1) What was the biggest surprise for you in the reading? In other words, what did you read that stood out the most as different from your expectations?
Everything that marketing consists of was incredibly surprising to me. I understand there is a lot to know about your market and how to target the right individuals, but I was surprised especially when it broke it down into different types of philosophy; it seemed so in-depth and on a completely different level than anything you will encounter in a new business.
2) Identify at least one part of the reading that was confusing to you.
I was confused by the act of acquiring secondary data BEFORE actually going after primary data. If in every circumstance you should exhaust all your options in secondary before primary, wouldn't that be considered primary then?
3) If you were able to ask two questions to the author, what would you ask? Why?
Why is secondary data always collected first? It would make more sense to reclassify that to primary as it is the first set of data you should go for.
Will advertising be mostly done online in the future? It seems to be a much cheaper and easier method to reach the masses and would make the most sense to pursue.
4) Was there anything you think the author was wrong about? Where do you disagree with what she or he said? How?
I don't really disagree on anything that the author went over. Things such as the secondary/primary data confused me but I don't see that as something that I would disagree with the author on.
No comments:
Post a Comment