Article: http://blogs.wsj.com/digits/2013/11/14/twitter-extends-ad-platform-for-small-businesses/

In the article above, Twitter has been reported to have expanded advertising on its platform beyond large companies but also to small businesses in the UK and Canada. While this was done so as to increase Twitter’s international revenue, this has also opened up doors of change in the marketing world, where small businesses now have a bigger chance in promoting their name and the utilization of social media. While this is good news for the previously neglected “small fry”, we must keep in mind the “balance of social media”. As mentioned in a second article, there is need for businesses to “rethink their social media strategies” beyond that of recognizing the “growing importance” of social media, in avoidance of “privacy concerns and media clutter”. As we have learnt in class, I believe there is a need for integration of market research in that companies need to identify when they might be crossing the line with overly aggressive marketing tactics that might have adverse effects on consumers that will backfire on their intended results; as explained in the article, “at the end of the day, social media is only valuable if it’s aligned to the company strategy”.

MC Hammer: Role of Social Media in Marketing

In relation to Abhilasha Gnawali’s blog post about organizational structure, I believe there is much functionality to the differing variations between the two main types of organizational structures as pictured below: 

In an attempt to increase profit, electronics and engineering company, Siemens, has been reported to “revamping” its organizational structure, so as to “make the company more agile and competitive”. Siemens aims to take its vertically structure corporation and transform it to a flatter, more decentralized model where a whole layer of its cluster system is eliminated to “make Siemens more streamlined and closer to [their] markets”.

Based on what we have learnt in class, this would mean more direct communication between the executives of the company and their workers where there is now less difficulty in information flow. While to a certain extent this strategy would be able to help the management team of Siemens, I believe this move is more resultant of the pressure on the new CEO to meet profit targets. After all, the company remains to be a multi-national corporation where its operations in its various regions are difficult to monitor without a structured hierarchical approach within the corporation, making it impossible for the company to fully integrate itself to the flat, unstructured model of the two organizational structures.

Article: http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702304410204579141330057795494

Article: http://blogs.wsj.com/digits/2013/11/13/snapchat-spurned-3-billion-acquisition-offer-from-facebook/

Not long after Snapchat was a topic of discussion in class, came the news that Snapchat had turned down Facebook’s two acquisition offers. In conjunction with Twitter’s recent IPO of $25 billion, it appears peculiar to me that Snapchat, a company with no actual generation of revenue was already valued at $3 billion by Facebook. While some may argue that this value will only grow, along with it’s doubled number of users at 350 million within 3 months, one has to take a step back when looking at the $800 million raised from investors. There are many other similar phone applications such as Pinterest that have yet to generate revenue but is valued at $3.8 million and has generated $250 million from investors.

However, this is disputed by a second article, which brings out an important and neglected point – while technological advancements have certainly been a focal point of this generation, youth might not be particularly reliable for the prediction of technological trends – more often than not, we give in to the coming and passing of “fads”. This makes one wary of the projected worth of Snapchat despite the countless articles analyzing Snapchat’s point of difference and probable value propositions, as well as afterthoughts as to whether or not it was the right choice for the company to have passed up on Facebook’s offers of acquisition.

Article: http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2013-03-26/college-startups-the-new-masters-degree

With an ever booming number of business school undergraduates comes a correlated boom in the number of students taking their own shot at entrepreneurial start-ups. As entrepreneurs gets increasingly younger, so does the amount of risk they are willing to take. Yet, as we have discussed in class, “75% of start-ups fail” but start-ups remain to be important “pivots” where an enormous portion of start-ups mainly focus on accomplishing as much trial and errors with the amount of funding they have rather than pushing for success.

“Many an undergraduate business student wants to be the next Mark Zuckerberg,”  as said in the article, though many start-ups definitely require a pinch of realism in that many remain unaware that “only half of all new businesses survive for five years, and only a third make it to the 10-year mark”. With that being said however, the article also mentions that the barriers to entry for start-ups are at an all-time low in terms of cost and convenience thanks to technology and the influence of social media in this day and age.

Even though it is slightly conflicting, I would certainly have to agree with the article’s title, that starting your own business would give one an unparalleled opportunity to learn in comparison to that of what could be taught under the curriculum of business degrees.

Related article: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-24912717

http://www.businessweek.com/videos/2013-11-18/the-age-of-corporate-aid-and-social-investments

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-19876138

Corporate social responsibility (CSR) as we learnt in class has become a requirement for companies – while many do the bare minimum as required by laws, their compliance fails to show an actual recognition for the need to give back to the community. The video above highlights that many companies view donating to charities as a “corporate branding opportunity” where they “give out favors” to charities that will be helpful to them in boosting the company’s image. Especially in the developing regions of Asia that are struck by natural disasters, most recently the Typhoon Haiyan Relief in The Philippines, they are mentioned in the video as incidents that are being “used to build corporate brand identity”.

As we learnt in class, there is a recognizable need for CSR and the creation of mutually beneficial situations where both the company and community have something to gain however, there remains the need for watchful eyes over the ulterior motives of companies that treat CSR as an industry where they try to gain favor for themselves in terms of public relations instead of a genuinely wanting to “develop longer term, more sustainable relationships with charities”.

With the boom of the Internet and social media, there is need to recognize the evolution of the new age consumer.  While buyer power for the everyday consumer has certainly seen its increase, firms now face a new challenge of keeping up with the times in their marketing strategies. Competitors are all looking for the point of difference that will allow them to rise above and be distinguished in the ever evolving market. Change should perhaps be the only constant for marketers today, where “change has become the norm”; competitors lose out should they miss out on utilising any of the various popular social media platforms today – Facebook, Instagram, Tumblr, Twitter and YouTube. Stephen Quinn, executive vice president and chief marketing officer of Walmart, acknowledges the need for markets to forcibly become “customer-centric” despite this being a “painful transition” whilst Joseph V. Tripodi, executive vice president and chief marketing and commercial officer of Coco-Cola, “discussed how risk-taking must become second nature” and the need to be “bold” and “disruptive”. Considering the words of the power brands in the marketing world, one should definitely take note of how emerging brands would revolutionize the social media chase of the 21^st century.

Source: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/10/07/business/media/marketers-chase-the-rapidly-evolving-consumer.html?_r=0

Articles: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/10/05/greenpeace-mattel-barbie-deforestation_n_996291.html

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/greenspace/2011/06/greenpeace-campaign-targets-mattel.html

While deforestation is certainly a serious environmental issue today, the methods used by Greenpeace in “shaming” Mattel into dropping its destructive rainforest packing are questionable in terms of ethics as Mattel was targeted for its standing as the largest and most influential toy company in the world. Despite Greenpeace’s campaign video of Ken “breaking up” with Barbie being proven effective in garnering an outcry of 500,000 emails by the public, one should not forget the tone of mockery employed in the video. Even though this can be attributed to Mattel’s active online marketing (2.2 million followers on Facebook), one must wonder if this would be the “downside” of being a powerhouse brand name in the industry and perhaps if other powerhouse brands should have to “take precautionary measures” should they be targeted by the rising number of environmental activist organisations who are willing to use radical campaigns and methods along with the ever environmental conscious consumers (from a business standpoint – under Threats and Weakness of a SWOT analysis). Along with their new global policy whereby Mattel’s suppliers are instructed to avoid wood fiber from controversial sources, comes a message sent to other companies that “to be a responsible business, [one] must be vigilant about keeping deforestation out of their products”.

This post is in response to Jessica Lao’s post on Sweatshops

It is no surprise that outsourcing production to factories in developing nations have been a practice of multinational corporations (MNCs) that rise and base in developed nations. While there are certain benefits for the MNCs such as cheaper production costs, this is also said to be able help developing nations out of poverty and unemployment. This may be the case in terms of goals but in reality, there is much to take into light; when exploitation has come into picture – worsening of the already low standard of living as well as the negative associations of countries seen as hubs for outsourcing (e.g. China and India). While Milton Friedman states that the only social responsibility of business is to “earn profits while following the law and basic ethical customs”, I would definitely argue that the disregard for working conditions have crossed the line in terms of ethics. Even though many developing nations fail to have laws regulating working conditions and compensation, attributing to the possibility of such cheap labour costs and why so many MNCs take advantage of such outsourcing “benefits”, I believe there is a need for those of us in developed countries to recognize that perhaps our laws in protection of human and workers’ rights should follow the MNCs to the countries they are blatantly exploiting.

Article: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-24026228

Retailer Abercrombie & Fitch (A&F) was found in yet another discrimination dispute for firing a Muslim employee for wearing her headscarf, claiming it would cause “undue hardship” to accommodate her. While initially allowing her to wear her headscarf in Hollister (A&F’s surf-inspired clothing label) colors, Ms Hani Khan was suspended for refusing to take off her covering and was soon later fired for “refusing to comply”. The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission filed a lawsuit on behalf of Khan and found that the brand had not in fact faced any issues in sales in having to accommodate Khan and faced “deviation from its ‘look policy’ “.

This comes after the scandal A&F faced earlier this year where CEO Mike Jeffries had to apologize after an article for remarks he made in 2006 about the company’s exclusionary marketing strategy in avoidance of “unattractive individuals” went viral via social media. This was evident in that Abercrombie did not produce women clothing larger than size 10 where Jeffries claimed that “A lot of people don’t belong [in our clothes], and they can’t belong.”

Both scandals that the company has been involved in is extremely unethical to me; in trying to create a brand image that was “luxurious” and “exclusive”, the company had to practice discriminatory acts to not only those of religious backgrounds but also those of certain body types. As said by Zahra Billoo of the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), “no one should ever have to choose between their religion and work” – it is at the core of business ethics and ethics in general that no one should have face derogatory characterizations so as to fit a certain “brand image”.