In Response to Dr. Johnson's article about John Smith

First of all John Smith should not sell the names to the car company.  Secondly, the statement of ethics for the AMA to me says the it is completely unethical to sell the names of the people to the car company.  The people who agreed to take the survey done by John Smith are trusting Smith with their information and that they won't let it get to places that the people would not like their information to go.  They are trusting Smith with their information the same way Smith is trusting that the person being surveyed will give their honest answer and not lie.
I think that the whole statement relates to John Smiths dilemma; my reasoning behind this: their three main principles that the AMA goes by, which is, "Do no harm, Foster trust in the marketing system, and embrace ethical values."  Two of the three principles effect John Smith directly, these are "Foster Trust in the Marketing System and Embrace Ethical Values".  The reason that these two are effected is because the people being surveyed are trusting John Smith with their information so if they turn around and sell the names to the car company then Smith would not be Fostering Trust in the Marketing system.  Embrace Ethical Values is also being disrupted because it is completely unethical to sell someones information to another company without the person knowing, which is exactly what John Smith is debating on doing.  Do you think that these types of situations happen a lot in the marketing world?  If it is so unethical to sell names to another company, why does everyone who has a mailbox receive flyers an advertisements?  Do you think the companies who send out flyers to mailboxes get your information in a similar way?

Apple Cutting Cords

Everyone recognizes Apple's famous USB cord that connects the iPod, iPhone or iPad to their computer. In the article here from PC World Apple talks about how they are trying to cut down to a smaller port connector or maybe even no cord at all.
The new operating system from Apple, iOS 5, Apple offers a new "iCloud" that allows you to get your music and files from your phone, tablet, or pc without any cords at all so this new step moving to smaller, less or even no cord at all is something that is not far off.  For the generation growing up with this technology, this is awesome.  Less cords means less work; this also means it will be easier to understand.  When I say that, yes I do mean the older people who have a hard time with technology, if everything is wireless and all you have to do is click a few buttons and then everything is exactly how you want it, well, I think that everyone could figure that out.  Tell me, how do you feel about moving to smaller, less or possibly no cords at all?  Also, how do you feel about "iCloud", the cloud feature that allows you to share things with all your devices via off-site server that Apple controls?  Do you think they have access to too much of your information?

In Response To Mike Fratea's "Facebook" article

Honestly when I read the title to that article I was thinking that it was one of those "eye catchers" that really isn't what happens in the article, clearly I was mistaken.  I can understand ex-husbands and ex-wives take each other to court for a number of different things; I have never seen someone be forced to apologize via social networking website or they would go to jail.  If I were the judge in this case I would have forced a formal apology, maybe even a written letter but I would not make the person put that on a social networking site, let alone the biggest in the world, "Facebook".  I don't think this is a waste of our tax payers money however because the judge is still getting his point across while the lady gets justice by getting her apology and her money.  Do you think social networking is getting a little overwhelming?  By that I mean law enforcement is now using this as some key pieces to evidence and information.  How do you feel about this and where do you think that this will take us?

Response to Shane & Gorgianne

I believe that clients will return to products that they have used in the past and have found value in, do you?


I agree with what you have said in your post Shane.  For example, I've bought a product in the past where I've debated buying it for a few days for the fact it might not be what I wanted, or I think it will end up breaking.  To make a long story short I should have gone with my gut feeling, the product ended up breaking.  However, I've also bought products that I love and would get another one in a heartbeat; a perfect example for this is my iPhone.  I bought my iPhone about a year ago and I have never had a phone like it, as well as I have never had problems with it.  The phone I had prior to this was a blackberry, I feel like my blackberry was always having problems and running slow, so I would never get one of those again.  
Shane made a good point, when it comes to bars people generally tend to stick to the same one because of the service that they value and they enjoy.  I think it is part of human nature, consciously and sub-conciously, that we go back to places or stick to products that we know and enjoy, as well as products that have value in them. Have you had any instances similar to these?  Do you think that some companies make these less durable products/services for a reason?

Selling Beer in Starbucks

In response to Mike's post about selling beer in Burger King and Starbucks, I too think that it isn't a bad idea for Burger King to sell beer to their "Sit-down" customers so that they could enjoy a nice beer with their burger; I'll tell you right now that if all burger kings started selling beer I would be buying a beer for me every time I bought a burger there.
On the other hand, I don't understand why Starbucks would want to start selling beer; Starbucks is known for their coffee and lattes.  To me in an environment where they are trying to sell coffee as a "wake-me-up" that you shouldn't be selling beer at the same place, especially where 80 percent of your customers leave as soon as they get their coffee.  Overall I think that places like Burger King and McDonalds would be able to get away with selling beer, however I do not think that Starbucks should sell beer just for the sake of the type of store/restaurant that they are.  What do you think, is Starbucks enough like a Burger King where they would be able to do this? Also, do you think there should be a limit on how many beers they can serve you, and/or, do you think this would cause more DUI's than there already are?

In Response to Mike's American Airlines

I agree with you Mike, this is not a good thing for those people, that company, or the economy.  When people lose their jobs unemployment goes up, when unemployment goes up people don't spend, etc. which eventually leads us right into a recession.  For companies around the world I think that it isn't good for them either because they will have to be laying people off as well.  These are just a couple thoughts I had on this topic. What do you think some suggestions for the company, or maybe the people losing their jobs?

NASA Reaches the Dark Side of the Moon

I recently read an article online about NASA saying they had reached the far side of the moon, they also had a video clip!  This video was recorded on January 19th of 2012.  These snapshots and videos are great because they can be used to study that side of the moon; the shots can also be used to give to students between fourth and eighth grade for them to stud the dark side of the moon with.  I think this is a great idea and that NASA is doing something to educate people.  I also think these snapshots and videos could possibly be useful, maybe they could show us something that we might have never known before, or maybe telling us something about the future, who knows?! I think what our space program is doing is very useful and important; what are your thoughts on this?