I found a funny skit from Jimmy Kimmel Live that explicitly reveals that Apple zealots are actually blinded.

The title of this blog post might provoke some people who may say “Apple actually has the best technology”. Even before we take this into the technology part, as seen in the video above, most of people did not even recognize their own cellphones. Furthermore, even if Apple actually has the best technology in mobile industry, it is not what those Apple zealots are looking for. What they actually want is the picture of apple in the back of their cellphones.

I am very impressed how strong brand image can be sold and appeal to customers and respect Apple for that. If people could benefit more from better technology or actually better cellphone, is Apple a social evil for hampering that or have people given up their right to utilize and enjoy the better technology?

Susan Minjee Kim‘s blog post about product placement attracted my attention reminding me of negative cases especially in films and videos at the same time. Although Product placement is one of the greatest ways to appeal the product to potential consumers, overuse of it will only irritate and provoke the audience furthermore undermine the artistic value of the film or video.

Nowadays, with development of technology, it is able to insert image of product into a film after it is actually filmed. I carefully guess that product placement is going to grow rampant. I am not anti product placement but one thing I would like to see is consistency. It is inevitable to have ‘things’ in the set of films or videos; however, companies should advertise their products in the right time and right place.

References

: http://brandsandfilms.com/2010/11/does-the-worst-product-placement-exist/

http://shine.yahoo.com/work-money/10-worst-examples-of-product-placement-on-tv-1888739.html

Grameen bank was estalibshed in 1976 in Bangladesh by Muhammad Yunus Bangladeshis were struggling in poverty and extortion by few individuals exploiting labor force abusing innocence of the rest. Muhammad Yunus could not sit by and watch what his people were going through and started to lend maximum 150 U.S dollars to only the 25% people with lowest income. Surprising point of this business is that it did not take interests for lending money. People could start their own small business to feed themselves by buying sewing machine or wheelbarrow and so many people could escape from extreme poverty. Miraculously, the principal collection ratio was 98%.

I wonder if I will be able to come up with the business that would not yield profit. Even if the business is successful, it only means no significant loss. Muhammad Yunus is a paragon of social entrepreneurs who considered improvement in their environment as their profit. I just admire the passion and bravery to believe in his people and the response of people with the best principal collection ratio a bank can have.

References

:http://www.grameen-info.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=19&Itemid=114

http://www.ctvnews.ca/grameen-bank-founder-hopes-he-can-help-canadians-1.569194

Being an avid drinker is not a bad thing business wise, however, the peer-pressure for those ones who are not comfortable with drinking can cause a negative result within the workplace.

Although business is a field where socializing is significantly emphasized, drinking is not the only way to socialize. It is about time to approach to this topic with concerns rather than to stand by and watch only because you are a heavy drinker. Personally, I consider that it is the most honest and irrational moment when one is drunk. However, It is more likely to cause gossips rather than genuine feedback to improve the workplace when you are irrational. Also, although it is a common sense, alcohol consumption is detrimental to one’s health and it interferes employees daily life pattern. Is drinking still an ideal method to optimize intimacy between employees?

Why can’t something healthy and actually get employees cooperate in manner of the manner of team such as Sports day be more implemented rather than making employees alcoholics?

References

:http://www.businessknowledgesource.com/blog/benefits_of_team_sports_for_your_business_026024.html

Heinz has long been existed in most of households with its invincible ketchup for approximately 140 years . It is now not only focusing on providing sweetness to people’s kitchen but also to our planet. It is a positive phenomenon for consumers for a company in dominant position in market to join the trend of sustainability although it might seem as a strategy to maintain its brand reputation.

Heinz acquired several titles as a ‘green’ company from 2008 to 2009 with it’s explicit results by being rated as a sustainability leader by Dow Jones Sustainability Indexes (DJSI), ranked among the 50 most environmentally and socially responsible companies in 2007 and etc.

As seen in the table above, Heinz has shown visible progress of sustaining our environment and it is astonishing even in numerical values. With the development of technology nowadays, Heinz has also adapted with the PlantBottle material which is produced through an innovative process that turns natural sugars found in plants into a key component for PET plastic since 2011 and is planning to increase quantity of it.

With consumers acknowledgement of company’s good will, company and consumers both will be able to contribute to the sustainability of environment.

References

http://www.heinz.com/sustainability.aspx

http://www.airbestpractices.com/energy-manager/sustainable-manufacturing-news/heinz-sustainability-goals-and-results

Currency is not necessarily money nowadays. A factor that leads to profit can be also counted as currency. In this video, Rachel Botsman explains how trust can be your valuable asset in this economy.

“With every trade we make, comment we leave, person we flag, badge we earn, we leave a reputation trail.” says Rachel Botsman. As the technology of internet developed, peer-to-peer business has been going wide. Especially in peer-to-peer, reputation is one of the most important factors that leads to success. The only thing that consumers can rely on the trustworthiness of producer is the reputation(trust): reviews, comments and status. Therefore, as peer-to-peer business grows, the more the trust values.

http://www.andersoncooper.com/2012/02/22/a-familys-home-computers-get-hacked/

It is clear that peer-to-peer business is going to get bigger and bigger. However, one thing I’m concerned is that a person’s identity can be easily fabricated and altered in digital world. I’d love to see how people are going to handle this problem and secure the out growing business.

http://www.baldrige.com/sector/business/toyotas-strategic-challenge/

In 2009, Toyota was struggling through coming up with innovative design after succeeded setting a standard quality of automobiles. Although they were yielding tremendous amount of profits, they suggested the consumers the future of automobiles with environmental issues. Toyota is still one of the leading company in its industry with stable base of consumers and satisfying them with long term-planning.

http://www.businessinsider.com/dealers-cannot-keep-this-car-on-the-lots-2012-4

As the importance of environmental issue emerged, automobile companies realized the demands of creating hybrid cars-a type of cars that uses electricity and liquid fuel simultaneously-however, Toyota was the most active toward it which is becoming more significant while other companies focused on present sales. Toyota’s futuristic value positioning has been coming through with early development of hybrid cars.

http://www.hybridcars.com/news/september-2012-dashboard-53157.html

In hybrid cars market, Volkswagen is catching up with Toyota but it is obvious that Toyota is leading. This suggests that Toyota’s futuristic value proposition is the key to business rather than focusing on instant trends because the one who focuses on future will set the trend.

http://zachheller.com/2009/06/16/direct-comparison-ads-do-they-work-best/

These days, direct comparative ads are rampant especially among mobile industry (Samsung vs iPhone vs BlackBerry).Nevertheless, there has been a notorious example of direct comparative ads, Pepsi and Coca-Cola, depreciating each others’ products. However, personally, I think comparative ads are expeditions of product development for companies therefore benefits for consumers.

Pepsi-Coca cola

Despite the beneficial side of the comparative ads, immoderate use of them cause consumers eyebrows to raise. Pepsi depreciates Coca-cola in their comparative ads explicitly; however, there is no certain point that they are comparing with. This kind of advertisement basically tells “Ours is better than theirs, simple as that”. However, without providing solid reason why their products are better than the others’, it is not an efficient advertisement but an insist which can’t convince audiences.

Pizza Hut direct comparative ad

In this commercial above, Pizza Hut tells the audiences their point of difference emphasizing their relatively cheap price with variety of toppings. Opposing to funny but non-sense ad of Pepsi, Pizza Hut successfully appealed to audiences with blatant method.

All in all, to promote a comparative ad, companies should verify their distinctive PoD and not stubbornly insist that their product is the better one no matter what.

Ford is one of the most well known motor company. Ford has been a paragon of businesses by achieving great success. However, the case of Ford Pinto explicitly shows that the companies that are only focusing on yielding profit are merely social evil.

Ford Pinto was very popular during mid 1970’s with efficient engine and new style of design. Furthermore, 1970’s was suffering from oil shock and compact or smaller cars were relighted due to their relatively less amount of oil usage. However, there were about 500 Pinto drivers who died from burn injury even though those cars were not quite severely crashed. The reason was the Pinto’s fire-prone gas tank. Pinto’s gas tank’s ‘fire-prone’ problem was actually found by Ford before the launch of Pinto. Nevertheless, Ford’s executives figured that the cost of remodeling the car would be costing way more than taking lawsuits from estimated number of victims. In other words, they put prices on persons. Unfortunately, for consumers, Ford successfully lobbied the government to not regulate Pinto’s gas tank until the truth was revealed after deaths of innocent consumers.

If a business is willing to make profits taking a risk of killing people, how is this different than armed robber in a bank?