The idea of a car that can operate itself is an exciting prospect, but is it really a good idea? I feel as if relying on technology to the point where it takes you from point A to point B on its own, would only weaken society. Technology already runs humans lives more than they realize. People would be lost if they didn't have their cell-phones, or a GPS. Imagine giving 100 college students a map, and telling them to find x destination, without using ANY technology.
How many times have you been in a car with someone who doesn't read road signs, or highway markers. To a point you could make an argument that technology greatly decreases a humans capacity to think. Technology thinks for you, and that is a dangerous prospect I feel.
Technology should be a tool to humans, it should not be an answer. They should use the technology to assist them, not to do the entire job for them. Having a car that can take away all your needs to think, "problem solve" on how to find a location, would only weaken society. I say we bring back the horse and buggy and wagon trains.
Saturday, February 25, 2012
X-Box Cutting their Membership Fees
The other day I saw an ad on TV saying how Xbox is cutting the cost of its membership fees for its online gaming. The costs went from $60 a year, down to about $40.
Xbox has transformed the way people now use the Live platform, transitioning the product from a teenage target market, into the everyday setup for living rooms. They offer the news, movies, games, Facebook, and you can even connect your computer to the device. They have expanded their addressable market into adults, who they hope will use their credit cards to watch movies and other cost-related features.
I feel like Xbox is hoping to reshape how consumers use the device. Blockbuster was wiped out by Netflix, is Xbox attempting to target cable companies and even Netflix? By lowering their prices it will allow them to generate more demand around Xbox Live, as more age groups begin to find the usefulness in the device.
If Microsoft can power sync your laptops, your cell phones, your living room entertainment system(Xbox Live) and be the sole provider behind it, they will provide dangerous competition to companies within the US. Will Microsoft continue growing the Xbox platform?
Xbox has transformed the way people now use the Live platform, transitioning the product from a teenage target market, into the everyday setup for living rooms. They offer the news, movies, games, Facebook, and you can even connect your computer to the device. They have expanded their addressable market into adults, who they hope will use their credit cards to watch movies and other cost-related features.
I feel like Xbox is hoping to reshape how consumers use the device. Blockbuster was wiped out by Netflix, is Xbox attempting to target cable companies and even Netflix? By lowering their prices it will allow them to generate more demand around Xbox Live, as more age groups begin to find the usefulness in the device.
If Microsoft can power sync your laptops, your cell phones, your living room entertainment system(Xbox Live) and be the sole provider behind it, they will provide dangerous competition to companies within the US. Will Microsoft continue growing the Xbox platform?
Sunday, February 19, 2012
In Response to Chris Beland
I found your article on Pepsi firing 100 out of 150 advertising agencies interesting. I personally feel this is a good move by Pepsi for a few reasons.
Everybody knows the brand of Pepsi. At this stage of their product cycle it is safe to say that it's a "cash-cow". So having extensive advertising doesn't seem very effective in my mind. Instead maybe they could use the money that they'll save on advertisements, and look to pioneer partnerships to extend the reach of their can of soda.
For instance, why not partner with say, Southwest Airlines. You get a guaranteed customer base, and it would be an effective form of advertising new soda-types as they come out. For instance, a business man who has had a long and tiring day could drink some Pepsi Max, and see the "energy" it brings him. This would work better than running a commercial showing a Cheetah race a human who just drank some Pepsi.
Everybody knows the brand of Pepsi. At this stage of their product cycle it is safe to say that it's a "cash-cow". So having extensive advertising doesn't seem very effective in my mind. Instead maybe they could use the money that they'll save on advertisements, and look to pioneer partnerships to extend the reach of their can of soda.
For instance, why not partner with say, Southwest Airlines. You get a guaranteed customer base, and it would be an effective form of advertising new soda-types as they come out. For instance, a business man who has had a long and tiring day could drink some Pepsi Max, and see the "energy" it brings him. This would work better than running a commercial showing a Cheetah race a human who just drank some Pepsi.
False Advertising and its implications
Today as I was watching a commercial for "No-No" hair removal I began to wonder why companies are not more severely punished for false advertisements.
The commercial stated it uses a form of "electric therapy" to kill the hair follicles, allowing for the permanent removal of hair. It then did a time-lapse and showed consumers hair magically vanish as they ran a $20 controller looking object over their skin.
How many times are their commercials on T.V. where objects claim to do this or that, and nothing actually happens? In our world of instant-satisfaction consumers often see an advertisement, are given a phone number while in the background it blinks, "ONLY AN HOUR LEFT ON THIS OFFER" and they run to their credit cards, "charge it to the game" and have a worthless product that doesn't do as it claims.
In my opinion, if a product cannot do exactly as it is advertised on T.V. then it should be instantly shut-down. Since when did it become "ok" to lie about your products capabilities in order to gain more customers? America used to be creative, designing products that were truly applicable in the ways that they were advertised.
Now almost daily you see paid-programming where some buffoon exclaims that you can spread this rubber-based product on the bottom of a row-boat and you will be A-ok. Or, for those who have heard of "magic-putty" you can tow a Mack Truck because this product is so strong. But when you buy it, attempt to hand a three pound picture on your wall, it doesn't work, instead you have a broken picture frame and a shitty, useless product.
I personally believe that consumers should get the most accurate "claims" by companies on their product. If the entire world falsely advertised their solutions, how would consumers ever know what they are actually buying? If you say I can do something with what I'm buying, then I should without a doubt be able to do so.
So I end my blog with the question, do you think that companies should receive penalties and fines if they are found guilty of false-advertisement?
I think the death-penalty would be a good starting point.
The commercial stated it uses a form of "electric therapy" to kill the hair follicles, allowing for the permanent removal of hair. It then did a time-lapse and showed consumers hair magically vanish as they ran a $20 controller looking object over their skin.
How many times are their commercials on T.V. where objects claim to do this or that, and nothing actually happens? In our world of instant-satisfaction consumers often see an advertisement, are given a phone number while in the background it blinks, "ONLY AN HOUR LEFT ON THIS OFFER" and they run to their credit cards, "charge it to the game" and have a worthless product that doesn't do as it claims.
In my opinion, if a product cannot do exactly as it is advertised on T.V. then it should be instantly shut-down. Since when did it become "ok" to lie about your products capabilities in order to gain more customers? America used to be creative, designing products that were truly applicable in the ways that they were advertised.
Now almost daily you see paid-programming where some buffoon exclaims that you can spread this rubber-based product on the bottom of a row-boat and you will be A-ok. Or, for those who have heard of "magic-putty" you can tow a Mack Truck because this product is so strong. But when you buy it, attempt to hand a three pound picture on your wall, it doesn't work, instead you have a broken picture frame and a shitty, useless product.
I personally believe that consumers should get the most accurate "claims" by companies on their product. If the entire world falsely advertised their solutions, how would consumers ever know what they are actually buying? If you say I can do something with what I'm buying, then I should without a doubt be able to do so.
So I end my blog with the question, do you think that companies should receive penalties and fines if they are found guilty of false-advertisement?
I think the death-penalty would be a good starting point.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)