Category: Uncategorized

This post is in response to Conor MacDonald’s Pepsi vs. Coke Advertisement.

Although Coca-Cola seems to be winning its ongoing war with Pepsi, I wouldn’t be so quick to credit it to product superiority. In fact, in most situations, I find the two products to be fairly similar, although I am a Pepsi fan myself. However, the real upper hand in this battle is due to product placement.

Movies have become a novel way to market products, so it’s not a surprise that the two soft drink giants have capitalized on this opportunity. According to Geek Tyrant, Coca-Cola began appearing in movies in 1933, whereas Pepsi followed almost 30 years later in 1961. Furthermore, in 2012, Coca-Cola appeared in over 50 movies, while Pepsi surfaced in fewer than 30. So why is Coca-Cola a more recognizable brand? Because it has more opportunities to be recognized.

Marketing has drastically evolved over the years. While advertisements like Coca-Cola’s iconic Mean Joe Green (“Hey kid, catch”) commercial will still bring up a smile or two, subliminal marketing – product placement – is the future of the industry. When people watch their favourite movies, they naturally associate the brands they see to the satisfaction they get from that movie. So in order for Pepsi to compete with Coca-Cola, it needs to ensure that its product and brand are getting as much exposure as its competitors.

Image: Skyfall / Coca-Cola Advertisement – Image from starspanglge200.org (http://starspangle200.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/bond_coke_zero_skyfall_01.jpg)

This post is in response to Guy Wasaki’s 10 Things You can Learn From the Apple Store.

It’s no surprise that the “Apple Store is the most profitable retailer in America.” Apple doesn’t market its product; it markets the experience of its product; and the Apple Store is a prime example. They’ve ridden the traditional setup of isles and checkouts and replaced it with an open space filled with company representatives whose goal is to answer questions, not to sell.

But why is this technique revolutionary? Because it’s psychologically enticing. One of the most exciting moments in my iPhone purchase was pulling off the top cover of that cleanly crafted box and seeing my product lying perfectly before me. And unlike most other products, I still have the box. From walking into the store to unboxing your product; Apple sells an experience that customers want to be a part of, The Apple Experience; products come second.

The whole idea revolves around brand value. Apple has developed a name for itself as a revolutionary, reshaping everything about technology retail from product innovation to marketing. And its sales approach combined with high end products have resulted in an almost unparalleled customer loyalty, allowing Apple to sell high priced products and still have customers leaving with more utility (value from the purchase) than its competitors.

Image: The Apple Store Pacific Centre – Image from cnd.iphoneincanada.ca (http://cdn.iphoneincanada.ca/wp-content/uploads/2009/09/photo_pacificcentre.jpg)

This post is in response to Logan Parker’s post on Ten Tree Apparel.

The success of Ten Tree Apparel is proof of the booming social entrepreneurship market. As Venture Communications CEO Arlene Dickinson would say, planet profit is not just a fad.

And although the clothing is neither relatively inexpensive nor expensive when you look at comparable products, such as those made by LRG, Ten Tree Apparel has the benefit of intrinsically rewarding its consumers, providing it with that ever so valuable point of difference as it ignites the global citizen within them.

But social entrepreneurship doesn’t come cheap. Along with the added cost of planting ten trees for every item sold, Ten Tree Apparel must factor in the costs of maintaining an environmentally and socially conscious business model. Companies claiming to be “planet profit” have to keep transportation at a minimum and pay all workers equitably in order to maintain their brand image. And while the latter may never be an issue, transportation costs may be if this company wants to expand to global markets. Furthermore, even if the company managed to keep production local to the markets that it sold in, it may also experience issues with product consistency as it “ethically” wouldn’t be able to transport production factors either.

All-in-all, Ten Tree Apparel has built a solid brand for itself as a company; however, it may experience issues, especially if it continues to grow at the pace that it is.

Image: Ten Tree Apparel – Image from newstalk650.com (http://www.newstalk650.com/sites/default/files/news-image/Ten%20Tree%20Apparel%20-%20logo%20on%20facebook%20page-%20local%20business%20Regina-%20on%20Dragon’s%20Den-%20Oct%202012.jpg)

The fast food giant McDonald’s has been storming the market ever since its conception. However, as the fast food markets entry barriers decrease and competition within the market rises, will it be possible for this chain to stay competitively priced?

When I was young, McDonald’s enticed my family for two reasons: Happy Meal toys and cheap food. However it was these points of difference that kept me loyal to the chain, this is no longer the case as Wendy’s, Burger Kings, Subways, and restaurants alike have already jumped on the child friendly bandwagon. And as for the cheap food, that statistic is true only if you buy solely off the Value Picks menu, as a regular meal can run you anywhere up to $10.

So why choose McDonald’s over another restaurant? Well that question is becoming harder to answer. Personally, I would rather invest my $10 in a restaurant that’s a little more “high end” than the traditional fast food burger joint. Though, the $1.56 including tax specials will keep consumers buying for a while.

The point? Product differentiation draws customers. Although McDonald’s did this well when I was young, the company now needs to find something to set itself apart from the Wendy’s, Burger Kings, and Subways of the world or risk losing its customer base altogether.

Read the article here.

The auto manufacturers Kia Canada Inc. and Hyundai Auto Canada Corp. overestimated the fuel efficiency of 13 of their 2011 to 2013 models by 0.3 litres per 100 kilometres. As compensation both companies have agreed to reimburse owners for the false claims based on car usage. However, besides legal obligations, what other motives would these two companies have to pay back their customers?

Globally, middle class vehicles are one of the most easily substituted products. Relatively, there is little differentiation between brands and rarely one superseding manufacturer; there is no fee to switch between companies products and consumers rarely pay the “as-marked” prices. In turn, this displays the consumers’ “buyer power” over the manufacturers, or suppliers.

So why was reimbursing customers a smart move for the companies? In highly competitive markets, producers need to provide consumers with incentives to buy, whether this is high gas mileage, or simply loyalty to customers. By compensating their false claims, Kia and Hyundai showed consumers that they are valued after the purchase as well. And in a market with so many substitutes, that might just be enough to maintain their customer bases, regardless if they made a false claim in the past.

For the CBC article, click here.

If you scrolled through my contacts, the last thing you should expect to see is the cell phone number of my employer. However, for the 8500 Quicken Loans’ employees, having CEO Bill Emerson nested among the names of family and friends would be a little more common.

In many organizations, there often exists a growing anonymity as you climb the hierarchical ladder. Although this might be the easiest way of operating, it is doubtfully the most effective. From experience, I can say that the managers that I have been most motivated to work for were the same managers that made an effort to know me personally. While I may not have had their cell numbers, simply being able to put a name, face, and personality to the person that I was working for provided inclination for me to work harder and stay with the company.

Giving his number to employees is not Bill’s way of inviting his employees to afternoon brunch, but his way of shaping an organizational culture where the CEO isn’t some faceless figure, but an actual person that his employees can relate to. And by doing so, Bill might just be differentiating his company enough to entice people to work for him. As we say in Organizational Behaviour, “cool employers attract cool employees.”

To read more on Bill click here.

Image: Bill Emerson – Image from businessweek.com (http://images.businessweek.com/cms/2012-10-22/1019_billemerson_630x420.jpg)

The Walking Dead poster art – Image from cdn.ficgohub.com (http://cdn.ficgohub.com/ficmicrosites/ficmicrosites-en/media/365/hl_980x551.jpg)

Every idea needs its point of difference. And as unique as fighting zombies in a post-apocalyptic world can seem, re-killing the dead has become more and more popular, possibly even slowly wedging its way into the esteem aspect of some North American need hierarchies.

So how do zombie-based mediums stay different? Well, Fox’s The Walking Dead has created an Apple App that allows viewers to make predictions about the show’s outcomes while watching. Essentially, it’s like a live game of Clue where viewers make predictions about what character will make how many kills and with what weapon, and then compare their stats and scores with friends over Facebook and Twitter. It works through your Iphone, Ipod, and Ipad, using their mics to pick up bits of data encoded in the show’s audio track to sync the episode you are watching with the App.

Above all, the app is a link between consumers. Encouraging viewers to use their tablets while watching television, an act that 88% of Americans admit to doing, not only fully engages the audience, but also provides an interactive point of difference from other shows. In the same way that Lululemon ties customers together through health, Fox’s new App provides the same sort of community appeal, by supplying a free and unique service that ties customers to an existing paid product.

For the BBC news article click here.

RIM’s company Logo – Image from sync-blog.com  (http://www.sync-blog.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/rim_logo_blue.jpg)

The once powerful technology company, RIM, has taken a hit in the past year. Its share price closed today (September 27th, 2012) at $6.96, under three times less than it was this time last year. Furthermore, although the company’s revenue is at a grand $2.9-billion, it is down 31% from the same point last year.

But how is this good for RIM? Well, although the technology giant is down from last year, it is doing better than most analysts expected. Its revenue is up from the first quarter and the less-than-expected disclosed losses bumped its share price up to $8.62 in after-hours trading.

From a non-expert standpoint, I don’t see RIM going bankrupt any time soon. RIM has too much invested in research and development and intellectual property to go under. In my mind, the company can follow one of two routes. Either, with the release of its Blackberry 10 line in 2013, RIM will slowly regain its position among the top mobile technology developers, or it will be bought out by another technology giant. In either case, this company just seems to be “too big to fail.” Now, this doesn’t mean that I’m going to invest my college fund in RIM, but I’d be surprised if its share went anywhere but up in the next five years.

To see the Globe and Mail article click here here.

The new Toyota Prius – image from toyota.ca (http://mediapv4.toyota.ca.s3.amazonaws.com/media/lang/main_prius_plugin.jpg)

Toyota Motor Corp has been among the market leaders in hybrid car production. However, after the disappointing reception of the eQ since its launch two years ago, the auto giant is reducing the rollout plans for this model, with an aim to sell 100 eQ’s in the US and Japan this next year, and a total of 2600 electric cars over the next three years.

There is a shortage in demand for environmentally friendly cars. Goods priced relatively high (compared to their alternatives) must provide extra value equivalent to their excess price – cost-benefit analysis. Hybrids have two major selling points: trendiness and quality. They are environmentally friendly alternatives (trendiness) that save you running costs (quality). Although I support the environment, the additional $10,000 price tag to “hybrid” a car doesn’t appeal to me, but, the amount of money this investment could save me does. Well, the breakeven point of Toyota hybrids, where gas price plus car price is equal for standard and hybrid cars, often ranges between 47 and 142 thousand miles (the average US driver travels about 14 thousand miles a year), meaning a hybrid won’t save you money for a few years. If Toyota wants to expand their hybrid market, they must make the cost-benefit analysis of buying a hybrid equal that of a standard car.

Picture of Team GB – Image from independent.co.uk (http://www.independent.co.uk/incoming/article7644006.ece/ALTERNATES/w460/IA14-4-Olympic-stars.jpg)

The word “sustainable” is becoming increasingly common in our society. From bottled water companies donating proceeds towards developing countries, to airlines designing new aircraft to reduce emissions, sustainability is a trend, and the key to a sustainable workplace lies in the maintenance of ethical business practices, especially in regards to employee health.

So naturally, you’d think that the hosts of the most globally renowned sporting event would aim to align with this trend. In the recent summer Olympics, Team Great Britain sported fashionable Adidas athletic wear. However, it was later revealed that the Team GB kits were manufactured in sweatshop-like conditions in Indonesia, where the sports apparel giant contracted nine locally managed factories. Employees claimed to work up to 65 hours per week for wages under $0.60 hour while enduring physical and verbal abuse.

Additionally, these allegations contradicted the promises made by the London Organizing Committee of the Olympic and Paralympic Games (LOCOG): “to deliver a world class sporting event… in a sustainable way,” and violated the Sustainable Sourcing Code’s core principle of “responsible sourcing,” to ensure that products are “produced under a set of internationally acceptable environmental, social and ethical guidelines and standards.” For hosts of the Olympic Games, an event that was founded upon the ideals of unity and equitable treatment for all the world’s citizens, this is a disappointing contradiction.

To view the article and get more information click here.

To view the Sustainable Sourcing Code click here.