In response to Chris's post about conspicuous consumption?

Do you think conspicuous consumption will become worse as time goes on? Or have we reached the peak? 

Americans love stuff.  We want everything that's new on the market, even if it is expensive and even if we already have something that's very similar. Do we need that something new? Probably not, but we buy it anyways.

I don't think that real change will occur in our conspicuous consumption until its to late. In our consumption of the new and better we are filling up our landfills with yesterdays products, using up our natural resources and spending our sells into bankruptcy. 

I worry about what kind of legacy we are leaving for our children and our grandchildren. We are teaching them that more is better, that they don't have to save for what want, they can just "charge it" and we are showing them that it is okay to throw out things that still work if we don't want them. 

If we all just waited to buy something new, until that older thing that we were using wore out, it would be a change for the better. If we taught our children that they had to save for what they wanted and couldn't buy it till they could pay for it in cash , that would be a change for the better. 

We all need to stop and think before we spend. We don't really need the newest phone on the market, or all the apps that go with it. If each us cut back just a little that would be a step in the right direction.

Can we change our consumption patterns in a positive way? Is it to late to change our ways?

Why did American Stores believe that luxury can come from only the Old World?

When looking to sell high end products to tourist, American stores have always seemed to direct their sales effort to tourist from the “Old World”. But that seems to be changing.   Many Europeans have been traveling to the US and buying many of our luxury items, in one respect the value of the American Dollar compared to the Euro, and the availability and diversity of products in our major cities.  

In a recent article in the New York Times dated: 4-14-12, by Stephanie Clifford, stated that many of our American luxury stores are now in competition, with European luxury stores, for Chinese tourists. One VP of an upscale Antique Store stated:” There has been prosperity across so much of Asia that you’re starting to see it much more in the profile of the tourist on Madison Avenue” 

Competition has become fierce. Some stores have been treating Chinese tourists to private concerts with pianist Lang Lang, cocktails, and fashion shows attended by designers; Oscar de la Renta and Diane Von Furstenberg.  Stores such as Tiffany and Montblanc have added staff members who speak Mandarin and Cantonese. The article goes on to say that the US retailers are lagging behind other countries, in part due to Visa issues but also they have failed to see the rising affluent in Asia.

Will American retailers be able to compete with European Retailers, or will they be left behind?

Responding to Jacelyns' question about: What would you consider to be social media/"regular" media?

What would you consider to be social media/"regular" media?

I would agree that Facebook and Twitter are "Social Media.. I also think that when my children and grandchildren text each other and their friends that, that is a form of "Social Media". Sending out an e-mail could be considered a "Social Media" The internet itself is a form of Social Media. The information we receive can be good or bad, true or false and we look at it all day long and it all comes to us in one way or another through a Social Media Platform.

Do you think that the internet is a form of Social Media?

When marketing a new product how important is timing? How important is persistence?

I recently read an article about Kind Fruit+ Nut Bars (The New York Time April 2009 by Kelly K. Spors) In which the owner  of the company tried many times to interest  Starbucks in selling his company’s KIND bars.   He said that he tried many times to interest Starbucks in his product.   After 5 years of promoting his product he was finally offered the opportunity to sell 3 of his flavored bars in Starbucks.  What finally made Starbucks look at his product?  I think that it was several things, one the owner of the Kind bars never gave up. He took every opportunity he could to find different avenues to reach his goals, his sales teams called Starbucks to gauge their interest. He gave bars to friends of the Starbucks chief executive.

When the owner of Kind bars, Mr. Lubetzky spoke at the World Economic Form in Davos, Switzerland about his philanthropic work through his Peace Works Foundation, he reconnected with a Starbucks director of international business development. They became friends, the Starbucks executive offered to give Mr. Lubetzky a tour of Starbucks headquarter In Seattle, Washington, Mr. Lubetzky used this opportunity to meet additional executives and hand out samples of KIND bars. Additional he kept in e-mail contact with a food and beverage chief and when he noticed an article about how Starbucks was rethinking its food strategies, he set an e-mail to the executive and reminded her of the Kind bars and a Yale pilot study indicating eating 2 kind bars a day can help people lose weight.

In the end Mr. Lubetzky had a good product, was persistence in selling and promoting Kind Bars and had good timing. Starbucks soon agreed to sell more than 500,000 bars.

Was it just timing or was it the unwavering persistence in promoting the Kind Bars?

In response to Tylers Blog about Technology

Are we ready to fully rely on technology? or should we at some point say maybe things are not to difficult and we do not need so much extra in life?

I am not ready to rely fully on Technology . I still enjoy talking on the phone, I like hearing my friends and families voices so I may use technology to reach them , but I still want that personal contact. I  believe that technology has made our lives easier.

I can remember a time when I used a typewriter to type letters, you probably can't imagine having to use one, but I do. When I started to use the data processing system that allowed me to not only correct mistakes quickly and easily and  had the capability to save documents,( that in the past documents had to be typed with  a layer of carbon paper and then a piece of plain underneath, think about it, a mistake could make you have to start completely over) it made my job so much easier and faster. Using technology to make our life better is wonderful, but there is a limit to how I want to use technology. 

When I was working I spent 6 to 7 hours a day working at my computer, before we relied so heavily on e-mail and our computers to get our work done we actually had to move around more and have contact with our co-workers. You had to get up from you desk and walk down the hall or take the stairs up or down a flight. Walking around gave us a chance to stretch, maybe even lowered our stress level a little. That all changed when we all started using outlook to communicate with our co-workers and our work was all done on the computer. We didn't have to call or move from our desk.all day. So I don't believe that we are ready to rely completely on technology.

What would be the best uses for technology today?

Should Businesses pay to place flattering news in print and broadcast media?

Recently I read an article discussing a new way of advertising taking place in China.

China is a country that censor news all the time especially politically delicate news coverage. Now however, the print and broadcast media in China have been allowing companies to buy coverage for a price.  Many public relation firms and companies in China acts as brokers in buying flattering coverage- which in China is referred to as” soft news or paid news”.  A company recently paid 10,000 a page for a five page feature in the Chinese version of Esquire. 

The journalist who wrote the piece stated that Chinese laws and regulations ban promotional material that is not labeled as such, but the practice is so widespread that many publications and broadcaster have rate cards listing news for sale prices. This practice seem very deceptive to me, we look at articles in our magazine such as Business week, Times and know that the reason that they are featuring this company or this person is that they have created a news product or they have a major accomplishment that is noteworthy. I hope that this pay for new or feature articles does not spread to the US.  If it does it could effect how we see our Business Leaders.   

Do you believe that we should allow businesses to pay for Coverage?