Claire Song's Blog

Instead of just simply answering this question, I’d like to ask another question regarding a different subject that might be a little bit more relatable. If there was a classroom with thirty students needing help from one teacher – a teacher that is capable of teaching all the students in the class- would there suddenly be no need for personal tutors or academic helpers? The answer is no. Even if the teacher was able to help all the students, other resources that could help the student improve and succeed academically would still be welcomed. There can never be too many resources. Now, in my small analogy, the teacher was the United Nations while the students were representing the citizens in the world requiring help. Like the case in the classroom, just because there is a fully capable source of help like the UN, it does not mean that other resources – like the Arc and social enterprise – will become valueless. Firstly, the UN – like the teacher – cannot help specific groups of people with great focus. The UN must see problems holistically since their motto is to keep peace and improve lives of the citizens of the world. However, the Arc and social enterprise consist of a smaller group of people working together to solve and or improve a specific problem – essentially, social enterprise and the Arc were represented by the personal tutors and academic helpers since they bring a more personal and focused method of help. Additionally, even if the United Nations were fully funded, this does not mean in any way that all the world problems regarding hunger, poverty, education, illness and more will suddenly be resolved. In my opinion, there are too many complex problems in the world that exist that can’t be fixed with just money. The world needs social entrepreneurs and organizations like the Arc, that is composed of educated and passionate leaders that are willing to diverge all their efforts into specific issues that they wish to improve.

Chelsea Choi has written an interesting article about the new emergence of healthy food in 711 stores due to the new partnership between 711 and Tony Horton Kitchen. 711 has a clear reputation in consumer’s minds of being a store that is cheap and open during all hours of the day, however, when I think of 711, the term quality of food does not come to mind. Personally, I don’t think that capitalizing on the healthy eating trend matches will benefit 711’s business. The consumer base that 711 already has are mostly comprised of people who want a quick snack – whether that be healthy or not- such as 711’s slurpees, hot dogs and taquitos. Although the partnership between 711 and Tony Horton Kitchen will not compromise its cost leadership strategy, I disagree with Chelsea in the fact that “it’s a smart move.” Consumers who are truly concerned with eating healthy most likely don’t go to 711 very often since healthy eaters have other great alternatives to turn to; therefore,  I also disagree with Chelsea in the fact that 711 will be expanding its customer segment. In the end, this partnership between a health guru and a quick-and-cheap junk food paradise will just confuse the consumer in terms of 711’s brand image.

New partnership between 711 and Tony Horton

Photo

In early 2014, Facebook spent $2 billion on buying Oculus, a company that develops virtual reality goggles that has not yet been sold in the market. But the interesting thing is, Jan Goetgetluk, the chief executive of Virtuix Omni, seems to be gaining from this acquisition. Despite not having direct involvement with the purchase, Virtuix Omni manufactures virtual reality treadmills, which are a complimentary product with Oculus goggles. Facebook’s purchase on Oculus has sparked great investors interests on Virtuix Omni treadmills.
With the rise and expansion of the technological market, I agree with CEO Mark Zuckerberg in that virtual reality is the next big computing platform after smart phones and tablets. ICT in the last decade has proven to be the most profitable market because of the revolutionary products made by electronic companies. So whenever there’s a breakthrough in an untapped area of the market, such as virtual reality systems, it doesn’t take long for large companies like Facebook to invest. Furthermore, the investment by companies like Facebook raises awareness for other investors to consider investing in these markets.
I find it fascinating and logical that investors have interest in Virtuix Omni following Facebook’s purchase, because it shows the influence of large firms on the market – that by even simply making a business decision, it largely affects the business trend.

Oculus goggles

Virtuix Omni treadmills

Source

Oculus Goggles

Virtuix Omni Treadmills

This article explains why bad customer service in customer call centers exists by breaking it down into 2 main reasons:

Reason 1) Managers want to see increased productivity per agent. This means that if an agent can handle 50 calls a day, then the manager will coach this agent into taking more than 50 calls (55 calls for example). This increased productivity of 10% is a great sign for the managers because they don’t have to hire more call operators, therefore they can reduce costs. This results in each agent having an increased work load, which equates to pressure and less time per call.

Reason 2) Agents will be managed on their average call time therefore, they have a set time frame per each caller. If they talk to the caller longer than a certain amount, the managers will see this as unproductive and may provide coaching to the agent. This results in agents trying to solve problems that the caller has in sometimes an unrealistic time frame, which leads to poor quality of service.

This article was interesting because I had background information about this topic from class 19, People, Culture and Teams from Comm 101 and therefore I could make connections between the two materials. From comm 101, I can now understand why Zappos emphasizes so heavily on the fact that they have no restrictions on time for their customer service calls. Due to the fact that the agents in Zappos are encouraged to provide lengthy and detailed help for the callers from the management team of the organization – which do not follow the two main reasons of poor customer service above- explains why their customer service is exceptional. This article was interesting because of the quantitative analysis behind poor customer service along with the fact that I could make distinctions between why good and poor customer service arise.

When an idea turns into a business, the brand image that the business wants to portray must be clear. This brand image must accurately reflect their target market segment instead of trying to appeal to a very broad consumer base. In my opinion, the two brands, Skullcandy and Rockstar Energy Drink, are optimal examples  that show that successful businesses derives from clear internal knowledge of their core values along with knowing their customers. Although Skullcandy is a company that produces headphones, it started off marketing to a very specific market segment: skateboarders and snowboarders.

[1]

[2]

Orinally, these headphones weren’t sold in retail stores like Sony and Bose, but sold in specialty stores like Zumiez or Tilly’s- stores that had the same customer base that they were targeting. Similarily, Rockstar Energy Drink targeted action sports lovers from BMX, skateboarding, snowboarding to wake-skating. Instead of staying in their category of music and energy drinks, both Skullcandy and Rockstar have pulled away from the norm by choosing a specific target group and maintaining its brand to serving those customers first. Although both of these brands have now matured- with their core customers maturing with them- neither companies have forgotten the importance of keeping their core, original customers satisfied even if their popularity reaches beyond that customer segment. 

Source 

 Source

[1]- Photo

[2]- Photo

When you think of Burger King, what do you associate it with?  Personally, considering fast food chains, Burger King is not a brand that comes out on top in terms of quality in my mind. Originating from the United States, Burger King arguably has a big presence in the fast food industry worldwide with over 14,000 chain stores around the globe. Compared to the “big giant” down under us, we – as Canadians- have very little presence in the global food industry. However, Tim Hortons is the only fast food chain that is truly recognized and respected as Canadian and in terms of quality of food, I firmly believe that Tim Hortons trumps Burger King. In August 2014, Tim Hortons made a $12.5-billion merger with the U.S. company believing that they will make 23 billion in system sales together. As far as I am concerned, Tim Hortons has made a grave mistake. Although the CEO of this new joint company (the previous CEO of Burger King Int.) has stated that the two fast food chains will run separately-  as a Canadian consumer- the point of difference that Tim Hortons originally carried as a recognizable Canadian, community-oriented and high quality food brand has now been diluted with the mix of Burger King’s reputation. 

Tim Hortons current CEO states that  “as an independent brand within the new company, this transaction will enable us to move more quickly and efficiently to bring Tim Hortons iconic Canadian brand to a new global customer base.” Although Tim Hortons may have accepted this deal hoping to expand its franchise, I believe that Burger King’s interests in making this deal far outweigh the benefits Tim Hortons will receive. In the deal, the joint company will be owned by an Ontario-based company- a method that allows Burger King to transfer its main location out of the United States so that they can pay a lower tax rate. Since Tim Hortons not fully “Canadian” anymore – since it has been bought by Burger King – I believe that sales in Canada will slowly decrease due to Tim Hortons’ main point of difference vanishing. 

[1]

[1]- Photo

BC Hydro wants to construct a dam and a 1,100-megawatt hydroelectric generating station on Peace River in northern BC – an area that lies right on the heart of the Tsilhqot’in First Nations reserve. Although in Canada we occasionally hear about the disputes between the aboriginal people and the government, I think that in order for us to truly understand the situation, we need to put ourselves into the shoes of the aboriginals. If you had a home that was in your family possession for many generations and someone wanted to come and build a project on – without your consent- what would your reaction be? In my opinion, the government is taking advantage of aboriginals because of the fact that they have little power and wealth. If a wealthy individual lived in a place where BC Hydro wanted to construct a dam, they would most likely have to go through a lot more persuasion and possibly give financial incentive.

This new project would flood 83 km of land as it is constructed, harming and destroying farmland and natural habitat. Additionally, it will directly affect the aboriginal people that live near the future construction site. The project would cause a significant negative effect on fishing, hunting, and prevent them from using the area for ceremonial practices. Liz Logan, the delegation member of the Fort Nelson First Nation strongly believes that the project would cause more harm than good and explains why the land is important to the aboriginals: “It’s our church, it’s our store, it’s our school. We have elders’ gatherings there annually,” 

Also, aboriginals aren’t uninterested in pushing the economy forward with new projects, it is just simply that they want to do it in a way that doesn’t disturb their culture and the nature around them. Both the chiefs have stated that their communities want to support projects that incorporate wind, solar, and geothermal power. In order for this project to advance, I believe that BC Hydro must appropriately talk to the First Nation chiefs and discuss and learn how to cooperate with the aboriginal people’s wants and needs.

Source 

–Comment on Micheal Mauro‘s Blog Post–

While Nike’s sweatshop controversy was publicized and scrutinized heavily from 1991 to 2000, there are many other famous brands in North America still using sweatshops as a method of paying lower labor wages and cutting production costs. Some of these brands include GAP, Walmart, H&M, Victoria’s Secret and more. However, Nike’s situation was special because it was so heavily publicized. Unlike Nike, many of these brands – some that I have mentioned – are not receiving nearly the same amount of criticism that Nike had to endure.  If one looks at what happened to Nike, it might seem as if good business ethics is the best and only way to have a successful business : “In summary, during the 1990’s Nike was a company losing profit and consumers due to their unethical business propositions. However, Nike has now begun to show the global market how ethical behavior is beneficial.” [1]

 However, in reality, Nike’s business turned around because they handled the controversy appropriately – not because they suddenly implemented good business ethics. The Operations team in Nike impressively figured out the best way to handle the situation given that they were under the public eye. Now, if any of these other companies suddenly find themselves in a huge sweatshop controversy like what Nike had, will they be ready to handle it with the same amount of precision and skill?

[1] – Micheal Mauro 

Lisa Mah’s Blog

The fashion company, Honest By  seems like they have a great approach to business from the ethical view-point. Personally, I appreciate the company for trying to do business differently than most companies. According to my research, Honest By started up in 2012 and have been on the market since. However, although the idea of transparent business process of making and producing products sounds great, it seems that they are not very well marketed in terms of brand name – other than the fact that Jennifer Lawrence wore a Honest By dress in 2013.

 [1]

From a purely profit-driven point of view, I believe that this company will need to market the brand more, while continuing to do business in a more ethical way. If Honest By believes that they can make profits JUST by having a more ethical business method, they could run into serious problems. In conclusion, I do not think customers will start purchasing from this brand because of their more ethical approach to business.

[1] – Photo