Month: October 2012

“Go Ahead and Take Off, for as Long as You Like” curiously sparked my attention on Wall Street Journal’s homepage. Essentially, the article talks about how some employers from small companies offer their employees unlimited paid vacation time. Interestingly enough, this isn’t stupid; offering unlimited vacation time actually fosters trust and motivation for employees, leading to better work performance.

The  topic of  Class 14 of  my Business Fundamentals class was coincidentally “People, Culture and Teams”, which was mainly focused around organizational culture and how employees are encouraged by the work environment and the people they work with. I have never heard of companies offering unlimited vacation time, so when I stumbled upon this article, I wanted to investigate how and why this works.

1. There must be a high-trust culture in the company because employers are giving a huge freedom to employees.

2. Employees love the idea that their company values work-life balance.

3. There hasn’t be much abuse of the system; in fact, employers noticed that employees felt the responsibility to be more thoughtful when taking off time and they even notified their colleagues of their time off to coordinate team tasks and such.

This kind of freedom doesn’t sound so crazy now…

Over the last two decades, social enterprises and entrepreneurs have drawn closer to the heart of business, quite literally.

Runa Tea is a social enterprise that sells guayusa tea, cultivated by farmers in the Ecuadorian Amazon. The company brings long-lasting positive impact to more than 1,700 indigenous farmers by providing a source of income, as well as planting over 150,000 trees annually. The tea is fair trade and organic, and although it contains the same amount of caffeine as coffee, supporters reap many more health benefits with the “energy focused” drink.

With so many competitors in the beverage industry, you would think that Runa had a difficult time entering into the market. Runa’s niche, being its focus on improving the lives of farmers, has helped it greatly. In fact, the Ecuadorian socialist president Rafael Correa has backed up the company by having the Ministry of Production put $500,000 into it in October of 2011.

Because Runa was started in Brooklyn, most of its distributors are located in the US. The store locator shows that there is one store in Vancouver that distributes Runa, sadly.

The company supports a great cause, and I hope to see it quench the thirst of more individuals in the future.

After reading Maria’s blog post “McDonald’s gives consumer “upper hand”, I checked out McDonald’s video, which answers the question “why does your food look different in the advertising than what is in the store?” Seeing the final comparison between a burger hot off the the grill and a burger designed delicately for an ad, I immediately pondered to myself why the world’s largest burger restaurant chain would show customers that their fresh burgers are not made up to par with their mouth-watering ads.

Turns out, McDonald’s launched a Our food. Your questions. campaign in June, which seeks to cultivate transparency between the burger chain and consumers, according to the Globe and Mail article “From Twitter to TV, McDonald’s offers answers”.

I agree with Maria’s statement that the campaign is a double edged dagger. On the one hand, consumers receive answers to their questions, which improves consumer-company relations; on the other hand, the answers to questions do not always bring light to McDonald’s, as seen through the use of appetizing burgers in ads which don’t meet the criterion in actual restaurants . Nevertheless, I think that the campaign has brought awareness to McDonald’s desire for a more honest and truthful front.

In the International Finance Center Mall in Seoul, Korea, shoppers will soon find that advertisements are very much suited to their age and gender. The touch screen information kiosks in the mall contain new facial recognition technology that will scan a face and then show ads that are appropriate for that certain shopper. (Read Wall Street Journal’s article “Big Brother, Now at the Mall” for the full details.)

My first thought after stumbling upon this article was that these facial recognition kiosks were a little intrusive, although innovative. I would not be able to  stroll around that mall in Seoul without feeling self-conscious; in fact, there are some concerns about privacy with the facial recognition technology. After a bit more research, I found that this facial recognition technology has already been in use for some time in Japan and the US. For example, the Venetian resort, hotel and casino in Las Vegas uses facial recognition technology to suggest restaurants, clubs and entertainment to people who pass by the displays. The usage in Japan, however,  is more commercialized.

Advertisement is catching up as the world becomes more technologically advanced, but how do we judge when it has gone too far?

The craze for the new iPhone is ridiculous these days. It was just two weeks ago when Apple’s iPhone 5 could be first held preciously in the hands of Canadian smartphone users.

But, Apple may no longer be gleaming with joy. Foxconn’s iPhone plant is “paralyzed” as thousands strike in central China due to rage over rigorous quality controls and demand that workers work through the holiday. The iPhone has already been short in supply, and the strike will most definitely contribute to the supply shortage.

Probably the most significant damage will be to Apple’s reputation. Customers, who perceive Apple to be that fresh, innovative company with quality gadgets will now see Apple through a new lens. They will think about the factory workers behind that brand, the workers who work long hard hours at low wages to produce some of the world’s most expensive gadgets. Through this, I am reminded of Nike and their deal with sweatshops.

All in all, the ethics of a company can affect the reputation and perception of the company. If it has good ethics, the brand will have a better reputation; if not, then it will be most likely be frowned upon.