Annabelle Chen's Blog

Judith Richardson and Charles Le Pierrès, owners of Montreal-based clothing company- Judith & Charles, seem to know how to enter a competitive market and be successful in it. Instead of manufacturing their clothing oversea like most other clothing stores, it chooses to parter with local factories and have their products made in Canada.

Why would the couple choose to spend more money on production when they can have their apparels made-in-China and earn more profit? Are they making the right choice? I believe they are.

“Judith & Charles” has most of their clothes made locally in Canada. To customers, this adds a special value to the clothing since nowadays, what is not made-in-China? The company supports the Canadian economy preventing money to flow outside the country and furthermore, with products made locally, it creates a smaller carbon-footprint.

Benefits of the “made-in-Canada” strategy extends beyond creating a special value proposition for the corporation. Manufacturing locally also enables the company to have fast low volume productions.

I believe that “Judith & Charles” definitely has the potential to expand in the fashion industry.

Reference:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/small-business/starting-out/made-in-canada-strategy-suits-high-fashion-duo/article14887362/

When you walk on the street, you will often find that many people you walked by are on their phones or tablets, social-networking, e-mailing, or simply just browsing the web. It is the technology generation and everything people do seem to evolve around technology and internet.

Walmart sees this as an opportunity for it to expand its market. The company is well-known for its low cost deals, which is considered a threat to many retail corporations, and plans on using this advantage to win over the online market.

I believe that Walmart’s decision on entering the online market will help the company to earn profits. The competition for online grocery-shopping is low (since many corporations that tried entering the online grocery market, failed to keep  the food fresh and deliver the products to customers on time) and it will be able to provide an alternative choice for those potential customers who does not have an easy access to the Walmart Warehouses. Currently, The company is testing out same day deliveries. Hopefully, soon, not only will they be able to sell nonperishable goods, they will also be able to sell fresh and frozen products online.

Reference:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/wal-marts-online-food-foray-opens-new-front-in-grocery-battle/article14854841/

From the Comm 101 class, I have learned the importance of branding. If a company knows how to package its brand, it is more likely for the business to succeed. I thought reading this article might help me understand branding a little better and demonstrate to me why is it so important.

Branding is a crucial to a new business: the first impression a brand gives to the consumers is very important. Although many companies recognize the importance of branding, they often fail to take the appropriate actions. Many companies believe that they are capable of creating a brand image that will be strong and powerful enough for the consumers. However, oftentimes it does not work out.

The article shows that only a small portion of business owners actually consult with a branding specialist.

With so many small businesses around Vancouver, the market is very competitive. To be successful, business owners should consider consulting a branding expert and take actions in developing a better branding strategy rather than trying to come up with one on their own. A good branding strategy can distinguish a brand from another and should help consumers to better understand the company.

While reading through business blogs on Maclean’s, the article “How Netflix Knows Who Wants to Watch What” caught my eye. Right away, I was reminded of the topic covered in class 17- IT and Information System.

In class 17, we discussed ways IT may help a company to earn more profit. For example, online surveys. Before reading the article, I thought about how surveys might have helped Netflix to figure out the market preference. However, it was not what Netflix did. Moreover, what I found interesting was that, Netflix actually used its competitor as a way to boost its business.

Netflix looks at the ranking of the movies and TV shows on free video-streaming sites and use it as a reference for figuring out what is popular right now and the possible films the company should consider getting. The point of difference for Netflix to the free file-sharing sites would be the stable connection and the clarity of the film.

Netflix’s distinct way of incorporating IT in its business and the result of that is rewarding and is reflected through its successful launch in Netherlands in September.

Valendina de Bonis’s blog post on Whole Foods Market interested me, as I have many friends that have recommened the store to me but I haven’t had the chance to visit the store.

After reading Valendina’s blog post and doing some research on Whole Foods Market, I see that although this grocery store offers groceries at a higher price end, but the high cost can be reflected in the higher quality merchandise and there is definitely a growing market for this company.

In recent years, living a healthy life has became a more popular trend and people are always looking for ways to improve their lifestyles whether if its by following a healthy diet or purchasing environmentally-friendly products. The demand for a higher quality lifestyle is becoming rather price inelastic: the price of the products does not significantly alter consumers’ preference on purchasing better products. Since Whole Foods Market values a healthy life style and promotes organic diets and the sustainability of the environment, it has become one of the most popular stores people visit. Depending on different people’s values, some may consider the price reasonable for the products but some may just choose to walk away.

I agree with Emily Chang’s opinion that making contents will benefit Netflix more than to buy contents.

Downloading media files illegally online has become a more common activity. Furthermore, the quality of the non-authorized contents are becoming more compatible with the originals files, leading to a signifiant decrease in demand in the sales market for CD’s and videos.

Netflix charges a monthly fee of $7.99, and although users may watch however many videos they would like, one side of the market believes that paying $7.99 is pointless considering that many videos are available online for free streaming.

If Netflix was to create their own content, it would help them to capture a broader market. With Netflix’s self-made contents, consumers may choose to pay $7.99 each month to watch  movies or TV shows that are only exclusive to Netflix. The restrictive access to the Netflix-made contents not only helps to keep the pre-existing customers interested, it also attracts consumers that do not want to pay for the movies and TV shows that areaccessible online for free. The contents created by Netflix is Netflix’s point of difference with other video-streaming websites.

New, foreign wireless companies such as Mobilicity, Public Mobile, and Wind Mobile have been taking away shares from major companies like Rogers, Telus, and Bell. Although these foreign companies are new to the Canadian market, they compete against the big carriers with their voice and data plans that are nearly half the price of those of the major companies.

In response to these concerns, the co-funder of the Telecom and Technology Consulting Group, Brahm Eiley, remarked that “If their prices don’t come up, then they’re dead,” believing that low profits will eventually drive the minor carriers to raise their prices to match with those of the major companies.

Although foreign brands are taking away market shares from Rogers, Telus and Bell, these losses don’t have a significant impact on these major carriers. With their stable phone reception and loyal customers, major carriers are unlikely to lose against the minors in the long term. Not to mention, there is also the switching cost for customers that have signed contracts. However, if the minor companies are able to controvert Eiley’s remark and keep their prices low, they will have the cost leadership and will eventually become a threat to the major carriers.

Resources:

http://www.ottawacitizen.com/Lower+wireless+prices+sustainable+report+warns/8985402/story.html

http://ca.finance.yahoo.com/news/wireless-players-low-prices-not-sustainable-over-long-161544727.html;_ylt=AjQ6i5CeWZoiT26j0aE2X6TkTZtG;_ylu=X3oDMTFicHJ0M2hpBG1pdAMEcG9zAzcEc2VjA01lZGlhTW9zYWljTGlzdE1vc3RQb3B1bGFyQ0E-;_ylg=X3oDMTBhdnVpNmo3BGxhbmcDZW4tQ0E-;_ylv=3

http://jpress.journalism.ryerson.ca/straightwhiskey/2012/10/04/best-possible-cell-phone-plans-with-data/

Only a few years ago, if you asked any North American middle-schooler what she/he wanted for a birthday present, the answer might have been some game console. Today, the answer would be an iPhone, iTouch, iPad, iEtc. Although Apple was nowhere near the first company to enter the electronics market, it has developed its own incredibly strong market of electronics and has won against many other brands with its sophisticated, smart, and user-friendly products.

This year, when Apple launched the iPhone 5S and 5c, the firm was able to sell 9 million iPhones in the opening weekend alone, almost twice the last year’s sales record of 5 million. And in addition to setting this record, this year, Apple became the most valuable brand in the world, replacing Coca- Cola, which had kept the title for thirteen consecutive years.

Many question how long Apple’s monopoly will last. Will it go the fate of Blackberry, which was ranked 54^th most valuable brand three years ago but is completely gone from the list this year? Apple has a strong market share but it will have to maintain its strong performance to keeps its place above competitors like Samsung and Google.

Resources:

http://appleinsider.com/articles/13/09/26/opening-weekend-iphone-5s-5c-sales-may-have-been-split-50-50-insider-says

http://ca.finance.yahoo.com/news/apple-passes-coca-cola-most-232758587.html;_ylt=AhuSPzN7cs1ME1U9ws9AHZHkTZtG;_ylu=X3oDMTFjaGc2N2dyBG1pdAMEcG9zAzEzBHNlYwNNZWRpYU1vc2FpY0xpc3RNb3N0UG9wdWxhckNB;_ylg=X3oDMTBhdnVpNmo3BGxhbmcDZW4tQ0E-;_ylv=3

http://ca.finance.yahoo.com/blogs/insight/apple-tops-most-valuable-brand-list-long-173336735.html

Lululemon, a Vancouver-based clothing company, has always been known for its high-quality, durable athletic apparel. However, due to recent incidents that questioned the company’s trademark Lyon fabric quality, Lululemon’s reputation has been slowly declining.

Recently, consumers filed a lawsuit against Lululemon for the sheer, see-through quality of their yoga pants. This lawsuit caused an immediate 17.5% fall in the company’s share price, approximately $1.62 billion U.S. dollars worth of market value. The consumers are justified in their disappointment; The brand retains its relatively high price range but if its clothing no longer meets that value, why would consumers choose Lululemon over other, cheaper brands?

Last year Lululemon faced reports of dyes coming off bright apparel, another example of sacrificing product quality for low manufacturing costs. Lululemon’s reputation as a reliable brand seems to be but a memory of the past, another sad reminder of the destructive effects of mass-consumerism. However, there is still hope. Lululemon was a strong first in the specialized yoga market, and maintained a good reputation. Therefore, the strong brand image that Lululemon has built over the years should be of aid in fixing its quality problems, regaining consumers’ trust, and continuing to expand its market.

Resources:

http://www.thestar.com/business/2013/10/01/us_pension_fund_to_lead_classaction_suit_against_lululemon.html

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/lululemon-lawsuit-over-too-sheer-pants-gets-lead-plaintiff/article14642784/

http://www.fashionweekdaily.com/chic-report/article/lululemon-fires-sheree-waterson-after-see-through-pants-fiasco

In 2010, Abercrombie and Fitch, one of America’s leading clothing brands for young adults, faced legal charges for religious discrimination. These charges, made by former A&F employee Umme-Hani Khan were passed in court two days ago.

Khan was fired by Abercrombie and Fitch in 2010 for not adhering to the company’s “look policy” by keeping her hijab on at work. Although the local supervisor permitted Khan to keep her headscarf on during work, she was later asked to remove it by the district manager. After refusing to remove the hijab, Umme-Hani Khan was fired. She then took legal action against Abercrombie and Fitch.

The federal government of the United States of America agrees that A&F Co. has violated the guidelines for employee discrimination; however, a company should have the right to establish its own dress policies and enforce them on its employees. The brand has always had a very specific “look policy” and it hires its employees on the grounds that they will adhere to them. These policies include bans on eyeliner, and nail polish. However, these rules serve to unify, not to discriminate. The company’s terms should not be considered as discrimination but a way of marketing the brand’s image.

Resources:
http://abna.ir/data.asp?lang=3&Id=461924