This blog post is dedicated to the following question found in Class 20’s class prep:

“If the United Nations was fully funded, why would we need the Arc or social enterprise”?

While the United Nations focuses on global problems of international magnitude, social entrepreneurs and inspirational initiatives, such as the Arc, evoke social change within local communities. Social enterprise aims to help individuals and small societies, where as the United Nations finds solutions to social, economic, and political problems that affect colossal populations.

I believe that social enterprise plays a much more personal role when it comes to their cause, compared to the United Nations. While the UN solves immediate problems, they do not solve every aspect of the problem with their one solution. Social entrepreneurs find long standing solutions while the United Nations finds short term fixes to problems.

While I was in Turkey in the summer, my family and I stumbled upon a carpet factory. The workers told us that they worked 18 hours every day in order to support their families, at next to nothing wages. Using this circumstance as an example, if the United Nations were to implement a policy that eradicated 18 hour work days, this would improve the working conditions of the workers. While they would get shorter days, this policy would not solve the health and economic problems they have collected from their job. Social entrepreneurs would look into solutions that would help them get back on their feet, socially and economically.

If the United Nations were fully funded, they would solve problems that aid a global population. These solutions however, would not pertain to every individual’s circumstances. Initiatives like The Arc and social entrepreneurs are vital in order to evoke long term changes in the community.

In reference to Harvard Business Review’s blog post “Taylor Swift and the Economics of Music as a Service”, the post discusses the evolution of the music industry and the effect technological change has on industry’s capability of selling music.

The contents of the Harvard blog post were extremely fascinating. I found it interesting how it was necessary for one to have a physical hard copy of a good (ex. a record, disk, mixtape, etc…) in the past to listen to music, whereas today, we have the capability to stream and listen to music online at next to nothing costs. This is a sign that the way the music industry earns its revenue has dramatically changed over the past few decades. I believe that every industry and market, including the music industry, grows alongside external aspects such as technological developments, the internet, and new innovative business plans.

Furthermore, the blog post discusses Apple’s amazing ability to adapt to new environments. Most notably, I believe that Apple revolutionized the music industry when they decided to charge prices at a “single” rate, where one has the option of downloading a song for a single fee. In class the other day, we learned that a company should modify their business models after the demands of their consumers. They should be innovative and forward thinkers in order to beat out fierce competition – this will give the company a distinguished point of difference that differentiates them from similar companies. Apple is a company that exemplifies this concept.

As evident from the past, the music industry has been progressively evolving to discover new ways to make money. From record players, to CD players, to MP3 players, to Napster, iTunes, and finally, digital streaming, the possibilities are endless for the future.

Find the original article here.

All pictures are hyper linked.

Microsoft is planning on coming out with a new, cheaper smartphone that costs approximately $135 US dollars. The Lumia 535 has the appeal of any other high-end Microsoft phone with two SIM slots, Windows Phone 8.1, Skype video calls, Office apps, a quad core 1.2GHz Snapdragon 400 processor, 512MB of RAM, 8GB of built in storage, and a virtual assistant similar to Apple’s Siri. The phone is going to have a 5-inch screen, a 5 megapixel front and rear facing camera, as well as a low price that targets a new, cost sensitive audience

In an effort to expand into a new customer segment worldwide with cheaper phones, Microsoft has cut manufacturing costs. Production costs are minimized with touch screen camera and control buttons, instead of the typical physical buttons on the frame.

I believe that Microsoft is wise to expand into a larger customer segment. The phone they have created is highly competitive, has amazing value, and is an impressive option for anyone looking for a functional phone that is on the cheaper side. Not only are they catering to their more affluent customers with their regular devices, but they are now delving in to new waters and expanding their horizons into a less wealthy customer segment. By doing so, Microsoft will broaden their brand name to different parts of the world that they could not previously reach with their moderate to expensive pricing. I predict that Microsoft’s net worth will grow with the release of The Lumia 535, expected to come out at the end of November.

Find the original article here

All pictures are hyper linked.

In response to Trent Abraham’s insightful blog post, I agree that BlackBerry’s biggest downfalls were that “the company failed to be forward thinking, deviated from its strategy, and is consequently nearing inferiority in an industry it once owned.”

To add on to what has been said, I believe that BlackBerry’s failure to dominant the smart phone market is mainly due to their lack of a distinct point of differentiation. Their signature keyboard with physical buttons is what they are well known for – it is user friendly amongst older generations and easy to type on. It’s a no fuss, no brainer solution made for everyone of any age. Keeping their most prominent point of differentiation was an vital component to their survival.

         

Instead of focusing on what they are known for, they strayed from their original brand reputation, confusing customers in the long run. In class, we learned that a company should propel their marketing strategies considering the mind sets of their customers first and foremost. Once upon a distant time, BlackBerry was placed at the top of the ladder when it came to user friendliness, thanks to their practical keyboard buttons. If they present their products differently from how they present their company, they will blur their main focus and as a result, BlackBerry’s popularity will ultimately suffer.

Visit Trent’s blog here.

All pictures are hyper linked.

I found Nezika Mulyadi’s blog post on Michael Kors’ declining popularity to be particularly interesting. In this insightful post, she explains how Michael Kors’ demand is decreasing with the rise of popularity in their bags. Taken directly from Nezika’s blog post – “The recent phenomenon experienced by Michael Kors is caused by too many people wearing the brand itself, making the brand less cool for the public eye, therefore decreasing demand.”

In my opinion, I believe that Michael Kors, as well as any other luxury bag brand, utilizes “exclusiveness” as their greatest asset when they evaluate what value they bring to their consumers. Their customers buy their high priced products for many reasons – one of them being that the customer expects to be one of the only people to own the unique product.

To counteract Michael Kors from being a commodity brand, I believe that Michael Kors should increase their prices. By doing so, they will limit their customer segment, making their products a rarity, affordable to only certain types of people. A negative effect of increasing prices however, is that an economic down fall will bring Michael Kors’ demand to an all time low. Because their bags and goods are considered to be “luxury items”, they have a high price elasticity, making their demand highly susceptible to price change. In the present, it is possible that they could reap the benefits of being an “exclusive” brand once again by increasing their prices. In the long run however, it is a possibility that they could heavily suffer from the consequences of raising their prices, as unexpected social and economic factors come into play.

Visit Nezika’s blog here.

All pictures are hyper linked.

McDonald’s, the world famous fast-food chain, has recently reported that their profit is falling by 30% and same store sales in the United States have being declining at a rate of 4.1%. This is deemed to be McDonald’s “worst financial quarter in years”, proving that even the most reputable golden arches are not immune to aggressive competition and rising prices – a fatal flaw for cost sensitive customers.

To combat competition from food chains like Chipotle Mexican Grill, Arby’s, Subway, Burger King, and A&W, McDonald’s is launching their “McDonald’s Experience of the Future” initiative. This initiative allows customers to customize their menu with fresh ingredients, making their food options catered to specific customer needs.

I believe that McDonald’s is appropriately responding to the changing lifestyle of its health aware customers. As the promotion of a health conscious lifestyle is becoming increasingly popular, this threatens McDonald’s business and lowers the demand for their goods. Their food seems unappealing and detrimental to a nutritious diet, making McDonald’s the “enemy” of all health enthusiasts. To combat this unattractive brand image, McDonald’s is creating an opportunity for themselves as they attempt to make their menu seem fresher and healthier with the launch of their new initiative. In addition, their most prominent point of strength, their low cost food, is progressively weakening as their prices steadily rise. The SWOT analysis below shows McDonald’s current strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats to the firm.

(Click on the SWOT table to enlarge it)

Find the original article here.

All pictures are hyper linked.

Since the Indian Act was established in 1876, the Indian Act has kept a firm grasp on aboriginal life in Canada. Aspects such as Indian status, land, resources, wills, education, band administration have been contorted to assimilate Indians into Canadian culture. Prime Minister Stephen Harper made a formal apology for “killing the Indian in the child” to Canada’s Aboriginal Peoples in 2008.

Today, Aboriginals have major influence on the Canadian government as well as large business firms. This is due to the fact that Aboriginals are major stakeholders and have the ability to raise ethical and political concern (on a communal and global scale). As a result, businesses must work their way around strict policies and regulations to create business models around their needs and demands.

In fact, we discussed a particular example that exemplifies this, where businesses cater to the demands of Aboriginals – the Alberta Oil Sands. With good reason, many Aboriginal people living in a close proximity to the oil sands fear potential health and environmental concerns. On the official Alberta oil sands website, the Albertan government states that they are taking the 23, 000 Aboriginals in the region into account. They are providing them with an outlet to voice their opinions and are making an effort to respect treaty rights.

It is evident how large of a role Aboriginals play in the world of Commerce and government affairs. Companies and corporations take the opinions of Aboriginals into account when formulating new business models, with the hope of preventing future fall out. It would not be wise to go against the wishes and demands of Aboriginals, as they can make a government’s values in environmental and ethical concerns seem questionable. However, when a firm or the government works alongside Aboriginal treaty rights, this represents a mutualistic relationship where both parties benefit. Compromise is an integral aspect of any working relationship, and business agreements amongst two very different sides, are no exemption.

Find the CBC article here and the oil sands website here.

All pictures are hyper linked.

Club Coffee, an Ontario coffee roaster and grinder is suing Keurig Green Mountain, an American coffee giant in a $600 million lawsuit. With Keurig controlling approximately 90% of the single serve coffee pods market, Club Coffee believes that the U.S. company is violating laws to maintain a monopoly and keep prices unreasonably high.

Keurig has recently released new brewers that deny single serve pods not manufactured by them. This lockout technology forces retailers to exclusively sell Keurig controlled products only, according to a Club Coffee spokesperson. Previously, Keurig had machines that worked with other brands of coffee pods but that design ceased to exist in their new brewers after 2012.

Food industry analyst Robert Carter says that the market for single serve coffee pods is one of the fastest growing markets in Canada. Approximately 40% of all Canadians have single serve coffee machines and Canada spent $95 million on them last year alone. With the belief that Keurig’s anti-competitive behavior is forcing higher prices since their increased retail price of 9%, Club Coffee states that Keurig’s business practices are hurting other similar companies, as well as the wallets of consumers.

Club Coffee considers itself to be one of the leading no name brand coffees; they manufacture “soft pods” that make coffee with fully biodegradable cups. The Canadian company uses bio resins instead of plastics pods to promote environmental sustainability.

Like guest speaker Mahesh Nagarajan was saying in class the other day, when people start referring to a product type by a company name (like how soda was referred to as Coca Cola in India), it is clear that a single company dominates the wholesale market that they specialize in. As an avid coffee enthusiast myself, I refer to my single serve coffee brewer as “a Keurig”, rather than a coffee brewer. With fierce competition determined to end Keurig’s reign in the coffee brewer market, I am interested in seeing if Keurig will remain at the top.

When a spokesperson from Keurig Green Mountain was asked to comment on the lawsuit, they stated that “the company could not comment on the complaint because they’ve yet to see it.”

Find the original article here.

All the pictures are hyper linked.

 

 

With the world focusing much of its attention on the consequences of global warming today, it’s no wonder that Saskatchewan made global headlines on October 2^nd, when they refurbished an old coal-fired power plant into technology capable of capturing one million tonnes of carbon dioxide a year. The day was said to mark a “historic milestone on the path to a low-carbon future” proving that “the technology is no longer science fiction”, according to Maria van der Hoeven at the International Energy Agency.

The project, put up by the Saskatchewan facility, is estimated to cost $1.4 billion Canadian dollars. The funds come from the federal government ($240 million), the provincial authorities, as well as tax payers. The project is not likely to see a financial return.

It is no surprise that such a large investment needs to find ways to financially sustain itself. The plant’s publicly owned operator SaskPower hopes to sell its byproducts, including sulphur-dioxide emissions and fly ash. Because of the price tag, it is not likely that the technology will spread to other parts of Canada.

On a controversial note, the project plans to sell its captured carbon dioxide to Cenovus Energy, a massive corporation planning on dumping the gas into oil wells 66 kilometers away in order to increase their output harvest. In this sense, while others see the plant as an effort to cut green house gasses, other lobbyist groups debate that “it doesn’t get us off of fossil fuels.”

The carbon capture facility, in my view, is a pioneer that paves a pathway for others to follow. I believe that with time, they will figure out ways to make this project more economically friendly, finding substitutes for material and by making improvements to equipment. The notion of “green energy” is a newly popular opinion that will resonate will the general population with time. When Saskatchewan finds alternatives to making the project more cost-effective, people will hopefully be more drawn to the idea of helping the world capture the carbon emissions coming from 2,300 coal factories worldwide.

Find the original article here.

All pictures are hyper linked.

 

Marvel Entertainment, one of the world’s largest character-based entertainment companies since 1939, has settled a lawsuit against the heirs of legendary comic-book artist Jack Kirby.

In the 1960’s, Kirby helped create some of Marvel’s most timeless superheroes, including the Incredible Hulk, Iron Man, and Spider Man. Family members of Jack Kirby wanted to abolish Marvel’s copyrights from 2014 to 2019 on comics that were published from 1958 to 1963. The comics in the case included classics such as The Fantastic Four, The Mighty Thor, The X-Men, The Avengers, Ant-Man, Nick Fur and The Rawhide Kid.

When the case went to Supreme Court, the comic-book giant argued that Kirby created the characters while he was working for Marvel, making the characters property of the company. American District Judge Colleen McMahon agreed, claiming that the 1909 copyright law that concerns this case considerers Marvel to be the owner of Kirby’s work. Judge McMahon claimed that the work was in fact “for hire”, as the characters were made at Marvel’s disbursement. The appeals court agreed with this statement and the federal appeals court rejected the ownership claim from Kirby’s family in August.

In a joint statement from Marvel and Kirby’s family, both parties announced that “Marvel and the family of Jack Kirby have amicably resolved their legal disputes, and are looking forward to advancing their shared goal of honouring Mr. Kirby’s significant role in Marvel’s history.”

In my opinion, I applaud Marvel for resolving this case in a respectful, gracious manner. The lawsuit could have been dreadful for both parties but with the joint statement above, I believe that Marvel settled this case without major damage to their image. This article made me think of what was said in class the other day – “A company should always strive to improve itself. A company may falter at times but the important thing is that it regains its strength, asking what it can do to better itself.” Marvel, being the colossal corporation it is, demonstrates that they know this best.

Find the original article here.

All pictures are hyper linked.