As Austin Cho pointed out “WestJet is facing a lawsuit for its recent baggage fee implementation.” With this as a starting point, he argued that that this decision is “merely a cash grab” as people who want to have a baggage will now have to pay more to do so and thus WestJet could increase its profits from the people who are willing to pay the fee.

I totally oppose that view, and I will explain why.

WestJet has targeted a niche market of consumers who would not travel first class but would rather travel in a baggage to reach a destination quickly but with minimum costs. It is thus rational for WestJet to assume that its consumers would be happy to pay a cheaper ticket by reducing their packing.

This assumption means that the number of WestJet consumers that will pay the fee will not be large and thus the collection of the fees will not be enough to increase WestJet’s profits but  would merely cover the costs of transporting the baggages. Consumers are currently forced to pay tickets that  include the option to have a baggage. By introducing a baggage fee people’s option gains a financial repercussion to it. WestJet would thus give people the option of carrying a baggage without charging then ahead of time. 

Globalisation increases the demand for transportation by airplanes as an increasing amount of people either have to or want to oftenly travel for work,  entertainment or education.  Traveling by plane is the fastest but most expensive means of transportation and thus people are increasingly searching for cheaper alternatives. WestJet has tried to tackle this exact demand and thus provides cheaper airplane tickets to consumers by minimising its costs without affecting the safety of the passengers on board. 

WestJet is able to achieve this by for example providing less or no on-board complements for its consumers or by not landing to the largest airport of each city to reduce parking costs. In my opinion, implementing a baggage fee is another example of trying to reduce the cost of the tickets as it reduces WestJet’s cost of packing and unpacking the baggages.

All in all, WestJet’s ultimate goal is to reduce the cost of the tickets as much as possible while still making profits. Implementing a baggage fee reduces the cost of the tickets for the people who are willing to travel without a baggage while covering the costs of transporting baggages by collecting the fee. The goal is met, the consumers are happy and as a result the implementation of the fee is a smart decision.

James Charles, a seventeen year old boy became the first male CoverGirl last week. Janine in his beautygeek blog argued that the reaction to that event is mostly positive. “So Lushy” mascara is the brand behind the cover and has thus been associated with the idea that men should not be stigmatised for wearing makeup. The make up he wears in the cover is heavy but natural and accentuates his facial features – the main purpose of make up.

Women do not wear make up just to look good for others. Most of them enjoy the whole process of improving their appearance and playing with colours and looks. They wear make up to feel more confident about themselves, and their appearance and it is a way to boost their self esteem. So women often wear makeup for themselves and society allows them and encourages them to do so.

There are men on the other hand who would like to wear make up but society tends to stigmatise them when doing so. I think that one of the most influential means to change society’s perception is advertisement as not much more than a century ago advertisement persuaded a proportion of the entire world to brush its teeth first thing in the morning.

Thinking from a rational objective business perspective I think that the marketing strategy of “So Lushy” mascara is very smart. Both men and women have eye lashes and both men and women want to look good when interacting with other people or when looking themselves in the mirror. However, mascara brands have been only targeting the female population for so long ignoring such a large proportion of the population.

Reconsidering and expanding the target audience of a firm is called market development and is a very common technique firms use to extend the life span of a saturated product. “So Lushy brings that technique that to a totally different level as it opens a whole market to a huge market segment. I honestly believe that men’s makeup will become almost as common as women’s makeup in less than a century away and that can generate huge amounts of profits for all mascara and makeup brands. However, if “So Lushy” grabs the opportunity smartly enough, it could gain loyalty from all the men who admire James Charles’s, as seen by Janine’s blog,  and it could gain women’s loyalty who feel that makeup should have been for everyone since ever anyway as is also illustrated by Janin’s blog.

Nissan is operating in Britain and as Mike Hawes, SMMT’s chief executive stated “the automotive sector” “has been hugely successful in boosting exports, creating jobs and generating economic growth in recent years” in Britain.

However, in the PEST analysis of Nissan, the political issues of Britain play a large role as Brexit: Britain’s exit from the European Union, correspondingly means that Nissan might have to pay taxes to export its goods from Britain to the EU. In addition, because of Brexit, some Europeans have started to ban products produced in the UK.

Nissan tries to tackle this political issue by asking the British government for a compensation for the losses related to the imposition of taxes and decrease of sales. In addition, Nissan tries to protect itself by not longer investing in the UK and gradually transferring their funds to other countries. For example, Nissan no longer considers to build the next Qashqau sport utility vehicle in UK.

The automotive industry generates more than 800,000 job positions in the UK and thus it might be detrimental for the UK if Nissan and other automotive companies gradually transfer their investments from the UK to other countries. If the government decides to pay Nissan the compensation it asks for, then there is a higher chance that Nissan continuous to operate in the UK. In my opinion, the amount the UK will have to pay for the compensation is trivial compared to the losses accompanied with Nissan’s withdrawal of investments.

However, if the UK government compensates Nissan, then  it gives the precedent for all the other firms operating in the UK to ask for compensation. Since this may not be done, the UK must negotiate with countries instead of firms. However, this might be an even more difficult as there are 27 countries in the EU, other than the UK, 50 additional countries with which the EU has preferential deals and another 161 countries, which are members of the World Trade Organization. Thus, negotiating with countries might take years or might even be impossible.

If this is the case, then the British economy is entirely on the hands of large firms like Nissan and their willingness to continue operating in Britain despite the tax imposed on goods exported in the EU and despite consumer’s unwillingness to buy British products.

All in all, Brexit has sparked a huge debate among economists on whether Britain should make trade negotiations and compensate firms that are vital to the British economy. In my opinion, Britain should do whatever it takes to persuade such firms to continue operating in Britain, but unfortunately it might be too late.