Integrated Brand Management Event Sponsorship

Question: Talk about theIntegrated Brand Managementfor Event Sponsorship. Answer: Presentation Throughout the years, Collette has gotten drawn in with the different occasion sponsorships for supporting the individuals around them. Besides, I have seen that the association has supported different clubs towards arranging football pro athletics. I have likewise gone to a design appear in Australia, which was really supported by Collette. Through this sponsorship, the association has gotten ready to arrive at enormous client bunch without a moment's delay. The association for the most part show they adornments and purses through these sorts of sponsorship (Cooper, Merrilees and Miller 2015). Item Placement From my perspective, item situation is the most remarkable publicizing method of Collette towards advancing their items. This promoting strategy is generally connected with situation of items through TV commercial and movies. Collette viably puts their items through successful TV promotions and projects (Colettehayman.com.au 2017). In addition, all the TV projects and promotions, which I have watched are exceptionally powerful towards drawing in the clients. Marked Entertainment Marked diversion is the type of notice where an association creates alluring notice topic for advancing their items. I have seen that, Collette can possibly advance their items through novel topic. The vast majority of the notice subjects of the association depend on design (Cooper, Merrilees and Miller 2015). In addition, the association has additionally different successful YouTube recordings, which elevates its items to mass clients. Brand Communities I have seen that a colossal level of individuals in Australia utilize the sacks and extras results of Collette. In addition, the association has gotten very ready to make an immense brand network having same qualities and culture and having same degree of inclination for their items (Muniz and O'Guinn 2001). Also, brand network of the association improves the informal notice for its items. Worth Co-Creation in a Co-Consuming Brand Community While considering the worth co-making of co-devouring brand network, I can say that Collette co-make the estimation of brand network during assembling their items. The hierarchical likewise take the aggregate estimation of their image network and assembling their items through featuring those qualities (Pongsakornrungsilp and Schroeder 2011). Reference List Colettehayman.com.au. 2017.colettehayman.com.au. [online] Available at: https://www.colettehayman.com.au/stores.aspx [Accessed 24 Feb. 2017]. Cooper, H., Merrilees, B. what's more, Miller, D., 2015. Corporate legacy brand the executives: Corporate legacy brands versus contemporary corporate brands.Journal of Brand Management,22(5), pp.412-430. Muniz Jr, A. what's more, C O'Guinn, T. 2001. Brand Community.Journal of Consumer Research, 27(4), p.412. Pongsakornrungsilp, S. what's more, E. Schroeder, J. 2011. Understanding worth co-creation in a co-devouring brand community.Marketing Theory, 11(3), pp.303-324.

A Pair Of Silk Stockings Essay example -- essays research papers

Kate Chopin again composes another short story with a method of getting the consideration of the peruser in a brief timeframe. â€Å"A Pair of Silk Stockings† is situated in ahead of schedule to mid 1900's in a normal town. Shops, a theater and such lies in the focal point of town. The creator recounts a bereaved mother that isn't so wealthy, that finds a whole of cash and is removed in her own shopping binge and maybe her own fantasies.      Mrs. Sommers is a moderately aged meek mother of a bunch of kids, and is clearly not wealthy any longer after her husband’s demise; Not that she most likely at any point was, however more so than her as it would turn out at this point. She is little encircled with worn out old garments, as though she hasn’t had the option to buy anything in for some time, nor would she knowing how...

How Payday Loans and Personal Data are Used Against the Poor - OppLoans

How Payday Loans and Personal Data are Used Against the Poor - OppLoans How Payday Loans and Personal Data are Used Against the Poor How Payday Loans and Personal Data are Used Against the PoorInside Subprime: March 26, 2019By Lindsay FrankelPersonal data is increasingly being used to restrict low-income Americans’ access to resources, and poor people have their privacy invaded at work, at home, and during their efforts to obtain much-needed government services.In 2007, a decades-old supreme court decision that home visits should be required for people applying for welfare benefits was upheld by the court, which compared mothers on welfare to criminals on probation with regards to privacy rights.Surveillance techniques hit the poor the hardest, and there’s historical precedent for this type of inequality dating back to Colonial America, when most towns had a position dedicated to tracking the activity of poor people. Nowadays, public benefit programs often require home visits, drug tests, the collection of detailed personal information and biometric information, and fingerprinting. Low-income workers often go through psychometric tests and drug tests as conditions of employment, and their phone calls monitored during work as well. Yet government income transfers to higher-income Americans do not require the same invasion of privacy.Furthermore, predatory payday loan firms use personal data to target low-income Americans with ads, tempting them with high-interest loans that can push them further into debt. And scam artists target low-income Americans as well, creating a high degree of concern for this segment of the population. 11 percent of households earning less than $20,000 per year have fallen victim to a scam, when compared to only 4 percent of those with six-figure incomes, according to a 2015 survey. “The harms for low-income people of a lack of data privacy are more concrete than for middle- and upper-income people,” law professor Michele E. Gilman told Fast Company. “You become a target of predatory financial services, or on the other extreme you’re excluded from more de sirable offerings.”Research also shows that low-income Americans are less informed and more concerned about data privacy risks. A survey conducted by Mary Madden found that 60 percent of adults with annual household incomes of less than $40,000 reported that they were very concerned about the theft of their financial data, while only 38 percent of higher-income households expressed the same level of concern. Low-income respondents also felt they lacked the resources to learn strategies to protect their personal information, though they were more interested than higher-income groups in learning methods of keeping their data safe.Madden’s findings are supported by a body of work from security researcher Elissa Redmiles, who found that low-income consumers used less authoritative sources for security advice than those with higher incomes and better training.Lower-income individuals also lack the resources and time for more robust security protections or managing online reputations. “Your upper-middle-class or upper-class American has a wide array of resources, and is much more likely to have the time to do things like hire a company to scrub the internet of any unsavory information or to learn how to game a hiring algorithm to get an employer to look at your resume,” said Madden.New privacy laws are being considered that would protect a wider range of Americans, and some states have already passed laws designed to give internet users more control and transparency with regards to their personal information. But Gilman hopes that low-income Americans aren’t forgotten in the process. “I just want to make sure that if things get enacted, there is attention to people who are marginalized, who experience privacy differently. Otherwise, we’re just going to maintain the privacy haves and privacy have-nots, where privacy is a luxury for affluent people,” she said.For more information on  payday loans, scams, and  cash advances  and  check out our  city and state financial guides  including  Florida,  Illinois,  Texas,  Washington D.C.  and more.Visit  OppLoans  on  YouTube  |  Facebook  |  Twitter  |  LinkedIn

Hydroxyl Group Definition - Chemistry Term

The hydroxyl group is a functional group consisting of a hydrogen atom covalently bonded to an oxygen atom.  The hydroxyl group is denoted by -OH in chemical structures and has a valence charge of -1. The hydroxyl radical is very reactive, so it quickly reacts with other chemical species. Hydroxyl radicals can cause DNA and cell damage. Hydroxyl Versus Hydroxy The terms hydroxyl and hydroxy tend to be used interchangeably, but they dont technically mean the same thing. The term hydroxyl means the radical OH. The functional group -OH is more properly called a hydroxy group. Further, the [OH-] anion, which is called hydroxide, consists of a hydroxy group.

An Investigation of Pro-Social Lying in Successful Relationships - Free Essay Example

Sample details Pages: 9 Words: 2558 Downloads: 7 Date added: 2017/09/11 Category Advertising Essay Did you like this example? Keywords: Pro-Social Lying, White Lies, Relationship Satisfaction An Investigation of Pro-Social Lying in Successful Relationships The present study examines the correlation between pro-social lying and romantic relationship satisfaction. We hypothesized that the more deception present in a relationship, the less relationship satisfaction. A survey containing a Guttman scale and Likert scale was given to one-hundred randomly selected individuals around the Knoxville area. The survey questioned frequency of lies within individuals’ relationships and questioned the overall quality of the relationship. A slightly negative correlation was found between pro-social lying and relational satisfaction. An Investigation of Pro-Social Lying in Successful Relationships In a study conducted by Carl Camden (1984), twenty students participated in a study in which white lies were collected and coded for analysis. Overall, findings confirm previous results that lies are often used to cope with difficulties in unequal power in relationships (Camden, p. 15). Therefore this study was conducted to develop an understanding of the correlation between pro-social lying and romantic relationship satisfaction. Pro-Social Lying Pro-social lying, also known as white lies, can be defined as an unimportant lie, especially one told to be tactful or polite. Kaplar and Gordon (2004) believe â€Å"lie tellers may not be fully aware of what actually motivated their behavior† (p. 490) which can be better explored in research involving pro-social lying and relationships. Don’t waste time! Our writers will create an original "An Investigation of Pro-Social Lying in Successful Relationships" essay for you Create order By measuring the extent of which individuals lie can better inform researchers why individuals do it. When searching for information regarding why individuals lied, individuals may attend to evidence that justifies a positive construal for the lie. Thus lie tellers may give socially desirable responses and misrepresent their motivations for lying. In addition to white lies, this provides insight on the acceptance of lying in relationships whether to protect oneself or their partner. Additionally, research indicated in the 2004 article, â€Å"The Right To Do Wrong†, studies showed results indicating that adolescents and emerging adults quite commonly lie to their parents, and that in part they frame lying to parents as a way to assert the right to autonomy (Jensen, p. 101). The article’s results propose that college students and high school students may lie to their parents when they believe it is necessary to avoid conflict and to maintain what they see and believe as their right to make decisions independently of their parents’ influence (Jensen, 2004, p. 09). By reviewing all of the contributing factors, this relates to pro-social lying and relationships in the future. If people believe in using white lies early on in life, this contributes to why people may use white lies in later relationships and still believe they are ok. Since some of the contributing factors in early relationships like avoiding conflict and making more desirable imag es are used in parent-child relationships, then also seen in later intimate relationships between partners gives a definite reason to believe they are related. When studying persistence in lying and experiences while deceiving, Vrij and Holland (1998) determined that persistent lying was positively related to being manipulative, being keen on making a good impression and being good at controlling verbal and nonverbal behaviors (p. 299). A negative correlation was found, however, between manipulation, being keen on making a good impression on others, being good at controlling verbal and nonverbal communication and feeling awkward during deception, and finding it difficult to deceive, and expecting to give off signals of deception (p. 05). These finding suggest that the more persistent and confident the liar is, the more positive the situation in terms of believability. In context with lying in romantic relationships, it should be noted that lying may affect relationship satisfaction differently when considering the persistence, confidence, and expertise of the liar. Pro-social Lying and Relationship Satisfaction As determined by the study, r elationship satisfaction has come to be defined as a mutually beneficial interaction characterized by happiness in both individuals. Several different studies have looked at the motives for lying. Kaplar and Gordon (2004) defined altruism as â€Å"a motivational stat with the ultimate goal of increasing another’s welfare† (p. 490). Another study in Shusterman and Saxe’s (1991) research showed, â€Å"85% of participants reported having lied to their current romantic partner about a past relationship, and almost all reported that they lied to protect their partner† (p. 490). In relation to pro-social lies, this measures to what extent partners use white lies. Also these studies give reason to further investigate into relationship satisfaction. According to Tim Cole (2001) in an article, â€Å"Lying to the One You Love†, deception has a modest positive impact on a partner, unless of course it is detected (p. 108). As a means of coping with relational problems, deception is an obvious factor. Through this study, it is clear that partners in intimate relationships use white lies to avoid conflict situations. This correlates with pro-social lying in relationships since people may be using lies to maintain and distress their relationship. This approach is potentially beneficial until the significant other discovers the deception. If this occurs, the relationship could possibly be viewed as built on white lies and less on truth thus damaging trust and honesty supposedly there. According to Mary E. Kaplar and Anne K. Gordon (2004), â€Å"Lie tellers in intimate relationships often claim their lies were told to protect their partner† (p. 489). Related to pro-social lying in relationships, this enhances the number of reasons why people lie. Kaplar and Gordon’s experiment was different in the subjects were asked to think back on a time when they were lied to or lied themselves and say why in an autobiographical narrative. Using this evidence, people can infer data and use it to reiterate consistent findings even in measuring white lies in relationships. Consistent with other studies, a Michigan State University study argued that the nature of relationships heavily influences factors involving deceptive communication. They posit that detecting deception is much different among relational partners than with strangers due to relational partners being able to can look at the consistency of what is being said to them and focus on any differentiations from usual shared, symbolic activities. It can be determined that the more physically and emotionally dependent the relationship, the more apt individuals are to lie (Miller, Mongeau, Sleight 1986). Although no solid explanation has been developed, studies show that friends are better detectors of deceptions. The authors suggest this may be due to intimate partners developing avoidance mechanisms in an attempt to help them think there is no possibility of their partners deceiving them. Exceptions might stem white lying where, â€Å"parties to personal relationships might be more predisposed to stray from the truth than participants in transitory, casual, impersonal relationships† (Miller et. al. , 1986 p. 501). Many falsehoods occurring in intimate relationships derive from the desire to maintain the relationship. The authors do admit, however, that they are, â€Å"unaware of any research investigating the ways that concern for relational outcomes affects deceptive practices in personal relationships† (Miller et. l. , 1986, p. 502). In Davis and Oathout’s (1987) research, Maintenance of Satisfaction in Romantic Relationships: Empathy and Relational Competence, women scored higher than men on the empathy on their relationships. By women investing their feelings and emotions more heavily than men, they are more likely to maintain the relationships through white lies. Franzoi et al. (1985) also concluded that women normally have higher empathy rat ings in their romantic relationships than men do. In concordance with pro-social lying and relationships, higher empathy qualities contribute to a larger investment of time. In Battista and Abrahams study conducted in 1995, it was found that â€Å"persons planning to deceive dating partners engaged in significantly more extensive planning and were significantly faster in assessing their plan’s completeness than were persons whose target was a friend or stranger† (p. 120). This study not only reveals that deception is present in romantic relationships, but that people invest more time and energy in deceiving their significant others. In another study pertaining to the use of negative behaviors to preserve relationships, it was discovered that negative maintenance behaviors such as control, avoidance, destructive conflict, infidelity, jealousy, and spying were negatively associated with relationship satisfaction, and positive maintenance behaviors such as advice, assurances, conflict management, networks, openness, positivity, and tasks were positively associated with relationship satisfaction (Dainton Gross, 2008). This study supports that negative behaviors, such as lying, are detrimental to relationship satisfaction. Although lying was not directly studied in this instance, lying is considered a negative behavior and items such as spying infidelity are closely related to deception. Interpersonal Deception Theory Interpersonal Deception Theory attempts to create a framework that explains deception, whether perceived or actual, in interpersonal communication on the conscious and subconscious levels. The theory proposes that most individuals feel confident in their abilities to detect deception; however, most overestimate this ability in reality. Three dominant deceptive strategies are analyzed and include falsification, concealment, and equivocation (Buller Burgoon 1996). Eighteen propositions dealing with deception in interpersonal communication in each phase were developed. In IDT, relationship factors between the sender and receiver significantly influence the outcome of deception. These factors include relational familiarity and relational valence. Relational familiarity, such as in intimate relationships, can help receiver’s better detect deception from their partners. Buller Burgoon 1996) After researching previous studies related to pro-social lying and relationship satisfaction, it was determined that the intent of this study would be to answer the question: RQ1: Is there a relationship between pro-social lying and romantic relationship happiness? Methods Once more, the purpose of the research was to evaluate people’s relationships with their significant other and how successful the relationship is ba sed on pro-social lying. Among all the various people who participated in the study, one-hundred people were asked to volunteer whereas ninety-one participated. The hope for this paper is that this study will lay groundwork for future observations of relationship failure or success based on white lies in communication between significant others. Participants Since the study focused on romantic relationships, non-random sampling was used to obtain individuals who were currently in a romantic relationship. Individuals were approached at various locations on the University of Tennessee’s Campus and asked to participate in a study. Overall, ninety-one people participated in the study. All participants were at least 18 years of age. This particular study involved diversity such as a person’s span of relationship, age of partners, and sexual preference. Researchers handing out the surveys did not show any bias or have conversations while participants took part in the research. Procedures Everyone who wished to participate in the study was asked to answer questions based on two different scales, Guttman and Likert, where their answers were then ranked and processed in comparison to other participants. For each survey, the researchers would take turns asking different people to fill out a survey. Participants were given the opportunity to rank what is and is not good for their relationship success based on different small lies to major white lies. This was a voluntary study in which there were no incentives for the participants. Instrumentation Participants’ relationship satisfaction derived from pro-social lying was measured through a survey that took approximately five to six minutes. We hypothesized that pro-social lying would negatively affect romantic relationship satisfaction. Items on the Guttman scale attempted to determine what types of lies participants used in their romantic relationships. However, the Guttman Scale failed to make a Guttman Simplex. A Likert scale was used to determine participants’ satisfaction in the relationship. This allowed the researchers to measure relationship satisfaction based on five questions. The least reliable question is number four at . 662 and the most reliable is question one at . 776. Results Correlation Data The responses from the Guttman Scale and Likert Scale reveal that pro-social lying only accounts for about 6% of what makes a relationship work (r= -. 247, p _). The Guttman Scale failed to create a simplex, but information could still be derived concerning people’s willingness to lie to their significant others. A slightly negative correlation was found between pro-social lying and relational satisfaction. Essentially, the more a person lies, the less happy the relationship is. The study found that men lie almost twice as much as women, but women frequently lie to protect their significant other’s feelings. Discussion This was a pilot study intended to evaluate the correlation between pro-social lying and relationship satisfaction in romantic relationships. The results indicate that lying plays a very small role in the overall satisfaction in romantic relationships. It also suggests that men lie more frequently than women, but women often lie to protect the feelings of others. However, the study contains several limitations. First of all, the sample size was quite small (N= 91), suggesting that these results may not truly represent all romantic relationships. Furthermore, the study was centered around participants surveyed solely on the University of Tennessee’s campus. Lastly, the Guttman scale failed to create a simplex. Future research endeavors involving pro-social lying and relationship satisfaction should have a larger and more diverse population so that the population is more representative. It may also be valuable to try another type or scale or method to evaluate the two variables. To conclude, pro-social lying does have a small role in the overall satisfaction of a romantic relationship. Individuals should be aware of pro-social lying and the role it plays in various facets of life, particularly in romantic relationships. The results from this study lay a foundation for those interested in discovering what factors into relationship happiness and perhaps what makes or breaks certain couples. If in fact there is not as much correlation between deception and unhappiness as predicted, than other factors may need to be explored. References Battista, P. D. , and Abrahams, M. (1995). The role of relational information in the production of deceptive messages. Communication Reports, 8, 120- 127. Buller, D. B. , and Burgoon, J. K. (1996). Interpersonal deception theory. CommunicationTheory, 6, 203-242. Camden, C. (1984). White lies in interpersonal communication: A taxonomy and preliminary investigation of social motivations. The entity from which ERIC acquires the content, including journal, organization, and conference names, or by means of online submission from the author. Western Journal of Speech Communication, 48, 309-325. Cole, T. (2001). Lying to the one you love: The use of deception in romantic relationships. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 18, 107-129. Dainton, M. and Gross, J. (2008). The use of negative behaviors to maintain relationships. Communication Research Reports, 25, 179- 191. Davis, M. H. , Oathout, H. A. (1987). Maintenance of satisfaction in romantic relationships: Empathy and relational competence. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 53, 397-410. DePaulo, B. , et. al. (1996). Lying in everyday life. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,70. 5, 975-995. Feeney, J. A. , Noller, P. (1990). Atta chment style as a predictor of adult romantic relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 58, 281-291. Jenson, L. A. et al. (2004). The right to do wrong: Lying to parents among adolescents and emerging adults. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 33, 101-112. Kalbfleisch, P. J. (2001). Deceptive message intent and relational quality. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 20, 214-230. Kaplar, M. E. , Gordon, A. K. (2004). The Enigma of altruistic lying: Perspective differences in what motivates and justifies lie telling within romantic relationships. Personal Relationships, 11, 489  Ã¢â‚¬â€œÃ‚  507. Miller, G. , Mongeau, P. , Sleight, C. (1986). Fudging with friends and lying to lovers: deceptive communication in personal relationships. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 3, 495-512. Oathout, H. A. , Davis, M. H. (1987). Maintenance of satisfaction in romantic relationships: Empathy and relational competence. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 53, 397-410. Vrij, A. , Holland, M. (1998). Individual differences in persistence in lying and experiences while deceiving. Communication Research Reports, 15, 299- 308.

Innovation in Event Management - Significance of Creativity for Events Essay

Essays on Innovation in Event Management - Significance of Creativity for Events in the Current Social and Economic Environment Essay The paper â€Å"Innovation in Event Management - Significance of Creativity for Events in the Current Social and Economic Environment" is a  brilliant example of an essay on management. Innovation is entailing people’s activity and organizations’ activity aimed at changing themselves and the environment. It involves breaking routines and dominant ways of thinking through the introduction of new things and behaviors and launching new standards. It comprises individual stance, an organizational process and a social movement (Books LLC., 2010). Innovation is a complex development of discoveries and inventions brought about in the business and social environment with the hope of leading to adoption by new users. During the adoption process, improvements to both the idea and implementation often require further innovation. More often, successful innovations are imitated by other players in the industry or applied by analogy in other industries (McFarlane, Mayer, and Bertr and, 1999). Several cases of innovation are in existence. They include product, process, and behavioral innovation. Innovation is often a mix of the three categories. The effect of innovation is the creation or transfer of economic value. The creation of new value is the strongest form of innovation while the transfer of value is a weaker form (Smitz, 2004). Strong innovation takes place when a firm creates economic value (Gore, 2001). The majority of innovation that is driven by competitive forces is of the weak form (O’Brien, 2008). In this case, no new value for the market is created but instead involves a redistribution of value among suppliers, competitors, substitutes or consumers (Vaisutis, 2007). This may involve the introduction of a better product or the reduction in production or service delivery costs. The weak form of innovation is usually incremental and evolutionary in nature and is thus less disruptive than stronger forms.Innovation and creativity are used by some people interchangeably. However, creativity is getting the great ideas, it is sort of research and development, and everybody is creative, everyone has great ideas and every firm has more great ideas than it can ever implement or bring into the market the marketplace. Creativity is the capability or act of conceiving something original or unusual (Smitz, 2004). It involves thinking up new things or concepts. It is dreaming up a new invention and innovation is making it real in one's own unique way. However, innovation is the implementation of creativity. Innovation is taking creative ideas and bringing them into the world so that they can change lives and organizations that bring them into the world. Innovation makes creativity practical and efficient (Gore, 2001). Without creativity, there is no concept or product that needs implementation and once something new is thought up it needs innovation (Wheeler, 2008). In some instances innovation can lead to a realization of the cre ation being impractical and so this new creative idea may be abandoned and a new creative idea may be born thus innovation may lead to creativity. Thus innovation is giving a new direction to an existing idea (McFarlane, Mayer, and Bertrand, 1999). Creativity is vital for innovation for a product that must exist at least in a concept stage for you cannot innovate anything that does not exist. Thus innovation depends on creativity but creativity does not depend on innovation. However, the better success of creativity depends on innovation. Thus, creativity and innovation are interdependent and therefore innovation in event management requires creativity.

The Effect of Helicopter Parents free essay sample

My own experience with helicopter parents yields a point that is both similar and different. What I take away from my own experience with helicopter parents is that many parents hover over their children because they feel their kids have found things of better interest. As a result, I conclude that helicopter parents are not seen for their benefits but only their downfalls. Parents have good intentions by it is not often seen that way by their own children. Discussing helicopter parents, Carroll states â€Å"your intentions are good, but that rotor of yours is causing a din,† (Carroll 32) which shows his understanding of the positive argument that over-protection is not terrible, but, he leans more towards his opinion that parents of this type have dangerous effects on their children in the long run. Carroll also believes that children are being coddled and protected to an extent which threatens their ability later in life to form positive relationships and profound job skills. Many helicopter parents are over-protective because they possess economic anxiety, stated by Mary Elizabeth Hughes (Carroll 32). They are unable to determine a stable financial future for their children so they prevent them from failing. While helicopter parents are negatively portrayed, it has had many positive effects on children and young adults today. For example, by having constant interaction with parents, a child had built up a relationship with an adult that will later prevent them from being intimidated by their elders. Ultimately, when a child goes to college, they will be more likely to easily build a relationship with their professor and not be hesitant to approach them. Secondly, kids tend to have a closer relationship with their parents because their parents have now become more of a friend to them instead of an authority. Carroll speaks of Mark Gamsjager, saying â€Å"He skateboards and snowboards with his two boys, Austin, 13, and Thomas, 9† (Carroll 32). This type of relationship will be beneficial when Mark’s children grow older because they will have something in common with him and it will continue to keep the relationship close. I have a similar relationship with my parents and it has been nothing but beneficial to me. Eighteen years compared to a lifetime is not very long so it is important that kids develop close relationships with their parents before it is time to move off to college. I am grateful that my father is a helicopter parents because I was able to spend a great amount of time with him before I moved out. Carroll ultimately proves his point that helicopter parents are a negative influence on their children because parents are â€Å"too obsessed with your children. You treat them like little princes and princesses†¦and by the time they get to college and are asked who their hero is, your child will cay those words you long to hear: My dad. My mom† (Carroll 32). One of many reasons why helicopter parenting is a downfall is because students with over-protective parents tend to lack self-reliance and independence once they are on their own. Because everything has been done for them by their parents, many students once in college do not have anyone to fall back on because they are no longer living with their parents. Beverly Low, states â€Å"parents would drop their kids off to college and get out of the way, parents now constantly call her office intervening in a roommate dispute or questioning a professors grading system† (Carroll 32). This prevents kids from having the ability to learn from their own mistakes, which they end up making once they’re on their own and have no idea of what to expect. Many parents claim that the world is more dangerous now than it was in the 1960s and 70s when in many ways; it is safer than ever before. They think this because there are many things in the world today that was not around in the 1960s and 70s so parents have no idea what to expect or how to handle certain situations. Since they think the world is a more dangerous place, they clutch a tight grip and never let their kids out of their sight. Lastly, I believe the leading cause of hovering is due to advancements in uch things as technology. The internet has become more dangerous because kids have access to many inappropriate sites just by searching a subject in Google. Social networking sites are the most used and the most distracting today. Alongside social networking, many children have cell phones and seem to be receiving them at very young ages. I received my cell phone when I was 11, only because I had to take the bus to and from school, but now there are kids that are 6 and 7 walking around school showing off their new iPhone. Cells phones have become very distracting to where kids are using them at the dinner table and even communicating with their parents by text instead of a face to face conversation. This causes parents to be more over-protective because their kids are conversing with them less, and keeping more secrets. Carroll provides a good argument but he does not analyze the benefits to the same extent as he does the downfalls. Furthermore, it is unable to be determined whether or not helicopter parents are good or bad because every child has their own opinion and a majority does not speak for those who disagree. Helicopter parents may or may not realize that they are hovering over their children but it they were taught early on, then there would be less over-protective parents. Also, parents need to learn what they can and cannot do in their children’s lives as they grow older. If parents were guided in the right direction, there would be a decrease in helicopter parenting.