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.