In his blog post “Shared Value”, my classmate Mitchell McCullough discusses Nestlé’s new policies of shared value. After reading his post, I couldn’t help but feel a positive attitude toward Nestlé. Mitch talked about Nestlé’s forums on shared value, the establishment of a shared value prize by Nestlé and the company’s apparent dedication to the concept of shared value as a whole.

As I read, however, something was nagging the back of my mind. My first blog post in this course actually featured Nestlé, however mine looked at the company from quite a different perspective. My post, which can be read below, discussed how Nestlé extracts and packages ground water from B.C. at absolutely no cost, sometimes extracting water from local towns supply. To me this seems like the very opposite of shared value. When I read that Nestlé created a shared value prize I was immediately reminded of the Nobel prizes. Alfred Nobel, the creator of the Nobel prizes, was also the inventor of dynamite. The only reason he created the Nobel prizes was so that he would be remembered for something other than his destructive invention that has killed so many. It seems that Nestlé has also created their shared value prize to distract consumers from there unethical practices.

From my perspective Nestlé is an unethical company and from Mitch’s, it is one that is helping the world. Considering Nestlé, it becomes clear that it is essential to always look deeper into companies’ practices. It is important not to automatically categorize a company as either good or bad, but rather to evaluate a company from all perspectives until a clear picture emerges.

A recent source of intrigue in the business world is Pizza Hut’s newly announced re-brand. The company, which has been seeing a decline the past two years, has decided to change almost everything about the brand, from the topping options to the logo on the box.Some experts in the field feel that Pizza hut is doing “too much too quickly,” however I take a different perspective on the issue.

Time and time again I have heard stories of companies that were too afraid or too set in their ways to make a change that would have saved them from failure. A prime example of this would be Kodak. Kodak actually invented the digital camera in 1975, but because they feared that the digital camera would take away film sales, they never produced them. As history will show, this was a fatal error—Kodak’s competitors went on to mass produce the digital camera and Kodak faded into obscurity.

Although Pizza Hut may be taking the risk of losing brand recognition and alienating a customer segment who enjoys the current Pizza Hut brand, the rewards to be gained in my opinion far outweigh the risks. Obviously the company agrees with me, as they are continuing on with the rebrand despite the uncertainty. It will be interesting to see how the changes affect the company’s sales in the coming months.

When posed with the question “If the United Nations was fully funded why would we need the Arc or social enterprise?” an old proverb comes to mind: give a man a fish and feed him for a day; teach a man to fish and you will feed him for life. The reason the world would still need initiatives like Arc and social enterprise is because handouts are not sustainable. If the United Nations kept on giving money that was just being consumed instead of being transformed, it would not be a sustainable practice—no problems would be solved, economies wouldn’t grow and people would be completely dependent on UN money.

This concept is perfectly encapsulated by a quote from Arielle Uwonkunda, a Sauder student who brought Arc to Ethiopia: “I presented a portfolio and impact book on Arc…It just so happened that this was exactly the solution the government was looking for. They want to invest in small-to-medium enterprises but so far have found that after being given money, these enterprises don’t have sufficient knowledge to utilize it efficiently.” If you replace the word “government” in that quote with “United Nation”, then you have the exact answer to the proposed question. Even if the UN gives money to people, without the knowledge on how to utilize that money properly, it will do no good. Initiatives such as Arc and social enterprise are more helpful than any lump sum of money could ever be, as they allow for sustainable growth and ultimately, independence.

 Recently, Starbucks announced that they would begin delivering food and beverages sometime in 2015. Although many experts have been discussing the logistical challenges this new channel presents, another less obvious problem may arise from the new system—a disconnect between delivery and Starbucks’ value proposition.

Currently, Starbucks prides itself on its customer experience, and under its present value proposition, seeks to be the ‘Third Place’ people go between work and home.

Delivering their products would completely change the customer experience Starbucks seeks to create, and at the same time would  likely cause a decrease in the quality of the products. So, although Starbucks may just be seeking to increase their channels, by doing so the face of the company might change as a whole.

I also found another facet of Starbucks’ announced delivery service intriguing. Over the past years, Starbucks has created an online rewards system and an online payment option through their app. The company also plans to build the new delivery service into this existing mobile app.

 Looking back now after the announcement of the app-based delivery system, it seems clear to me that Starbucks has been gaging how many of their customers will utilize the app, whilst strategically familiarizing customers with their online platform. This will help the transition to the new delivery system run smoothly, as customers will already feel comfortable with the platform.

 It will be interesting to see in the months to come how many people will use this new service and how it will change the face of the company as a whole.

I recently read an interview with the CEO of HalloweenCostumes.com, a costume store that operates on an e-commerce platform. As I read the interview, I considered what it would take to operate an online costume store, and immediately my mind went to issues such as cost structure, distribution and the seasonality of the business.

As I read on however, the CEO, Tom Fallenstein, discussed how important it is for his business to “Maintain a very personal experience for [their] customers”, citing the fact that “It’s not uncommon for a customer service representative to continue chatting with customers about a show, a movie, or a superhero long after the transaction is complete”

I was quite surprised about the level of importance customer relationships held for the company; at first, to me, it didn’t intrinsically seem like creating personal relationships with customers is important to a business like Tom’s.

In class, one of the tools we learned about was the business model canvas, which includes a “customer relationships” segment. Although we were taught that every section of the canvas is applicable in some way to all businesses, I still thought that customer relationships were only really relevant for service based companies that are built off forming strong, loyal relationships with customers.

I found it interesting to see that even online companies that deal with huge demand at certain times of year prioritize customer relationships, reaffirming the fact that all types of business’ have endless opportunities to create value for customers.