When talking about “Internet Giants”, who would first be popped up in your mind?

Google and Facebook, two household names, have made changes to their news sites recently that millions of users might not be aware of. Facebook starts to display the logos and identify sources of some of the articles on its News Feed while Google gives its users the power to control the number of free visits they have for news publishers sites. Both Google and Facebook not only upgrade their services to better serve the public, but also formally collaborate with different news publishers to firm their internet status. At the same time, news publishers gain millions of visits through this channel, as well as increasing the subscriptions that they can barely get before. It seems to be a fair cooperation and win-win situation. However, the fact is not.

Data have shown that, instead of saying “I read this on XX website”, readers are more likely to tell people that they read the news on Facebook. In addition, Google’s promotion of free accesses have brought almost 50% decline to some of the news sites. Although the publishers can somewhat benefit from the advertisements, most of the revenues are still taken by Google and Facebook.

Who dominates in this act is obvious. These tech giants don’t grow for no reasons. They are apparently fed by their strategies. As for Facebook, it claims to help develop the news industry on media by displaying the logos, whereas it ends up collecting all the money into its own pocket. On the other side, Google successfully promotes its “value” of bringing convenience to the public which lets people access to what they want to see without paying money, “eventually” getting itself to become the biggest beneficiary in the game. They target the customers so well, delivering the right messages with proper methods. Most readers don’t care about the originality of the sources as long as they have the access and it’s free of charge. Despite the fact that Google and Facebook are destroying internet ecosystem by their “duopoly”, news publishers have no other choices but to collaborate with them because of their influence to the technological world.

This “duopoly” also sets a tremendously high barrier for new firms to even enter into the media market. It is a positive sign for Google and Facebook themselves, but not for the overall development of the industry. More competitions would bring more innovations and advancements. As technology gradually dominates our world of living, there should be some breakthrough points.

Word Count: 423

*All pictures above are hyperlinked.

According to Vic Tung’s post on NEW LESSONS FROM MASSIVE CHINESE BLOCKBUSTER SUCCESS, he talked about how Hollywood changes the strategy to step into Chinese film market by sponsoring a local blockbuster, Wolf Warrior II.

Personally, I’m not into films on the topics of politics and wars; however, during Summer vacations, I could find Wolf Warrior II almost everywhere in China — social media, subways, shopping malls, etc. Everyone was talking about this movie. I finally went to the theatre out of my curiosity, and there were no empty seats left even it was one month after the movie came out. Admittedly, it is a successfully commercial product. It knows how to grab audience’s attention by ‘heroism’ and ‘patriotism’, giving people a sense of ‘masculinity” of Chinese soldiers at the same time. Wolf Warrior II continually breaks historical records of the film industry, not only within China, but also among the world. Its box office hit more than ¥1 billion(≈$190 million CAD)in less than 5 days, and ¥5.68 billion(≈$1.1 billion CAD)in total over 3 months.

Despite the fact that the director, Jing Wu, cooperated with the Action Team of Captain America, the Underwater Photography Team of Pirates of the Caribbean, and the Background Music Team of Hollywood, I don’t think the movie itself is fully dependent on the support of Hollywood and as a step for Hollywood to get into China’s market, which I disagree with Vic’s point. Hollywood, as the top movie industry in the world, does not need to further develop in a particular market, and it is an honor for Wolf Warrior II to learn from and be compared with such a mature product line.

However, what bring Wolf Warrior II to its massive success? From a business perspective, there are 3 prominent contributors.

1.Value Proposition: It accurately puts itself into a position where has a market vacancy. As mentioned above, the emphasis on patriotism, collectivism and individualistic heroism with fighting scenes and uplifting visual effects satisfy all of the domestic audience, making them excited.

2.Channels(Brand Effect): It delivers the right thing to the public at the right time using the right method. Its release date was just around the 90th Chinese Army Day. Besides the firm foundation laid by Part I, Wu is well-known for his heroic and steel-willed character. The choices of actors are also highly cost-efficient.

3.Marketing: It continued creating the hottest topics on social media to attract public’s attention from the time it started filming until it finally stepped out of the big screen.

As a result, besides gaining some experience from Hollywood, the movie’s success is more of its own strategy. Although Wolf Warrior II still has lots of room for improvements, Chinese Film Industry has already taken a big step up after the downturn. I hope the industry could keep progressing, and could be recognized by more people around the globe.

Word count:473

*All images above are hyperlinked.

In Tesla fires hundreds of workers even as Model 3 production ramps up, the author, Nick Statt talks about the news in which Tesla has recently fired hundreds of employees just as the production of Model 3 needs to accelerate. This result is a decision of Tesla’s annual performance review, and people being affected in the industry range from managers, engineers, to basic workers. Some even claim that they are fired suddenly for no reason, and they have never received any bad reviews from the company. However, in Tesla’s words, it’s normal to let a certain amount of workers go based on the generally poor performance after the company-wide review.

Tesla Model 3. Timothy Artman/Tesla

Model 3 is designed to be a product to knock out competitions within the market, yet it now hits the “bottle-neck” of its production. Parts of the car need to be manually made since machines can’t achieve the level of precision in the process of manufacturing. As a result, only 260 of them are produced, 220 being actually delivered out of the expectation of more than 1600 in the third quarter. There are around half a million customers on the list waiting for the cars, and the company’s plan of achieving an exponentially growing rate in production during the upcoming season still seems to be a long way to go.

In contrast with the dismissal in Tesla, Uber is a company which chooses to ignore the inappropriate actions its managers have done and keep its unrestrained culture. From a broader point of view, it may look like Tesla does the right thing to try its best to avoid further incidents of its performance, whereas both of Tesla and Uber have actually reached the failure in performance management. Uber’s loose working environment breeds a bunch of aggressive leaders who, despite having some talent in physically developing a firm’s brand, are misleading the firm and may ultimately ruin everything. As how Nick discusses in his blog, we don’t exactly know the effect of Tesla’s sudden action, but it’s not the right time for it to fire almost 1%-2% of its total labors. What it should really consider is the technique of operational management. Without such a huge group of people, how could it even feed the demand and attain growths within a few months?

Product Roadmap. Jay Caplan

Word count: 391

Reference of Tesla’s logo: Tesla Motors Inc Becomes Tesla Inc With Aim to Focus on Other Businesses!

Suppose you are an investor just entering the market, eagerly looking for a firm that has the potential for high returns and is worth investing. How would you investigate? In which aspects?

While the topic of “business ethics” was still lingering around my head, a term called “ESG Investing” popped up on the computer screen in front of my eyes. The three components of “ESG” — “Environmental”, “social”, and “governance” have become a trendy approach for the investors to learn about the firms. Despite of the fact that the first funds related to sustainability started around 1970s, the amount of assets invested with a consideration on ESG have increased $8 trillion globally in recent years. In addition to the data collected online, it has been proven that the returns are much higher than the expectations, as the ethical behaviors of industries almost turn into a household concern. As a result, nowadays, when deciding whether to invest or not, instead of looking at a company’s financial performance, the investors are more willing to take its contribution on the society into consideration.

However, the standard of ethics is subjective that it varies from person to person. Jack Richards, an investment analyst at Capita Employee Benefits argued in one of his articles that some industries, such as tobacco, alcohol, and arms, are not distracting social welfare if they don’t promote or encourage excessive consumption. The boundaries are not clearly defined. Some companies then take the benefits of those grey areas in between, claiming that they are “ethical” enough to be invested without any factual evidence. Those who build their businesses step by step yet don’t contribute much for the “social good” are automatically out of this game.

Being attracted by the reputation and advantages from “ESG Investing”, many of the investors gradually lose their original intentions in the market. More importantly, instead of getting what the firms should have deserved for themselves, the economy, and global market, the direction of the overall approach is now being misled by something else.

If you are the investor, would you let “ESG” dominate your decisions?

References:

Ethical investment is booming. But what is it? (2017, September 21). Retrieved September 27, 2017, from https://www.economist.com/news/finance-and-economics/21729463-esg-investment-hard-define-and-its-returns-are-hard-measure-ethical

Schillerstrom, R., Matthew Wurtzel (2013, January 22). Poll result: Should public pension plans use ESG screens when investing? Retrieved September 27, 2017, from http://www.pionline.com/article/20130122/ONLINE/130129982/poll-result-should-public-pension-plans-use-esg-screens-when-investing

Anon, (2017). [online] Available at: https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/esg-investing-rising-tide-jack-richards [Accessed 27 Sep. 2017].

Have you heard the latest news in the cosmetic industry? The Body Shop, a well-known manufacturer for bathing products, has been recently experiencing a downturn in the global market.

Forty years ago, The Body Shop introduced a unique brand of bathing products to an entirely new generation. The objective was to highlight exotic materials from nature but at the same time, ban animal testing. Undoubtedly, the company’s original business ethics elevated The Body Shop brand to the top, allowing it to take its place amongst the establishment of the cosmetic world.

However, in 2016, reported data showed that The Body Shop had made little contribution to its parent company, L’Oréal. Its revenue continued to slip, creating internal financial problems. It is no longer a neighborhood-favored brand, and is gradually being replaced by competitors such as Lush, with cheaper prices and fancier concepts.

As the world continues to develop at an exponential rate, traditional business ethics are no longer the way to establish a brand, in order to make it compatible in the explosive global market. This confirms that people nowadays have become more aware of the social responsibilities a business carries to its community. Despite the cruel fact that The Body Shop is falling behind the race, there are actually lots of companies that run in front only use “the ethics” as their slogans to attract customers without any practical action. As a result, the ethics of a business should be part of its foundation, and not be used as a promotional gimmick.

The Body Shop launches Forever Against Animal Testing campaign (CNW Group/The Body Shop)

References:

An ethical retailer takes a bath. (2017, February 16). Retrieved September 13, 2017, from https://www.economist.com/news/britain/21717085-iconic-brand-badly-needs-makeover-ethical-retailer-takes-bath

The Body Shop and Cruelty Free International Campaign to end cosmetic product and ingredient animal testing globally once and for all.  Retrieved September 13, 2017, from http://www.newswire.ca/news-releases/the-body-shop-and-cruelty-free-international-campaign-to-end-cosmetic-product-and-ingredient-animal-testing-globally-once-and-for-all-625675423.htm