Mediaboss Marketing

DUBLIN--(BUSINESS WIRE)--

Research and Markets(http://www.researchandmarkets.com/research/624cdf/hospitality_market) has announced the addition of Elsevier Science and Technology's new report "Hospitality Marketing. Edition No. 2" to their offering.

Written specifically for students taking marketing modules within a hospitality course it contains examples and case studies that show how ideas and concepts can be successfully applied to a real-life work situation. It emphasises topical issues such as sustainable marketing, corporate social responsibility and relationship marketing. It also describes the impact that the internet has had on both marketing and hospitality, using a variety of tools including a wide range of internet learning activities.

New UK and international case studies that prepare you for work in a global industry Activities for each chapter that will assess your understanding and marketing knowledge A new inside cover feature that links real-life marketing campaigns to the book's case studies

Key Topics Covered:

Part A: Introduction: Introduction to hospitality marketing

Part B: Pre-encounter marketing

Marketing research

Understanding and segmenting customers

Competitive strategies

Developing the offer

Locating the offer

Pricing the offer

Distributing the offer

Communicating the offer

Part C: Encounter marketing

Managing the physical environment

Managing service processes

Managing customer-contact employees

Part D: Post-encounter marketing

Managing customer satisfaction

Relationship marketing

Part E: The marketing plan

Marketing Planning.

For more information visit http://www.researchandmarkets.com/research/624cdf/hospitality_market.

Continue reading here:
Research and Markets: Hospitality Marketing. Edition No. 2 2011 Shows You How to Apply the Principles of Marketing ...

Published: 2/25/2012 9:14 PM | Last update: 2/25/2012 9:14 PM By Cal Thomas

Pat Buchanan might have seen the end of the line coming at MSNBC when, last month, network president Phil Griffin commented on his latest book, "Suicide of a Superpower," by saying, "I don't think the ideas that (Buchanan) put forth are appropriate for the national dialogue, much less on MSNBC."

----------advertisement----------- When Buchanan was let go last week after 10 years as a commentator on the network, no one was surprised.

I don't agree with some of Buchanan's ideas, especially regarding Jews, his questioning of whether World War II had to happen or whether the United States should be involved militarily in the Middle East, but he has every right to his ideas, as we all have the right to our own. It's called free speech.

The approach to free speech should be like the one taken by the ACLU in 1977 when neo-Nazis made plans to march through the Jewish suburb of Skokie, Ill. While deploring their views, the ACLU defended the group's right to express itself.

Today, is censorship the new pluralism?

Actor Ben Jones, who starred as "Cooter" on the television show "The Dukes of Hazzard," wrote to tell me about a decision by NASCAR to ban the car known as the "General Lee" from appearing at the Sprint Cup series race at Phoenix next month. The image of the Confederate flag on the car's roof, said NASCAR spokesman David Higdon, "...is not something that should play an official role in our sport as we continue to reach out to new fans and make NASCAR more inclusive."

Jones said in a recent statement, "At a time when tens of millions of Americans are honoring their Union and Confederate ancestors during this Sesquicentennial of the Civil War, NASCAR has chosen to dishonor those Southerners who fought and died in that terrible conflict by caving to 'political correctness' and the uninformed concerns of corporate sponsors.

"This is also an extraordinary insult to rural Southerners, who are NASCAR's oldest and most fervent fan base, and it sends a message against inclusion and against the need for diversity."

Is conformity the new diversity?

Jones is not only an actor, but a former Democratic member of Congress from Georgia and a strong civil rights proponent.

When the U.S. Supreme Court upholds the burning of the American flag as free speech, while the free exercise of religion is being curtailed at many levels, is this not censoring a particular category of expression? Censorship is also moving beyond its classic definition into a new and even more dangerous area.

As The Daily Caller, a 24-hour news site founded by conservative pundit Tucker Carlson and former Cheney aide Neil Patel, has reported, a liberal group known as Media Matters has not only fed talking points to some reporters and opinion columnists, it has been campaigning to get people fired when they hold ideas with which the left disagrees. According to the Caller, Media Matters hired people to investigate the lives of Fox News employees and compiled an "enemies list." Media Matters didn't respond directly to the charges; its founder, David Brock, instead pointed to Reuters' criticism of the Caller's "bad journalism" and "lame propaganda" as the reason for Media Matters' silence.

These and many other attempts to suppress speech and force people into a universal and "acceptable" belief system harm freedom. Suppressing speech changes not a single mind. The freedom to debate ideas and present arguments in support of a position is what separates the United States from most other nations.

Do we want to become like countries that have the equivalent of "thought police," smothering speech and penalizing anyone who refuses to toe the party line? Should I be prevented from asking this question?Email Cal Thomas at tmseditors@tribune.com.

More here:
Is censorship the new pluralism?

Geneva, 24 February 2012. Skyguide adopted two new functions at its control centre in Dübendorf near Zurich on 23 February to support its controllers in their radar work. Switzerland`s air navigation service provider had already introduced these innovations at its Geneva control centre on 9 February.

The first of the new functions adopted is the Cleared Level Adherence Monitoring tool, or CLAM. This tool constantly monitors whether a flight actually keeps to the flight level it has been assigned by air traffic control. If the flight leaves this altitude, the controller responsible for it will be alerted to this immediately by a visual alarm. The second innovation is a tool which automatically calculates the precise separation between two aircraft that are on converging flight tracks. The tool thus shows the controller immediately whether they will need to issue any instructions to either flight - such as corrections to their speed or heading - to ensure that the requisite minimum separation is maintained.   

As is customary with operational changes of this kind, the capacity of the airspace concerned (i.e. above Eastern Switzerland) has been reduced as a safety precaution, and will gradually be restored over the next days. Skyguide has also taken steps to alleviate the impact of this short-term capacity reduction, including temporarily assigning more controllers than usual to the Dübendorf control centre to minimise any delays.

Skyguide is responsible for providing air navigation services within Swiss airspace and in the airspace of certain adjoining regions in neighbouring countries. The company guides the civil and military aircraft entrusted to its care - around 3,270 flights a day or 1.2 million a year - through the busiest and most complex airspace in Europe. Skyguide is a non-profit limited company which has its head office in Geneva. The majority of its shares are held by the Swiss Confederation. The company generated total operating revenue of over CHF 365 million in 2010, and employs some 1,400 people at 14 locations in Switzerland. Skyguide is also a member, together with its partner organizations in Belgium, France, Germany, Luxembourg and the Netherlands, of the FABEC initiative to create a common functional airspace block that will bring greater efficiency to Central Europe`s air traffic management services and activities.

The media release can be downloaded from the following link:

Media release (PDF)
This announcement is distributed by Thomson Reuters on behalf of Thomson Reuters clients.

The owner of this announcement warrants that:
(i) the releases contained herein are protected by copyright and other applicable laws; and
(ii) they are solely responsible for the content, accuracy and originality of the
information contained therein.

Source: skyguide via Thomson Reuters ONE
HUG#1588194

View post:
skyguide: New functions to assist radar controllers at skyguide's Dübendorf control centre

To borrow a presidential debate catch-phrase, there you go again.

As GOP presidential candidate Rick Santorum noted after Wednesday’s debate, the media’s game of late has been to 1) ask repeated questions of him and the other Republicans about their stance on birth control and 2) ask them why they’re talking so much about birth control.

Why do that? In an attempt to make Republicans look extreme and anti-woman. CNN commentator David Gergen even openly alleged it after the debate.

It has become clear that your main job as a voter in 2012 will be to not be fooled by the national media.

First things first: Despite their well-founded reservations regarding the birth control pill, none of the Republican candidates has any intent to make it less available. Period. End of report. They simply object to the Obama administration’s attempt to force people and institutions that are opposed to birth control and abortion-inducing “abortifacients” to offer such services to employees.

The Obama administration also has, with the help of a frothy lapdog media, somehow convinced some Americans that free birth control is now a civil right.

Meanwhile, as Newt Gingrich eloquently pointed out at the CNN debate, “Not once (in 2008) did anyone in the elite media ask why Barack Obama voted in favor of legalizing infanticide.”

It was the moment of an otherwise off-kilter debate, earning raucous audience approval – and for good reason: It’s true. However bluntly put, it’s true.

While a member of the Illinois state Senate in the early 2000s, Obama actually voted against a bill that would have prohibited the outright killing of infants born as a result of botched abortions.

Mr. Obama since has claimed the bill didn’t protect abortion rights under Roe v. Wade. But the truth is, it did: Abortion-preserving language similar to that in a federal law on the issue was inserted into the Illinois bill, and Obama still opposed it. Even though he claimed to support the similar federal law.

Even the liberal-leaning Factcheck.org has to admit it, writing, “Obama voted in committee against the 2003 state bill that was nearly identical to the federal act he says he would have supported ...” (emphasis added).

Likewise, in a RealClearPolitics.com article in 2008, Joel Mowbray concluded, “Mr. Obama contended that he ‘would have been completely in, fully in support of the federal bill that everybody supported,’ but that he voted against the 2003 Illinois bill because ‘that was not the bill that was presented at the state level.’ Except that it was.

“As it turns out ... the National Right to Life Committee wasn’t lying; Mr. Obama was.”

Regardless of whether you want to believe these things, just consider the incongruity of it all: Barack Obama gets a complete pass on actual votes against bills that would’ve protected born-alive babies from failed abortions – but the Republicans are hounded by theoretical questions about access to birth control that they have no plans to change.

Does that not seem a bit odd to you?

If only the media had the moral compass of, say, a high-schooler in Augusta.

Several at Aquinas High School held a “Shave ’em to Save ’em” hair cutting Wednesday – giving up their locks for lent and raising awareness for victims of abortion and a bit of money for the Augusta Care Pregnancy Center. The center provides loving help to women and girls in crisis pregnancies.

Kudos to students Nicholas Scicchitano and Garrett Merz for showing, as our newsroom put it, “sheer conviction.”

They may be boasting less hair for awhile, but at least these kids’ heads are on straight.

The national media could learn a thing or two from them.

Perspective being one of them.

Go here to see the original:
Don't be fooled

February 25, 2012

Users of social-networking websites such as Facebook are becoming less outgoing and increasingly guarded in terms of who they befriend and what contents are displayed on their pages, the Pew Internet & American Life Project reports in a new study.

The report, which was released Friday, says that approximately two-thirds of all Internet users use social networking websites. Of those individuals, 63% said that they had deleted individuals from their “friends” lists, up from 56% in 2009. Women (67%) were more likely to have deleted people from their networks than men (58%), and younger users were more likely to unfriend people than older social networkers, they discovered.

In addition, 44% said that they had deleted comments others posted on their profiles, an increase from 36% from three years ago, Barbara Ortutay of the Associated Press (AP) noted. Pew also reported that 37% of survey participants said that they had “untagged” themselves from photos, or removed identifying markers that can display the image on the “tagged” person’s account page. That was an increase of 7% from 2009.

“The Pew report also touches on the privacy settings people use for their SNS profiles,” said Reuters’ Ian Simpson. “The issue of online privacy has drawn increasing concerns from consumers, and the Obama administration has called for a ‘privacy bill of rights’ that would give users more control over their data.”

According to the report, 48% of social media users said that they had some difficulty figuring out how to manage their privacy controls, while 49% said that they do not have any difficulty doing so. Only 2% described managing privacy settings as “very difficult,” while 16% said they were “somewhat difficult” and 30% described the controls as being “not too difficult” to figure out.

Pew noted that 11% of all social network website users said that they had posted content that they regret, and according to Ortutay, men (15%) are more likely to have such “poster’s remorse” than women (8%). Additionally, the study found that 18-to-29 year old users (15%) are more likely to post content that they eventually regret than those of at least 50 years of age (5%).

“Fifty-eight percent of those surveyed said their main profile was set to be private so that only friends can see it,” Simpson said. “Another 19 percent said they had set their profile to partially private so that friends of friends can see it. Only 20 percent have made their profile completely public.”

The report was compiled following a telephone survey of 2,277 adults conducted by Princeton Survey Research Associates International between April 26 and May 22, 2011of last year, with information regarding teenage users coming from a previous telephone study involving those individuals and their parents, according to the AP.

“The findings come a day after the Obama administration called for stronger privacy protections for people who use the Internet, mobile devices and other technologies with increasingly sophisticated ways of tracking them,” said Ortutay.

—

On the Net:

Source: RedOrbit Staff & Wire Reports

See the original post here:
Privacy Concerns Rising Among Social Network Users