Colleges and universities are facing greater competition for students and other resources from a variety of areas, and one of the responses to this increased competition has been a greater appreciation of marketing concepts by colleges and universities, with a special focus on customer satisfaction. Many of us are familiar with some of the benefits of satisfied customers, including repeat purchases, higher spending, positive word of mouth and customer loyalty.  Similarly, in the educational setting, satisfied students should be more likely to remain at the institution and help increase retention rates and may also equate to students being more inspired and motivated to more actively participate in the educational process. While there has been some debate as to whether students are in fact the customers of higher education, given that students make a variety of consumerist decisions in the higher education setting, researchers have generally concluded that students are in fact customers. Students also often perceive themselves as ‘customers’ of higher education, and in marketing, we know that perception is reality. Assuming that students are in fact customers of higher education, it is important to better understand their role in the university setting and examine how this affects their overall satisfaction. We will do this by extending key service and marketing concepts that relate to regular customer satisfaction in a retail or service purchase and apply them to the higher education context.

It has been suggested that in higher education, students’ active participation is required for success. Meaning, it is not enough for them to simply ‘show up to class.’  In the retail and service environment, the result of co-participation of the customer and organization in the production process is referred to as co-production.   In a college setting, co-production occurs when students become partners in the educational experience. They may participate in a variety of areas including curriculum development, teaching a class, conducting research with a professor or mentoring other students.  Co-producing activities often lead to feelings of involvement, which is usually a good thing in marketing.  On the other hand, students' active roles in the educational process can also lead some students to feelings of entitlement, leading some students to expect special treatment, and think that they are special and deserve certain things.  Many a professor, including the author of this blog can provide tales of student’s requesting higher grades because of the time and effort they have put in or because of the consequences of lower grades.  If we view today’s college students as customers that are co-producing in the education process, it is reasonable to expect that this may result in feelings of entitlement which in turn, may affect their satisfaction. 

Understanding the relationship between co-production, entitlement, and satisfaction can help to provide guidance to relevant college and university stakeholders. For example, many colleges and universities currently offer new student orientation programs.  Care should be taken to make sure that the orientation programs place emphasis on the student’s role in the co-production process and sets clear expectations.  Colleges and universities should also offer training to those individuals participating in the educational process (i.e., instructors, support staff) to better understand the role of the student.

What do you think? Does the link between co-production, entitlement and satisfaction seem reasonable?  What other factors could affect student satisfaction?  Is student entitlement a good thing or bad thing? How do you feel about students co-producing?  What else can colleges and universities do to facilitate customer satisfaction in a way that preserves the integrity of the institution?

*This blog is based on a doctoral dissertation by Deborah Sisson entitled ‘Role of student entitlement and co-production on satisfaction.’ Her committee consists of Dr. Suri Weisfeld-Spolter (chair), Dr. John Riggs (reader) and Dr. Yuliya Yurova (methodologist).

Student Satisfaction Survey (Developed by Clayton State University).

Sara Weisfeld-Spolter, Ph.D., Associate Professor of Marketing, H. Wayne Huizenga College of Business and Entrepreneurship, Nova Southeastern University. Dr. Weisfield-Spolter can be reached at sw887@nova.edu; http://www.business.nova.edu/faculty.cfm/sw887

This entry was posted on October 15, 2015 at 10:02 AM and has received 8808 views. There are currently 28 comments. Print this entry. Download attachment.

CNBC reported that Volkswagen stock fell over 20 percent on Monday September 21 2015, after it told U.S. dealers to halt sales of some 2015 diesel cars, following regulators’ discovery that software designed for the vehicles gave false emissions data. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) stated that the software deceived regulators who measured toxic emissions, adding that Volkswagen could face fines of up to $18 billion as a result. Such actions by one of the world’s leading vehicle manufacturers, whether by design or not, can have a negative effect on the VW brand and hurt its reputation, at least in the eyes of some stakeholders.

One of the important strategic differentiators of organizations is their corporate brand. A brand is the promise it makes to stakeholders and reputation is the degree to which a company fulfills that promise. Your reputation is important among stakeholders because you need customers to be loyal to repeat purchase and recommend your brand. Policy makers and regulators should give you the benefit of the doubt, the media should support you, suppliers and other partners should provide you with high quality product, and your employees should be engaged to support you and be brand ambassadors.

Companies like Volkswagen must build their corporate brand by first building their identity. Corporate identity involves answering two questions, who are we and what are we? Corporate identity thus involves strategic choices by the organization’s leaders which include the development of a set of values and a code of ethics. Identity also involves the expression of identity. This involves the development of the brand promise, visual identity elements like the corporate name, slogan, colors and symbols, and other forms of communication. It also involves developing the brand personality.

All of these elements lead stakeholders to form impressions about Volkswagen.

1. Is it a mistake on VW’s part or was it deliberate deception?

2. Will the brand be hurt in the short or long term?

3. Who is responsible for an incident like this?

4. What has VW got to do now to recover its reputation?

Whatever happens, this recall seems to be very serious for VW.

Russell Abratt, Ph.D., is Professor of Marketing in the H. Wayne Huizenga College of Business and Entrepreneurship. He can be reached at abratt@nova.edu

This entry was posted on October 1, 2015 at 9:47 AM and has received 4551 views. There are currently 17 comments. Print this entry. Download attachment.

Brands and small businesses are quickly recognizing the power of marketing to their key influencers as their own thought leadership efforts stall out. Invitations to an influencer's podcast episodes, guest blogs and featured commentaries are arguably becoming the quickest and most affordable way to organically grow an audience. Unfortunately, few recognize the distinct characteristics of influencers that impact our ability to get on their radar.

An exploratory study of Top Social Media Influencers found 4 Archetypes derived from an examination of a content spectrum (educational to inspirational) and a communication spectrum (insightful to engaging). The resulting archetypes include analytical pundits, evangelists, mentors and motivators.

Notice from the table below how the approach to attracting each archetype varies across:

·         Content delivery formats

·         The way we interact

·         The method used to boost our influencer's audience

Analytical Pundits seek research to support their vision. They prefer round table forums in a debate oriented setting. Consequently, marketers can get on their radar with empirical data, conference invitations, trend line reports and book reviews.

Evangelists seek more illustrious content that support their fresh leading edge perspectives. Their audiences of advocates often share their views in a storytelling format. Marketers can contribute to their causes or insights with heartfelt commentary and inspirational imagery.

Mentors are looking for ways to enhance their courseware with instructional aids for workshop settings. Their audiences seek enhanced performance skills through tactical tips in a Q&A format. Marketers, in this case, can support them with educational aids and expert commentary.

Motivators seek ways to stimulate their audiences often in an entertaining setting. Content contributions need to help them maintain audience energy so as to sustain a packed audience. This works best when the content includes audience participative exercises, humor and motivational success stories.

So where do you find yourself among these categories? Are you more of an analytical pundit, evangelist, mentor or motivator?

 James Barry, D.B.A., is an Associate Professor of Marketing at Nova Southeastern University. He develops, teaches and consults on a variety of social media marketing subjects. He can be reached at jimbarry@huizenga.nova.edu

This entry was posted on September 15, 2015 at 10:34 AM and has received 7516 views. There are currently 83 comments. Print this entry. Download attachment.

Personalized advertising (sometimes referred to as behavioral re-targeting) represents a new and emerging trend in the field of online advertising. Through the use of enhanced online data collection techniques, marketers can now craft seemingly made-to-order advertisements tailored to a specific individual. Numerous websites and services have begun hosting personalized banner and/or text ads, such as YouTube, Facebook, Hotmail, and Gmail. In addition, the technique is being used by more and more firms such as Amazon, MetLife, Dollar Thrifty, Staples, Joseph A. Bank, Orbitz, Zappos, and T-Mobile.

Through advances in data collection that allow individual consumers to be identified and their behavior analyzed, personalized advertising promises to deliver consumers more relevant ads. This is because the ads are created from specific consumer information and explicit and/or implied preferences obtained from previously monitored online activity including search entries, cookie clickstream data, and/or user profiles.

You may or may not have heard the term personalized advertising before, however you have most likely been served a personalized advertisement at some point. If you have conducted an online search for a particular product, and/or viewed that product on an e-commerce website, a laptop computer or tablet, you have probably noticed an advertisement for that same exact product, from the same seller, following you around the Internet from site to site for about a week or so.

The logic behind personalized ads, is that the increase in advertisement relevance should lead to a number of benefits including, more effective online display ads, less wasted advertising dollars, increased consumer satisfaction, and increased profits, just to name a few. Therefore, personalized advertising has the potential to benefit both consumers and firms alike. This has led to excitement regarding the huge potential that personalized advertising may hold. Hailed as a breakthrough because it will allow for the right person to receive the right ad at the right time, personalized advertising has even been touted as the savior of online display ads.

While personalized advertising seemingly holds great potential to transform online advertising and provide benefits to both marketers and consumers alike; consumer acceptance of the technique still remains a significant hurdle for personalized advertising to overcome.

One of the main issues concerning the lack of acceptance of personalized advertising involves the privacy concerns of consumers who do not yet seem comfortable with the immense levels of tracking, data collection and selling of consumer information that takes place in order to allow personalized advertising to happen. Recent studies by Pew Research reported that 68% of consumers were uneasy about personalized advertisements because they do not like their online activities tracked and analyzed, while 73% felt that it was an invasion of their privacy. In addition, there have also been concerns regarding consumer displeasure with personalized advertisements displayed on social networking sites (SNSs) that explicitly use information from a user's SNS profile in the ad, such as the name of a brand that the user has previously "liked" or "followed". In addition, SNS ads have also utilized information from users' SNS posts and previous browsing history of other websites to tailor advertisements. Finally, there also seems to be a thin line between personalization and invasiveness in advertising. For example, personalized advertisements may sometimes actually be too accurate or "over-personalized", meaning that the level of precision is too high, with the advertisement containing too much personal information about an individual to the point where the ad may be perceived as disturbing and almost "creepy".

Personalized advertising seems to be one of a number of online data collection issues under scrutiny right now, since recent breaches of online security systems due to fraud and/or hacking, have increased concerns over the safety and security of consumers' online personal and financial information. These concerns have led to calls for increased consumer privacy protections in a number of global regions including both the United States and European Union.

So where do you come down on personalized advertisements? Do you find them useful, relevant, annoying, an invasion of your privacy, or something else? Please share your thoughts in the comments section below.

*Image source: MyBuys, Inc., 2015, "Personalized Display Ads"

John Gironda, Ph.D., is an Assistant Professor of Marketing in the H. Wayne Huizenga College of Business and Entrepreneurship at Nova Southeastern University. His teaching and research interests include digital and social media marketing, consumer behavior, marketing strategy, advertising, personal selling, and sales management. He can be reached at: jgironda@nova.edu; http://www.business.nova.edu/Faculty.cfm/jgironda/

This entry was posted on September 1, 2015 at 9:51 AM and has received 7064 views. There are currently 46 comments. Print this entry. Download attachment.

Let the market decide. Let the market regulate itself. Let the invisible hand deal with the free market. All these ideas, coming all the way from Adam Smith, Milton Friedman and many other supporters of a free, deregulated market are brought into question especially when governments and justice fail.  However, despite the benefits of this doctrine for the free market, it seems to be much easier for companies or for other organizations to organize in the purpose of unethical (and sometimes illegal) activities, than the civil society or the consumer. Of course, due to the Internet, consumers have a much louder voice when it comes to sanctioning unethical behavior, with social media, viral videos, tweets and reviews. However, there is still a limited amount of pressure that can be generated against decisions from giant companies who are more or less close to a market monopoly position, such as TV cable companies. Even less power has the civil society against, for example, terrorist organizations.

In this context, the cyber-activism and hacking group Anonymous, brought into attention by the dreadful attacks in Paris, represents an interesting topic of study and reflection.  Known more for attacks on governmental agencies around the world and their support for Wikileaks, they recently announced war on terrorism in support of Charlie Hebdo and freedom of speech, and an initiative of taking down websites supporting terrorist activities. It represents a major attempt of organized action of the civil society against terrorism, a cyber-activism strategy on responding with concrete actions to extremism.

There is, nevertheless, another side to Anonymous and its increasing role in letting the market decide. While less known, they also organized attacks on several major companies, such as PayPal, MasterCard and Visa. Can this organization represent a way for the civil society, for consumers, to participate in a more active way in regulating the market? Could Anonymous be a way for consumers to respond with efficient tools to businesses’ unethical decisions? Is Anonymous a modern day, cyber Robin Hood, an online invisible hand not only for social, but also economic activism? Let the market decide.

Maria Petrescu, Ph.D., is Assistant Professor of Marketing in the H. Wayne Huizenga School of Business and Entrepreneurship, Nova Southeastern University. She can be reached at mpetresc@nova.edu; http://www.huizenga.nova.edu/Faculty.cfm/mpetresc/Biography 

This entry was posted on February 23, 2015 at 8:59 AM and has received 3933 views. There are currently 11 comments. Print this entry. Download attachment.

Harry Houdini, born Ehrich Weiss in 1874, dazzled American and European audiences with spectacular magic and illusion feats until his death on Halloween, 1926. Adapting his name from his hero, J. E. Robert-Houdin, a French magician, Houdini quickly established himself as the top entertainer in the world in the late 19th and early 20th centuries. While everyone knows about his marvels as a legendary magician and escape artist, few know that much of his success was due to superb marketing.

Here are five marketing lessons learned from Houdini that you can apply to your entrepreneurial venture (and you don't need to wear a strait-jacket or be handcuffed to pull off this marketing magic).

1. Always be prepared!   Houdini always had a plan and was very resourceful. He was ready for any physical or mental challenge. While Houdini clearly took chances, he believed in managing risk. He used his superior intellect to conduct research and obtain knowledge of all situations and always had the right tools to get the job done. It was not uncommon for Houdini to spend up to 10 hours a day practicing challenging escapes.

2. Leap-frog the competition. Houdini constantly studied the market and prepared for imitators and new competitors. He dissected strategies used by his rivals and never let his competitors know what he would do next. He read every book that was published on magic acquiring a personal library of more than 5,000 volumes on the subject. While rivals were content to break out of handcuffs, Houdini did this while suspended upside down from skyscrapers, on top of bridges or immersed in water.

3. Fine-tune your positioning strategy. Houdini understood the sheer power of a brand name a century before this became all the rage in marketing. Quality was at the heart of his value proposition, always exceeding customers' expectations in his live performances. He knew that perception was reality and had every detail worked out in advance to provide a superior customer experience. While other magicians made rabbits disappear, Houdini vanished a full-grown elephant in plain sight. To extend his brand, Houdini went global and conquered Europe, as well as America.

4. Build a world-class product. Houdini carefully guarded his trade secrets and invested in his product. He diversified to build his product line and product mix. An advocate of the kaizen approach (continuous improvement), Houdini regularly sought incredible new offerings while enhancing his existing repertoire of tried and true stunts. His three minute water torture escape from a steel-encased cabinet was world renowned. This was one of his several signature acts that could not be replicated.

5. Be creative and never stop promoting. Houdini was the consummate sales pro as well as the master showman and publicist. He stimulated word-of-mouth promotion in every city he visited by promising unimaginable events that he later successfully executed.  Houdini often dropped in on local police stations during the day in the cities he was visiting and challenged them to keep him from escaping their most secure chains/restraints, handcuffs, jail cells, or locks (his arsenal of four hidden keys/picks always got the job done). The publicity gained from these teaser appearances drew huge interest to his evening shows. The word spread nationally and internationally in an era that had no television or internet!

Suggested reading: Cannell, J.C. (1989), The Secrets of Houdini, NY: Bell Publishing Company.

Art Weinstein, Ph.D., is Chair and Professor of Marketing at the Huizenga School. His research interests are customer value, market segmentation and entrepreneurial marketing strategies. He may be reached at art@nova.edu  

This entry was posted on February 2, 2015 at 9:04 AM and has received 4379 views. There are currently 31 comments. Print this entry. Download attachment.

Even with the challenges of today’s lagging economy, recent research suggests that consumers are spending more than $500 billion in gifts, with gifting representing 10% of the total retail market and self-gifting projected to be the highest yet with participation from 59% of shoppers. Gift giving occurs in all societies and is a social exchange process involving a giver and a receiver.  There are now many instances, especially in the United States where the giver and receiver of the gift are the same person (self-gift).

Self-Gifts are defined as 1) personally symbolic self-communication through (2) special indulgences that tend to be (3) premeditated and (4) highly context bound.  This definition helps to differentiate self-gifts from other personal acquisitions.  Self-gifts are a means to communicate with one’s self and, in particular, to influence one’s self-definition and self-esteem.  There is also an aspect of specialness to self-gifting, referring to the notion that self-gifts often have special meanings for consumers as compared to common, every day, self-directed purchases.  They can be any product, but they constitute a form of indulgence, making them different from a regular personal acquisition.  Self-gifts also tend to be premeditated and are typically not spontaneous purchases. They tend to be done to reward oneself after a great accomplishment or to cheer oneself up after a disappointment, but can also occur under other contexts such as birthdays, anniversaries and holidays.

Many companies are now capitalizing on our self-gift propensities in their promotions and advertising messages. For example, J.Crew recently created a "Gift yourself" section on its website, along with the text “To: you, From: you.”  The diamond industry has also caught onto the new “me” mood, with slogans like “Your left hand says ‘we,’ you’re right hand says ‘me’,” urging women to buy diamonds for themselves.  And slogans such as "You deserve a break today” (McDonald’s) and “The perfect little thank-me” (Andes candies) present indulgences as personal rewards.

Do you think this is an effective approach?

Do you engage in Self-Gift behavior?

When was the last time you bought yourself a special gift?

What did you buy?

Can you think of other companies that use self-gifting appeals in their messages?

P.S. To read more on the social-phenomenon of “gift-giving” visit the following article titled “Impact of Giving on Self and Impact of Self on Giving” by Dr. Suri Weisfeld-Spolter and colleagues Dr. Cindy B. Rippe and Dr. Stephen Gould: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/mar.20760/abstract

Suri Weisfeld-Spolter, Ph.D., is Associate Professor of Marketing and Chair of Doctoral Programs in the H. Wayne Huizenga School of Business and Entrepreneurship, Nova Southeastern University. She can be reached at sw887@nova.edu

This entry was posted on December 15, 2014 at 9:00 AM and has received 4550 views. There are currently 30 comments. Print this entry. Download attachment.

People generally fear losses more than they covet gains; losses are weighted more heavily than an equivalent amount of gains, e.g., the absolute joy felt in finding $50 is a lot less than the absolute pain caused by losing $50, a phenomenon known as “loss-aversion”.  Kahneman and Tversky stumbled upon loss aversion after giving their students a simple survey, which asked whether or not they would accept a variety of different bets. The psychologists noticed that, when people were offered a gamble on the toss of a coin in which they might lose $20, they demanded an average payoff of at least $40 if they won. The pain of a loss was approximately twice as potent as the pleasure generated by a gain. As Kahneman and Tversky aptly put it, “In human decision making, losses loom larger than gains.”

If you ever kept a gym membership long after it has become clear that you are not now and will never be a gym rat, then you have felt the effects (i.e. “dead-loss” effect) of loss aversion. Think about how insurance is sold, not on what consumers will gain, but what they stand to lose—insurance (and warranties) is by definition designed to mitigate “loss”.

Consider the following example of how loss aversion works.  A grocery retailer has tried to decrease people’s use of plastic grocery bags. One approach was to offer a five-cent bonus to customers who brought reusable bags. That approach had essentially no effect. Later the retailer tried another approach, which was to impose a five-cent tax on those who ask for a grocery bag. Though five cents is not a lot of money, many people do not want to pay it. The new approach has had a major effect in reducing use of grocery bags.

Here is another example of where loss aversion comes into play.  Suppose two companies sell calling plans. Company A advertises their plan for $25.00 per month, with a $12 rebate for continuing the contract for at least one year.   Company B advertises their plan for $24 per month, with a $12 surcharge for dropping out of the program before a year is up. Which is the better deal after one year’s worth of calls?  Of course, the economic costs of these two plans are identical, except that the plan offered by Company B is framed differently, i.e. as a potential loss, and would more strongly appeal to loss-averse customers.

Loss aversion has many practical applications in marketing, in particular when it comes to pricing, i.e. when using price increases, reference prices, limited time offers and price bundling.

Price increases – Whenever a customer sees a price increase, they interpret this as a personal loss.  Hence, businesses often see extremely emotional reactions resulting in lost business (e.g. Netfix lost 800,000 subscribers in the 3rd quarter of 2011 after an announced price hike).  One strategy, if possible, is to change the packaging of the product, e.g., Kellogg’s reduced the size of its Frosted Flakes and Rice Krispies cereal boxes from 19 to 18 ounces. Frito-Lay reduced Doritos bags from 12 to 10 ounces. Dial Soap bars shrank from 4.5 to 4 ounces, and Procter and Gamble reduced the size of Bounty paper towel rolls from 60 to 52 sheets.

Reference prices – A reference price is what your customers expect to pay.  If they are forced to pay more than this they consider it a loss.  Less is a gain.  Existing customers often use the last price paid as their reference price (and smart phones now offer instant reference pricing data).  However, for new customers, firms have the ability to influence their reference price.  We often see retailers show MSRP and then a marked down price--this to influence the reference price.  Alternatively, some companies choose to compare their product to one that is much more expensive in hope of increasing the prospect’s reference price (a tactic frequently used by off-price retailers like Ross or T.J. Maxx).

Limited time offers – If Macy’s is willing to sell a jacket at 50% during a sale that ends Sunday, why wouldn’t they sell it at 50% off on Monday?  The answer is loss aversion.  If potential buyers are on the fence about buying the jacket, they are more likely to go purchase it while it’s on sale.  Once Monday comes they have lost the opportunity.  If Macy’s doesn’t stop the sale on Monday they don’t have the extra incentive to go buy on Sunday (Walgreens features “Senior Tuesday” sales).  Loss aversion is one factor that drives the success of “sales”.

Bundling – charging a single net price for the overall exchange hides gains and losses on the component transactions and allows consumers flexibility in mentally apportioning the net price across the components in a manner they construe favorably.

People and customers in particularly don’t like to lose. This is why good marketing and sales is often all about convincing prospects that what they are about to buy is worth more than what they must pay for it.  Something is seen as a good value when any perceived pain of loss will be more than offset by the joy of gain. 

So, what about you, are you more likely to avoid losses or pursue gains?

William (Bill) Johnson, Ph.D., is a Participating Faculty in Marketing and at the H. Wayne Huizenga School of Business and Entrepreneurship, Nova Southeastern University. He can be reached at billyboy@nova.edu 

This entry was posted on October 6, 2014 at 9:32 AM and has received 11509 views. There are currently 100 comments. Print this entry. Download attachment.

A recent Huizenga blog on Corporate Sustainability by Dr. Michael Hoffman pointed out that the former head of global marketing at Coca Cola is now the Chief Sustainability Officer.  That should come as no surprise given the growing importance of sustainability in brand marketing. 

First, let us look at some definitions, because the word “sustainability” is often used interchangeably with other descriptors.  According to a 2013 study by KPMG, the accounting firm, the most commonly used terms globally are ‘corporate responsibility’ (14 percent) or ‘corporate social responsibility-- CSR’ (25 percent) and ‘sustainability’ report (43 percent).  The Global Reporting Initiative (GRI), the organization that sets sustainability reporting standards, identifies three broad areas under the sustainability definition: environmental, social, and economic.

Marketers have an important interest in all three areas.  For example:

·         Hershey’s reduced the amount of paper wrap in their mini chocolates saving over 270,000 pounds of paper, the equivalent of 11 tractor trailers of paper that would have wound up in a landfill, and of course, saving the brand money.  The company saved over 14 million pounds of packaging material in the last five years. 

·         Procter and Gamble donates one dose of maternal and neonatal tetanus vaccine with the purchase of each package of Pampers.  Since 2006, over 100 million women and babies have been protected, saving countless lives. 

·         UPS supported relief efforts for hurricane Sandy with $1.5 million in cash and in-kind support to aid in the recovery efforts, a $250,000 grant to the American Red Cross, $250,000 in logistical aid for urgent response, and an additional $1 million in cash and in-kind support to a variety of relief organizations. 

Why do companies do this?  Research shows numerous corporate and brand benefits.  Studies among corporate executives by McKinsey & Company consulting in 2008 and the Boston Consulting Group/MIT in 2012 indicate Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) has a direct, positive impact on shareholder value and profitability.  Seventy-nine percent of chief financial officers state that these programs improve firm performance by maintaining corporate reputation and brand equity. 

Consumers express a preference for brands supporting CSR.  A recent U.S. study with 1,000 consumers done for the advertising agency Burson Martsteller and design firm Landor showed 55% of respondents favor purchasing a product with added social benefit over one without those benefits. The study also revealed 70% of consumers are willing to pay a premium for a product costing $100 from a socially responsible company, with 28% willing to pay at least $10 more.  

A 2014 Nielsen market research study in 60 countries with over 30,000 respondents showed similar results.  Fifty-five percent of consumers would pay more for products and services from companies committed to positive social and environmental impact, 52% made at least one purchase from one or more socially responsible companies and 52% check product packages to ensure sustainable impact.  All of these metrics show dramatic increases over a previous study done by Nielsen in 2010.  

Marketers see distinct benefits from CSR.

•      Innovation - Seven in 10 surveyed executives report that CSR brings opportunities for the innovation of new products and services.  One third also report opportunities to grow their market share.  Examples include Unilever’s hair conditioner that uses less water and Boeing's energy efficient new planes.

•      Cost savings –Reduction in material waste, transportation, packaging materials, energy use.  P&G's one-year reduction in waste disposal through recycling saves enough money to purchase 400 prime time television spots.

•      Brand differentiation-environmental friendly packaging and products, social programs, brand citizenship.  Toyota has differentiated its cars with fuel-efficient hybrid models across its product lines as well as reducing carbon emissions throughout its manufacturing processes.

•      Long-term thinking - focus on longer-term horizon, 5 years out rather than just next quarter.  UPS is committed to a long-term plan to transition to the development of alternative biofuels for its trucks to reduce costs and pollution.

•      Customer engagement - helps companies and brands engage with customers about something good, puts customer at center.  Brands such as Pedigree dog food with its adopt a dog campaign , Yoplait yogurt asking consumers to send in specially marked pink lids for donations to breast cancer, and Warby-Parker donating eye glasses for every pair purchased by consumers, have added to sales, brand loyalty, and brand equity through their "do good" programs.

So, it is not surprising Coca Cola placed a marketing executive in charge of sustainability.

Does your company embrace sustainability in its marketing and brand practices? In what ways?

Herbert Brotspies, D.B.A., is a Part-Time Participating Faculty in Marketing at the H. Wayne Huizenga School of Business and Entrepreneurship, Nova Southeastern University. He may be reached at brotspie@nova.edu

This entry was posted on September 8, 2014 at 9:02 AM and has received 3318 views. There are currently 12 comments. Print this entry. Download attachment.

While kissing is usually associated with pleasure, not business, there are international settings where kissing is an essential part of a proper greeting. Especially in a business environment, where decisions can be made in just a couple of seconds based both on number and interpersonal relationships, it is extremely important to be well-informed regarding the traditions of your business partners.

There are many elements in a greeting sequence, and in many cultures in includes a kiss as a traditional greeting. In other cultures it can be a sign that you are well-respected and accepted in your partners’ social circle. Nevertheless, besides knowing when and who to kiss, an essential detail in demonstrating your businesses kissing skills refers to how and how many times. And believe me, it is in no way pleasant to prepare for a kiss on both cheeks and then be left” in the wind” because your partner comes from a culture where they kiss just once. And it also happened that I left people “in the wind”, because I did not know about the 3 times rule. While some persons would kindly explain you how you should have done it, others just leave it alone as a slightly embarrassing moment. However, in an international business environment nothing says that you are a well prepared, thoughtful and respectful individual than knowing the habits and traditions of your discussion partners.

So, just a few examples from around the world can show you how complicated the world of kissing is. For example, in some regions of France, such as Burgundy, a proper greeting includes 3 kisses on the cheek, while in other areas of the country, including Paris, 2 kisses are enough. The same happens in Brazil, some of my students told me in class. The 3 kisses rule can also be found, for example, in Serbia or in different countries in the Middle East. The kiss on both cheeks rule is rather common around the world, even though, there might be differences regarding on which side to start. Hungarians, for example, start from right to left, while in Portugal from left to right. Other cultures, like the United States, the UK, Belgium and the list can go on, use the one kiss rule.

Other details refer to how formal or informal this form of greeting is considered, how much contact is expected and who initiates the greeting. Nevertheless, cultural differences also reflect on the role of genders in this non-verbal communication act.

Therefore, when discussing about business and formal settings, please remember to do your homework ahead of time. And if you kiss, please tell. Tell us how you do it.

Maria Petrescu, Ph.D., is Assistant Professor of Marketing at the H. Wayne Huizenga School of Business and Entrepreneurship, Nova Southeastern University. She can be reached at mpetresc@nova.edu; http://www.huizenga.nova.edu/Faculty.cfm/mpetresc/Biography

This entry was posted on August 25, 2014 at 8:43 AM and has received 4330 views. There are currently 21 comments. Print this entry. Download attachment.