Month: October 2010

With the relatively sudden realization that traditional carbon energy sources such as oil and coal are contributing to global warming, green energy has been entering the minds of the population. Some people are willing to pay more for their electricity if it comes from a renewable resource. Most people have heard of wind power. Most people know of solar power. In BC, we are very familiar with hydro power. Very few have an idea of what Geothermal power is. Here is a quick explaination.

Geothermal resources are harder to find than solar or wind (since these are above ground), but are able to run about 95% of the time. Solar struggles at night. Wind doesn’t always blow. Geothermal is also more economic to produce than solar. On top of all this, Geothermal is not new technology. They have been doing this for a long time. So why is the exposure for Geothermal so low? We all love the idea of “going green” (which spurs Green Marketing), but if we don’t have renewable electricity, the value of electric cars to the “green consumer” isn’t as high as they perceive it to be. If I use coal to produce the electricity that you put into your new Chevy Volt or Nissan Leaf, is the environment that much better off? Yes, it is probably better, but can be improved.

Personally have to say that the Volt looks 5x better than the leaf. Either way, Green Marketing will benefit greatly from these new technologies. I expect that when celebrities start driving around in their electric cars, followers will catch up quickly.

First off, that 296 midterm was tough for me. Guess I won’t be the recruit from Accounting/Finance!

I recently realized that many mining companies could almost be considered to be in different marketing eras, in current day. Production, sales, market and value-based. A mining company in the production stage is basically saying that their properties are good enough on their own to attract investors by itself. Sales-oriented is more like those junior mining companies that should really be worth zero (like a pump and dump type of company) that manage to attract investment. Some “CEO” probably hires some “newsletter writer” to do the advertising and personal selling for them. Market oriented mining companies would be most like some sort of mining conference where investors have the ability to compare companies all under one roof “the buyer is king”. What do the customers want? A return on investment. Value-based marketing would be mining companies with good assets, good management, and a low market cap.  Sounds pretty good to me! So the real question, which companies fit under each market-era?

Nearly all consumer-discretionary spending is made to satisfy psychological needs. Yes, some things are purchases for their functional needs, but consumers will often upgrade their purchase of  a functional good into a psychological one. In the example of Goretex given in the textbook, there is more than one provider of goretex clothing, but consumers will still factor in brands, color, and general look. Maybe some celebrity wore a particular style. I want to walk through my “consumer decision process on a few things I bought in the past year.

1. Laptop-Yes, I recognized a need (was using an old Toshiba laptop that was roughly 5 or 6 years old…it was pretty heavy, especially dragging it out from Ladner everyday). Functionally, my new laptop is much faster and looks considerably better. I consider myself to be a relatively practical person. Unlike some people I know, I don’t buy things for just  for fun (when I say for fun, I don’t actually mean for fun, but more like for no apparent reason). I had decided to buy what I considered to be a reasonable model (another Toshiba) on boxing day. Functionally, it was all I needed, and should have been relatively dependable. Yeah, it didn’t have a built in mic or anything, but it would work “for school” purposes. I had to meet my psychological needs in this case too. There is no way I wanted to be seen using an Acer, HP, or Gateway. It seems to send the wrong message, for whatever reason. Macbook Pro’s look good, but the price is too high for what I use it for, plus I’d have an adjustment period switching.

My internal search for information? Well I really only knew of some brands and that Intel has 90 something percent market share in the chip market. There are some star ratings on these chips too. AMD is the other portion. Brands? Toshiba, Sony, HP, Dell, Acer, Gateway, Leveno (or something), Asus…

External? Checked consumer reports, but most of the models in Canada have slightly different product numbers than in the States where most of these reviews are. Other people? Well, my parents have always been Sony people.

Cost/Benefit? I saw the time put into researching as worth it, a few hours here in there is worthwhile for purchases of this size in my books. Risk? Well, I wanted a dependable reputation in the brand. That would be performance risk. Could also be financial risk too. I consider this to be a shopping good.

The Evoked set? A Toshiba and a Sony. I actually bought the Toshiba, but my dad brought home a Sony with 1 touch web access and Blu-ray. Really didn’t need blu-ray and HDMI, but I kept the Sony. Both alternatives had the same Intel duo core 2 chip and Windows 7, but the Sony cost more.

Didn’t see that in the text (ie someone buys product for you and convinces you to keep it)

We’ve all seen them. Telus has bunnies, exotic birds, hippos, little pigs, etc. Rogers uses a continuation of the wrong guy on the wrong network vs some other guy on the Rogers network. Most of us pay attention to these because of the continued storyline, animals or music associated with these commercials. Bell doesn’t have any particular commercials that stick out in my head. Does this put Bell behind the other 2 in  terms of competitiveness of or brand awareness? I don’t think so. Even carriers new to the scene such as WIND mobile will become competitive without television commercials. Most people will shop around for the best deal before deciding on a carrier. Running expensive commercials is not the way to go. How many people will be swayed by a commercial these days? Many people just record shows and fast forward through the commercials. Only live events (sports, news, etc.) have commercials that are actually being watched by the majority of viewers. Yes, business users are more likely to be with Rogers (usually a company plan, not due to consumer choice), but the average person really doesn’t have a reason to sign a 3 year term with Rogers. Yes, you get a free phone or whatever the promotion is, but per month value usually isn’t quite as good as others. Isn’t that what it’s all about? Creating value for consumers?

Sidenote: If Google can find a way to make their online phoning thing on Gmail work with devices like the iPod touch or Samsung’s version of the iPad (the name doesn’t ring a bell right now, not a good sign if they want to avoid being in the forgotten category), competition will be even more fierce. Does this create more value for consumers? I think so.

Telus Bunnies

On an unrelated note, I just wanted to point out how the Canucks as a business really don’t have to advertise. Fans do it for them. newspapers do it for them. The news does it for them. The radio does it for them. Demand for merchandise and tickets skyrockets. Sounds a great business to own? Phoenix Coyotes anyone? I really don’t understand why the coyotes don’t move from Phoenix (in a busniess perspective). Why advertise and give out free tickets in Phoenix when people in Vancouver would be willing to go to Seattle just to see the same event? I know it’s more complex, but losing money in Phoenix really doesn’t make much sense at this point