http://www.iro.umontreal.ca/~eckdoug/

Google Inc. has cunningly made itself famous for its generous benefits package.  A certain Forbes article discusses Google’s most recent addition to this package.  Apparently, the company will now be paying the surviving partner of a deceased employee 50% of their salary every year for 10 years.  This new benefit, in addition to others, such as “free haircuts, gourmet food [and] on-site doctors” have all earned Google a ‘caring’ reputation.

But why does Google want to be such a ‘caring’ company?  Why is any company, like the one we studied in class (Zappos), ‘caring’?  Laszlo Bock claims that the company offers these great benefits “simply because it’s the right thing to do”.  Immediately after, however, he states that employees prefer to work for a company that ‘cares’ about them.

That, alone, is an entirely different reason for improving Google’s benefits package.  By stating that employees prefer working for a ‘caring’ company, he is saying that it helps Google retain its employees and furthermore, it also helps attract more employees in the future.  When examining the benefits to Google’s ‘caring’ stance on employee policies, it is clear that its motives are not pure and selfless, but rather strategic.

http://xaxor.com/photography/29956-flowers-growing-out-of-the-concrete-photography.html

After attending a few classes based on entrepreneurship, I became more interested in the field.  But should it be considered a field?  Should entrepreneurs be confined by society’s job classifications?

A blog from itbusiness.ca describes the individualistic nature of entrepreneurs, but makes a paradoxical statement.  It characterizes the active startup community in Ottawa by stating that “true entrepreneurs… forge ahead regardless of the obstacles”.  This is an ability which all entrepreneurs must have, but it is this very perseverance which does not make an active startup community necessary.  For this reason, the blog’s statement contradicts itself.

Entrepreneurs are attracted to the challenge that innovation creates and must be crazy enough to take on the immense risk that comes with these unconventional ventures.  It does not make sense for the government or even society to standardize the study of entrepreneurship and create a facilitated setting for people to learn to be norm-defying thinkers.

As it was stated in the itbusiness.ca blog, an entrepreneur is naturally tenacious and does not require the forced help of society to succeed.

According to Panos Mourdoukoutas’ article, the Apple consumer has grown accustomed to getting the most innovative and revolutionary technology, but has been recently disillusioned by the iPad Mini.  In this last quarter, Apple has recycled an old product, rather than producing new, ground-shaking technology.  Investors have reason to be worried, especially because “after a major product release”, Apple’s stock usually soars.  This new product release was a major contributing factor to the company’s stock drop, but perhaps not the most significant.

http://ewallstreeter.com/market-buzz/1352388079

In actuality, the most prominent influence on Apple’s stock decline was the disappointing iPhone 5 sales.  In a video interview, Scott Sutherland claimed to have estimated that “over the opening weekend”, iPhone 5 sales would reach 8 million, but sales fell short at just over 5 million.  In class, Murray Carlson taught us that a stock fluctuates according to not only how well it performs, but also how it measures up to expectations.  This principle is clearly present in this instance because even though sales did not decrease from the iPhone 4S sales, the stock price dropped because of the weight of the missed estimates.  This case showed how crucial it is for a company to meet analysts’ estimates.

Yesterday’s class on sustainability seems to have stirred several of our interests.  Cathy Lee’s blog post focused on the motives behind Wal-Mart’s environmentally friendly transformation, but neglected to mention the enhanced image which Wal-Mart’s green initiatives have created for itself.  In addition to reducing its costs, legal liabilities and greenhouse emissions, Wal-Mart has managed to build competitive advantage by positioning itself as a leader in sustainability.

Customers are much more likely to buy from Wal-Mart now that they are perceived as environmentally friendly.  This green image will also encourage other companies and suppliers to do business with Wal-Mart and even encourage powerful people to invest in it.  All of this increased interest in Wal-Mart will ultimately propel the company forward – and it is all due to its new image.

The by-product that is created when companies such as Wal-Mart take the necessary steps to operate in a sustainable way is a respectable corporate image.  This is, of course, in addition to the other advantages that come from going green, but perhaps the most significant because it impacts the business as a whole and makes it much stronger in the long run.

Akanksha Kapil’s blog post about PETA’s advertisement addresses some ethical issues.  The main issue is that PETA targets children by positioning their billboards near schools.  However, it should not be a question of whether or not it is ethical, but rather an analysis of how effective a technique it is.

In this instance, one feels a sense of sympathy towards children because they are seen as vulnerable and easily impressionable people without the necessary tools to deal with such a strong message.  We could participate in a heated debate regarding the social implications of this advertisement and whether or not it is ethical, but we can all agree on the facts.

Objectively speaking, this advertisement did not break the law in any way and it is not propaganda.  If it were propaganda, it would be biased or misleading.  This advertisement is perfectly legal and does not hide anything from the audience.  In fact, it is a fantastic marketing technique because it shrewdly targets its audience through its location.  By viewing this marketing technique in an unbiased way, one can assess its great effectiveness, while disregarding whether or not it is ethical.

Several years ago, Inditex managed to catch a mistake in time and has been reaping the succeeding benefits ever since.  In class, we learned that a company’s stock value jumps up and down in accordance with the investors’ perception of the company’s strategy and how they think the company will perform in the future.

According to the press releases in the Inditex website, “Inditex opened 560 new stores, 441 [of which, were] outside Spain” in FY2007.  In the final quarter or 2006, however, Inditex reported that it had increased “the staff… that operated Inditex’s distribution centre in Zaragoza” by 30%.

The company drastically increased the international demand for its clothes, but only expanded its distribution centres in Spain.  This, in turn, cost Inditex a 54% decline in stock price between late 2007 and late 2008.  This was, by far, the greatest slump that Inditex felt in its existence, but the company developed a much stronger strategy from it.  Inditex formed a new way of producing clothing in which rather than spreading itself too thin, it reduced distribution costs by building its distribution centres close to its consumers.  This is a strategy which they later shrewdly applied to Zara.

http://inditex-grupo.blogspot.ca/p/enlaces.html

In our sixth class, we discussed Facebook’s IPO fiasco.  This led me to research the topic of IPOs and I found an article that discussed the idea of Twitter potentially meeting Facebook’s dreadful fate.  The issue, however, should not be how to successfully execute Twitter’s IPO, but rather whether or not they should have an IPO at all.

A 21^st century technology company like Twitter has no business in the present day stock market.  Wall Street is crawling with old guys who cannot understand why someone would tweet every insignificant event in his/her life.  This investor lacks knowledge in the industry and is in turn, nervous and more likely to make harsh criticisms and rashly sell stock out of fear.

Furthermore, pressure from investors may push Twitter to cheaply create new products or concepts to meet financial expectations.  Companies like Apple have astutely developed a product release schedule that works in accordance with their quarterly reports, but this strategy is not applicable to companies in the social media industry.  Naturally, this industry thrives from and necessitates creativity and inventiveness and cannot be restricted and quantified by a bunch of left-brained suits.

Mr. Dick Costolo, do not go public.

https://twitter.com/logo

http://www.entrepreneur.com/blog/223910

At one point in its lifetime, Research in Motion Limited was producing one of the world’s most popular cell phones.  Its BlackBerry gained such popularity that people began to call it the “CrackBerry”.  At its peak, RIM’s stock was priced at $148/share.  It is now worth $8/share.

How did this collapse come about and how can a bourgeoning entrepreneur avoid the same fate?  Jason Fell wrote an article on this very topic in which he lists four main lessons to be learned from RIM’s mistakes.  Among these lessons, the “Pivot when necessary” idea is the most important.

There are countless factors that contributed to RIM’s downfall, but its most crucial flaw was its inability to adapt to its changing environment.  When Apple released its revolutionary iPhone in 2007, RIM underestimated its potential and did not react quickly enough.  A company must always stay on its toes and be prepared to address growing competitors, especially in the fast-paced technology industry.

RIM may have had early success, but it got too comfortable with its high standing and neglected the fact that if a company is not climbing, it is falling.

Coca-Cola has been selling the world’s most popular carbonated beverage for the past 126 years.  How did this company reach its great success and more importantly, how has it remained at its position for so long?

In class, we learned that once a company has positioned itself in the consumers’ mind, it is very difficult to budge.  I believe that Coca-Cola’s enduring success, however, is not only due to its early claim in the consumers’ mind, but also because of its constant desire to grow as a company.

Coca-Cola has been implementing countless ingenious marketing techniques for years.  In 2010, for example, it launched its “Happiness Machine” video.  With almost five million views, this video proved to be a viral success.  Coca-Cola shrewdly targeted college students and focused on using an ordinary setting to create extraordinary reactions.  AJ Brustein, Coca-Cola’s Global Senior Brand Manager, stated that the magic in the video was created when “students [were] helping each other lift the huge sub, [and] hugging the Coke machine”.

It is no wonder that Coca-Cola has had such great success for so long.  Its constant creativity in marketing strategies has continually earned it the position as the world’s leading beverage producer.

http://www.engagemarketing.com.au/the-power-of-design/

This firm’s security shorting may be old news, but it touches on a highly controversial and eternally relevant aspect of commerce – business ethics.  The article I read essentially states that the firm made a fortune “by betting against its own clients’ investments” behind their backs.  Great numbers of people were outraged at this news because they felt betrayed and taken advantage of, as if they were mere pawns in Goldman Sachs’ scheme.

But was it immoral for Goldman Sachs to correctly predict and profit from a downturn in the economy?  Is not a business’ sole purpose to maximize its profit in order to develop and grow and in turn help boost the economy?  Why, then, was Goldman Sachs portrayed as greedy and callous?  Because they deceived their clients and tiptoed around the law.

Although regulations in business seem to be less concrete than in other areas, it is apparent that some ways of achieving financial goals are more ethical than others.  One rule that is theoretically acceptable is that companies must operate and hopefully thrive without deceiving the government and general population.

There is a way to become highly successful without cutting corners and remaining ethical is the key.

http://www.davidicke.com/headlines/63144-goldman-sachs-making-money-by-stealing-it