This blog is in response to Ashley Borjeson's blog Self Regulation vs Government Regulation.
I also blogged about this topic but not the same part of the topic. I just talked about how they need to work together to be effective and efficient. Ashley took it another step further to say that self regulation allows for companies to be different by modifying their own morals and rules to the company's environment. These rules and regulations can be determined by upper management like CEO's or from lower management like branch managers who can make the rules specific to the work force in the branch.
Sunday, February 17, 2013
Self Regulation vs Government Regulation
In order for businesses to be regulated effectively and efficiency, I feel that both these need to work together types of regulation must work together. Self regulation is defined as control by oneself or itself, as in an economy, business organization. This means that businesses must have their own sets of moral and rules to follow that keep them within their ethics. Government regulation exists in order to level the playing field as much as possible. This includes avoiding negative practices that may promote monopoly. When both of these regulation ways are working together at its best, the business environment is very positive and prosperous. When there is a lack of self regulation or an overlook by government regulation is when you have companies making bad decisions and going under, destroying business and jobs.
Are there any other organizations that help to regulate businesses besides itself and the government?
Wednesday, February 6, 2013
This blog is in response to Sean Cowles's post about Product (RED).
Sean talks about how customers will buy the product just because it has the GAP name on it. I also wanted to say that many people in today's society would buy the Product (RED) shirt just because it is giving to the charity. People value a company's dedication to social responsibility much more these days than in past times. But, as I mentioned before, not much of the profits actually went to The Global Fund. In order for people to really support this cause, I think that the proportion of profits that would go to the cause would have to increase. In today's society with more technology and increasing calls for responsibility for false advertising, I think this campaign would have trouble starting up if it were to try today. But if it did have the right proportions, it could really take off with the amount of people who really value helping those in need.
Do you know of any companies who put social responsibility ahead of their own organizational prosperity?
Sean talks about how customers will buy the product just because it has the GAP name on it. I also wanted to say that many people in today's society would buy the Product (RED) shirt just because it is giving to the charity. People value a company's dedication to social responsibility much more these days than in past times. But, as I mentioned before, not much of the profits actually went to The Global Fund. In order for people to really support this cause, I think that the proportion of profits that would go to the cause would have to increase. In today's society with more technology and increasing calls for responsibility for false advertising, I think this campaign would have trouble starting up if it were to try today. But if it did have the right proportions, it could really take off with the amount of people who really value helping those in need.
Do you know of any companies who put social responsibility ahead of their own organizational prosperity?
Product (RED)
After reading the article about Product (RED), I must say I am rather confused on how this is considered a charity. In the first month's of its launch, the company made $71 million but only donated about $2.5 million to the charity it was promoting. I understand that it was trying to create a 10 year future for itself and make itself sustainable but at a certain point, you shouldn't be able to say it is a charity. Less than 4% of its initial revenues were given to the charity. This should have been labeled a business that gives to charity, not a charity that must withhold some of its revenues from charity in order to sustain itself. It gave people almost an untrue sense of giving. There should be a certain bar set that a self declared charity must give in order to hold the title and I don't think this percentage of giving is sufficient. Shriver said that it wants the companies a part of Project (RED) to make money of the campaign, and I agree. But I think the money should come from other sources. A much higher proportion of the money coming in for the Project (RED) products should have gone directly to The Global Fund. Then, due to the increased positive marketing, I'd assume higher customer volumes. This should be where companies should take advantage and make more money by being a part of the campaign.
Why do you think Bono and Shriver wouldn't accept the 100% of profits from the campaign to go directly to the cause? Or even anything more than 50%?
After reading the article about Product (RED), I must say I am rather confused on how this is considered a charity. In the first month's of its launch, the company made $71 million but only donated about $2.5 million to the charity it was promoting. I understand that it was trying to create a 10 year future for itself and make itself sustainable but at a certain point, you shouldn't be able to say it is a charity. Less than 4% of its initial revenues were given to the charity. This should have been labeled a business that gives to charity, not a charity that must withhold some of its revenues from charity in order to sustain itself. It gave people almost an untrue sense of giving. There should be a certain bar set that a self declared charity must give in order to hold the title and I don't think this percentage of giving is sufficient. Shriver said that it wants the companies a part of Project (RED) to make money of the campaign, and I agree. But I think the money should come from other sources. A much higher proportion of the money coming in for the Project (RED) products should have gone directly to The Global Fund. Then, due to the increased positive marketing, I'd assume higher customer volumes. This should be where companies should take advantage and make more money by being a part of the campaign.
Why do you think Bono and Shriver wouldn't accept the 100% of profits from the campaign to go directly to the cause? Or even anything more than 50%?
This blog is in response to Matt Dacosta's post Satisfaction vs Value.
Specifically, I am responding to his example and idea from the statement "A person could buy a ticket to a sports game at a very high-price deemed to be a high value but go to the game and see an unentertaining match."
I didn't think of this aspect of the topic. It was interesting to think about the relationship between these two aspects of marketing and customers. Matt talked about the idea that it depends on how much a customer sacrificed in order to get the product or service. A customer could have certain expectations for a product or service going into the situation. But if they settle for a cheaper alternative to a guaranteed superior product or service that costs more, then they're expectations of value must be lower in order to ever really feel satisfied. This all depends on price.
Are there any other ways in which price can affect your expectations for the product or service?
Specifically, I am responding to his example and idea from the statement "A person could buy a ticket to a sports game at a very high-price deemed to be a high value but go to the game and see an unentertaining match."
I didn't think of this aspect of the topic. It was interesting to think about the relationship between these two aspects of marketing and customers. Matt talked about the idea that it depends on how much a customer sacrificed in order to get the product or service. A customer could have certain expectations for a product or service going into the situation. But if they settle for a cheaper alternative to a guaranteed superior product or service that costs more, then they're expectations of value must be lower in order to ever really feel satisfied. This all depends on price.
Are there any other ways in which price can affect your expectations for the product or service?
Are customer satisfaction and customer value interrelated?
In class we went over the definitions of customer value and customer satisfaction. They seem to be very similar ideas and I would have to say I agree myself. Some of the requirements we went over that define a customer value are that products can perform, avoiding unrealistic pricing, after sale support, and give buyer facts about the product. In my opinion, customer satisfaction is the fulfilling of these requirements. The more of these requirements that are fulfilled, the more the customer feels satisfied. Customer satisfaction is defined as the number of customers, or percentage of total customers, whose reported experience with a firm, its products, or its services (ratings) exceeds specified satisfaction goals. These goals can be specific to the product itself such as how well it cleans for a cleaning product, how good the sound is in headphones and so on. The overall interrelation between these two ideas focuses more on the organization as a whole and how they handle their products and their customers. Two of the main problems that I see are the most common are customer service and providing customers with legitimate facts about the product. I know in many of the industries that I have experienced or seen, they stress customer service. But this can be the quickest mistake an organization can make to lose customers. And now today with all the technology at everyone's finger tips, providing customers with the correct facts about product is always in question. Many food products claim certain qualities, but after further investigation, they are proven untrue. One example of this is when certain foods say "no trans fats" or other things like that. Many people for a while though that that literally meant none at all. But after a while, consumers found out that this just meant that they met the minimum amount to be able to put that statement on the product. This caused a customer backlash and decreased customer satisfaction in many industries.
Do you have any other examples of times in which customer service ruined your own experience with a company and you said you'd never go back to them?
In class we went over the definitions of customer value and customer satisfaction. They seem to be very similar ideas and I would have to say I agree myself. Some of the requirements we went over that define a customer value are that products can perform, avoiding unrealistic pricing, after sale support, and give buyer facts about the product. In my opinion, customer satisfaction is the fulfilling of these requirements. The more of these requirements that are fulfilled, the more the customer feels satisfied. Customer satisfaction is defined as the number of customers, or percentage of total customers, whose reported experience with a firm, its products, or its services (ratings) exceeds specified satisfaction goals. These goals can be specific to the product itself such as how well it cleans for a cleaning product, how good the sound is in headphones and so on. The overall interrelation between these two ideas focuses more on the organization as a whole and how they handle their products and their customers. Two of the main problems that I see are the most common are customer service and providing customers with legitimate facts about the product. I know in many of the industries that I have experienced or seen, they stress customer service. But this can be the quickest mistake an organization can make to lose customers. And now today with all the technology at everyone's finger tips, providing customers with the correct facts about product is always in question. Many food products claim certain qualities, but after further investigation, they are proven untrue. One example of this is when certain foods say "no trans fats" or other things like that. Many people for a while though that that literally meant none at all. But after a while, consumers found out that this just meant that they met the minimum amount to be able to put that statement on the product. This caused a customer backlash and decreased customer satisfaction in many industries.
Do you have any other examples of times in which customer service ruined your own experience with a company and you said you'd never go back to them?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)