Nobody likes change, especially Facebook users. The most recent switch to the new timeline layout prompted groups such as “1 million likes to get rid of FB’s new timeline” and “I Hate Facebook Timeline”. However, if Facebook had listened to all the resistance it faced with every makeover, their interface would long be out of date.

Source: http://cdn.ientry.com/sites/webpronews/article_pics/sophostimelinepoll.jpg

With technology changing at such a rapid pace, Facebook has to continue to innovate in order to stay competitive. But is this innovation at the price of its users’ satisfaction? In a poll of over four thousand people, over 80% of the respondents had some kind of concern with the new layout. In another poll, over 75% said that they wish they could keep the layout the same. These numbers might seem alarming!

Source: http://www.benphoster.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/07/Facebook-User-Growth-Chart.png

Facebook does not seem concerned at all with this, as they are still constantly tinkering and improving their product. Based on a graph showing the overwhelming growth of Facebook since its inception, it seems that despite dissatisfaction with change, it is not enough to drive users off the website.

Source: http://blog.geeksaresexytech.netdna-cdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/facebook-google.jpg

Due to the nature of social networking, some users, like myself, might feel obligated to stay with Facebook as that is where the majority of the people are. This provides Facebook with a sustainable competitive advantage that its competitors find hard to crack. Even Google’s grand attempt at joining the social networking race failed miserably just because of the simple reason that everyone is on Facebook.

Chalk it up to good timing or just sheer luck, but the fact remains that Facebook capitalized on the recent leaps in technology that revolutionized accessibility of the internet and are now reaping the benefits.

With the rapidly growing obesity rates in North America, a “fat tax” may not be such a bad idea. Similar to the tax imposed on tobacco, which has – in combination with graphic labels – cut down the rate of smoking from over 50 percent in the 1960s to less than 20 percent today, the same can be done with junk food. Society has grown accustomed to the idea of junk food and obesity, vigorous campaigns to change the public perception will be needed.

Source: http://queensparkdental.ca/wp-content/uploads/quitSmoking.gif

One of the major culprits is the simple phrase, “a calorie is a calorie”. It has been scientifically proven that if one consumes more calories than one burns, weight loss will occur. That is fact, and cannot be disputed. However, it fails to take into account all the other factors. Junk food is often calorie dense and do not provide much in terms of satiety. Education on the various factors that play into health can play a huge role in encouraging consumers to make the better, healthier choice.

Source: http://beta.images.theglobeandmail.com/a66/news/national/article4631242.ece/ALTERNATES/w620/oma.jpg

While adding a graphic warning onto junk food may seem unappealing at first, it has worked for the tobacco industry before. The obesity problem that plagues us today is eerily similar to that of smoking almost half a century ago. However, junk food has not been villainized the way smoking has been, and it is still socially acceptable to be “big”. Consumers need to be educated on what they are putting into their bodies and the detrimental effects it can have down the road. Negative advertising and a “fat tax” on junk food will definitely shape the future for the better.

Source: http://healthdoctrine.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/10/no-junk-food-vending.jpg

In response to:

https://blogs.ubc.ca/benedictachan/2012/10/23/buy-this-pizza-itll-turn-your-liver-black/

Ethics in marketing is an interesting topic. Companies have to find a way to convince consumers to buy their product, as nobody wants to buy run-off-the-mill products. Within legal bounds, these firms are able to mislead their customers, as claims of “natural” or “healthy” products are loosely regulated at best.

Source: http://www.myfriendinfood.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/Maple-Leaf-Natural-Selection-Baked-Ham-438×218.jpg

Firms are allowed to market their products as “0 grams of trans fat” as long as they contain less than half a gram of trans fats per serving. Keeping in mind that many packages contain multiple servings, consumers are unwittingly consuming a lot more trans fats than they bargained for

It is almost tongue-in-cheek when a company dares to market pizza pockets as a healthy option. McCain Foods claims its new Pizza Pockets are made with “wholesome ingredients that contain no artificial colours or flavours”, conveniently leaving out the fact that one Pizza Pocket contains more fat than a Boston cream doughnut and more sodium than a large serving of French fries.

Source: http://i-store.walmart.ca/images/WMTCNPE/705/426/705426_Large_1.jpeg

Business is business, and one can’t blame these firms for taking advantage of the loose regulations on marketing claims. The very nature of the environment they compete in forces these firms to exploit every loophole they can find. It falls to the regulatory bodies like the FDA to enforce evidence-based claims.

Source: http://www.nutritionaloutlook.com/sites/nutritionaloutlook.com/files/imagecache/Image_Default/images/Biothera_0.jpg

Otherwise, companies can easily continue to mislead their customers into thinking that they are paying for value that is only a technicality. Of course, a packet of Praeventia cookies a day keeps the doctor away, right?