The Microsoft Surface advertising can be seen on the replay booths at all NFL games.

In Aiden Raff’s blog post, Aiden examines the $400 million deal between Microsoft and the NFL. He discusses how this 5-year deal makes the Microsoft Surface 3 “the official tablet of the NFL” but how there are issues with advertising as certain announcers have mistaken the Microsoft Surface 3 for iPads during live television broadcasts. I would like to go into deeper discussion of these ramifications and how they specifically affect the NFL and Microsoft partnership as a whole, and what the corporations should do to solve this issue.

First and foremost, the greatest problem with mistaking the Microsoft Surface 3 for the iPad is that Microsoft’s greatest competitor in the tablet market Apple gets immense exposure for free, the same enormous exposure that Microsoft paid a fee of $400 million to attain. In my opinion it is obvious that this can lead to a serious crack in the partnership between Microsoft and the NFL, a partnership that actually strengthens both corporations’ businesses greatly, as both companies involved get a great addition to their key partnership aspect of their respective business models. All Microsoft was attempting to do when they paid this hefty fee was gain a competitive advantage over Apple and try to gain ground on them in the tablet market. With announcers falsely advertising the iPad instead of the Microsoft Surface 3, it depletes the purpose of this great partnership between the two corporate giants.

In my opinion, the NFL should immediately work hard towards getting announcers to correct this mistake, as it will get Microsoft the advertising that they paid great money for. As well, doing so can potentially lead to many more lucrative deals between the two companies in the future.

Links

Microsoft’s $400 million deal with the NFL may do more harm than good

David Neeleman is the founder of JetBlue Airways and he became public about his attention deficit disorder back in 2000.

While surfing the internet I came across an extremely interesting blog post on bothsidesofthetable.com that discussed the link between ADD and entrepreneurs. For those of you unfamiliar with the term, ADD stands for attention deficit disorder, and it gives people short attention spans and often results in hyperactivity.

The thing I found most interesting about this particular blog post is how it discusses ADD in a positive light and how ADD actually helps entrepreneurs rather than hinder them. One example the article dives into is the co-founder of JetBlue David Neeleman. As the article stated, Neeleman would “sit at meetings where they were talking about meaningless drivel and he would burst out verbally that they were wasting time or he would throw out big ideas and try to push for change.” Founders and CEOs are seen as the leaders of the company, and as leaders they are expected to make key decisions. These key decisions they make can be extreme enough to do things such as alter their company’s business model completely or enhance their product to the point that they catapult themselves to the top of the market that they are competing in.  Most people would believe that having someone with ADD in this position with this much power would be an utter and complete disaster. However, as the article states: “ADD is a trait found in many successful CEO and entrepreneurs.” At first that fact would seem absurd, as it did to me also, but it actually makes perfect sense. People with ADD seek out novelty, and that is one of the foundations of being an entrepreneur. You must be innovative; you need the quality of being original, which means having a value proposition that no other company can match, and this is exactly what a person with ADD possesses. Thus, making them a perfect candidate to be a CEO of a company and lead their team to the top of their respective industry.

Links:

http://www.bothsidesofthetable.com/2014/11/02/why-add-might-actually-benefit-startup-entrepreneurs/

Women in Africa sewing clothing. People like Maryanne Mathias are responsible for giving these women opportunities like this to make money and improve their own living standards.

A social enterprise is any organization that places maximizing improvements in human and environmental well being ahead of maximizing profits. Even if the United Nations were to be fully funded, it does not necessarily mean that having Arc or social enterprise is useless. As a matter of fact, even if the UN were to have full funding, they would still not be able to improve the well being of humans and the environment like social entrepreneurs are able to. The problems that things such as the Sauder School of Business’s Arc Initiative solve go well beyond just financing and money. These are more so ethical issues that require the individual who is funding the project to have a passion in making it succeed.

Take Osei-Duro clothing’s co-founder Maryanne Mathias for example. When her company was struggling with production issues, rather than pour more money into higher skilled workers, she made the decision of personally fixing their production issues and provided better training to her current workforce, a workforce of women who really needed the money in order to live a better lifestyle. Hypothetically speaking, if a fully funded UN were in charge of this decision, they would most likely decide to use their large sum of funds to bring in more skilled workers to deal with the poor production quality that Osei-Duro was experiencing. As you can see there is quite the difference between the two scenarios, as one is strictly money based and the other goes beyond the financing and improves the lives of the struggling workers. This shows how the social entrepreneur made a much larger difference than a fully funded UN. Thus, proving why we would still indeed need the Arc/social enterprise even when there is a fully funded United Nations.

Links

http://skollworldforum.org/about/what-is-social-entrepreneurship/

http://www.sauder.ubc.ca/Global_Reach/ARC_Initiative

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/small-business/sb-growth/going-global/production-problems-nearly-unravel-high-end-fashion-label/article14286870/

A Brazilian fan reacting to the 7-1 blowout loss to Germany. It was at this point all of Brazil had realized that their $14 billion investment had gone to waste.

The FIFA World Cup is the grandest stage of them all, it is where legends are made and the hopes and spirits of people around the world are lifted. While all of this is utterly amazing, the business side of the World Cup is the exact opposite, and as Brazil learned this year, sometimes the price tag is just too much to handle.

Reports had Brazil spending close to $14 billion on the World Cup, a staggering figure that is almost 2.5 times more than what South Africa had spent on the sporting spectacle in 2010. To make matters worse, the Brazilian officials had promised private funding would provide financial support for this project, but all of that near $14 billion came directly out of the public purse. Despite having the strongest economy in South America, Brazil has serious issues, specifically that of poverty and sanitation, as 50% of their population does not have access to basic services.

In my opinion, this article links strongly to our discussions about ethics in business. The Brazilian government had made the poor ethical decision of putting a sporting event ahead of the well being of their own citizens, the same citizens who are the very backbone of their economy. By doing so, they have not only made the living conditions of their citizens worse than before, but they have also “shot themselves in the foot” so to speak, in the sense that they have incurred an enormous debt that will take years to pay off. If I was given the expected cost figures and had the choice on whether to host the World Cup or not, I would 100% say no, and rather than invest that $14 billion into a sporting event I would invest it into things such as education and healthcare, which would make the living conditions of my citizens stronger and as a result, my country’s economy as whole better off.

Links:

http://www.sportsnet.ca/soccer/world-cup-2014/2014-fifa-world-cup-brazil-cost-poverty-drugs-public-spending-money/

The US based company is trying to battle back from a $192 million loss in the most recent quarter.

In my fellow classmate Brodie Woods’s blog, he discussed his recommendations for Sprint in regards to their attempt to have a big turnaround from their $192 million loss in the most recent quarter. Brodie stated in his post: “Going forward Sprint needs to primarily deal with their massive loss of costumers and try to build long term subscriber growth.” I could not agree more with this statement, as this is the largest problem Sprint is facing as of right now. The key reason Sprint is “in the red” when it comes to profits is because of their poor customer relationship aspect of their business model. Referring again to Brodie’s post, he went on to add: “Sprint was ranked dead last in customer satisfaction for poor service, reception, and reliability.”

In my opinion, customer service is one of the most important aspects to having a successful company that lasts in the long run. Companies such as Amazon, Google, and Samsung are amongst those with the highest customer satisfaction ratings and their success speaks for itself. If Sprint is serious about wanting to make this big turnaround that they have been dreaming about into a reality, I recommend they invest most of their time into their customer service department. By doing so, they will immediately begin doing damage control to their poor customer relationships aspect of their company, and as a result, they will be strengthening their business model, which is the perfect beginning point to lead a large turnaround and to competing with top notch competitors.

Links:

Sprint Lays Off 2000 Workers

PepsiCo was arguably the largest company involved in this scandal.

Reuters has reported a brand new shocking development that over 300 companies, including PepsiCo Inc. and AIG Inc. had secured deals with Luxembourg to have their tax bills slashed. The companies involved have reportedly saved billions of dollars in taxes and it is said that Luxembourg provided hundreds of private tax rulings to corporations seeking favorable tax treatment.

As we all know, this is a case of financial fraud, which is a topic we covered in class 5 (financial accounting). The biggest question asked when most people read this story is why would the companies commit such a crime? Well, based off an article on the CGA PD net, there are normally three things that drive a company to organize such a scheme. First is pressure, which prompts honest people to commit illegal acts. Second is opportunity, which gives individuals the perception that they can get away with the act, and lastly is rationalization, which gives the person the ability to justify why their action was dishonest.

In my opinion I strongly believe that those three points are the main cause for financial fraud. Furthermore, I feel that this case is no exception, as the 300+ companies involved in the deals must have faced the need to make more money (pressure), saw a low risk easy way to do it through Luxembourg (opportunity), and had the excuse that hardly anyone would expect Luxembourg to assist in such an act (rationalization). Thus, proving that those three points are indeed the foundation and justification for any company to commit financial fraud.

Sources:

http://www.businessinsider.com/300-companies-including-pepsi-and-aig-are-securing-secret-deals-to-slash-taxes-2014-11

https://www.cga-pdnet.org/Non_VerifiableProducts/ArticlePublication/FinStatFraud/FinStatFraud_p1.pdf

Enbridge is an energy delivery company based in Calgary, Alberta and one of its main value propositions in its business model involve the quick transportation and distribution of crude and natural oil. The company has been battling for the approval of their $5.5 billion Northern Gateway Pipeline contract, but things have only gotten tougher over the recent years for the oil transportation giant.

In fact, about two months ago, multiple BC First Nations groups filed court cases against Enbridge over the endless feud regarding the Northern Gateway pipeline. Among the multiple groups was the Gitga’at First Nation; a group who claimed that about 7500 square feet of their ancestral land would be taken up by the Enbridge tankers. This claim is much like the one in the readings that was made by the Tsilhogoti’n group. The major concern deals with the fact that the oil can leak out of the pipelines and pollute their traditional lands.

These claims made by the BC First Nations groups are extreme external factors that have affected the business model of Enbridge greatly. After all, due to these legal cases, Enbridge must now make sure that the safe transportation of oil through their pipeline is one of their top values. We know that in order for a product to be safer, the speed and quickness must be compromised, which are two of the strong points in Enbridge’s business model. The pressure from the BC First Nations is responsible for Enbridge having to make this change, therefore showing how critical external factors can be to the business model of any company.

Works Cited

 Hoekstra, Gordon. “There Will Be No Pipeline.” Www.vancouversun.com. N.p., 16 Aug. 2014. Web. 06           Oct. 2014. <http://www.vancouversun.com/news/There%2Bwill%2Bpipeline/10122968/story.html>. 

Stueck, Wendy. “B.C. First Nations Challenge Northern Gateway Pipeline in New Court Action.” The           Globe and Mail. N.p., 14 July 2014. Web. 06 Oct. 2014.           <http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/british-columbia/first-nations-challenge-northern-gateway-          pipeline-in-new-court-action/article19608617/>.

The mobile and TV powerhouses will now be working together as one, a scary reality that all competitors must now face.

One of the hottest business topics that always seem to be on the mind of everyone is a merger. No matter how big or how small, these mergers always lead to a wide array of change for everyone in the companies involved, from the CEO all the way down to the average employee. The concept of a merger is always the same; one company buying out another, but the reasoning behind these deals is where the individuality comes out.

Although a few months have passed, the shockwaves of the $67 billion deal between AT&T and DirecTV are still being felt today. The main reasoning behind this colossal transaction was for long term survival, as the future of subscription TV according to Charlie Ergen, CEO of Dish Network and Echostar, is all about “beaming signals into phones rather than piping them into households.” (Bercovici) So rather than saying AT&T now owns DirecTV, we must go further and ask what does this do for the companies?

Well, with AT&T being the second largest mobile network provider in the US, DirecTV increases their customer base by getting access to the 73 million AT&T wireless subscribers. (Bercovici)  Based off multiple discussions in class, as well as logical business thinking, whenever a company grows its consumer base they get much more revenue, which is the exact scenario in this case. Additionally, AT&T gets a new business partner in the NFL, due to DirecTV’s highly coveted NFL Sunday Ticket contract (Bercovici), which is a great addition to their already strong base of partnerships with other firms. All in all, these advantages and many more make AT&T and DirecTV the top companies to watch, as the evolution of TV subscriptions looms.

Works Cited:

Bercovici, Jeff. “AT&T-DirecTV Merger Shows Telecom And Television Are Now The Same Business.”           Forbes. Forbes Magazine, 18 May 2014. Web. 04 Oct. 2014.           <http://www.forbes.com/sites/jeffbercovici/2014/05/18/att-directv-merger-shows-telecom-and-          television-are-now-the-same-business/>.

The National Football League has been producing record revenues for the past few seasons, including $9.5 billion just last year. (Chemi)  They have an extremely large target audience, ranging from children all the way to elders. However, over the past month the NFL has found itself in serious trouble with the media.

First it was the infamous video of now ex Baltimore Ravens running back, Ray Rice knocking his fiancé out cold in an elevator, and now there are child abuse allegations against Minnesota Vikings star running back Adrian Peterson.

Adrian Peterson was the recipient of the 2012 NFL MVP award.

Adrian Peterson has been regarded as the best running back in the NFL in recent memory, and as a result many children look up to him as their role model. With children as a key part of the NFL’s segmentation and targeting, this becomes an extremely serious issue. Severe enough that it made long time sponsor Raddisson Hotels drop their partnership with the Minnesota Vikings and the NFL for now, as they take their “long-standing commitment to the protection of children” (Rovell) very seriously.

This story ties into multiple things we learned in class extremely well, as we can talk about the business model canvas, since the NFL has lost one of its partnerships, or we can talk about ethics since parents do not support an organization that has child abusers as their employees, or even about operations, because with this much heat on the NFL, it is more than likely a key management change will come soon.

This story is truly a mixture of all those things, and a fair statement to make at this point is that the NFL better clean up their act soon, because if they don’t, the consequences listed above will damage them even more and will lead to the downfall of their title as the largest professional sports organization in America.

Works Cited:

Chemi, Eric. “If the NFL Were a Real Business.” Bloomberg Business Week. Bloomberg, 12 Sept.           2014. Web. 03 Oct. 2014. <http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2014-09-12/if-the-nfl-were-a-real-          business>.

Rovell, Darren. “Radisson Drops Vikings, For now.” ESPN. ESPN Internet Ventures, 16 Sept. 2014.           Web. 03 Oct. 2014. <http://espn.go.com/nfl/story/_/id/11535104/radisson-suspends-sponsorship-          minnesota-vikings>.

Larry Ellison has been the CEO of Oracle since it was founded in 1977.

Yes it is true; the day has finally come when Larry Ellison, the founder and CEO of the world’s largest software company Oracle, has officially stepped down as CEO. Ellison has been holding this position since the company started back in 1977, and he played the most critical role in turning Oracle into what it has become today: a software giant that has annual sales of $38 billion. The biggest question being asked since this move occurred is whether or not Oracle will become the next IBM, a company who also had a change in their CEO and almost went out of business as a result of it.

Early results are saying this might in fact happen, as Oracle’s stock had already dropped 2.5% in after hour trading when the news of Ellison dropping as CEO had come out. However, with that being said, this move, in my opinion, will actually benefit Oracle in the long run, and here’s why.

Ellison will still be a part of the executive team, as he will focus strictly on the technological department of the company, and now the old CEO title is split into two Co-CEOs: Mark Hurd and Safra Cratz. This is a great breath of fresh air since Oracle’s business model is extremely outdated, as they still use the tactic of a pushy sales team to make businesses pay large license fees as well as high maintenance charges for their products. This makes customers pay more and enables their rivals like MongoDB to come in and steal some customers and sales. With new co-CEOs, Oracle is extremely likely to change their business model, and as a result, they will most likely fix these issues, making a stronger business model and therefore, a stronger company.

Although nothing is certain as of right now, a change of management for a company that could improve its business model can only lead to better things in the future, but only time will tell.

Works Cited:

“Transition, Not Succession.” The Economist. The Economist Newspaper, 25 Sept. 2014. Web. 26 Sept.      2014. <http://www.economist.com/news/business/21620196-larry-ellisons-job-swap-only-start-big-     transition-firm-he-founded-transition>.

Wilhelm, Alex. “Oracle Stock Drops 2.5% On News That Larry Ellison Has Relinquished His CEO Title |     TechCrunch.” TechCrunch. N.p., 18 Sept. 2014. Web. 26 Sept. 2014.      <http://techcrunch.com/2014/09/18/oracle-stock-drops-2-5-on-news-that-larry-ellison-has-     relinquished-his-ceo-title/>.