenue once the regular season starts.

If you would like to know more about lockout click on the heading or the link below.

http://www.nydailynews.com/sports/football/2011/02/11/2011-02-11_stall_in_nfl_collective_bargaining_agreement_talks_between_roger_goodell_owners_.html

To me it looks like both NFL & NFLPA will lose if there is a lockout but both parties are not at all concerned about revenue loss and most importantly distancing themselves away from their customer base instead of building a life time customer value to their customers. I feel that NFL & NFLPA thinking is similar to that of Henry Ford’s view that “People can have the Model T in any color-so long that it’s black”.

My questions to you are.

1. Do the owners and the players association will distance themselves from the fan base (customers) due to the lockout?

2. Do you think NFL will lose their customer base and revenue to other sports?

3. Or it doesn’t matter to NFL as the customer base will be back irrespective of lockout. Do you think are there any other businesses like NFL that will survive in the current economy if they have a lockout similar to that of NFL, if there is one?

4. Do the customers (fans) have any say on the lockout or are they mere spectators like in a football game and at the mercy of NFL & NFLPA?

Best of the Best?

Forbes recently released their list of the 2011 Best Companies to Work for. The top companies boast "fat paychecks, sweet perks, fun colleagues, and over 150,000 jobs ready to be filled" and include:

1. SAS
2. Boston Consulting Group
3. Wegmans Food Markets
4. Google
5. NetApp
6. Zappos.com
7. Camden Property Trust
8. Nugget Market
9. REI
10. Dreamworks

Maybe your company made the list, maybe not (mine is #68). So what does this mean for a company and their marketing - for future employees, current employees, customers, suppliers, distributors, stockholders, communities where they operate? To me, this is marketing to it's fullest extent. Where else can a list make a company move up (or down) in the eyes of so many people and potentially have such a broad impact on canidates and performance in the next year?

I would like to hear from my classmates with your thoughts. Do you agree that the list should carry the weight it does? Or maybe you don't think the list carries any weight at all? Do you believe (or maybe you know) that companies spend money promoting themselves to get onto this list, only to then have marketing occur between all the people listed above because the company is on this list? Do you look at this list when you are looking for a new job to narrow your search criteria or to select companies to interview with because of their presence on this list? Do you see this list as a marketing tool as I have suggested in this blog?

Juke or Puke?

In his new vehicle review author Dan Neil claims that the Juke, positioned by Nissan as a “bold urban sport cross” was deliberately brought to market imperfect to test if automakers can profit from building models that target very narrow segments.

The most noticeable aspect of the car is the design, with three sets of forward facing lights, curious fender flares, and a sloping roofline Neil claims it is positioned too close for comfort to the Pontiac Aztek.

Turning from the design the drivetrain is impressive: Juke has a direct injected turbocharged four cylinder across all trimlines, a continuously variable or 6 speed transmission, front or all- wheel drive, and eco / normal / sport driving modes. Neil states “The Juke is a little riot to drive.”

Neil also claims the pricing is also quite low for the “riot” that the vehicle offers, with three trim levels starting at $19k, $20k, and $22,500.

In bundling the performance features, questionable exterior, and low price point Neil surmises that Nissan allowed product planners to step outside the normal approach to vehicle design and bring a concept-like car to market to feel out how large the “bold urban sport cross” segment could be.

This product targets on all three aspects of customer value: Functional, monetary, and psychological. Functionally it delivers the “riot” that driving a performance car is supposed to be. Monetarily it is positioned approximately $5000 less than the Subaru Impreza WRX 5 door, the closest comparative I could find. The psychological value is where Nissan appears to be taking a chance. Many consumers view their vehicle as self expression, and Nissan hopes the Juke resonates with enough consumers who are fed up with the “bland sameness” of small car design. The Juke appears to be a test of “boundedly rational” car design to see if people’s tastes have been poorly predicted or if their preferences are malleable based on the other aspects of customer value.

1. Is Juke’s value proposition of performance, price, and design a winning combination?
2. Is your current vehicle utilitarian or a form of self expression?
3. Is Nissan’s apparent “test vehicle” strategy one that other automakers will adopt?

Facebook vs. Google: competitors or complements?

This is an interesting, short article that talks about whether Facebook will be a competitor or complement to Google in the near future.  The question is posed "will Facebook take volume away from Google or push more volume to it?"  This question gets to the heart of the consumer buying decision process which we reviewed in Chapter 6.  With the growing popularity of Facebook, more people are connecting with friends/colleagues/family on a local/national/global bases.  Input from fellow Facebook friends provides a defacto search engine and potentially helps influence a person's awareness set of initial products to consider during the purchase process.  Does it stop there?  Or do people use input from friends to do more searching for information on Google.  Questions to consider:

1.  Will facebook pull volume away from Google (i.e. will information received from Facebook friends lead to more or less Google searches during the buying process)?

2.  What core competencies does Google possess to protect their brand and prevent loss of volume to Facebook.

3.  How does the increasing popularity of Facebook influence a company's brand messaging?

TIME TO PAY ATTENTION TO MR. MOM

Generational and economic changes are contributing to men taking a more active role in daily household decisions. Based on a recent survey by Yahoo! half or more of the dads polled say they have increased decision making roles on various product categories. While this shift is still occurring, the article highlights marketers have not made the appropriate adjustments to their advertising – 66% of dads felt ignored by apparel advertising, and 57% felt alienated by child and baby care ads.

Additionally, the article highlights that dads tend to be more avid information seekers. The internet was identified as a primary information source, with review sites and ads as the top two online resources for products and services.

This article nicely highlights the importance of monitoring not only a target market, but also continuously analyzing consumers that have previously been excluded from a marketers focus. A shift in gender raises many interesting question on how this change may impact market share, product development, and overall marketing techniques that have traditionally always been focused on women.

Questions:

1. Why do you think advertisers have been slow to respond to this shift in consumer decision making?
2. What differences do you anticipate there being in the buying decision process between moms and dads?
3. Is this an opportunity for brands with less market share to gain by targeting more of a male consumer?
4. When industries that are traditionally male-dominated rebound, will these shifts in decision making maintain, or do you feel they will revert back?

The marketing power of perception

As discussed in class perception plays a fundamental role in postioning our products or services. The more positive those feelings are, the easier you will find to make sales.

This is why it is fundamental to understand the marketplace's perception of the industry to which our product is related. If it's a good/positive perception, then we need to build on it, if it's a poor /negative perception, then you need to break it! Your message, your quiality control, customer service and everything else, should be designed to absolutely shatter any negative perceptions about your industry.

I find this article very related to the Science of Customer Behaviour reviewed in class.

If you were a CPA,

-How could you become of greater value to your customers compared to your competitors?

-What characteristics from your sevices would you highlight in order to attract new customers other than your cheeper fees?