From http://goo.gl/NlnfGB

Imagine getting ranked for your company performance, and then being fired if you are under a certain performance level among your colleagues. Companies like Yahoo or Microsoft use these methods to manage their human resources, as discussed in this recent Economist article titled “Ranked and Yanked”.

In Comm 101, we learned about how to manage employees to get the best quality work and efficiency from them. The old, general belief is that “intimidation” is the greatest motivator for work; similar to how corporal punishment was used in schools to motivate children to study harder. However, like school systems, businesses have transitioned from “intimidation” to “incentives”.

Providing lots of employee benefits and making their time at work enjoyable and stress-free is the best way to obtain maximum efficiency from employees. By making employees happy and excited to actually be at work, it creates a positive organizational culture, which creates lots of benefits for companies. For example, if your customer relations staff are generally always positive, they’ll respond to customers with an enthusiastic attitude!

However, as the Economist article points out, this “rank and yank” system is mainly used for large firms that hire a plethora of staff and need a way to “filter out” unproductive employees.

Still, I believe that a “rank and yank” system disrupts an organization’s culture, which dramatically harms a business.

From http://goo.gl/VMvAd1

Recently, a fellow Comm 101 student, Michael Wong wrote a blog about how Pirate Joe’s business model is unethical because they are simply “stealing” Trader Joe’s products and selling them in Canada. You can check out his blog here!

In the entrepreneurship class, we learned that companies can have “vitamin” or “pain-killer” products/services. In Pirate Joe’s perspective, they are filling the need of Trader Joe’s products in Canada, so they could be considered a pain-killer.

Thus, this raises an interesting question: Can companies harm other companies to better suit the needs of society? Let’s look at the case between Netflix and Blockbuster. Netflix created a media-streaming platform that better met the needs of customers (more convenient, expanded choices, less expensive) in terms of entertainment. By doing this, they essentially eliminated Blockbuster from the entertainment market because borrowing DVDs became futile and inconvenient. Was this unethical for Netflix to do? I’d say no, because business is about serving society; if a company offers better products/services than an existing firm, it’s not unethical, it’s simply competition. I realize this is a bit different from Trader Joe’s situation, but still proves the idea that it is not unethical to risk another country to better serve society.

With this utilitarian framework mind, I believe companies can put other companies at risk, if they serve a greater benefit for society.

From http://goo.gl/V3UXXu

Penelope Trunk, a well-known blogger for start-ups wrote a blog titled, “Your Biggest Barrier To Starting A Business”.

In this blog, she identifies finding “a great partner” as the greatest barrier for launching a start-up.

I definitely agree that trying to seek a reliable partner, whether the partner provides capital, advice, or simply positive morale, is usually the make-or-break of start-ups.

However, I think one of the greatest obstacles for a person to truly commit themselves to a start-up is risking their careers. A person could have the best social connections and have investors, but if that person can’t convince him/herself to throw away everything they have, there’s no point.

Many start-ups fail, and it’s difficult for many people to quit their jobs and take stakeholders’ capital to launch businesses that could be the next Facebook or join a graveyard filled with failed start-ups.

For some people, taking this risk is easier because some people may not have much to lose. For others, they have their family’s welfare, children’s college funds, financial debt, and so on, all on the line. Once a person is able to 100% believe in his or her business, and allow that commitment to drive their business, then they are past the most difficult step of starting a business.

From http://goo.gl/0lr04R

Twitter’s stocks will be locked up in a birdcage for almost half a year. After a very successful IPO launch, Twitter announced a “181 day lock-up period for its shares”.

What does this mean for investors? In some ways, this move may not be the best method for delivering confidence to its shareholders. The fact that Twitter has constrained shareholders from selling stocks may indirectly display a lack of confidence from Twitter; the company does not want shareholders to leave Twitter in the case that share prices drop. I know if I had shares in Twitter, I would not feel at ease about having to hold Twitter shares for 181 days despite how the market is doing.

However, a finance professor at the University of Florida argues that this should provide confidence because it shows “insiders are not going to be dumping shares at the first opportunity.” From this view, I can understand why Twitter would have such a long lock-up period. After the failure of Facebook’s IPO launch, people may not feel very safe with a giant volatile social media firm.

Still, the best method of keeping its shareholders would be to show sustainable stock prices, not simply locking-up the shareholders.

From http://goo.gl/7YdGQ6

Urthecast is a new innovative business that will be offering live HD video footage from space for commercial sale.

Although the idea is quite intriguing, I feel that the company has a very limited amount of revenue streams.
In my previous blog, I discussed how moving companies may not need to retain their customers as much as the average business because people only move every five years. When looking at Urthecast’s cutomers, the issue isn’t retention, it’s acquisition.

At first, although the idea of live HD footage from space sounds cool, in the end, who would actually be willing to purchase this content? Well, the average consumer, unless was a die-hard geography fan, most likely has better methods of using their money. On the other hand, major news cables may want to purchase this, as the presenter stated during his presentation in our class.

I would argue though, that news cables most likely will not be very interested either; when, for example, a natural disaster happens, news agencies would deploy helicopters with HD cameras to get certain angles or a long focused shot. Using a satellite although sounds cool, I don’t think it fulfills a need, or improves on existing methods.

From https://i.chzbgr.com/maxW500/4109023744/h2606131F/

Think twice the next time you see an unbelievably low-priced moving rate from a new moving company.

Recently, a CBC Marketplace report showed that there is an increase in customer complaints against moving companies. From hidden fees that are revealed when a customer is about to pay, to broken or damaged objects, moving companies clearly do not care about customer retention.

For businesses, costumer relationships are a key building block for success. Furthermore, retaining customers is just as important as getting new customers. However, I could see why moving companies may not view the retention aspect too significantly. According to Ask.com, “[t]he normal American household moves every five years”. Thus, for these moving companies, even if you retain customers, you would only receive work from customers every five years. Perhaps this is why moving companies do not care about retaining customers, and advertises low-price deals instead.

I personally do not believe this model will be successful because it does not seem sustainable. Once a lot of people have negative experiences, they will depreciate the moving company’s reputation via word-of-mouth. Eventually, people will blacklist these “scam” moving companies.

Most importantly, business should be about delivering authentic value, not tricking customers.

From http://goo.gl/MEPNxD

If you are a woman who wears above L-sized clothing, you better skip the heavily-perfumed A&F outlets.

Kevin Ding recently criticized A&F for “refusing to produce and sell above large-sized women’s clothing”, which you should also check out.

In my opinion though, I don’t think that this policy is a form of discrimination. Most clothing companies sell a wide range of sizes in order to supply a greater number of customers’ needs. Thus, companies aren’t necessarily obligated by law to produce all supplies.

In fact, A&F is employing a focus strategy on the customer segment of physically fit individuals. By utilizing this strategy, A&F enjoys a high standard of customer loyalty; a lot of my friends who wear A&F continually purchase their apparel. Furthermore, people who can wear A&F (and afford to) are perhaps wearing the clothes to associate themselves to the whole “physically-active” image. Overall, this strategy seems to work for A&F, except for the negative publicity they receive from some people. However, every business strategy will have its benefits and consequences.

In the end, I don’t think it’s a huge deal if you can’t wear A&F clothing; there are a plethora of substitute brands that are more fashionable.

From http://goo.gl/rpXdWQ

Imagine a boat sailing in the ocean full of sailors and no captain. Now imagine a business without a hierarchy system, including a CEO. This is Valve Corporation.

Valve is an influential video game company that created Steam, an innovative online game platform that includes popular games such as Counter Strike. The company runs a communist-like structure where individuals do not have to report to anyone and nobody reports to them. According to BBC, the “employees sit where they want, choose what to work on and decide each other’s pay.”

This structure of human resources is very risky. I am surprised by how successful Valve has been, despite a lack of leadership. Although their model avoids the negative effects of corporate hierarchies such as pressure, there is a reason why all Fortune 500 companies utilize a traditional chain of command structure. For businesses to be efficient, they need to have high-level executives providing direction and making important choices for the good of the company. In fact, lower-level employees need to be given specific duties; otherwise, anybody could do anything they want at any time. The case of Valve is an extremely rare case of a business succeeding without leadership.

Source: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-24205497

From http://goo.gl/16vSvG

The CEO of Starbucks, Howard Schultz, released on September 17^th, 2013, an open letter “requesting that customers no longer bring firearms into [Starbuck’s] stores or outdoor seating areas”.  Starbucks has been home to many pro-gun advocates in the United States; in fact, the annual Starbucks Appreciation Day is an event organized by gun activist groups, where they would demonstrate their appreciation to Starbucks for an “open carry” policy.

Despite the increased sales and publicity on Starbucks Appreciation Day, Mr.Schultz mentioned in the letter that Starbucks wishes for the event to stop.

The decision to condemn open-carriers of guns is a brilliant business move. Starbucks brands itself as an ethical company, advertising its “responsibly grown coffee” and advocating fair trade. This management decision further strengthens Starbucks’ image as “the good guy”.  Also, if doing a cost-benefit analysis considering pro-gun or anti-gun stakeholders, it would be more beneficial to lose pro-gun customers than anti-gun activists. Even though pro-gun activists may be loyal, it is a relatively small demographic and Starbucks would not want gun activists to be associated with their brand. I am actually very surprised at the fact that Starbucks never addressed this issue until recently.

Source: http://www.starbucks.com/blog/an-open-letter-from-howard-schultz/1268

http://goo.gl/98XotB

For only $250, a child can learn all about the functions of a meth-lab! Based off of AMC’s hit TV show Breaking Bad, Dutch-based company Citizen Brick created the SuperLab. The SuperLab is a miniature Lego set of Breaking Bad’s characters and meth-lab.

Is it ethical for companies to sell explicit content toys? In the perspective of the company, they are intelligently exploiting a hot trend. In a profit-driven capitalist society, this is a logically sound plan. However, for consumer stakeholders, there are more harms than good. The only real benefit of the SuperLab is the personal satisfaction of being able to flaunt one’s love for the show. Some significant harms of the product though, include exposing children to drug-related content and being taken advantage of by a greedy business (who pays $250 for a Lego set…). Thus, this product seems completely unnecessary to sell because it is not worth risking a child’s future for an overpriced collector’s item.

In the end, the root of the issue derives from the question of whether or not businesses have a social responsibility to society. I believe that businesses should always try to be ethical, even if it means losing some profit.

Source:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/life/the-hot-button/should-kids-be-allowed-to-build-their-own-breaking-bad-meth-lab-with-a-new-toy/article14189548/

http://www.businessinsider.com/breaking-bad-meth-lab-toy-set-2013-9