Alice Wo's Blog

Snapchat surprised the world when the company that is literally worth nothing was offered $3 billion by Facebook and turned it down. The concept to the app is simple: teens send temporary photos of themselves like text messages only to have them erased. The points of difference for this service are unique from those that share the same social media niche as them. Instagram and Facebook operate on a permanent photo-posting basis which allows Snapchat to differentiate itself. Their rising popularity amongst teens showed Mark Zuckerberg the potential of this tool as an advertising platform. When people grow accustomed to a social media tool it is usually because they have developed a large follower base and are unwilling to switchover. With that preset circumstance for Snapchat, Facebook could find its benefit from the large user base.

FB vs Snapchat

Snapchat had its reasons for rejecting the offer. Facebook’s intentions would be to take advantage of cliental loyalty for pure profit maximization. Snapchat, on its own, would remain true to its product and still increase profit by offering extensions of the service and ask for a charge in return. Also, by partnering with Facebook, the stigma of invasion of privacy would impede on the app’s brand image.

Sources:

http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/comment/so-why-did-snapchat-reject-facebooks-huge-offer-8939529.html

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/business/2013/11/snapchat-doesnt-make-any-money-why-is-it-worth-so-much/

Having moved to BC, I’ve witnessed the predominance of marijuana in the pop-culture scene. The topic is controversial and often receives strong opinions from supporters and dissenters in regards to health concerns. Basically, it is viewed more as an ethics issue, and perhaps it would be interesting to investigate the financial and economic implications of legalizing marijuana.

I did some digging and found a petition started by economists in favor of legalization. The report supporting this document states that $7.7 billion per year would be saved from all the government spending on prohibition efforts. If the drug were taxed like alcohol and tobacco, the government could receive $5.3 billion in tax revenues.

The finances of legalizing weed

The economists that supported this notion probably shared the same opinion as Milton Friedman. His view, as always, is that people should be free to do as they please and the consequences would be fair since only they could be held responsible. In response to Tina’s blog post against legalization, the markets for alcohol and tobacco are relatively unregulated but are proven to be more harmful socially and health-wise. Accessibility would increase, which would initially cause a spike in demand, but the market has a way of regulating itself and reaching equilibrium.

Supply and demand curves after legalization

Sources:

http://economics.about.com/od/marijuanalegalization/a/marijuanademand.htm

http://economics.about.com/od/incometaxestaxcuts/a/legalize_pot.htm

https://blogs.ubc.ca/tinazhang/

As I Googled “companies with shared value”, the only company that appeared on the first results page was Nestle. On the website, it says “what is CSV (creating shared value)?” and “how we implement CSV”. By stating that they are aligning the goals of philanthropy and maximizing profit, they are establishing a competitive advantage – the first major company to explicitly claim to use CSV. Their cliental base is more likely to expand due to the good-willed mission values. Nestle helps in areas regarding global nutrition, water, rural development, responsible sourcing, environmental sustainability, and human rights and compliance. The broad scope of their compassionate efforts serve as a model for other companies to follow.

Nestle shares its values

The idea itself appeals to consumers because it shows an empathetic angle to a multinational corporation that seemingly only focuses on product sales. The company also becomes more involved with its shareholders by asking them to identify global issues, giving them feedback on how to address these problems therefore helping produce optimistic results. The inclusion of their input instills pride and ownership of the company. The joint effort to bring change to the world only increases brand loyalty. Instead of viewing philanthropy as an obligation and burden, Nestle has found a way to embrace social and business benefits.

Source:

http://www.nestle-watersna.com/en/csv

I’ve recently taken an interest to unique company cultures after reading about Zappos. I decided to do some further digging into Google’s reputable organizational culture. It is within their mission to create a diverse team in terms of ethnicity, culture, and sexual orientation. Despite their large company size, they try to maintain a relatively flat and decentralized hierarchical structure. They have meetings where they can communicate directly with the CEOs and express their concerns. Google states their “offices and cafes are designed to encourage interactions between Google’s within and across teams, and to spark conversation about work as well as play.” The workspace is also designed to be comfortable, innovative, and welcoming (refer to photos below). Additionally, Google has a list of ’10 commandments’ that act their pillars of values and beliefs.

Google working atmosphere is employee friendly

The work atmosphere, team dynamics, and employer-employee relationships define a company, encourages productivity, increases employer turnover, and creates a unified work force. With this type of structure, Google has become one of the most desirable employers. By respecting the workers and providing them with benefits and accommodations, they become more focused and motivated to work. Google’s positive results is proof as to why companies should invest in human resources to develop an organizational culture.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PA54HWLZ2e4

Source:

http://www.google.ca/about/company/facts/culture/

Inside Maclean’s business blog, James Cowan comments on how Canada never loved Blackberry but respected it. So what does that mean? We know the Blackberry is sinking in sales and its market share is decreasing, but we usually accredit that with its inability to keep up with the ever-evolving smartphone technology. Sharing this opinion is my classmate, Rohanne. In his blog, he believes that by selling patents and intellectual property, RIM will be on the road to recovery. However, although this is partly the solution, Cowan’s analysis might just be the hidden answer.

Blackberry’s fall

The smartphone is innovative, yes, but it never made the same social connection with its customer base the way that Apple (“I’m a Mac”), Samsung (Apple vs. Samsung feud), and Android (cute green mascot) did. Blackberry, simply put, is boring. It expends little innovation in the methods they use to market their product. They are technologically oriented, but they have little regard for their image. Their bland brand positioning lost them a place in the mark. In Cowan’s words, the two CEOs “were astute engineers and businessmen, but lousy salesmen…In today’s smartphone wars, you need a good pitch as well as a good product”.

Source:

https://blogs.ubc.ca/rohannetaylor/2013/10/12/is-this-the-end-of-blackberry/

http://www2.macleans.ca/2013/10/10/we-respected-blackberry-but-we-never-loved-it/

720 companies around the globe along with the Toronto-based G Adventures that employs over 1300 and Air Canada are seeing a shift in their value of a human resources department. These companies claim that HR doesn’t help reach corporate goals, so instead, these they’ve proposed to outsource the department duties or allow individual portfolios to manage their own affairs. For example, having realized that HR duties can be technologically organized, Air Canada has tasked IBM with keeping records and data.

This new divided approach has proven to be effective for these companies mostly because each department runs independently. Although they operate competently, there is support for the fact that a central human resources department is essential to uniting a company and providing an organizational culture. It provides the company with the ability to align its values and objectives by first providing it with a common culture. Separating the role that is traditionally known to develop team atmosphere and having it managed by a computer software or “rotating leadership responsibilities” treats HR too technically. Organizational behavior deals with more than payroll and meticulous record-keeping, it works intimately with people and integrates values into its workers. Ultimately, the workers run the company, they deserve more attention than a computer program.

The image speaks the truth

Sources:

http://www.canadianbusiness.com/business-strategy/should-you-fire-your-hr-department/

http://www.computerweekly.com/news/2240207846/HP-and-Diageo-take-different-paths-to-cloud-based-HR

When entrepreneurship comes to mind, you don’t initially think of artists and musicians. I can see the appeal of this career path, but after reading a BBC article where a UK music business professional compared establishing yourself in the music industry to “… trying to create a hurricane by running around a field in circles” I was pulled back into the reality of why I’m at Sauder and not busking on a street corner. Brand positioning is a technique that effectively markets a product, so why don’t musicians/artists apply it? Firms first develop a frame of reference and find points of parity with other products, and only then do they begin differentiating. With music and the arts, the former two steps are often skipped. It goes as far as categorizing yourself into a genre or type of visual medium which is extremely broad. Then considering that artists don’t often cater their products toward consumers, they create abstract forms of value and hope that it will appeal to an audience, these “entrepreneurs” jump right into differentiation. Art cannot be concretely categorized, nor is it the intent of most artists. If you are considered a pop artist, you didn’t make it so, your style coincidentally suits the tastes of many.

‘Labour of love’

Sources:

http://fcis.vdu.lt/~n.klebanskaja@evf.vdu.lt/fov1-00098617/FOV1-0009D4C0/KEVIN-~1.PDF

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-24249918

Personal perception vs reality of a young woman’s physical appearance

After reading an article from a classmate on Dove’s efforts to empower young women and encouraging natural beauty. A new ad was launched to get women to describe their physical appearance to a forensic artist. As a result, their descriptions of themselves were more critical than a stranger’s perception.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=XpaOjMXyJGk

Although the message is purely good-intentioned, I can’t help but believe that every company’s underlying objectives is to maximize profit and expand its market which devalues Dove’s marketing efforts. When the marketing strategy become more personable, it makes room for more subjectivity which can easily become misconstrued — I thought the message to consumers was forced. This campaign accidentally magnified the idea that beauty is a prevalent focus in society. These women are commenting only on physicality which misses the idea of “real beauty” — which Laura Stampler described as  “intelligence and wit and ethical sensibility” (¶6).  The reason why  people glance over these flaws is because it’s brand positioning has already led consumers to develop loyalty. It has engraved itself into our minds as that product that boosts self esteems. Their established leadership in this market, as described by Al Ries and Jack Trout, has made it difficult to change the customer’s impression of Dove’s Real Beauty.

Sources:

http://www.quickmba.com/marketing/ries-trout/positioning/

http://www.businessinsider.com/why-people-hate-doves-real-beauty-ad-2013-4

http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/eat-the-damn-cake/201304/whats-wrong-doves-real-beauty-sketches-campaign

Public relations conferencing for Sauder conflict resolution

Milton Friedman’s free enterprise concept of social obligation versus entrepreneurial self interest to address Sauder’s response to the rape chant allegations: Friedman spoke of a concept that businesses should only act within their own interests of gaining profit. Working in favor of social responsibility defeats the purpose of free enterprise. Climate change and poverty shouldn’t be for firms to solve. But is there a way to satisfy both external and internal goals? Looking at the Sauder situation from the eyes of a free enterprise, responding to the media and people accomplished a combination of both. After all, the business school represents a lot of stakeholders who have leverage on our funding and reputation. Having already been plunged into this compromising situation, Sauder was left with two choices — to deny or confirm the allegations. I’d say the goal here was to try to exit the conflict unscathed but the public wanted consequences for our actions. Confirming the accusations seemingly worked against our own interests,  but the other option would’ve only put us under more fire. The latter choice provided the public with closure and a sense of Sauder taking control. It showed our ability to take responsibility and released public leverage on our school’s decisions.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GFCo5HkCAo4

Sources:
http://site.ebrary.com/lib/ubc/docDetail.action?docID=10187339&page=171
http://ubyssey.ca/news/sauder-chant-325/

Fake chicken eggs scandal

From the 2008 powdered milk recall to the counterfeit egg scandal, China is no stranger to the business of food fraud. Recently, BBC News China documented the different media reactions to China’s food fiasco. People have substituted fox and mink meat that are being sold to hot pot restaurants in Shanghai, additionally, diseased pigs assumed to be slaughtered were resold by farmers. Fraud activity hasn’t just been food-related, in fact, phony dictionaries were being sold to young students.

Normally, we would rely on government authority to crack down on all these cases, but unfortunately, the Chinese government plays a role in supporting these scams. China has one of the fastest growing economies in the world, which surprises me with why they need to carry out these schemes. As a generalization, the majority of the country still lives below the poverty line and coupled with the government’s predominant role in the economy, people resort to extremes in order to find attainable and cheap resources to start their own businesses and develop a steady source of income. Ironically, although the government maintains so much control, minimal effort is made to ensure that the country’s citizens are protected against the false products that taint their markets.

Source: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-china-22424129