Sources:

http://www.the-cma.org/about/blog/consumers-are-pulling-out-their-mobile-before-their-wallet

Jessica made a great point on the vitalness for companies nowadays to be phone-accessible. With the popularity of cell phones increasingly growing, technologies has fianlly advanced to the point of allowing internet access via mobiles. This opens the real gate of information flow. People may not carry their heavy laptops around all day, but they will with an all task orientated lightweight device, cell phone.

Internet access via mobiles enables people to get all the information they need anytime, anywhere. One of the most frequent uses of this internet accessibly is on  researching a product, reading its related reviews, and then decide whether to buy it or not. At least that’s my way of shopping. I always make sure whatever I buy is worth the money and the cause. And one of the fastest way to do that is by reading what others who have had an experience with the product or service have to say. Therefore my final decision most often comes down to what I found online. That includes people’s opinions, difference in price, and the actual presentation of the product or service itself.

I have to say things are much easier for me and consumers in general to being able to search the result of the information we want. That in turn requires businesses to make themselves cellphone & web accessible.

Sources:

http://www.dailyfinance.com/2012/10/11/wendys-pigtails-get-first-touch-up-since-1983/

After reading Eli’s blog post on Wendy’s brand re-imaging, I partially disagree his opinion. I think there is a driving force for Wendy’s undergoing change of image, that is: people’s increasing appeal toward “healthy food choices”. With increasingly more studies proving the unhealthiness of fast-food, and people’s growing awareness toward health issues, it is likely that the fast food industry may experience a decline in demand in the future. However, it is certain fast food is never going to diminish completely. However, Wendy, sets itself apart from the rest in the category by re-positioning its brand in consumer’s mind as a “healthier” fast food restaurant. To prove the changes it’s making. Wendy begins to gradually add healthy elements, such as whole grain bread, to its burger choices.

However, I would suggest Wendy to do more than what it’s currently doing. In addition to redesigning logo and changing food options, Wendy should consider doing more promotions and marketing to spread the words. Inform people of the change is the key. Although I do agree with Eli’s point that people have already formed an unhealthy fast-food impression with Wendy. Changing people’s perceptions is always the hardest thing to do, and it often takes time. However, overtime, it’s going to work. And the people’s new “impression” of Wendy is going to become a big advantage Wendy has over other fast-food restaurants, such as Buger King and MacDonald.

Sources:

http://www.divinechocolateusa.com/About/story.aspx  –(Devine Chocolate)

http://www.kuapakokoo.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=125:eradicationofchildlabour&catid=1:latest-news&Itemid=50 –(Kuapa Kokoo)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M7Mij795KuU&feature=player_detailpage

Devine chocolate a leading Fair Trade brand in the UK. It gets its supply of cocoa from a South African cocoa farmers union named: Kuapa Kokoo. “Kuapa Kokoo – which means good cocoa growers – has a mission to empower farmers in their efforts to gain a dignified livelihood, to increase women’s participation in all of Kuapa’s activities, and to develop environmentally friendly cultivation of cocoa.”(Devine chocolate)

The Kuapa Kokoo is a great example of social enterprise, a term we leaned in comm 101 which is defined to be a business that generates profit by selling products or services for the sole purpose of bringing a positive social change.The farmers’ union is doing exactly that. Thus far, it has helped to build pump wells, schools, as well as providing various trainings to local farmers to provide them with alternative means of livelihood.

A large percentage of the world’s chocolate today is produced with child slave labour. By buying from Divine fair trade chocolate, consumers can ensure the route of supply and production is ethical. At the same time, each bar of Divine chocolate consumers buy contributes a part in improving the economic lives of coco farmers in South Africa.

Sources:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/jun/22/india.humanrights

Photo source:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2011/apr/27/consumers-reining-in-spending

After reading Tony’s blog post regarding Primark’s immediate reaction toward the unethical behaviours of its Indian suppliers, I feel fortunate toward the fashion retailer for having made the most correct decision under the circumstance.

Some people may think Primark’s action does not worth the cause as it will lose a large portion its profit by firing its current cheap clothing suppliers. That is true. However, if this scandal ever gets revealed, the retailer’s fate is doomed. Its partnership with unethical suppliers will arose anger and disgust with consumers. Brand loyalty and brand name will be completely destroyed under the title of “unethical business” from that point and on. Its sales will plummet as a result of losing all its customers. Even after the scandal settles overtime, the shadow it has  casted upon consumers’ perception of this fashion brand will not go away easily.

An almost identical to Primark’s case’s live example would be Nike’s dark history of allowing its suppliers to employ child labour. We all know how hard the company has tried afterward to erase the idea from people’s mind by fixing the wrongs. Do they work? Yes, But there are still traces of disbelief with this athletic wear company. Nike would definitely be doing even better than it currently does if this scandal thing didn’t happen in the first place.

Therefore, the best way to prevent all the devastating “after effects” of scandals, businesses should all flollow what Primark does: Eliminate the cause of rumour before the rumour gets spread.

Sources:

Maybe Diamonds Aren’t Forever  (MDAF)

The diamond industry that’s always been dominating the precious stone market experiences a little uprising competition from coloured stones during the past decade. “Rarer than diamonds yet cheaper, emeralds, rubies, and sapphires are gaining favor just as sales for diamonds are beginning to show weakness.” (MDAF)

I believe the coloured-stone market will grow to become a fierce competition to the diamond market in the near future. As it mentioned in the article, coloured stones set much more competitive prices compared to diamonds. The distinctively lower prices of coloured stones serves as great incentive for consumers to consider experimenting with something different but of equal or sometimes even higher brilliance than ordinary diamond stones. And, it did. Consumer tastes have changed significantly over the past few years. The diamond industry currently undergoes a decline in its market share. Though colored-stone market does not currently have the budget diamond market has for advertising. There are other ways to promote their product and lead a trend. For example, the article talked about “celebrity driven effect”. People naturally tend to follow the action of their idols. Based on this knowledge, the colored-stone market can consider offering free gifts of stones to certain well-known celebrities, in return for their consent to wear these stones at specific occasions. This strategy can be even more effective than doing real advertisements. Lastly, with the competitive entrance of colored stones, consumers gain more power and freedom in selecting what they want. Diamond market is definitely losing some of its market shares, and if they don’t take their competitors seriously and fails to adapt their marketing and sales strategy to the current situation, it will eventually lose its dominance of the industry.

Sources: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/10/business/media/in-sweetener-ads-cargill-focuses-on-truvias-roots.html?ref=media

https://www.youtube.com/watch?list=PLWuppp7yIU5R8g2IIv3bCUXe4Jgelalc6&feature=player_detailpage&v=MGQrds3ZyBY

After reading the article, I think Truvia, as a sweetener company, does a great job in positioning its brand in customers’ minds. From what I’ve learned in comm101’s lecture, a successful company should have a strong value proposition, which, in detail, includes both points of parity and points of difference. And I think the concept is well illustrated in Truvia’s case. Truvia, like all of its competitor companies in North America, provide customers with the convenience to substitute orginary sugar with individual packets of  sweeteners to add to coffee, and sprinkle onto deserts. However, points of parity along does not set the company apart from the rest of its kind. It needs something special, and unique, whether it be a belief the company hold true towards, or a characteristic that is exhibited by the company along.

In the case of Truvia, the company advertises its product to be “100% GREEN” with all natural ingredients extracted from the Stevia plant leaves. It also promote its product as having zero calories and different flavour choices. “Natrual” is the major points of difference that distinguishes Truvia from its competitors in the same category. Not many other competitor companies use the same “healthy” ingredients as Truvia does. The word “Natural” is growing to become a strong preference of the majority of consumers nowadays. People value their heath increasingly more as their life standard increases. And smart brands like Truvia knows how utilize that consumer preference, and turn it into the company’s strength in marketing its product. 

All businesses, disregard their form or scale, peruse one common goal at the end of the day- profit. Despite the existence of some truly ethical organizations, there are still many other ones that ignore the ethic prospect of business.

Forever 21, the well-known fashion garment company that owns nearly 800 stores worldwide. The company is most famous for its cheap, yet still fashionable clothing lines. However, news recently reveals how this affordable brand purchases cotton from Uzbekistan suppliers who use child labour.

In Uzbekistan, children are removed from school by the government during harvest seasons to work in cotton fields. Regarding this matter, Forever 21 responds with saying it has came to a common agreement with the suppliers who promise to use “legally qualified” workers. However, news article reports otherwise:”So far, Forever 21 has refused to support human rights and speak out against forced child labor in the cotton industry.”

It is clear that Forever 21 doesn’t really take business ethics into consideration when selling their clothes. Though already being informed of the child labour issue in Uzbekistan, the company refuses to take a stand against the unethical practice. The business wants to keep its profit, so it chooses to sacrifice whatever that is in its way. In this case, the child labour concern is not formally addressed by the company.

Sources:

http://www.change.org/petitions/tell-forever-21-to-stop-forced-child-labor-in-cotton

http://www.businesspundit.com/5-giant-companies-who-use-slave-labor/