Share
Explore BrainMass

Consumer behavior and the four marketing mix components

In order to effectively manage the four marketing mix components (product, price, place[ment], and promotion) marketers must understand how consumers make decisions. This discussion topic focuses on understanding consumer behavior by applying the following characteristics to marketing mix strategy decisions:
- Levels of purchase involvement (low, middle, or high)
- Types of purchase decision-making (nominal, limited, or extended)
- The stages of the consumer decision-making process (problem recognition, information search, alternative evaluation, purchase, and post-purchase)

A visual representation of purchase involvement, types of consumer purchase decision making, and phases of the consumer decision-making process.
- Identify the level of purchase involvement for a recreational vehicle, a coat, and a Fruit Roll-UpĀ®
- Identify the type of decision-making for a recreational vehicle, a coat, and a Fruit Roll-Up
- Explain each of the stages of the consumer decision-making process for a recreational vehicle, a coat, and a Fruit Roll-Up
- Explore how each of the four components of the marketing mix can be managed in order to create problem recognition (stage 1 of the consumer decision process) for a recreational vehicle, a coat, and a Fruit Roll-Up by the consumer

Solution Preview

See attached file for solution.

Justification of Terror

Consider the question that Waller uses as the title for Chapter 20 of his book: "Can Terrorism Ever Be Justified?" Summarize the main arguments for why terrorism CANNOT be justified, as discussed in the textbook, the posts in the discussion forum, and/or any other sources you may choose to reference. Be sure you discuss one of the following three arguments: from religious ethics, Kant, or moral realism.

Then summarize the main arguments for why terrorism CAN sometimes be justified, as discussed in the textbook, the posts in the discussion forum, and/or any other sources you may choose to reference. Be sure you discuss one of the following three arguments: relativism, non-objectivism, or utilitarian ethics.

That terror can never be justified:
Waller cites CAJ Coady, who argues that terrorism is always wrong.
Problems with definition, some ideas:

The use of force with a specifically political agenda
The deliberate attacking of civilian targets for the sake of causing confusion, fright and general mayhem.
Unlawful use of violence against any target (this one is useless, since it already contains a value judgment. If it is "unlawful" then it is a priori condemned. It implies that the state alone may physically harm people).

Coady, basic just war doctrine:

Authority to declare must be "legitimate", the cause must be just, must be a last resort, reasonable expectation of success, violence must always be proportional. Both the quality and quality of violence must be in proportion to the wrong that is being rectified.
If you accept the above, then terrorism can never be justified for the following reasons:

1. It is not a legitimate authority, that is, it is not a state or government.
2. In most cases, no reasonable chance of success, though there are exceptions.
3. Deliberate targeting of the innocent, or infrastructure that would radically disrupt the broader society is not proportional to the evil being challenged.

In this particular case, moral realism might be the more appropriate justification. Terror is always wrong. This is because the human being is free. This is a fact. The free person has infinite value (as Kant would argue). Killing them without clear cause or knowledge cannot be justified. One can assume that a terrorist act does not know specifically which civilians are being killed. Many of them might have nothing to do with the policies under attack, or even attack them themselves. There is a radical disconnect between the act of violence and who it affects.

The assumption is therefore that states alone have the right to declare war. This is because the state (let's say the US or UK) is democratically elected and hence, representative of the population. Terror cells are not elected, are not public, and are subject to no popular control whatsoever. Hence, it never has the right to "declare" war on anyone. The Walmart down the street cannot declare war either, for the same reason.

States that do not have democracies might also represent the population. This still does not excuse terror because people are killed indiscriminately. Military uniforms suggest that a) the person volunteered for the position, b) that risk of death is well known, and c) that the uniform represents the ...

Solution Summary

The expert examines consumer behaviors and the four marketing mix components.

$2.19