Puma Marketink Mix Essay Sample free essay sample

The constitution of cougar took topographic point in 1948 by Rudolf Dassler and it became a published company in 1986. Puma’s head-quarters are in Germany. They distribute their merchandises in more than 120 states. employs more than 9000 people and generates gross of 2. 5 million dollars. The present CEO and Chairman of PUMA is Jochen Zertz. Puma has construct a strong. planetary indorsement porofolio. 1 that has become the hottest squad and star ensembles in the industry. In 1999. Puma demonstrated its eldritch ability to place athlets before their premier. such as when tenis participant Serena Williams signed with PUMA. she was non even eligible for WTA rankings. but here aggressive manner and competitory nature prevailed. Serena Williams won the U. S. Open and publically thanked PUMA for their support during here trophy credence address after she defeated Martina Hingis in the Women’s individual finals. Torronto Raptor’s. Vince Carter was named 1999 Rookie of the Year have oning PUMA gym shoes. We will write a custom essay sample on Puma Marketink Mix Essay Sample or any similar topic specifically for you Do Not WasteYour Time HIRE WRITER Only 13.90 / page Puma is working on a company-wide for a â€Å"paperless-culture† . wereby all internal communicating is conducted via e-mail as of 2001. They are besides video conferincing installations to pass on between it’s design and development centres ( Germany. USA and Hong Kong ) . to speed up the merchandise creative activity procedure and cut down clip devouring travel. Merchandise:PUMA is the chief manufacturer of partisan drive places. race suits and football places. They are premier manufacturers in both Formula 1 and NASCAR and they are in partnership with Ferrari and BMW. it hase a wyde scope of footware. athletic wear. athleticss goods and manner accoutrements for adult male and adult females. The merchandises fulfill wants and desires based on image. non needs. Customers seek the merchandise and service benefits of the image of Puma. they adopt a alone stigmatization scheme. due to the fact that they sell such a broad assortment of different merchandises and trade names. As antecedently stated. Pumas doesn’t have its ain line of merchandises as such. but they do seek to guarantee that the merchandise lines that they stock are of a high criterion of quality. By high quality. it doesn’t needfully intend that the merchandise will last the needed clip period and supply a satisfactory service for the consumer. It besides means that t he merchandises that they stock are non your ordinary merchandises that rivals sell. but that each merchandise has a higher criterion or offers alone characteristics. Monetary value: Puma’s pricing is design to be competitivete with the other manner shoe retail merchants. The pricing is based on the footing of a premium section as mark clients. Topographic point: The market for big section shop such as Puma is chiefly concentrated in big shopping centres. high streets and online. they don’t sell a Pumas trade name as a merchandise. so much as an chance to utilize their services to obtain high quality merchandises. which consumers need at low-cost monetary values in a really comfy shopping ambiance. Promotion: When consumers hear the words Pumas. they associate words such as quality. comfort and handiness. This proves that Pumas is successfully advancing their overall selling scheme. They aim their advertisement at a preponderantly middle-upper category consumer group and this reflects in their selling runs. This image is besides boosted by their shop layouts and presentation. every bit good as their echt concern to stock quality merchandises.

An Archaeological Primer on Craft Specialization

An Archaeological Primer on Craft Specialization Craft specialization is what archaeologists call the assignment of specific tasks to specific people or subsets of people in a community. An agricultural community might have had specialists who made pots or knapped flints or tended crops or stayed in touch with the gods or conducted burial ceremonies. Craft specialization allows a community to get large projects completed-wars fought, pyramids built and yet still get the day-to-day operations of the community done as well. How Does Craft Specialization Develop? Archaeologists generally believe that hunter-gatherer societies were/are primarily egalitarian, in that most everyone did most everything. A recent study on modern hunter-gatherers suggests that even though a select portion of the community group goes out to do the hunting for the whole (i.e., what you would imagine would be hunting specialists)  when they return, they pass the knowledge ​on to the next generations, so everyone in the community understands how to hunt. Makes sense: should something happen to the hunters, unless the hunting process is understood by everyone, the community starves. In this way, knowledge is shared by everyone in the community and no one is indispensable. As a society grows in population and complexity, however, at some point certain kinds of tasks became overly time-consuming, and, theoretically anyway, someone who is particularly skilled at a task gets selected to do that task for his or her family group, clan, or community. For example, someone who is good at making spearpoints or pots is selected, in some process unknown to us, to dedicate their time to the production of these items. Why is Craft Specialization a Keystone to Complexity? Craft specialization is also part of the process that archaeologists believe may kickstart societal complexity. First, someone who spends their time making pots may not be able to spend time producing food for her family. Everybody needs pots, and at the same time the potter must eat; perhaps a system of barter becomes necessary to make it possible for the craft specialist to continue.Secondly, specialized information must be passed on in some way, and generally protected. Specialized information requires an educational process of some kind, whether the process is simple apprenticeships or more formal schools.Finally, since not everyone does exactly the same work or has the same lifeways, ranking or class systems might develop out of such a situation. Specialists may become of higher rank or lower rank to the rest of the population; specialists may even become society leaders. Identifying Craft Specialization Archaeologically Archaeologically, evidence of craft specialists is suggested by patterning: by the presence of different concentrations of certain types of artifacts in certain sections of communities. For example, in a given community, the archaeological ruins of the residence or workshop of a shell tool specialist might contain most of the broken and worked shell fragments found in the whole village. Other houses in the village might have only one or two complete shell tools. Identification of the work of craft specialists is sometimes suggested by archaeologists from a perceived similarity in a certain class of artifacts. Therefore, if ceramic vessels found in a community are pretty much the same size, with the same or similar decorations or design details, that may be evidence that they were all made by the same small number of individuals-craft specialists. Craft specialization is thus a precursor to mass production. Some Recent Examples of Craft Specialization Cathy Costins research using examinations of design elements to identify how craft specialization worked among Inka groups in 15th and 16th century AD Peru [Costin, Cathy L. and Melissa B. Hagstrum 1995 Standardization, labor investment, skill, and the organization of ceramic production in late prehispanic highland Peru. American Antiquity 60(4):619-639.]Kathy Schick and Nicholas Toth of Indiana University continue experimental replication of craft technology at the Stone Age Institute.Kazuo Aoyama discusses the Aguateca site in Guatemala, where an abrupt attack of the Classic Maya center preserved evidence of specialized bone or shell working. Sources Aoyama, Kazuo. 2000.  Ancient Maya State, Urbanism, Exchange, and Craft Specialization: Chipped Stone Evidence from the Copan Valley and the LA Entrada Region, Honduras. Siglo del Hombre Press, Mexico City.Aoyama, Kazuo.  Craft Specialization and Elite Domestic Activities: Microwear Analysis of Lithic Artifacts from Aguateca, Guatemala. Online report submitted to the Foundation for the Advancement of Mesoamerican Studies, Inc.Arnold, Jeanne E. 1992 Complex hunter-gatherer-fishers of prehistoric California: Chiefs, specialists, and maritime adaptations of the Channel Islands.  American Antiquity  57(1):60-84.Bayman, James M. 1996 Shell ornament consumption in a classic Hohokam platform mound community center.  Journal of Field Archaeology  23(4):403-420.Becker, M. J. 1973 Archaeological evidence for occupational specialization among Classic Maya at Tikal, Guatemala.  American Antiquity  38:396-406.Brumfiel, Elizabeth M. and Timothy K. Earle (eds). 1987  Specializatio n, Exchange, and Complex Societies.  Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Camillo, Carlos. 1997. . L P D PressCostin, Cathy L. 1991 Craft Specialization: Issues in Defining, Documenting, and Explaining the Organization of Production. In  Archaeological Method and Theory  volume 1. Michael B. Schiffer, ed. Pp. 1-56. Tucson: University of Arizona Press.Costin, Cathy L. and Melissa B. Hagstrum 1995 Standardization, labor investment, skill, and the organization of ceramic production in late prehispanic highland Peru.  American Antiquity  60(4):619-639.Ehrenreich, Robert M. 1991 Metalworking in Iron Age Britain: Hierarchy or heterarchy?  MASCA: Metals in Society: Theory beyond analysis. 8(2), 69-80.Evans, Robert K. 1978 Early craft specialization: an example from the Balkan Chalcolithic. In Charles L. Redman and et al., eds. Pp. 113-129. New York: Academic Press.Feinman, Gary M. and Linda M. Nicholas 1995 Household craft specialization and shell ornament manufacture in Ejutla, Mexico.  Expedition  37(2):14-25.Feinman, Gary M., Linda M. Nicholas, a nd Scott L. Fedick 1991 Shell working in prehispanic Ejutla, Oaxaca (Mexico): Findings from an exploratory field season.  Mexicon13(4):69-77.   Feinman, Gary M., Linda M. Nicholas, and William D. Middleton 1993 Craft activities at the prehispanic Ejutla site, Oaxaca, Mexico.  Mexicon15(2):33-41.  Hagstrum, Melissa 2001 Household Production in Chaco Canyon Society.  American Antiquity  66(1):47-55.Harry, Karen G. 2005 Ceramic Specialization and Agricultural Marginality: Do Ethnographic Models Explain the Development of Specialized Pottery Production in the Prehistoric American Southwest?  American Antiquity  70(2):295-320.Hirth, Kenn. 2006. Obsidian Craft Production in Ancient Central Mexico: Archaeological Research at Xochicalco. University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City.Kenoyer, J. M. 1991 The Indus Valley tradition of Pakistan and Western India.  Journal of World Prehistory  5(4):331-385.Masucci, Maria A. 1995 Marine shell bead production and the role of domestic craft activities in the conomy of the Guangala phase, southwest Ecuador.  Latin American Antiquity  6(1):70-84.Muller, Jon 1984 Mississippian s pecialization and salt.  American Antiquity  49(3):489-507. Schortman, Edward M. and Patricia A. Urban 2004 Modeling the roles of craft production in ancient political economies.  Journal of Archaeological Research  12(2):185-226Shafer, Harry J. and Thomas R. Hester. 1986 Maya stone-tool craft specialization and production at Colha, Belize: reply To Mallory.  American Antiquity  51:158-166.Spence, Michael W. 1984 Craft production and polity in early Teotihuacan. In  Trade and Exchange in Early Mesoamerica. Kenneth G. Hirth, ed. Pp. 87-110. Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press.Tosi, Maurizio. 1984 The notion of craft specialization and its representation in the archaeological record of early states in the Turanian Basin. In  Marxist perspectives in archaeology. Matthew Spriggs, ed. Pp. 22-52. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Vaughn, Kevin J., Christina A. Conlee, Hector Neff, and Katharina Schreiber 2006 Ceramic production in ancient Nasca: provenance analysis of pottery from the Early Nasca and Tiza cultures through IN AA.  Journal of Archaeological Science  33:681-689. Vehik, Susan C. 1990 Late Prehistoric Plains Trade and Economic Specialization.  Plains Anthropologist  35(128):125-145.Wailes, Bernard (editor). 1996. Craft Specialization and Social Evolution: In Memory of V. Gordon Childe. University Museum Symposium Series, Volume 6 University Museum Monograph - UMM 93. University Museum of Archaeology and Anthropology - University of Pennsylvania.Wright, Henry T. 1969. The Administration of Rural Production in an Early Mesopotamian Town. 69. Ann Arbor, Museum of Anthropology, University of Michigan. Anthropological Papers.Yerkes, Richard W. 1989 Mississippian craft specialization in the American Bottom.  Southeastern Archaeology  8:93-106.Yerkes, Richard W. 1987 Prehistoric Life on the Mississippi Floodplain. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.