In response to Maggie’s post...Do you think our generations and younger generations rely too much on technology?

Times are changing.  In many ways we do rely too much on technology.  For example, many people can't navigate streets they drive nearly every day without a GPS.  This seems like a minor ordeal, but it is a major difficulty.  It is taking the responsibility away from the humans.  Something that is nice sometimes, but we need to still be able to step up to the plate.  There are times when humans shouldn't have to rely on anything else, also if there is ever a technological failure humans need to be able to take things into their own hands, take responsibility solve the issue.  

Technology has also changed us socially.  In college, kids are able to spend more time in their room as they have internet, tv and pretty much anything else they will ever need.  This allows people to be less social, meet less people, and make less connections for the real world.  When one walks down Appian Way, most of the kids are either listening to music or on their cell phone.  I am a victim of this as well.  People aren't enjoying the outdoors and nature for what it is.  Sometimes it is good for people to unplug from everything and just experience the day.  

Technology has been a huge help for me as well.  I have friends all over the world, and as a result of Facebook, I don't need to keep track of their ever changing addresses, phone numbers, and email addresses.  I can communicate with them whenever I please, share pictures and videos as if I was sitting next to them.  

Facebook has its positives and drawbacks, do you think it has been more of a benefit to you or hindrance?

Amazon and Viacom make a deal

Amazon Inks Mega Dealwith Viacom for Instant Streaming Bonanza

The media giant Viacom has partnered up with the internet conglomerate giant Amazon once again.  This time in regards to Amazon’s new streaming service, Amazon Prime.  Viacom and Amazon agreed on a pact that will allow Amazon to stream two thousand additional titles to their collection, from TV stations such as MTV, Nickelodeon, Comedy Central, TV Land, to VH1 and HBO.  This will put their total number of streamable items up to 15,000. 

This is clearly a way to compete against Netflix.  Although Netflix had some problems this year, they tried to split into two separate companies, the streaming part, and the physical dvd section of it as well.  They also struggled with changing up the billing scheme and almost went out of business in the three days they had the new structure enacted.  They have since reverted to their traditional ways that have made them the industry leader in their field. 

Netflix has just surpassed P2P as the highest useage of bandwith in the US.  Amazon has since seen the potential in this market and has been working tirelessly on trying to make their product compete with Netflix.  At $79 a year amazon’s prime is much cheaper than Netflix. 

Due to Netflix’s recent marketing issues, and maybe not being able to relate to the customer as they once did, would you consider putting your money in an alternative such as Amazon’s prime feature?  What margin for error does the customer relations department in Netflix do you think they have?  

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?  

In Response to Lyndzi's Blog
Do you think Facebook is a good form of marketing for certain businesses?


Many companies don't use Facebook to its potential.  It is nearly free advertising on a site, that over 60% of the users check at least once a month.  With many of those being daily or visiting Facebook multiple times each day.  


As Facebook is a social network, it is used by many as a casual means of communication.  Many people use Facebook as a method to "unwind" or ease stress.  This needs to be taken into consideration when businesses are advertising on the site.  The posts need to be casual enough for viewers to want to read them, or watch the videos, but not so casual that companies lose their reputation as a professional company.  


There are many companies that it may make sense to not have a Facebook as their products or services are too professional for them to say things casually.  Some examples of this may be, lawyers, engineering facilities, and even hospitals have to advertise.  


Facebook has a lot of marketing potential for many businesses, but they need to use some caution before creating a Facebook marketing campaign to see if they are actually going to help their company's image at the time.  


If you were a company, would you prefer to advertise on linked in which is a more professional site or Facebook?  

Facebook IPO

Facebook IPO FilingReveals Its Stunning Size: A Private Jet, $1 Billion In Profits, And More

Facebook is one of the greatest success stories of somebody pursuing the American dream.  Mark Zuckerberg had an idea, one that he thought was good enough to drop out of one of the most respected universities in the world to pursue.  Facebook has since grown from a small start-up tech company that was struggling to raise funds, and operated out of a rental house in California to a tech giant that has over 800 million users worldwide and a net worth of $75 to 100 billion dollars.   Zuckerberg is the youngest person to ever become a billionaire, and is one of the most high profile CEOs of any company in the world. 

On January 28, 2012 Facebook confirmed the rumors that they would be going public by filing a S-1 with the SEC.  This means they are going to have an IPO in order to raise money for the company.  From a marketing standpoint Facebook is an advertisers dream.  Potential customers openly provide age, gender, location, interest, and a plethora of other information to Facebook.  They in turn use this information to create ads that are able to reach exact target groups.  No longer are the days when companies have to worry about who watches what television when, or what groups read each section of the news paper.  When a customer signs on to Facebook, they tell Facebook they are online as well as all of their demographic information.  As time goes on Facebook will further be able to perfect their art of advertising in order to hit even more distinct target groups which will only increase the value of Mark’s company. 

While this seems a win-win for everybody, facebok gets advertising money, and the users get to be able to connect with their friends in a way they haven’t ever done before, it creates a huge privacy issue.  Currently Facebook manages the ads, if Facebook does en d up going public, there is a chance Facebook will start selling the information to ad companies, as they are better at handling target audiences.

Would you read the new privacy policy to see if that is the case?  Should Facebook do this?  If not how can they raise the money needed to keep their company profitable?

In Response to Georgianne L

Is it necessary to craft your resume for each job you apply for, highlighting specific areas instead of others, or will just one resume be sufficient for all the jobs you apply for?

This is an interesting question and when I first thought about it, I figured that of course you would, but when I spent more time developing my response I realized its a little more complex than that.  

First of all it is in good practice to make changes to your resume in order to make it appeal to the specific employer more.  The question is, how much?  

The point of a resume is to show what type of person you are.  Many times we try to make it do more than that, and show how we will fit in to the company.  That is fine as long as it is honest.  Many times people change their resume so much for each company, although it may be truthful it may not be highlighting the characteristics that are most prevalent in the potential employee.  This may seem to be okay for the applicant at the job, but in the long run it just creates headaches for everybody.  

The employers realize they didn't get the same person they hired, and the employee realizes they are being expected to be somebody they aren't.

Sculpting your resume for each particular job is a good idea, just don't change it so much it makes you come across as a completely different person.