The Taming of The Shrew Themes

'The Taming of The Shrew' Themes Lets examine the two major themes that drive Shakespeares  The Taming of The Shrew. Theme: Marriage The play is ultimately about finding a suitable partner for marriage. The motivations for marriage in the play vary enormously, however. Petruccio is only really interested in marriage for economic gain. Bianca, on the other hand, is in it for love. Lucentio has gone to great lengths to win Bianca’s favour and to get to know her better before committing to marriage. He disguises himself as her Latin teacher in order to spend more time with her and to gain her affections. However, Lucentio is only permitted to marry Bianca because he has managed to convince her father that he is incredibly rich. Had Hortensio offered Baptista more money he would have married Bianca despite her being in love with Lucentio. Hortensio settles for marriage to the widow after his marriage to Bianca is refused. He would rather be married to someone than have no one. It is usual in Shakespearian comedies that they end in marriage. The Taming of the Shrew does not end with a marriage but observes several as the play goes on. Moreover, the play considers the impact that a marriage has on family members, friends and servants and on how a relationship and bond is formed thereafter. There is a form of elopement where Bianca and Lucentio go off and marry in secret, a formal marriage between Petruccio and Katherine where the social and economic contract is key, and the marriage between Hortensio and the widow which is less about wild love and passion but more about companionship and convenience. Theme: Social Mobility and Class The play is concerned with social mobility which is ameliorated through marriage in Petruccio’s case, or through disguise and impersonation.  Tranio pretends to be Lucentio and has all the trappings of his master while his master becomes a servant of sorts in becoming a Latin teacher for Baptista’s daughters. The Local Lord at the beginning of the play wonders whether a common Tinker can be convinced he is a lord in the right circumstances and whether he can convince others of his nobility. Here, through Sly and Tranio Shakespeare explores whether social class is to do with all the trappings or something more fundamental. In conclusion, one could argue that being of high status is only of any use if people consider you are of that status. Vincentio is reduced to a ‘faded old man’ in Petruccio’s eyes when he is encountered on the way to Baptista’s house, Katherine acknowledges him as a woman (who could get any lower on the social strata?). In fact, Vincentio is super powerful and rich, his social status is what convinces Baptista that his son is worthy of his daughter’s hand in marriage. Social status and class are therefore very important but transient and open to corruption. Katherine is angry because she does not conform to what is expected of her by her position in society. She tries to fight against the expectations of her family, friends and social status, her marriage ultimately forces her to accept her role as wife and she finds happiness in finally conforming to her role. In the end, the play dictates that each character must conform to his position in society. Tranio is restored to his servant status, Lucentio back to his position as a rich heir. Katherine is finally disciplined to conform to her position. In an additional passage to the play even Christopher Sly is returned to his position outside the alehouse having been stripped of his finery: Go take him easily up and put him in his own apparel again and lay him in the place where we did find him just underneath the alehouse side below.(Additional Passages Line 2-4) Shakespeare suggests it is possible to cheat class and social boundaries but that the truth will win out and one must conform to ones position in society if we are to live a happy life.

Summary of Jean-Paul Sartres Contributions to Philosophy Essays

Summary of Jean-Paul Sartre's Contributions to Philosophy Essays Summary of Jean-Paul Sartre's Contributions to Philosophy Jean Paul Sartre (1905-1980) was a philosopher among other vocations (including novelist, playwright, and literary critic) and was also at the forefront of 20th century French philosophy and Marxism but is mainly considered an existentialist and is a key figure in that area of philosophy. At the outset Sartre?s philosophy was influenced by Edmund Husserl, the phenomenological movement and the idea that consciousness is about objects rather than creating within it an inner representation of the object, but he expands on these ideas and gives his own spin as his body of works grows. In 1938 Sartre published one of his earliest and most well-known works is La Naus?e (Nausea) which depicts a frustrated historian (Antoine Roquentin) who feels nausea as a result of his struggle to define himself despite the distractions of inanimate objects and situations which he believes detract from that goal, end he even fears whether his existence is a figment of the imagination. This novel is often considered a manifesto of existentialism and is sometimes seen as one of the canonical works of the movement. It brings up questions of existence, objects in relation to consciousness, freedom, and the meaning of life. Shortly after publishing this work Sartre also wrote an essay called The Transcendence of the Ego in which he expanded on the idea that objects exist independently from our consciousness of them and added the idea that a person?s ego is itself an object of consciousness to be discovered. His main existentialist work however is called Being and Nothingness: An Essay on Phenomenological Ontology and was published in 1943. Its writing was spurred but Sartre?s reflections as a result of reading Martin Heidegger?s Being and Time, an ontological work from a phenomenologist perspective, which prompted Sartre?s subtitle for his work. He analyzes and criticizes the works of other philosophers and uses these to summarize his theory of being, consciousness and phenomena. One of Sartre?s most original contributions to metaphysics is found in this work and is his concept of ?nothingness? and the idea that it is essential to being. He also talks about ?being? in two sense using Hegel?s terminology (pour-soi/for-itself, and en-soi/in-itself) and talks about the in-itself existing independently and transcending the for-itself.

Analysis of the Critical Theorists View on Domination Term Paper

Analysis of the Critical Theorists View on Domination - Term Paper Example The Concept of Domination Due to the radical perspective of the critical theorists, the social notions presented had effects that can be attributed to the concept of domination. Domination is defined as a form of influence to an individual that results in the confirmation of goals, purposes, and actions to what had been prescribed or dictated (Held, p.149). This can affect the society in terms of different aspects that comprise the social institutions such as the culture industry aspect, the technology and consumption aspect, the nature of corporate capitalism, and the authoritarian personality. Each of these components can affect the manner by which a society functions, thus, these are included in the essential factors within the critical theory (Craib, 1992; Miles, 2006). Domination is the main concept that links the different points of views of the different advocates of the critical theory but is considered as the uniting factor in the critical theory. ...210). Due to the differe nt views of the critical theorists, the whole perspective of the group regarding domination is composed of the different components. Domination and the Culture Industry The view of domination in relation to the culture industry is the main perspective of Max Horkheimer and Theodor Adorno. It explores the role the nature of the culture which according to them is a ‘capitalist industry.’ This can be attributed to the fact that what is termed as enlightenment can be considered as mass deception. This is due to the fact that capitalist industry dominates the culture. Thus, instead of triggering a check and balance effect to the dominating effect of the capital, the interactions within the society such as work and even leisure is completely controlled (Szeman and Kaposy, 2010, p.40). The theory perceives the society dominated by the capitalist industry to be in a vicious cycle. Upon looking at the said perspective, it is clear that it is one of the reasons that the critical theory is considered radical because it questions the whole social structure.

NETFLIX CASE STUDY- FINANCE AND COMPANY ANALYSIS Essay

NETFLIX CASE STUDY- FINANCE AND COMPANY ANALYSIS - Essay Example Netflix was actually formed with the idea to provide Rental DVDs to customers without taking any charges from the customer for returning the DVDs late. Initially the company was taking late charges from their customers but after two years, Netflix changed their strategy and no late payment was charged for returning the DVDs late. The company also introduced the subscription services in which customers could select 4 movies rentals per month for a fee i.e. $15.95 per month. After few months, company offered unlimited plan for rental DVDs in which subscriber can have as many DVDs as they like for only a flat fee $19.95 per month. This scheme led to the success of company and its website volume grew by more than 300 percent. Company also made IPO of 5.5 million shares to raise capital of $82.5 in 2002 in order to expand its business. In the mid of 2011, Netflix changed its pricing and service structure. The company separated the two businesses i.e. DVD rental business and online video streaming with new enhanced price. Formally, company used to charge flat rate $10 per month for both the services. However the new pricing structure brought $8 for each service which collectively costs $16 for subscribers who were using both services. The situation had become worse when almost 1 million subscribers left Netflix’s services and its stock price fell down from $298 to $63 within few months (Netflix b). The CEO of the company, Reed Hastings, found that the root cause of the problem was ineffective communication with customers. He admitted that the company did not clearly mention the reasons of new policy to its subscribers (Netflix c). However, the increasing competition has been a real concern for the company and with the growing market and increasing marketing budgets and campaigns of competing firms, Netflix h as been facing threats from the competitors. In addition to this, competitors have been able to attract customers of Netflix by offering

Merton’s Theory of Scientific Ethos

Merton’s Theory of Scientific Ethos Robert Merton and the institutional imperatives of organised science. Do you think that the normative structure of science is working today? Why? Robert Merton has been hailed as the most important American sociologist of the 20th century[1]. His oeuvre includes works on the theory of knowledge, the sociology of science as well as functional and structural analysis. This essay will examine one of the most significant claims of Merton, that is that science is regulated by four distinct norms. While his work has arguably to the foundation of a whole academic discipline[2], the normative notion of science itself unites various strands of enquiry that are testament to the diverse personal and scientific interests of Merton. In nuce, Merton’s claim that science is essentially a normative endeavour conducted to the tune of shared ethical rules, straddles the fields of the philosophy of science and theories of knowledge just as it draws on assumptions located in the domain of moral philosophy and the theory of truth. The essay will approach this complex in the following way. First, Merton’s claims will be outlined in as much detail as possible. Second, the essay will sketch the main lines of criticism that Merton’s theory of scientific ethos has attracted. Finally, an example of scientific debate will be examined in view of Merton’s claim that will allow us to assess the validity and usefulness of Merton’s theory. Merton’s thesis about the normative structure of science goes back to an article he published originally in 1942, early on in his career[3]. The essay is short and, with the exception of mentioning two works by Talcott Parsons, makes no references to its immediate philosophical context, the emerging sociology of science. Furthermore, Max Weber is not mentioned at all throughout the piece. Nevertheless the article has become one of the most celebrated and debated publications in the theory of science. Merton contends that science is characterised by four interconnected but distinct organisational principles. These principles are ethical in nature and function as structural imperatives for science. First, science is universal insofar as contributions to it are ‘assessed on merit and significance’[4]. Second, scientists judge scientific theses against empirical material that is available, and ‘suspend judgement’ until all the facts are known. Merton calls this ‘a methodological and institutional mandate’[5]. Third, Merton maintains that scientists are committed to disinterestedness, and do not regard self-interest as a viable motivation for scientific work. The objective for scientists is to advance scientific knowledge rather than personal interests. Fourth, scientific knowledge that has proven to be reliable and accurate is to be readily available to every member of the scientific community, a phenomenon that Merton calls ‘communismâ₠¬â„¢. [6] Merton’s sketch of all four principles in the article is brief. Organised scepticism receives especially short shrift with just about two paragraphs[7]. In these two paragraphs Merton conspicuously fails to provide a definition of it altogether and instead discusses the wider context of this ‘methodological and institutional mandate’[8] for scientists. The question is whether Merton has presented a picture of science that is accurate today. The problem is that it is not quite clear what Merton actually says. He has been praised for his eloquence, but his admirable articulacy sometimes obscures the meaning of his thesis. The essay will now examine some of the more obvious criticisms. The first difficulty concerns the main thrust of Merton’s argument. In arguing that four normative principles organise scientific endeavour, is he making a normative or descriptive point? Are these observations of empirical nature or do they outline prescriptive ideals that ought to guide scientists in their work? We may take Merton’s thesis to articulate some more general prescriptive standards of science, which ideally ought to be applied in the scientist’s work in order to facilitate scientific progress. [9] Merton makes a point then which requires empirical verification. He has to show that science conducted in this way promotes scientific advancement which scientific work conducted contrary to these norms would not. Understandably this is hard to prove. It requires a historical argument, a narrative of successful scientific development, which to a certain degree he attempts to provide in his article.[10] So what does Merton try to say with his four criteria? The list of norms does not allow us to differentiate between valid and invalid science. It also fails to provide us with guidance as to what good and bad science is in a more general context. Perhaps at some time in the future, science requires secrecy and the exclusion of some parts of the scientific community from the results of scientific work. In fact, critics pointed out that Merton’s thesis works on the peculiar assumption that only academic science is science. Industrial research must by nature fail to comply with his standards of enquiry and hence cannot aspire to be science[11]. A nonsensical conclusion since much of sciences progress is owed to research in an economic and entrepreneurial environment, conducted for reasons of profit and the furtherance of self-interest. Yet, perhaps all these interpretations of Merton’s argument overlook the obvious. Possibly, his four standards of scientific discovery only make an observation on the nature of science in general. In this way Merton must be understood to make a simply descriptive point that scientific conduct is regulated by norms that may not always be explicit and unarticulated. If we would take him to argue this, his argument then all of a sudden fits into the wider functional theory of science that he was keen to advocate[12]. Merton argues that the adherence to the four norms produces a system of knowledge that has features that we associate with science, and which have subsequently have come to be synonymous with science. The scientific ethos is then only a historical by-product and Merton’s succinct formulation of this ethos in four principles of scientific behaviour simply describes the way in which science is done. Research that does not comply with these standards may still be science but does not contribute to science as a coherent system of human behaviour. Merton’s normative structure of science thus tells us something about the way in which science has come to sustain itself as a system of knowledge[13]. The four standards of scientific enquiry fulfil a function in generating systematic knowledge that contributes to the advancement of science as a coherent system of human interaction within a (academic) community. Critics have pointed out that this vision of science is not less problematic than the ones we have sketches above. Two general accusations have been levelled against this Mertonian notion of science. The first criticism argues that Merton is simply stating the obvious or, even worse, that his argument is tautological[14]. The second criticism is of different calibre and claims that Merton’s normative vision of science advocates one particular type of scientific endeavour that de-legitimises other forms of research[15]. Both criticisms warrant some closer examination. The first criticism is easily outlined and echoes some points made earlier. If Merton believes that the normative principles structure scientific knowledge then he can be taken to make either of two points which are different in scope and nature. First, he may simply be stating the obvious, describing the way in which science is being conducted. Any future changes to this may result in the end of science as we know it and as a coherent sub-system of human conduct but may give rise to the development of a new system of science, along different, yet unknown lines. Norms and standards, in this scheme of things, are contingent yet critical for the type of science that is currently institutionalised universally. Unless Merton attaches some value to this current form of science, his observation is bordering on the tautological, since it fails to tell us anything about the way in which we ought to do things in science. If he does associate the current state of science with a particular valu e, he needs to tell us what is so valuable about this specific type of science, an issue that philosophers of science discuss through the lens of scientific innovation[16]. Philosophically, this requires some wider justification, something that Merton fails to do. In fact, there is a plethora of criticism that targets exactly the kind of (modern) science that Merton seems to find commendable. Feminist and environmentalist criticism abounds. So there is evidence to the contrary that he would have to confront. The second criticism draws on radical theory and maintains that Merton’s normative notion of science acts as a gatekeeper to exclude other, conflicting visions of science. His theory of scientific endeavour thus fulfils a political function that translates into the suppression of deviant forms of scientific conduct. Bourdieu makes this claim forcefully in an article on Merton’s sociology of science in 1990 when in an unflattering way he calls Merton’s work ‘a hagiographic vision’[17]. Further on he writes: †¦ if Merton takes note of the existence of the work of scientific production, he continues to apply to it analytical categories which hare imposed on him by this very world itself, so that what he present as a description of its positive laws of functioning is often little more than a record of the normative rules which are officially professed by its members. He therefore departs only in appearance from the ‘internal’ reading†¦[18] This is a damning observation since the critical content of Merton’s theory of normative science resides in its ability to provide an external as well as internal picture of what scientists do[19]. If Merton, as Bourdieu claims, only replicates in his vision of science the self-understanding of scientists, his theory is little more than self-congratulatory contribution to identity formation in the scientific community. On a more sinister note, propagating these standards of scientific enquiry would deny other scientifically orientated behaviour the badge of honour. Merton’s theory of normative science would then become the main vehicle for defending a particular version of science, resting on values and principles that are far from universal. This is the point where theory spills over into institutional practice and may result in exclusion of scientists that fail to conform to a particular type of scientific behaviour. A brief example may demonstrate this problem. In 1994 two American professors published ‘The Bell Curve’, a sociological investigation into the link between race and intelligence[20]. Their work presented ample empirical material while their conclusions were particularly repugnant. The book included an argument for and against various social policies and therefore the authors deliberately placed their work in a political context. Although they adhered to all obvious scientific standards critics labelled the book as a political treatise with a foul set of conclusions. One of these conclusions was the authors maintained that there was evidence that African Americans were of inferior intelligence to White Americans. There can be no doubt that this repulsive claim strikes everyone who does not harbour racist attitudes as demonstrably false. Academic critics consequently slated the books’ premises and conclusions and pointed to a whole array of either ethical or method ological inconsistencies in the work[21]. What does this mean in the context of Mertonian imperatives for scientific discovery? First of all, Merton’s vision of science claims that disinterestedness is a norm of scientific enquiry, hence however abhorrent the conclusions are scientists must pay no heed to the social or political ramifications of their endeavours if they wanted to preserve science as a coherent system of human activity. Given the social context of race studies this is a plea for unethical behaviour while salvaging an internal code of practice that may have repellent consequences. To contend that scientists can conduct their enquiries in a bubble of self-contained norms is nonsensical. It is far more likely that scientists constantly re-negotiate the standards and norms of their work[22]. Science is a social endeavour, yet the social norms that apply to scientific conduct are drawn from wider society not from the reclusive community of academics only. Secondly, however, it is exactly the violation of the proclaimed standards of scientific behaviour which allows scientists to re-assert and re-evaluate the boundaries of science as a particular type of human conduct. Adherence to the self-professed norms thus does not advance science as a body of knowledge but produces a sterile and eventually inert body of knowledge that lost its connection with the purpose of scientific enquiry, to better the human condition. Thus science is in a constant process of boundary revision and definition, interacting with society and its needs. Merton’s internalist functionalist vision of science cannot accommodate this aspect of scientific endeavour and hence fails to acknowledge the actual purpose of science in the wider context as well as its resources for constructive change and transformation. References Pierre Bourdieu. Animadversiones in Mertonem. In Robert K. Merton. Consensus and Controversy, edited by Jon Clark, Celia Modgil, and Sohan Modgil. London New York Philadelphia: Falmer Press 1990, pp.297-301. Cynthia Fuchs Epstein. Seredipitous Science and The Prepared Mind: Merton on the Microenvironments of Discoveries. In Contemporary Sociology. A Journal of Reviews, September 2005, Vol.34, No.5, pp.477-453. Steven Fraser (ed.). The Bell Curve Wars. Race, Intelligence and the Future of America. New York: Basic Books 1995. Lowell L. Hargens. What is Mertonian Sociology of Science? In Scientometrics, Vol. 60 (2004), No.1, pp.63-70. R. Herrnstein and C. Murray. The Bell Curve. New York: Free Press 1994. John Law and David French. Normative and Interpretive Sociologies of Science. In The Sociological Review, 22 (1974), pp.581-595. Robert K. Merton. The Normative Structure of Science [1942]. In Robert K. Merton. The Sociology of Science. Theoretical and Empirical Investigations. Edited and with an Introduction by Norman W. Storer. Chicago and London: University of Chicago Press, pp.267-278. Nico Stehr. Robert K. Merton’s Sociology of Science. In Robert K. Merton. Consensus and Controversy, edited by Jon Clark, Celia Modgil, and Sohan Modgil. London New York Philadelphia: Falmer Press 1990, pp.285-294. Nina Toren. The Scientific Ethos Debate: A Meta-Theoretical View. In Sic. Sci. Med., Vol. 17, No. 21 (1983), pp.1665-1672. Jonathan H. Turner. The Structure of Sociological Theory. Homewood: The Dorsey Press 1978. 1 Footnotes [1] Epstein, Serendipitous Science, p.447 [2] On the background of the sociology of science cf. Hargens, Mertonian sociology. [3] Merton, Normative Structure. [4] Toren, Scientific Ethos Debate, p.1666 [5] Merton, Normative Structure, p.277 [6] Merton, Normative Structure, p.273-275 [7] Merton, Normative Structure, p.277-278 [8] Merton, Normative Structure, p.277 [9] Toren, Scientific Ethos Debate, p.1667 [10] Merton calls for a ‘comparative study of the institutional structure of science’. Merton, Normative Structure, p.269 [11] Stehr, Merton’s Sociology of Science, p.286 [12] For his contribution to functionalism cf. Turner, Structure of Sociological Theory, pp.69-76 [13] Law and French, Normative and Interpretive Sociologies, p.584-585 [14] Toren, Scientific Ethos Debate, p.1666; Bourdieu, Animadversiones, p.299 [15] Law and French, Normative and Interpretive Sociologies, p.585 [16] Law and French, Normative and Interpretive Sociologies, p.581-585; Toren, Scientific Ethos Debate, p.1668 [17] Bourdieu, Animadversiones, p.298 [18] Bourdieu, Animadversiones, p.298 [19] Stehr, Robert K. Merton’s Sociology, p.289 and Law and French, Normative and Interpretive Sociologies, p.582 [20] R. Herrnstein and C. Murray. The Bell Curve. New York: Free Press 1994 [21] cf. Steven Fraser (ed.). The Bell Curve Wars. New York: Basic Book 1995 [22] Law and French, Normative and Interpretive Sociologies, p.586

Nature View Case Study

The core focus of the case for us is to look at alternative strategies for going to market, which are the issues raised in questions 1, 2, 4, and 5. It is sometimes useful to create models in excel to help evaluate one’s options which I have referenced in 3a and thru the link included below. 1. How has Natureview succeeded in the natural foods channel? Nature View has succeeded in the natural foods channel through the use of brokers who sell its product (yogurt) to natural foods retailers. Their brokers have the direct relationship with the retailers, meaning: the retailers purchase the Natureview yogurt from the brokers and not directly from Natureview itself. Using this broker distribution channel system Natureview has succeeded in capturing 25% of the natural food market. This system has also enabled an increase in sales for its 8 ounce and 32 ounce products. Perhaps more importantly, the health food channel was successful because of its success in reaching the target market. Health conscious women were Natureview’s target market and their brokers worked with retailers that had access to that demographic. More specifically they targeted women who earned high incomes, were education, and lived in the Northeastern or Western USA 2. What are the two primary types of growth strategies under consideration by Natureview? The first strategy was to remain in the natural/healthy foods channels of distribution and make little change to their current model. The second growth strategy was to enter select supermarkets for broader exposure. The first strategy involved increasing the market share of Natureview in the natural foods market in which they were already present. They would have focused their marketing efforts on the target audience with greater intensity. Natureview would have to modify its product to satisfy the needs of this segment by using price differentiation and it would have to launch advertisement campaigns/promotions to support this strategy. The second strategy was to enter select supermarkets and break into the grocery market segment. The motivating factor for entering supermarkets was based in the fact that 97% of all yogurts are sold in super-markets. More importantly to Natureview, 46% of organic food eaters shop at supermarkets. If Natureview wanted a successful presence in supermarkets it would need to develop a yogurt product line specifically for supermarkets with appropriate price points, advertising and promotional plans. Additionally, they would need to negotiate terms and conditions with the supermarkets because of the different relationship without their usual brokers. 3a. How do the three options compare financially in terms of yearly revenue, gross margin, required investment, and profit potential? Note: to help you evaluate this I have posted an excel model to HuskyCT. The three options are distinct with options one and two being more similar than option three. Initial annual revenue for option three is the only one in the positive; however, five years into each option, options one and two are roughly six and four times higher than option three respectively. Gross margins for options one and two are relatively equal, but the margin for is half for the distributer yet greater by seven percent for the retailers. The required investment for option three ($400+) pales by comparison with options one and two being nearly four and five million dollars respectively. This intial cost is offset by the potential profits over the lifespan of the options; option three yield of only $4. 8M , option two coming in at $10. 6M, and option one with a walloping $11. 0M of respective net present values. 3b. If the venture capitalists extended their deadline for meeting the $20 million revenue target by 12 to 18 months, would that change your recommended action plan? The supermarket options would have to be chosen to raise the $20M with the extra time given. With distribution through supermarkets they wwold be able to realize their target by 2001. The larger customer base of the supermarkets provides a strategic advantage that the health foolds market doesn’t. The inherent risk of this option is that the profitability of Natureview will diminish and jeopardize the premium price it currently enjoys in the natural food segment. 4. What are the strategic advantages and risks of each option? What channel management and conflict issues are involved? Natureview will have to deal with significant channel management issues if it pursues the supermarket options. It will thrust the company into direct competition with large national brands, forcing it to adjust its price to match the prices of those national brands. Natureview would also have to negotiate with supermarket chains and obtain favorable conditions for the retail of their products. Most significant to brand management, selling Natureview yoghurt may change the brand-value perception of the consumer by reposition the brand of Natureview in the less exclusive supermarkets. It may lose its perceived value as a high-value natural yoghurt and instead be seen more as an ordinary yogurt. Customers that bought Natureview from healthy foods retailers may instead buy Natureview from the supermarkets at lower prices, hence reducing the volume of sales through healthy food retailers. If the company stays in healthy foods markets only then the company misses out on huge sales volumes and profits. 5. What action plan should the company pursue? What changes in the current marketing mix, sales, brand, and channel partner arrangements do you recommend in order to implement the action plan? Natureview should choose the option to enter the supermarkets segment because of its investors’ demands. The venture capitalists’ decision to cash out, has forced Natureview to court more agreeable investors. In order to get the right class of investor, Natureview must increase its revenues to $20 million. Entering the supermarket segment suits the company best because this plan provides the highest possibility of achieving Natureview's sales revenue targets. Natureview also gets access to a larger base of yogurt consumers through this strategy. Even though the marketing and channel development costs will be high at first, this option provides the best available plan for achieving their short term revenue targets.

Article on Statue of Liberty Awaits and Analysis

Statue of Liberty Impatiently Awaits Repairs On November 30 2012, New York’s, Statue of Liberty, was brutally disturbed by Mother Nature powerful waves, Sandy. Hurricane Sandy has made an impact on the grounds of The Statue of liberty worth about $56 Million. About 75% of the island flooded, damaging the island, but the statue itself emerged unscathed. Up till today, the New York Harbor landmark still remains closed as workers repair the damage wreaked on Liberty Island.With money being tight for the repairs there will be little amounts left for the repairing damages of the retail stores and other commercials on the island. Not only did the president of the Statue lose a great deal of money, but so did the market, retail and concession owners as their business literally goes down the drain. With furious tourist along with this disaster concludes to the question of, when will New York’s Statue of Liberty reopen? Analysis The main focus of the article is the reopening con cern of, The Statue of Liberty.This article clearly demonstrates a global interaction among tourism. Many tourists are furious and extremely disappointed that they will have to further wait till the release date for the reopening of Liberty Island. However, this occurrence does affect many Canadians -Canada, being a French/English country acquires many tourists that love visiting the beautiful gift from the French to the Americans, Ms. Liberty. Though, this does not only affect Canadian tourists; but all tourists who wish to see the beautiful Statue of Liberty, presently. ?