Utopian Entrepreneur
This article was a tad bit different. It was truly an out of the box approach. The expose was filled with statements such as, "cars build roads, trains lay tracks, food lays stores, info lays satellites, wires, and 20 lbs metal boxes." All of which are true. Funding for roads was only given sufficient allotment after cars really started to take off. Also, digital tech came about and brought a whole new dynamic to the market. People were able to make an immense amount of money off of things that no one would essentially touch.
Why does a product always seem to spur what the product needs?
Who ends up truly paying for these needs?
Are we better or worse through this approach?
Up for Grabs: Airwaves
The world of wireless has made the communications world a financial battlefield. The FCC sells off wireless spectrum rights and in return, the winning bidder has the opportunity to immensely profit. There is only so much wireless spectrum available, and the auction talked about in the article is potentially the last of its kind. Part of the spectrum will be auctioned as "open access." Currently the major cell-phone firms have a monopoly over there customers....such as cell phones. When you switch companies, you must switch to one of their cell phones. With the open access spectrum, whatever company buys, the consumer would pay that company for access but could use a different cell phone.
Verizon decided to jump the gun. It made changes in policy allowing consumers to choose new phones, ring tones, etc even if they are not purchased from Verizon. Now, other companies have been forced to follow Verizon's lead...although, if they hadn't, the FCC would soon force them to because of the move to a more open access system.
Which companies will benefit more from the open access system?
Does an open access system really give consumers more choices?
Will the open access system help or hurt the economy?
Your Facebook Profile Makes Marketers' Dreams Come True
Companies are scouring social networking sites, which provide them a vast amount of information about what people like and don't like. Before, marketers could only look at tv ratings to determine a shows likability. Now, people are commenting all over their social networks and giving free market research. The pro to this is that companies are making more of what we like. The con to this is they are getting so good at it that we want to buy too much.
Is it a good thing that we are posting private information, making it public, and having it used against/for us?
Why doesn't the general public seem to care that marketers are doing this?
Is online socializing truly worth the free marketing return companies are getting?
Free! Why $0.00 is the Future of Business
Disposable services are the way to go...use it, throw it away, buy it again. One specific example on the internet is Pandora Music Genius...a former free music player. One would enter a song or two that they liked and Pandora would generate other songs (new and old) that it thought you would like (usually to perfection) and play them for free. After a vast amount of people started using Pandora, it changed to a partially free service. One can listen to so many songs per day before they have to start paying for the music. The best part about their marketing strategy...you don't get to download the song...you're paying for something you might hear once a day and then you have to pay for it tomorrow.
Why would someone pay for something they cannot use again?
Why would someone go back and buy it again the next day?
Wouldn't it be easier to find another free service instead of pay for an old one?
The Good Enough Revolution: When Cheap and Simple is Just Fine
Even though there is expanding production at the top quality end of products, people continue to buy much more of the poor quality products at a severely reduced price. So apparently people are willing to buy a bunch of "band aids" in order to keep from spending one time on a quality product. Marketers have latched onto this and once people are hooked on a low end product, they slowly start to modify it to make it more expensive. Being that people like to stick with what they know (brand specific shopping), they start paying more for the inferior product.
Why buy poor quality just to save a few dollars?
Why stick with a product that you have used for years when the price goes up but the quality truly doesn't?
Do you think marketers can sleep at night?
Overall, this section comes down to marketers being right on the money due to people giving them all the info they need from social networks. Marketers to spend a fortune and people do when they buy the products tailored to them. Some products start out free and then the company starts charging a premium when you are hooked. Also, most of these products are disposable, meaning that people will pay for them over and over again.
Recent Comments