We all say shopping online is safe, convenient and easier but how safe is safe, how safe are these sites? Every day we here of situations of how people fall into the hands of fraudsters and how private information is being made public. Many social networks have experienced scams, identity theft and privacy issues; not too long facebook faced some privacy issues. I have heard of cases when people close down their social pages to avoid the situation of identity theft. Is this now the solution to being safe? By staying off social networks or not shopping online or even saying the Lord’s Prayer several times before transacting online. Some of us even look at the security trust seals such as VeriSign Secured, a golden padlock on the web address link before purchasing an item or releasing personal details online, but is this enough?
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124949972905908593.html
http://www.consumerreports.org/cro/magazine-archive/2010/june/electronics-computers/social-insecurity/overview/index.htm
Tuesday, June 8, 2010
Wednesday, June 2, 2010
Interactive Community, the New Norm of Businesses
It is very common for most companies that have a presence on the Internet to have an interactive community, but what bothers me is that people tend to say that not all companies should have these communities, I also believe that but it got me thinking about how do customers communicate their needs to these companies. Before the existence of the Internet, companies had suggestion/comment cards and boxes and some still do have those even with their presence on the Internet and still have an interactive community. An example is FIU’s business school; despite its interactive community site they also have a suggestion box in the building.
Another question that baffles me is who advises these companies whether to have or not have an interactive community on the Internet. Is it imperative for the company to have a website and also an interactive community? As someone once said, your “community” cannot go on vacation just because you are or your company is on break. Experts or advisers have refused to think about how necessary it would be for the company. No one thinks about not having an interactive community, for instance a movie that is not yet in theatres have an interactive community already. What questions or comments do they expect viewers to post? I believe this has become a wasteful spending for companies.
Another question that baffles me is who advises these companies whether to have or not have an interactive community on the Internet. Is it imperative for the company to have a website and also an interactive community? As someone once said, your “community” cannot go on vacation just because you are or your company is on break. Experts or advisers have refused to think about how necessary it would be for the company. No one thinks about not having an interactive community, for instance a movie that is not yet in theatres have an interactive community already. What questions or comments do they expect viewers to post? I believe this has become a wasteful spending for companies.
Tuesday, May 25, 2010
Are consumers losing?
Market segmentation is a crucial tool for marketers and businesses, they partition their market according to these segments and it has been working so far. But my main concern is not the marketers and their strategies but rather on us the consumers. Research has only focused on the marketers and how beneficial the internet has widened the market for sellers from their local location to world. In the practical sense, the internet has also helped the consumers, giving us the option of comparing prices, but are we really getting the best deal? We go through different sites, call different companies just to make we are not being cheated. Its clear to me that companies are aware of this process and are doing everything possible to beat us the consumers. They claim to have deals such as "buy 1 get 50% off the 2nd purchase or asking whether we want a combo meal instead of just what we ordered,it all seems as a catch, a means for us to spend more. Or even acquire so many companies to take over the market, so in the real sense you are still dealing with one seller and one price. What can be done is the question or do we just surrender to this rip off?
Exaggeration of the online social media
When people talk about a new song or a new gadget or a new movie that has just come out and how nice and interesting it is, how useful it can be and so on. It eventually becomes overrated, just like the Avatar movie. Don’t get me wrong, it is a nice movie but I just feel it was overrated. This is also the same for the online social media. The hype about how business can only survive and make profit only by using the online social media has become overrated. Yes its true millions of people visit these social sites but why do they visit it? Just to keep in touch with their family and friends around the world.
It is also true that technology has evolved and the world is becoming a global market making the way businesses are done different. It is the right thing for businesses to keep abreast of the changes in their environment but this must be done with foresight. Lots of companies just follow the trend without looking at the pros and cons of taking such a step and putting into consideration how beneficial is this to my company.
I see the social media network as a place for having conversations and interactions with my friends, catching up with people. That’s the main reason for having social network, so why do companies want to have an online social media element? It is necessary for companies to have an online presence but adding themselves to the social light is unnecessary. I would not go on Facebook or MySpace or Twitter just to chat with Dell, or CNN or any other company. If I had a comment or suggestion or complaint, the first place that I would think about is going on their website to do so.
In addition, I feel the social media should be left in the circle of entertainment. The social media is a place for sharing personal thought, music, movies and I feel it should be kept that way. Companies like BET, iTunes, E! News, MTV etc. should be the one in the social media not Burger king or Starbucks, who cover themselves under the shadow of “how can we serve you better?
”
In conclusion, I believe the online social media element is not meant for all companies and it’s not a criterion for success in business. Thinking about it, the hype might just have started with the social networks as a means to earn some more profit because I definitely do not go to social sites for business.
http://biggsuccess.com/2010/05/24/the-one-location-on-the-web-that-matters-most/
It is also true that technology has evolved and the world is becoming a global market making the way businesses are done different. It is the right thing for businesses to keep abreast of the changes in their environment but this must be done with foresight. Lots of companies just follow the trend without looking at the pros and cons of taking such a step and putting into consideration how beneficial is this to my company.
I see the social media network as a place for having conversations and interactions with my friends, catching up with people. That’s the main reason for having social network, so why do companies want to have an online social media element? It is necessary for companies to have an online presence but adding themselves to the social light is unnecessary. I would not go on Facebook or MySpace or Twitter just to chat with Dell, or CNN or any other company. If I had a comment or suggestion or complaint, the first place that I would think about is going on their website to do so.
In addition, I feel the social media should be left in the circle of entertainment. The social media is a place for sharing personal thought, music, movies and I feel it should be kept that way. Companies like BET, iTunes, E! News, MTV etc. should be the one in the social media not Burger king or Starbucks, who cover themselves under the shadow of “how can we serve you better?
”
In conclusion, I believe the online social media element is not meant for all companies and it’s not a criterion for success in business. Thinking about it, the hype might just have started with the social networks as a means to earn some more profit because I definitely do not go to social sites for business.
http://biggsuccess.com/2010/05/24/the-one-location-on-the-web-that-matters-most/
Tuesday, May 18, 2010
Why do companies go into business, they are either in the business for profit or for humanitarian services. Can a company be in the business for both reasons? Or a better question will be what is New York Times (NYT) main purpose of doing in the business?
NYT is a well known newspaper company; it has made its global name through its quality, timely and free access news online. This has attracted millions of readers to this newspaper and because of this numerous companies have advertised their products and companies in this publication thereby generating revenue.
So the question is why a company like NYT would want to restrict their news to only readers that can afford to subscribe to read the news online all in the name of making more money or is this new trend for all newspapers. In the real sense, I believe this will reduce their revenue and the end result might be catastrophic for the company. One, this will greatly reduce the number of readers therefore reducing the number of adverts in the paper which in turn will affect their revenue. Two, limiting the free access of online news to millions of readers will only generate more funds for their competitors because these readers that cannot afford to subscribe online will eventually look for another media that is easily and readily available. Also, if this new development fails and I believe it will fail, the investment made to develop the restriction will be a waste and gaining back their former customers will almost be impossible. Lastly, this is not the first time NYT will take such an approach and failed in the attempt. Why do they believe this time it will be a success?
http://news.cnet.com/8301-10784_3-9780063-7.html
I also wonder why companies can just decide one moment to change the way they do business. I strongly believe a law should be enacted that unless the change is going to be beneficial to both the company and their customers, then the change should not be allowed. Because I believe this can be used as a marketing strategy to get global recognition and customers and eventually change when they know people are well aware of their presence.
The only way this new development can work is if other publications follow this trend.
NYT is a well known newspaper company; it has made its global name through its quality, timely and free access news online. This has attracted millions of readers to this newspaper and because of this numerous companies have advertised their products and companies in this publication thereby generating revenue.
So the question is why a company like NYT would want to restrict their news to only readers that can afford to subscribe to read the news online all in the name of making more money or is this new trend for all newspapers. In the real sense, I believe this will reduce their revenue and the end result might be catastrophic for the company. One, this will greatly reduce the number of readers therefore reducing the number of adverts in the paper which in turn will affect their revenue. Two, limiting the free access of online news to millions of readers will only generate more funds for their competitors because these readers that cannot afford to subscribe online will eventually look for another media that is easily and readily available. Also, if this new development fails and I believe it will fail, the investment made to develop the restriction will be a waste and gaining back their former customers will almost be impossible. Lastly, this is not the first time NYT will take such an approach and failed in the attempt. Why do they believe this time it will be a success?
http://news.cnet.com/8301-10784_3-9780063-7.html
I also wonder why companies can just decide one moment to change the way they do business. I strongly believe a law should be enacted that unless the change is going to be beneficial to both the company and their customers, then the change should not be allowed. Because I believe this can be used as a marketing strategy to get global recognition and customers and eventually change when they know people are well aware of their presence.
The only way this new development can work is if other publications follow this trend.
Sunday, May 16, 2010
Is e-marketing a lazy form of business?
The way businesses are done in developing countries such as Nigeria is totally different from developed countries such as the US. Nigeria is a country where people go out of their homes to carry out their business for the day i.e the traditional way. Being new to an environment (US), has opened my eyes, I saw how lazy most Americans are, some quote it to "being creative" but in reality its laziness. Think about it, some people buy their groceries online. Its claimed that the transaction cost is reduced but in reality, the shipping cost is almost equivalent to going to the supermarket yourself. It also gives you the option of picking a different choice in a situation where your original product is not available.
Another reason why I think this business is a lazy form of doing business is because it requires little dedication to work. Most jobs are already computerized, for instance listening to a programmed voice when you call an office, wasting time instead of a person picking up and giving you a direct answer for your question. Also, I believe this has contributed to the "no more jobs in developed nations". When you have most of the work done by online software programmes. Instead of having marketers outside and getting customers, the job is left to google or some form of online advertising company to do the job. No wonder there are no more jobs in developed countries.
www.allbusiness.com/government/government
Another reason why I think this business is a lazy form of doing business is because it requires little dedication to work. Most jobs are already computerized, for instance listening to a programmed voice when you call an office, wasting time instead of a person picking up and giving you a direct answer for your question. Also, I believe this has contributed to the "no more jobs in developed nations". When you have most of the work done by online software programmes. Instead of having marketers outside and getting customers, the job is left to google or some form of online advertising company to do the job. No wonder there are no more jobs in developed countries.
www.allbusiness.com/government/government
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
