Help With Discussion

Week3:

1) Do you project something like this happening in NYC? Why or why not?

2) What are some ways that these retailers can pivot if various locations begin to shut down?

3) How much of a factor do you think the pandemic played into the “retail exodus” in San Francisco?

 

Classmate responses:

 

Classmate Mafalda:

Do you project something like this happening in NYC? Why or why not?

Although you can never be 100% sure, I do not think something like this would happen in New York City. We are still seeing the effects of the pandemic on the world, both socially and financially. Even with a large number of people moving out of the city in 2020, it has mostly returned to what it used to be. New York City continues to be the most visited city in the U.S. which helps significantly with continuing demand for physical stores. The rise in crime that New York has seen recently, mixed with the increasing popularity of online shopping could decrease the profit some stores bring in. However, I do not think that a “mass exodus” of retailers is likely to occur.

What are some ways that these retailers can pivot if various locations begin to shut down?

Closing stores is usually not a good decision for retailers. However, in San Francisco’s case, many of the companies that left would have faced bigger deficits if they had stayed. To prevent further losses the retailer should make a decision on how to come back stronger. This can be done by expanding into “up and coming” areas. In recent years, stores like Whole Foods and Starbucks have become pickier with where they open a new store. They conduct research and have started expanding to suburban areas where younger adults are moving to. Another way they can combat losses from closing a retail location is by improving their online retail experience. Since the pandemic, many people have become more open to online shopping. This has led to many retailers increasing their competition with Amazon for the top online retailer. By ensuring that their online retailer provides customers with things such as convenience and ample choices, retailers could turn a bad situation into a good one.

How much of a factor do you think the pandemic played into the “retail exodus” in San Francisco?

I think that the pandemic player a very big factor in the retail exodus. Like it was mentioned in the presentation, San Francisco where these incidents took place was a good area prior to 2020. The pandemic not only caused a lot of deaths but also caused Americans to face a lot of financial issues. Many people were laid off and could not afford to buy the bare necessities for their families. The rising prices due to inflation had an even worse effect on the economy. These things caused many people to stop spending money, and others had to resort to shoplifting to get by. The areas that faced these issues were mainly highly populated city centers much like San Francisco. I think that if 2020 had turned out differently, the retail space in San Francisco would currently be booming.

 

Classmate Oscar:

Answers;

1) I completely believe that some of the less expensive, ore franchised retail stores will definitely close down physically. The reason why I say only the less expensive as compared to the higher end luxury brand is for 2 reasons. First, in person service is increasingly becoming less and less essential, there are many ways that companies supplement in person service, that in person service is becoming more of a luxury rather than the standard. Companies such as Amazon, whom opened a retail store that did not require cashiers or attendant consumers only need to connect their Amazon account to the shopping cart and what ever they put into the cart was scanned and charged into their account when they finished their shopping. The development of AI and the want of a quicker service has made it so that have to wait on people and interact with people less appealing than going in and have everything done for you. This will lead to multiple normal good retailers closing physical stores and encouraging their consumers to shop online or through third parties that do not require them to leave the comfort of their home.

2) There is already an ongoing pivot from retailers relying less on their physical location and investing more into their online presence and consumer interaction. Physical locations require a lot of funding, overhead, insurance, employee payments, etc. An online shop can be maintained at a lower standard where the only employees the company has to pay is the maintaince and site assistants. An online shop that allows the retailer to directly ship to consumers, without the need to have as much non moving inventory in warehouses. So overall, a more online and less physical location will actually benefit retailers and allow them to reach more consumers at a higher value.

3) I believe that the Pandemic was the spark that enlightened people and companies to realize that their business can be done completely online. The pandemic forced companies to change their business structure to be more remote. Companies realized that consumer needs could be fulfilled without the need of them stepping into a physical location. This ignition spark, that allowed companies to be online presence ready who were just hesitant used the raise of crime to close shop.

 

 

 

week 4:

1. Due to backlash, Target chose to remove certain merchandise from their Pride collection. Do you think they handled the situation well? What could they have done differently if they hadn’t?
2. What lessons can other retailers learn from Target’s experience and the following backlash?
3. How do you think the backlash impact Target’s brand image and reputation among ALL consumers?

 

Classmate Responses:

 

Classmate Christina:

1. Do you think Target handled the situation correctly? What could they have done differently if they hadn’t?

Simply put, I think it makes the most sense to remove the merchandise that it causing the most issues. This is exactly what target did, so I do think they handled the situation well. In any case, if a large majority of Target’s customers are unhappy to the point where they stop shopping there, then Target should do whatever they need to do, within reason to gain those customer back. I think this a situation where everyone won in the end. The highly disturbing merchandise was removed from the stores, but the company was still able to keep a nice amount of the pride collection.

2. What lessons can other retailers learn from Target’s experience and the following backlash?

I think Target found themselves in a very unique situation here. However, I think the big takeaway for retailers is to not fill stores with merchandise that leans in extreme directions, especially in the social and political climate that we live in today. The merchandise that people took issue with was extreme and unnecessary. It doesn’t make sense to try to appeal to the small number of people who actually wanted to buy this kind of merchandise.

3. How do you think the backlash impacted Target’s brand reputation and image among ALL consumers?

For the large majority that took issue with the items that Target was trying to sell, I believe the brand image was somewhat tarnished. I think it caused several people to take a second look at what kind of company they are supporting in shopping at target. However, because the items were quickly removed I don’t think this is something Target can’t come back from. If the consumers who enjoyed the items that were removed from stores have any saw the backlash that the company was receiving, they would recognize that target did what they had to do for business. Therefore, I don’t think the removal of the items would really affect them.

Classmate Mafalda:

Hi Elleny, here are my answers to the questions you presented:

1. Due to the backlash, Target chose to remove certain merchandise from its Pride collection. Do you think they handled the situation well? What could they have done differently if they hadn’t?

Target’s decision to remove controversial items from its Pride Collection was the correct one. Employee and customer safety should be the most important thing not only to local managers but also corporate. I think that they should have made the decision sooner, especially since the backlash started as soon as the collection was set. Another thing that should have been done before the collection was announced was a crisis management meeting. The sales team should have completed more research on the demographics of the areas where the collection was going to be sold. Since every Target store carries a different selection of items, they should have kept the more controversial items in the stores where they knew were going to perform well.

2. What lessons can other retailers learn from Target’s experiences and the following backlash?

In the future, I think other retailers should conduct a substantial amount of market research before offering merchandise that leans too far in one direction when it comes to politics. Nowadays wherever you go, you are faced with some type of political ad, merchandise, etc. and most people do not want to be constantly faced with such things.

3. How do you think the backlash impacted Target’s brand image and reputation among ALL consumers?

Target has faced many consequences after the issue with its pride collection. According to fox business, the company has lost close to $15.7 billion and its shares are selling at a record-low price. The company increased its dividend in hopes attract more people. however, many people have decided to boycott the store altogether. Removing the collection also put many people who were for it, against Target. I think that maybe in the far future, the company come back from it, however, it will not be easy to win people back.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

week 6:

1. How does the FTC lawsuit against Amazon for manipulative tactics in enrolling users in a premium service highlight the ethical considerations in marketing practices?
2. Considering the allegations made in the article, what potential impact do you think this lawsuit could have on Amazon’s brand reputation and customer trust? How might the company manage and recover from such a situation?
3. In light of the FTC’s claims, what steps can marketers take to ensure transparency and honesty in their subscription-based services or premium offerings? How might this influence their marketing strategies and consumer relationships?

 

Classmate Elleny:

Hi Oscar, great presentation!

1. How does the FTC lawsuit against Amazon for manipulative tactics in enrolling users in a premium service highlight the ethical considerations in marketing practices?

Ethical marketing techniques’ major goals are building trust and preserving a good reputation with clients. If Amazon engaged in deceptive practices, it might erode consumer confidence in the brand and harm its reputation. The long-term advantages of upholding credibility and trust are highlighted by ethical marketing considerations. Transparency and honesty with customers are also key components of ethical marketing techniques. That’s why questions are raised Amazon. Because they are pressuring consumers into signing up for a premium service without fully revealing the conditions or the prices involved.

 

2. Considering the allegations made in the article, what potential impact do you think this lawsuit could have on Amazon’s brand reputation and customer trust? How might the company manage and recover from such a situation?

Amazon can be subject to legal and financial consequences, depending on the seriousness of the accusations and the resolution of the lawsuit. This may involve paying fines, penalties, and perhaps even reimbursing impacted customers. Such repercussions may also have an effect on the company’s finances and reputation. Amazon should think about responding to the charges in an open and transparent manner, accepting responsibility for any misconduct, and making a commitment to make things right. Accountability can assist in reestablishing confidence with stakeholders and customers.

 

3. In light of the FTC’s claims, what steps can marketers take to ensure transparency and honesty in their subscription-based services or premium offerings? How might this influence their marketing strategies and consumer relationships?

Marketers can allow users to ask questions, get clarification, or voice issues about the subscription or premium service through easily accessible customer care channels. Building trust and enhancing customer relationships can be done by aggressively responding to customer questions and requests for feedback. They can also make the cancellation process simple and uncomplicated so that clients may quickly decide whether to continue using the subscription or premium service. Also made apparent should be any applicable transparent refund rules.

 

Classmate Christina:

How does the FTC lawsuit against Amazon for manipulative tactics in enrolling users in a premium service highlight the ethical considerations in marketing practices? The FTC’s lawsuit against Amazon brings a crucial issue to light. Amazon has been using sneaky tactics to get users to subscribe to their premium service PRIME. While some will argue that paying $15 a month for prime is worth the perks, I would argue that there should be more transparency between Amazon and the user about what PRIME is. I happen to be someone who fell into Amazon’s trap. I call it a trap because it truly is set up like one. To my knowledge there was no clear explanation that I would be charged for PRIME, or that I was even signing up for it.

Considering the allegations made in the article, what potential impact do you think this lawsuit could have on Amazon’s brand reputation and customer trust? How might the company manage and recover from such a situation? Generally speaking, any situation where consumers feel tricked, trapped, or manipulated by a company, it is going to negatively impact the brand reputation. However, I don’t think this particular case is getting the attention it should and therefore Amazon’s brand image might not take a hit. I think over time as people catch on, consumers might have ill feelings towards Amazon, but will continue to shop there because of Amazon’s unique convenient business model.  An easy recovery strategy for Amazon would be to implement greater transparency into the process of signing up for PRIME. An example would be a separate page for PRIME sign up along with a disclaimer and explanation that this is a monthly subscription.

In light of the FTC’s claims, what steps can marketers take to ensure transparency and honesty in their subscription-based services or premium offerings? How might this influence their marketing strategies and consumer relationships? At the most basic level, marketers needs to step back and put themselves in the consumer’s shoes and ask themselves if their premium offerings sound clear and reasonable. Also, I think in general, subscription should be kept simple. There shouldn’t be a ton of “fine print”. Details should be upfront and easy to understand.  Having offerings that are easy to understand will increase the likelihood of people signing ups, therefore gaining more customers.

 

 

 

Week 7:

1. Do you think the changes Kohl’s has made are enough to revive the retailer? Why or why not?
2. Should other retailers follow in Kohl’s footsteps and collaborate with other brands in order to boost their sales?
3. How should Kohl’s market the changes it has made in a way that makes it more attractive to new customers?

 

Classmate responses:

 

Classmate Elleny:

1. Do you think the changes Kohl’s has made are enough to revive the store? Why or why not?

I personally think adding a Sephora store inside Kohl’s could potentially revive the store as it would help attract more customers. Customers’ overall shopping experience could be improved by having a Sephora store within Kohl’s and providing them with a convenient one-stop location for clothes and beauty products. This strategic partnership may draw in new clientele, particularly those who are drawn to the beauty and cosmetics industries. However, a number of variables, such as the location, marketing initiatives, and the partnership’s overall execution, would affect the venture’s success. Kohl’s must make sure that the Sephora store fits seamlessly into its current design and that both brands are properly promoted.

2. Should other retailers follow in Kohl’s footsteps and collaborate with other brands in order to boost their sales?

Retailers can broaden their product offers and give customers a more interesting and enticing choice by partnering with other businesses. This can set businesses apart from rivals and allow them to adapt to shifting consumer tastes. Retailers can stay current and set themselves apart in a crowded market by partnering with creative brands. It enables companies to provide distinctive goods or services that distinguish themselves from their competitors.

3. How should Kohl’s market the changes it has made in a way that makes it more attractive to new customers?

If Kohl’s has partnered with well-known brands or unveiled new products, they ought to prominently highlight these alliances in their marketing initiatives. To get people’s attention and stir their interest, emphasize. Boost Kohl’s online visibility by creating a responsive website and mobile application. They can also boost Kohl’s online visibility by creating a responsive website and mobile application. Enhance the online buying experience by offering thorough product information and practical features like easy checkout and personalized recommendations. Use social media to promote new products, partnerships, and promotions. To boost brand engagement, promote user-generated content.

 

Classmate Christina:

1. Do you think the changes Kohl’s has made are enough to revive the retailer? Why or why not?

I definitely think this was a smart move for Kohl’s. In recent years, I think there has been a clear decline in the amount of people that shop at Kohl’s. However, by incorporating a very relevant store like Sephora, there will be a rise in consumers. On the other hand, people that like Sephora could just go to a regular Sephora store. I think that instead of receiving new customers, there will be a rise in people who used to shop at Kohl’s but stopped. These are the people that will be brought back by Sephora.

2. Should other retailers follow in Kohl’s footsteps and collaborate with other brands in order to boost their sales?

I think that it depends on the store and the kind of reputation a store wants to have. If exclusivity is the goal, then no, this is a poor idea to boost sales. However, if exclusivity is not a concern, I happen to think this is a great strategy as it dips into various parts of the market, catering to varying consumers.

3. How should Kohl’s market the changes it has made in a way that makes it more attractive to new customers?

If collaborating with Sephora is something that is truly believed to bring revival to Kohl’s. Then this collaboration should be at the center of their current advertisements. For example, a commercial might show someone shopping in Kohl’s for new sneakers, but also conveniently stopping into Sephora for their favorite beauty products.