Recently read from Wendy Shao’s Blog, BC transit is finally going to set to work the Evergreen Line. Personally, I am “a part of the commuting group” as well.

Increasing a 2 cent price on oil is a fairly recognizable amount depending on how much you are adding to your car. Nonetheless, the benefit that the society gains is valued more than the cost of providing the benefit.

Building Public Transit is an effective way to boost the economy. More construction workers will be needed, materials will need to be supplied, and many industries will get involved.

Ultimately, transit will bring great convenience to the public, even if you do own a car. For example, with Vancouver’s snow-shoving system being “not so efficient” compared to cities that get heavy snow precipitation every year, public transit is the best alternative when you cannot drive your car further than your driveway.

Even though the plan was passed, there are still many disagreeing voices, as Wendy had written, “Burnaby, Richmond, North Vancouver, and Delta hold strong opposition to this plan…”. The problem now is how to convince those that do not use the transit as often.

Self-interest is the big issue!

Evergreen Line Homepage

The tablet market is being affected by today’s fragile economy. Many products are reducing their prices, such as HP TouchPad, BlackBerry PlayBook, HTC Flyer, etc. Some are even sold at more than 50% of their original price to attract customers.

The fact that iPad is missing from this price war is probably not surprising to the public since “Apple is famous for sticking to its price guns”.

(Samsung Galaxy Tab 7.7)
What holds Apple well on top of the chart is that it is able to play its differentiation strategies well. Apple products are known for its innovation and distinctiveness. In other words, high pricing actually becomes a selling point; as soon as iPads begin to drop their price, they lose the value of being “high-class” and would be forced to enter the price war (i.e. iPhone 3GS). Will Apple still hold the values when its products are forced to reduce prices in the future? After all, customers like to see what they bought today are still worth the same in the future. A practical comparison would be buying a car. The minute you sign the contract, your car will lose a couple thousand dollars in its worth.

original article

Ever wondered what usage does the “.com” have? Well now, it has the potential to become one of the greatest marketing advantages that a company can hold.

Despite the huge internal maintenance cost every year, having its own “online brand” is very tempting. Any company that is able to afford a ending after the dot will practically mean that its products has dominated their specific market. For example, if Apple had acquired the “.laptop”, then it is basically assumed that when you think of laptop, you would think of Apple. With the additional benefits of security and prevent cybersquatters, the ability to “put your signature” on a gTLD would cause another round of evolution.

(picture from article)

Consumers are the direct experimental variable of the gTLD auction. We might potentially have to distinguish between “.com” and other gTLDs, it will not only be what comes after “www.” anymore.

In terms of generic strategy wise, this will definitely fall under the category of industry wide differentiation strategy. Though the downturn is that many companies could not compete with large companies because of the cost, and others who wish to enter the market will have to face a higher entry barrier.

for more information click here

“Denmark has imposed a ‘fat tax’ on foods such as butter and oil as a way to curb unhealthy eating habits.”—-Associated Press on The Christian Science Monitor

We know heavy weight can cause health issues, but we don’t know if a $0.40 increase of price on butter would actually decrease the consumption of it. Raising weight awareness issues can be done through other methods, yet the government decided that the public will be more concerned should they pay more for products with high fat contents.

Ultimately, the government would receive a large sum of money while food producers and consumers share the burden of the tax. Personally, I don’t think this is very efficient because it is very focused on a group of people yet the whole population would have to pay a higher price, including those that only consider butter and oil as a daily necessity.

It is mentioned in the article that other countries have had similar strategies regarding unhealthy food consumption. If the policy continues, does that mean whenever the government wants the public to decrease consumption, they would put a tax on the item or service? There should be another more effective solution to the problem.

original article click here