Grounds Zero A Starbucks

Doing business means being ready to face some highs and lows. Even among the titans of the modern here is hardly a single entrepreneurship that has never experienced a failure or at least lacked success among certain type of public. However, when it comes to such a famous company as Starbucks, one could have hardly believed that there are places in the world where there are little to no people who know about the company.Advertising We will write a custom research paper sample on Grounds Zero: A Starbucks-free Italy. Bloomberg Businessweek specifically for you for only $16.05 $11/page Learn More Still, the sad truth is that in Italy, most people have no idea about what Starbucks is and what services it offers. According to the conclusions in the article written by Stephan Faris, Schultz, the company director, the company should try promoting their production among the Italian people, yet the attitude of the latter towards coffee as a quick drink made in b etween work can ruin the entire campaign. One of the basic complexities concerning the situation is that when entering the Italian market, Starbucks will have not one, but several obstacles to overcome. The first and, perhaps, the least significant problem for the company is that at present, there is hardly a single person in Italy who is aware of the company’s existence, not to mention the services that it provides. However, with a decent promotion campaign, Starbucks will quickly become well-known among the local people. What is going to motivate people to choose Starbucks instead of their traditional cheap coffee is a more difficult question. Hence, it is necessary to develop an advertisement that will emphasize Starbucks’ advantages as compared to other coffee-producing companies. Finally, the fact that the Italians do not understand the culture of â€Å"flow food† (Faris, 2012) might become an obstacle. Hence, Starbucks will have to come up with a decent le gend of their drink. While the widely accepted image that the Starbucks has, i.e., beverage that one can savor to taste the entire palette, will most probably not suit the values of the Italian people, a legend with a more energy in it is likely to do the trick. Nevertheless, one must admit that the company has a certain strategic advantage for entering the Italian market, and that advantage must be used for the Starbucks’ benefit. First of all, it is necessary to keep in mind that the Starbucks’ products have the finest quality, which cannot be considered the feature of the traditional Italian coffee companies. Putting the emphasis on the specific taste and the gourmet flair, Starbucks can possibly become rather successful in the Italian market. However, as the article mentions, low price is what exactly attracts clientele to the Italian coffee producing companies. Therefore, it will be reasonable for Starbucks to offer a more flexible pricing policy in the Italian ma rket, with a focus in quality that one cannot see in other companies.Advertising Looking for research paper on business economics? Let's see if we can help you! Get your first paper with 15% OFF Learn More Judging by the above-mentioned, to conquer the Italian coffee market, Starbucks will have to come up with completely new strategies and develop new maneuvers. One of the most obvious moves at present is to shift the emphasis from the coffee being an elite drink to a tasty drink. Therefore, the social strata that consume coffee the most will realize that the delicious product is actually marketed for them. However, rethinking the key methods that can be applied to the promotion of Starbucks in Italy, one must mention that in the given case, a more subtle promotion campaign will probably do a better job. As it has been mentioned, Italians have a different vision of world and its pleasures, and a traditional Starbucks approach towards advertizing can confuse the Italia n target audience even more. Hence, a less pompous and more casual-style commercial will have a better effect. According to the recent news, a home-made commercial of Starbucks coffee has been much more successful than all the advertizing campaigns held so far by Starbucks in Italy: according to the recent news, â€Å"the advertising poster announcing the imminent arrival of a Starbucks store last week in Milan† (Lawrence, 2012) has been spotted. However, it was soon revealed that the latter â€Å"was just a prank by a design student† (Lawrence, 2012).  Hence, it seems that there are reasons to promote Starbucks in Italy again. Changing the strategy a bit and adjusting to the Italian market, the company is likely to succeed. Aiming for the public other than the traditional Starbucks elite, the company will definitely win the clients’ preferences. Starbucks definitely has chances in Italy; however, the legend behind the drink must be modified somehow to fit the vision of the Italian people. Following on the heels of a traditional Italian perception of a coffee break as a two-minute long quick warm-up before getting down to work, the whole Starbucks image can fall flat. Developing a more flexible idea of their trademark, on the other hand, can become the company’s trump card, and they will be able to play it most efficiently when the advertizing campaign is over and people are thrilled about the new experience. Thus, Starbucks will be able to cross the finishing line and reach ultimate success. Reference List Faris, S. (2012). Grounds zero: A Starbucks-free Italy. Bloomberg Businessweek.  Retrieved from ProQuest.Advertising We will write a custom research paper sample on Grounds Zero: A Starbucks-free Italy. Bloomberg Businessweek specifically for you for only $16.05 $11/page Learn More Lawrence, J. (2012). Drinking with the enemy – could Starbucks make it in Italy? Web. This research paper on Grounds Zero: A Starbucks-free Italy. Bloomberg Businessweek was written and submitted by user Bryant T. to help you with your own studies. You are free to use it for research and reference purposes in order to write your own paper; however, you must cite it accordingly. You can donate your paper here.

Book Of Mormon Is False Essays - Book Of Mormon Witnesses

Book Of Mormon Is False Essays - Book Of Mormon Witnesses Book Of Mormon Is False An Examination of the Book of Mormon and its Chief Witnesses Joseph Smith, the founder of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints claimed that he received the Book of Mormon as a revelation from God. He said that the heavenly being Moroni appeared to him and directed him to some buried gold plates which contained ancient writings. His task then, was to translate these ancient writings with the help of seer stones which were also buried with the gold plates. Smith received strict directions from the heavenly being that he was to show the plates to no one except for appointed individuals. The Book of Mormon in its preface identifies these as eleven persons: the three witnesses and the eight witnesses. A student of religion would now be interested in knowing something about these witnesses, for only then can we evaluate their worth as witnesses. The Book of Mormon names the three witnesses as Oliver Cowdery, David Whitmer, and Martin Harris. The book also names the eight witnesses as follows: Christian Whitmer, Jacob Whitmer, Peter Whitmer, Jr., John Whitmer, Hiram Page, Joseph Smith, Sr., Hyrum Smith, and Samuel H. Smith. Who were these persons? And what can we know about them that would give us reason to either believe or disbelieve them as witnesses in this most important matter? A good place to look for information would be the publications of the Mormons themselves, since they should more than anyone else be interested in preserving histories of their principal witnesses. This approach could be used at least as a starting point for gathering information before further scrutiny and investigative work. In this study I would like to turn to two books published by the Mormons to find information about the chief witnesses. The first book is the Doctrine and Covenant, a book of authoritative scriptures for the Mormons. The second book is Church History Timeline by William W. Slaughter, published by Desert Book Company, in Salt Lake City, Utah, 1996. What follows is a brief look at the information these books contain about the witnesses and other key persons associated with the Book of Mormon. My intention here is not to provide a summary of the entire body of information but only to show that what we learn from these books do not give us much confidence in the witnesses and hence in the Book of Mormon itself. The first of the three witnesses is Oliver Cowdery, a rural schoolteacher. He was a scribe to Joseph Smith, and associate president of the Church. In April 12,1838 he was excommunicated from the Mormon Church. He was rebaptized ten years later in November 1848 and died March 3, 1850. Reading this, one must wonder why this chief witness was excommunicated during the lifetime of Joseph Smith his prophet, and be allowed back in the church after his prophet died. Smith was martyred on June 27, 1844. The second of the three witnesses is Martin Harris. He was a prosperous farmer who was known as industrious, honest, and generous. It was his $3000 that financed the first 5,000 copies of the Book of Mormon. But, as William Slaughter informs us: Harris clashed with Church leaders over monetary practices and was excommunicated in December 1837; he was rebaptized November 27, 1842. (Church History Timeline, p. 5). The same Martin Harris was given 116 pages of the book of Mormon after Joseph Smith had translated them with the help of the seer stones. But then he allowed wicked men to take these pages for the purpose of corrupting the translation and then to accuse Joseph Smith of falsehood in his prophetic claim. Why would Martin Harris do this? The Doctrine and Covenants explains that he was a wicked man who sought to destroy Joseph Smith. Joseph Smith relates in his history how Martin Harris had previously taken sample characters from the book of Mormon along with the relevant translation of those characters and received confirmation of these in New York City from a professor Charles Anton and Dr. Mitchell. These men attested that the characters were true characters of the Egyptian, Chaldaic, Assyriac and Arabic, and that the translation so far done by Joseph Smith was accurate. Now, one may wonder why did Harris, after he had received this confirmation, should seek to destroy Joseph Smith. And what value should we attach to the testimony of a man who sought to destroy one whom he believed was God's prophet? Since the Doctrine and Covenants call Harris a wicked man,