Here’s an interesting article from Marketing Daily. Here’s a fact from the article that dismays me:
Nearly 40% of survey respondents who earn less than $35,000 and spend $2,000 or more annually perceive consumer electronics products as too expensive, compared with 25% of those who average yearly salaries between $75,000 and $99,999.
I wonder who the folks that make under $35K a year are. Are they folks with families or are they students or people who are still living with their parents so they don’t have to pay for the necessities of life? I guess I’m not surprised to see this, considering that within my own family, the ones that are in poverty generally have better electronic stuff than my-geeky-self. But they, also, have hungry children and are in a constant state of being on the edge of eviction and days away from having their utilities disconnected. What’s messed up is that they may be better customers than families with more money, so it’s tempting to advertise to them to get that money they are so easily willing to part with. Usually, this is associated with some terrible credit purchasing terms. Half of me feels very guilty about preying upon this segment of poor consumers. The other half of me says, “you reap what you sow,” and feels no pity when folks with illogical priorities find themselves in trouble. At the same time, though, you can’t get money from someone who has none, so in the end, this kind of culture of illogical priorities coupled with greed catches up with society, like it has in the US now.
Wow … The housing market in SD is so bad that developers are giving houses away. Yes, that right, developer Michael Crews is giving away a lesser value house to buyers of $1-Million+ houses in one of his luxury developments. Woo-hoo, now you can buy two houses in Escondido for the low price of $1.6-Million, or $800K each. Never mind that these houses are still unaffordable!
Here’s a link to the story in the LA Times. Maybe someone in “La-la Land” will think this is a bargain.
First let me say that I am no fan of the “Oprah Brand” and I do not understand the Oprah “effect” — this is not a criticism upon Oprah Winfrey, because I, personally, don’t know her outside of her TV persona. In general, though, I don’t think much of celebrities’ opinions, so I pay no attention to celebrity opinions and endorsements. I will give Oprah credit, though, for being one heck of an advertising machine and for making her endorsements seem authentic. Here’s a link to an interesting article about how to get your brand on “Oprah.”
Before reading this article, I didn’t think too hard about the product endorsements on talk and reality shows. I assumed if the brand “fits in” with the show, then paid advertising would happen. I figured no advertising went unpaid or unnegotiated. After all, a brand may not want to be associated with Oprah. Well, anyhow … what’s most interesting about what goes on with Oprah is the more influence she has, the more she has to manage her image and the tighter control she has to have on her personal “brand.” Also, it’s interesting how any whiff of money or quid pro quo with relation to Oprah endorsements would somehow diminish Oprah’s brand value, since a big part of Oprah’s brand is authenticity. That all seems extremely troublesome.
I got this link from a co-worker. It’s pretty funny. Ironically, I experienced a little bit of this last night, however, I think my problems were due to an a large Windows update (XP SP3) that didn’t get enough reboots to stick yet. Anyhow how, enjoy!
More Rambling 