1.

Sears, JC Penney, and Walmart tried hard in recent years to upgrade their images and
appeal to higher-class consumers. In fact, JC Penney even hired the head of Apples stores as
its new CEO.

How successful have these efforts been? Do you believe this strategy is wise?

Sears, JC Penny and Walmart tried hard in the recent years to improve their
images and appeal to high-class consumers. When Ron Johnson, former
head of Apple, was hired as the CEO of JC Penny, the company was already
struggling with its competitors. It was a very risky strategy as people already
have strong perception of the image of JC Penny being a discounted and low
price store and changing these perceptions by hiring a CEO is inconsistent.

The effort was failure as Mr. Johnson tried a new management style all of a
sudden in a culture not known to him. He used to do teleconference more
rather than attending the meeting and ran the company in a completely
unusual way that was foreign to the company culture of JCP and regarded as
disrespectful. Secondly, Johnson started operating in a completely different
industry(from tech to clothing) for which the strategy he tried to implement
were not successful. For instance, when he tried to focus on everyday low
pricing in JCP, it backfired because in the clothing industry everyday low
pricing dsnt work that well. Thirdly, when a new head comes in a company,
he needs to be cooperative and try to find the best out of the employees- all
these takes time and dependent on the positive vibes of the head of the
company. JCP with constant layoffs, and low morale drove good employees
away which made the employees not beliving in John .

Brands have three ways to create a distinctive competitive advantage;

supply chain/value, product/service superiority, and customer intimacy. A
successful brand should be great at one of these and okay at the rest, or
good at two, etc. JCPenney is very much in second positions behind other
brands in each category, which is why they hired Johnson to be bold.
Johnsons plan was aimed at being great at customer intimacy while being
 good at supply chain/value and product superiority. He failed. This happens a
lot in business.

QUESTION 2
1. The mall of the future will most likely be less about purchasing products than about
exploring them in a physical setting. This means that retail environments will have to
become places to build brand images, rather than just places to sell products. What are
some strategies stores can use to enhance the emotional/sensory experiences they give to
shoppers?

The mall of the future will see a lot of changes in the way business is
conducted with more focus on experiences and attractions like seeing,
hearing, touching, smelling and tasting products on display. Building retail
display with in-store promotional stand can be a good strategy to help
consumers form a bond with products in helping purchasing decisions.

Product information displayed in the right place can enrich the sensory
experience of a consumer as shoppers are actively engaged in finding out
more about a product, and feel rewarded for unveiling the information that
can help them make their purchasing decision. Smell may be underestimated
when it comes to creating an experience but this sensory experience can be
the most powerful sensory touchpoints as often sparking personal memories
can create connections in the shoppers mind. Thirdly, sight is the most used
sense in marketing as visuals give the first impression of quality. The effect
of the sensory stimulation on people and environment is vital to designing an
interior space. The senses play critical roles in memories and emotions
attached to human experience. The layout of space gives an understanding
of space flow relevant to human behavior and responses. Based on the site
analysis problems it is evident that using sensory experience would be the
key to establish the brand impage and influence the purachasing decision of
the buyer.

If retailers can harness multi-channel activity they will increase their

understanding of their customers and will improve conversion rates and
profitability.
QUESTION 3
Several years ago R. J. Reynolds announced plans to test market a menthol cigarette called
Uptown specifically to black consumers. According to the company, about 70 percent of
black smokers prefer menthol, more than twice the average rate. After market research
showed that blacks tend to open cigarette packs from the bottom, the company decided to
pack Uptowns with the filters facing down. Reynolds cancelled its plans after private health
groups and government officials protested. Does a company have the right to exploit a
subcultures special characteristics, especially to increase sales of a harmful product such as
cigarettes? What about the argument that virtually every business that follows the
marketing concept designs a product to meet the needs and tastes of a preselected
segment?

The uptown branded cigarettes were started upon finding that about 70
percent of the African American smokers opt for menthol flavor which was
more than twice the normal rate. Further research showed that the blacks
tend to open the cigarette packets from the bottom which made the
company to pack these cigarettes with their filters facing down.

Exploitation of a subcultures special characteristics in order to increase the

sales is ethical. It is done by every company in one way or the other. In
addition, it is a common method used by companies to gain a competitive
edge over its competitors. But performing that for a harmful product like
cigarette is unethical. A company has to be really careful and sensitive while
selling harmful products like tobacco items, alcoholic drinks etc. They should
not exploit any body's uniqueness just to further its sales. This is unethical.
Yes, its true that every business design their products to suit the
requirements of the target segment. But it should be done ethically. And
moreover. all business are not involved in the business of selling harmful
products.
 Some people may think that this is perfectly ethical as the companies inform
the buyers of this fact and buyers who would like to opt for these additional
features will have to pay an extra nominal amount for that.

Developing a marketing strategy to set out the product from the cluster is
necessary for all the companies to increase the sales and revenue, but
carrying over such activities for harmful products is not welcomed by any
governing authority. It is unethical for the companies to do so.

QUESTION 4
1. Marketers have been criticized for donating products and services to educational
institutions in exchange for free promotion. Is this a fair exchange, in your opinion, or should
corporations be prohibited from attempting to influence youngsters in school?

Donating products and services to education institutions in exchange has

both merits and demerits.

By donating products and services, marketer creates awareness about the

products. Marketer by donating products can establish a brand image
showing that they were responsible to the society.

On the other hand, in order to create a market, the marketer spoils the
children by donating products that are not appropriate for the children.
Therefore, the sample products are sometimes not the same as the original
product- usually the sample product has the better quality than the products
obtainable in the market.

To some corporate leader, the new approach of donating might seem too
self-serving and might argue that donation should not be adulterated by
business objective. If a company like pharmaceutical donate their product
and service, then they can get the opportunity to create greater value for
society and themselves. But if the donation of product and service is entirely
of the companys own interest, then the company might lose its reputation.
In my opinion this is a fair exchange because they are giving away free
products and receiving free promotion for their gifts. I do not believe they
should be prohibited from doing such acts.

QUESTION 5
In his book Blink: The Power of Thinking without Thinking, author Malcolm Gladwell argues
that hallowed marketing research techniques like focus groups arent effective because we
usually react to products quickly and without much conscious thought so its better just to
solicit consumers first impressions rather than getting them to think at length about why
they buy.

What is your position on this issue?

There are various concepts that can be applied to support both sides of this
argument. Both classical conditioning and behavioral instrumental
conditioning would support the idea that we make consumer decisions
quickly and without much thought. The study of occurrence when an
unconditional stimulus is paired with conditional stimulus is known as
classical conditioning. Whereas, instrumental conditioning is known as a
learning process of the punishment or reinforcement used to increase or
decrease the likelihood that a behavior will take place in the future.

it is better to solicit consumers first impressions rather than getting them

to think at length about why they buy. In the changing environment,
customer loyalty in recent years has formed as a result of first impression.
So, the companies should not take more steps in improvising the customer
loyalty or customers who are considering to switching to a competitor.
Conditioning such as classical and instrumental will support the ideas of
consumers quick decision making process. Companies should take the
necessary steps in positioning their product in a simple and easy grasp
manner. Advertisements should be made in such a way that the consumer
should purchase the product without having alternative thoughts.

So Focus group wouldnt be very effective as there is a huge gap that exists
between customers intentions in focus group and their behavior in the
marketplace. Some people who participate in focus group only to earn
money and do not care about the credibility of the research. In addition
focus groups force people make quick decisions on products with less
commitment about their opinion due to time shortage.

QUESTION 6
Although social networking is red-hot, could its days be numbered? Many people have
concerns about privacy issues. Others feel platforms like Facebook are too overwhelming. As
one media executive comments, Nobody has 5,000 real friends. At the end of the day it just
becomes one big cauldron of noise. What is your stand on this: Can we have too much of a
good thing? Will people start to tune out these networks?

Social media brought all the near ones in one platform creating real bond
between friends, and relatives. On the contrary, having so many friends is
something some people brag about, but in actual having no friends. People
need to differentiate the difference between socializing online (commenting
photos, posting photos) and socializing offline. There is a possibility that the
charm of social network will fade away as the day progresses to future. So
appeal of social networking will decrease since its arguably an unproductive
tool used by people to who have extra time on their hands. Too much of one
thing is never good and have a negative impact on users. When a social
media takes too much time of the user, people will lose interest. In addition,
some websites are unable to manage its user when the limit crosses their
capability. So popular social media sites like FAcebook or Instagram can face
the same situation- overload of user. Another reason social media sites fade
away is the too much availability of social media to all kind of people.
Already people are looking for newer social media like Snapchat as people
want something exclusive. This is causing FAcebook to become less
appealing to the younger generation of whom will set the stage for what
stays popular in the future. Most interestingly, user sometimes go for fake
accounts or use content harassing to other user that can be a real threat for
the privacy issue of the user. Unless the social media have a good role to
play in the future, the sites will lose users.