Get help from the best in academic writing.

Networking Assignment

Networking Assignment.

Ethernet is a common method of moving packets along a network.
Review the Advanced Ethernet Switching modes in your Business
Data Networks and Telecommunications textbook.
Write a 4– to 7-page paper describing these modes and how they
might be used in today’s global network environment.
Include the following in your paper:
• Distinguish the basics between channels and circuits.
• Explain the concept of Ohm’s law and its importance to
circuit troubleshooting.
• Compare circuit and packet-switched networks.
• Based on your readings, define the network protocols and
how they provide safety against communications failure.
• Identify which types of businesses would most benefit from
15
this type of technology.
• Provide examples of what currently available systems can be
enhanced and where additional opportunities exist.
• Explain how the current network architecture equipment can
be used or must be upgraded to allow for your recommended
uses
Format your paper consistent with APA guidelines.
Networking Assignment

The Centripetal Theory of Democratic Governance Essay. Introduction In their book “A centripetal theory of democratic governance” published in 2008, political scientists and leading researchers John Gerring and Strom Thacker attempt to develop a comprehensive analysis of the role of political institutions in developing good governance. Using an empirical study, the researchers sought to address the questions on why some democratic governments become more successful than others and the impact of various political institutions on the quality of good governance. With the help of empirical study to address these questions, the two researchers developed a relatively new theory in political science- the “centripetalism theory”- arguing that it contradicts the traditional dominant paradigm of decentralism. Nevertheless, the researchers have made several references to the consensus model of democracy that was previously developed by Arend Lijphart (27). In this case, it becomes evident that the two researchers attempt to build on the work of Lijphart. In fact, they conclude that their work can be viewed as a refinement or reconceptualization of the consensus model. They conclude that this is not a problem, arguing that they would rather be delighted if their theory is viewed in either way. Using an in-depth analysis of the arguments and the empirical study developed in this book, it is worth viewing Gerring and Thacker’s centripetalism theory as a refinement rather than reconceptualization of Lijphart’s consensus model. Brief review if Lijphart’s Concensus Theory First, it is important to review Lijphart’s consensus model and the centripetalism theory developed by Gerring and Thacker. Lijphart’s consensus model, which is one of the best protocols for analysis governance, democracy and the impact of political institutions, should be discussed first. In his 1999 book “Patterns of democracy: Government Forms and Performance in Thirty-Six Countries”, Professor Arend Lijphart develops a detailed analysis of the type and nature of democracies that have survived and applied in various parts of the world. He uses an empirical study with a sample of 36 countries from all over the world to examine the nature of various types of democracies and effectiveness of each method in achieving social, economic and political goals (Lijphart 62). The aim was to examine the types of governance systems that produce the required goals. In this model, these goals or measures of government efficiency were the expected outcomes in terms of economic growth, human development and social development. In addition, the idea was based on the assumption that the political system is the main causative factor that determines whether other social aspects such as the economy, social and human growth will occur and their directions. Moreover, Lijphart based his theory on the idea of democracy, leaving out other non-democratic styles of leadership. Brief review of centripetal theory First, it is important to develop a brief but in-depth review of the “centripetalism” theory developed by Gerring and Thacker in order to determine whether it refines or conceptualizes Lijpohart’s consensus model. In their book “a centripetal theory of democratic governance, the two researchers argue that their aim is to set forth a theory for democratic governance applicable to any and all political and social settings where multiparty competitions at the national and local politics are dominance. The authors argue against a number of previous theories. They use the term “centripetal” in reference to this combination. Noteworthy, they theory is limited to political institutions at the national level. First, unitary (rather than federal sovereignty) is needed in a country that seeks to achieve inclusive governance. Secondly, the element of parliamentary executive is better than a presidential system. Finally, the authors argue that a closed-list PR electoral system is needed instead of a preferential-vote or single member district system. The researchers then used an empirical study to tests this hypothesis. They tested the impact of the three institutions in a wide range of outcomes of governance to determine whether the three institutional needs have an impact of including various groups within the society as well as addressing their needs. According to the book, the results provide evidence that the three institutional elements of political institutionalization in centripetal system of governance show that the degree of achieving good governance is high in centripetal governance compared to other systems. Comparing Lijphart’s consensus theory and the centripetal theory In his analysis, the author uses statistical evidence to show that Westminster democracies are not more effective than democracies based on consensus. It assumes that the majorities have the right to form the government. Their interests are also addressed since they are well represented in the government. This is based on the idea of majoritarian, a popular method applied in most countries after independence in the 19th and 20th centuries. Although Lijphart analysis about five different patterns of democracies in the world, his main argument is that consensus democracy is better than the other forms due to a number of reasons (Lijphart 57). In chapters 14 to 17 of the book, Lijphart presents a statistical analysis and evidence to determine the impact of Westminster democracies in yielding different policy outcomes in a better and more consistent manner than consensus democracies. Using statistical evidence, the author uses a number of variables or economic outcomes like inflation, deflation, growth as well as corruption and other indicators of the effectiveness of political institutions in the countries tested in the study. For instance, in some variables or indicators such as inflation, the author’s statistics indicate that consensus democracies yield better outcomes than the Westminster democracies. On other indicators such as economic development and corruption, Lijphart’s model shows that consensus democracies to slightly better than Westminster democracies, an indication that the consensus democratization produces good outcomes in various parts of the world where they are applied, citing countries like Canada, Switzerland, Belgium and Germany. Specifically, Lijphart’s model revealed a number of special advantages of consensus democratization in dividend societies. For instance, the model reveals that consensus democratization has a major advantage in its attempt to include almost every segment of the society, where the majoritarian model is ignored. For instance, Lijphart’s statistical analysis indicates that majoritarian democracy has a negative impact of excluding a large segment of the total population in a country. A good number of examples rejected and excluding the opinion of up to 49.9% of the total population (Lijphart 138). This means that almost half of the total population in a given country is excluded from the policy making processes, despite having important contribution to the social and economic development. On the other hand, Gerring and Thacker have shown that they have no intention to refute Lijphart’s consensus theory at all. In fact, they have attempted to cite and reference a good number of ideas and methods used in Lijphart’s process of developing his theory. In addition, the conclusion that the consensus theory is the best and most applicable in achieving a political regime that includes the opinions, views, needs and interests of the minority in policy making has not been refuted. It is also worth noting that Gerring and Thacker have not attempted to support the previous claims that Westminster democracies are the best in achieving democratization of political and social institutional at the national and local level, neither have they attempted to refute the empirical method that Lijphart used to develop his consensus theory. Instead, they have borrowed from most of his ideas, especially in their focus on inclusion of the excluded people in the majoritarian systems of democracy. Therefore, it is important to start at this point ion showing how the centripetal theory has is based on Lijphart’s ideas, which means that Gerring and Thacker’s argument is a refinement of Lijphart’s theory. In advocating for the consensus model using statistical approach, Lijphart has contradicted two major arguments developed by the proponents of majoritarian-based Westminster democracies. First, he contests the notion that the problem of exclusion of a part of the population from policy making process is not relevant because there is a chance of the minority assuming the majority status within a short time. In refuting these claims, Lijphart points out that most societies in the world have deep ethnic, religious, cultural, religious or ideological differences. Thus, there are little or no chances that the minority will turn out to be the majority with time, while the degree of homogeneity is relatively low. Thus, none of the two conditions holds, which means that a large portion of the population will be excluded from policy making processes when Westminster democracy is applied. How the centripetal theory of good governance builds on the ideas of Lijphart’s consensus theory An important point of consideration is that the centripetal theory appears to have a more internal consistency than Lijphart’s consensus theory because it has expanded the idea of reducing exclusion and dependency on the majority opinion based on specific inclusion of the minority in specific political institutions. In fact, it has attempted to expand the idea of reducing the degree of exclusion, focusing on the national-level political institutions. This is an important aspect that indicates the authors’ ability to refine some aspects of the consensus idea. However, the major burden for the centripetal theory is to develop a comprehensive support for the claim that the institutional arrangements at the national level are likely to achieve normative value. In addition, the burden of proving the claim is made larger by the fact that the outcomes of arranging the executive, electoral and sovereignty into the suggested nexus are not immediate, which makes an empirical study difficult to carry out. Thus, the authors ignore other aspects of the society and focus on political arrangements, and then attempt to determine the outcomes of these arrangements on a number of indicators that are not essentially political. This feature proves that the theory is primarily meant to build on or refine Lijphart’s consensus theory. For instance, it is evident that the researchers base their claims on the realization that political exclusion of minority groups, as suggested by Lijphart, is the basis of poor democracy and violence in majoritarian systems. It appears that Gerring and Thacker were interested in narrowing down Lijphart’s observation to a smaller unit, that is, the political system, and focus on its impact on the other indicators of good governance. Though not supporting the consensus theory, the authors tend to develop an understanding that political institutions have a direct connection with the quality of governance through some causal mechanism, where they act as the causal factors to the outcomes of human and economic development. Therefore, this understanding expands Lijphart’s assertion that the political system is the primary and most important feature that defines democracy and influences the social, economic and developmental outcomes. It is therefore worth noting that Gerring and Thacker wanted to refine Lijphart’s assertion through an empirical study on the political institutionalization, which is an aspect of the consensus theory narrowed down to a single unit (the national political set up). On his part, Lijphart was interested in examining the various democratic styles of political leadership as the center of social, economic and human growth. It is also worth noting that the terms Westminster democracy, consensus and majoritarian democracy have been used intensively in the book. In brief, the term Westminster democracy refers to the democratic styles of leadership in countries whose constitutions were based on Westminster conferences in the 19th and 20th centuries. In particular, these were former British colonies. Their voting system is based on simple majority, where even one vote can make one the automatic leader, leaving out the opinion of the remaining 49.99% (Lijphart 139). According to Gerring and Hacker, federalism and unitarism fail to achieve good governance due to their internal weaknesses. In this context, the authors argue that federalism has a negative impact on the internal party coherence. It is evident that these claims were directed against the ideas of majoritarian democracies, which are supported in the Westminster pattern of democracy. In essence, Gerring and Thacker were refining the definitions of poor democracy in Westminster majoritarian systems that were observed in Lijophart’s work. Gerring and Thacker have attempted to narrow down the wide pattern of majoritarian and Westminster democracy into smaller units of unitarism and federalism. In this way, they used an empirical evidence to show that the majoritarian democracies fail to address the political needs of every aspect of the society due to lack of convergent opinion. In essence, this is a clear indication of the authors’ attempt to refine Lijphart’s observations in his consensus theory. In fact, Lijphart’s study reveals that most nations in the world have deep cleavages or divisions based on social, cultural and ethnic differences, which results into diverse opinions, needs and interests at the local and national levels. Thus, if the majority voting is used to determine the political institutions, then it is most likely that a large population is left out of the government. In addition, Lijphart’s model reveals that the deep divisions within the society make it hard for a possible crossover, which prevents today’s minority from becoming the majority over a long period. In addition, Lijphart points that the likelihood of an overlap between the interests of the majority and those of the minority groups is significantly low, which means that the voting system will always make sure than a large group of the total population is excluded from the policy making system. Lijphart argues that this is the major cause of violence in various nations that apply majoritarian system of Westminster democracy because the minorities feel that they will remain excluded from the policy making system. On the other hand, Lijphart’s model reveals that consensus democracy is the institutional solution to these problems. It allows democracy to function by involving and incorporating the rights, interests and views of the minority groups, which influence politics that are dominated by the majority groups (Lijphart 7). Although Lijphart agrees that there might be less or no turnover in the legislative institutions, the government will be a representative of a wide range of citizen’s interests, which is rare in Westminster democracies. Although Gerring and Thacker have attempted to narrow down Lijphart’s theory into political institutionalization only, it is worth noting that they have also shown that Lijphart only conceptualized his theory along a single spectrum of majoritarian and consensus. They argue that a polity is majoritarian to the extent that a small group of individuals uses the simple majority or plurality to govern a rather diverse and heterogeneous society, excluding the opinion and interests of a large group. In addition, the authors conceptualize Lijphart’s view by claiming that a polity can also be consensual to the extent of allowing leaders to rule through super-majorities. They claim that this is a major weakness in the consensus theory because it assumes that the rule through super-majorities is a move towards consensus, while in reality, it is still a majoritarian system of governance that has the basic weaknesses of the Westminster democracies. Nevertheless, rather than refuting Lijphart’s theory based on this weakness, the centripetal theory attempts to fill this gap by refining the argument by Lijphart. In this case, the centripetal theory uses the institutionalization of the political system at the national level to address the problem identified in the consensus theory. The authors argue that ten institutions are relevant in this determination. For instance, they argue that the effective number of parties represented in the national parliament, the minimal winning one-party cabinets, the executive dominance and the disproportionality of the electoral system are significant matters that need institutionalization. In addition, the theory argues that constitutional rigidity, judicial review systems, the independence of the central monetary system and federalism are also important institutions that should be focused on when refining Lijphart’s theory. The authors use Switzerland as the empirical example of a nation that has used consensus institutionalization along the aforementioned political and economic institutions. They further argue that Lijphart’s idea of better governance across a range of expected outcomes should be emanating from the institutions that have been developed under consensus system. However, they note that Lijphart’s argument has failed in this case because the set of institutions in a country like Switzerland bears a casual resemblance of the refuted veto point model, which Lijphart criticized for its ineffectiveness to bring good governance. Thus, Gerring and Thacker cite this weakness in Lijphart’s theory as a major issue that needs further refinement. In addressing this problem, the authors use their centripetal argument to show that Lijphart was able to use the idea of operationalization of political institutions to avoid the problems associated with decentralism and Veto models of governance. Moreover, the centripetal theory finds another major issue in the consensus theory. Gerring and Thacker reveal that a key issue in the consensus theory concerns whether the decentralization of key institutions can lead to mutual defection or cooperation. If there is cooperation through power sharing instead of defecting, Lijphart reasons that better policies are set to emerge. To refine this argument, the two authors used an in-depth theorization of this point based on integrating it into the ten-institutional typology that have used as a paradigm for good governance in their work. Finally, Gerring and Thacker reveal that Lijphart’s model used a factor-analysis approach to the institutional factors before conducting tests on a wide range of measures for good governance. They reveal that Lijphart’s model differentiates between federal-unitary and executive-parties dimensions. However, they reveal another weakness in Lijphart’s model based on the finding that only a few tests provided evidence of a relationship between good governance and the variables chosen across all the 36 countries used as the study sample. To resolve this problem, the authors have used the centripetal method and a larger sample of countries. They found that a larger sample provides evidence that additional links exist between good governance and the inclusion of several opinions, views and needs of the diverse groups of people in a given nation. Thus, it is evident that the idea in Gerring and Thacker’s model was to build on the ideas and methods that Lijphart had developed when developing his consensus theory. It is clear that the aim of using a larger sample in developing the centripetal theory was partly to determine whether additional links exist between the outcomes of good governance and the level of institutionalization of the political units. Finally, it is worth noting that Gering and Thacker’s empirical research did not have a large deviation from the method used by Lijphart. Their research methodology is relatively similar to Lijphart’s methods in that both cases were primarily quantitative in nature. In addition, sample selection, target population, study process, variables, methods of data handling was relatively the same. As such, it is worth noting that the objective was not to refute or conceptualize Lijphart’s model. Instead, Gerring and Thacker’s objective was to refine the methods, findings and arguments developed in the consensus model using a more pronounced and advanced research. Conclusion Although Gerring and Thacker have developed a new theory that has significant differences with Lijphart’s consensus model, it is clear that the attempt was not to refute Lijphart’s claims and ideas. Instead, the authors carried out a research with an aim of building on the previous claims and findings by Lijphart. In addition, the theories of majoritarian and Westminster democracies have been refuted intensively in the centripetal model, which supports Lijphart’s point of view. Similarly, the idea of reducing or avoiding exclusion of some groups of people from the national policy making process is supported in both theories. Although the centripetal theory attempts to define the exact institutions that should be nationalized to avoid exclusion and control of the majority, it is clear that the basic knowledge used in developing this idea is similar to Lijphart’s point of view. In addition, other aspects such as the use of statistical approach, similar study populations and study methods provide a clear indication that Gerring and Thacker’s centripetalism theory as a refinement rather than reconceptualization of Lijphart’s consensus model. Works Cited Gerring, John and Strom Thacker. A centripetal theory of democratic governance. London: Cambridge University Press, 2008. Print Lijphart, Arend. Patterns of democracy: Government forms and performance in thirty-six countries. New Haven: Yale University press, 2012. Print. The Centripetal Theory of Democratic Governance Essay
SMC Artist Statement Understanding About Me & The Subject in The Painting Essay.

Hi I’m an artist and in this writing I want you to write about my art. I will upload some of my work here so you can write about it. Most of my paintings are with oil paint and I like to draw people around me such as family and friends. I like round shapes and I pay attention to details in my paintings.Artist’s statementI see this as a chance for you to think about what is central to your vision or “voice” as an artist and to explore how to put it in writing. And here is my overarching question for you: in the best of all possible worlds, what kind of statement would you like to write about your work? In other words, I would like you to see this as an opportunity to write a general statement about your art.Some questions you might consider:What tone would you like it to have? Conversational? Philosophical? Or…?What style would suit you best? Simple? Ornate? Or…?What form should it take? A straightforward matter of fact statement about your work? A narrative about how or why you became and are the artist you are? Or some other form I am not mentioning?What dimension of your evolution would you want to emphasize? Would you want to speculate on where the work is headed as well as its current state?I see my role, in reacting to what you write, to be that of an editor. My view on this: an editor is there to perceive/intuit what you are aiming for with what you write and to comment on how your statement has fulfilled it and perhaps hasn’t.
SMC Artist Statement Understanding About Me & The Subject in The Painting Essay

BUS 217 Eastern Gateway Community College Lessons 5 to 6 Reflection Paper

BUS 217 Eastern Gateway Community College Lessons 5 to 6 Reflection Paper.

Reading: Lesson 5
Prof. Christina Inge. (2017, July 10). Understanding Consumer Behavior Week 1 Buzz [Video]. YouTube. 
Investigate consumer’s influences
Consumer’s behavior is a procedure which consumers follow to buy goods and services.
The analysis of consumer behavior is a very complicated work researching its wants, desires, needs, choices, financial possibilities.
Consumer behavior blends elements from psychology, sociology anthropology, marketing and economy.
It examines how emotions, attitudes and preferences affect buying behavior.
Consumer’s behavior is the result of marketing activities, through the people involved in buying and using products.
It is considered that all the people have not the same needs, desires and economic abilities. The differentiation depends on the social class they belong to, the family they come from, the education they have, the society they live in, the profession, the personality, the civilizing values, and the life style.
The study of the consumer’s behavior investigates the influences on the consumer, from groups such as family, friends, sports and society in general.
Despite the successful progress in understanding human behavior, the scientists continue to be unable to explain exactly the way of thinking and acting of the consumer’s behavior.
Different social and psychological theories have been developed about consumer’s behavior and they arrived at a conclusion that human behavior is a chaotic behavior, and many times there is not any sense.
________________
How Does Globalization Affect Customers?
by Thomas Metcalf
Consumers have more purchasing choices than ever before thanks to the globalization movement. The Internet has opened new opportunities for browsing from the comfort of home, and there are products available from all over the world. Globalization has changed consumer buying behavior in ways that could never have been anticipated.
Globalization Defined
Globalization is the economic trend that began in the latter part of the 20th century. Southeast Asia embraced the free-market system, trade barriers were dismantled and free trade allowed competition to spread around the world. The benefits of globalization have been an increase in product variety for consumers, lower prices and improved quality of products, although some might debate the last benefit. The drawbacks have been a loss of U.S. jobs and manufacturing industries. Concerns remain about Third World worker safety and environmental conditions.
Consumerism
In a consumer-driven economy, people vote with their dollars. The level of U.S. imports is testimony to the consumers’ acceptance of foreign-made goods. While many consumers give lip service to the desire to buy American-made products, most do not. Some consumers express concern about the working conditions of overseas workers. The fair trade movement is the result; fair trade items are produced by workers who receive larger and fairer compensation for what they produce. The internet, of course, is one of the driving forces of globalization. Consumers can bypass the local merchant and search the world to find the products the desire.
Rebirth of Local Industry
One of the interesting effects of globalization that bodes well for small businesses is the rebirth of local industry, Product labeling that identifies a product’s country of origin has heightened consumer awareness of the extent to which foreign-made goods have replaced those made in America. Coupled with a concern about loss of jobs, cottage industries have ridden a “buy America” movement. Even some grocery stores are touting locally grown food products. While not making a major impact on imports, the localization movement has raised consumer awareness and is creating demand for niche products.
Globalization Drawbacks
While the globalization trend has benefited consumers in many ways, it is not without drawbacks. Competition generally tends to create better-quality products, but that is not always the case. Also, foreign-made goods may not be subject to the same standards as American-made goods. And while the growth of product availability has given American buyers many more choices, the loss of jobs due to globalization has made stretching the consumer dollar very difficult for many.
About the Author
Thomas Metcalf has worked as an economist, stockbroker and technology salesman. A writer since 1997, he has written a monthly column for “Life Association News,” authored several books and contributed to national publications such as the History Channel’s “HISTORY Magazine.” Metcalf holds a master’s degree in economics from Tufts University.
What drives political consumption.pdf download
Professor Wolters. (2019, September 26). Decision Heuristics: How Customers Decide What to Buy [Video]. YouTube. 
Lesson 6 Reading Material Below
Reading: Lesson 6
Why Is Social Responsibility Important in Marketing?
By Investopedia (Links to an external site.)
Updated Mar 10, 2019
The concept of social responsibility (Links to an external site.) holds that businesses should be good citizens, balancing their money-making operations with activities that benefit society, be it on a local, national or global scale. Social responsibility in marketing involves focusing efforts on attracting consumers who want to make a positive difference with their purchases. Many companies have adopted socially responsible elements in their marketing strategies as a means to help a community via beneficial services and products.
Interestingly, the philanthropic practice can be a good business tool as well. “Some 52% of U.S. consumers factor values into their purchase choices,” seeking brands that “proactively promote beliefs and values aligned with their own,” noted a 2017 presentation “The Power of a Values-Based Strategy (Links to an external site.),” by Forrester Research, a market research company that advises corporate clients. “The Sustainability Imperative (Links to an external site.),” a 2015 report by Nielsen that surveyed 30,000 consumers in 60 countries, found that 66% of consumers were willing to pay more for goods from brands that demonstrated social commitment. And a 2017 “Corporate Social Responsibility (Links to an external site.)” study by public relations and marketing firm Cone Communications indicated that 87% of Americans will purchase a product because its company advocated for an issue they cared about.
How Social Responsibility in Marketing Works
Recyclable packaging, promotions that spread awareness of societal issues and problems, and directing portions of profits (Links to an external site.) toward charitable groups (Links to an external site.) or efforts are examples of social responsibility marketing strategies. For example, a clothing company’s marketing team may launch a campaign that encourages consumers to buy a bundle of its socks versus one pair; for every bundle sold, the company donates a bundle of socks to military personnel overseas or to local homeless shelters. As a result of these donations, (Links to an external site.) the company brands itself as socially responsible and ethical, which ultimately attracts customers who are engaged in socially responsible commitments and who want to support the welfare of the community.
Corporate responsibility (Links to an external site.) goes hand in hand with socially responsible practices. For example, administrators, executives, and shareholders and stakeholders must practice ethical behaviors and join the community in promoting responsible marketing efforts. Putting on appearances or greenwashing (Links to an external site.), the practice of promoting deceptively environmentally friendly processes or products indicates to customers that the company is not committed to social responsibility; such behaviors can ultimately hurt the brand and the company’s success. Consumers often can see through gimmicks, slogans, or efforts that are not genuine or ineffectual. In fact, 65% of the Cone study respondents say they’ll research a company’s stand on an issue, to see if it’s being authentic.
Real Life Example of Social Responsibility in Marketing
Some critics question the concept of social responsibility in marketing, noting that these highly publicized, expensive campaigns are colorful but highly limited (both in scope and in duration), and do little to eradicate the root sources of problems. They wonder if it wouldn’t be more efficient if companies—or consumers, for that matter—just contributed funds directly to charities or philanthropic causes.
Certainly, the strategies that seem the most effective are those in which a company finds a way to link its core product directly to its socially responsible endeavor, and also to broaden its efforts. The popular Toms label is a case in point. The shoe and sunglasses maker began in 2007 with its “one for one” campaign: For every pair of slip-ons or boots bought, Toms donated a pair of shoes to a child in need; for every pair of glasses, it paid for an eye exam and treatment for an impoverished person.
Although it has furnished millions with shoes and eye care, and the buy-one-donate-one model has been adopted by other trendy brands, Toms’ founder Blake Mycoskie decided it wasn’t enough. To address more underlying issues of poverty, he committed to manufacturing shoes in areas around the globe where he donated them—Cuba, India, Kenya. As of 2019, Toms has created more than 700 jobs. The company also has its eye on improving infrastructure (Links to an external site.): Having expanded into coffee, Toms donates proceeds of its sales to building clean-water systems in the communities where the beans are grown.
The Bottom Line
Although an initial investment may be involved to share profits or donate to those in need, social responsibility in marketing promotes a positive company image, which can significantly impact profitability and even productivity (Links to an external site.) favorably.
Wharton School of Business. (00–01-00). Models of Consumer Behavior [Video]. YouTube. 
What Are the Different Models of Consumer Behavior?
By: Marcus Paine
Reviewed by: Elisa Shoenberger, M.B.A.
Updated November 21, 2018
In order to successfully sell your goods or services, you need an idea of why consumers behave the way they do when they make purchases. For example, knowing how much your customers have to spend and what their most important needs are can help you create product selection and pricing strategies that lead to more sales for your business. Additionally, learning about the psychological and sociological aspects of your customer’s buying choices can give you insight on how they see your brand and how loyal they are to it.
There are several models of consumer behavior including the economic model, the learning model, psychoanalytical model, and the sociological model.
The Economic Model of Consumer Behavior
The economic model of consumer behavior focuses on the idea that a consumer’s buying pattern is based on the idea of getting the most benefits while minimizing costs. Thus, one can predict consumer behavior based on economic indicators such as the consumer’s purchasing power and the price of competitive products. For instance, a consumer will buy a similar product that is being offered at a lower price to maximize the benefits; an increase in a consumer’s purchasing power will allow him to increase the quantity of the products he is purchasing.
Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs
This model is based on the idea that consumer behavior is governed by the need to satisfy basic and learned needs. Maslow stated that people base their actions based on fulfilling certain needs and that they have to satisfy the lower level needs before reaching for the higher ones. Lower level needs include food, clothing and shelter, while higher ones include having a feeling of prestige. Thus, a consumer will have a tendency to buy things that will satisfy their needs and provide satisfaction. A hungry customer may pass up on buying a nice piece of jewelry to buy some food but will later go back to purchase the jewelry once her hunger is satisfied.
The Psychoanalytical Model
The psychoanalytical model takes into consideration the fact that consumer behavior is influenced by both the conscious and the subconscious mind. The three levels of consciousness discussed by Sigmund Freud (id, ego and superego) all work to influence one’s buying decisions and behaviors. A hidden symbol in a company’s name or logo may have an effect on a person’s subconscious mind and may influence him to buy that product instead of a similar product from another company.
The Sociological Model
The sociological model primarily considers the idea that a consumer’s buying pattern is based on his role and influence in his society. A consumer’s behavior may also be influenced by the people she associates with and the culture that her society exhibits. For instance, a manager and an employee may have different buying behaviors given their respective roles in the company they work for, but if they live in the same community or attend the same church, they may buy products from the same company or brand.
Consumers will buy goods based on a number of different types of behavior. Knowing these behaviors is key when developing marketing strategies for your business.
Psychological Factors That Influence Consumer Buying Behavior
By: Annie Sisk
Reviewed by: Jayne Thompson, LLB, LLM
Updated November 08, 2018
If you want your business to be successful, you must first understand what drives your targeted customers in their purchasing decisions. How do they decide which product to buy, or when? What makes them choose one company over another? To maximize your sales revenue and grow your business, it’s important to leverage the four key psychological factors that influence consumer purchasing: motivations, perceptions, experience and beliefs.
Motivation Describes the Customer’s Willingness to Buy
A consumer’s motivation is the basic degree of the psychological drive behind a specific purchase. If the consumer’s motivation is high, that basically means that the level of need, or the consumer’s perception of that need, is fairly strong. Given a high degree of motivation, the individual will actively seek to satisfy that need by making that purchase.
Consumer motivation is related to the “Hierarchy of Needs” proposed by psychologist Abraham Maslow. This theory states that human beings actively seek to satisfy physical needs first, followed by safety, social, esteem and self-actualization needs, in that order. Businesses that successfully speak to these needs, and fill them, will motivate consumers to buy their products.
Perception Influences the Way a Consumer Sees the World
Perception is essentially the way a person selectively views, processes and interprets the larger world or any part of it. It’s basically how we as human beings organize and make sense of information to form some sort of worldview.
Consumers also have perceptions of themselves that may affect a particular purchase. For example, people who view themselves as having exquisite taste are willing to pay more for a specific brand or product that is perceived to be “the best.” By the same token, consumers who pride themselves on being great bargain hunters may choose a lesser-priced product, even though they might otherwise prefer the pricier option.
It’s human nature for consumers to make all kinds of associations, both conscious and subconscious, from their experiences. Once a brand has established itself as having a certain personality – for example, Walmart and other similar stores’ low-cost positioning – it’s difficult to overcome that in the marketplace. The consumer perception is that products from these stores are cheap and on a subconscious level, the products are therefore lower quality.
By the same token, a diamond dealer may be quick to point out their stones come from Antwerp instead of Sierra Leone– where the stigma of “blood diamonds” prevails – in order to avoid negative consumer perceptions.
Experience Describes the Impact of Familiarity on Decision Making
Consumers are above all human beings, and all human beings are products of their experiences. We catalog each experience we have as either good or bad. Then we recall that experience and how we categorized it when a similar situation arises. These experiences influence a shopper’s behavior by changing the way the consumer reacts to products similar to those they’re familiar with. For example, many consumers choose to buy Toyota cars because they have had good experiences with their previously owned Toyota cars.
Companies that focus on the consumer experience earn repeat business from those customers. The consumer doesn’t need to look anywhere else to solve that specific problem or meet that need. Prior experience often outweighs the fact that the competition may be cheaper or even better in some cases.
Belief Describes the Consumer’s Attitude Towards a Brand
A consumer’s beliefs and attitudes greatly influence the buying decisions that consumer makes. Beliefs are the way people think about a particular product or brand, while an attitude is the individual’s consistently favorable or unfavorable evaluation, tendency or feeling about a product or brand.
These beliefs and attitudes shape the consumer’s perception of the product. It can be tough for a business to overcome or change those beliefs and attitudes. That’s because they stem from the individual’s personality and lifestyle. They’re inherently personal and connected to the consumer’s sense of self.
Consumers often block out or ignore information that conflicts with their beliefs and attitudes. They tend to selectively retain information or even distort the information to make it consistent with their previous perception of the product.
https://bizfluent.com (Links to an external site.)
Alanis Business Academy. (2012, October 23). The Consumer Buying Process: How Consumers Make Product Purchase Decisions [Video]. YouTube. 
BUS 217 Eastern Gateway Community College Lessons 5 to 6 Reflection Paper

ENG 380 Pepperdine University The Hate U Give Movie & Novel Reflection Essay

custom essay ENG 380 Pepperdine University The Hate U Give Movie & Novel Reflection Essay.

Read one of the following novels and secure the film version:The Hate U Give (2017) by: Angie Thomas (movie is available for rent and also is included with a Hulu subscription) please note: this movie is about police brutalitySpeak (1999) by: Laurie Halse Anderson (movie is available with hulu, amazon prime, show time subscriptions) please note: this text is about sexual assaultStargirl (2002) by: Jerry Spinelli (movie is available on Disney+)Simon vs. the Homo Sapiens Agenda (2015) by: Becky Albertalli (movie is available for rent on Google Play, YouTube, and Amazon Prime for $3.99)The Sun is Also a Star (2016) by: Nicola Yoon (movie is available with a Hulu subscription) Write a reflection based on one of the following prompts.Option A: Consider both the book and film and explain what were the main differences between the two versions. Do you think the differences of the film adaptation is justified in making these changes? Why or why not?Option B: Is this book/ film combination a “diverse and inclusive” contribution to the YA genre? Why or why not? If so, consider the 3 signposts and provide examples. If not, consider when the book/film were published/released and perhaps offer suggestions to update/ modernize the text to fit the current definition of inclusive YA.Option C: Connect the book/film with other materials from this course. How does the book/ film contribute to the ideas we read or discussed so far in the YA genre (consider race, class, gender, etc.)?2-3 paragraphs
ENG 380 Pepperdine University The Hate U Give Movie & Novel Reflection Essay

1 Page News Article/Current Event Response Paper IN SPANISH

1 Page News Article/Current Event Response Paper IN SPANISH. Need help with my Foreign Languages question – I’m studying for my class.

Please, write a reaction or response text in Spanish to recently published news articles on current events (15 days ago from today, or more recent) in Spain or Mexico (choose one of them).
Please, include the link, the name of the article, and the source you are writing about.
Both the article, and your response should be written in Spanish.
These reflections will be graded according to quantity (minimum 250-300 words each) and quality of language, as well as on their content, vocabulary, and grammar.
1 Page News Article/Current Event Response Paper IN SPANISH

FIDM Global Financial Strategy International Finance Concepts Discussion

FIDM Global Financial Strategy International Finance Concepts Discussion.

I’m working on a business writing question and need an explanation to help me learn.

Textbook: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1o-lX-1h8rl684pMb3…Read chapter 2 in the textbook and respond to the following questions:1. State and discuss in detail, the concept that is a weighted index of five different currencies, mathematically less volatile than any single currency value, and therefore has found specific uses in areas such as maritime contracts, securities in the Eurobond market, and select international treaties. 2. State and discuss in detail, the concept that has been pushing more and more countries toward full financial integration in an attempt to stimulate their economies and to feed the capital appetite of their own MNCs. Reach Chapter 3 and respond to the following question:3. State and discuss in detail, a concept that best describes the strategy resource-rich economies use to fight a common problem (name the common problem) to prevent the appreciation of their currencies.
FIDM Global Financial Strategy International Finance Concepts Discussion