The Marketing Environment Essay Example for Free

The Marketing Environment Essay The marketing environment surrounds and impacts upon the organization. There are three key elements to the marketing environment which are the internal environment, the microenvironment and the macroenvironment. Why are they important? Well marketers build both internal and external relationships. Marketers aim to deliver value to satisfied customers, so we need to assess and evaluate our internal business/corporate environment and our external environment which is subdivided into micro and macro. Internal Environment The internal environment has already been touched upon by other lessons on marketing teacher. For example, the lessons on internal marketing and also on the functions within an organization give a good starting point to look at our internal environment. A useful tool for quickly auditing your internal environment is known as the Five Ms which are Men, Money, Machinery, Materials and Markets. Here is a really quick example using British Airways. Looking internally at men, British Airways employees pilots, engineers, cabin crew, marketing managers, etc. Money is invested in the business by shareholders and banks for example. Machinery would include its aircraft but also access to air bridges and buses to ferry passengers from the terminal to the aircraft. Materials for a service business like British Airways would be aircraft fuel called kerosene (although if we were making aircraft materials would include aluminium, wiring, glass, fabric, and so on). Finally markets which we know can be both internal and external. Some might include a sixth M, which is minutes, since time is a valuable internal resource.

The False Equality of Americans :: Economics Social History Essays

The False Equality of Americans In economic, social and political terms, equality is more of an idea than a reality for many people in America; the majority of money and power has been in the control of White men since colonial times. Ideologies like racism and sexism perpetuate the status quo by isolating under- privileged groups. Problems arise from divisions that are created between two under- privileged groups. For example, the cry for equality loses much of its power when it is fractured into several segmented cries. The book Outside the Magic Circle, addresses this issue. Organizations which successfully fought for equality, like the NCAPT, were destroyed by forces (such as anti communism) which essentially divide the groups’ members and the groups, themselves. Thus, any given group becomes ineffective. This book demonstrates that unity is the best way to fight for equality. The red scare was brought upon by men like Joseph McCarthy, who were eager to exploit people’s fear of Russia for personal benefit and power. Anyone who was associated with communism was highly scrutinized to be a Russian spy. Instead of fighting for the rights of the accused individuals, many social action groups ridded themselves of these very people. Durr realized that red baiting would destroy liberal groups which were fighting for justice. The NCAPT refused to dismiss people who were believed to be communist, but other groups were driven by fear and fired large numbers of people. â€Å"Everybody began to purge. The NAACP purged, the unions purged, everybody purged† (191). Instead of fighting stereotypes many groups fell prey to them, and in doing so lost their ability to challenge the status quo. Therefore â€Å"the whole liberal movement of the United States died...(because) it became exclusively anti communistic† (186). Equally effective at seperating people as anti-communism was the upper class which manipulated and abused the lower class for profit. â€Å"Every Southern state, every chamber of commerce, and every corporation thought the way to make the South prosperous was cheap labor† (179). Thus, members of the Southern upper class employed methods to keep people in lower classes. â€Å"The Southern oligarchy was ruining all the unions by keeping them from organizing† (156). At a time when labor unions were beginning to cross racial lines, the manner in which their empowering rise was quelled made alleviated race relations impossible. The False Equality of Americans :: Economics Social History Essays The False Equality of Americans In economic, social and political terms, equality is more of an idea than a reality for many people in America; the majority of money and power has been in the control of White men since colonial times. Ideologies like racism and sexism perpetuate the status quo by isolating under- privileged groups. Problems arise from divisions that are created between two under- privileged groups. For example, the cry for equality loses much of its power when it is fractured into several segmented cries. The book Outside the Magic Circle, addresses this issue. Organizations which successfully fought for equality, like the NCAPT, were destroyed by forces (such as anti communism) which essentially divide the groups’ members and the groups, themselves. Thus, any given group becomes ineffective. This book demonstrates that unity is the best way to fight for equality. The red scare was brought upon by men like Joseph McCarthy, who were eager to exploit people’s fear of Russia for personal benefit and power. Anyone who was associated with communism was highly scrutinized to be a Russian spy. Instead of fighting for the rights of the accused individuals, many social action groups ridded themselves of these very people. Durr realized that red baiting would destroy liberal groups which were fighting for justice. The NCAPT refused to dismiss people who were believed to be communist, but other groups were driven by fear and fired large numbers of people. â€Å"Everybody began to purge. The NAACP purged, the unions purged, everybody purged† (191). Instead of fighting stereotypes many groups fell prey to them, and in doing so lost their ability to challenge the status quo. Therefore â€Å"the whole liberal movement of the United States died...(because) it became exclusively anti communistic† (186). Equally effective at seperating people as anti-communism was the upper class which manipulated and abused the lower class for profit. â€Å"Every Southern state, every chamber of commerce, and every corporation thought the way to make the South prosperous was cheap labor† (179). Thus, members of the Southern upper class employed methods to keep people in lower classes. â€Å"The Southern oligarchy was ruining all the unions by keeping them from organizing† (156). At a time when labor unions were beginning to cross racial lines, the manner in which their empowering rise was quelled made alleviated race relations impossible.

Locke and Hobbes on Revolution

Thomas Hobbes (1588-1679) and John Locke (1632-1706) belonged to the same generation of philosophers.   However, both philosophers viewed English Revolution differently.   Hobbes had experienced the English Revolution as a time of brutality.   Thence, the philosopher compared the revolution to what he referred to as the â€Å"state of nature† (or, a state of primitiveness). This state was ruthless and uncouth.   Hobbes believed that revolutions were similarly a negative state, and in order to guard itself against the malice of revolutions, society needed a strong king and strict governance, somewhat akin to the Panopticon state of Michel Foucault.   Locke, on the other hand, lauded the concept of revolution as a necessity during times of governmental disturbance.   In other words, the philosopher with a good view of revolution believed in dismantling the government if it does not work (â€Å"Locke and Hobbes†). Sharp (2006) explains the difference between Locke’s and Hobbes’ viewpoints on revolution thus: At least part of the difference between Hobbes and Locke can be attributed to their  historical circumstances.   Hobbes witnessed the English Civil War, which destroyed every  opportunity for happiness for many people.   His all-powerful state must have seemed like the  lesser of two evils, since it would at least be stable and life would not devolve into anarchy.  Ã‚   Locke, however, witnessed the Glorious Revolution, where the government was completely  changed without bloodshed. For him, revolution must not have seemed like such a terrible  thing.   Most likely, both views are too extreme.   Revolution is usually a costly endeavor, since  those in power rarely relinquish it willingly.   However, the possibility or revolution is a key   part of maintaining rights, since an all-powerful government could suppress our rights without  fear of repercussion. Hobbes, being senior to Locke in age and experience, had apparently seen a bloody war that Locke had not been a witness of.   Thus, the views of the philosophers differed with respect to the English Revolution.   Had Locke also lived through the English Civil War, he might have been bitter about the idea of revolution as well.   Nevertheless, it is important to note that both philosophers believed in human rights.   Locke was not a violent agitator.   Furthermore, it is clear that his philosophy on revolution was written with ultimate peace in mind. Locke wrote about â€Å"abuse of power by the government† as a reason for a revolution.   In order to serve justice, he considered it ethical for citizens to fight for their rights, even if they must fight the government for the same reason.   In Locke’s view, â€Å"rebellion† was a necessity at times of governmental corruption and dissidence.   Besides, in the perspective of the philosopher, the people could be trusted to make decisions as regards civil rights.   The important matter to consider remained, however, that people could achieve â€Å"restoration of their rights† via a revolution (Kemerling, 2000). Locke’s philosophy on revolution makes the kinds of allowances for the common people that Hobbes’ philosophy does not allow for.   In the latter’s view, revolutions are bad because they lead to bloodshed.   So therefore, governments should be strong enough to rule the people without letting them express their agitation in any form whatsoever. Locke’s philosophy can debate with Hobbes’ view quite simply by claiming that the victims of bloodshed are usually the common people; and if they are the ones taking responsibility for a revolution, they are the ones also responsible for guarding their safety at all costs during a revolution.   Governments that try to quell public rebellion through military violence are bad in any case.   Hence, the public is right in demolishing such governments.   At the same time, the public must protect itself from the agitation of the government during a revolution. Thus Locke’s philosophy of revolution allows for public liberty unlike Hobbes’ philosophy, which is similar to the Panopticon.   Michel Foucault’s (1995) Panopticism begins with a detailed description of the measures to be taken against a seventeenth century plague. The government was meant to exercise absolute control over all citizens during such time, as spaces were to be partitioned and houses were to be closed off.   Stray animals were to be killed, and human beings were to be advised that they could only leave town if they wanted to be killed too.   Moreover, guards were to be put on duty to keep a constant eye on the people.   Every guard was to be informed that â€Å"if he leaves the street, he will be condemned to death.† The government aimed to create a pure and disciplined community through these orders.   What is more, as Foucault points out, it was a â€Å"political dream† to create such an obedient community, even for a brief period of time.   Such an obedient community happens to be a model for other communities and other times.   This plagued community was further marked by: †¦strict divisions; not laws transgressed, but the penetration of regulation into even the  smallest details of everyday life through the mediation of the complete hierarchy that assured  the capillary functioning of power; not masks that were put on and taken off, but the  assignment to each individual of his ‘true' name, his ‘true' place, his ‘true' body, his ‘true'  disease.   The plague as a form, at once real and imaginary, of disorder had as its medical and  political correlative discipline.   Behind the disciplinary mechanisms can be read the haunting  memory of ‘contagions', of the plague, of rebellions, crimes, vagabondage, desertions, people  who appear and disappear, live and die in disorder. The Panopticon state is the literal embodiment of Hobbes’ philosophy of government.   Totally unlike Locke’s state of freedom, which is equal to democracy in present times, Hobbes’ is a restrictive state with police control at best.   From these two differing philosophies of government arise two dissimilar, defining concepts of revolution.   People through history have found it difficult to believe in both at the same time.   To answer their concerns, both Hobbes and Locke advise their readers and thinkers to use their reason in changing or adopting a form of government (Sharp). References Focault, Michel. (1995). Panopticism. Retrieved 20 May 2007, from c. Kemerling, Garth. (2000). Locke: Social Order. Philosophy Pages. Retrieved 20 May 2007, from http://www.philosophypages.com/hy/4n.htm. Locke and Hobbes, Two Contrasting Views of the English Revolution. Retrieved 20 May 2007, from http://www.iun.edu/~hisdcl/h114_2002/Locke%20and%20Hobbes.htm. Sharp, Robert. (2006, September 5). Hobbes Vs. Locks: A Question of Rights. Retrieved 20 May 2007, from http://philosophy.suite101.com/article.cfm/hobbes_vs__locke.      

Eerie Themes Of Gothic Writing - An Analysis Of Edgar...

In the history of literature, there have always been different themes and genres of writing. But few have been as different or unique as that of the â€Å"gothic† literature. Of all the gothic authors of history, few writing has captured the mind and plunged it into the depths of fear as that of Edgar Allen Poe. Poe’s â€Å"The Cask of Amontillado,† is a story that shows us how deadly being prideful can be. Themes of dishonour, revenge and questionable justice all come together in this story. In this essay, I will discuss how the setting, irony and the lack of certain details all contribute to the gothic theme and the spine-tingling effect of the story. nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;The setting and clothing of the story are two of the key†¦show more content†¦Fortunato himself displays much irony as well. First, his name resembles the word â€Å"fortune† and to have good fortune can mean to have good luck, which is obviously not what Fortunate has, having been left for eternity to perish alone in darkness. Fortunato’s clothes are another source of irony. He wears the clothes of a jester, â€Å"He had on a tight-fitting parti-striped dress, and his head was surmounted by the conical cap and bells.† (70) Since jesters are often portrayed as trusting and very foolish, this completely describes Fortunato as he willing and unknowingly walks with his murderer to his doom. Another source of irony is found in almost everything that Montresor says. Every time he speaks to Fortunato, he speaks to him as if he is his friend. He speaks to him with a sarcasm that is not noticeable. However, since we are inside his head, we know that Montresor is not actually friends with Fortunato and this ploy is all actually part of his plot to kill Fortunato. In the beginning, Montresor says to himself that â€Å"I must not only punish but punish with impunity.† (70) This is ironic when we later find out that Montresor’s family motto is â€Å"No one provokes me with impunity.† From the motto and the description of the coat of arms we receive, it can be assumed that Montresor’s family has had a history of insanity and