New Products

As discussed in chapter 11 of our textbook, new products are important to sustain growth, increase revenues and profits, and replace obsolete items. New products has a variety of meanings that ranges, but in reality the term has several "correct" definitions. New product is a product that can be new to the world, to the market, to the producer or seller, or some combination of those (pg. 179).

There are six categories of new products: new-to-the-world products (discontinuous innovations), new product lines, additions to existing product lines, improvements or revisions of existing products, repositioned products, and lower-priced products.

An example of a new product is that Pepsi was introduced a new skinny can at the New York Fashion Week. An article that I found interesting on this product is "Diet Pepsi's New Skinny Can: A Brand Heavyweight?" Jonathan Asher, senior vice president at Perception Research Services International stated: "This package is different in a way that so suits the product proposition. It's a sleek, thin, slender, stylish can. That imagery is so fitting for a diet soft drink." I feel like this new product of Pepsi is targeted more towards women because the package makes them look at the product more differently and closely and will somehow convince them to buy the product. I believe they are getting more women customers based on the new packaging of this product especially since they introduced it at a New York Fashion Week. By them introducing it right there and then, they are trying to catch the target market's eye and attention.

"Diet Pepsi's New Skinny Can: A Brand Heavyweight?" article can be found at http://www.prsresearch.com/prs-insights/article/diet-pepsis-new-skinny-can-a-brand-heavyweight/

http://i2.cdn.turner.com/money/2011/02/08/news/companies/pepsi_skinny_can/pepsi_skinny.03.jpg


Which category of new product do you think is the most popular, why? Do you think by looking at the new product of Diet Pepsi with its new packaging it would target you to buy the product?

Response to Nick Vita

Yes, I  think that the NFL should stop advertising on the uniforms because as Nick has said, it is really sad that they are just advertising these uniforms because they need to find a way to make more money. Granted this is a great idea to advertise because customers are willing to buy these jerseys because these professional sport teams are popular and these sports teams are targeted more towards men. I feel as if these sport teams should try harder to make something work then advertising jerseys to help pay for their incomes.

 Do you think that this is a fair way to earn their incomes? What other options should they take into consideration instead of advertising their uniforms?

Exporting

As discussed in chapter 5 of our textbook, exporting is selling domestically produced products to buyers in other countries (pg. 75). The company is able to sell directly to foreign importers or buyers. Exporting is determined to be the least complicated and least risky alternative. The United States is the world's largest exporter.

For example, there are three types of intermediary. The most common one is the export merchant (buyer for export) which is treated like a domestic customer by the domestic manufacturer. The second type of intermediary is the export broker who plays the traditional broker's role by bringing buyer and seller together. The third type of intermediary is export agents because they are foreign sales agents/distributors who live in the foreign country and perform the same functions as domestic manufacturers' agents that help with international financing and also shipping.

In my opinion, I feel like the buyer for export is the most important because they assume all the risks and sells to other countries based on its own. They are taking such a huge risk on this but they know that in the end it is worth it because different countries admire their products because they want to purchase it.

Which intermediary do you think is the least important? Which do you think is the most important as to getting more customers?

Response to Kaley DeBoer

I think that it is more beneficial for a company to have a range of different target markets because the company has to decide to aim its marketing efforts to a variety of people in order to make money. If the target market is only aimed at just one specific target market then they are bond to lose money and business. When targeting the market, companies have to consider geographic, demographic, and social cultural factors. For them to consider these factors they are most likely to get a large variety of people interested in their products.

As people grow older their tastes and preferences will change. Entertainment is an industry that frequently uses the age demographic to help determine a target market. For example, a television show may be given a particular time slot because market research shows that people ages of 13 to 18 watch television during that time and that is the target market the show is going for. For example, when I was younger I remember that they would show cartoon shows about 7-9 in the morning because that was when toddlers would be getting ready to go to school and they would be allowed to watch television around that time.

Can you think of a time when geographic, demographic, or social cultural factors have been involved that targeted you to buy a certain product? Were you satisfied with the product that you bought?

Component Lifestyles

As discussed in chapter four of our textbook, component lifestyles is the practice of choosing goods and services that meet one's diverse needs and interests rather than conforming to a single, traditional lifestyle (pg. 47). Each lifestyle is different and each one is associated with different goods and services that represents a target audience.

For example, Special K products are targeted more towards women. They would see "Losing up to 6lbs in 2 weeks just got easier!" on the Special K cereal box and that would instantly catch their eyes. They would want to give this product a try since the advertisement of the product is persuasive. This product is targeted more towards women because they want to get fit and slim so they trust that this product will satisfy their needs. Special K products are linking weight loss to health food and nutrition.

For me, Special K products have targeted me because their advertisement sounds convincing that I wanted to give it a try. I mean, what do I have to lose? In the sense of what I have learned, Special K products are healthy and nutrition. But, I have not quite followed through to see if losing 6 pounds in 2 weeks was possible. There have been some stories released that it is pretty accurate. I can state that I was customer satisfied with this product and I would occasionally purchase the different products that they have to offer.

Can you think of a time where you purchased something that targeted your lifestyles? Were you satisfied with the product?

Response to Kaley DeBoer

In response to the question asked if it is possible that all things legal are linked back to some sort of ethics, or rather could all things that are ethical be linked back to some legality, I think that all things legal are linked back to some sort of ethics because for something to be legal- it has more power and something has already been established. The definition of legal would refer to something of which that is appointed, established, or authorized by the law. For example, in order to buy lottery tickets you would have to be the age of 18. As the textbook has stated, ethics is defined as the moral principles or values that generally govern the conduct of an individual or a group. I think this is the case because for something to be legal you have to qualify for it and fit the qualifications.

There are other differences between ethics and legal. For example, laws can change over time, they vary from state to state. But, for the most part, political and economic interests are often determined for how laws get passed and what is in those laws. But on the other hand, ethics are way different. Ethics exceed time, place, and other qualities. In this case, this is possible for them to not be related at all in this situation.

Do you think that one has more power over the other? How would you qualify which is more powerful?

Corporate Social Responsibility

As stated in our textbook, corporate social responsibility (CSR) is a business's concern for society's welfare. This is related to the best interests of the company and the company's relationship to the society based on how it is involved.

It is known that CSR can be a divisive issue. In other words, it means that they tend to cause disagreement or hostility between people. According to Friedman: "Business executives spend more money than necessary-to purchase delivery vehicles with hybrid engines, pay higher wages in developing countries, or even donate company funds to charity. They are spending shareholders' money to further their own agendas." This can cause an issue among people because they are not spending their own money for their needs. Some would argue that this is not fair and I agree because they are taking money out of someone else's pocket to accommodate their own needs.

But, on the other hand, CSR has an increasing amount of supporters based on several compelling factors. For example, it is simply the right thing to do. Some of them include pollution and poverty-level wages. It is known for their responsibility of business to right these wrongs. I believe that businesses should be given the chance to solve these problems because they have resources and they can help with that. "Business can provide a fair work environment, safe products, and informative advertising." I believe this to be true because they are capable of doing anything they set their mind to and also they can do anything with extra help and support.

CSR has four components: economic, legal, ethical, and philanthropic. Which responsibility do you think is right for the society? Do you think different businesses would act upon it?