After reading Linda Wang’s Blog, I wanted to share a little opinion as well.

Apple is an exceptionally successful enterprise, being unique and innovative. Its products are simple yet fashionable, complexed yet easy to use. The differentiation of Apple’s products from other competitors allowed it to become the fastest growing enterprise of the century. I also agree with Linda’s opinion saying that “Apple Inc is high risk because if Apple does not keep up with technological advances, Apple can easily fall behind its competitors.”

After Apple has already established a symbol of “unique and innovative”, it would be disappointing if they are not kept up with introducing the new generation every year, say the iPhone 7 in 2015. This could allow their value to diminish amongst customers.

Also, despite the new features added on to its products every year. It could frustrate many of us wondering “Why couldn’t the camera be added to last year’s nano?” or “Why couldn’t the recording feature be added to the camera if they use the same lenses?”

Aside form these factors, Apple continues to be a popular item among the public, which is proven by 4 million Iphone4s sales within 3 days, as mentioned in Linda’s Blog.

After reading Jennifer Wu’s blog on “HST Referendum Cost 8 Million Dollars”, I realized that there are many contradictions that leads to the conclusion of it being ironic to call the recently imposed tax “harmonized”.

It was mentioned in her blog that “out of the 3.96 million voting packages mailed out, only 1.65 million was returned, with the majority against the HST”. Not only are the public now opposing the HST, they’ve been opposing the tax right after it was voted through the government! It is ironic how the elected representative were supposed to make decisions on behalf of us citizens, yet ignores the opposing voices when making decisions.

Also, the comic that she added in the blog was very humorous and added interest towards reading the article. I thought the comic was being very sarcastic about how the HST came into existence. Perhaps the comic suggested the idea that the government jumped to conclusion without comprehensive negotiation and consideration.

The tax is also not suited for the word “Harmonized” in a sense that there was added cost to the implementation of the HST as well as its repeal in the near future. Therefore, I agree with Jennifer’s word “anarchy” rather than “harmonized”.

Rivalry:
As of today, there are not many fast fashion shops like Zara around . This uniqueness allows Zara to profit from the public without having to spending large sums on advertisement in order to gain market share.

Threat of New Entry:
Uniqueness and profitability attracts potential individuals with investment to enter the market. Though still, it would be pretty difficult to gather all the workforce needed in a short period of time. It might be more easier to entry if individuals wanting to enter this market had sufficient time to prepare themselves.

Supplier Power:
Zara, or any other fashion stores, would have low supplier power due to the reason that their goal is to attract every potential consumer to buy their merchandises.

Threat of Substitute:
The fashion industry is very unpredictable with many competitors all wanting to project the next big trend. Though Zara still distinct from others by the constant innovative and creative designs of most up-to-date fashion.

Buyer Power:
It lies in the hands of consumers of what they like and purchase, regardless of the brand. Though there are still some individuals who have “loyalty” towards Zara and does not mind the long line ups.

From our social entrepreneur class, the definition for a social entrepreneur is “someone who recognizes a social problem and uses entrepreneurial principles to organize, create, and manage a venture to make social change”. This is exactly what Hilary Peters did. She set up a non-profitting company that sales postcards to the public painted by prisoners.

I think this idea has a very strong impact because Peters’ social purpose is to change our perspective of thinking negatively with relevance to prisoners. It is also a great start-up of a local and small business that has the potential to effect our thinking internationally.

(from article)

What catches my attention is how Peters financially functioned her company. First, she printed the first batch of cards through “love” money. She then invested her profit into printing the second batch and started the business from there. What is great is that the revenue earned from these postcards goes towards funding for employment of the prisoners that will soon be back in society. Thus, this “cycle” provides increased employment rates locally, as well as provide opportunities for those that find it difficult to find jobs because of previous criminal records.

Click here for the full article

The transition of ownership of The Body Shop remains a very controversial topic in terms of ethical business tactics.

The main ethical difference between the two companies before their transaction was that “The Body Shop” was very against animal testing and Dame Anita, one of the founders of The Body Shop 30 years ago, “…campaigned passionately around ethical issues such as fair trade and sustainable development”, as mentioned in “The Independent”, a UK news website. On the other hand, L’Oreal did not abandon animal testing.

—->

It was mentioned that the owners and shareholders would earn a large sum of money as a result of L’Oreal acquiring the business for 625 million pounds. This might lead the public to think that The Body Shop’s stand of being an ethical cosmetic business was swaying, and then collapsed in front of profits and personal preference of the decision makers in the company.

However, a combination of L’Oreal’s strong presence on the global market and The Body Shop’s great reputation is a difficult combination to find. Therefore, together, they have an advantage of power and influence which raises the barrier to entry into the already fierce competition amongst the different cosmetic companies.

for full article click here!

The year before World War One broke out, Coco Chanel opened her first store in paris in 1913. She was a very talented designer who was set out to design “simple, practical and easy to wear clothing” while a typical woman of that era was still struggling with a corset.

Coco Chanel proved herself to be one of the greatest entrepreneurs because she was willing to devote herself to fashion despite the hardship of her childhood and the social unrest of that time period.

Her success was measured by the rapid profitability of her designer garments as well as her ability to “modernize the world with her line of clothes designed after men’s wear.” Given her 14 years of “blank” existence because of the war, Coco Chanel was able to re-enter the fashion industry with new and innovative fashion that, although took some time, recaptured the attention of the public.

When we speak about Coco Chanel, we would often associate with her words like “strong”, “bold”, or “unique”. These words are still attached to today’s Chanel chain stores, remaining high-end and classic.

Reference to the brief overlook of Coco Chanel’s career. (There are many other great entrepreneurs on this site)