Privacy Bill

I found an article that closely related to the discussion in class with the guest speaker Mr. Faulkner. It relates to our discussion on being ethical, and if it was ethical for Mike Vitone to acquire email addresses and send emails to people without their approval or knowledge. The article was from the Wall Street Journal, click here. Apparently Senator John Kerry (D., Mass.) and Senator John McCain (R., Ariz.) passed a bill called the Commercial Privacy Bill of Rights Act of 2011. This bill will allow people to see what information is being sent out about them as well as require permission for their information to be shared.

"These companies can do virtually whatever they want with our personal information," Sen. Kerry said. "Sen. McCain and I seek to change that."

Do you think it is ethical for Mike Vitone to e-mail people without their knowledge that he has their addresses?

In Response To Kristen

Kristen posted the question, what other features could this company market to potential consumers? She is talking about the video which I posted below about the roll top computer idea. I think it is amazing how quick technology grows and changes. I found this article and picture about a bendable, almost paper like computer which is being worked on by Arizona State and HP. Here's is the link to look at it:  http://elitechoice.org/2009/01/10/flexible-computer-screens-from-hp/. Today the latest rage is the iPad, which acquires a lot of the same features that the roll top and the paper like computer do. However in response to Kristen's question, it has more features that will be appeasing to consumers. Some of these features would include flexibility, not as easy to break, and even more portable. I would pose the question how soon will these items be on the market, and will the iPad or items alike be able to keep up?

In Response to Britney Perkins

What do you think about Viral Marketing?  Do you think that this video was a good marketing decision for Smart Water?

I would agree that viral marketing seems like a great new way of spreading marketing advertisements to a wide array of people. Marketers are always striving to find ways to get their products shown to a large amount of people. What would be the point of an advertisement if only a few people could access it? Marketing on sites, such as Youtube is a great technique. People will recommend Youtube videos to friends and family which would ultimately cause this 'viral marketing'. As for Smart Water marketing on Youtube and trying to go 'viral' it obviously was a great idea! 8.7 million people have  viewed the advertisement so it clearly proves that it has been viewed by a wide audience, and isn't that the point? Do you think other advertisments would do better or be better seen if they were viral on sites such as Youtube?

Google "Plus One"

Google is continuously finding new ways to keep up with the rapidly changing world on the internet, especially with the increase of usage on social networks. Google is known for their reliable search engine Google.com. Today however there is a huge increase of sharing on the web via social networking sites such as facebook and twitter. Some people are able to find articles or pictures based on someones facebook page if they posted something that they want friends to see. Also blogging is a way of gathering information on useful webpages, articles, pictures, online videos, etc. People don't necessarily have to go to Google anymore to find an article, etc. that they want to see or that their friends want them to see.

So how is Google planning on keeping up with this trend?

Google is introducing the "Plus One" button, similar to the "like" button on facebook. Google feels that this will bring more attention to their search engine and make it more competitive with social networks. They feel that the "plus one" helps show searchers what is a more valued article etc.

 

Do you think that this will make Google more competitive against social networking sites?

Response to Ashley Guidi

What’s Green? I would agree that companies use this idea of going green as a way to make more money. Most people don’t investigate a company if they are green or not when they go to the store. So if an item says something ‘green’ on it, most people would believe that. Consumers want to feel good about what they are buying also, if something you bought was less harmful to make or had a positive impact on the earth you might feel better about buying it. I think that there are some companies who are actually going green however. I have an internship at a company called UNFI and I know that they are putting solar power panels on the roofs of most of their buildings. If a company is going to market that they are green however, they should legitimately be green and ethically it would be the right thing to do. Do you think that the majority of 'green marketing' is a scam?

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?