Although completely unethical, the implemented marketing and branding was created with some thought. The personal idea for the company was spawned after he discovered that 30% of users for online dating services were posing as single yet were still in a relationship. The company, which has grown 13 percent since Craigslist shut down its "adult services" portion of the site, capitalized on a niche market gaining 8.5 million customers in 10 countries. After applying some market research on women (the company's target demographic) and infidelity, their website was created to lure these customers through creating a site where women feel "they were the focal point." Consider consumer behavior and the significant increase in registrations after certain holidays (Day after New Year's: 78% Men, 22% Women)(Day after Valentine's Day: 52% Men, 48% Women)(Day after Mother's Day: Women 77%, Men 23%)(Day after Father's Day: 87% Men, 13% Women)
Although obtaining customers might be rather effortless, gaining financial supporters and advertising spots have been more difficult. There is a concern among investors that connection with this company will ruin their perceived character.
Many ads are banned from television advertising. However, the owner feels that the company has suffered an "injustice" through refused ads and the fact that they are unable to purchase the word "infidelity", a word they consider to be their brand, as a key word related to internet search engines. Consider watching the short blurb titled "Banned Commercials Superbowl 2011 in Dallas" before making a decision regarding this rejected ad.
Please consider some of these questions in your comments.
- What do you think about their marketing strategy?
- How would you convince clients to invest?
- How does this company attract you as an investor, if the possibility even exists?
- Should the ad have been denied by Fox for airing during the Superbowl?
- Should rejected ads be based upon content of the ad specifically, the company's product/service or both?
What do you think about their marketing strategy?
ReplyDeleteRegardless of the ethics and legality involved, you have to applaud the company for taking advantage of an emerging niche and taking risks.
How would you convince clients to invest?
This is tough just because it's such a grey area. The only advice I could really offer is that they've shown that they have quite a lot of traffic and targeted traffic equals revenue potential.
How does this company attract you as an investor, if the possibility even exists?
Personally I would not invest in a company like this because of ethical concerns.
Should the ad have been denied by Fox for airing during the Superbowl?
I don't think so. Fox has a history of airing ads that take conservative stances (Tim Tebow anti abortion ad), so why not allow advertisements of a more progressive nature? You might disagree with the nature of the business, but for now it's grey area and not illegal, so why not take their money and run their ad like everyone else?
Should rejected ads be based upon content of the ad specifically, the company's product/service or both?
I think both factor into it.
What do you think about their marketing strategy?
ReplyDeleteIt definitely raises an eyebrow. How far is going too far these days, seems as if anything and everything goes. If they are trying to market to a certain group of people I personally don't feel that the super bowl which is watched by many children should be the avenue taken.
How would you convince clients to invest?
By using far less provocative ads encouraging sex and stick with pushing the product you are trying to sell (Bud Light, candy bars, etc).
How does this company attract you as an investor?
I agree 100% with Andrew on this one. You are what you eat...if you induldge then you had better be ready for the backlash and loss of a lot of the customers you are trying to build relationships with.
Should the ad have been denied by Fox for airing during the Superbowl?
I personally feel it should have been banned mostly because of all the pre-adults that were watching the Superbowl. Why not place these ads on premium channels that cater to sexually explicit content, chances are by doing so they would get the type of advertisers they are seeking AND the type of buyers that would be interested in that type of niche marketing.
Should rejected ads be based upon content of the ad specifically, the conpany's product/service or both?
Just like anything else, EVERYTHING should be taken into consideration before making any kind of judgment or business decision.
What do you think about their marketing strategy?
ReplyDeleteI think it was an excellent way to bring in new customers and raise revenue for the company. However, I don't agree with what they are doing, because it seems as though they are targeting weak people or those that are already vulnerable. They bring in people that are at their weakest and try to get them to go with the company's business.
How would you convince clients to invest?
I would say just focus on the product that is being advertised and not all of the other distractions going on around the product in these commercials. I would try to push the actual product and not try to make my advertisement so busy with other things that are irrelevant.
How does the company attract you as an investor?
I also would not invest in this company because of ethical concerns.
Should the ad have been denied by Fox for airing during the Super Bowl?
I believe it should have because of all of the kids that watch the Super Bowl, who shouldn't be exposed to those kind of advertisements.
Should rejected ads be based upon content of the ad specifically, the company's product/service or both?
I think that everything should be taken into account before a business decision is made.
* What do you think about their marketing strategy?
ReplyDeleteIt is actually quite smart if we disregard the ethically questionable side of it.
* How would you convince clients to invest?
This is a though one. I think I would try to focus on the product being advertised instead of indirectly [over] promoting ethically questionable content.
* How does this company attract you as an investor, if the possibility even exists?
I doubt I would invest in this company due to conflicting values.
* Should the ad have been denied by Fox for airing during the Superbowl?
I think so because Super Bowl ads should be E rated in my opinion.
* Should rejected ads be based upon content of the ad specifically, the company's product/service or both?
I'd say both. At least consider the audiences that might be exposed to the ads aired.
What do you think about their marketing strategy?
ReplyDeleteDo I believe that the marketing strategy is correct as far as ethical issues. No. But is it an overall good marketing strategy. Absolutely. The point in marketing is to try to appeal to the available market, and as everyone knows that the American population has an extremely high percentage of infidelity. So yes it was smart for that particular group to appeal to that population.
How would you convince clients to invest?
There will be many people who it would be impossible to convince to invest because they are going to go with their ethical beliefs. However, for the people that are willing to put those aside it should not be a difficult task because they know this market is large and growing.
How does this company attract you as an investor, if the possibility even exists?
I have conservative beliefs on those issues, and would probably be one of the people that could not put those aside to invest.
Should the ad have been denied by Fox for airing during the Superbowl?
I believe the Superbowl is generally a family event and an ad such as this was not the place for it. We do not need to teach our youth anymore than they already know about those subjects. The ad would be much more appropriate for a station or television program with more adult viewers.
Should rejected ads be based upon content of the ad specifically, the company's product/service or both?
Ads should be reviewed for everything to determine where they go.
I think as far as marketing strategy goes, they are very smart, but it is rather disturbing that a company would have to promote something such as infidelity to make a profit. I'm not certain I would want to attempt to convince clients to invest, but I do not think it would be very difficult if they looked at the growth in the company. Since the target customers of the company are women, I think this fact would intice women investors as well.
ReplyDeleteI do feel that the advertisement should have been denied air time during the Superbowl. Advertising of this type of service is simply not appropriate for all age groups, and all age groups attend and watch the Superbowl every year. I also beleive that ads should be based upon both content and also what is being promoted. There is a place for more adult-themed advertising, and the Superbowl is not that place.
What do you think about their marketing strategy?
ReplyDelete-I think their marketing strategy is very clever, however unethical it may be. Clever is what grabs the attention of potential customers and it seems to be working for them so far.
How would you convince clients to invest?
-This would be very difficult if you were dealing with someone who was concerned about being perceived as unethical.
How does this company attract you as an investor, if the possibility even exists?
-It would not attract me as an investor because I would not want to be associated with a company that was promoting infedility.
Should the ad have been denied by Fox for airing during the Superbowl?
-I would have denied the ad because of the range of audience that the superbowl attracts. I don't think that a mother would be appreciate her 9 year old son seeing a grown women in lingerie. And promoting infedility to such a range of audience seems very inappropriate to me.
Should rejected ads be based upon content of the ad specifically, the company's product/service or both?
-I think that both of these factors should be taken into account when making these types of decisions.
What do you think about their marketing strategy?
ReplyDelete- I think that their marketing strategy is clever, yet very immoral. They definately use the motto that sex sells because truthfully it does, no matter how vulgar something is it is like a car wreck you just can not look away. They use this motto and definately run with that idea.
How would you convince the clients to invest?
- I think that getting investors would be the hardest part of marketing this site. This is because to so many people this site is unethical and to many others it is fuzzy as to what the site really represents. I think it would be best to get out the goal of the site, to make it clear to people as to what it will be used for, also it would be best if most of the unethical aspects be kind of between the lines in the description.
How does the company attract you as an investor, if the possibility even exists?
- Definately the company's originality would be it strongest aspect if I were to become an investor, which probably wouldn't ever be the case because of the unethical part of it, and I know that I wouldnt want my spouse to take part in the site.
Should the ad have been denied by Fox for airing during the Superbowl?
-The whole reason I think that Fox had the rite to drop the ad during the superbowl is because of the vulgarity of the ad. There are many young audiences that do not need to see this kind of material, also I think that if they would have aired the ad they would have lost many possible investors also probably would have made some families very mad. I think that fox denied the ad to save themselves the trouble.
Should rejected ads be based upon content of the as specifically, the company's product/service ,or both?
- I think that the ads were rejected all based upon content not because of the product or service. I dont think that the ad should be because rejected based to product or service people have their choice to be able to choose what products and services they want to use, but if the content is vulgar then the television station has the right to deny the ad to stop a potential problem.
If there is a market for it, and there seems to be, then you will find investors. I believe most wealthy investors only care about one thing and that is how much will i make. So what if not everyone agrees with it, not everyone agrees with the porn industry but it has investors and makes big bucks. Now getting commercials on TV is a different story. Their first one i believe should have been banned. It had all kinds of adult content and this is the super bowl not hbo at 1 am. Their second commercial was clean and did not use any adult content and i thought it was well done. I believe that they are targeting women and that is smart. To me it seems women get done wrong a lot by men or are more likely to stay in a very crappy marriage, men just find it easy to leave. So i think their marketing strategy is good. After saying all that i would not be caught dead wasting my time with this company. My marriage is great and if i saw one of the commercials on TV i would not even pay attention to it.
ReplyDeleteWhat do you think about their marketing strategy?
ReplyDeleteThe approach is great considering that in recent years sex has been what sales everything. However, they are more focused on the sexual aspect and less focused on the product they are trying to advertise.
How would you convince clients to invest?
I would convince them by showing that their revenue is worth the investment.
How does this company attract you as an investor, if the possibility even exists?
Because of the nature of these programs there is a slim chance that I would be attracted to invest.
Should the ad have been denied by Fox for airing during the Superbowl?
I believe that the ad should have been denied by Fox because although the Superbowl is a great advertising opportunity because of the number of viewers, a large portion of those viewers are children. Many parents would have a problem with the content in these commercials when watching them with their children.
Should rejected ads be based upon content of the ad specifically, the company's product/service or both?
I think the rejection should be based on both. Content should be age appropriate when shown during daytime hours or on popular tv channels however, I believe it is also important for the ads to promote the product they are trying to sale and if they fail to do this then I think they should be rejected.
What do you think about their marketing strategy?
ReplyDeleteFrom a strictly business standpoint, I would consider it a good one. They have a well-defined target audience and are offering a "product" which will satisfy the needs of the customer. They are further presenting the product in such a way that the customer desires it and chooses to patronize that company.
How would you convince clients to invest?
If I were the company, I would heavily emphasize the potential profits and return on investment (while still fully disclosing the nature of the business, of course). While companies with strong ethical values would probably still balk at the idea, those who walk the line between ethics and profits might be more likely to invest.
How does this company attract you as an investor, if the possibility exists at?
Like some others on here, my personal conservative values would prevent me from investing in this company. However, in addition to moral issues, I would also be concerned with legal issues. Depending on individual state laws, enabling or encouraging infidelity may be a tort (alienation of affection) or even a crime (accessory to/aiding and abbetting adultery). As an investor, I would be concerned that this company would be shut down by fines or civil lawsuits, causing my investment to be a waste (at best), or that I would be included in the fines/lawsuits (at worst).
Should the ad have been denied by Fox for airing during the Superbowl?
Speaking from FOX's perspective, I think they made a good business choice in choosing to ban the ad. FOX's audience is much wider than the one targeted in the ad. Therefore, FOX has to account for a much wider range of values and beliefs which translate into choices on which product to patronize (FOX versus its competitors). While it is not wrong to air an ad that targets a niche audience, airing an ad that targets a niche audience while offending a much wider audience is not a good business choice.
Should rejected ads be based upon content of the ad specifically, the company's product/service, or both?
I think broadcasting companies need to consider both. Ultimately, the ads they allow reflect either positively or negatively on them, depending on their choices. Therefore, they need to consider: "Will the content of this ad likely offend a significant portion of our audience?" and "Will even the mention of this product/service offend a significant portion of our audience?". If the answer to either is "yes," it simply makes good business sense, in most cases, to not allow the ad to air.
What do you think about their marketing strategy?
ReplyDeleteI think their entire business idea/plan is quite intuitive. Taking data about current dating services and taking such an outside-the-box idea into implementation is actually quite smart, though unethical in my opinion.
How would you convince clients to invest?
I think the best way to get investors is through users of the site. You could possibly offer them a discounted service fee upon a certain minimal investment. If the offer pulled a majority of site-users into investing, the company could really take off.
How does this company attract you as an investor, if the possibility even exists?
If I came to the belief that a majority of users were going to invest (as in the situation I described above), and thus the price per share was soon to increase somewhat drastically, I would be likely to invest. However, I do not approve of the ethics and morals behind the site and its users.
Should the ad have been denied by Fox for airing during the Superbowl?
I think the ad should have been rejected. Though it may have grabbed some stifled interest from some viewers. I think a great majority of the viewers would have been offended. After all, 70% of online dating service users listed as single reportedly are in fact single.
Should rejected ads be based upon content of the ad specifically, the company's product/service or both?
I think ads should be rejected due to ad content and product/service if either is inappropriate. If the content is too exotic(and the commercial is not on an adult channel) or if the product is vulgar, unethical, or just inappropriate, the ad should probably not be aired on basic TV networks.
1. What do I think about their marketing strategy?
ReplyDeleteA. I believe the whole idea of marketing adultery shows how far this country has gone down hill. What was once a taboo topic of conversation is now being used to make money and provide an easy opportunity for people to do what they shouldn't be doing anyway.
2. How would I convince clients to invest?
A. I wouldn't try to have a client invest in this company with hopes that it would go under.
3. How does this company attract you as an investor, if the possibility even exists?
A. As you can tell there is no question that I would not invest in a company like this one.
4. Should the ad have been denied by Fox for airing during the Superbowl?
A. Absolutely along with any other ad that portrays morally inappropriate content. This type of advertising will only continue to push the limits unless it is stopped, constrained, or, limited in some fashion.
5. Should rejected ads be based upon content of the ad specifically, the company's product/service or both?
A. Both should be considered to assure that an acceptable ad isn't ran to promote an unacceptable product.
What do you think about their marketing strategy?
ReplyDeleteThey have a great marketing strategy. Generally men are more prone to cheat than women, so making women the focal point of the sight and making them feel more "comfortable" with the idea of infidelity is a great marketing plan. It's a given you are going to attract men, but with this strategy they will attract women too.
How would you convince clients to invest?
Sex sells. This business is not going anywhere, and it is going to be profitable.
How does this company attract you as an investor, if the possibility even exists?
The company is receiving a lot of recognition in the media which is in turn increasing a lot of people's interest in the site. The fact that they are marketing to women is also attractive because if women join in this market I can see the company really taking off.
Should the ad have been denied by Fox for airing during the Superbowl?
Yes, I don't feel like an ad that includes a porn star in lingerie is exactly appropriate for prime time television.
Should rejected ads be based upon content of the ad specifically, the company's product/service or both?
Both. This ad should have been rejected for content (porn star in lingerie). On the other hand, KY Jelly commercials should be rejected for the product. There is nothing I love more than sitting around with my family watching television and viewing a KY Jelly ad during the commercial break. It's definitely NOT extremely disturbing/awkward.
What do you think about their marketing strategy?
ReplyDelete-They are hitting an area that many people don't want to talk about but know for a fact is true. Many people in this world cheat end of story. They're smart enough to finally hit this area.
How would you convince clients to invest?
-I'm not really sure how I'd convince clients to invest, but I agree with Caleb that sex does sell. I think clients will consider this and slowly merge with this company.
How does this company attract you as an investor, if the possibility even exists?
-Well where they are gaining recognition really helps with attracting more people. Where people see the increasing numbers they in turn will feel the need to get involved.
Should the ad have been denied by Fox for airing during the Superbowl?
-It's not the worst thing I've ever seen on TV so why not show it.
Should rejected ads be based upon content of the ad specifically, the company's product/service or both?
-I believe both should be taken into consideration. But where TV has gone to these days, it's going to take a lot to ban anything. Like I said this wasn't the worst thing I've seen before. So who knows whether or not TV will really start banning stuff based off of this criteria.
What do you think about their marketing strategy?
ReplyDeleteEven though the ad is unethical in nature, the marketing strategy the company used was good. It was aimed at a certain target market and could be successful if the ad was less provacative.
How would you convince clients to invest?
Potential profits would always be a key to investors, but with the unethical issues standing in the way, the company could be hit or miss. However, promotions and user discounts would be beneficial to those consumer who did invest.
How does this company attract you as an investor, if the possibility even exists?
Because the ad is unethical, I would not invest in the company, even if the profitable contribution would factor in substantially.
Should the ad have been denied by Fox for airing during the Superbowl?
For sure. A variety of age groups watch the Superbowl and while some viewers would consider the ad appropriate, more likely than not, the majority would not.
Should rejected ads be based upon content of the ad specifically, the company's product/service or both?
Some ads are questionable based on the product they are promoting while others are questionable for content, like this ad. All aspects of advertisements should be considered before airing on tv.
In superbowl ad, it suppose to show for families. So, Fox reject the sexual advertising that they went far from Pg 13 rate and not want to expose to kids. Fox not want parents sue fox to allow sexual advertising as gay advertising. i am open with gay advertisement but some people is against it. they dont want people reject the market who support the gay people. Marketing need to be careful to show the audience in superbowl.
ReplyDeleteWhile I believe that this is wrong, they definently have a good marketing strategy. They have a differentiated "service", and they appeal to their market very well. I do not believe that it would be very hard to convince clients to invest based on the growth rate, but many clients would probably not invest based on the content. This does not attract me because I believe it is wrong, but I know there are plenty of people out there who are up for this. I believe that Fox should have rejected this because the Superbowl is a family event, and kids should not be exposed to this. I believe ads should be rejected based on the content and the product/service, if an ad is on basic television. If it is on an adult channel, it should vary.
ReplyDeleteWhat do you think about their marketing strategy?
ReplyDeleteI think it is correct because cheating happens, but it just something nobody wants to talk about or admit has happened. It is a real touchy subject. As for business I think it goes both ways. They will get a certain target market, but I think alot of people will steer away from it.
How would you convince clients to invest?
A discount or some kind of incentive would have to be put in the place in the beginning. I think alot of people would be interested, but nobody wants to be that first person to jump into the pot.
How does this business attract you as an investor, if the possibilty even exist?
There is no way I would invest. I feel like cheating is the worst thing you could do to somebody and I think it is becoming more and more public and unethical, so I think the business will fizzle anyway.
Should the ad have been denied by FOX for airing during the Super Bowl?
I dont think it sured be aired on any channel from 10 A.M till 12 A.M. Simply because its wrong, make it a 3A.M infomercial or something. I think FOX should have not because that reflects them also and the decision was right.
Should rejected ads be based upon contentof the ad specifically, the companys product/content or both?
I think it should all be up for discussion. I mean lets face it, there is just some things that cant have an ad on TV. Thats how America is.
What do you think about their marketing strategy?
ReplyDeleteAs much of blow it was the reality is this country was founded on entrepreneurship and people willing to take chances.
How would you convince clients to invest?
Also we must go back to the fact that Americans see people involved with others doing wrong and perceive that any party(ies) involved are also doing wrong.
How does this company attract you as an investor, if the possibility even exists?
It would be very difficult to attract investors in my opinion no one wants to be branded as some who does the wrong things and gets involved in the wrong activities, so for me the possibility would not exist.
Should the ad have been denied by Fox for airing during the Superbowl?
No, Fox should have little to do with what is aired in the 30 or 60 seconds that the company paid for that time slot other than previewing for proper content on a local station.
Should rejected ads be based upon content of the ad specifically, the company's product/service or both?
If an ad is rejected it should be based on the inappropriate content specifically not on what the company's product/service is within reason.
What do you think about their marketing strategy?
ReplyDelete- I find the whole situation to be a little unethical, but whoever in their company thought of this as their marketing strategy really was a genious. Although no one wants to admit that people cheat, it is the truth. Men and women both cheat and everyone with a brain knows this. Now to air it on a family event is no way to go. I agree with that ad being ban from the air during the superbowl, too many little eyes watching for something so provocative to be shown.
What do you think about their marketing strategy?
ReplyDeleteThough it may be an offensive strategy based on ethical values, the strategy obviously is effective in reaching the target market.
How would you convince clients to invest?
It would be hard to convince potential clients to invest, because as the article discussed, an association with the company would be harmful because of the product they are trying to sell-adultery.
How does this company attract you as an investor, if the possibility even exists?
I would also have trouble investing in such a company based on the ethical questions and public image of the company.
Should the ad have been denied by Fox for airing during the Superbowl?
I don’t think it should have been. Though it was edgy, there have been plenty of questionable commercials & this is how company’s make their “splash,” so to speak. The Kim Kardashian ad was edgy but it was aired. I think it depends more on the perception of the public if Fox decides to air the ads.
Should rejected ads be based upon content of the ad specifically, the company's product/service or both?
I think that the content of the ad should be the main factor in determining if the commercial should be aired. As of right now there’s not enough consistency and that is why there’s been controversy. There needs to be a type of universal judgment on airing ads.
What do you think about their marketing strategy?
ReplyDeleteThe marketing strategy is a bold one, but it shouldn't be slandered. This is what the world has turned to and you can't blame a company for trying to take advantage of that.
How would you convince clients to invest?
I really don't think it's possible, unless a company has nothing to lose. Yes you may have a lot of traffic in and out of the site, but being known in public as a corporation that supports the values of this website can do nothing but hurt your image.
How does this company attract you as an investor, if the possibility even exists?
No attraction here.
Should the ad have been denied by Fox for airing during the Superbowl?
No. The last thing a conservative network like Fox would want to do is show a commercial sponsoring infidelity.
Should rejected ads be based upon content of the ad specifically, the company's product/service or both?
Both.
Avid Dating Life, Inc. through its AshleyMadison.com website is no doubt filling a need, want, demand with over 9million members. Its target demographic might be women, but since its business generally, but not exclusively, requires some men and since men tend to be more aggressive in sexual matters it has signed up more men than women.
ReplyDeleteThere is no generally accessible investment vehicle for this company such as shares of stock and I suspect that it would be difficult to be listed on an exchange. Someone might lend them money if the return was right - bonds anyone?
I would not invest in this company because I doubt that it would be a good investment. I suspect it might have substantial legal fees if sued for damages as a facilitator and encourager of infidelity by plethora of irate and injured spouses. It might even get investigated by an attorney general such as Elliot Spitzer.
Certainly FOX should have turned down the ad It has a reputation to protect and is under no obligation to accept any specific ad.
Adds can be rejected for any reason, content or otherwise. Businessweek gave AshleyMadison a huge and free publicity boost with its cover story and its erotic art cover. With this kind of publicity who needs to buy ads?
-What do you think about their marketing strategy?
ReplyDeleteI think they did a great job, beacuse whatever
the issues with laws and ethics code they may have
not obeyed, what they are getting back is a lot
more than whatever the consequences may be,
huge attention!
as the video on youtube said it, noise marketing
and sex marketing always sells.
How would you convince clients to invest?
For any internet websites, more traffic equals
more buyers. this is like saying, more people who
come by the mall, more revenue the shops will generate.
not everyone will buy, but some percentage will and
They've proven that they have many potential customers
How does this company attract you as an investor, if the possibility even exists?
I would want to see the income statement, and have to
study the potential of it before I invest money.
Should the ad have been denied by Fox for airing during the Superbowl?
It depends on how you look at it, Superbowl ads are usually to attract people,
not an ethics class. more interesting ads will draw more attention, which
leads to more customers. But you do have to remember that many children are
watching this at home as well.
Should rejected ads be based upon content of the ad specifically, the company's product/service or both?
I say both.
1. I think that their marketing strategy (from a business perspective) is a good way to grow their business. Obviously it has worked for them by creating the target market of women so that they feel as though they are the main focus in the company.
ReplyDelete2. Based on what the company is about, it would be really hard to convince investors to invest. It was mentioned that they are afraid that their image would be tainted. I do not think that if I owned a business that I would invest in them. However, the best way to attempt to get people to invest is to explain the benefits they could gain from investing. Their company is growing exponentially just because of their target market and they seem to be doing well, no matter how unethical it actually is.
3. As mentioned previously, the company does not attract me to invest. I would not want my company's name associated with their company in any way. No matter how many clients they have, it only takes one wrong person to see who you're invested with to make or break the public opinion about your own company.
4. I think Fox should have denied the ad. I do not see where it would have been beneficial to them at all to run the ad. More people would disagree with the company's objectives more than they would agree.
5. I definitely think it should be based on both. Just because an ad may be modest and worthy does not mean that the company's values are the same. This could work the other way as well, however, I do not think that an upstanding, modest company would want to do an ad that was risky or could possibly taint their company's public opinion.
What do you think about their marketing strategy?
ReplyDeleteI think it is a brilliant idea. Ethics aside, the company identified an untapped market and took advantage. Why should we frown at them because of ethics when there are so many forms of unethical business and advertising out there already?
How would you convince clients to invest?
Clients might be weary of investing in the company, but they should realize that traffic at the site has already considered infedelity, and they are have no place to judge the advertisers. The major point to look at is how much potential the site has and how much traffic it gets.
How does this company attract you as an investor, if the possibility even exists?
I think that it should be attractive to complimentary businesses such as lingerie, but I see no benefit in investing in it myself.
Should the ad have been denied by Fox for airing during the Superbowl?
Yes, I think that what is shown on tv needs to be monitered because it is watched by children. But I think there are already several questionable commercials I have seen and would not want a little child to see.
Should rejected ads be based upon content of the ad specifically, the company's product/service or both?
I think both just because of the young audience exposure, but I can think of several ads that get to air even though the product is adult, so it seems unfair to target one group to ban and not the other.
I thought it was interesting though very unethical.
ReplyDeleteA.) I do not agree with their strategy as far as ethics go, howvever, it did bring in business for the company and that shows that some people are willing to do whatever it takes.
ReplyDeleteB.)I am not sure of a company who would invest in them....maybe playboy but thats a whole different mess in itself. As far as respectable companies go, i do not see them investing into their company.
C.) It does not attract me and grab my interest because i have never been a huge fan of these websites. I know people have to make a profit some way, but their are other methods of going about to make business.
D.)As far as the superbowl goes, many people compete for adds and i think there are plenty of other amazing adds that have a couple steps up on this company. as far as professionalism goes, i think many others would agree that there were better adds out there. however, millions of viewers watch the superbowl every year and they could get a lot of business because of the demographics of the viewers. It isnt just one type of viewer watching, its many different races, ages, etc.
E.) I think both, the product/ service should definately be considered but the advertisement of it should as well.
I believe their marketing strategy is risky. If people react to this strongly enough the plan could backfire and cost them market share instead of expanding it. However, when raising investments it would be very easy to say "We're guarenteed clients because no matter what there will always be cheaters." I don't feel like I would personally invest in this company but not for the reasons in this article. Fox had every right to approve or deny every commercial they chose to air during the superbowl because each ad would affect their public standing as well. Ads should be rejected based upon whatever the television company is worried about, it is their image as much as the ad's image.
ReplyDeleteTheir marketing strategy is pretty good, but they need to try to advertise more over the internet and magazines. Many women look at magazines and this could be a good opportunity.As far as investing staying in their realm would be the idea for this company. After all the main product these websites are selling is sex. The add should have been denied by fox during the super bowl because it is more of a family event. If it was a late evening show or something like that I would have looked at the situation a little different.
ReplyDelete•What do you think about their marketing strategy?
ReplyDeleteI think that the company has a great marketing strategy, even if cheating is a topic most people would find not right. Although infidelity isn’t right, it does happen. They are appealing to a certain target market and are selling a type of product.
How would you convince clients to invest?
I really don’t think there is a way to convince clients to invest in adultery. Maybe if they have had an affair before or thought about it, they may want to invest.
How does this company attract you as an investor, if the possibility even exists?
This company doesn’t attract me at all. Although it’s a unique marketing strategy, I just don’t think I could invest in something like that.
Should the ad have been denied by Fox for airing during the Superbowl?
I think it should have been denied for the Superbowl because there is no need for a company to promote cheating and adultery. I don’t think it would be good for anyone, especially the younger population, to see.
Should rejected ads be based upon content of the ad specifically, the company's product/service or both?
Both, everything needs to be taken into consideration.
1. I don’t agree with it, but it was a smart way to go about it.
ReplyDelete2. I agree with the others sex sells
3. It doesn’t appeal to me at all and probably never will
4. It doesn’t really matter, its going to be seen either way
5. both
What do you think about their marketing strategy?
ReplyDeleteI personally am not interested in the product, but Ashley Madison's marketing strategy is brilliant. Infidelity is something that happens every minute of every day, so there's always going to be a group of people interested in their services.
How does this company attract you as an investor, if the possibility even exists?
I wouldn't try and convince clients to invest in this company because it's something that I personally wouldn't invest in because of my own beliefs.
Should the ad have been denied by Fox for airing during the Superbowl?
I don't think the ad should have been denied. I've seen far worse things on television, let alone 30 second commercials. However, a huge number of people viewing in to the superbowl are kids/teens, so I can see why Fox wouldn't want to run the commercial.
Should rejected ads be based upon content of the ad specifically, the company's product/service or both?
Rejected ads should be based upon both the content of the specific ad and the service the company provides.
I have no interest in this service and I strongly disagree with the way they are marketing their product. I could never ask anyone to invest in a product that goes against my beliefs.
ReplyDeleteI think Fox had every right to deny the ad from airing during the Superbowl. This is the one night you can count on a huge number of children watching. And the content of the ad obviously wasn't age appropriate for viewing.
What do you think about their marketing strategy?
ReplyDeleteThe company's marketing strategy is quite smart simply because they are capturing what is demanded currently and previously. To decide if a company's marketing strategy is successful, one must acknowledge the irrelevance of the ethics.
How would you convince clients to invest?
Finding clients that are going to invest in a company that brands 'infideltity' is going to take some effort and time; however, there are always going to be clients who will invest their dollars if money is to be made. Obviously, money is being made through this company, especially since Craigslist stopped supporting their adult services section. The company should not spend their time complaining or 'discussing' how they are treated by investors. The company should be fully aware that they will not always be treated the same by an investor that also invests in a department store or electronic company. It may or may not be fair, but when ethics are a HUGE part of one's company, positively or negatively, certain investors will shy away from the company.
How does this company attract you as an investor, if the possibility even exists?
If I am a sincere investor, I would find a different company to invest money into. Money is going to be made; however, ethically (and obviously) this company is not one I would represent.
Should the ad have been denied by Fox for airing during the Superbowl?
Yes, but only because the nature of the ad. I am drawn with how I feel about this question. I feel that all companies should be given equal rights; yet, and despite religion or any other underlying factors, infidelity can lead to severe negative repercussions. The negative aspects outweigh the positive ones. I am not against airing the ad at all times, only and specifically during the superbowl.
Should rejected ads be based upon content of the ad specifically, the company's product/service or both?
A rejected ad should simply be based upon the content of the ad. A lot of companies and corporations do not agree with public advertisements that inform people 'ways of safe sex' or contraceptions and instead prefer abstinence. On the other hand, advertisements about birth control has benefited many couples all over the world. As I mentioned before, all companies should be treated equally when given opportunities, but there will always be exceptions. If the content of an ad is less severe and accounted for certain audiences that will see the advertisement, I have no problem with airing it.
What do you think about their marketing strategy?
ReplyDelete- Although I do not agree with what this company does, they have found something that is on the rise and used that to gain more customers. This is a very good idea. There will always be individuals who participate in this, and i'm sure would find this site enjoyable.
How would you convince clients to invest?
-This is something that I think would be difficult. It would be hard to get individuals to give money to this type of organization because infidelity is something they probably don't want thier spouse to know about. It would be hard to have a credit card transaction from Cheating Inc. and your spouse to not be a little hesitant.
How does this company attract you as an investor, if the possibility even exists?
-This is not something I could invest in, and I think this is something that would be hard to sell to others.
Should the ad have been denied by Fox for airing during the Superbowl?
-Yes, I don't think Fox should have that kind of ad aired because there is a good possibility that it could hurt the image of the company.
Should rejected ads be based upon content of the ad specifically, the company's product/service or both?
-I think it should be focused on the content of the ad. Some products that are aired are not suitable for young children but they are aired anyways because the content of the ad isn't hrmful.
What do you think about their marketing strategy?
ReplyDeleteWhether its ethical or not, this is a bold company and is taking advantage of the progressive age we live in.
Should the ad have been denied by Fox for airing during the Superbowl?
This is a tough question. Fox, and other stations, shouldn't be biased towards either conservative nor progressive ads. There should be a mix of both. On the other hand, ethical issues come into play and should be considered when accepting or denying to air an ad.
Should rejected ads be based upon content of the ad specifically, the company's product/service or both?
I think both come into play
• What do you think about their marketing strategy? Ethical or not, their marketing strategy is a good way to bring in customers based on the type of society we live in today.
ReplyDelete• How would you convince clients to invest? Again with the questions of ethics, some might feel it isn’t right to invest in a company such as this, but for those out here trying to make money it would be a no brainer to invest into this growing market.
• How does this company attract you as an investor, if the possibility even exists? Personally, I wouldn’t invest into this because of the ethical questions surrounding it.
• Should the ad have been denied by Fox for airing during the Superbowl? The superbowl is watched by people of all ages and it is not a place for ad’s not pertaining to all audiences. Ad’s for the superbowl should all be G rated.
• Should rejected ads be based upon content of the ad specifically, the company's product/service or both? I feel rejected ad’s should be based on the content of the ad. Regardless of the company ad’s can be made for anything product or service that are suitable for general audiences and if not then shouldn’t be made at all.
Too bad there won't be a superbowl next year due to the strike to see more ads and controversy .
Although, ethically I disagree with having a company that encourages infidelity, I do believe they have an interesting marketing strategy. Like it or not they are reaching out to a demographic few have tried to before.
ReplyDeletePersonally I would not invest or recommend others to invest in such an unethical company. If they want to encourage investors, they need to look at companies with other unethical practices. This way it would not tarnish the investor's image.
As far as Fox not airing it during the Super Bowl, I think that was a good call. There are a large number or families with children watching the Super Bowl and it wouldn't send the right message to viewers. The commercials should not be aired on basic television regardless of the content.
* What do you think about their marketing strategy?
ReplyDeleteI personally feel their marketing strategy is acceptable given what exactly it is they are marketing.
* How would you convince clients to invest?
I would convince clients to invest the same way I would with any other company. I'd give statistics and show the numbers that prove the company is a good investment. If you are in the business to make big money, than the ethical issue is going to be in the side lines in my opinion. If you are playing the game to live happy and comfortably, then its another story.
* How does this company attract you as an investor, if the possibility even exists?
If the potential money is there, then I would consider investing. The whole idea of the company is a choice to couples in relationships. Whether or not individuals make that leap to become members etc... is really not any of my concern.
* Should the ad have been denied by Fox for airing during the Superbowl?
I'm not sure, its questionable whether it should have been denied. I didn't watch any of the commercials this year, so I really don't know the standard that was set, as far as sexual content goes. The content was definitely sexual though so if other similar content wasn't allowed, then the decision was legitimate.
* Should rejected ads be based upon content of the ad specifically, the company's product/service or both?
I personally believe that if ads are rejected it should be based on the content. Any product or service has just as much right to be advertised as any other as long as it can be done tastefully. If they tried to get the ad onto the air for the superbowl then the marketing team obviously felt there was enough of a potential market watching to warrant the expense. If you start denying ads based on the product or service its just one of those slippery slopes that leads to the question of where to stop.
What do you think about their marketing strategy?
ReplyDeleteI don’t personally agree with their strategy but they are taking advantage of what is already going on in society
How would you convince clients to invest?
Many investors aren’t going to care about what the company does they are going to be more concerned with the company’s ability to make money. I would try and make the company's profitability the focal point.
How does this company attract you as an investor, if the possibility even exists?
I really dislike what they are doing so it would be hard for me to see past that when wanting to invest in the company but i know plenty of others wouldn’t care. This is obvious considering the amount of people willing to engage in what the company does to begin with.
Should the ad have been denied by Fox for airing during the Superbowl?
I think fox has the right to allow or deny anything on its station. I definitely don’t fault fox for wanting to distant itself from the company.
Should rejected ads be based upon content of the ad specifically, the company's product/service or both?
Both. I really feel its up to the station. Its very understandable that they would not want to offended viewers and lose ratings so i thinks its completely within their rights to reject what they dont want to advertise.
I personally had no idea these type of advertisements existed. Although I am very conservative, I do agree with some of the other statements already made. Yes, this is inappropriate for family channels because of the behaviors displayed. Yes, there are people who want this type of service so advertise on the channels that cater to inappropriate behaviors.
ReplyDeleteits a good idea,my view
ReplyDeleteA COMPANY TAKING ADVANTAGE OF RELATIONSHIP REAPING THE REWARDS OF A NICHE MARKET.
ReplyDeleteFROM BEN KIM RONOH
1. The marketing strategy is a bold one, most of the time people will turn away from the company trying to take advantage.
2. The only thing i will tell my clien, is to focus on the product being advertised.
3. To me, i will not invest in this kind of companies because i am not ready to lose my money.
4. I am not sure, but i will say yes in my opinion.
5. Yes both should be rejected, for audience to be in good hands.
This is exactly what i am talking about when i say "society makes it okay for people to cheat on thier spouces, and have made infidelity not a big deal. If my grandmother was to read this article i know she would be shocked. I am amazed that we are not only saying its okay to be unfaithful, but are making it easier by creating a website where these moralless people can meet. It makes me sick to my stomach to think that people are trying to profit from cheating spouces and being successful at it. If this company came to me looking for a sponsor i would imediately have them thrown off the property. Any company that supports such unethical behavior doesn't deserve to advertise their company on National television. I would be very upset if i was sitting watching the Super Bowl with my family and that kind of garbage came on. I have nothing but respect for Fox not allowing this. We have to stand up against this kind of crap and show the younger generation this is not appropriate behavior. I dont care if you can profit from it or not i believe this website and the people running it to be sad examples of what i dont want anyone i love to be like.
ReplyDeleteI believe it is a good idea but shouldn't be done. Basically anything sinful sells. We have gotten numb to the sex and alcohol but now it has gone to cheating. If they do go through with it I believe it will start out slow but in 10 to 15 years it probably will be expectable because that is what America does. But it should happen. We need to try to keep marriages together and not break them up. It will only hurt the kids in America
ReplyDeleteI feel that their marketing strategy is very interesting. I perosnally wouldn't use this strategy but if you don't care to represent yourself like this then it was a good approach. I think that it would be hard to get clients to invest in this just because most of them wouldn't want to represent theirselves in this way. If I had to try and get someone to invest in this though I would just show them the statistics and the facts behind the company, because even though very unthical the numbers never lie.
ReplyDeleteI personally would never invest in something like this because I wouldn't want my name associated with this company. I don't care how much money I could make of off this because it is a very unethical action that I wouldn't want to be a part of.
I feel as if fox should have the right to deny any add they want to. If these companies don't comply their adds with what fox wants then they should get denied.
Rejected adds should be based on both content and the service that they provide.
What do you think about their marketing strategy?
ReplyDeleteTheir marketing strategy is a risk, yes, but some could say that taking advantage of what's going on in society is key to marketing sometimes. As long as it doesn't turn too bold.
How would you convince clients to invest?
I'm not sure I could "convince" anyone to invest, because it all comes down to ethics. However as someone has said, some investors only concern themselves with the money being made.
How does this company attract you as an investor, if the possibility even exists?
For me, I'd rather not invest in the company out of my stand about the ethics.
Should the ad have been denied by Fox for airing during the Superbowl?
Fox has the right to decline any company's ads for their programming.
Should rejected ads be based upon content of the ad specifically, the company's product/service or both?
The basis for rejection should be both in the company's product and the service it provides.
What do you think about their marketing strategy?
ReplyDeleteAlthough I believe it is unethical, one of the best market strategies is word of mouth. It uses no money and makes your brand become better known.
How would you convince clients to invest?
Not sure if you would have to actually convince anyone to invest. It is one of those companies that if it is your kind of company you would invest in. It is a hard subject just to go and convince someone to buy into.
How does this company attract you as an investor, if the possibility even exists?
It does not interest me as an investor, but more power to them if they were able and creative enough to find an avenue that someone has not exploited yet.
Should the ad have been denied by Fox for airing during the Superbowl?
Yes knowing Fox’s past and who runs the company it should be denied. As well as many other ads with natures they do not specifically endorse. It makes it easier for them to just continue to deny advertisements like this so they set a precedent.
Should rejected ads be based upon content of the ad specifically, the company's product/service or both?
It should base upon everything that surrounds the company. Just like an oil spill, I wouldn’t air a ad right after an oil company spills oil in the ocean. So outside factors take into effect. To say maybe if a high profile and well like figure got caught on this website. It should be rejected as well based on its content.
Mike Savarda Said,
ReplyDeletesadly to say their marketing strategy is good, sex sells, obviously with almost half of websites being sexually related this would be a hit. convincing clients would not be hard, especially if a website just shutdown its access to a part of the market, you can prove that you that gap can be filled. personally this has no attraction to me if i was an investor because i have somewhat of some morals and wouldn't investing in infidelity. yes it should of been rejected, people have enough temptation in their everyday life, they don't need it when their watching football.
What do you think about their marketing strategy?
ReplyDeleteI think it is wrong, but I can see potential for profits no doubt. I feel like this is something the majority of consumers would frown upon, yet still use. I would not want to work with a business ssuch as this one.
How would you convince clients to invest?
I would seek investors that are interested in making money, bottom line.
How does this company attract you as an investor, if the possibility even exists?
The possibility doesnt exist. Lifes too short for me to back a business like this one. There are too many other oppotunities out there that would give me the investor a sense of pride and peace of mind.
Should the ad have been denied by Fox for airing during the Superbowl?
I think yes. Advertising for this sort of business should seek a more apporopriate time and place to advertise. The super bowl is not one of them.
Should rejected ads be based upon content of the ad specifically, the company's product/service or both?
Both. Content of the ad must be viewable by a younger audience. This should limit sexual content and violence particulary.
What do you think about their marketing strategy?
ReplyDeleteI think that it is a good way they are taking a risky chance but I believe it will work for them.
How would you convince clients to invest?
You get them to focus on just the product being advertised and all the other stuff about the product.
How does this business attract you as an investor, if the possibilty even exist?
I wouldnt invest in this company.
Should the ad have been denied by Fox for airing during the Superbowl?
Yes, fox has a reputation of being kind of a family network and I dont feel they should have shown this on their network.
What do you think about their marketing strategy?
ReplyDeleteI think it was wise for them to take the risk
How would you get clients to invest?
True investors will come when there is money to be made.
How does the buisness attract you as an investor?
the possibility doesn't exist.
Should the ad have been run by FOX in the superbowl? that is all up to FOX if they believe they were paid enough for the air time, no one else should be allowed to stop the ad.
Should rejected ads be based on content or product? No ads should be allowed to run and the fcc should deregulate many of their rules.
What do you think about their marketing strategy?
ReplyDeleteI think it is a unique position, but given what kind of business they are running, they are doing it the right way. It's a very forward movement by the company but worth the risk.
How would you convince clients to invest?
Larger clients who have no impeding moral issues, and are only interested in money would be my target investors.
How does this company attract you as an investor, if the possibility even exists?
I wouldn't invest in a business like this; my interests don't align with the company's.
Should the ad have been denied by Fox for airing during the Superbowl?
Yes, there is a place for this kind of advertising and it is not during the Superbowl.
Should rejected ads be based upon content of the ad specifically, the company's product/service or both?
Both! There needs to be some standards set by FOX. I'm sure there were a ton of applicants that didn't make the cut.
As far as the marketing strategy is concerned, I see it as being both predatory and exploitational. The psychology used to create the marketing plan is not ingenious but manipulative. If a psychologist were to use these same techniques to manipulate a client’s behavior they would likely lose their license to practice as well as face legal repercussions from their unethical behavior. As far as convincing clients to invest, I must say that I wouldn’t attempt to persuade anyone to invest in any business that is unethical or unlawful, nor would I personally invest in such a company. The fact that Fox aired this type of ad during the Super bowl is certainly reflective of the type values Fox itself holds as a company as well as the types of values it wishes to promote in American society. Let us just for kicks apply the legal test that is applied to art to the actions of these two companies. Does the content have any redeeming social value? Answer, no, the actions of these two companies raises more than a few questions about their views on ethics and social responsibility.
ReplyDelete