Emerging designers who have all the talent and charm to start a fashion company cannot afford to sell at the traditional boutiques/wholesaler stores. Therefore they turn to the popular new way of fashion retailing – internet retailing.

As technology advances, many companies have incorporated Business Technology Management (BTM) into their business model. Meanwhile, fashion companies are not left behind.

In 2004, Chanel won Company of the Year for Excellence in Packaging, all thanks to their Global Research and Technology department that continues to innovate new technology to enhance product packaging.

Prabal Gurung Spring 2012 Collection

It is evident that BTM is a great way to revolutionize innovation since many brands have increased profits after the integration. These methods can provide fashion businesses with more insight on consumer tastes and data, which is a valuable asset to a company.

All these major fashion houses have demonstrated the benefits of BTM, proving to new designers that technology is a possible and profitable way of managing a business.

A company is established to generate profit, not to protect polar bears, nor save the world. If that was the goal, they would have instituted a charity. Then why are so many companies riding the Green Revolution and implementing sustainability into their business model?

I follow the Sustainable Business Blog because it provides updated and critical blog posts on environmental issues of business entities, written from the perspective of business professionals in the industry.

After reading two posts from the Sustainable Business Blog, the importance of sustainability became much clearer to me.

1. Risk of Losing Stakeholders’ Trust
– A company that trashes the environment and has no concern towards its surroundings are running the critical risk of losing stakeholders’ trust. If this company is so ruthless in decision-making, will they be just as irrational with other major business decisions? Hence, destroying trust rather than building it.

2. Sustainability creates Value
– As the owner of Gucci said, “Sustainability can[…] give rise to new, highly ambitious business models and become a lever of competitiveness for our brands.” With sustainability on the rise, companies that do not employ greener approaches to their business will fall behind and lose value.

Stella Mccartney has always been an active supporter of sustainable fashion

(Please watch the videos posted above. It is highly recommended.)

Have you ever heard of a makeup model casting that didn’t require to see the model’s appearance at all? Well, now you have.

Recently, bareMinerals, an all-natural makeup brand, initiated a new campaign – “Be a Force of Beauty”. While most makeup brands sell the shallow idea of putting on layers of makeup to look like runway models, bareMinerals brings a fresh new perception of beauty.

From a business perspective, I strongly believe that this campaign has all the potential to become a great success. Why?

1) Point of Difference
Separating itself from most industry initiatives with blind castings, “real-life” models and redefining “beauty”, bareMinerals will be able to stand out to consumers and inspire them to recognize the brand.

2)Humanity/ Emotions
The idea that your physical appearance doesn’t solely determine your beauty provides customers with inspiration. Not only is the company selling makeup, they are also selling self-confidence. Also, have you noticed how the product is not mentioned in the commercials? They are trying to make you feel as if your close girlfriend is supporting this brand and so should you.When you feel good about yourself (and a campaign), you are most likely to spend more (and support the campaign).

             Would you ever tell your customers to buy less of your product? Silly as it sounds, that is what Patagonia’s newly launched initiative is all about – buying less. A month ago, the environmentally friendly outdoor clothing/gear company created a fresh campaign featuring the concept of minimal purchases. (news)

While still showing that Patagonia produces high quality products (as a point of parity), it also demonstrates a point of difference; no one else in the market has such a gimmick (discouraging over-consumerism) that separates itself from most industry competitors.

It’s sheer genius. Consumers are lured into getting to know such an out-of-the-ordinary campaign and once reeled in, consumers are persuaded to purchase high quality long-lasting goods but at a small quantity. This tactic will attract attention to Patagonia, and promote the sales of pricier products (higher quality, higher price). Consumers will like the quality so much that they’ll want to buy more, thus generating more sales. The Self Improvement Blog’s article “The Psychology of Consumerism” supports my view that consumers have a good chance of spending more than expected (they think they’re buying less). On the surface, Patagonia’s marketing ploy seems detrimental to sales, but is a silent salesman.

 

          When someone mentions Rovio, you might not be able to recall much about this company. However, once Angry Birds comes up, all of you should know Rovio. Rovio Mobile is a Finnish company best known for its game Angry Birds which has sold over 12 million copies worldwide. Recently, Rovio’s Global Branding Executive, Wibe Wagemans left his position without any comments on why (news).

          Undeniably, Angry Birds is a successful brand. Rovio has created more than just a game for mobile gadget users to have a shot at, but has subconsciously embedded the Angry Birds brand into consumer minds with apparel, toys and lately a buzz about a movie. Nonetheless, is it the right way to go?

           Rovio has the opportunity and resources to focus on the entire company’s brand rather than one single game. Without a doubt, the business had to market Angry Birds since it was what brought the company to fame. Despite how insanely addicting the game is, there will come a day where the hype fades. Therefore, after two years of the game’s release, now is the time Rovio should ride the wave of popularity and start branding the “Rovio” name instead of Angry Birds.

As technology improves, consumers shift from renting VHS movies at the corner store to downloading movies online. This evolution fostered the start of on-demand media streaming company Netflix. However, Netflix has been beaten down on its shares and popularity in the past few months, as mentioned in Armin Rezaiean-asel’s blog post.

I completely agree with Armin’s point of benefits vs features. However, he missed some important elements as to why Netflix is going downhill.

Netflix has been trying to incorporate way too many different new services and changes into the company. From price hikes to failed collaborations with other companies such as Blockbuster (Dish Network) and new services such as DVD by-mail with Qwikister , Netflix has evidently dropped the ball. With so many close substitutions to their service, even the slightest increase in price or unpopular alteration will cause a great drop in total revenue (assuming other factors remain constant).  Did the company forget about their customers? Did arrogance cloud the CEO’s judgments?

The core reason why Netflix is so desperately in need of a good fix is because it’s changing too much and too fast, as Netflix’s CEO Reed Hastings said “it is possible we are moving too fast”.

Netflix CEO Reed Hastings promoting DVD by-mail services

Article One: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/nike-admits-to-mistakes-over-child-labour-631975.html#tertiaryColumn

Look in your closet. Do you own anything by Nike? Does the clothing make you feel trendy and comfortable? What if I told you that a suffering 10-year-old Pakistan boy assembled it in a sweatshop? That track suit doesn’t feel so snug now, does it?

In Article 1, Nike finally admits to employing child labour in Third World countries such as Pakistan and Cambodia. Despite the announcement, they remain uncertain of how the company will stop this practice. Some would despise Nike for violating human rights and presenting “bad” business ethics. I understand this perspective, however to a certain extent I agreed with Nike. A business’s ultimate goal is to generate profit, and how they achieve this goal is their decision. It is “ethical” so long as they obey the law. If a firm chooses to employ risky practices that have bad morality, in which could potentially lose customers, then it is the company’s decision to make.