As economic issues such as poverty, civil unrest, and epidemics persist, it can sometimes feel odd to encounter news articles of luxury brands and the issues that they currently face. While global issues remain the core topic of news, I thought it would be interesting to take a new view of things and observe the status of the high-end market.

A Louis Vuitton store in Macau

In her post, Vivian Lee touches upon Stuart Weitzman’s strategy for competing in the high-end market. By keeping costs at a fraction of what most other shoe brands would, Stuart Weitzman provides customers with products of high-end quality at much more affordable prices. Though, in theory, this strategy appears logical and most advantageous to the company, realistically, the company may face certain unforeseen challenges. In contrast to recent news, Michael Kors, another luxury brand, had began to lose value in it’s brand name merely by becoming too accessible to consumers. In much the same way, Stuart Weitzman’s decision to sell at lower prices may ultimately devalue its high-end brand image and if continued to sell under a luxury label, may actually put itself at a disadvantage. What customers may end up regarding the brand as is a luxury brand with low perceived value, making it difficult to compete in this industry. If Stuart Weitzman is to stay competitive, it should (a) reconsider it’s pricing strategies, (b) differentiate it’s products, or (c) remove itself from the luxury goods industry and compete in a lower-end goods industry.

Vivian’s Blog: http://blogs.ubc.ca/leeviviann/2014/10/25/mastering-mid-market-glamour/

Michael Kors News: http://www.webpronews.com/michael-kors-brand-losing-value-is-it-oversaturated-2014-07

Combining Nestlé trademarks, “Fun Dip” and “Drumstick”

A recent article from The Globe and Mail titled, “Toronto pulls anti-littering campaign over trademark infringement concerns”, brings with it yet another legal dispute between business organizations. By creatively combining brand names to form words like “lazy”, “low-life”, and  “selfish” – words that describe people who litter – the City of Toronto has faced numerous complaints from these big name companies, angered by the unconsented use of their trademarks.

Though, admittedly, a creative and effective strategy of marketing, I must say that it was completely careless for the City of Toronto to be operating in a business industry, and to not have been thorough with the boundaries of their marketing. With that said, I never would’ve expected the implications of these campaigns on the businesses had I not read the article. Unlike the banned Pepsi advertisement that displayed a direct attack on Coca-Cola, these anti-littering campaigns do not intentionally single out certain brands, but create a negative connotation of packaged goods in the minds of consumers. (Let’s face it, the trademarks are placed in manner that is meant to look unappealing, often torn up in a dirty environment.) Businesses within this industry will likely be impacted as consumers begin to subconsciously steer away from all packaged goods. Though cases like this are not at all uncommon, they remind me that marketing, though often seen as the “fun” side of business, can easily be entangled with the nitty-gritty aspects of the law.

The Globe and Mail article: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/industry-news/marketing/toronto-ads-crossed-the-line-with-depiction-of-prominent-brands/article20379559/

Today’s shopping centre

It is not surprising to see that as time passes, many high-tech gizmos become outdated or become obsolete entirely. Today, physical markets such as the mall are just another means that may be coming to an end. In-person transactions may soon be a thing of the past! This, however, should not surprise anyone of us. After all, we, humans, currently sit on the ever increasingly steep slope of technology. In other words, our technology is only advancing faster as time passes. But what does that mean for the rest of world? What are the implications for the business world? For one, technology seems to breed isolation. Today, more and more people are able to work from the convenience of their homes, communicating with their boss, coworkers, customers, clients, by means of technology. Online schooling, is yet another technology-convenient form of education that is becoming widely popular. The same goes for shopping, with the birth of ecommerce business like amazon and eBay, technology has given us fewer and fewer reasons to leave the house! As businesses begin to see a shift from in-store sales to online sales, many will have to revise job distributions, allocating more workers to tech-related jobs, operating from behind the screen. This means more training and higher-level skilled workers. As mall owners invest to create incentive for customers to keep coming and making in-person transactions, the rapidly advancing technology today is becoming a force extremely difficult to compete with. Unless malls start to give us something that we can’t get from our beloved computers, tablets, and smartphones, they will soon be just another white elephant.

The Globe and Mail article: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/industry-news/marketing/online-shopping-forces-malls-to-evolve-and-keep-customers-coming-back/article20777568/

In a scandal between the Canadian government and one of the world’s leading information technology corporation, Hewlett-Packard Company, once again, the conservative government maintains that it will not tolerate any form of corrupt practices, stating that HP could be removed as the government’s technology supplier

A cartoon depiction of corporate crime

if allegations prove to be true. This situation has put the Canadian government in a great position to display it’s firmness on unethical business practices. Though the government has often been criticized as being too strict in it’s policies, the government appeared to control over the situation, establishing a serious conduct expectation from companies throughout Canada and those affiliated with the country. It is important that these companies realize that even large corporations such as HP are bound by the same laws and are not entitled to more lenient consequences based on its global recognition and prior success. However, with that being said, I still question whether a 10-year ban is an appropriate punishment for such a case. We have to consider the implications of the restriction on such a large corporation. If implemented, which parties will the ban really be affecting? Who loses out? HP? Or the middlemen? Suppliers who work to provide different levels of the Canadian government with HP products and services. As HP cuts sales with a fairly large consumer group, there will no longer be a need for jobs in this department, and thus, it is the innocent in-between workers who suffer the consequences. In this scenario, a fine – though a weaker message to companies to conduct moral practices – may be the better option.

The Globe and Mail article: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/international-business/us-business/hp-faces-10-year-ban-as-canadian-governments-technology-supplier/article20774807/