Jackie Huba’s “Starbucks get back to its roots in new campaign” explores the new web video, entitled “Meet Me at Starbucks,” released by Starbucks. When Howard Schultz joined Starbucks in 1983, he wanted it to have a sense of community and be a place of conversation. He envisioned a “third place” between work and home. However, over the years Starbucks’ marketing strategies have drifted away from this purpose. “Meet Me at Starbucks” was shot in 28 countries and shows various moments of people using Starbucks stores to connect with one another, just as Howard Schultz had envisioned.

In my opinion, this marketing initiative will ultimately be successful for Starbucks in the long run. Instead of marketing in a method similar to most other coffee chains which promotes products that may be very similar to the products of other companies, this marketing strategy differentiates Starbucks from its competition. By focusing on strong value propositions that include different ideas of what a coffee shop should encompass, Starbucks will be able to position itself uniquely in the minds of consumers. A point of difference for Starbucks is providing an atmosphere that emits an sense of community and can be used to facilitate conversation. In contrast, Starbucks’ initial marketing strategies mostly promoted their product and didn’t take the customer’s needs and wants into consideration as much. Overall, I believe this campaign will be a success for the Starbucks brand.

Works Cited

Huba, Jackie. “Starbucks Get Back to Its Roots in New Campaign.” Jackie Huba. 1 Oct. 2014. Web. 9 Nov. 2014.

“Starbucks Coffee.” Downtown Oakville. Web. 9 Nov. 2014.

Upon reading Peter Lee’s “Netflix to premiere major motion picture in 2015,” I discovered that Netflix was planning on premiering a major motion picture movie in 2015. This movie will simultaneously be shown in theatres and on its online website. “Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon: The Green Legend,” will be released both in theatres and through online streaming on August 28, 2015.

Peter believes that this is a monumental step for Netflix as it will be able to further expand its value propositions. I completely agree with this statement as it will finally allow viewers to watch newly released movies in the comfort of their home. By relieving the pain of physically going to a theatre and paying high prices for both the movie and food and beverages, Netflix will be able to increase its opportunities in the home entertainment industry.

Netflix will be able to create a hassle-free movie viewing alternative by further increasing the flexibility of their streaming services. In addition, Netflix would be the first company to introduce this alternative and would, therefore, position itself as a leader in the industry. Both other movie streaming companies, including Shaw Video On Demand and Blockbuster On Demand, and physical movie theatres could even be creatively destroyed by Netflix as it “converts the movie theatre experience into a thing of the past”  (Lee).

Works Cited

Barber, Elizabeth. “Netflix to Release First Original Movie.” Time. Time, 30 Sept. 2014. Web. 9 Nov. 2014.

Lee, Peter. “Netflix to Premiere Major Motion Picture in 2015.” UBC Blogs. 30 Sept. 2014. Web. 9 Nov. 2014.

“Netflix Jacks Monthly Membership Fee.” Tom’s Guide. Web. 9 Nov. 2014.

When considering the success of a business or corporation, it is important to also consider the company internally. Organizational culture and human resource management are both critical keys to success. Organizational culture can be defined as shared values, beliefs, and assumptions considered to be the proper way to think and act within an organization. Human resource management is the lifecycle of an employee’s relationship with a firm.

A recent article about an online shoe company highlights how Zappos successfully runs its business starting with its organizational culture and human resource management. An unlimited time for call centre calls, upgrading customers to V.I.P. status, and a free 365 day return policy all contribute to the organizational culture of Zappos. In addition, frequent staff parties, an extensive employee training program, employees being offered two thousand dollars in cash to quit, and forty-five more hours of classes to progress into management positions ensure that all employees want to be there and are dedicated to both the customer and the company.

In my opinion, although these initiatives may be costly and may not be profitable in the short run, from a marketing perspective, they are all worth it in the long run. Dedicated and happy employees translate to loyal customers and a low employee turnover rate. Therefore, in the long run, Zappos’ initiatives are well worth the expenses.

Works Cited

Jacobs, Alexandra. “Happy Feet – The New Yorker.” The New Yorker. 14 Sept. 2009. Web. 8 Nov. 2014.

“Zappos | The Dragonfly Effect.” The Dragonfly Effect. Web. 8 Nov. 2014.

Because concerns about childhood obesity have been in the spotlight for several years now, advertising food to children can be morally questionable. On October 15, the self-regulatory industry group, Advertising Standards Canada, announced changes to the Canadian Children’s Food and Beverage Advertising Initiative. This program places limits on how food and beverage companies promote their products to children. The participants of this program have agreed to do one of two options: not to do any advertising targeted “primarily” at children under the age of twelve or to advertise to children under the age of twelve only if they promote products which are “healthier” (based upon a newly specific set of nutrition criteria). The deadline to comply with the changes will be December 31, 2015 and several companies, including Coca-Cola, McCain Foods, Kraft Canada, and Burger King Canada have signed onto the initiative.

By signing onto this initiative, these companies have proved that business ethics are an important aspect of their overall business model. Children make up at least 35 percent of the audience for these companies that typically market “unhealthy” items. By completely cutting off or limiting advertising to this segment of the target market, many of these companies will be decreasing their overall profitability.  However, as stated by Milton Friedman “The only social responsibility of business is to earn profits while following law and basic ethical custom.” By not promoting unhealthy items to children and attempting to decrease childhood obesity, these companies are being ethically responsible. They acknowledge that although their primary goal is to earn profits, they still have to be morally and socially responsible.

Works Cited

Krashinsky, Susan. “Food Companies Adopt New Guidelines for Ads Aimed at Kids.” The Globe and Mail. 16 Oct. 2014. Web. 8 Nov. 2014.

Sara Chitsaz’s “Toms vs. Sketcher’s Bobs: The Ethics Behind a Social Enterprise,” questions the ethics of Sketchers’ BOBS  who positions itself as a company supporting ethical business practices. BOBS copied the social enterprise, TOMS, almost identically.

Created by Blake Mycoskie in 2006, TOMS generated popularity through the main focus of its business model. To help those in need, the One for One Program was created to donate a pair of shoes to a child in a less-fortunate country for every pair of TOMS sold. In 2010, Sketchers introduced BOBS which looked almost identical to TOMS and shared the same ethical business practices. Sara’s post questioned whether it was ethical for BOBS to replicate TOMS so closely; however, I am more interested in where Sketchers went wrong with BOBS.

Obviously giving away a pair of shoes for every pair sold had proven to be an effective marketing strategy for TOMS. By positioning itself as a leader, TOMS effectively claimed a unique position in the minds of consumers. The company was driven to success not by “how” the shoes were given away, but by “why.” Blake Mycoskie travelled to Argentina where he met countless barefoot children. His business model was derived from these authentic experiences and his desire to do good. Consumers do not respond to the “how” of these ethical practices, but instead the “why”. This is because the “why” is emotional and something consumers can connect to.

In contrast, BOBS positioned itself as a follower and focused on “how” they were an ethical company. However, instead of finding an unoccupied position in which it could be first, BOBS claimed the same position of TOMS by directly copying their business model. In addition, by blatantly mirroring TOMS, Sketchers showed a lack of creativity and left themselves wide open to accusations of disingenuous ethical practices.

Instead of exactly replicating TOMS, BOBS should have looked at where TOMS was going in the right direction and used these aspects of the business as points of parity. Then BOBS should have created points of difference to differentiate themselves from their direct competition and better position themselves as followers.

Works Cited

Chitsaz, Sara. “Toms vs. Sketcher’s Bobs: The Ethics Behind a Social Enterprise.” UBC Blogs. 18 Oct. 2014. Web. 8 Nov. 2014.

Mainwaring, Simon. “TOMS vs. BOBS: How Skechers Shot Themselves in the Foot.” Fast Company. 21 Oct. 2010.     Web. 8 Nov. 2014.

“Skechers BOBS.” Ecouterre Skechers BOBS Comments. Web. 8 Nov. 2014.