Some groceries we buy these days may be genetically modified (GMO’s) because farmers and producers need to alter the organisms to either increase growth or to resist diseases. Not many people know about this or really care about this but I believe it’s an issue that should be brought up and taken seriously. In the short run, consuming GMO’s may have no effect on our health but it will definitely show its nasty effects in the long run.  A study has shown that eating genetically modified corn has caused rats to develop tumours, widespread organ damage and many other health illnesses. If rats suffers from these GMO’s then there’s a chance that humans may suffer as well.  Europe current has adopted the rule that there will be mandatory labelling for GMO’s.  This is the best way to deal with the situation because at least the customers get a choice of what to put in their mouth. There are still no rules in Canada that require labels to be put on food. One of the major reasons is because with the label, consumers will be less inclined to purchase, decreasing revenue. Is it worth it to risk the health of consumers?

Reference: http://www.cbc.ca/news/technology/genetically-modified-foods-a-primer-1.1341529

In response to Nicole’s post about Apple’s shift in generic strategies, I believe that the decision Apple made is not entirely disadvantageous because pursuing multiple strategies can give the company more dimensions.

Although the iPhone 5c is relatively cheaper – $99 with a contract and $550 off contract – (Reed, 2013), the features of the phone also went down as it has a slower processing speed and lower storage capacity. It is evident that Apple is attempting to shift to a Focus Strategy. Nicole says that this is a bad decision because it strays away from the rest of the Apple products, which follow a differentiation strategy, therefore putting the company at a “stuck in the middle” situation. However, I argue that it is not entirely bad. As mentioned in our reading, customers often seek satisfaction from various dimensions in a product such as quality, style, convenience and price. I feel that if Apple plans this strategy out it will make the company stronger and more difficult to be replaced by new entrants or existing substitutes. This low cost strategy has already helped Apple sales in oversea markets and made the product more appealing and affordable to teenagers and low-income families.

Reference:

Piccolo, M. (2013, October 2).  iPhone 5c Release: How the New Phone Redefines Apple. Retrieved from http://www.policymic.com/articles/66009/iphone-5c-release-how-the-new-phone-redefines-apple

Reed, B. (2013, October 8). Tim Cook may regret dismissing low cost smartphones as ‘junk’.  Retrieved from http://bgr.com/2013/09/20/apple-ceo-cook-iphone-5c-analysis/

Starbucks recently announced their new program “Tweet-a-Coffee” where customers can gift a coffee to friends and family over their Twitter account as long as it’s synced to their Starbucks account.  This idea of e-gifting is extremely clever because it allows customers to send relatives or friends, or people who they don’t even know in real life a gift without going through the hassles of the conventional method. Starbucks is using technology and innovation to enhance their current features. This new method will definitely be popular because it saves customers time and energy while still delivering gifts to their friends and family. As well, the receivers will also benefit because they will have the option and freedom to redeem this gift whenever they want, thus eliminating the need to use up the gift immediately. Starbucks has taken a step ahead to fully take advantage of the current technology and the popular use of social media pages in order to innovate a new improvement to better satisfy their customers. This example is also one of the factors that set Starbucks apart from other coffee companies and why Starbucks is such a successful business with a high demand.

References: http://www.forbes.com/sites/kellyclay/2013/10/28/now-you-can-give-the-gift-of-starbucks-with-twitter/

While I am always an advocate for TOM’s shoes, I stumbled upon’s Jessica’s blog  and came to realize that I had a few skeptical remarks about TOM’s business value. The company strives to create shared value through using the advertising strategy of BOGO (Buy One Give One), stating that for each pair of TOM’s shoes purchased, there will be a pair of shoes given to children in a third world country in need. Although I do agree that this is heartwarming, I question whether this strategy really is the best for both sides. For one, this marketing strategy is largely dependent on the children as the company needs the poverty situation in order to sell shoes, or at least advertise their shoes. Perhaps it is a better method to reallocate the resources and supplies to investing in a strategy to solve the root causes of poverty in third world countries. This may be a overly harsh and critical comment for TOM’s because truly it is not their responsibility to alleviate poverty and that they are indeed already indeed trying to improve the situation more than other businesses.

McDonald’s is probably one of my favourite restaurants growing up until health conscious teachers and peers taught me its negative health consequences. Recently, McDonald’s has been attempting to alter their menu to cater it towards healthier standards as society is slowly recognizing the serious long term consequences associated with fast food consumption. Their newly introduced McWraps have been a big step in introducing healthier choices to get the consumer’s attention and to change their mindset of the brand’s preexisting stereotypes. As well, McDonald’s announced that it would soon have the option of salads on the side in place of fries. They’ve also considered about revamping the current happy meal by incorporating low fat milk and juices. While all these changes are considered a big stepping-stone for McDonald’s, it also carries potential consequences such as driving up prices of vegetables and produce. Since McDonald’s is such a big company with many supply chains, a change in their ingredients will have a reasonable effect on the market. It could potential drive up demand for certain vegetables, which would increase prices for the public.  This is undesirable for low-income families and teenagers as it might demotivate them to eat healthy.

Reference

Berfield, S. (2013, October 7). Why the McWrap Is So Important to McDonald’s. Bloomberg Businessweek. Retrieved from http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2013-07-03/why-the-mcwrap-is-so-important-to-mcdonalds

PayPal has recently introduced a type of loan to small businesses that only charge the companies a flat fee with no periodic interest.  This allows the merchants to borrow 8% of PayPal’s annual revenue and in exchange for that, PayPal takes away 10-30% of the company’s daily sales into paying back the loan.

PayPal adds a value proposition for its company as it now provides a service that is cheaper than bank loans which satisfies the need of financial support for their merchants.  PayPal is strengthening company image as well as company relationships with their merchants. The loan allows PayPal to provide small businesses a chance to thrive in the competitive society by supporting them financially. These businesses in return will build up trust and provide more for PayPal in the long term, similar to a return on investment for PayPal. This new service also makes the company more attractive compared to other competitors or other loaning services, therefore increasing the value of their brand.  Not only is PayPal providing merchants loans, this service is adding an extra revenue stream for PayPal, which is beneficial for the company as it does not have to rely solely on eBay transactions.

Reference:

Clark, C. (2013, September 24). PayPal Breaks Into Small Business Lending. Bloomberg Businessweek. Retrieved from http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2013-09-24/paypal-breaks-into-small-business-lending