In response to Joe Littlewood's post: Nike Shoes

Question: What do you think about Nikes strategy back then?  If you were making the decisions would you have made all those risks and put your company in jeopardy?

I think Nike come up with this awesome strategy back then when they signed Michael Jordan to the sneaker contract. This was probably one of the best moves Nike has ever made. The Michael Jordan brand just took off and is still going strong today. Michael Jordan was an icon in basketball. He is known to be one of the best players of the game. It is smart marketing strategy to name a basketball shoe line after one of the best. He is people's hero and many people want to be as good of a player as he was. They figured they should buy the Air Jordans and maybe they can gain good basketball skills. That is the way that Nike made it sound.

What other sports icon has a big brand? How do they market it?

Bud Light Marketing Promotions

Bud light spends a lot of money on promoting its beer. This weekend I went skiing at Loon Mountain in New Hampshire. The had a Bud Light representative there promoting the beer. The guy was like a dj playing music and giving away free bud light things. They had a music quiz that you had to guess the song and artist. The people who participated in this won a Bud Light glass. He was also throwing around Bud Light koozies. He was also giving away shirts. I won a shirt by shooting a pong ball into a glass that this girl was holding behind her back. You had three shots to make it in and I got it on the last one. You could also of won a shirt by doing 10 pull ups on the wood rafter. The main prize was a pair of Bud Light twin-tip skies. As this was going on they had Bud Light drink special.

How much money do you that alcohol companies send on marketing? Do you this marketing is affective by giving out free stuff?

In response to Christian Torti's post: Purchasing (RED) products?

The question was: Would you donate to the (RED) cause by purchasing (RED) products? Why or why not?


I don't think I would be purchasing (RED) products. After reading about the campaign I feel it doesn't make to much sense that they only ending up donating 25 million but they spent about 100 million on marketing. It would make more sense to me if they ended up donating the 100 million and spending the 25 million on marketing. If that was the case then I would probably of purchased the (RED) products to help out. I would of skipped purchasing any of the (RED) products and found a way just to donate directly so they could have gotten 100% of the donations.  

(RED) Campaign open-ended questions

1) Yes I think a partnership with Product (RED) can improve Gap’s image.  I feel that it is a sign that they are making a commitment to the corporate social responsibility because they wanted to give 100 % of the sales to the foundation. There seems to be a lot of critics that say the involvement is just an attempt to spit-shine the company’s image. I think Gap did a good thing with taking on this role. It probably made them look really good to most people.

2) The types of technology that have contributed to the (RED) campaign where things like MySpace, making its own website, and sending out a ton of e-mails. They mostly used the technology of the computer to really get this campaign out there especially to the younger generation.

3) I think this has a 50/50 chance to go either way. Some people can make an argument saying that they have 25 million more than they had. I would say this is silly and disappointing. I feel the whole 100 million should be going to the charity not 25% of it. We expect that the charities get almost all the money being donated but most of the times it not. Yes, I feel that this campaign can lose supporters as a result.