Response to Melissa Moriwaki

I believe that everyone will always associate Dunkin Donuts with the product of doughnuts, even if it is spelt wrong, regardless of whether or not they aim their advertisements towards the doughnuts.

I believe that some of the products Dunkin Donuts tries to advertise and sell may impact their consumers. For example, I know I would never try the tuna fish on a  croissant from Dunkin Donuts but I'll have a coffee, tea, bagel, doughnut or muffin form their anytime. 

I believe it is part of the brand loyalty, but it can only go so far. If consumers are loyal to Dunkin Donuts, they will continues to go their regardless of their new products, as long as they keep the original. 

I also agree that focusing the majority of their advertisement on their drinks is much more important since I mostly associate them with their coffee drinks. After all, American Run's on Dunkin, so I believe it is important for them to keep the image of caffeinated beverages up in hopes of keeping their current consumers and hopefully attracting more.

Social Media

This week, chapter 22 focuses on social media, specifically in the area of marketing. Social media is clearly a newer aspect of advertising, and a new form of networking for consumers. The first I remember of an advertisement on the internet was on a gaming website I'm sure, but the first time I recall and advertisement on a social media site was probably in eighth grade when there were advertisements were on MySpace.

Now social media has increased drastically with the development of Facebook, twitter, linked-in, and so much more. Some advertisements are serious while others can be more silly. Some move and some are just words. Now on Facebook they can even target ads based on your interests when you type them in. What I question is how beneficial social media advertising can be. I understand that advertisement are advertisements on a website and that seems to be reasonable. 

But what about when companies and businesses create their own Facebook pages to "like" and some have even gone as fas a creating twitter accounts for literally anything you an think of. So what I question is whether or not having a twitter account or a Facebook page for a company is actually beneficial? Do you believe social media marketing is beneficial, or do you think it hasn't quite reached it's maturity enough to be successful?

Response to Jade Brulotte

This Kate Upton advertisement for Gillette has really got me conflicted on how I feel about the impact of it. Part of me feels as though a man would clearly be attracted tot he advertisement since there is a very attractive and famous woman in the picture. Also, it is clearly a Gillette advertisement so they were clear in getting the products name across in the advertisements.

What I do question is what the exact point of the advertisement entails. It is confusing because I am not sure what exactly she is thinking andI do not have the app on my phone to look at what it is. Also is a man does not have a smart phone that have the app which will read this advertisement, then they will never know.

But again, if they do not know what they advertisement filly consists of, then it will keep them guessing about what it is, possibly leading them to become so concerned they take the timer to go further into the advertisement.

The Marketing Research Process

This week chapter 9 focuses on the Marketing Research Process. The text refers to marketing research as the process of planning, collecting, and analyzing data relevant to a marketing decision (pg. 148).

The Marketing Research Process includes the following steps:

1. Identify and formulate the problem/opportunity
2. Plan the research design and gather secondary data
3. Specify the sampling procedures
4. Collect primary data
5. Analyze the data
6. Prepare and present the report
7. Follow up

All of these steps are important to the marketing research process and clearly needs to be done in a certain order for them or work properly. I believe the most important part of the research process however is the step 7 of the "follow up". This is because without the follow up, the company would not understand what any of the data collected means, or how it can impact the future of the company. Is there a certain part of the research process you believe is more important than the other, or should have more time invested in, or sold it all be treated equally?

Response to Joe Littlewood

I do think branding can both be effective as well as ineffective for a company for many different reason. 


Branding can be effective because:

• It creates familiarity with customers
• It makes a company seem more powerful
• Gives a company status
• Gets a company to be more well known
• Creates a trust and reliability for customers

On the other hand..

Branding can be ineffective:

• Can give a bad image to a company
• Can call for a higher price
• Can associate product with negativity if products are faulty

Overall, I think branding is important to a company because it helps create an image for a company which is what they want. Companies want to be known and in the mind of consumers, but with branding comes great responsibility, therefore a company must understand the consequences to be suffered if just one of their products lines is faulty. This can then be construed that all of the products from that company are bad.

Commercial Advertising

This week I was watching television with my roommates when we came across a commercial that I thought was relatively humorous, take a look.

I remember growing up with The Pillsbury Dough Boy commercials and him being notorious for that laugh when his stomach is tickled; I found it absolutely adorable back then, and I still find it equally as adorable.

However, what I question is how beneficial this advertisement is for what is is selling. Because believe it or not, it's actually selling car insurance, not dough. GIECO has a lot of commercials like this one with various characters and clips, and then goes on to finish up the commercial with their name.

Do you think the cleverness of this commercial is a beneficial way for a company to advertise, or do you think the commercial puts too much emphasize on the other product over the one it is actually trying to promote?

Response to Katie Longchamp

There are a lot of products I could think of that have an elastic demand, but there are also some products that I could think of that have in inelastic demand, as in no matter how the prices are changed, they will still be a necessity. A few  could include things such as:

• Gasoline
• Medicines
• Baby diapers
• Feminine Products

I am not sure if I believe the consumers has an impact on the price of products and services that have an inelastic demand. I would like to say all consumers have some sort of impact on the pricing of goods and services, because if something is prices far too high I would assume they are most likely to ignore it. However, if a product is an absolute necessity, especially fi there are no substitutes for it, then I feel a company can charge whatever they would like for their product or service knowing the customer is going to purchase it regardless.

Pricing Tactics

In this week, chapters 19 and 20 focus on pricing goods and services for sale, as well as how this is accomplished. However, chapter 20 goes on to specifically discuss various pricing tactics, elaborating on how they work and what they do. The specific pricing strategies the text focuses on are the following:

• Single-price tactic: offers all goos and services at the same price.
• Flexible pricing/variable pricing: means that different customs pay different prices for essentially the same merchandise bought in equal quantities.
• Trade-Ins: tends to coincide with flexible pricing, specifically depending on the quality of what is being traded in for something else.
• Professional Service Pricing: prices issued by people with lengthy experience, training, and often certification by a licensing board.
• Price Lining: the practice of offering a product line with several items at a specific price point.
• Leader Pricing/loss-leader pricing: an attempt by the marketing manager to attract customers by selling a product near or even below cost in hopes shoppers will buy other items once they are in that store.
• Bait Pricing: tries to get customers into a store through false or misleading price advertising and then uses high-pressure selling to persuade consumers to buy more expensive merchandise.
• Odd-Even Pricing/psychological pricing: uses odd-numbered prices to connote bargains and even-numbered prices to imply quality
• Price Bundling: marketing two or more products in a single package for a special price.
• Two-Part Pricing: charges two separate amounts to consumer a single good or service.

After reading and comprehending all of these different pricing tactics that exist, I was questionable about the ethics in a few of them; for example that of bait pricing. It seems to me that is is completely unethical to partake in false advertising, and I'm surprised that can legally exist. After looking at these pricing tactics, or any of the other pricing tactics, is there one or more that you think is more beneficial or like me, is there one that may not seems as beneficial or even ethical? Is there one that should be used more than others?

Response to Melissa Moriwaki

I loved those April Fool's Ad's Melissa posted, I thought they were both clever as well as humorous. I think it can be hard to determine whether or not these type of advertisements are actually beneficial to a product or service, or not.

When I initially think of it I would like to say that these commercials do not seem to be too beneficial considering they not not really specify on what the actual product they are trying to sell does. The advertisements do not properly focus on the uses and benefits of the product or service being promoted. 

On the other hand however I would say that yes, it can also be a very beneficial way of advertising a product or service too. The commercials are interesting therefore they immediately draw in the attention of potential consumers. Also the commercials are different and unlike normal product commercials on television, thus casing it to stand out in the consumers mind.

I think overall this is a very positive way for a company to promote it's products or services because it is different. It is not as if they are performing these advertisements all the time like this, it is just a seasonal or temporary ad. 

I know there are still advertisements that I think of today where a product or service being promoted in an advertisements was barely present in the actual add, however I can still tall you what happened in that exact commercial, as well as what the commercial was for. Can you think of any advertisements like this, where the idea of the advertisement was so far fetch from the actual product, you could not help but never forget about it?

Chain Integration

This week, chapter 14 continues to focus on the supply chain within a business. The chapter goes on to focus on specific types of integration a business can be involved in; the chapter speaks of six:

1. Relationship Integration: the ability of two or more companies to develop social connections that serve to guide their interactions when working together.
2. Measurement Integration: the idea that performance assessments should be transparent and measurable across the borders of different business units and firms.
3. Technology and Planning Integration: the creating and maintenance of information technology systems that connect managers across and through the firms int he supply chain.
4. Material and Service Supplier Integration: requires firms to link seamlessly to those outsiders that provide goods and serves to them so that they can streamline work processes and thereby provide smooth, high quality customer service.
5. Internal Operations Integration: the result if capabilities development toward the goal of linking internally performed work into a seamless process that stretches across departmental and/or functional boundaries with the goal of satisfying customer requirements.
6. Customer Integration: a competency that enables firms to offer long-lasting, distinctive, value-ass]dded offerings to those customers who represent the greatest value to the firm or supply chain.

Out of all six of the business integrations a company can partake in, do you think there is one they should require more focus, or should they all be treated equally? Would you focus on one over the other as a business executive, why or why not?

Response to Katie O'Hurley

That was a really good commercial Katie talked about! Another commercial that I believe is beneficial was the Sears commercial introduced this past winter time. It makes you think the commercial is for a new movie coming out, so if you are a girl like me who enjoys movies, you are immediately drawn in. Once the audience is captured, they are struck with quite a surprise and brought back to the world of commercialism:

Do you agree this commercial is beneficial for the product it is promoting, or is it stretching too far away from it's original product usage?

Channels of Distribution

In chapter 13 this week, it focuses on the discussion of marketing channels; who is involved in them, the different types of channels, why a channel of distribution is important, and alternatives channels of distribution.

The chapter focuses on the four main different channels of distribution: the direct channel, the retailer channel, the wholesaler channel, and the agent/broker channel. Each of these channels of distribution work the following ways.

Direct Channel

Producer-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Consumer

Retailer Channel

Producer----------------------------------------------------------------------Retailers--------Consumer

Wholesaler Channel

Producer---------------------------------------Wholesalers-------------Retailers-------Consumers

Agent/Broker Channel

Producer----------Agents/Brokers--------Wholesalers------------Retailers-------Consumers

Each of these channels of distribution are clearly different, and cary depending on what product or service, or rather what company, they are working with or a part of. However, do you feel one channel of distribution could be more beneficial to a company, or do you feel it will always vary depending on the company, product, or service?

Response to Katie Longchamp

Katie asked if it was possible to think of a specific company that uses the 'one-to-one' marketing approach rather than a mass media marketing approach, and I am unsure as to one specifically. 


However, Katie also asked if this way of marketing was beneficial to a company, which I think varies on the company. I do not think that one marketing approach, specifically focusing on the 'one-to-one' marketing approach as well as the mass media approach is always more successful than one, but rather depending on what product or service a company is using can better determining which one would be more beneficial.

For a company to use the 'one-to-one' marketing approach Katie discussed, they must be a certain type of company I feel. Katie went on to say the 'one-to-one' marketing approach means as an "individualized marketing method that utilizes customer information to build long-term, personalized, and profitable relationships with each customer" It would seem that if a company were to use this method, their mission would be to focus on having a smaller market with a much larger loyalty; maybe even implying that since their product is so specific, they do not have a need for such a large market.

Therefore I think that if a company is maybe smaller or specifically focuses on having a smaller client basis with a march larger investment in their customer loyalty, it would seem fitting to use the "one-to-one" marketing approach rather than a mass media, in hopes of building a better relationship with their customers.

Market Segmentation

This week in class, chapter 8 focuses on target markets as well as market segmenting and the importance this has when selling products. As we know, a target market is the intended market a company will aim their products towards, however, marketing segmentation is more of the process of determining a target market.

The text states that market segmentation is defined as the process of dividing a market into meaningful, relatively similarly, and identifiable segments o groups (pg. 130). The text continues to elaborate on the importance of this market segmentation when establishing a target market, however it goes even further to elaborate on the different types of segmentation.

The text explains five of these segmentations: geographic segmentation, demographic segmentation, psychographic segmentation, benefit segmentation, and usage-rate segmentation.

• Geographic segmentation is segmenting markets by region of a country or the world, market size, market density, or climate.

• Demographic segmentation is segmenting markets by age, gender, income, ethnic background, and family life cycle.

• Psychographic segmentation is segmenting markets on the basis of personality, motives, lifestyles, and geodemographic.

• Benefit segmentation is the process of grouping customers into market segments according to the benefits they seek from the product.

• Usage-rage segmentation is dividing the mart by the amount of product bought or consumed.

As you can see, the above mentioned segmentations are all different and vary widely when assisting in determining a specific target market. However, what I question is whether or not one of the market segmentations is more beneficial is establishing a target market or does it depend on the product? Or do all of the above segmentations need to be considered at once when a market is determined?

Response to Katie Longchamp

Like Katie said, a customer's perception of a product can have a fairly large impact on the success or failure of a product. Obviously if a customer's perception is good, then sales for the product will more like than not have a positive profile. While on the other hand, if a customer's perception of a product is bad, then it is more likely that the product will have a negative profit and ultimately result in failure.

One product that flopped due the negative perception customer's had is that of "Clear Coke". No one really remembered the product that well because it was such a failure.

When a consumer pictures coke, they have an image set in mind. Maybe a red label, a syrupy smell, and of course, that dark brown coloring to the cola. When the Coca-Cola Company decided to promote a "Clear Coke", it obviously caught consumers off guard. Sprite, 7-UP, and Sierra Mist are those drinks that are suppose to be clear, and lemon/lime fresh, not cola.

Cola is meant to be dark, clearly. If it was meant to be anything other, then it would still be on the shelf. Would you ever want to drink a clear cola?

The Customer Decision-Maing Process

In this weeks chapter, it focuses on the consumer decision-making process. The text elaborates on the five steps of the consumer decision-making process: (1) Need recognition, (2) Information Search, (3) Evaluation of Alternatives, (4) Purchase, and (5) Post-purchase Behavior (pg. 85).

It is implied that customers go through this five step idea when purchasing a product, and that can overall determine the success or failure of their purchase. Each step is then broken down into how it actually affect the consumer, and what occurs during each step.

In the second step, information search which is made up of two different types of information searching; these include internal information search and external information search. Internal information search is defined as the process of recalling past information stored in the memory. External information search is defined as the process of seeking information in the outside environment. 

The texts says that a consumer can use either one of the above mentions information searches, however, do you believe one way of information searching, being that of internal or external in more beneficial in the consumer decision-making process, or should they both be considered equally?

Response to Tammy Chou

I believe that the most popular products, or even sometimes the most successful products are additions to existing product lines, or improvements or revisions of existing products. I feel as those these two are the more popular and have the highest potential for success because they are not brand new, they are instead related products to another product.

This means that the success and or failure of a products has already been determined; it has been put on the market for sale and it can be evaluated. Once a product had already been exposed and evaluated, it can be much easier to move on in expanding a product on fixing a product that may have had some imperfections. Thus, improving a product and overall importing profits.

Also, new lines can come out of already existing products, specializing products for each individual.

I think that changing a design for a products can be very beneficial in selling the products, because no only would you be selling a product, but you're selling it for a specific individual. By slightingly altering a design of a products because the line is different, shows that the product has adjusted to fit the needs of it's consumers.In turn making it more appealing for customers.

New Products

In chapter for this week, they discuss the importance of something referred to as a 'new product'. A 'new product' is defined as a product new to the world, the market, the producer, the seller, or some combination of these. In other words, a new product is not necessarily a brand new product concept, but can simply be an already well-known product that a new company has decided to sell for the first time.

No obviously not every single 'new product' is guaranteed to either fail or succeed, however, it is clear that all marketers have a different approach when it comes to a new product. Some like to slowly introduce the product, such as initiating samples here and there, or doing a lot more free trials. Maybe even adding a new product into an old product to promote it, making it eventually successful on it's own one day. While on the other hand, some marketers have been known for just dropping everything and completely devoting their product line to this new idea, leading them so sometimes fail because the product may have inevitable been a failure.

When it comes to introducing a 'new product' into the market place, what is the best way to expose it, with hopes of it being successful? Will it be more successful introduces slowly, or have a greater impact if it is the main idea of a company, or could there be a middle line of how to properly introduce a product so it does not inevitable fluke?

Response to Katie O'Hurley

I loved that Captain Morgan commercial! I have never seen that one before and I thought it was very clever. I literally laughed out loud at it and have showed it to others. As far as the Progressive Insurance commercials, those are also fairly humorous as well.

I think that when a company can show it's humor in it's advertisings, as well as make light of a serious topic without going too far, can really make a difference in their marketing and their relationships with their consumers.

One commercial that I happen to love because I think it is absolutely hysterical is the Jack Links beef jerky commercials involving Sasquatch. I especially think this one has a great impact on it's audience because it is so funny and inappropriate. I don't want to ruin it, but watch the commercial all the way to the end:

What are your thoughts on the effectiveness of this commercial?

Global Marketing

Chapter five discusses global marketing; what it is, why we have it, how it exists, who participates, as well as it's benefits and costs.

According to our text, global marketing is defined as marketing that targets markers throughout the world (pg. 63). In other words, when a product or service is targeted to a larger market in which it involves going international and expanding a companies overall target market.

When a company is to partake in global marketing, it is said to have something referred to as a global vision. A global vision is defined as recognizing and reacting to international marketing opportunities, using effective global marketing strategies, and being aware of threats from foreign competitors in all markets (pg. 63). 

In a perfect world it would appear that if a business is partaking in global marketing, then it would hope to have a positive global vision. This being so that a company completely understand the circumstances of becoming a part of the global market, and can be the most successful it can be. However, if this is the case, that wouldn't all global businesses be successful, yet it does not seem that simple.

If a business is partaking in a global vision of understanding it's market as well as it's foreign competitors properly, then do you believe it is more likely to succeed? Or is it that the global visions is nothing more than a sheer precaution companies are recommended to take?

Response to Katie Longchamp

For the Ford F-150, like Katie said, it had many different competitors in the market place, a few more examples include the following:

-Brand Competitor: Dodge Ram

-Product Competitor: Toyota 

-Generic Competitor: A smart car

-Total Budget Competitor: A used truck

Every product had a range of competitors like the Ford F-150 does, another example that has various competitors would be Maxwell coffee:

-Brand Competitor: Folgers coffee

-Product Competitor: Lipton Tea 

-Generic Competitor: Lemonade

-Total Budget Competitor: Cheapest drink

When it comes to global competition, I feel as though every product is affected in some way, shape, or form. However, some products are more impacted than others. For instance a product that is provided from a different countries resources may be impacted more, such as the price of oil varying. On the other hand, soda companies that are based in the United States might not be affected as much. Though, when it comes to stocks that are impacted world wide, everything will be effected.

Target Market

In chapter four, the beginning of the reading begins by discussing the importance of a target market when selling a product or service. The books goes on to describe a target market as 'a group of people or organizations for which an organization designs, implements, and maintains a marketing mix intended to meet the need of that group, resulting in mutually satisfying exchanges' (pg. 45).

Therefore it would seem as though every single product or service is said to have a specific group of people, the target market, in which they are aiming to sell towards.

What I am wondering though is that it would seem as not all products or services have just one target market, some may have many. Therefore if a company need to target more than one market, it is in turn going to have more advertisements, as well as a much more divisive selling view.

Some companies on the other hand have only one identified target market to focus their product or services towards, however some companies try to expand their markets in hope of reaching new customers and overall expanding their product or services outputs as well. However this does not always seem like it would be the best decision for all customers to make.

If there is one target market then it will be easier for a company to focus it's efforts in one direction, on the other hand, if a company has multiple markets then it has a higher chance of reaching a larger audience.

Do you think it is more beneficial for a company to have only one specific target market, or rather have a range of different target markets?

Response to Tammy Chou

In response to the question that was asked of the four components of Corporate Social Responsibility, I believe that the responsibility that is right for society is the ethical responsibilities.

Economic responsibilities aren't always in everyones best interest; not every runs on soul profit. Legal responsibilities are too straight forward, there is no room for error. Philanthropic responsibilities are judged completely on an individuals idea of being a 'good' citizen.

Ethic responsibilities are simple, they are three things: right, just, and fair. Also, avoid harm. If a corporate office and justify that what they do is right just and fair in come way, they will be able to partake in benefiting themselves and society. Ethical is about doing whatever means necessary to avoid harm; in turn doing what it can to benefit a company.

When it comes to looking at these four components of Corporate Social Responsibility, do you also agree that there is one that benefit society? Or could it be that they are all necessary to keep it balanced?

Ethical vs. Legal

"Standards that are legal may not always be ethical, and vice versa"; our text states this in chapter 3 as it begins to discuss ethics in marketing.

In the chapter, ethics is defined as the moral principles or values that generally govern the conduct of and individual or a group. On the other hand, if the definition of legal was also looked up it would refer to something of which that is appointed, established, or authorized by law.

When reading these two definitions the difference is clear; one (ethics) is thought of as moral principles while the other (legal) is looked at as regarding the law. It would seem logical that if something were moral it would be thought of as legal, and in turn something that is legal should in hopes be moral. But it that the case?

It would seem that for this to be true, every single moral act would need to be associated with the law in order to also provide the fact that it is legal. Also, if and act were of the law making it legal, then it would have no choice but to be ethical as well.

On the other hand, it could be plausible that they are not related at all. Something maybe legal or of the law, but maybe is not necessarily moral to all people. Also, something could  be of moral standing to someone, but does not necessarily fall in line with the law.

Do you believe it is possible that all things legal are linked back to some sort of ethics, or rather could all things that are ethical be linked back to some legality? Or is it possible for them not be related at all in a given situation?

Response to Katie Longchamp

I also agree that customer value and customer satisfaction can be interdependent, that there always has to be customer value in order to have customer satisfaction and vice versa in very case.

I also do believe it is possible to have one without the other, but not all the time. 

As Katie states, it is true that there must be some sort of customer value in order for a customer to partake in customer value. This being so because a customer is more likely to be satisfied with their purchased good or service if they are more aware of what they are actually going to receive for what they paid. Rather than just purchasing something without analyzing it, then getting something other than what the customer believe they would receive. 

However, I do question one point that Katie makes about a customer is more likely to assume a higher value with a product if it is priced higher than if it is priced lower. I do not believe that is always the case.

When looking at different products or services, obviously there will be an understandable difference in price depending on what it is. But when looking at products that are int he same market, but different brands, I do not necessarily believe that higher price is associated with higher quality.

For instance if one person were to buy a 'generic brand' of paper towels over a name brand of paper towels, one would assume you would pay less for the generic rather than a name brand. This price difference though, is not necessarily existent based off of a difference is quality, but rather paying for the design of the package. Both paper towels work the exact same, yet one of them is two dollars more.

Would you agree that when paying for a product of 'name brand' (i.e. Tide, Heinz, Dove) over a 'generic brand' (i.e. Great Value, Shaws, Market Basket) you are paying more for quality, or rather paying for the design?

Customer Satisfaction vs. Customer Value

Customer satisfaction and customer value are two different concepts, however, the two of them can be linked together, but that does not mean one is completely necessary for the other to exist. 

In the marketing book, customer satisfaction is defined as customer's evaluation of a good or service in terms of whether it has met their needs and expectations. Customer value on the other hand is defined as the relationship between benefits and the sacrifice necessary to obtain those benefits.

In more simpler terms, customer satisfaction lies within the customers own feelings of satisfaction in a product or service after they have obtained it, while customer value is prior to the purchase of a product or service where a customer reviews the possible benefits of this product or service, as well as how much they will sacrifice or pay for this product or service.

In a perfect world customer value would be applied to a product or service as a customer analyzes their decision to invest in it, then afterwards the customers satisfaction would be at an all time high after the purchase of their new product or service.

Unfortunately that is not the world in which we live.

Customer satisfaction can be linked to customer value due to the fact that if a customer is partaking in customer value, then that means they are weighing the benefits of their product or service before purchase as well as determining if the cost or sacrifice measures up to it's worth. If the product or service does in fact measure up then the customer's satisfaction level is most likely going to be higher.

If a customer does not partake in customer value and purchases a good or service without weighing it's benefits to it's cost, then it seems there would be a less likely chance of the satisfaction of a customer to be high, seeing as they did not value out what they purchased and their for their expectations may not have been met.

It would also seem that just because a customer partakes in understanding the potential value of their product or service as well as it's cost, does not always mean that a customer's satisfaction will be high after their purchase. It could turn out that the product or service ended up not meeting the value a customer intended on it to meet.

Also, it would seem as though a customer can also be highly satisfied with a product but did not look into the value of what the product or service actually entailed compared to it's cost. It could be the case that a customer just purchased a product or service without really caring about the cost to the benefits, and turns out that the customer was more than satisfied with the outcome of their new product or service than another who may have participated in customer value.

Therefore, customer satisfaction tends to go along with the initial customer value, however it does not seem to be completely necessary to partake in customer value in order to receive a higher customer satisfaction. In turn, having a high customer satisfaction does not necessarily mean that a customer partook in customer value.

Would you consider it more beneficial to a customer if they were to partake in customer value before every purchase? And in doing so, do you believe this will lead to a higher customer satisfaction rate among consumers?