In Response to Erica Murray....

AT&T released a new marketing service this week in select cities. Beginning in Chicago, New York, Los Angeles, and San Franciso, and to go national this summer; a new marketing service allows brands to send customized coupon or sales notices to opt-ed customers. Would you be willing to try this new marketing service?

     As of right now I am subscribed to two marketers via text message.  Victoria Secret PINK sends me coupons and updates on new merchandise as well as "member only" sneak previews into new collections.  I also receive promotional text messages from Allure magazine about new contests and special products.  As far as signing up to have random companies market to me based on my "geo-fencing" profile, no thank you.

     Many companies already offer a text option to receive offers and discounts, that you can sign up for at your own will.  I understand what AT&T is trying to accomplish with their marketing idea, however, if it's the consumer's choice I don't think that many people are going to be interested in this service.  For phones like the iphone, and android "there's an AP for that!"  Applications like Groupons, Livingsocial and many more that offer the exact same service at no cost to the consumer.  The consumer also wont be bombarded by text messages unless they choose to be.

     So, for me, I don't think that this service is something that I am interested in.  I know what I like and what I want, so when I decide that I want to get promotional material from a company, I'll sign up for their individual text option.

Are there other cellphone companies that are doing this as well?

Is anyone else signed up for text promotions from specific companies?

Air Canada Marketing Decision

     This video is a clip from the Bruins (vs) Canadians hockey game on March 8, 2011.  Montreal Canadiens forward Max Pacioretty was hit into the boards by Boston Bruins defenseman Zdeno Chara - which resulted in Pacioretty having both a severe concussion and a fractured vertebrae.  After review of the hit by the NHL league disciplinarian and commissioner they concluded that although it was a "late" hit - it was a fair hit and Chara would not be suspended despite the injuries that were sustained by Pacioretty.  Many fans were outraged by the lack of suspension and discussion arose about whether or not this league is too dangerous, and the rules too lenient.  An article from the OttowaSUN discusses Air Canada's feelings about the situation.

     Because of popular disgust with the league Air Canada (a huge financial contributor to the NHL) threatened to discontinue it's work with the league if proper action was not taken in accordance with the recent hit.  Dennis Vandal (Directer of marketing/communications for Air Canada) wrote the league commissioner a letter about his concerns with associating their brand with such a dangerous league.

"We are contacting you (Wednesday) to voice our concern over (Tuesday night's) incident involving Max Pacioretty and Zdeno Chara at the Bell Centre in Montreal.  This is following several other incidents involving career-threatening and life-threatening head-shots in the NHL recently...... From a corporate social responsibility standpoint, it is becoming increasingly difficult to associate our brand with sports events which could lead to serious and irresponsible accidents; action must be taken by the NHL before we are encountered with a fatality."

     Despite this letter, the decision made by the commissioner and league disciplinarian stood, and as of right now Air Canada has continued to associate/market it's brand with the NHL.  However, I believe that if something else of this magnitude happens again there is a good chance that Air Canada will make an executive decision to cut ties with the NHL. 

Does anyone know of any companies that have cut ties because of a similar situation?

In Response to Ashley Guidi...

"How often do you go into a supermarket and buy exactly what you need?"

     As the oldest of five children, having snacks at home was always a rare occasion, not because no one bought them but because they disappear so quickly.  Because of this issue, I always find myself buying extra when I am out.  In addition to that, effective grocery marketing certainly has quite a bit of influence on my impulse purchases.  I had never really thought about how all the best snacks are on shelves that children see, but now that Ashley has pointed that out I agree completely.  Gushers are one of my favorite fruit snacks and they're always on the 2nd or 3rd row from the bottom.

     So to answer the question more directly, no.  Unless my boyfriend comes into the store with me to make sure I only buy what is on my list, I buy much much more.  Like we discussed in class today, the word SALE really gets me to buy.  90% of my clothing was purchased on sale racks, and about 50% of the things I buy at the grocery store are things that were on sale.

     Touching on what Ashley mentions about how stores put gum and candy right by the check out, I think that I always purchase something from that area.  If it's not gum, it's a chocolate bar.  I don't think that I am the only person who get's sucked into these traps, but I am curious to know if it's more common for females than males?  I feel as though my Boyfriend, and Father always make it in and out of the store - buying less than they intended more often than buying more.  So boys, do the grocery marketing tactics suck you in too?

Um...Winning!

    It's hard to imagine that anyone has been able to shield themselves from the recent television appearances that Charlie Sheen has been in.  From 20/20 to the national and local news stations, everyone seems to be talking about this one of the Two and a Half Men.  In case you haven't heard, the show Two and a Half Men (a popular sitcom that airs on CBS - well, used to).  CBS decided to cancel the show before the most recent season ended, putting Sheen and his co-workers out of work.  They canceled the show when Sheen failed to show up for work on multiple occasions because he was on drugs.  He was taking depressants and hallucination drugs regularly, and didn't stop until one overdose almost killed him.  Sheen has passed drug tests on TV, and seems to be clean but fans are beginning to worry if Sheen is mentally stable.  He has aired an internet TV show about himself which has been looked at by many psychologists whom are now also very concerned about his mental health.

     However, despite his drug use and questionable ethics people still seem to think that he is winning, and according to Sheen, he most certainly is.  He is currently working on suing CBS for canceling the sitcom, living with his girlfriends (he refers to as "the goddesses"), and reviewing applications for his new "Internship;" for which there were over 70,000 applicants.  He is now in the Guinness Book of World Records for the fastest person to get 1,000,000 followers on twitter.

     From a marketing perspective, despite Charlie Sheen's popularity, I still feel as though I wouldn't want this person to represent my product, or television station.  I just can't help but wonder if negative marketing is just as good as positive marketing.  Based on Sheen's success in marketing himself, I absolutely agree with him, he is winning; but are consumers?  Is it a good thing that consumers are paying attention to what Sheen is doing and enjoying it?  Could it be possible that negative marketing is actually effective marketing?