In response to Elizabeth's Question

"What if you were the customer and you were asked if it was okay if they give your name and number to another company, would you be alright with it?

I would have to say I would not be alright with a company giving out my name and number. I would appreciate them asking me rather than just giving the information out but I wouldn't say it was okay. If it was a company like John Smith's then I would more than likely have trust in his company. By him inquiring with me before giving out my personal information, I would be able to keep my trust in his company. My trust may even grow because he would be showing me that he cares enough about his customers to personally confront them about our own information. It also proves to me that he strongly believes in being ethical.

There are many reasons I would not allow them to give my information out. Although I may trust the company who has initially has my personal information, I do not know or trust the company they are providing it to. I have not been a customer of the company and in turn have not had any time to develop a relationship with them. With this being said, they have no obligation to me or my trust in them. I suppose that if they want to recruit me as a customer, they may keep my information private, but I can't be certain of that. If I were to allow my personal information to be given to another company I would want an agreement stating that the new company will not disclose my information to other companies without my consent. Unless standards are written or provided I would not be in accordance to allowing a company with my personal information, to give it out.

What is a situation where someone allowed for their personal information to be passed on to one company, and that the new company ended up passing it on to more and more organizations because they didn't have any personal connection to the initial customer?

John Smith's Dilema

John Smith seems to be caught in a large predicament. He knows that his company is not doing well and will probably have to end up laying people off if business does not improve. He also is aware that his employees consist of people who for the most part bring in the highest amount of income for their households. Being offered this opportunity to sell his customers could help him keep his employees and avoid bankruptcy, but it does not comply with the AMA standards of Ethics.

I do not think John Smith should give these names to the Ohio Department of Economic Development. In the AMA statement of ethics under the section that deals with fairness it does not approve of giving out customer information. The entire body of the Statement of Ethics talks about how an organization needs to keep the trust of their employees. That is the one part of their customer relationship that should be valued the most. By giving away their customers names and phone numbers these people will no longer have trust in John Smiths organization.

The AMA statement of ethics also talks about how they need to protect any private information of their customers. If they release the names of their customers than they aren't trying to protect this information. They are looking to benefit the company entirely and not looking at how the customers will be affected. This could cause the customers to lose all trust in John Smith's company and may look else where for similar services.

In the end it is not worth is for John Smith to give out these names. Although he would be able to make $8000.00 and wouldn't have to lay off his employees, he may lose a large amount of customers. Which would result in losing even more money and it may cause his company to declare bankruptcy even quicker. He should find some other way to work with the Ohio Department of Economic Development to help them with their research while at the same time letting the customers know who will be getting their information and what information these companies will be receiving. It will help John Smith make money and will also allow them to still be known as a trustworthy company.

Do you think that the Ohio Department of Economic Development would be willing to work something out with John Smith or they would just take back their offer and go to another company who would just take the money and give them customer names?

In Response to Meghan Hardy.

If you had the chance to download one of these applications would you and why?

I am unsure as to whether or not I would download on of these applications. I feel it is very useful to be able to go online and purchase clothing or any type of item but at time it can be a little tedious. There is always the time that one must wait in order to receive their item, or the fear that a piece of clothing may not fit they way one wants it to so the access to the actual store is always handy. The time saved though is what puts me on the fence.

One of my largest pet peeves is how long it takes to receive an item that was bought online. If I had the opportunity to download this application to my cell phone and from the outside of a store purchase the item, I don't exactly see the point. What is stopping me from walking in the store and purchasing the item? I understand that there is time saved by being able to stand outside the store point your phone and purchase, but how much more time would it take to just walk in?

I also have a problem with not being able to try on a piece of clothing. Each store has their own style in manufacturing their clothing. Jeans from Forever 21 don't necessarily fit the same as jeans from American Eagle. There are also different styles of clothing such as t-shirts and sweatshirts. This is what turns me away at times from shopping online. It would also turn me away from buying it by pointing my phone at it and clicking a button. I would much rather take the time to enter the store, be sure whatever I want to buy is exactly what I'm looking for then buy it.

In the end I do not think I would download this application. We have the internet if we want to purchase something, and if we see an item in a store window that we want to buy then entering the store seems like the easiest option to me. I understand that sometimes the stores will be closed and that someone walking by may want to purchase that item then, but the store will re-open the next morning and that item will still be available. I feel that it is just another piece of technology that will end up confusing people in the end and won't get very much use.

Do you think that it is really necessary to find another way for consumers to purchase products?

"Alice's $1 Billion Consumer Products Tea Party"

The newest Disney movie that has recently come out is the non-cartoon version of "Alice in Wonderland". This movie has caused great hype. It had a midnight showing that was very popular. Not only did the movie open yesterday, but Disney has put out a new line of consumer products that accompany the movie. They have joined up with some very high end fashion companies such as designer Sue Wong to create the dresses that Alice wears in the movie.

This article states how Disney is joining with these high end fashion designers to design various accessories and clothing that is seen in the movie. They do state though that all of these items are not for sale. They are more interested in marketing their brand of products and they are hoping that by displaying there elegant beautiful materials will reel customers in. They have created a line for their more money conscious customers as well.

It seems as if Disney is hoping to make money off of this movie not only at the box officers but also at the registers of the various stores that will be selling their clothing products and accessories that they plan on relating back to the movie. According to the article the stock prices for all companies involved has already gone up and the customer product chief believes that this line will last decades and they think it will be worth near a billion dollars within the year.

Do you think that some of the customers who would be able to afford the more expensive products will be disappointed when they find out they are not all for sale?

In Response to "From Print to Phone to Web. And a Sale?" and "Firms Hold Fast to Snail Mail Marketing"

Within the next ten years, it is my belief that the internet will be an essential part of every persons life. In order to hear the latest news one will need to access the web. In order to purchase certain, it not all material items, one will use the web. Ordering a pizza on a Friday night will be done strictly through the internet. Cars will drive themselves, and homes will be run through a computer. The internet will become a way of life. In these two articles they discuss how the internet is now beginning to take over the marketing sector.

In the first article "From Print to Phone to Web. And a Sale?" they talk about how a lot of ads in magazines are now providing the readers with bar codes. The reader can scan these bar codes onto their phone, if it has access to the internet, and will be brought directly to the place one can either purchase the item in the ad or learn more. This is great for the producers because they can now advertise in a magazine and provide the reader with an easy way to access their product. Usually one sees an item and isn't exactly sure where they can find that product in the store or even online. Although this may seem beneficial a problem with the bar coding is not everyone has access to a phone that has internet on it. Although now all phones have internet, unless one has a data plan they can not access this for free. Even if they have a data plan it still isn't free they have to pay a monthly fee. If these advertisers start relying heavily on those bar codes in their magazine advertisements they not only lose the market of those who don't have phones with internet access, but they also lose the part of their market that doesn't necessarily read whatever magazine they advertise in.

In the second article "Firms Hold Fast to Snail Mail Marketing" they talk about how since e-marketing has become such a large phenomenon most companies are cutting back on mailing costs and going towards e-mail. All of the companies that the article mentioned had actually lost from switching to e-mail. When switching from the normal paper mail to e-mail it can be difficult to distinguish between what is junk and what isn't when it comes into ones e-mailbox. There are so many people out there who use different names to try and get the receiver to open a piece of mail that ends up containing a virus. It was mentioned in the article that a lot of the companies who switched to e-mail lost some of their customers because they thought they were receiving junk. Another benefit of direct mail, like talked about in the article, if a piece of mail one company sends is fun and entertaining one may keep it. For example the company that sent funny postcards. One of their postcards got them an over $200,000 deal just because of a postcard. This shows that a piece of direct mail can really have a larger effect on a person than an e-mail.

One company that would benefit from direct mailing that wasn't mentioned in the articles is grocery stores. Although they do now offer their flyers online, not everyone has access to the internet on a daily basis, granted most do, but that is just an assumption. It is easy for a grocery store to send out its fliers letting their customers know what types of sales they will be having. This benefits them because usually a household will receive more than one flyer. In that case, they can compare which store has the better deals, or which store has a deal on what one needs to purchase and can go from there. It they relied on e-marketing, the risk arises of people only looking at one stores flyer and not the others because they won't have a physical piece of paper right in front of them.

I think that eventually e-marketing will replace traditional marketing. Although the stories mentioned in the second article show a loss for the companies, at the end it still said the companies were planning on working on e-marketing. In essence it is cheaper and the potential audience is so much larger. In traditional marketing the list of people whom a company calls or mails is only so long. If one were to market on the world wide web, the market in endless. Also, with the new interest in going green, many companies are looking to save paper. A great way to save paper is to e-market. Within the next 5-10 years the main way to market a product will be through the internet.

Do you think there are any companies that would never be able to benefit in any way from e-marketing. If so which ones and why?

In Response to Deanna Sylvester

"How do you think this will affect all of the name brand businesses out there? Do you think they will change their prices in order for this not to happen?"

I think this will have a huge affect on the name brand businesses. For most companies, such as toothpaste and cleaning products, they only sell their products in stores such as wal-mart. Some may be sold online but shopping only hasn't yet evolved to purchasing a tube of toothpaste. These companies rely on their sales to big retail stores. If these companies stop purchasing their products and rely on selling their own some of these major organizations may end up going out of business. This would end up being a problem because once the economy picks back up consumers will need to go back to the products they enjoy. I don't believe they are switching because they don't like the name brand products, they are just switching to save money. Once they are able to afford the better product, they will want to buy it but since these retail stores will no long offer the products they want, they won't be able to purchase them.

In effect, the brand name stores might change their prices in order to compensate for the loss. It would help them keep their products in these large retail stores. Most brand name products also have high prices mainly due to the fact that they can. People are willing to buy their products at a high price because they are of better quality. So I feel that if they lowered their price even a little bit it would keep them in business and wouldn't cause a big loss. It would be in their benefit to lower their prices and hope these retail stores don't stop buying their good.

Do you think that it could be considered a monopoly since Wal-Mart would now only be selling their products in their stores?

"For Sponsors, Tiger's Open Timetable Most Troubling"

The main focus of this article is talking about how Tiger Woods doesn't plan to be golfing for a short period of time. He also isn't sure as to when he plans to return to golf. The author is focusing on how his short absence from golfing will affect his sponsors. He talks about Nike and how they plan to stick behind Tiger Woods 100%. They state how Nike stands behind the athletes they sponsor for pretty much anything and wouldn't just give up Tiger because one day he will return.

I feel this is a smart move on Nike's part. Tiger Woods is known for being one of the best, if not the best, golfer around. Although what he did was ethically and morally wrong it won't stop him from winning golf tournaments. He will still be the best golfer no matter when he decides to start back up again. If Nike were to drop him, another company could swoop him right back up and be the ones now making money. I feel as if his fans will forget about the fact that he cheated on his wife. It may take a few years, but in reality it will blow over. I feel that Nike knows that this is the case also.

When companies sponsor athletes it also isn't always public knowledge. Until reading this article I wasn't aware that Tiger Woods was sponsored by Nike. This may be to my own ignorance and it is publicly known, but I'm sure there are customers of Nike who don't know what athletes they sponsor. So for those people they aren't going to stop shopping at Nike because of Tiger Woods because they don't necessarily know the connection he has with Nike. So I feel that it is more a benefit to Nike to keep Tiger because one day he will rise up to be just as popular as he has always been.

Do you think that by Nike continuing to sponsor Tiger Woods they are making a statement that they approve of what he did?