When we buy a product we don’t only buy the product itself but the brand and everything associated with it. This is a concept we covered in COMM 101 within the Marketing sector. In which we learned that “Everything Communicates”. For example when someone buys $100 Lululemon leggings, they’re not just buying the leggings, they’re buying a brand that promotes fitness and a healthy lifestyle, thus they embodied those values.

The article I read this week displays a similar concept but magnified by about 1000. Birkin bags are made by the French luxury brand Hermès. They come in a myriad of colours and resemble an eloquent box. Each bag is handmade by artisan staff who are required to apprentice for years before they can produce a Birkin.

The typical rules of commerce dictate that the seller attempt to convince the buyer to purchase their product. However, Hermès Birkin Bags have managed to switch the roles to such an extent that their consumers are forced to swerve through a series of turns just to see a Bag. Initially one would perceive that the obstacle is the price which varies from $10,000 to $430,000. In reality so many factors are taken into account including status, purpose and first impression. This is such a fascinating marketing approach because they’ve somehow created a system where buyers are actually begging for them to sell a bag to them.

What struck me as so interesting about this product and company is the multitude of POD’s in which they retain. One of the most shocking is the fact that the purses and brand are unadvertised. Which just further goes to reinforce their concept of selectiveness. You’re not choosing them… they’re choosing you.

Celebrities such as Drake and Kim Kardashian have been known to collect Birkins excessively. Initially this can be viewed as just portraying an exclusive luxurious good but really Birkin bags have become a system of investment. In the last 35 years alone Birkin outpaced both the S&P 500 and the price of gold. Research shows that the annual return on a Birkin was 14.2%, compared to the S&P average of 8.7% a year and gold’s -1.5%.

    Learning about this single brand (in which I had never heard of) got me thinking and reflecting so much on everyday business. Maybe, marketing isn’t always about creating the best advertisement or studying the newest trends. Perhaps, its much more psychological than that. Where, a brand can prey on the simple fact that we all want what we can’t have. So, they produce limited numbers in lucrative ways, that go to build this phenomenon of their luxury.

Word Count: 431

Recently in class, we looked at Entrepreneurship and Innovation. Honestly, before this class I had always thought that this particular facet of business was too much effort, and frankly too flimsy. However, after class had concluded I found myself completely reconsidering what I thought Entrepreneurship was all about.

The article I read this week was about Markus Frind, the Vancouver-based, former CEO of “Plenty of Fish”. Plenty of Fish began in 2003, initially in order to help build Frind’s resume. In completion the website took just under two weeks to be created and released. Before he knew it people were signing up and Frind describes it as, “it blew up from there. It wasn’t like I had a plan to create a dating site. It was just a side project I created that got really big.“. This statement spoke a lot because that’s part of the essence of being an Entrepreneur, creating something to fix or alleviate a consumer struggle. It’s almost as if he created a value proposition diagram to find a costumer pain to relieve. In this case Frind provided aid to those looking for a convenient and calculated way to meet new people.

One of the key factors to Frinds success is the fact that he was already a developer before he started Plenty of Fish; giving him the  ability to create the website without having to seek out any Venture-Capital funding. This also allowed him complete ownership of the company, to a point where he only had to expand to 75 employees. The largest key factor to Frind’s success is the fact that the company was immediately profitable. Match.com’s CEO Sam Yagan is very excited to be signing the $575 million dollar deal with Markus Frind because of what he see’s as future exponential growth.

As beautiful as it is to see the”Entrepreneurial Dream” the path paved for success is rarely this easy. The road is lined with obstacles, hardships and many failures. But it’s one’s ability to overcome those failures, that makes them a true Entrepreneur and that is what Gary Vaynerchuk discusses in his online blog, “How to Overcome Failure“.

Gary approaches failures as “micro or macro”. In which he defines macro-failure as: dying, filing chapter 11 bankruptcy, going completely out of business or someone you care about punching you in the face and saying they’re never talking to you again. Anything else he says is a micro-failure.

One thing that directly stood out was the fact that being afraid to micro-fail and not taking risks, ultimately leads to macro-failure in the sense that the company isn’t moving forward. Basically, any company is going to have failures but almost all of them can be dealt with.

Word Count: 448

On August 2nd 2017, a Soda Tax was introduced into Cook County, in hopes to protect the publics health. This tax caused much controversy and when it finally passed many assumed it would be here to stay. However, on October 11th a staggering vote of 15-2 set a date for the repeal of the tax by Dec 1st. Breaking records as one of the shortest imposed taxes in American history.

In the first week of COMM 101 we actually discussed this topic and I remember thinking that it was a poor solution; the current decision to remove the tax only confirms my thoughts. I assumed this was going to fail due to the concept of “free will”. Where someone can decide what they ingest regardless of the ramifications of doing so.

Not only was this tax unfavourable to Soda company employees, store owners and the average soda consumer, it also grew to effect government elections scheduled for next November. Many opposers of the soda taxes claimed, “they’re regressive, promote layoffs, don’t reduce obesity, and could be the foot in the door that’s used to further erode food freedom”. It was really interesting to see how the decisions made in government can impact small business’s and large corporations all at the same time.

The governments intentions weren’t exactly clear to the public; many wondered if it was so that they could receive $1.8bn from the tax. Instead they’re now left with a $200million hole left by the repeal of the tax.

I understand however, where the government is coming from. There’s a pandemic occurring in the United States where obesity is seriously embedded in their culture, where more than 20% of girls and 23% of boys are obese. But if a person is determined to drink whatever they want, there’s nothing that can be done to reduce that. For example, many consumers drove out of County to Indiana just to stock up on fizzy drinks. What the government should’ve considered is openly displaying the health detriments of consuming such products. Not unlike cigarette packages do. In this way, they provide the consumer with an educated decision, oppose from making the choice for them.

In Zach Goldthorpe’s Blog he discussed how some companies in the United States are now spiking the prices of Epi Pens to ridiculous costs. He mentions how this is related to the fact that America simply doesn’t have a Nation Wide Health Care System that is as strong as Canada’s. This gives an example of a time where it’d be appropriate for the government to insert themselves into the situation and impose a price ceiling or other solution. But Soda consumption isn’t the place for them to interject in my opinion.

Word Count: 448

Over a year ago in August 2016, NFL Quarterback Colin Kaepernick of the 49ers, began protesting during National Anthems to show support for people of colour who are being oppressed by the Police. The ramifications of these silent protests have now manifested into the current stock of NFL broadcasters, such as: Comcast, Walt Disney, Fox and CBS.

Last year I read a lot on this controversy but only from the side of a spectator or player; observing from a business standpoint however is completely different. Kaepernick sparked something in his fellow teammates and rivals all across the country. Resulting in his fellow colleagues also refusing to take part in the anthem. Kaepernick described this act of rebellion as, “I am not going to stand up to show pride in a flag for a country that oppresses black people and people of colour”.

Over a year later NFL Broadcasters are suffering from slumping stocks that have decreased their margins by 1% to 8%. This issue has divided the nation from players to spectators to investors. Some argue that Kaepernicks stand is offensive and dramatic, while other choose to debate the fact that the only way to reprimand the actions of Police are with public condemnation. The result of this debate is that now %30 of viewers who have stopped watching say that it’s because they refuse to watch the NFL due to being offended by the players. The networks are already shelling out $5 Billion to televise the NFL and are facing poor margins on their advertising fronts.

The issue that the Broadcasters are facing, actually has to do with a topic we have yet to cover in COMM 101. This branch of Business is know as Value Propositions. Where businesses work to create an innovation, service or feature intended to make a company or product attractive to customers. Currently the NFL is struggling because an outside and unpredicted variable is effecting their stock.  The networks need to discover a way to provide a new service or innovation that makes them once again appealing to some of these viewers. Whether that innovation be an interactive viewing experience that brings the game to you or a promotion which rewards committed seasonal fans with big prizes.

I found this article especially interesting because it’s such a impactful part of business. A company can plan and predict and prepare, but the actions of a single person or a small factor of life can swiftly deter those plans. Companies today need to look closer into mending bridges of their cliental, rather then pretending those issues don’t exist or shying away from the problem.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/mikeozanian/2017/09/23/nfl-broadcasting-stocks-slump-as-protests-rise-and-tv-ratings-slump/#68f7eaa64eec

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/nfl-tv-ratings-slide-worries-wall-street-1041187

https://www.sbnation.com/2016/9/11/12869726/colin-kaepernick-national-anthem-protest-seahawks-brandon-marshall-nfl

Word Count: 429

Fashion. It stands today as one of the largest grossing markets in the world. Striving to present today’s consumer with the newest and most lucrative trends and styles. However, many companies neglect their societal responsibility in order to release the most profitable of attire. The article I read today was a piece that covered the ethics of three of the largest names in fashion; Louise Vuitton, Gucci and Michael Kors. All three companies are facing serious backlash after being associated with a Finnish fox breeder known as Saga Furs. Saga Furs is being investigated after footage was released of female blue foxes being purposely bred over weight in order to produce the most fur. In Finland this is considered illegal activity according to animal activists groups that state, “it is illegal in Finland to breed livestock in a way that causes animals to suffer.”(YLE)

The war against real animal made goods can be dated back as far as 1980. This debate has put forth countless conflicts between the fashion industry and pro-animal activists such as PETA. As each generation takes hold, the priorities of society are subjected to change. Currently the consumer is becoming more and more aware of the horrors of animal cruelty and the damages it leaves on the eco-system. So, for a business to actively partake in animal cruelty is a major downturn in their success to the public.

I couldn’t help but relate this blatant disregard for animal life to R. Edward Freeman’s explanation of the Stake Holder Theory. Where the continuation of these types of behaviours will eventually regulate these companies into decline. This situation contradicts part of Friedmans argument where he states that, “They can do good – but only at their own expense”, because by not using animal furs businesses really don’t lose that much. The foxes shown in the article weigh over 5 times their regular weight, putting them in an unmotorized state. The horrible pictures attached to this article show extremely obese foxes living in wire cages. The imagery supporting this article shines a very poor light on all companies involved.

These three companies are lacking to realize that by neglecting a moral compass you’re not only hurting the consumer or environment or animal… you’re hurting your business. Nobody wants to be associated with the company that bred obese foxes for profit and snapped their necks in order to keep the fur intact. The concept of ethics extends past just money. A company can’t buy itself a good reputation or name. It has to be earned. Therefore, regardless of how convenient it is to do the ethical thing, a company must create time for it if they hope to succeed.

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/impact-activism-on-fur/

https://yle.fi/uutiset/osasto/news/finnish_animal_activists_video_uncovers_hugely_overweight_farmed_foxes/9777076

http://www.onegreenplanet.org/news/top-brands-using-fur-from-monster-foxes/

Word Count: 449

Welcome to UBC Blogs. This is your first post. Edit or delete it, then start blogging!