In Response to Rachel

But if you look really close and you pause the video, you’ll read that the phone is only free with a purchase of a 2-year contract. Is this false advertising or just really good marketing? Because technically the actual phone will be free on that day but you have to pay at least $100 for the two year agreement.

As an American this is quite frustrating.  Many Americans have signed the dreaded two year contracts that pretty much require us to stay with that company for two years, or pay a huge early cancellation fee.  I for one was not a big fan of it as it doesn't seem fair that one has to commit to something for two years.

During the fall semester I had the opportunity of studying abroad in New Zealand.  When I was over there I realized that none of the Kiwi's or locals had nice phones.  When I asked them about it their response was simple, they didn't want to have to "sign their life away" to a two year commitment.  As a result they would have to pay the full value of their phones, and then they could pay per month with any carrier they desired.

It is a different way of looking at it, we as Americans are seemingly more willing to sacrifice time and a commitment just to have a nicer phone, while the Kiwis wanted to have their freedom.

Many Americans are unaware of the possibility of paying month to month.  They are also less willing to pay more up front even if it would save them in the long run.

As a consumer would you prefer to do it the "American way" or more of the "Kiwi way"?  I know I for one will be considering my options when my two year commitment ends this July.

Super Bowl Ad Reaction

Super Bowl ad fiasco sign of seriously divided nation

On February 5^th the event that gets the highest TV ratings every year is watched by more than just football fans.  Over the years the Super Bowl has evolved into more than just the biggest game of the largest professional sports league in the U.S.  Companies have realized how high the ratings are, and have been willing to spend millions on a thirty second spot to get their name out.  Many of the commercials are designed to be funny, while still getting the potential customers to remember the brand name.  As the quality of the game isn’t always that great, especially if you have been a New England fan in the past few years, the commercials can always be counted on to be memorable.

This year was no exception, the game was a nail biter and came down to the last play, but was still mighty depressing for the Patriots fans.  The commercials on the other hand, were fair. There weren’t any stand out extremely funny but there was one that was extremely memorable.  Just before the second half began Chrysler stepped up to the plate big time.  They put on a commercial starring Clint Eastwood.  This commercial talked about how the American auto industry was on the rebound, Detroit was becoming a boom town again, and “Yeah. It's halftime, America. And our second half is about to begin.”  I personally took it as the second half of the game was about to begin as well as Detroit was only just beginning in their quest of world dominance in the auto industry again. 

When I was reading the news the next day, I learned that many people took it as a political ad.  People argued that it was an ad for Obama, and that he was just beginning improvement for America, something that with “another half” he could accomplish much more.  Karl Rove as well as Rush Limbaugh took it as “offensive”. 

Do you think the ad was an ad for Obama or just for Detroit as well as for America as a whole?  If it was an ad for Obama, should large corporations be able to endorse a candidate like that?