Marketing this year has been an enjoyable and engaging course, largely due to its smaller class size and consequently more conversation-orientated atmosphere. In-class activities such as the The-Price-Is-Right game, and group projects both made this course much more interactive and therefore a better learning experience overall. I have always, and still do, believe that doing things is superior to hearing how things are done, and though this course could have taken that a lot further, perhaps by making class activities that are relevant to the lesson the basis for most and not only a few classes, thus focusing less of studying the textbook word for word and instead learning how things actually apply (though they may be the same in essence, they are significantly different in practice), this class still took it further than any other course I had this semester did, and I appreciate it for that. Unlike last year’s groups I was in, I had a decent group to work with this year, and that made the group project much more enjoyable, as well as bearable. As far as the peer review videos go, I thought it was a so-so process- reviewing them anyway (as I don’t think the reviews are yet accessible to the recipients). It was at times painful to watch some videos for their entire duration, but I feel the feedback that groups receive may help some individuals improve in the future. All in all, I enjoyed the course, and wish more classes had a more conversation-type structure like it.

After reading Olivia Joe’s blog post, “3D Printing- Moving from Industry to Consumer,” though I was already somewhat familiar with 3D printers, I am now more learnt on the limitations of today’s 3D printers- which is quite an important aspect to be versed on regarding a device that claims to create three-dimensional product from effectively raw material. Because current commercial 3D printers can only create products from plastic, have a relatively small object-size limitation, and cannot print particularly fast, the printers are severely limited in their usefulness, and are more intriguing that anything else at this point. Which got me thinking, how beneficial is it to gain widespread exposure during the infancy and research years of what will surely be a tremendously useful and widely-used tool in the future? Are companies selling these devices really looking to maximize sales, or are they just trying to reach less-than-optimal numbers at this point to have the product consumer-tested, in order to help along progression and improvement of the machine? On the one hand, with early public exposure, there builds anticipation and want, but if the incredible future of this product isn’t even yet on the horizon, introducing it now, in its current and fairly useless form, may only lead to frustration of purchasers, and impatience and disappointment of the potential consumer base waiting for a more apt rendition, consequently leading to rushed research to deliver a newer product faster, and because of the haste, less efficient development of the product, and therefore a slower and less effective product progression overall, which begs the question, when is the right time to introduce a new product? Clearly the answer is relative to the product- chip flavors, right away to get consumer feedback; a new vehicle, perhaps not after strenuous testing and tweaking if reputation is of particular importance, which it usually is. But a 3D printer… who knows? Guess we’ll have to wait and see if now was the right time, and just how far this product will really go.

https://blogs.ubc.ca/oliviajoe/

If you live in B.C., or anywhere else in Canada for that matter, you have likely heard of the plan to build an Enbridge “Northern Gateway” Pipeline, and the large amount of public resistance that comes with it. As a project that would cut through 1000 streams and rivers, many of which are critical Salmon-spawning and vital-habitat waterways, the unceded traditional territory of dozens of B.C. First Nations, and the last intact temperate rainforest in the world, the Great Bear forest, and is a means of oil transportation quite susceptible to destructively toxic spillages (Enbridge’s average record is one spill a week),(1) there is no question why such large opposition exists. It is unfortunate, then, that Harper’s government is so keen on pushing the project forward: “The Harper government is spending more than $100 million on infrastructure to support the proposed Enbridge pipeline, before it’s even been approved.” (2) It is precisely because the government seems so unwavering in its dedication to build the pipeline despite the damage it can and will cause that I believe recent events, namely the devastating Lac-Megantic oil spill, and the more recent Lemon Creek jet fuel spill, are merely acts something among the likes of propaganda. In the midst of the push towards the Enbridge Pipeline, all of the sudden we find ourselves with two new and very large spills, caused by two alternate means of oil transportation- train and truck. And both come at a very convenient time in the proposed pipeline’s approval process, showcasing just how a pipeline might be better than these two alternate, “clearly unsafe” means of transporting oil. I can’t surely say whether these two incidences are the results of government opinion-manipulation, or merely stories blown up in the media because there was little else going on at the time, but I do know it all seems pretty helpful for those trying to convince others that a pipeline is the way to go.

(1)http://www.greenpeace.org/canada/en/campaigns/Energy/tarsands/Get-involved/stop-the-pipeline/

(2) http://www.vancouverobserver.com/news/elizabeth-may-shocked-latest-revelation-about-harper-government-and-enbridge

As every male aged 8-45 knows, Sony and Microsoft’s next video generation of video game consoles are being released this November, after a good 6+ months of heavily marketing both the pros of their products, and the cons of their competitor’s, not unlike the older Mac vs. PC ads of a few years ago. While at this point both consoles appear to be largely in demand, with both systems’ pre-orders being sold out in many areas, the road to release has only been a meridian in the battle between Sony and Microsoft in representing their PS4 and Xbox One, respectively. While both companies have tried to build a superior system, Microsoft’s approach was seen somewhat less favorable by the public when some of its console’s detrimental “features” were announced: Many restrictions on physical disc sharing, which would impede on friend-loaning and also re-resale of games, and a requirement that the console must be able to connect to the internet at least once every 24 hours, otherwise the console would lock down, and you wouldn’t even be able to play games that don’t require internet connection. Sony was quick to help Microsoft advertise these features, and make clear that the PS4 would not be similar to the Xbox One in having any of these console additions: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kWSIFh8ICaA. Though Sony gained attention for its lack of detrimental features, the flack Xbox received forced it to reconsider, and ultimately change its decision in including such limitations. By the power of marketing and competition, Sony effectively assisted Xbox in becoming what many would call a now more appealing console, and as further ad campaigns continue to pour out of both parties as their launch days approach, one thing is clear: both contenders are looking stronger by the day.

People have been conscious of the need for dental hygiene, for centuries, if not millennia, with the practice evolving from chew twigs and horsehair brushes to the synthetic brushes, floss of Today. However, the core of oral hygiene has remained the same since practically the beginning- get your teeth clean. Fast forward from the flossing with grasses of Yesteryear, and here we are with relatively durable brushes, and for the past few decades, that has worked just fine. We seem to have even reached the summit as far as mouth-cleaning innovations go, as anyone who care for their oral health can maintain it quite sufficiently with Today’s tools. Though the industry has clearly fulfilled its purpose, however, companies such as oral-B and Crest continue to “innovate” on an unbroken product to make it more effective- obviously I’m referring to the absolutely unnecessary, will-you-get-suckered-into-buying-this, accomplishment of the $100+ “super toothbrushes,” such as oral-B’s Triumph line, which sells off of features such as “9000 oscillations per minute” and “3D clean guaranteed!,” (what the hell does that even mean?) and comes with packed-in features such as a pressure sensor, which sends an electronic signal from toothbrush, through your brain, and back to the brush’s base to let you know that you are pressing “too hard.” Fantastic. Except, turns out, there’s really no benefit to electric toothbrushes for those without arthritis that can’t move a manual brush effectively: “‘If someone is doing… well with a manual brush and not having any problems with plaque…, there is little to gain from switching to an electric toothbrush,'” says Dr. Peter Alldritt^1. And yet, oral-B and co continue to “innovate” (by continually introducing higher price tags?), and people continue to buy into it. Case and point- when do people start thinking for themselves? Because when else will companies stop making society look so incredibly dense.

1: http://www.abc.net.au/health/talkinghealth/factbuster/stories/2012/02/15/3430307.htm

The fast food industry is big, bad, and belligerent towards the health of its consumers, especially the younger ones. Companies such as McDonalds, Burger King, and Wendy’s, consistently market their nutrition-void, calorie dense “food” to the malleable and impressionable minds of children. Whether it be toys featuring the latest Pixar movie’s characters, or paper crowns, or milkshake-esque drinks containing candies, such as Reese or Smarties, easily recognized and craved by children, these fast food restaurants hold nothing back in attempt to hook and reel in every child that happens upon one of their many commercials broadcast frequently on most children’s television networks, or sees one of their friends at school with a novel McD toy. But what the real catch is is just how detrimental this kind of food is to a child, or anyone for that matter’s, health. It’s comparable to someone bombarding a smoking addict with cigarette advertisements to make smoking look as appealing as possible, while simultaneously keeping from their customers the fact that the product is deadly. It’s human instinct to find pleasure in consuming sugar, fat, and sodium-dense foods, and that’s the extent of what kids, and apparently most adults in the U.S., know, but foods dense in sugar and fat, and consequently calories, are detrimental to health, and promote malnutrition and obesity. There is absolutely no health benefits to eating fast food relative to almost any other food, and yet, in the name of money, that is what is marketed heavily, insistently, to our kids. Not anything that will help them grow properly, Not anything that will keep them healthy and encourage longevity and wellness. Not anything that promotes good eating habits. Just something that tastes good, and though the monetary cost for the food may be cheap, eating at these places is anything but thrifty.

Like Doug Mahoney, I belive more women-started international businesses should be encouraged, particularly in the UK. However, besides the fact that he claims if women started up as much businesses as men, there would be 150,000 more international businesses started up in the UK, Mahony doesn’t really go on to provide the unique benefits of women-initiated businesses. Companies such as Omega World Travel and Baby Einsteins were founded by women, both going on to be mega-successful, unique corporations, OWT going on to become the fourth-largest US independent travel agency, and Baby Einsteins being sold for huge bucks to Disney, prior to the deal grossing $10 million in its first three years. Wow! Women bring a unique perspective, adding spice and variation, but not at the expense of successfulness, to the corporate world, catering to target audiences with approaches that may not otherwise be prioritized (with reference to BE: could you see a man coming up with that?). I think women may sometimes feel their ideas and entrepreneurial spirit may receive less than deserved confidence and consideration because of sexual discrimination/ inequitable male/female roles (what other reason is there for women’s international businesses to account for only 16% of the UK’s total, honestly?), but I believe that with authentic support from the industry, women’s entrepreneurial abilities will significantly benefit the world through innovation and perspective.

(http://blogs.birminghampost.net/business/2012/11/inspiring-more-women-led-busin.html)

Alberta’s fire-sale prices on its natural gas, oil, petroleum, are leaving its money pool shallow. Insisting on remaining “competitive,” Alberta’s below-reasonable royalty rates and cheap selling prices are cutting an estimated $42 billion of potential government revenue. How much of a disservice can a government do to its population? Clearly a large one. Albertans only see about one fifth the value of the oil-related product their province sells; on top of that, Alberta’s keeping the pie from which Albertan’s slice is cut small in itself. What gives? I understand there’s the election coming up, and no party wants to be under the microscope of their respective oil purchasers, but that’s no justifications for the past 40 years; Alberta is dropping the ball here. If the government wants to rebuild Alberta’s Heritage Savings Trust and Sustainability Funds and ensure the stability of Alberta’s future, being more assertive in its demanded royalties and selling price sure wouldn’t hurt. I think Alberta is going to have to show oil companies some tough love- after all, extra money in a province seems like it will be put to better use than in a sector where retailers are basically swimming in excess profits. It’s time to stop being nice to the guy with 100 apples by giving him one of your two.

(http://canadiandimension.com/articles/4523/)

It is estimated that between 20-31 trillion dollars are lost globally every year by individuals and corporations secretly moving their money to tax havens, countries such as Hong Kong that have relatively low taxation rates. Firstly, let us clarify the definition of “lost” in this context. The Canadian government is whining that 10 billion dollars a year are being lost to secret jurisdictions, but this is simply not the case. Though these tax evaders reduce the government’s revenue, the money is far from having vanished. Rather, it is saved by the citizens of Canada, which gives buyers more power and supports the health of the economy. If all individuals and corporations paid their taxes honestly, the economy may slow down simply because that money would be cycling back in slower than it would be leaving, triggering economic panic, instigated government to perhaps reduce taxes, increase wages, and work to re-strengthen the economy in a hurry. The way I see it, tax-evasion is in essence cutting that process short. Sure, it’s unfair for those that do pay the taxes, but everything isn’t fair. In response, the government can 1.) Increase taxes in attempt to make up the losses, which would be a weak move as it may just provoke further tax evasion, or 2.), more effectively, they could reduce unjustified spending and make up the losses through cost cutting.

Michelle V. Stacy is a Dartmouth M.B.A graduate who claims taking a step back and moving toward where she felt passion improved her leadership skills. While working as brand manager, Stacy realized she would feel closer to her work if she was working more closely with people, and so demoted herself to a sales representative, where she expressed such authentic leadership that she was promoted to vice president of management. Obviously moving into a position that you feel good about helps you flourish if this story is any indication. I believe this can apply anywhere in life, and particularly in business. By moving into a position of passion, you enjoy working and pursue excellence, which is noticed by others in the business, improving the probability for promotion and bonuses. Stacy’s story is part of a bigger mantra- to which the antithesis is working where you don’t feel passionate. It sounds cliché, but liken it to dieting. If you know you will succeed by eating an exclusive oyster and celery diet, but you hate those two foods, though you know that’s how to succeed, chances are you won’t get too far, whereas if your diet consists of foods you like, it doesn’t even feel like you’re on a diet, and you experience great success. Case and point- do what you love, even if it doesn’t give the same money as an alternate and less enjoyable job. Take this with a few grains of salt, but chances are the financially advantageous and the passionate route will in the long run be one and the same.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/18/jobs/keurigs-president-on-stepping-back-to-lead-better.html?ref=business