(Peter Power /The Globe and Mail)

Microsoft Corp has recently opened a new retail store in Toronto. To differentiate their experience to the customers they have decided to make their entire store touch- sensitive, placing massive touch screens along the walls of the store. This is, as the article states, the strategy that many companies have also done such as Samsung and Apple.

Microsoft is merely trying to emulate the success Apple has had with their physical stores. If they want to take a bite out of Apple’s market share, then they will need to do something different. The store designs seem to copy Apple’s and adding big comfy chairs is not the differentiator that will enable Microsoft to beat Apple. Although Microsoft does not yet have the full line of sexy products that Apple have (iPhone, iPad, iPod, Macs, etc), Microsoft is now waking up to the opportunity presented by mobile devices (tablets, phones, etc) and the cloud. Windows 8, their new operating system is all about mobile devices and cloud computing. They are finally starting to develop products (Surface, Kinect, etc) that may begin to compete with Apple, but the question now is it too late to catch up with Apple? The other differentiator is that the Microsoft will partner with other vendors and carry products from Lenovo, Acer, HP, Dell, etc

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/globe-investor/new-microsoft-retail-store-aims-to-establish-cool-stuff-factor/article5353443/

The digital frontier has emerged as a new marketing medium. The sheer number of users visiting digital/social media sites have peaked the interest of investors who see the money making potential of “billions of eye-balls”. However, the recent poor performance of the Facebook IPO has shaken the confidence of investors, believing that this entire social media/digital phenomenon will end up like the dot-com bust. The writers discuss the differences between this current situation and the dot-com bust and the misunderstanding of this business model as well as the conflict of the perspective between Silicon Valley and Wall Street. The writers ultimately believe that this digital/social media business model will not die, but rather currently in the midst of development and growth.

I believe that the writers make a strong point in stating that this digital/social media business model is real. It simply boils down to whether the business fundamentals are there. Does one have a product that will please the customers? Will customers come back for the product? Etc. These digital/social media sites have a captive audience, Facebook with over a billion users, Twitter with over 500 million. It is simply a matter of how these companies are able to utilize their users to successfully develop as a company. Another observation is that there is a misunderstanding between Silicon Valley and Wall Street. The cultural difference, business model difference, and generational difference of Wall Street investors who may not understand social media and the digital phenomenon all contribute to the misunderstanding between the investor and a digital company. This difference could account for the disappointment of the IPO.

http://www.interbrand.com/en/best-global-brands/2012/articles-and-interviews/playing-to-win-on-the-digital-frontier.aspx

The actual question is what are the penalties in which these manufacturing businesses should face for improper labelling of the drug to the general public, specifically in the United States? Under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, “The adulteration or misbranding of any food, drug, device or cosmetic in interstate commerce” [FD&C Act, sec. 301(b); 21 U.S.C. 331(b)] is violated due to misleading labelling of cosmetic products, withhold information about the highly toxic chemicals within the products. The penalty for violating the act can result, if deemed minor, a fine, and in cases where it is considered a felony, imprisonment. However, the ambiguity of the punishment by fine may not deter major manufacturing companies from continuing to mislabel their products. Are the companies purposely violating the act or is it an accident? Some of these questions need to be answered to understand the situation better.

For more information:

http://www.watanabe-law.com/newsletters/criminal-law-newsletters/violations-of-the-federal-food-drug-and-cosmetic-act/

http://www.fda.gov/Cosmetics/GuidanceComplianceRegulatoryInformation/ucm074248.htm

https://blogs.ubc.ca/arailymakhylbekova/2012/09/12/toxic-nail-polish-ethical-issues-in-cosmetics/

When you look at this situation of million dollar players and billionaire owners in conflict over salaries, profit margins, lock-outs, strikes, the spirit of the game has been lost in all these money discussions. The customers of the NHL, the average hockey fan cannot understand this. Whatever the outcome of these negotiations, it will most likely mean higher ticket prices. The negative view of the NHLPA or the owners is tarnishing the brand of the NHL and this will translate to few customers.

https://blogs.ubc.ca/brianirwin/2012/10/01/economics-continues-to-postpone-hockey/

Samsung, Chinese workers, and labour rights

By Chris MacDonald  | September 07, 2012

Samsung headquarters in Seoul, South Korea (Photo: Oskar Alexanderson/Wikimedia)

China Labour Watch, an NGO, reported that two major companies, Samsung and Apple have mistreated employees and rights of the employees within factories in China. In particular, China Labour Watch noted that Samsung had recorded 100 hours of overtime in a month; children under 16 working in factories; failure to provide safety clothing where appropriate and other questionable practices. The focus of the article turns towards the ambiguity of the definition of “too much overtime” as workers in factories of Apple want additional overtime. However, the article states that rights of a worker is clear as Samsung workers were not given a mechanism in which to voice out complaints. The China Labour Watch stated that this was a breach of ethics.

The ethical question is whether or not it is ethical for multinational businesses to profit from exploiting cheaper labour and lax labour laws. More specifically, is it ethical for employees to work more than 100 hours of overtime in a month, regardless of whether they request it or not?

http://www.canadianbusiness.com/blog/business_ethics/97780–samsung-chinese-workers-and-labour-rights