Brief Summary:

In Michael Mauro’s blog post, “Quantitative Decision Making Is Important:Except During The World Cup“, Michael critiques the production and results of creating the brand new soccer stadiums in South Africa for the 2010 World Cup. He argues that both FIFA and the host city of Africa should take some blame for creating these multimillion dollar stadiums that were once filled with the worlds best soccer players but now sit unused. Michael’s reasoning is that FIFA demands certain things out of these host cities and in order to maintain that title these poor countries must abide by their rules. Therefore, FIFA is wrong by forcing the production of these projects that will bring them profits and leave the host city in turmoil. On the other hand, the host cities have the final call on if they want to follow through with the stadiums or back out. Thus the host cities are also to blame for putting themselves into these difficult situations.

My opinion:

I agree with Michael in saying that both Fifa and the host cities are to blame, but I do not agree that the responsibility is equal. I believe that FIFA gets away with taking advantage of these host cities who offer to be the site of the World Cup. More often then not, FIFA requests the cities to build brand new stadiums and if they don’t then FIFA will move to the next country in line. These countries like South Africa are so desperate for some publicity and some way to make money. But as it turns out, they may make some for those few weeks of the World Cup, but once it is over they are left with these big empty stadiums which nobody uses. Also as Michael said, FIFA claims to be a “non-profit organization” but if all the money generated from the World Cup isn’t going to the host country then where is it going? Is it just magically disappearing? The way FIFA operates is completely unethical in my mind. No business should treat any stakeholder that way and just as we have seen in the past with companies like Nike or Lululemon, the story will eventually get out.  I think it will be interesting to see if FIFA is ever accused of abusing these countries just for their precious competition and then leaving them there to rot once it is over.

Here is one of the stadiums that was built in South Africa for the 2010 World Cup

This is what citizens of these host countries want instead of the infamous World Cup.

Source(s) Used:

Mauro, Michael. “Quantitative Decision Making Is Important: Except During The World Cup.” Michael Mauro’s Blog. N.p., 28 Oct. 2014. Web. 29 Oct. 2014. <https://blogs.ubc.ca/michaelmauro/2014/10/28/blog-post-7-quantitative-making-is-important-except-during-the-world-cup/>.

https://blogs.ubc.ca/michaelmauro/2014/10/28/blog-post-7-quantitative-making-is-important-except-during-the-world-cup/

York, Geoffrey. “How South Africa Can Offer Brazil a World Cup Lesson.” Globe and Mail [Cape Town] 8 June 2014: n. pag. Print.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/sports/soccer/world-cup/white-elephants/article19064519/

Brief Summary:

In John Whaley’s blog post, “Maple Leafs have sights set on expanding growth in China“, John argues that the Toronto Maple Leafs latest idea of expanding marketing into China is a bad idea. He believes that instead of trying to create new revenue streams, the Leafs should be trying to improve their value for “CURRENT” stakeholders opposed to ones that live millions of miles away. He also speaks on the subject that the Leafs also want to become a central figure attached to the NHL when it is looked at worldwide. John claims that for the Leafs to do this they must first be a dominant competitor in the NHL like the New York Yankees are in the MLB. He thinks that expanding globally is more of a long term goal opposed to a short term one.

My Opinions:

I agree that The Toronto Maple Leafs are not in the right position to alter their marketing strategy towards another segment in another part of the world. They are not known enough globally to market themselves in a place like China. Especially since China is not very familiar with the sport of hockey. As John said, they should be more focused on their “current” target market and improving their team in general. An example that is more unrealistic but similar would be if Apple wanted to expand into a place like Africa. Africa is not familiar nor ready for a company like Apple to expand into its continent and Apple is better of remaining in its current target market. I disagree with John’s point that expanding globally should be a long term goal. I believe that this idea is not very realistic and would not benefit the Maple Leafs organization much.  My reasoning is because China is not a “hockey country” like Canada and expanding an organizations target segment is much more difficult thing to perform then one may think. In conclusion, I think the Maple Leafs should try to strengthen their product on the ice and continue to attack their original target markets.

This picture shows how China is surrounded by countries like Pakistan and Mongolia who have probably never even heard of hockey.

Source(s) Used:

Whaley, John. “Maple Leafs Have Sights Set on Expanding Growth in China.” John Whaley’s Blog. N.p., 8 Nov. 2014. Web. 8 Nov. 2014. <https://blogs.ubc.ca/jwhaley/2014/11/08/maple-leafs-have-sights-set-on-expanding-growth-in-china/>.

blogs.ubc.ca/jwhaley/2014/11/08/maple-leafs-have-sights-set-on-expanding-growth-in-china

Campbell, Morgan. “Maple Leafs Have Sights Set on Expanding Growth in China.” TheStar.com 7 Nov. 2014: n. pag. Print.

http://www.thestar.com/business/sportonomics/2014/11/07/maple_leafs_have_sights_set_on_expanding_growth_in_china.html

What exactly is Corporate Social Responsibility?

Corporate Social Responsibility can be defined as the actions company’s do to ensure they are working in a economic, social and environmentally sustainable manner. Keeping a positive CSR is beneficial for company’s because it gives them a chance to create shared value and it gives them a good brand image. Respecting all applicable laws and international standards, cooperating with other organizations, and performing day-to-day activities in a socially and environmentally responsible way are all things that contribute to a positive CSR.

In George Kell’s blog he is explaining why Corporate Social Responsibility is something that every company must focus on.  He is addressing the question of whether CSR is just a passing trend or if it is going to remain instrumental in business as we know it. He believes that “a company’s long-term financial success goes hand in hand with its record on social responsibility, environmental stewardship and corporate ethics.” 

I completely agree with what Kell is saying about how a positive Corporate Social Responsibility will be vital to any successful business. A good CSR leads to a better reputation which in turn leads to more customers and increased revenue. Although it may be costly to perform actions that improve CSR in the short run it will be beneficial in the long run for the company’s. Some examples are gas companies increasing oil clean up programs or forestry businesses replanting a tree for every tree they cut down. Consumers pay attention to the ways companies operate and if they see any problems they will move to the nearest competitor.  It isn’t just about the customers but about everyone involved in a business like employees, managers, shareholders and anyone else that is affected by the company.

In conclusion, I believe George Kell is right by saying that Corporate Social Responsibility is an emerging component of a successful business and will not be disappearing any time soon. If companies ignore it they will eventually be caught and will be put in a big hole. No company wants to be in the situation where they have to dig themselves out of a hole that may be too deep to get out of. The point is that if companies are willing to make a few sacrifices they will see the benefits of their good decision making

This picture illustrates the care a company needs to put into its own Corporate Social Responsibility.

This picture shows the three aspects of Corporate Social Responsibility

Source(s) Used:

Kell, George. “Five Trends That Show Corporate Responsibility Is Here To Stay.” 3BL Media. N.p., 7 Nov. 2014. Web. 10 Nov. 2014. <http://3blmedia.com/blog/George-Kell/Five-trends-show-corporate-responsibility-here-stay>.

http://3blmedia.com/blog/George-Kell/Five-trends-show-corporate-responsibility-here-stay

“Corporate Social Responsibility.” International.gc.ca. Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development Canada, 10 Oct. 2014. Web. 10 Nov. 2014. <http://www.international.gc.ca/trade-agreements-accords-commerciaux/topics-domaines/other-autre/csr-rse.aspx?lang=eng#CSR>.

http://www.international.gc.ca/trade-agreements-accords-commerciaux/topics-domaines/other-autre/csr-rse.aspx?lang=eng#CSR

In the article, “Amazon Unveils a Listening, Talking, Music-Playing Speaker for Your Home“, Brad Stone and Spencer Soper talk about Amazon’s revolutionary new tech device called the “Amazon Echo.” The Echo is a  9-inch tall speaker that plays music, fields voice commands and Internet queries, responds in a pleasant conversational voice, and will obey instructions to put products into your Amazon.com shopping cart. The gadget has the ability to hear a command from anywhere in the room and can answer any question you have in mind. For example, if you were wondering who won the Stanley Cup in 2011, Echo would scan through its data and tell you instantaneously that it was the Boston Bruins. This technological revolution is designed to make your day-to-day life much simpler and easier. 

This is the revolutionary Amazon Echo home device.

How is this article related to business though?

After analyzing, I noticed that Amazon is making use of one of Porter’s Generic Strategies. They are utilizing a modified version of a differentiation strategy by trying to revolutionize household technologies with their Amazon Echo creation. Their product is a one of a kind technology that does not have any competitor close to it at the moment. A differentiation strategy calls for the development of a product that offers unique attributes which attract the consumer. I believe that is exactly what Amazon is on to. According to Porter’s strategies, a firm that is successful with a differentiation strategy has; access to top scientific research, a strong sales division, a highly skilled/creative development team and a strong corporate reputation for innovation. Amazon has all of these aspects as part of their company. Their strongest component would be there vision for innovation. Their original business plan was already more innovative than anyone before them and now they are continuing to do so.

Amazon’s new device called “Echo” has the potential to be a revolutionary device. They are only releasing it to certain consumers at the moment because they want to make sure that they have perfected the device before they offer it to everyone.  It will be interesting to see what kind of success such a new and innovative technology will have and how drastic an effect it could have on the household technology industry.

Here is a video that shows how the Amazon Echo works:

Amazon Echo

Source(s) Used:

Stone, Brad, and Spencer Soper. “Amazon Unveils a Listening, Talking, Music-Playing Speaker for Your Home.” Bloomberg Business Week 6 Nov. 2014: n. pag. Print.

http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2014-11-06/amazon-echo-is-a-listening-talking-music-playing-speaker-for-your-home#r=hp-ls

“Porter’s Generic Strategies.” Quickmba.com. N.p., n.d. Web. 18 Oct. 2014. <http://www.quickmba.com/strategy/generic.shtml>.

http://www.quickmba.com/strategy/generic.shtml