In response to Kaley DeBoer

I believe that it is beneficial for a company to focus on multiple target markets.  If they only focus on one then they are reducing the number of possible customers that they could have.  For example, in class we discussed Dr. Pepper coming out with a new product called "Just for Men."  By naming the new diet soda this, Dr.Pepper is excluding possible women consumers from becoming buyers.  If they focused their target market rather on those looking to drink diet soda, they would expand from just men who want to drink diet soda to men and women that want to drink diet soda.

I feel that focusing on one target market hurts a company rather than helping it.  Can you think of a time where a company focused on too slim of a target market and face unfortunate consequences because of it?

Competition

One topic that we discussed this week in class was competition.  Competition is a factor in a company's external environment.  Competition effects companies because different businesses take away customers from their business leaving them with lower revenues.  As trade barriers get looser global markets are expanding businesses and increasing competition, so businesses not only have to focus on domestic competition, but they now have to worry about global competition as well.

Four different kinds of competition that we discussed in class were brand competitors, product competitors, generic competitors, and total budget competitors.  Today I'd like to elaborate a little bit more on these specific types of competition.

A brand competitor is a competitor with virtually the same product as you.
A product competitor is a competitor with a similar product to you.
A generic competitor is a competitor with a product that satisfies the same needs as your product.
And finally, a total budget competitor is a competitor that offers a product in the same price range as yours that could satisfy similar needs to yours.

To simplify this lets make an example.  Suppose you were Ford and you were selling the Ford F-150 (a pickup truck).  A brand competitor for you would be any other pickup truck such as a Toyota Tacoma or a Nissan Frontier.  A product competitor would be any other car company selling any other kind of large car such as GMC.  A generic competitor could be some other form of transportation that could get you from point A to point B, such as a motorcycle.  And finally a total budget competitor would be some sort of mode of transportation that is in the same price range as the Ford F-150.

What are some other product, brand, generic, and total budget competitors for the Ford F-150?  Can you think of another product and its brand, product, generic, and total budget competitors?
Are there any products you can think of that global competition doesn't effect?

Response to Tammy Chou

"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?"

I believe that it is a mixture of all four components of Corporate Social Responsibility (economic, legal, ethical, and philanthropic) that is what is right for society considering that corporate social responsibility itself is a business's concern for society's welfare.  

Philanthropic responsibilities are about being a good corporate citizen.  Corporations take on philanthropic responsibilities by contributing resources to the community and improving the quality of life of society.  Because large corporations have so much power in society they should take on philanthropic responsibilities.

Ethical responsibilities are about doing what is ethical, which means that a corporation is doing what is right, just, fair, and avoiding harm.  

Legal responsibilities are about obeying the law, doing what is legally considered right and not wrong.  If corporations don't do what is right legally they will most likely have to suffer the legal consequences.

Finally, economic responsibilities are about being profitable.  If a corporation isn't profitable they won't succeed.

Businesses should act upon all of these responsibilities because combined they improve society as a whole.
What are some examples of large corporations taking on corporate social responsibilities?

Cause-Related Marketing

Cause-related marketing is defined by our textbook as "the cooperative marketing efforts between a for-profit firm and a nonprofit organization."

One cause-related marketing campaign that I have stumbled upon is a collaboration between Chili's Grill and Bar and St. Jude Children's Research Hospital.  The Create-A-Pepper to Fight Childhood Cancer campaign was established in 2002 in seven Memphis-area Chili's, and has now become a nation wide campaign.  To participate in this campaign, customers donate $1 and color a chili which gets posted on the wall of the restaurant.  T-shirts and Zip-up hoodies are also sold in an effort to raise more money for the campaign.

It occurs annually during the month of September (Childhood Cancer Awareness Month) and to date the campaign has donated over $41 million to St. Jude.  They have made a commitment to donate at least $50 million, which is the largest donation in the hospital's history.  There is a facility named after Chili's, The Chili's Care Center, which provides state-of-the art technology and care.

To learn more about the cause-related marketing campaign you can visit http://www.stjude.org/chilis.

Chili's Create-A-Pepper campaign has been extremely successful, and there have been no problems with it, it is a clean campaign.  Can you think of any other successful cause-related marketing campaigns?  Where they created selflessly, or did the company have another agenda?

Response to Kaley Deboer

I agree with Kaley that customer satisfaction and customer value can be linked together.  I believe that she made an interesting and valid point by suggesting that customer satisfaction occurs after a product or service is obtained where as customer value is considered before a product or service is obtained.  I would have never thought about it in this way, but I completely agree with the idea.

I also agree with Kaley's opinion that in a perfect world customer value would be evaluated before a product or service is purchased, which I believe would increase customer satisfaction.  They could look at the price and read reviews from other customers about the product or service.  They should also consider if whether or not they actually need the product or service and think about the benefits that the product or service will create for them.  If a customer were to evaluate the value in a product before buying it they may discover that is not in fact going to satisfy them and there would be less customer dissatisfaction.  The exception to this, of course, Kaley mentioned in her post.  A customer may value something higher before purchasing it, and then discover that it doesn't meet up to their standards, which would lead to customer dissatisfaction.

Have you ever had a personal experience where you fully evaluated the value of a product or service before purchasing it ended up being satisfied with your purchase?  On the other hand, have you ever had an experience where you evaluated the value of a product or service prior to purchasing it and ended up dissatisfied?

Blackboard Discussion Question #2

Are customer satisfaction and customer value interdependent or mutually exclusive? Can satisfaction  occur simultaneously with low customer value?

It is my belief that customer value and customer satisfaction are interdependent.  Customer value must exist on some level for there to be customer satisfaction.

            Customer value is defined in our textbook (MKTG) as “the relationship between benefits and the sacrifice necessary to obtain those benefits.”  This means that customers will value goods and services based on their expected quality of the good, and based on if the good is sold at the price that they’re willing to pay.  So if a customer pays the amount that they expect to pay for a good or service and get the quality that they expect from the good or service there is customer value.  Therefore, if a customer paid a high price for an item they expect a good quality item, whereas if the customer pays less for an item, they probably expect it to be of a lesser quality.  For instance, if one were to buy a car they can either buy new or used.  They probably have higher expectations for a new car then they do for a used car, but they would also have to pay a higher price for a new car than a used car.  Even in buying the used car there is still customer value if the quality met the customer’s expectations in accordance to the price. 

            Customer satisfaction is defined by our textbook as “customers’ evaluation of a good or service in terms of whether it has meet there needs and expectations.”  More simply put, customers are satisfied if after they receive a good or service it holds up to their expectations and needs.  Unlike customer value, it doesn't have to do with price.  An item could be cheap but leave a customer unsatisfied because it doesn't meet up to their needs and expectations.  Drawing back on the new/used car example, a customer would be satisfied with car if their needs and expectations were met.  If the customer bought the used car but it turned out to be a lemon they would be dissatisfied because the car didn’t meet their needs or expectations.

            I don’t believe that a customer could be satisfied with a good or service if there is low customer value.  Can you think of a time where you have been satisfied with a good or service when you've had low customer value?