Monthly Archives: November 2014

After reading my colleague Carolina Hodgins’ thoughts on the Apple Pay, and how they are a threat to PayPal, I was compelled to do some research on the subject. After investigation, I have reached a contrasting opinion to those stated in my peer’s post.

The Value Proposition of the Apple Pay is providing consumers the opportunity to leave your wallet behind. However, without a complete integration of this new method of payment among all retailers, the Apple Pay will fall short, just like predecessor Google Wallet.

Pay Pal, on the other hand, is not aiming to replace the wallet. Instead, they are adding extra features which would compel consumers to choose their service over traditional methods of payment. Features such as being able to order and pay ahead at food and drink retailers, or being able to directly pay for a meal at a restaurant, from your mobile device, at your table.

However, for the company to further succeed where others have failed, other strategies need to be employed. The main strategy should be having a positive environment for merchants. PayPal needs to showcase to merchants that a partnership with the company would result in possible customer expansion, lowered marketing or operational costs, or greater spends per purchase.

Apple Pay and PayPal are competitors in a new game, the digital wallet game. The success of either player will not be determined by success over the competition, but success of the industry as a whole.

Sara Damber, CEO of social enterprise Reach for Change has been fighting for children’s rights since 1997. The organization aims to find individuals with driven to promote children’s rights and who posses an innovative idea to change the lives of children. These individuals are given a salary, as well as support in their project. Sara has a blog, in which she documents personal experiences in her career as well as her thoughts.

Reading her blog strengthened my opinion on social enterprise stated in my previous post. The UN can never match the individual level of commitment brought by a social entrepreneur.

Reading about these people opens one’s eyes to the fact that people marginalized by poverty and injustice are in fact, people. They are not numbers or statistics. Helping these people should not be a onetime, ego-boosting event of “voluntourism“, but a lifestyle. The personal connection that social entrepreneurs can make with the people they are helping really sets them aside from other aid workers.

Even if the United Nations was fully funded, social enterprise would still be needed. While it is true that the both work towards a common goal, the way they work to achieve their goals is very different.

The United Nations aims at maintaining international peace and security as well as aims at creating better living standards and human rights. However, obstacles are often encountered which hinder success. An example where social enterprise is needed is the involvement of the UN in Rwanda.

During the Rwandan Genocide, the UN was sent to help find a peaceful solution to the civil war. Unfortunately, due to limitations on their rules of engagement, the missions was ultimately a failure.

As the dust of the tragedy is settling, both Social Entrepreneurs and the UN are trying to help the people of Rwanda. Currently, the UN is trying a pro-active solution: trying to educate the people of Rwanda so a similar travesty will not occur again. On the other hand, Social Entrepreneurs are aiming to solve specific problems of the people. The organization Climate Concern LTD is an example of such organizations. The organizations aims to produce low-cost solar-powered lights to help people in rural Rwanda who use health problem causing kerosene lamps.

Children in Rwanda holding up products from Climate Concern LTD

The pursuit of solutions to specific problems by social entrepreneurs in Rwanda showcases why even if they UN was fully funded, social entrepreneurs would still be needed. Working in depth with communities and individuals to help them prosper as opposed to working on vague and general goals is what social entrepreneurs do, and is why we need them.

Robert Plant, the ex-lead singer of Led Zeppelin, one the most influential bands of all time, has recently passed up $800 million in exchange for his taking part in a reunion of the band. The band, which broke up in 1980 after the death of drummer and founding member John Bonham has only been reunited a few times. When asked about these reunions, Plant responded, comparing the experience to “seeing an ex-wife, but not spending the night”.

Robert Plant: Then and Now

From a monetary standpoint, this is a poor decision, but at the end of the day, which is more important for the musician, artistic integrity or making profit? The music industry, like most industries, is a for profit. Ultimately, however, the musician does not owe anything to fans, or more importantly, financial stakeholders.

Music has always been about creating a feeling. Happiness, sadness, unrest, anger, it has always been an outlet for these emotions. Plant has not been able to re-create the feeling brought about through his time with Zeppelin, and should not be forced to just for the sake of a large paycheck.

Regardless of possible ticket sales, live recording sales, or increase in popularity by a reunion show, Robert Plant, or any other artist, should not have to be forced to compromise his artistic freedom and integrity for the sake of financial gain.

After reading Katie Applebaum’s statement on the current condition of the music industry, I was left with both agreeing and disagreeing opinions.

Due to the fact that anyone with a computer and internet connection can both create and listen to new music, there is an influx of creativity. Unfortunate for the aspiring artist, this surge of music makes it difficult to distinguish yourself from other artists, both new and existing.

However, current music can still change the world. It can still unite billions of people and cause shifts in social trends, it just needs to have a strong enough differentiation to cause the world to notice.

Hip-hop group, the Wu-Tang Clan, has found a way to get people to notice. The group, whose previous work has been noteworthy enough to be included in Rolling Stone’s list of “best albums of all time” release their music in the traditional method, physical copies of records, as well as digital versions of songs and albums. Their new album, “Once upon a time in Shaolin“, breaks this trend. Rather than selling millions of copies of the album, the group will release only one copy. Similar to a work of Monet or Van Gogh, the price tag will be in the millions. The album will be taken on a museum tour of the world, and the public can purchase a ticket to individually listen to the music.

Once Upon a Time in Shaolin

This unorthodox way of releasing an album has turned heads. The Wu-Tang Clan, after fading from relevancy after their initial surge, is making their way back into the spotlight. Perhaps this disruptive innovation will ultimately be a failure, but similar to a lot of other differentiation, the higher the risk, the higher the possible payoff.

Regardless of the quality of the album, its distribution will raise popularity for the group, but more importantly for them, profit. The group has always been known for making quality music, and has successfully found a way to do so, while still gaining a heavy payoff.