Misplaced marketing test 2 discussion questions
Misplaced marketing test 2 discussion questions MKGT 4050
Popular in Misplaced Marketing
Popular in Business, Marketing
CHEM 1110 - 01
verified elite notetaker
verified elite notetaker
verified elite notetaker
verified elite notetaker
verified elite notetaker
EC 101 AA
verified elite notetaker
This 4 page Study Guide was uploaded by Kelsey Bixler on Monday October 10, 2016. The Study Guide belongs to MKGT 4050 at Auburn University taught by Herbert J. Rotfeld in Fall 2016. Since its upload, it has received 21 views. For similar materials see Misplaced Marketing in Business, Marketing at Auburn University.
Reviews for Misplaced marketing test 2 discussion questions
Report this Material
What is Karma?
Karma is the currency of StudySoup.
You can buy or earn more Karma at anytime and redeem it for class notes, study guides, flashcards, and more!
Date Created: 10/10/16
Misplaced Marketing Test 2 Discussion Questions Topic 4 1. Production orientation when the product or service is made based not on what a target segment wants or needs, but instead on what engineers or others in the firm discover it can produce. This can result in success if customers are left with the choice to either buy the product with its available features or not buy anything at all. (This occurs when the engineeringovermarketing mentality was pervasive for virtually allavailable brands) 2. Production orientation can satisfy a customer who thinks like the engineers who made the added product. In the book, Herb’s friend liked the enhanced CD “It is possible, it is different, so he likes it.” This can also work when there aren’t any competitors, when all competitors offer comparable (nonchoice) alternatives, or the unnecessary features are not so egregious as to turn off a significant number of consumers. Planned product deaths and impossible repairs may also be a part of the modern production orientation. 3. Products like computers contain extra features that have no value for consumers but serve the worldview of the computer makers. This is a result of designers that are unable or unwilling to understand how customers really think. They add features because engineers say they are possible, not because the buyers desire them. 4. (a) Parking sign outside of Lowder, Handicap signs not in convenient locations, crosswalks not where people normally walk, bricks not being sealed in Lowder so it caused flooding and water damage. (b) Sometimes Architects are tone deaf to things outside what they legally have to do. 5. Engineers sometimes seem incapable of understanding that the neat features they find so interesting and clever might eventually result in consumer pain. They may design their products for other designers or people like themselves. 6. The root of having poorly trained service employees is that the level of intellect needed for many basic service level jobs is going down. Cash registers eliminate the need for counting and managers often leave people on the job despite obvious limitations. 7. “Relationship marketing” is meant to be used as a way to build longterm relationships with customers and improve service. Instead, some companies have used the data collected as means to tier their customers into groups by past spending patterns. This enables companies to give bad service to lower tiers and preferred service to more frequent buyers. This can lead to a company’s detriment because “What someone spends today is not always a good indicator of what they’ll spend tomorrow.” Companies may be giving good customer service to consumers who decide to take their business else where, while also driving away customers whose low activity may be based entirely on repeatedly receiving bad service. 8. Managers can make customers happy by realizing that the longterm value of customer relations can far outweigh any shortrun profit gain from holding the line against potential abuses of customer return polices. Managers can give cash refunds, replacing damaged items and correcting mistakes at no cost to the customer. Topic 5 1. “Creatives” – the people involved with the daytotoday decisions of advertising message planning and writing. They work in the creative department and their job description involves creative strategy and tactics. 2. If the image of a star does not fit the advertising message the audience will only recall the celebrity, not the product (pertains to humor as well). Herb’s email “Sex is relevant for a product’s advertising only if there exists a segment of consumers that would buy it for a sexual reason. But too often, sex is thrown into the message without any relevance. To put this explanation in opposite terms – a product that directly involves sex but people don’t necessarily buy it for sexual reasons ‒ people buy condoms for use in sex, but the reasons the product is bought, the product benefits, are unrelated to sex, except for those times when lack of being prepared results in an event that doesn’t happen.” 3. Every advertiser has a pragmatic need to stand out. As they focus on developing messages that stand out, too many of them forget that their focus should be on the subject of the message (aka the product), not the message itself. 4.Advertising does not turn criminals into lawabiding citizens. It is common that advertising is employed for the indefinite and lessthanpragmatic aim of “doing something.” They give make people feel good while giving them the impression that something is being done. But other options are ignored while no one does the work that would better reach and persuade people who are at risk. 5. Advertisers mistakenly believe that there is a “optimal level of fear” that can be achieved to modify behavior (despite 45 years of mixed reviews). Advertisers often do not take into consideration what the audience views as important. Instead, advertisers’ arrogance and clients’ trust lead them to being almost clueless as to what the audience fears or why. They base advertising on their own fears. They also assume death and destruction is the most feared outcome of risky behaviors. 6. Companies often spend money for all sorts of reasons, and not always because they know it will change anyone's mind. That hits it exactly. Just because they are doing it doesn’t mean it is a good idea. A lot of money spent by those companies is wasted, as are the millions blown on Super Bowl advertising that are unable to contribute to any brand identity or sales. There is also the difference between selling a product to a specific segment of consumers with an interest in purchase versus the total changes in behavior that the statement presumes. Topic 6 1. Doctors and lawyers at the FDA are experts on drugs and they properly use medical research to assess the nature and value of drugs or medical devices. But, they also use this research to decide on legally acceptable methods for the products to be marketed (under the presumption that they are marketing experts when they do not usually understand how consumers respond to marketing tools). The FTC may attempt to protect consumers by requiring screening and approval of financial terms on disclosure forms but, they use terms that few people are able to understand. They succeed in making information readily available and provided by the company in order to prevent deception. But consumers’ plain language is different than a lawyer’s. 2. If the FTC had to prove actual deception they would have had to prove that the firm had actual intent to deceive consumers and that people actually believed it (they would need burden of proof). However, this is not the case. The FTC says deception (or the capacity to deceive) can be if what was implied, what was said, and what was left out is at variance with the facts. The FTC does not have to prove that people believe it (it is like a speeding ticket you don’t have to prove that someone intended to speed). 3. The statement would not be deceptive if 1it is true or 2no one believes it. 4. The advertisement contained terms used for loan and payment disclosures. When cars are sold, these are the terms they are legally required to include on the forms, and no one provided a plain English translation. The government regulation in this case was aimed at helping consumers make informed decisions, but few people are actually able to understand the information. 5. Regulatory commissioners are presumed to have expertise in how consumers respond to marketing tools. The law presumes that the FTC commissioners possess expertise about advertising theory and practice because it is the predominate government body involved with regulation of advertising veracity. However, this logic is a bit circular (and a bit arrogant). The law says they can be marketing experts, so many of them believe they are. 6. When it comes to marketingforced regulatory agencies, lawyers use a combination of their own intuition and evidence from economists and engineers to decide how marketing works. As a result, their presumptions of how consumers will respond to various marketing situations are formed by their education and professional backgrounds. They may write regulations without any reference to marketing research. 7. (From the book) Advertisement restrictions can be considered the weakest potential force on influencing generic demand for product like cigarettes, guns, alcohol, etc. These restrictions also have caused Supreme Court battles regarding the First Amendment, which resulted in more of a distraction from more effective efforts to restrict public demand for these products. (from class notes) These are established products, which means advertisement restrictions are not likely to affect generic demand people already know about them and want them. But retail advertising is different for weed in Colorado because it is newly legal generic demand can increase because it is not an established product. 8. Puffery is deemed to deceive no one because a series of judicial assertions, legal precedents, and cases under British common law said so. “Judicial expertise” from centuries ago were dictating judges, lawyers and FTC staff’s view about the believability of puffery. Topic 7 1. Risk is equal to the probability of a hazard occurring times the impacts of the hazard. The risk involving breast implant rupture (the hazard) is anywhere from .2 percent to 32 percent of the relevant cases (the probability) resulting in numerous possible consequences including the uncertain possibility of an autoimmune disorder (the impact of the hazard). 2. In the case of breast implants the determination of risk required numerous inputs from engineers, physicians, epidemiologists, biologists, chemists, etc. Numerous bench tests as well as animal, clinic and epidemiological tests had to conducted to calculate the risk. Ultimately, to achieve meaningful calculation of risk, millions of dollars and years of study would be required. List of basic problems: differing assumptions, errors of omission, unknown latent effects, animal studies versus human effects, subjective bias. 3. Company officials are often in too much of a rush to reassure the public that a risk is negligible, whereas the already anxious public is far more concerned in knowing what the company is doing to alleviate the threat. Areas where risk communicators stumble lack of credibility, confusing language, public difficulty is accessing the risk. 4. Companies put the same warning labels on all the products they sell explains why there is a “wear protective eyewear’’ label on a pocket caliper. 5. Before approval drugs must be proven effective with an acceptable safety profile by means of lab research and human clinical trails. Supplements manufacturers can introduce new products without any safety testing. Drug labels and packaging must warn consumers of all possible adverse effects. Supplements do not have to have detailed warning labels. Finally, by law drug companies are required to report any product related adverse events to the FDA. Supplement makers do not have to report adverse events and therefore very rarely do. 6. The discrepancy between the public’s perception of risk and experts has a deep root in ignorance a miscommunication. Research vs. real life scientists and the rest of the public live in different worlds with different education and exposure to very different sources of information. Weighing consequences differently people value the consequences of a hazard very differently, even when they agree on the probability of it occurring (people would also rather have a choice about whether or not to take a risk). Exposure vs. harm Researchers worry about the number of potential casualties a hazard might cause. Public is usually more concerned with the number of people exposed to a hazard rather than the scope of the injuries that occur. Allocation of costs and benefits. Lack of trust. 7. It’s not like people don’t know the dangers of smoking cigarettes when they buy them. 8. People may take supplements for help with losing weight and energy stimulation but they often times do not realize the dangers of them. 68 percent of people who were asked thought that the government required warning labels on supplements’ potential side effects and dangers. 55 percent said supplement manufacturers couldn’t make health claims without scientific proof. Neither of these claims are true. 9. The FDA does not regulate supplements. They can try to get a supplement off the market for safety reasons, but they have to prove it is unsafe to DSHEA and the standards are so high that it could take the FDA years to build a case. They can try to “regulate by public release” issuing warnings about dangerous supplements and hoping consumers read them.
Are you sure you want to buy this material for
You're already Subscribed!
Looks like you've already subscribed to StudySoup, you won't need to purchase another subscription to get this material. To access this material simply click 'View Full Document'