Roles And Functions Of Law Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 750 words

Roles And Functions Of Law - Essay Example Businesses, for instance, benefit from contractual laws that govern the running and succession of the business. If the business owner wants to sell the business, the processes are very clear and simple to adhere. Compensation laws also aid in making the businessmen lives more conducive. Rules on investments are also very clear; thus, making the lives of the businessmen less complicated. Functions and role of law to a lawyer. In the field of law, Wendel says that he has done more than enough to ensure that lawyers operate within the specified rules and regulations of the field. This is from the verify that as a lawyer, I need guiding principles on all aspects that concern my job. This is both on a social and certified angle. It would automatically not be probable with the weight of my job to act without regulations and rules. My job necessitates acting within the lines of suitability and what is not satisfactory. Additionally, my job is also bound by forms of injustices and justices t hat can only be cleared with the application and proper appliance of laws, so as to take steps in agreement to the law’s prospects. Devoid of the rules, it is almost palpable that the crime levels will automatically augment on a higher scale. Human nature is prone to atrocities and numerous evils of criminal actions. Criminals and other persons with no good sense of reasoning are indeed not spared by the law. Protection of individuals is an obvious responsibility of the law, in business and in the society in general.

Game Studies - Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 1500 words

Game Studies - - Essay Example Consideration of games as the most socially acceptable medium of stress relief and fitness regulation came with the progressive trend of human culture in every aspect. As a result of the extended support from the populations of different countries across the world, games became a visible form of exchange medium of culture in course of time. When such a single game has to be identified as a reformer of the cultural and socio-economic facets of the human community over a large proportion of the world population, cricket claims its emphatic position across England and other Common Wealth nations. Cricket evolved as a game from unknown time in the history, but with the enthusiasm of more and more people to pursue this game, the popularity and the cricketing culture formed part of the world’s English dominance. The influence of literature in popularizing this game was a major contributor of the development of a new culture that promoted the expansion of cricket across various countries. More importantly, cricket evolved as a mentor of the sports culture with greater consideration for the beautification of the game by eliminating possible rivalries that sustained during the ancient sports history. As many more people entered the game with expectations of prestige-over-entertainment, the aesthetic approach to the game evolved and as a result, cricket itself had forced on people, a class-difference of involvement based on their wealth and social status. As Bateman (2009, p. 7) opines, in the early stage, cricket used to be a stage where the players classified themselves as amateurs or professionals; in which the former class opted batting as their favourite element of the game while the latter had to chose the more laborious and less glamorous area of bowling. Though this separatist views about the cosmetic image of cricket continued for a long time, it was really a synopsis of the upcoming trend

Case study discussion Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 2750 words

Case study discussion - Essay Example In this regard, the assets, interests, and rights of the project are basically held as the secondary security or act as the collateral. Therefore, in any case the forecasted cash flow from the project does not sustain the project, there is high risk exposure to debt risks though the failure of the projects may be attributed to many factors like the interest rates, business risks, economic situation like inflation and the type of the shareholders (Gatti, 2013). In the case of Autopistas del Centro, the financial recession hit the project quite since most of the projected cash flow had been forecasted prior to the great financial crisis of 2008 (Lubian, 2015). Therefore, the only option it to sell the project to new owners since the shareholders are reluctant to go into their pockets and revive the project once. Therefore, it is imperative to identify some of the factors that must be considered when pricing the project so as to make sure both the buyers and sellers are satisfied. Besides, the head of the projects is deeply concerned about the best approach that can be used to make sure that the shareholders are satisfied with the handing over of the project to the new owners. Inflation is one of the critical issues that must be looked into when pricing a project to the new owners. The implication is that inflation has the potential to increase the original estimates of the construction costs (Esty, 2014). Usually, the inflation rates are put into consideration when the project is at the design stage but future changes in the inflation rates may affect the original estimated construction costs and this will have a huge effect on the final pricing of the project (Gatti, 2013). Therefore, when pricing the project, it would be important to look at the inflation rates in Spain, as well as Europe in general. In 2009, the CFO of AC, Martinez saw the need to revise the status of the project finance under different circumstances under which the

The Meaning And Definition Of Brand

The Meaning And Definition Of Brand Due to the intensive competitiveness between the different producers and sellers in todays contemporary world, the phenomenon of joint branding is increasing at a rapid rate. With the traditional brand extension and the various brand alliance strategies like dual branding and advertising alliance, joint branding is a way of distinguishing the products from their competitive alternatives. By utilizing, the concept of product integration whereby a single entity is branded with that of one or more entities, companies can derive the favorable outcomes for both the entities. 2.1 Meaning and Definition of Brand The concept of branding is existing for past many centuries now. It is the primary means of distinguishing the product of a single manufacturer from that of another. The term brand is a derivative of the Old Norse word brandr, which implies to burn, (Kotler, 1982). As defined by (Keller, 2009, p 17), a brand is a name, term, sign, symbol, or design, or a combination of them, intended to identify the goods and services of seller or group of sellers and to differentiate them from those of competition. Technically, whenever a marketer creates a new name, logo, or symbol for a new product, he or she has created a brand. Brand resembles the total experience that consumers relate to the products (Keller Lehman, 2004, p.1) in order to create and retain the monetary performance (Haigh Knowles, 2004) which results in the visibility of the brands at three different levels customer, product and financial areas (Keller Lehman, 2004). Haigh and Knowled (2004) have suggested in their theories that brands are the primary source through which the competitive products could differ. The construction of competitive superiority (Keller Lehman, 2004, p.2) could be obtained by handling the various brand channels. The significance of brands have changed in the modern world due to the global trends, for instance, the deregulation of industrial sector, the privatisation of public organisations, the establishment of independent firms, extensive utilisation of franchises and the eradication of trade barriers ( McDonald, de Chartony and Harris, 2001). Brand Equity Brand Equity is a combination of the brand assets and liabilities associated to a specific brand, its name, image, logo or symbol that appreciates or depreciates the value provided by the product to its consumers (Aaker, 1991, p.15). In simple terms, it is the added value provided to products which reflects the consumer attitude towards the brand (Kotler Keller, 2006). Appendix A lists the world top 10 brands in the year 2010. It has been observed that for products in order to gain brand equity must be associated with the name or symbol of the brand (Aaker, 1991, p.15) however, on either amending or altering the name following a joint branding activity the product value might get effected. Furthermore, Aaker (1991) suggested the assets and liabilities which effects the brand equity as brand loyalty, brand awareness, quality perception, the brand association with quality and other factors like patents, trademarks etc. 2.1.1 Brand Vs Product A product is anything that is offered to a market for attention, acquisition, use or consumption that might satisfy a need or want (Kotler, 1984, p.137). Therefore, a product could be a tangible good like bread, cricket bat, or vehicle; however, a Brand is wider in scope than a product, because it can have dimensions that differentiate in some way from other products designed to satisfy the same need (Gregory, 1999, p.54). These variations may be rational and tangible- released to product performance of brand- or more symbolic, emotional, and intangible-related to what the brand represents (Rosson Brooks, 2004, p.57). Developing apparent branding differences among products through branding and by developing a loyal customer franchise, marketers create value that can translate to financial profits for the firm (Bruner, 2005, p17). However the fact is the significantly low numbers of tangible assets are considered to be valuable and so is the case with the intangible assets. 2.1.2 Creating New Brand Associations By associating a brand with another entity, consumers make a pre-conceived image linking the attributes of these brands to the other entity and to every other entity and association which is in liaison with this brand (Homburg Bucerius, 2005). In a wider sense, this secondary brand knowledge is most likely to affect evaluations of a new product when consumers lack either the motivation or the ability to judge product-related concerns (Morall, 1996, p.131). In other words, when consumers either dont care much about or dont feel that they possess the knowledge to choose the appropriate brand, they may be more likely to make brand decisions on the basis of secondary considerations like what they think, feel, or know about the country from which the product came, the store in which it is sold, or some other characteristics (Shelton, 2002, p.147). Therefore, the association of brands with other brands improves customer retention, enhances service quality, influences customers perception of the brand and proves to gain an edge over the competitors (Perry Herd, 2004). According to Kumar (2004), when a specific brand is linked to any entity, it not only creates a new relationship but also it affects all the existing relationships of the brand. The basic mechanism states that the consumer is aware of the attributes of entity. When a brand is identified or linked to that entity, consumer may infer that some of the particular associations, judgments, or feelings that characterise the entity may also characterise the brand (Kumar Blomqvist, 2004, p.26). A number of different theoretical mechanisms from psychology predict this type of inference. One is cognitive consistence  [1]  , in other words, the consumers perception is, what is true for the entity, must be true for the brand. 2.2 Joint Branding According to signaling product, the combination or collaboration of two brands provides greater assurance of quality than what a single branded product provides, which should lead to higher evaluations of products and premium prices (Rao, 1999, p37). Through a brand extension strategy, a new product can become linked to an existing corporate or family brand that has its own set of associations (Swystum, 2001, p117). Further, Sinclair (2007) is of the opinion that a presentg brand could influence its relationship with other entities by getting into an association with a brand from the same industry (Sinclair, 2007). Joint branding also called Joint branding, brand bundling (Keller, 2004, p 19) or brand alliances is formed with the association of two or more brands who decides to produce a new brand and as well sells it together. Joint branding is in existence for past many decades; for instance, Betty Crocker partenered with Sunkist Growers in 1961 to profitably sell a lemon chiffon cake mix. Interest in Joint branding as a means of building brand equity has increased in recent years (Grobel Forbes, 2006, p203). For instance, the toffee candy bar produced by Hersheys Health has not only been extended into several new products-Health Sensations (bite sized candies) and Health Bits and Bits of Brickle (chocolate-covered and plain toffee baking products)-but also has been licensed to a variety of vendors, such as Dairy Queen (with its Blizzard drink), Ben and Herrys, and Blue Bunny (with its ice cream bar). Some other notable supermarket examples of Joint branding are Kellogs Pop- Tarts with Smuckers fruit filling. Yoplait Trix yogurt, and Smuckers Dove ice cream sauce. In the credit card market, Joint branding often links three brands, as in the Shell MasterCard from Citi Cards. With airlines, brand alliances can unite a host of brands, such as Star Alliance, which comprises of 16 different airlines such as United Airlines, Lufthansa, and Singapore Airlines. Although the joint branded products are into use for quite some time but surprisingly, it has a very minute quantitative observational research on the subject. Norris (1992) was the person to describe the potential benefits of the Joint Branded products. This study was then preceded by the various theoretical articles by Rao Rueckert (1994) on Joint Branded Products on signaling Perspective and the other one by Hillyer Tikoo (1995) to understand the influence of Joint branded products on brand evaluation. 2.2.1 Merits De-merits of Joint Branding The primary benefit provided by joint branding is the ability to position a product distinctively and credibly amidst the large number of multiple brands in the market industry (Norris, 1992). Joint branding can create more compelling points of difference or points of parity for the brand -or both-than otherwise might have been feasible (Hillyer Tikoo, 1995, p57). The outcome would see it producing higher number of sales in the current market and additionally opening good opportunities with new customer groups. Joint branding can reduce the cost of product introduction because it combines two well-known images, accelerating potential adoption (Levin, 1996, p87). Joint branding also may be a valuable means to learn about consumers and how other companies approach them. In poorly differentiated categories especially, joint branding may be an important means of creating a distinctive product (Desai Keller, 2002, p 136). The possible limitations of joint branding could be the risks and lack of control that arise from becoming aligned with another brand in the minds of consumers. Consumers expectations about the level of involvement and commitment with joint brands are likely to be high (Levin, 1996, p 147). Unsatisfactory performance thus could have negative repercussions for both (or all) brands (Rao, 1997). Levin, in his study further emphasizes on the fact that If the other brand has entered into a number of joint branding arrangements, there also may be a risk of overexposure that would dilute the transfer of any association. It may also result in distraction and a lack of focus on existing brands. A summarized tabulate version of the merits and de-merits of joint branding is listed in Appendix B. 2.3 Comparison of joint branding against the different branding strategies Joint branding is a long term brand alliance in which a product is identified and branded with the other brand (Levin, 1996, p7). A joint branding strategy should constitute following characteristics; the participant of the joint branding should be independent before, during and after the alliance of the joint branded product (Ohlwein Schiele, 1994). Secondly, the joint branding strategy should be implemented on a purpose by the owners of the brand (Blackett Russell, 1999). Third, the potential buyer should notice the cooperation between the two brands (Rao, 1997). Fourth, there should be incorporation of more than one brand at a single instance (Hiller Tikoo, 1995; Levin, 1996) The joint branding practically shows that there are two variations in it. The first one can be said as Vertical joint Branding often called as ingredient branding (Desai Keller, 2002, p 113), it refers to a vertical combination of products where manufacturers of different value chain steps in one product (E.g. Pepsi and Nutra Sweet; Dell and Intel). On the contrary the horizontal joint branding is characterised by producers stepping in the same value chain for the manufacturing and selling of a multi-branded product. In addition, a joint branded product may also appear in a category where both the producers are already established (Sony Ericsson Mobile phones). Joint branding strategy can become the brand extension strategy by introducing new product with the same brand name on the existing or new product category or the new product in the new product category (Desai Hoyer, 1993, p 176). The figure below represents the overlaps and differences among the joint branding and brand extension strategies. Figure 1: Joint Branding and Brand Extension (Source: Helming, Huber Leeflang, 2008) Only one single brand is involved in classical brand extensions where as joint branding includes multiple brands. Because of this difference there is no information on how customers utilise the brand attitude and association to deliver their response to the combination of two brands can be derived from the study and practice of classic brand extension (Simonin Ruth, 1998). On the other side brand extension appears much frequent in practice and corresponding literature is much sophisticated and comprehensive (Aker, 1990; John, 1998; Balachander Ghose, 2003; Volckner Sattler, 2006). Both brand extension and Joint branding strategies work on the same subject line, to strengthen the parent brand and extend the customer value perception to a new product (Aaker, 1990. P76). However, joint branding strategy can be seen as more advantageous because a second brand can contribute an additional value perception to the parent brand and itself that a parent brand cannot gather itself. In addit ion their might be some negative effects to the potential advantages caused by the combination of two brands reasoning either they dont fit or unfavorable perception among the partnering brands. Further to this the joint branding involves great complications in the operational activities because this strategy needs the alignment of interest of a minimum two associated partners. The choice on aligning requires a careful and comprehensive study of related cost and advantages levied on certain operational objective and the situational surroundings. Additional to joint branding strategy there lays few more brand aligning strategies, they are; Joint sales promotion Advertising alliance Dual branding Bundling The Joint Branding strategy can be closely related to advertising alliance approach. The primary reason to utilise the different branding strategies similar to that of joint branding strategy is the improvement of interdependent image accompanying the collaboration with complementary partner (Wernerfelt, 1988, Erdem Swait, 1999). The signaling theory explains that, the collaboration of two brands assures the customer with greater product quality that in turn provides higher evaluations and premium prices (Rao, 1999). However, joint branding strategy is the only approach where a single product collaborates with two or more brands (Wernerfelt, 1988, p 36). Even though the new brand alliance strategy may not contain the severe unfavorable spillover effects and less difficulty but they may not involve such strong benefits as the joint branding strategy. The table below shows the differences between the joint branding strategy and other strategies. This table demonstrates that the joint branding and brand extension strategies are very similar where as the other strategies are completely different. Table 1: Branding Strategy and their distinction from Joint Branding Strategy Example Characteristic Difference from Joint branding Relevant Literature Product Bundling Vobis Hardware, software and services for PCs Combined offer from two or more goods in a package with one total price No simultaneous branding of a single physical product by two brands Gaeth, 1990; Yadav, 1994; Stremersch Tellis, 2002. Advertising alliance Wasa (bread) Due Darfst (diet butter) Simultaneous mention of different supplier of different products in one advertisement Berndt, 1985; Schroter Waschek, 1996; Bergen John, 1997; Samu, 1999 Joint sales promotion Reebok (sports outfit) and Pepsi (soft drink) Timely, limited appearance of two independent brands in promotional activities Varadarajan, 1985; Varadarajan, 1986; Palupski Bohmann, 1994. Dual Branding Burger king (fast food) Shell (Gas station) Common usage of store location (shop in shop concept) Levin, 1996; Levin Levin, 2000. Brand Extension Boss Brand transfer from cloths to perfume Extension of brand to a new product in either a new or an existing product category Equals joint branding , if new product is branded by two brands simultaneously Aaker Keller, 1990; Balachander Ghose, 2003; Volckner Sattler, 2006. 2.3.1 Joint Branding and its Effectiveness Different theories were propagated to gain an understanding on the efficiency of joint-branding when compared with various other brand extension strategies. Below listed is a brief description on these theories: Concept Combination Theory: This was propounded by Park, Jun and Shocker in the year 1996. In this theory, the researchers have observed the evolution and usefulness of combined brand partnerships. A combined brand is described to be the outcome of aligning two significant brands. The findings were based on the influence on perception of the consumer towards the new composite brand resulting from the earlier perceptions of the combining brands. The concept combination procedure enlisted evaluating two self sufficient concepts which are to form a new concept (Wisniewski, 1996). According to Park, Jun and Schocker (1996) a composite joint brand comprises of at least one parent brand and one modifier brand, each of which are determined according to their position in the composite brand. As per the concept combination theory, a set of core attributes in a concept is the most essential and salient set of attributes for understanding a concept (Eysenck and Keanne 1990), and it is difficult to change when the concept is combined with others. b) Signaling Theory: This theory was utilized by various realists (Rao, Qu Ruekert, 1999; Rao and Rueker1994; Washburn, Till, and Priluck 2000) in order to evaluate and assess the creation of joint branding and its usefulness. As stated by Spence (1974), signaling could be observed when the observer takes actions to communicate data and information to the ones who are ignorant of it, in order to facilitate their decision making. By utilizing this theory, Washburn, Trill Priluck (2000) had studied the effects of joint branding on the brand equity of the partnering brands. The four components  [2]  of the brand equity were evaluated based on the changing perception of the consumers. c) Assimilation and Contrast Theory: Levin (2002) has engaged social judgment theory in investigating the impact of joint branding. According to the social judgment theory (Shrif Hovland, 1961), judgments towards a stimulus are affected by the context within which it is evaluated. Furthermore, Sherman (1978, p107) states a stimulus is judged not only by its own features but also by the other stimulus that are present concurrently. Based on the occurrence of a stimuli the contexts are classified into contrast and assimilation effects (Meyers-Levy and Sternthal 1993). 2.3.2 Direct Effects Considering the empirical theories of Rao Rueckert (1994) and Rao (1997), Rao (1999), an in depth study of Joint Branded products from signaling perspective, whereby they show that the customers evaluates the brand qualitativeness better in relation to unidentifiable characteristics where a particular brand is collaborated with another brand which is presumed to be at risk of consumers acceptance. The combined outcome of the dual branding nature, joint branded products offers a better quality signal when compared with mono branded products. Levin (1996) findings displayed that matching a reputed brand name with an non reputable or slightly known host brands improves consumers product evaluations than adding a non reputable brand. Thus, it could be concluded that consumers brand awareness on the partner brands has a positive direct effect (Rao, 1997, p 118). Fang and Mishra (2002) also supported this claim, stating that consumer perception of a non reputed brand enhances when combined with a reputed, good quality associate; and Voss Tansuhaj (1999), proves that consumer evaluation of a joint branded products improves if a well known domestic brand is incorporated with unknown foreign brand partner. Vaidyanathan Aggarwal (2000) has also analyzed joint branded products formed by a well known national brand and an unknown private brand, and found that a joint branded products received positive valuation if it is incorporated with a well known ingredient brand. By differentiating a joint brand product as having either an unknown branded element or a reputed brand, Desai Keller (2002) clarifies the extended effect of the host brand. With the extension which transforms the intensity of a prevailing product feature, a stabilized component facilitates early growth recognition, however a self brand ingredients results in favourable successive group expansion assessment. The brand extension which adds a whole new feature to the product would inculcate an existing component, as doing this will lead to high assessment of the original product and its preceding expansion. Park (1996) states that the positive attitude of consumer towards a brand leads to positive direct effects, and the joint branded products involving two complementary brand gains a better attribute profile in the mind of consumers than that of a direct brand extension of dominant brand or a joint branded product involving two highly favourable but uncomplimentary brand. Walchli (1996), When measuring the evaluation of joint-branded products according to the agreement of the partner brands, displays that in high associated situations, the high dissimilar or similar partner brand possess less positive evaluation that it may have in rather disimilar partner brand. This astounding result is a task of the amplification that consumers undertake to seek resolutions that are partial towards positive clarification for the inaptness (Mandler (1982)) The prior positive attitude generates the positive direct effect towards each partner brand, and also from the positive perception toward the brand and the offered product fit of the partner brand. The term fit refers for the consumer perception on congruity of both the partner brand and their offered product categories and the branding concepts (Simonin Ruth, 1998). The model of Simonin Ruth had been modified by Hadjicharalambus (2001) to gain an evidence that overall fit (i.e., the joint venture of two brands A B as a new joint brand product) effects the evaluation positively of the joint branded products, but overall the fit is influenced by the transfer fit positively, or partner brand fit with product category of the joint branded product and fit of the brand. There is a possession of synergitic effect on the high transfer fit, which generates positive direct effects. The direct link with the brand equity and the joint branded products has been stated by Washburn (1999) and W ashburn et al. (2000, 2004) , this displays that the higher brand equity of partner brand enhance the perceived brand equity of the joint branded product and thus radiates positive direct effect. The study conducted by Janiszewski Van Osselaer (2000) and Van Osselaer Janiszewski (2001) shows how the consumer predicts the products performance through brand names and product features by different training methods. As explained by Simonin Ruth (1998) and Park et al.,(1996) that joining two or more established brands improves the face value of a joint branded products because the well known ingredient of a brand gives positive direct effects. The two most recent study conducted on the direct effect of joint branding is done by Baumgrath (2003) and Huber (2005). These studies agree and support to the previous studies of Simonin Ruth (1998) and Hadjicharambouss (2001) findings. The most comprehensive study on direct effects is given by Baumgarth (2003). He had analyzed a biggest simple, the great variety of joint branded products, and the most path relationship. He also states that advertising has a relevantly great importance in terms of evaluating the joint branded products. Huber (2005) proved evidently that involvement of product and orientation of consumers brand influences the success of joint branded product. The comparison of brand extension and joint branding studys displays some interesting similarities and differences. The requirement of fit in a high degree in a brand and the product extension is the main factor of success for brand extension, high involvement of parent brand, acceptance from the market and retailer (Volckner Sattler, 2006). The success of joint branded product is influenced by the transfer fit and support from market, but it carries much significance obtained from the product fit and the partner brand. This is because the joint branding introduces the new evaluation dimensions, unlike the brand extension. The collaborating concept of joining two or more brand from a single product to a joint branded product can achieve much benefits of that it may not achieve from its own. This finding is supported by Park et al (1996). The experimental test conducted shows that a joint branded product is assumed much favorable than that of the direct brand extension in the parent brands product category The literature of joint branding still need to analyze the addition factor of success of brand extension, like retailer acceptance and parent brand involvement. The table 2 below shows the relevance of relationship from the brand extension that may serve as a potential factor of success for joint branded product. Such combination can be considered for further research. TABLE 2; Succes Factors for Direct effects Success factors for direct effects A Joint branded product is more successful if.. source Relative Importance Characteristics of constituent brands/products Awareness brand awareness of the constituent brand is high Levin et al. (1996) Fang and Mishra(2002) Voss and Tansuhaj(1999) Vaidyanathan and Aggarwal(2000) Desai and Keller(2002) Medium Quality the perceived quality of the constituent brands is high Rao et al. (1999) McCarthy and Norris (1999) Park et al. (1996) Simonin and Ruth (1998) Janiszewski and van Osselaer (2000) van Osselaer and Janiszewski (2001) Baumgarth (2003) Lafferty et al. (2004) Huber (2005) High Brand equity the brand equity of the Constituent brands is high Washburn (1999) Washburn et al. (2000; 2004) High Characteristics of Joint Branded product Advertising the evaluation of advertising campaigns with regard to the joint branded product is positive. Baumgarth (2003) HIgh Retail Acceptance retailer acceptance is high Volckner and Sattler (2006) NA Fit constituent brands/products Degree of Complimentariness the constituent brands are highly complimentary regarding an attitudeof the joint branded product Park et al. (1996) Medium Brand fit Brand fit of the constituents brand is high Simonin and Ruth (1998) Baumgarth (2003) High Product fit Product fit of the product categories of constituents brandsis high Simonin and Ruth (1998) Baumgarth (2003) Huber (2005) HIgh Incongruence Partner brands are moderately incongruent under high involvement conditions. Walchi (1996) Medium Fit constituent brands with Joint branded product Fit of constituents brands and Joint branded product The fit between the brands and the joint branded product is high Hadjicharalambous(2001 Baumgarth (2003)) HIgh Person specific variables Product involvement Involvement with the product category of the cobranded product is high Huber(2005) Medium Brand Orientation Brand orientation is high Huber(2005) Low Constituent brand involvement Constituent brand involvement is high Volckner and Sattler (2006) NA (Source: Helming, Huber Leeflang, 2008) 2.3.3 Spillover Effects Studies on joint branding that delivers spill-over effect are scarce. A structural equation model has been developed by Simonin Ruth (1998) that displays consumers attitude towards the joint branded product, influencing positive attitude towards each partner brand. These authors have also proved that the brand that are less familiar in the market gains weak impact on the consumer attitude by the joint branded product (Lafferty, 2004). Baumgrath (2003) states that, great brand stability has less image erosion due to unfavourable extension, which may deliver weak spill over effect. Joint branded products may increase evaluation of an unknown brand if those unknown brand are joint with well known brand. A joint branded product which has two high equity partners can get a win-win potential, which can lead to great spill over effect. Brands with low brand equity gain the higher benefit from the joint branding and that carrying high brand equity does not suffer down grading of reputation, even if they are joined with a lower equity partner (Washburn, 1999; Washburn et al. 2000; 2004). Vaidyanathan Aggarwal (2000) states that the brand equity of a national brand does not decrease if collaborated with the unknown private brand. Musante (2000) finds that a joint branded products improves its evaluation if it cooperates with the second brand which is perceived to be higher in that dimension. Table 3; Success factor for spill over effects Success factor for spill Spill over effect on one/both brand(s) Source over effect are stronger more positive if.. Characteristics of constituent brand(s) Brand Awareness Brand awareness of one of the constituent brand is high Voss Tanssuhaj (1999) Brand Personality/attitude The brand personality of one of the constituent brand is positive Musante (2000) Brand Equity The brand equity of one of the constituent brands is high Washburn (1999); Vaidyanath Aggarwal (2000); Washburn (2000; 2004) Brand Familiarity The brand familiarity of the constituent brand is low Simonin Ruth (1998) Brand stability The brand stability of the constituent brands is low Baumgarth(2003) Success factor for Spill over effect Spill over effect on one/both brand(s) are stronger /more positive if.. Source Charac

The Neural Score for Language and Related Action :: Biology Essays Research Papers

The Neural Score for Language and Related Action In the web page, GESTURAL EQUIVALENCE (EQUIVALENTS) OF LANGUAGE (http://www.percep.demon.co.uk/gesture.htm) , the development of language with respect to movements of the arms and hands are discussed. It is proposed that there are certain neural patterns, a score, to these movements that correspond to certain sounds. One can get so general as to say that there is one pattern of movement for each phoneme in language. Phonemes are the basic sounds of which a spoken language is constructed. The fact that there are hand movements gestures if you will, that follow the same patterns as vocal utterances have many effects. Neural scores become more evident, the same initial brain patterns control speaking and gesturing. This is known as The Motor Theory of Language Origin and Function. It also has an interesting influence on the expression of scores themselves. It also explains much infant behavior, such as mimicking. The Motor Theory of Language Origin and Function holds that patterns for specific motor activity are the same patterns as those for speech. As for the neurobiological interpretation for the evolution of language and speech, this says a lot. As the neural patterns for certain arm movements became more and more specific; the effects of these patterns, when applied to the vocal apparatus became more and more specific. This specificity lead to the development of the phonemes of all human language. There are also similarities between the motion produced and the meaning of the word (see attached picture). What is amazing about this is the fact that many different languages have words with the same meaning that have similar movements, even if the words are not similar. Also, the fact that common gestures, the composite of a few of the simple gesture movements, change between languages enforces the idea that the movements vary with the phoneme, not the word. An interesting effect that this theory has when parts are applied to all neural activity is that certain neural patterns, scores can be applied to many different parts and the same results can be seen. For instance, in this web page, it is proposed that the human body can produce the same signature using hands, the feet, nose, or even forehead. Although it is difficult for a human to master this all at one time, if it is needed, the same neural pattern for the movement of the right hand with a writing implement can be applied to one of many other places on the body.

Reading and Writing Strategies Essay

|Strategy |Activity |Assessment | |Prior Knowledge: To make connection to what one already |Make a word web of information that has |Create a concept map showing key ideas. | |know. Lay a foundation which new facts, ideas and |been discussed. | | |concepts can be develop. | |Assess prior knowledge by asking | | |Share information. |questions. | | |Create a T-Chart with what students would | | | |like to know about the subject and what I | | | |now know. | | |Prediction: Predicting involves thinking ahead and |Ask question about each picture to elicit |Write prediction in reading logs. | |anticipating information and event that take place. |response that require them to make | | | |inferences. |Students complete a prediction sheet as a| | | |formative assessment. Students share what| | | |they learned. | |Summarizing: Process of identifying and writing the main |Writing in journal as to how they think |Write a short summary of the material. | |ideas that unite ideas into a coherent whole. |the story will end or what will take place| | | |at a certain point in the material. |Read a passage from the material and | | | |write a summary. | | |Give an oral summary of their version of | | | |what take place. | | | | | | |Generate Question: The practice of asking what, when, |Students look at the title and write |Create a short answer for discussion | |where, why, what will happen, how and who question. |question as to what, when and where. |question. | | | | | | |Ask question before reading, during |Asks questions that would likely | | |reading and after reading. |encourage a response that is focused, | | |â€Å"Engage class in pre discussion Students |detailed and interesting. | | |will make predictions about the text by | | | |asking effective before reading questions |Rubric can be used to evaluate the | | |to improve reading comprehension† |quality of the questions created by the | | |((Teacher vision, n. d). |student. | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |Fluency: The ability to read text smoothly, accurately |Readers’ Theater |Running Records | |and with expression. |Students read |Retelling the main idea and supporting | | |aloud from a script |details, the sequence of events, | | |and bring the |characters, setting and plot. | | |characters and | | | |action to life. | | | | | | | |Tape assisted | | | |reading | | | |The students listen | | | |to a recording of a | | | |story or text and | | | |reads along. | | | | | | | |Partner Reading | | | |Read aloud with a | | | |partner and partner | | | |give feedback. | | |Word-Attack Strategies: Help students to decode, | |Read list of sight words and check for | |pronounce and understands unfamiliar words. |Sound Out the Word |pronunciation and decoding. Give students| | |Start with the first letter, |one minute to read list of words. | | |and say each letter- | | | |Sound out loud. | | | | | | | |Blend the sounds | | | |together and try to say |Look for base words and blend the | | |The word. |beginning or ending sounds to sound out | | | |words. | | |Look for Chunks in the Word | | | | | | | |Look for familiar letter chunks. They may | | | |be sound/symbols, prefixes, suffixes, | | | |endings, whole words, or base words. | | | | | | | |Read each chunk by | | | |Itself. Then blend the chunks together and| | | | | | | |Sound out the word. | | |Visualize: Students will learn to visualize the details|Analyze what they read. |Select a picture and relate the details | |of a text. They will use other sensory images like | |of the picture. | |dramatizing and drawing to help them better understand |Drawing during reading. | | |what they are reading. | | | | | | | Writing Strategies |Strategy |Activity |Assessment | |Prewriting: The stage where students begin the |Brainstorm ideas |Use a graphic organizer to plan writing. | |writing process by creating ideas for |Choose a topic | | |writing. |Plan and organize information | | | |Create an outline | | |Drafting: The stage where students put their |Write a draft |Put their ideas on paper | |ideas in writing. |Students put their ideas in writing and correct| | | |later. | | |Revising: Draft is reread and improvements are |Add information when needed |The teacher provides feedback according to the | |made. |Delete unnecessary information |rubric. | | |Organize paragraphs | | |Proofreading: Students read and make |Students reread their papers for errors. |The teacher provides feedback according to the | |corrections. | |rubric. | | |Partner up with another student and proofread | | | |each other paper using a red pen and circle | | | |errors. | | | | | | |Final Draft: Student final paper before |. |Consult teacher for feedback. | |publishing. Consult teacher for feedback. |Have another student read and one listen for | | | |main idea and supporting details. |Compare writing against writing rubric. | |Sequence: The order in which events happen. |Rewrite an event how they happen. | | |Writers help their reader understand what | |Students relate three things that happen at | |happens in story. | |school. List the events out of order. Have | | | |students write the events in order using first,| | | |next and last. | | | | | | | |Student writes a paragraph explaining their | | | |morning routines by using time-order words. | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |Publishing: Students share their writing with |Students design a book cover and create their |Make a final coy using best handwriting. | |others or the class. |own original book. Use text and pictures to | | | |establish their ideas. |Publish student’s paper by display it outside | | | |of the classroom for others to read. | Reference TeacherVision: http://www. teachervision. fen. com/lesson-plan/reading- comprehension/48697. html#ixzz1mGdBZfRx Tompkins, G. E. (2010). Literacy for the 21st Century: A Balance Approach. Fifth ed. Allyn & Bacon.

Primary Stakeholders of Google Inc Essay

Introduction The American multinational enterprise, Google Inc., predominately leading the globe in internet services and products. They provide online advertising technologies, search engine, cloud storage, applications and other software. Their customers are advertising agencies and large businesses who pay to be exposed on the many free services Google offers to internet consumers. The largest shareholders Brin Sergey and Larry Page, founded Google while attending Stanford University. Google is the most universally used internet search engine, which allows them to gather interests and information about the consumers using their free services. Advertisers spend billions to strategically place their ads through Google because the free Google services accumulates personal interests and information needed to identify consumer demographics on the internet. In recent years the government and general public have raised concern about consumer privacy, as well as, the monopolistic presence in the internet market. Their shareholders are predominately internal making any external influence to the company improbable. Google employees are carefully selected and generally consist of newly graduated software geniuses; recently the media has criticized Google for the majority of their employees being Caucasian and Asian males. Google Inc. has a responsibility to manage its operations to maximize shareholders profits, but how well does it treat the other four primary stakeholders: the government, employees, customers, and general public. (Google, n.d.) Government Google has gained the government’s attention through multiple investigations over the years. In 2011, Google government officials from Europe joined the United States Congress to bring antitrust investigations against the Company. The next year in 2012, the Federal Trade Commission, FTC, conducted an investigation to gather evidence suggesting Google is a monopoly. Apple competes through SIRI and the app store as alternative search methods to  Google. Amazon holds the lead in product searches and Facebook is commonly used to search for trusted customer reviews by friends. The FTC was unsuccessful in proving their monopoly case and Google still dominates the internet/ computer market easily eliminating any start up competition. The Google business model makes sure no shareholder has a vote that could significantly impact the company, but the way media, government, and the majority of web users, interpret their activity could influence the company’s objectives. The FTC government agency has the influential power to investigate and bring media attention to the topic of Google’s seemingly unfair advantage in their market (Singer, 2012). Customers Approximately 99% of Google’s revenues are derived from businesses advertising on the free services it provides users. In Google’s system many advertisers bid on keywords. Popular keywords like â€Å"Miami Florida† are sold for much higher â€Å"value-per-click† than other less popular search topics. This revenue method allows Google to attract both large corporations and small business to place advertisements. The free services provided for Google users has destroyed markets. Decreasing the demand for products/ services like GPS, road atlas, and current traffic status by allowing the free anytime access to Google Maps. Google distracts its users with free services that make their life easier when Googles actual intent is selling individual attention and information about the users to advertisers. Google users are the product and not the customer. Through Google user’s searches and personal information like passwords saved in google chrome or contacts from gmail accounts, Google can deliver a product to advertisers tailored to their exact needs; people looking for shoes are delivered to shoe sellers, and people located in a certain town are delivered to local restaurants (Newman, 2011). Shareholders Google Inc. is a huge company owning 66 percent of its shares leaving 34 percent of the company owned by external shareholders. Founder Brin Sergey owns the largest amount of shares by an Individual at 21.8 million shares. There are less than five major external shareholders are institutions such as, FMR LLC, Vanguard Group INC, State Street Corp, Price T Rowe Associates INC, and Barclays Global Investors UK Holdings LTD. Unlike Microsoft, Intel,  and Apple; Google does not give cash back to its shareholders. Amazon and Facebook also do not yield cash dividends, but they are not as large, mature or as profitable as Google. If Google wanted to increase its shares a capital return program could be attractive to new investors. The cost of Google offer such a program would mean applying a payout of about 1.5 to 2.5 percent to compete with its peers. Google has three classes of shares: Class A gets one vote per share, Class B gets 10 votes per share, while Class C receives no voting privileges. Class B shares are only held by company insiders so Brin Sergey, Larry Page, and Eric Schmidt own 92.5 percent of these shares, thus the majority vote (Niu, 2015). Employees Google is universally acclaimed as a great place to work. Its stock has soared 674% since its inception in August 2004. Their offices abound with areas designed to promote interaction, like a bowling alley in the California office or a pub lounge in the Ireland office. The search engine company provides its employees with a great health plan, legal aid, travel assistance, and a college reimbursement plan. If an employee dies, Google will continue to pay 50% of the deceased’s salary to his or her family for a decade (keep in mind they higher new graduates with an expected long life ahead of them). The California headquarters lobby is decorated with lava lamps, a piano, and search query projections posted on the wall. There are colorful fun exercise balls and bicycles for physical fitness in the hallways. Google receives 3 million applications annually and only higher about 0.2%, statistically Ivy League schools have a higher acceptance rate than Google. Engineers make up the majority of Googles employees and their salaries range from $ 100 thousand to $ 200 thousand. Engineering interns make approximately $ 7 thousand monthly (Unknown, 2014). Over all Google is more than generous when it comes to the treatment of their employees and promotes job low turnover (Waggoner, 2013). General Public According to Forbes magazine in 2013 four companies tied for first in corporate social responsibility: Microsoft, The Walt Disney Company, Google and BMW (Smith, 2013). Google has gained its popularity though the free services it provides all Google users. They have about $62.3 billion in cash and even after subtracting out its long and short term debt it has $57.2  billion. The majority of its profits, $41.8 billion, are held in foreign subsidiaries for tax avoidance. Being a technology based company, replacing hardcopies with electronic documents saves the company money as well as the preservation of the environment. Therefore google can brag about its efforts to achieve â€Å"green† status whether they are simply eliminating supply costs or have a general concern for the environment. Google has minimized the environmental impact of their services. Their carbon footprint is practically zero, but it doesn’t need an access amount of environmental resources (Google, 2015). Conclusion Google is a young, expanding, and profitable company. The government is concerned and continually investigating Google because of its controversial monopoly in the search engine market and antitrust based on the selling of user information. The general public and government should be concerned that Google invests approximately two –thirds of its cash overseas to avoid tax laws in the United States. The advertisement customers that Google provides as their revenue generating services are given information tailored to view ads strategically and that makes Google more successful than other internet marketing company. The shareholders of Google are mostly internal owners; no capital return programs have been established and all impacting votes are controlled by the internal shareholders only. The employees are treated extremely well compared to companies across the globe. Google will continue to grow based on its business plan, which brilliantly manipulates the general public users into thinking they are getting services for free while they make billions by selling adverting companies the information they want without breaking any laws. Google could treat the general public and government stakeholders better by improving user privacy and cease avoiding taxes. Bibliography Google. (n.d.). Retrieved from Wikipedia.org: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google Google. (2015, 3). The Big Picture. Retrieved from Google: http://www.google.com/green/bigpicture/#/ Newman, N. (2011, May 29). You’re Not Google’s Customer. Retrieved from The Blog: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/nathan-newman/youre-not-googles-custome_b_84159