Time Warner and the IPad

Time Warner has stirred up some controversy between large media companies for a huge action Time Warner took just recently. Apparently Time Warner now has an app for the IPad that allows people to stream live TV shows through their apple device. Melinda Witmer, chief programming officer for Time Warner Cable, said that her company is "well within our rights" She is saying this to defend herself for the many large media sources who disagree. She later goes on to say that Time Warner would only be streaming these TV shows in a “secure network” such as at home. HGTV came out to say that they did not granted iPad video streaming rights to any distributor. MTV and Discovery channels came out to say that this is violating their contracts which states it is specifically to be used for ‘cable TV’. Time Warner is utilizing new technology in a way that is more convenient for its users as well as more lucrative for themselves while keeping up in a fast growing world. 

 One of the major concern for major media companies is that they are not going to be able to benefit from what Time Warner is doing and feel that they deserve a share in this new app. Other concerns are that people will watch TV only on their portable devices and that there will eventually be not as high of a demand for satellite or cable subscriptions. 

Do you think that Time Warner is right to take advantage of this new technology? Should media programs have a part in some of the money making? Could this make TV obsolete?

In Response to Laurie

I agree that sex sells, I think that most people whether they like or dislike the using of sex as a selling strategy could agree that it is an effective strategy. I personally am not offended by sexual advertisements, but i do see where it can be too much. Some people of older generations do not approve of this taboo of sex being shown everywhere. Also I think that children can  be subjected to seeing these advertisements which could have a negative impact. I do not blame marketing for putting sex in ads, it clearly seems to be working. My answer to Laurie's question; Do you think we use sex in advertisements too much? No. However it can be used in the wrong context. In a children's advertisement for example would be the wrong context. So the question that I would pose would be In what context is a sexual advertisement more acceptable than others?

To Spend Or Not To Spend

After watching the Overspent American in class it really opened my eyes to how the standard of living is perceived through the media. I never had a thought about how the TV shows that are being watched portrayed people as ‘middle class’ when they have all of the luxuries of the rich. People ultimately get this perception that they are able to live this way because they’re part of the middle class too. People always want more and more things and in order to pay for these desires to buy they are consequently working more. The video pointed out that by the 1980’s it was projected that Americans would have a 4day work week and a leisurely lifestyle. So why isn’t this prediction true? Simple, people want more and more! In order to get more they have to increase their wages. Another option to get more “stuff” was also explored in the video and that is to acquire debt. Like the video said, ads are being shown to people who come from a variety of income levels and some people are unable to afford the ‘luxury’ item being shown to them. Marketing has definitely kept up with the trend of more is better, no matter the price. Marketing high priced items to people who do not have a large salary may actually be working however. Why else would marketers market to people who don’t have sufficient income to pay for their items? The answer could be that some people are willing to have a large amount of debt in order to keep up with the Joneses. 

Is marketing to blame for this increase in consumer spending and increase in personal debt? Or should we hold people accountable for their own decisions whether that is to spend their money or not?

In Response to Paige

I was surprised to see this video of Britney Spears and her new song. I had only heard the song before but this was the first time that I had actually seen the video. When I first read the title to Paige's blog I though that I was going to have to search even just a little to see the products that were being advertised. I was amazed at how in your face they were. Here's the video again:

In Paige's blog she asked these questions:
Do you think this is a good way for music artists to make money? There will always be product placement in music videos and movies but there are ways of doing it so that it doesn't bombard the viewer and is not obnoxious. What are some ways that product placement can be done more efficiently?  
Apparently Britney made $500,000 for placing these products in her video, so yes it probably is a good way to make money. However, there has to be a better way of placing products so that it is not so in your face. Maybe have less products that are being promoted, or do so in a more subtle way. If the products were placed in a less in your face manner would she not have made as much money? How many advertisements in one video is too much to where it becomes distracting to the viewers?

Marketing Through The Internet

I watched the clip of the Bon Iver band on the David Letterman show and I have to say I really like their music. Here is the YouTube clip to watch:

 "The Internet played a significant role in feeding people the music.... It's like wildfire [how it] spreads," Mr. Vernon

It's amazing how the fame and recognition of Bon Iver started on the internet. Marketing on the internet in today's day and age really seems like the way to go however. With so many people casually searching the web and stumbling upon new things, they are exposed to a variety of new talents, marketing strategies, advertisements, etc. On the Ellen Degeneres show she usually has people on each week that she found on YouTube who have a talent. It seems like a lot of people can get recognition via the web. Another great aspect to marketing yourself or your business on the web is that it is relatively inexpensive to do. You do not need a huge budget if you are going to post YouTube videos of yourself or blog about yourself or be a part of a social network. In fact, most of it can be done for free. Another great aspect about marketing online is that people will share their opinions of what it is you are marketing whether that is commenting on something you have posted, or blogging about it. People who are on the web actually spread what is is that you are marketing for you.

"The Internet has been like the French Revolution for the music business," says Panos Panay, founder and CEO of Sonicbids

It makes me wonder if the internet can be this useful and powerful for musicians, can it be equally as useful for businesses? Can Mike Vitone use this to helpp get recognition of Campus Mom?

In Response To Kristen

J.C. Penny going green?

This reminds me of our discussion in class about social responsibility. J.C. Penney may be trying to go ‘green’ out of a social responsibility to be good to the environment, or they may being going ‘green’ in order to attract more customers. Either way I feel like it is a good thing to be a socially responsible company. I feel that would absolutely attract a larger customer base. If J.C. Penney were to get rid of a $454 million sales opportunity they are expecting that they will make up in sales with this ‘green’ appearance. I could not see them dropping a multimillion dollar opportunity without projecting to make more than what they are dropping. I wonder if other companies have tried this technique and been profitable?

Changing Jobs, Good Or Bad?

Executives try out unfamiliar roles article in the Wall Street Journal discusses how people are being swapped into roles in businesses that they are not as familiar with. The article mainly discusses higher levels of management or chief officers who are being switched out of their job that they are comfortable with and have expertise in. The idea behind this is to introduce new ideas and a different pace into certain departments. There were examples of big and well to do companies that have tried this idea of swapping people into different jobs and departments. Walt Disney in 2010 swapped their CFO and their Head of Parks and Resorts. Tom Staggs CFO, commented on the idea of being switched by saying:

"will bring you more ideas for change when you're the new guy," Mr. Staggs says. And "I see people in my old organization under Jay that are showing increased energy."

This idea of swapping positions was successful in Walt Disney; however it was not as successful with the GM Company. Mr. Preuss was promoted to an operational role in GM. He barely had one year working with the company as the head PR man and was moved to an operational role. This was done because the chief executive wanted to “challenge some of the conventional thinking". However GM’s latest CEO was not satisfied with his work in the new position.

I think that experience level, personality, and adaptability all have an impact on whether or not a person will be successful in a role that they do not have expertise in, or background in. Could a manager be good at a job that they are thrown into without any expertise? What does it take for a person to adapt and be good at a new job or to new tasks?