Monthly Archives: September 2014

Earlier this year LinkedIn announced that their “publishing platform” also known as a “blog” is now available to regular LinkedIn users. Earlier on, this feature was only available to LinkedIn ”influencers”. These “influencers” are people chosen by the LinkedIn team, who they feel have influential opinions and would interest the general users. This recent change could be considered an upgrade and the customer base has varying opinions on it, as can bee seen by the comments on the article.

Personally, I feel that having the “influencers” being the only people who can openly convey their opinions through a blog can be discriminatory in some ways as they’re providing a more advanced product to some customers and not others This implies that not all opinions are worth being widely shared. However, this change could also be taken as a positive, as they’re widening the usage of this product. Additionally having an exclusive blog may have also acted as an aspiration for general users wanting to be requested to join this elite group.

I actually find it quite interesting the way LinkedIn has managed to vary the positioning of its products varying on their customers. Furthermore, I feel the value proposition of the product also changes depending on the customer base. There is the basic group, who are free users, then there are paid users and on top of that you also have “influencers”. The value proposition hence for an “influencer” would therefore be access to the “publishing platform”. However now my question is that as they have made this value proposition open to a wider range of people, will it still remain as important a value proposition for the “influencers”? How useful was this move in terms of their product positioning?

LinkedIn “Publishing Platform”

Works Cited

“LinkedIn.” LinkedIn Blog. N.p., n.d. Web. 24 Sept. 2014. <http://cdn.searchenginejournal.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/02/linkedin-publishing-630×400.png>.

Southern, Matt. “LinkedIn’s Blogging Platform Is Now Open To Users, Not Just Influencers – Search Engine Journal.” Search Engine Journal. N.p., 20 Feb. 2014. Web. 24 Sept. 2014. <http://www.searchenginejournal.com/linkedins-blogging-platform-now-open-users-just-influencers/91743/>.

“World’s Largest Professional Network | LinkedIn.” World’s Largest Professional Network | LinkedIn. N.p., n.d. Web. 24 Sept. 2014. <http://www.linkedin.com>.

MLA formatting by BibMe.org.

Reading Mark’s Blog, on Starbucks being under recent scrutiny for avoiding tax payments in the UK, I realize I agree with his point of view on Starbucks gaining an unfair advantage. In particular, a comment of his that I really liked and want to look further into in this blog post is “It is hard for smaller coffee shops to stay competitive with Starbucks because the smaller coffee shops are paying the full rate of the corporate tax and Starbucks is paying a fraction of what they should.”

When I first heard about this scandal, I wanted to try and understand my views on it. From a business perspective, I looked at the advantages and disadvantages for Starbucks for cutting taxes. One of my major reasoning’s for continuing to support Starbucks was that if I was running a business for profits and found a way of cutting costs in a way that wasn’t illegal, why wouldn’t I? But then on the other hand, something kept nagging me that what they are doing isn’t right. They should grow their company ethically, in a way that they can reflect on their growth in a positive light without any doubts. A disadvantage I thought about was also customer perception, something we looked carefully into, when looking at product positioning. This one scandal would have changed the perception of Starbucks in many people’s mind in a negative way.

Hence those were my thoughts a few months ago. Now, relooking at this issue and Mark’s comment, something I didn’t really think about before, I feel that now I have a firmer position against Starbucks avoidance of tax, because not only is this issue, affecting customer’s perception on Starbucks as an ethical business but it’s also affecting the UK Society, and other firms that abide by the rules.

Starbucks, Taxes Due

Works Cited
Gompertz, Simon. “Starbucks ‘paid just £8.6m tax’.” BBC News. N.p., 16 Oct. 2012. Web. 16 Sept. 2014. <http://www.bbc.com/news/business-19967397>.

Graham, Mark. “Mark Graham’s Blog.” Mark Grahams Blog. N.p., 9 Sept. 2014. Web. 16 Sept. 2014. <https://blogs.ubc.ca/markgraham/2014/09/09/starbucks-and-their-creative-tax-plan/>

“Tax.” Starbucks, Tax Due. N.p., n.d. Web. 16 Sept. 2014. <http://prosintraining.com/ssm/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/Starbucks-2.jpg>.

MLA formatting by BibMe.org.

Business Ethics

The article “CVS Vows to Quit Selling Tobacco Products” published in the New York Times on the 5^th of February 2014 highlights the decision made by CVS Caremark, America’s largest drugstore chain, to stop selling tobacco products, such as cigarettes. This judgment has lead to a variety of mixed emotions from stakeholders. On one hand health professionals are very pleased to see this drugstore encompassing their companies purpose, “helping people on their path to better health”. On the other hand this decision has inconvenienced customers who do purchase tobacco-based products from this drugstore. In fact, it is estimated that CVS would lose approximately 2 billion in sales due to this move. Hence this rather debatable decision in my opinion tackles the topic of Business Ethics quite well.

As outlined above, CVS’s purpose is focused strictly on benefitting the health of it’s customer’s, hence the sales of harmful substances in their stores is rather hypocritical. Thus such actions, raise the big question, “does the company truly care about it’s purpose, or is it only present to increase it’s sales?” Therefore, if CVS Care were to continue selling Tobacco products, they would be considered unethical. In time, stakeholders whom such products would not benefit would question the aims of the business, and such a thing could potentially tarnish the reputation of the business. Now, that CVS has vowed to quit selling tobacco, and has made it to the headline, it has managed to create a new image for itself, and this image positions the business as being ethical benefiting it in terms of being able to attract more customers, recruit potential employees, retain existing employees and even gaining the support of non-government organizations who may protest in other cases.

Thus, as quoted by Mr. Merlo, the decision to stop selling tobacco products “was really more of a discussion about how to position the company for future growth.”

“Near empty cigarette shelves are seen at a CVS store in New York” – CVS Quits Smoking

Works Cited
CVS. “We&#039;re a pharmacy innovation company and every day we&#039;re working to make health care better.” CVS Health Home. N.p., n.d. Web. 9 Sept. 2014. <http://www.cvshealth.com/about-us/our-purpose-building-bridge-better-health>.

Cadbury Schweppes. “Ethical business practicesA Cadbury Schweppes case study.” The importance of ethics in business. N.p., n.d. Web. 9 Sept. 2014. <http://businesscasestudies.co.uk/cadbury-schweppes/ethical-business-practices/the-importance-of-ethics-in-business.html#axzz3Crlu75MZ>.

Emery, Gene. “Nicotine, even through e-cigarettes, linked to increased cocaine in mice.” The Globe and Mail. N.p., n.d. Web. 9 Sept. 2014. <http://www.theglobeandmail.com/life/health-and-fitness/health/nicotine-even-through-e-cigarettes-linked-to-increased-addiction-to-cocaine-in-mice/article20371693/>.

Strom, Stephanie. “CVS Vows to Quit Selling Tobacco Products.” The New York Times. The New York Times, 5 Feb. 2014. Web. 9 Sept. 2014. <http://www.nytimes.com/2014/02/06/business/cvs-plans-to-end-sales-of-tobacco-products-by-october.html?_r=0>.

“CVS.” Quit Smoking. N.p., n.d. Web. 9 Sept. 2014. <http://e2e60d7b84a6c65eaeba-f1ef8650b408e2687e8eb32f405dc142.r82.cf3.rackcdn.com/5415892-CVS-Quits-Smoking-Pharmacies-Will-Stop-Selling-Tobacco.jpg>.

MLA formatting by BibMe.org.