Jennifer Anniston and John Break Up Again

Search for local singles


We are just getting past media scrutiny of Jennifer Aniston's angst with Brad Pitt and Angelina Jolie, but there will be no down time for Jennifer Aniston. Jennifer Aniston and John Mayer have called it quits, for the second time.

A friend of Aniston told Hello Magazine, that the decision to break up with John Mayer was hers. Jennifer returned last week from promoting "Marley & Me" in the UK and, according to reports, broke off the relationship which had become cold after their Oscar date in the limelight. We were told the famous shot of her smile toward Brangelina was "all for John," who was sitting behind them. Was it really "all for John?" or was it, like all of her publicity stunts all for Jen. Jennifer Aniston is one of the slickest celebrities when it comes to getting free PR via true life drama.

I can't help but wonder if Jennifer Aniston's on-again-off-again relationship with John Mayer will work to enhance Jen's PR as her new film, "He's Just Not that in to You," is released.

Search for local singles

No one in Hollywood would manipulate the public like that. Would they?

Jennifer Anniston has yet to make public comment. When she does it will be well planned and well stated. Sweet, sweet Jen is always above the frackus. She does an incredible job playing the innocent, jilted woman, only this time Jennifer Anniston is the jilter and Mayer is allegedly the jilted.

John Mayer appears nonchalant about the second of his break-ups with Jennifer Aniston, especially for someone who was dumped. He took credit (or blame?) for the first break-up with Aniston, but doesn't seem bothered by this break-up.

John Mayer spent time last night on Twitter making up six word stories, a la Hemmingway, with fans. I guess "he's just not that in to" Jennifer.

Aniston continues to increase film credits. She is a good enough actress, but I had to laugh when Hello Magazine reported that she has mentioned wanting to play a 007 girl.

She may actually be under consideration for a role with Bond. This would take James Bond to an all new level --- from which I'm not sure it would ever recover.

Meanwhile, back in the romance arena, word has it that she has set her sights on British heart throb Daniel Craig.

Maybe Jennifer Aniston will do us all a favor and just move to the UK altogether.

To Spend or not?

FREE TO FLIRT with you!


During difficult times economically, we can not blame the director of marketing who wants to reduce advertising costs or to extract a higher value from them.Meanwhile, cutting massively the advertising spending is not an intelligent strategy. For an effective promotion, companies must invest in the right brands, in the right areas and send exciting messages through appropriate channels.

Few of the companies that have a portfolio of brands designed for a variety of market segments for several regions, differentiate their investments based on strategic priorities.The traditional process of establishing a marketing budget suffers from 3 drawbacks. First, they allocate a limited importance to the major differences between the intensity and sensitivity of appearing between market segments and different regions. Secondly, they do not recognize the important choices that have to be made regarding the growth, the development and strategies for each brand, market segment and region. Thirdly, the market share and the impact of investments in advertising on profits are not measured. For this reason, target market shares are not related to the advertising budgets.

For a better allocation of investment in advertising is essential a zero-based budget approach.This approach has the following practical observations:

- Minimum investment levels. Investment in advertising under the minimum level are usually ineffective and is it better not be made at all in this case.

- The costs of advertising. This can vary considerably from one category to another. Can vary from 5% of income up to 45% of revenue.

- The answer to advertising categories. The effects of excess investment in maintaining market share in one segment or another. The investments needed to gain 1 percent of the market share in one year, for example, can vary from 2 to 4 times the level of maintenance.

- Market share of the company. The necessary investments in advertising made in order to maintain the market share (maintenance level) are directly related to the scale and the competitive position. When the relative market share doubles, for example, the investments needed in advertising to maintain the market share may be reduced by 30%.


FREE TO FLIRT with you!


In case of a competitive position that is stronger, belonging to a market with massive growth and the existence of some beneficial conditions, the company could consider an investment strategy.First, there should be a framework of solid innovations, together with other elements of the marketing mix to support the growth.Secondly, the consumers of the market segment should be quite sensitive to advertising, so that the additional investments be able to transform into an increased market share. If these conditions do not exist, a strategy developed to maintain the market share would be the best solution.

If a brand has a weak position on a market which recorded a growth or a contested position on a market with a lower growth, the company should invest in order to gain a market growth or to collect.If the intensity of advertising is significant on the relevant market segment, a collection strategy is preferable.Finally, a collection is suitable if a brand has a weak position on a market which registered a low growth.

This methodology can be a good tool to support a more aggressive difference of the investment levels, for a portfolio of brands designed for a variety of market segments and regions. Companies that have used this approach have forceful released almost 20% of investments in advertising.They could, instead, focus their spending to the areas where they were having a greater impact.

However, in order to implement this approach, the companies must be prepared to make some fundamental changes:

- Establishment of an evaluation based on the facts of the total advertising expenditure in terms of market share and profit impact.

- Shift from budgeting aggregates and the free discussion based on facts on the allocation of advertising expenditures (explicit involvement of the general manager and financial manager).

Before deciding to distinguish the levels of investment, the company should allocate the best people for the activities of collecting and maintaining the brand. In many companies, managing brands is perceived as being beneficial for a career manager. For this reason, most brands and segments are identified as having growth opportunities, even if the featured profitability of the strategies of maintaining and collecting can be much higher. The fact is that the defense position of leadership on the market, using limited resources and maximizing profit on a market that fails, having almost no resource, often requires a higher level of effort and talent than to grow the market share in an expanding market, using unlimited resources.

You’re future success is just a click away!


Finally, it might be the right moment to evaluate the contracted advertising agency. The relationship between a client and an advertising contracted advertising agency follows also a life cycle, the inevitable pattern of growth and decline. It seems that your agency lost its original booming? Maybe it became too big?Does it produce sad campaigns, that don't excite anyone?Emphasis goes to collateral services, in order to hide the agency's creative bankruptcy? If you recognize the signs, it might be time to have a new start!

World newest Billionaires

Advance Your Career in 2009 with a degree in a Growing Field. Start Here!

The old saying, "The rich get richer..." isn't always true in an economic downslide that is a recession and depression in our times. This year, Forbes announces it's well-known "Rich List", called Forbes World's Billionaires List 2009. Comparing my copy of last year's list to this year's list, it's clear that the rich aren't getting richer, and in fact, the world's richest people saw more than a two TRILLION dollar decline in total net worth for 2009 compared to 2008. Of course, sadly, Yahoo! reported that 18 members of the Forbes Rich List who were on the list last year died, and therefore are no longer included on the list. Death and depression both can cause a member of the Forbes Rich List to fall right off the list.To get a complete copy of the list, you'll have to pick up a copy of Forbes Magazine, like I did, but I can share some interesting people who made the Forbes Rich List.

 

First, let's look at the first woman on the list, Alice Walton. Ms. Walton is part of the Walmart heirs, and she is currently 59 years old. Her estimated net worth is over 17 billion. She was not the only 'Walton' family member on that list, and in fact, the Forbes Rich List has many Walton heirs and their families. Guess Walmart, a discount supermarket and hard goods store, is thriving, even in and especially in a tough economy.

 

Also on the Forbes Rich List, you will find Michael Dell, of Dell Computers weighing in on the Rich List at a cool $12.3 billion. Mr. Dell is among the youngest members of the Forbes Rich List, at age 44.

 

In fact, many of the Forbes Rich List members are over the age of 60, with a considerable number of the top 50 richest billionaires in the world over 70-80 years of age. Another interesting fact to note is the number of times some of the Forbes Rich List members have been married. Many on the list are stated to have been married three, four or more times. The Forbes Rich List does note the ones who were widowed, and then how many times each have been divorced, whether or not they are remarried, and how many children they have.

Makes me wonder... perhaps the rich aren't as happy as us poor working class might think!

Like Mr. Dell, other computer or internet related Forbes Rich List members include Larry Page and Sergey Brin, both making the list from Google.

Advance Your Career in 2009 with a degree in a Growing Field. Start Here!



Again, much younger members of the Forbes Rich List, being 36 and 35 respectively.

 

Then comes our Microsoft Billionaires on the Forbes Rich List. Steve Ballmer, Microsoft, weighs in at $11 billion. Paul Allen, also Microsoft, comes in just under that at $10.5 billion. I wonder if he really missed that .5 billion he has less than Allen? So is there any guess who made the number one spot on the Forbes Rich List? It came as no surprise to me that, once again, Bill Gates was on the Forbes Rich List. In fact, William (Bill) Gates III is once again considered the richest man in the world. Even though he has stepped down from running Microsoft, and even though he reportedly lost $18 billion last year, he's still capping out at over $40 billion, claiming him that coveted top spot.