The importance of fostering positive relationships between a company and its clients dates as far back as the 1950s, when globally-acclaimed management guru, Peter Drucker [1], set the foundations of customer-relations in businesses for decades to come by stating that “[the] purpose of business is to create and keep a customer.”

Many small-to-medium enterprises find themselves in a less-than-promising position among their competitors when they want to appeal to a pool of risk-adverse consumers who choose to put their trust in larger brands. So, to differentiate themselves from those who are more well-established in their cohort, many enterprises choose to tailor their goods or services to the specific needs of potential consumers.

After inspection of “The 2017 Top of Mind Survey,” a recent survey conducted by KMPG on 526 senior consumer goods and retail executives, I noticed a steep rise in the number of small-to-medium enterprises that are planning to prioritize their customer service and establish customer trust and loyalty above everything else. Within the disruptive market, 34% of those entities hope to implement a personalized, customer service model to appeal to new customers while another 31% plan to utilize marketing trends, such as online and mobile advertisements, to expand marketing and customer-relations operations [2].

 

According to the American Customer Satisfaction Index (ACSI), investments in improving customer’s experience has only improved by a small margin [3]. The numbers measured at 74.8 in 1994, then dropped to a minimum of 70.7 in 1997, rose to 72.5 at the beginning of the Millennium decade, proceeded to hit an all-time high at 76.8 in 2013–and then receded slightly to 75.4 this year. The numbers surprisingly show that customer satisfaction has only increased by a negligible margin of 0.6 since two decades ago – and 4.7 since the all-time low in 1997. Despite the huge shift for businesses to focus massive resources and capital into improving customer relationships, the statistics haven’t indicated an increase in customers’ satisfaction with the products and services.

After conducting research and taking into account both sides of the topic, I believe that customers aren’t mostly giving businesses a hard time because they are unhappy with the provided products or services. Rather, I believe that consumer behaviors are becoming sporadic and easily influenced by a multitude of factors, which causes customers themselves to become so much harder to satisfy now than ever before. Though establishing strong customer relationships is a very important success factor for many businesses (especially in retail), I think every company should first improve other operational facets of the their business and see how their value proposition aligns with changing consumer streams before deciding on whether or not they should prioritize customer centricity above all others.

_______________________________________________________

Word Count: 442

[1] Taken from the Economist

[2] Taken from KPMG

[3] Taken from Sift Ltd

During the summer of 2017, the first Ottawa Canabis and Hemp Expo took place in Canada’s capital [1]. It served two main purposes: to help people learn about the medical marijuana business and to educate them on how recreational marijuana can change the business after the legalization of marijuana in July 2018. Peter Jamieson of OrganiGram says, “three and five million Canadians are using cannabis on a regular basis, on a daily basis in Canada. Once recreational marijuana is legalized, the number of people using it is estimated to grow by another six million. There is also growing demand for cannabidiol oil, which is consumed for pain relief.”

Business-wise, cannabis is an untapped  potential in the Canadian markets of which many foresee great growth. At full capacity, MYM suggests that it can produce more than 150 metric tons of cannabis per year, which would be worth about $750 million. In a recent release [2], the “Weedon Project” has apparently expanded to include a cannabis education centre, a cannabis museum, a 2,500-person auditorium, and a 22-room hotel.

Some discourage the business due to the lack of Canadian consumption of marijuana. Maclean, The Canada Project Based on Maclean’s statistics [3], 84 per cent of surveyed people over the age of 18 never smoke marijuana. It’s also stated that out of the 16 per cent of Canadians that do, only 5% smoke daily and 3% smoke frequently weekly. Deloitte, on the other hand, stated that 22% of Canadian adults uses marijuana [4]. Based on the statistics, Deloitte suggests that the value of recreational marijuana will likely increase to $8.7 billion. Deloitte also included another 17% of surveyed people who said they “might” try marijuana if legalized and concluded that “40% of the adult population” may eventually  use marijuana.

As a young adult who has never tried cannabis and and would not be inclined to start on the expense of ruining my health, I don’t see myself engaging with marijuana as part of the “40% of the adult population” in the near future. I see potential in the development and expansion of the marijuana market once the drug is legalized, but I’m much less optimistic than Deloitte in believing that it’ll become an 9 billion marketplace where nearly half the Canadian population would indulge in. As of now, since cannabis is consumed by a minority of people and is still considered illegal, I find Maclean’s report more accurate and that businesses shouldn’t make such huge assumptions on the profitability of the market. I’d also like businesses to consider whether or not this such a market is ethical to pursue and encourage, especially since there are many known health implications that come with high use of the substance.

_______________________________________________________________________

Word Count: 446

[1] taken from CBC

[2] taken from Macleans

[3] taken from the The Canada Project

[4] taken from Deloitte

 

Out of a few peer blogs that I’ve read, Sophia Prieto’s blogpost [1] on housing affordability for retirees in Vancouver stood out to me. Since the issue she researched is based here in Vancouver, I found her blog very refreshing and relevant. In her blog, Prieto talks about a false assumption that many retired residents have about owning a house to supplement their retirement. She states that the present value of homes in Vancouver might change in drastically in the future, le-

aving the retired home owner to less desirable alternatives, such as giving up their homes for smaller houses, selling or renting out their home, or taking on a reverse mortgage. In this case, Prieto suggests retirees to avoid debt and financial vulnerability by investing into saving accounts, registered retirement plans, and Canada’s pension plan.

After reading the blog, I realized that my chances of purchasing a substantially large retirement home in Vancouver without some degree of critical financial worry seems grim. However, I then found a CBC article [2] featuring a slightly-over-30 couple who have retired last year and have thrived within the expensive real estate markets of Vancouver. The couple’s secret is their rejection of an expectation that society imposes on us: home ownership. While Leung calls the standard a “cult,” Shen argues alongside her husband that the best way to achieve financial freedom is to “[d]itch the house.” The two both led successful careers as computer engineers, but when an unsuccessful investment of half a million dollars in a house went down the drain, the couple decided to invest their remaining $500,000 into stocks and fixed income investments. Through careful investment and savings, the couple doubled their money to $1 million in a year, quit their jobs, and traveled the world without the need to ever pay rent.

If following the couple’s manifesto is the path to financial stability, I would gladly give up the idea of settling down in a nice, spacious house after retirement. However, there are some factors that make me question the viability of Leung and Shen’s method of living. Would I have saved up enough money to afford travel expenses? Would I get a good return from my half-a-million worth of investments from a constantly fluctuating market? Could I even make or save half a million dollars to invest with in the first place? After weighing the possibilities, I’m convinced that Prieto’s advice on investing wisely into retirement plans and moving into smaller houses in the suburbs is likely the most feasible method for most retirees in a city like Vancouver.

_________________________________________________________________

[1] Taken from blogs.ubc.ca

[2] Taken from cbc.ca

 

Word count: 447

Last summer when I went to China for vacation, I was blinded by the colourful arrays of bicycles that were clustered in front of subways and scattered around the city. After realizing that almost every person in China would ride one, I decided to download the Mobike’s app. I then easily located Mobikes in my area and unlocked one through scanning the bike’s unique QR code. To my greatest surprise–I was only charged $1 RMB (approximately $0.15) for every 30 minutes of use, which was insanely cheap considering the effectiveness of the utility. At that moment, I discovered an everyday transportation business that truly took China by the storm and impacted millions of Chinese people by making their lives easier for a very cheap cost.

Mobike, one of the main bike-share companies in China, was founded in 2015 and has an estimated worth of more than $1 billion in just the 2017 year [1]. So far, the company has provided more than 25 million trips to more than 100 million registered users in over 100 cities. Having raised over $900 million from domestic, Chinese investors (e.g. Tencent, Sequoia), Mobike’s CEO now plans to expand the model to other countries around the world.

 

Personally, I thought that Mobike’s model would be a practical solution for convenient, cost-efficient travel until I’ve come across Scott Smith’s blog, which features his stance on the share-bike industry and why he finds the model more problematic than effective [2]. His main concern was about the over-arching model, which allows users to unlock, pay, ride, and the leave the bike anywhere in a bustling city where there is no regulated storage system in the streets. Dubbing share-bikes as the “leave them anywhere” model, Smith further argues that such transportation utilities don’t fit the clogged environments of the urban cities. He also states that China’s ridiculously large production of bikes (to the point where there would be nearly one bike available for every person) would only become a major waste of space, labour, and production in many North American and European cities. Recently, in fact, Amsterdam’s city councillor called Flick Bikes a disruption that takes up “scarce public space” and demanded that the business shuts down [3].

After giving the idea some thought, I strongly agreed with Smith’s thinking. Despite the decrease in bike theft and the low prices of renting a bike, Mobike’s model would not fit many of the consumers’ needs and value of transportation in many parts of the world. As Smith suggests that “national mobility cultures are real and tangible,” I also admit that every mobility culture is unique to its region and should be understood and respected.

________________________________________________

[1] Taken from techcrunch

[2] Taken from medium

[3] Taken from nltimes

 

Word count: 449

Millions of innocent animals have suffered their entire lives as tests subjected to numerous chemicals injected into their bodies, shoved down their throats, and fervently rubbed into their open wounds. Unfortunately, many of these creatures have to suffer at the expense of developing better cosmetics to satisfy our vanity. Various animal rights groups, such as the European Coalition to End Animal Experiments, have fought for over 20 years to help abolish animal cruelty[1]. Their work has finally come to fruition on March 11, 2013 when the European Union officially placed a permanent ban on allowing tests to be run on animals.

Though animal lovers around the world rejoiced at the news, many others evaluated the situation with distaste. This legislation has especially affected cosmetic firms, many of which believe that the European market will fall behind in the years to come. According to the Associated Press, Cosmetics Europe argued that, “the European Union is jeopardizing the industry’s ability to innovate.”[2] After the ban, L’Oreal, a renowned company in cosmetics, debunked claims of using animals by stating that they have chosen to invest into more ethical alternatives; however, they also discretely stated that “[a]n exception could only be made if regulatory authorities demanded [to test] for safety or regulatory purposes.” As a matter of fact, China, a leading, front-runner in the global market of cosmetics have laws that–shockingly–dictate companies to undergo certain tests before the products are to be released to the general public. In a 2013 report, PETA (People of Ethical Treatment of Animals) revealed that China has regulated companies to have their products tested on a staggering number of 300,000 animals[3].

Despite their animal cruelty-free claims, L’Oreal was evidently one of the many cosmetic companies who were drawn to China’s $32 billion and growing market. I speculate that some companies chose to introduce their products as cruelty-free to win over the public’s favors, but would not hesitate to act on their own interests to exploit and profit from the well-being of other living beings. However, as much as I don’t tolerate inhumane treatments on animals for cosmetics, I’m also conflicted on whether or not completely banning tests on animals was the right course of action for the EU government to partake. Many ground-breaking research in the fields of cancer and diseases have been discovered through testing on animals. Then again, we humans have often only come to know the luxuries that we have created to satisfy ourselves. Regardless of how much we ardently defend our intentions and moral compass, we often forget to consider that the life we’ve created for many animals is nothing short of pure, terrorizing agony.

Word count: 450

Welcome to UBC Blogs. This is your first post. Edit or delete it, then start blogging!