Response to Eriks's Stumble Upon Post

Mastering the ability to use Stumble Upon is a very valuable tool for Marketers. Check it out. Do you agree?

I definitely agree that being able to use Stumble Upon is a good tool for marketers because it seems to be a ultimate search engine that still has not came close to reach its peak yet. I actually just signed up for my Stumble Upon account a few weeks ago and i'm not going to lie its addicting. Its very easy and interesting the random sites they bring you on based on your interests. I interests i chose were sports, music, nature along with others. Most of the time the sites they bring you to are something that would be pretty difficult to just find on the web or wouldn't think of searching for it which makes it unique.It is very fast and if you don't like what they brought you to then you simply just push the stumble button and it instantly brings you somewhere else. I feel that once stumble upon starts getting bigger and more recognized as it is starting to anyways we will see more advertisements because marketers will see it as a great opportunity for promotion. Stumble Upon if used correctly will be very valuable for marketers.

Taco Bell Uses Humor to dig itself

http://www.foxnews.com/health/2011/01/25/wheres-beef-taco-bell-sued-ingredients/Last week, an Alabama law firm filed a class action lawsuit against Taco Bell, claiming the restaurant chain misleads its customers about what's actually in its tacos. The lawsuit stems from a former employee who stated that Taco Bell has been advertising its meat as "seasoned beef," but claims evidence in the form of lab results shows that Taco Bell is including oat products as a seasoning. The problem is that  is that oats is not a seasoning and cannot be used as seasoning in "seasoned beef," and further that Taco Bell has been purposefully mislabeling its product, and ultimately tricking their customers. Since the story broke, Taco Bell has been active in dispelling consumer concern over one of its main ingredients, almost instantly going on both the defensive as well as the offensive. For example, Taco Bell's corporate home page is 100% dedicated to addressing the controversy sharing its beef ingredients, print ads and direct links to media relations. Furthermore it has been actively using the hashtags beef in addition to TacoBell in all tweets related to the suit. One look at Taco Bell's tweets and you'll find both a serious tone addressing the suit in the form of embedded video starring the president of Taco Bell, as well as links to humorous musings on the Colbert Report's take on "tacogate."

Since the allegations Taco Bell has put on a paid media effort with a full page ad that is titled "Thank you for suing us," which attempts to disprove the acusations of the seasoned beef in proactive fashion that is guarenteed  to get consumers attention and possible draw more people in their restaurant. So from a media perspective Taco Bell is doing the right thing and is being proactive with their marketing to try and turn around the publics opinion and is total focusing there business on their marketing efforts.They are going out of their way to show the recipe of its product to anyone who will listen and rationally explaining that oats in their beef recipe is the equivalent to beans in chili. In any other industry we'd consider this a successful attempt at utilizing social media with paid and owned media to position the brand against its detractors and share its brand story with its consumers. In my opinion it is clear that Taco Bell is not being honest about their product. It shouldn't take something like this to start posting what is in your food they should have done it from the start. By the owners saying that there are no fillers clearly is not true and is not promoting customer loyalty. This is not the first time this has happened either I remember a few years ago Ecoli was in Taco Bells meat so there is something going on in that business that the public doesn't know about. Even with all the marketing Taco Bell is doing to try to prove there meat is up to the regulations of the USDA would you still eat their products?

Green Marketing

I recently read a article called "3 keys to Green Marketing Campaigns" which discussed the 3 ways to effectively promote environmentally friendly lifestyles. Green marketing has grown exponentially in the past few years as people especially college students and late teenagers have become more aware problems in the environment, the use of fossil fuels, and global warming which seems to be on the rise. According to the article in order for Green Marketing to be effective you have to do 3 things; be Genuine, Educate Your Customers, and give them a Opportunity To Participate. Being genuine means exactly what was talked about in class the other day and that is to believe in what your selling and do what you claim to be doing especially when it comes to such a sensitive topic like "going green." A example of not doing this would be Al Gore with his Inconvient Truth movie where he was talking about the rise of global warming and what needs to be done to reduce it but at the same time he flies around in his private jet all over the world and lives in a mansion that uses up a lot of resources and makes a significant carbon footprint.

The Second way to effectively promote Green Marketing is to Educate Your Customers. Green marketing only goes so far when you just let people know what do to protect the environment in order to actually have  an impact you must educate them on why it is so important to change the way we do things and how it has such a problem for the future and today. Like the use of plastic bags, most people don't know that one plastic bag used at the grocery store will take 1,000 years to decompose.

The third and arguably the most important way is to Giving Your Customers a Opportunity to Participate. This means personalizing your the benefits of your environmentally friendly actions, normally through letting the customer take part in positive environmentally action. In my opinion this is one the key flaws today in green marketing. A lot of people talk about what people should do and what there going to do to help the environment but words mean nothing if they are not put into action. To many people think that they individually will not make a difference by changing the small things like recycling, using less water/ electricity, and not using so much plastic so they don't do it. It all starts with one person to promote a more efficient and "green" lifestyle to spread to another and then its a domino affect. I think green marketing is extremely important today and for the future. Do you think that the three keys ( Being Genuine, Educating Your Customers, and Giving Your Customers an opportunity to participate) are all that Green Marketing needs to be successful?

Nintendo Wii Successor on the way

Nintendo announced on Monday that it will launch a successor to its best-selling Wii game machine and that it will "offer a new way of playing games. The system will launch sometime in 2012, Nintendo announced at a news conference in Japan early last week, but they have not reveled what it will feature. Over the years the Wii was a very popular gaming system because it was unique from the Xbox or Playstation due to its motion control sensors. Since X box has come out with a controller-less way of playing the Wii has seen less sales and are forced to come out with a new generation of gaming. Rumors had recently begun circulating that Nintendo would reveal a successor to the Wii. And according to leaks from multiple anonymous sources, the Wii 2 will feature controllers with touchscreens and will be capable of running games in HD resolutions and will be more powerful than the Xbox 360 and the PS3. The machine is also reportedly will be capable of streaming games to each controller, will be around the same size as the first-generation Xbox 360 and could cost between $350 and $400. Certainly the company must be hoping repeat the success it had with the Wii. The machine not only sold at an outstanding rate, it brought legions of non-gamers and lapsed gamers into the gaming fold. It seems gaming is getting more and more high tech every year and is getting to the point where i am wondering how much further can gaming companies go with their systems. Pretty soon everything is going to be in 3-d. I kinda miss the old days of the old nintendo where you played duck hunter and Mario. If all the rumors are true about the new Wii would you invest your money into buying it?

Response to Brittany's post on Wendy's New Fries

What do you think about the new fries? Will they be successful or not?  Why the change of having unhealthier fries? Will this be bad for Wendy’s look?

Brittany's post talks about Wendy's recently adding new fries to there menu for the first time in 41 years to "natural cut fries with sea salt."Although i have not personally tried the fries i know people that have and like the difference. There seems to be more flavor and  a different taste then before. The taste is different but it also increased calories and sodium then before which wont help with our health and obesity problems are country is facing. I think that the new fries will be successful because customers like change and when people drive by and see a new product at a successful chain like Wendy's they want to stop and try it especially when it is getting positive reviews. The name of the fries having the word "natural" will definitely trick customers into thinking that it is healthier but it is actually not. This happens a lot with marketing but people need to take the time to actually look into what they are eating to reveal the true facts about the food. Do you think other fast food restaurants will follow Wendy's lead and start changing there menu around?

Subways $5 Footlong

Stuart Frankel's story about how he transformed Subway from two small stores in Miami to 32,000 outlets worldwide is very interesting and based upon the famous $5 foot long. This could very well be the idea for a chain restaurant in a long time. The $5 foot long has been around for several years now and it doesn't seem to be any need to change anything because it still appeals to consumers based on the statistics. Just from the $5 foot long alone Subway rakes in $3.8 billion in sales every year. Frankel thought this was just going to be a short term gimmick until lines were continuously out the door and turned into a national phenomenon. American's seem to just like the whole number 5 for a 12 inch sub. The idea was based upon a healthy alternatives for other fast food chains and you could eat one half of the sub and save the other for later or share with someone else which is something you cannot do with other popular items like the Big Mac. What surprised me the most was that Frankel's profit margins never declines. You would think that with all the production and food cost that are necessary to produce a mass amount of sandwich's that some profits would be lost at first, but that never happened because of the high demand right from the start. He never lost any money on a $5 dollar foot long. Everything seemed to fall right into place with how Subway's business was run as far as marketing and the company as a whole. It started up when the need for a fast healthier alternative was rising and a Subway customer Jared lost 250 pound by eating Subways subs everyday and he eventually became the face of the franchise. People saw how much weight he lost and jumped on the bandwagon. The catchy $5 dollar foot long song also made it popular because it stuck into people's head and often times the people in the commercials were athletes making people think that they got into shape by eating there favorite sandwich. Some people think that Subway is "riding the pony" on the $5 foot long to long, but why would they change something that has about $4 billion in sales every year? What other ideas do you think subway could come up with that would be successful?

In Response to Kayle's post

If we start sticking puppies and lions on Kashi and bran, will our younger generation catch on to a healthier lifestyle?
 Kayle has a very interesting post about a recent study that was conducted by the University of Pennsylvania's Anneburg School of Communication. They gave 80 four to six year olds 4 different boxes of cereal. Two of the boxes were called "Healthy Bits" with one of them having no picture on them and the other having  animated characters. The other two boxes were called "Sugar Bits" with the same scenario, one with no picture and the other having one. The study showed that more kids today chose "Healthy bits" over the less healthy sugar favored bran and this could be due to the fact that over the past couple years more and more food industries are shifting there marketing strategy to promote healthier products because more people are watching what they eat compared to how people had no idea what they were eating. Kids have always been attracted to pictures on certain products because it catches there eye when there at the grocery store with there parents and most the time they are able to convince there parents to buy them especially at the age of 4 or 6. I believe that if healthier bran names like Kashi or Bran change there product to have animated pictures in them it will help kids buy the healthier foods and catch on to a healthier lifestyle at a early age unlike most generations. If this occurs it could potentially reduce obesity rates and lead to a healthier lifestyle for future generations.