Since the age of 15 I have been a gym rat, putting the gym as a priority in most cases. It has so many benefits including: release of stress, gaining muscle and strength, increased metabolism and fat loss, among other and that is why it is the perfect sport for me. Nonetheless, I have been going to my club’s gym all of my life (which my parents paid of course) and I was not aware of how much gym memberships cost. It wasn’t until I came to Vancouver when I realized how expensive it is, although luckily enough, we have the Birdcoop gym. This is something Rick Berks realized and surprisingly enough, he managed to create Youfit, a gym that charges you only $10 a month, less than a third of what gym normally charge members.

When I read this interview, I was astonished about how he could reduce costs without decreasing the quality of the machines or the atmosphere of the gym itself. All I can say is that truly understands his business (or as he refers to: his “business model”) and therefore can make the most of it without taking advantage of consumers or having losses. Mr. Berks target audience is clearly defined: anyone who wants to start get fit and not body builders. That is most of the population as not everyone has the body they would like to. He lets regular people train, he is not training athletes and that is how he gained so many customers, by giving them what they want. Furthermore, being a gym rat himself gives him an advantage as he can test machines and knows what machines are the most used. So in other words, he understands what people need and doesn’t lose money in equipment that is not necessary.

I believe that Youfit will keep growing as its low membership cost attracts lots of customers. Nonetheless, this also means that it will have some restrictions that other expensive gyms don’t have: this being extra private classes, saunas, masseuses, nutritionists. Hence, if its members start gaining more money, they might think of changing gyms so that they can have more benefits.

References:

Youfit founder creates a no-fat model of success in gym scene | Tampa Bay Times. (n.d.). Retrieved from http://www.tampabay.com/news/business/retail/youfit-founder-creates-a-no-fat-model-of-success-in-gym-scene/1203528

Marijuana is one of the major drugs consumed by many people although it has many side effects, including addiction. Nevertheless, it gives high revenue for the people that sell it and as it is illegal in many parts of the world, suppliers in the black market are the ones that receive the money but if it was legal, the governments could gain this revenue instead and use it to benefit their citizens.

As I mentioned in my blog ‘Tobacco, the puzzling market’: the marijuana market is like any other market, were consumers should have the liberty of buying what they want as long as they don’t harm or aggravate other people. Just to give you a clear comparison the marijuana market makes revenue of $47,660,000 per km² compared to tobacco which only gives $277,000. Many states in the US have seen this and they have started to legalize it as it doesn’t only benefit the government but its producers and sellers. Furthermore, by legalizing it, the black market for marijuana would cease to exist and this would decrease criminal activity. Also, legalizing it would increase tourism as it can be seen in Amsterdam were many people go just because they are allowed to freely consume marijuana.

In other words, the legalization of marijuana brings benefit to everyone: the suppliers, consumers and governments.

References:

The legalisation of marijuana isn’t just about liberal values – it’s about dollars | News | The Guardian. (n.d.). Retrieved from http://www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/2014/nov/07/the-legalisation-of-marijuana-isnt-just-about-liberal-values-its-about-dollars

Due to the financial crisis, the annual income of Britain’s working families has declined and they can’t afford living conditions such as childcare and national insurance. Hence, the Confederation of British Industry (CBI) has counseled the British government to cut down £7bn of taxes to £3bn and to increase the hours of free childcare by 15 hours each week in order to improve these families’ lifestyles.

This is an important matter because a government should care about all of its citizens, not only about the elite classes which provide all of the money through taxes. These families have and are working hard to survive after the financial crisis and the government cannot just leave them alone, they need to do something about it. Even if it means reducing taxes by £4bn because it is the health of their population and looking it in a business aspect, less people working means less income for the government. In this sense, in Peru, there is a similar problem although it is worse because as many of the towns/villages and even communities are spread around the territory so it is difficult to assist them. Thus, they live on poor conditions and they only work for their own benefit, without paying taxes because why would they if they are not receiving anything in exchange.

Therefore I agree with CBI and suggest the British government to help its working class as it will benefit everyone in the short and long run.

References:

Monaghan, A. (2014, November 10). CBI calls for tax cuts and childcare subsidies for working families | Business | The Guardian. Retrieved from http://www.theguardian.com/business/2014/nov/10/cbi-tax-cuts-childcare-subsidies-low-income-families

Nowadays, university students are becoming consumers to the new market created by universities. This being, the educational market were the college presidents become CEOs and try to maximize their profit by increasing tuitions and student loans.  How has this happened? Well it is due to cases such as in Cooper Union were the president Jamshed Bharucha made risky investments (using $200m from their loan) on hedge funds that suffered loses and even after suffering these losses, he continued on investing to create a new engineering building. Hence, the university started forcing its students to pay half of the tuition ($20,000) in order to gain revenue and be able to pay its loans. Before this, education was free as long as students showed they had the potential and grades to be the best.

The article clearly explains the consequences of cases such as this: university years should be about soul searching, learning new knowledge, etc. Contrary to this, now students are studying and going to their classes so that they don’t waste money, instead of going because of the passion of studying what they like. Furthermore, they dislike the managements that are not helping them against this unfairness. This problem has grown so much in the past years that student debt has surpassed $1tn in the USA.

I believe that money should never be a constraint to stop someone from going to university or school; as long as they should they are capable of doing and show the determination. This is not an unlikely concept as countries like Brazil, Sri Lanka, as well as France, Italy and Malta (for Europeans) offer free education. Plus by offering education to its citizens they will be able to later generate money for the government or, if they work abroad, increase the recognition of their country. So at the end of the day, giving free education doesn’t mean that the government is going to lose money; they are investing it on their citizens. As my parents tell me: the payments for my education aren’t a waste of money, they are an investment on my future.

References:

The harsh truth: US colleges are businesses, and student loans pay the bills | Money | The Guardian. (n.d.). Retrieved from http://www.theguardian.com/money/us-money-blog/2014/oct/07/colleges-ceos-cooper-union-ivory-tower-tuition-student-loan-debt

This comment is in response to Chin Chun (Nigel) Tsaur’s Blog post: “Xbox beats competitors to Chinese Market” (https://blogs.ubc.ca/cctsaur/)

Videogames are now a big part of the children of generation Y and even for the young adults of generation X (the time in which the videogame industry accessed the market). The games made by the different companies (Microsoft, Sony, Nintendo, being the major companies) can be violent, have sexual scenes, but they also be educational and help children learn while having fun. This is what the Chinese government realized on January and lifted the 14-year console ban law they had imposed.

As Chin Chun mentions, Microsoft has done a very strategic and beneficial move positioning as a monopoly in the videogame industry in China allowing them to have huge profits. Although I don’t agree when Chin Chun says that the lack of knowledge in consumers and the restriction on the content of games will be drawbacks because what these children want is to play videogames, it really doesn’t matter what they will buy. It was a restriction before and now they have the opportunity to use it thus, they will be driven by their emotions and will use any method to convince their parents to buy them an Xbox One.

In other words, I do not see any big drawbacks that Microsoft can have in this new market segment. Until Sony and Nintendo join the Videogame market in China, Microsoft will generate huge revenues.

This comment is in response to Crispin Mwanyumba’s blog comment: ‘Coca-Cola Life’ (https://blogs.ubc.ca/cmwanyumba/)

Coca Cola, the world-known soft drink company that offers more than 750 beverages just in North America; invented by the American pharmacist John Pemberton in the late 19^th century and made a national icon in the U.S.A in its 50^th anniversary.[i] This company does not accept defeat and this can be seen in Peru where the competing soda was ‘Inca Kola’  and surprisingly enough, this local soda was making more sales than Coca Cola. So instead of accepting this, Coca Cola decided to buy the Inca Kola trademark, which now they own all over the world except in Peru, were they are only partners of Corporacion Ina Kola Peru S.A.[ii]

Moving on, as Crispin clearly stated, “people are becoming more health conscious and consuming much healthier beverages.” Plus he also mentions the decline in the sales of soda sales. Hence, Coca Cola decided to reach these new era consumers by offering Coca-Coca life and clearly changing its brand image from red to green. I agree with Crispin when he mentions that changing its colour will make Coca Cola lose its identity and that it will be very hard for them to convince their consumers about this change. Nonetheless, the  ‘Coca Cola Life to make U.S Debut’ remarks that they have done successful launches in Argentina, Chile, Greath Britain and Mexico. Evidently, this shows that the mind of the customers can be changed and with media and publicity as strong as Coca Cola’s, anything can be possible. In addition, even though they are losing their identity, this doesn’t mean it is a bad thing because some old-fashioned consumers that aren’t as health conscious will see Coca Cola as the classic soda Red brand and on the other hand, the new era consumers will see Coca Cola as the green brand with natural sweeteners and eco-friendly label.

Crisping accurately points out that Coca Cola is entering a new niche, joining the natural drinks like juices and although there is a harsh competition of suppliers, I believe that Coca Cola will and is finding a way to smoothly enter this new market segment because first of all, Coca Cola has a very high reputation globally and buyers will trust them as Coca Cola is trying to show a new face, a new identity, a green image. To sum up, I believe that Coca Cola will boost soda sales in this new niche and that it will become one of the fearest competitors.

[i] The Top 10 Bestselling Soft Drinks – TheRichest. (n.d.). Retrieved from http://www.therichest.com/rich-list/most-popular/the-top-10-bestselling-soft-drinks/

[ii] The Coca-Cola Company and Corporacion Inca Kola Announce Global Partnership for Inca… — re> LIMA, Peru, Feb. 23 /PRNewswire/ –. (n.d.). Retrieved from http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/the-coca-cola-company-and-corporacion-inca-kola-announce-global-partnership-for-inca-kola-brands-75034032.html

A few weeks ago, there was a UN conference in which they were discussing the option of re-establish the protection of indigenous people and as unlikely as it seems, Canada was the only country to oppose this motion.  I believe it is unlikely because I agree with Perry Bellegarde (Chief of the Federation of Saskatchewan Indian Nations) when he said: “Canada was viewed always as a country that upheld human rights”.

Being from Peru, I can understand how and why the First Nation Indians of Canada are feeling. In Peru, the Incas were conquered by the Spanish and they took all they could from us, including lots of resources such as gold, people as slaves, etc. Hence, I believe that they (First Nation Indians) have the right to ask Canada’s government for human rights and even more, the protection of indigenous people as it was part of the Declaration.

Furthermore, as it happening in Peru, indigenous people do not trust the government or other citizens (an issue which goes both ways) so the Peruvian government has created a special division called the MIDIS (Ministerio de Desarollo e  Inclusion social – Ministry of Development and Social inclusion)  which helps our indigenous people to be incorporated into the society so that they stop being treated/viewed as inferior citizens. Something which has been successful over this few years thanks to the use of media ads, human rights campaigns and a very important matter taught in schools. So what I am trying to say is that if the Canadian government is having trouble with this matter, they could try to have a similar approach.

Perry Bellegarde

References :

Canada Is The Only UN Member To Reject Landmark Indigenous Rights Document. (n.d.). Retrieved from http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2014/10/02/canada-un-indigenous-rights_n_5918868.html

Retrieved from http://i.cbc.ca/1.2491784.1403835309!/fileImage/httpImage/image.jpg_gen/derivatives/16x9_460/perry-bellegarde.jpg

It is bewildering why people start consuming nicotine even though there is scientific research that proves that it can cause various diseases such as lung cancer. Nonetheless I believe that smoking (or any other activity in life) is a matter of choice and that is why every person should be able to choose whether they want to do it or not.

Therefore, I agree with the UK Tobacco industry when they claim that it is unjust for the Labour plan to tax them to pay more for NHS. (National Health Service).  They already pay an 86% tax per pack that goes to the NHS funds and which they contribute £12.3B each year while the expenses of the NHS to treat smoking are only between £2.7bn and £5.2bn. Hence, the NHS is already taking advantage of the tobacco industry and now they want to increase their power over them even more. Some might argue that the Tobacco industry doesn’t have any benefits for society but, like any market, it has the right to supply their product and it is the choice of the consumer to buy it. It is irresponsible and irrational when ill people demand health attention for problems caused by smoking when it was them who allowed them to happen.

The Labour plan should also consider how many people work in the Tobacco industry as like any company, they offer millions of jobs to work in factories, offices, etc. and a reduction in their revenue would mean a shortage in wages or even worse, massive lay off. This is something that happened to Imperial Tobacco in their Nottingham cigarette factory which they had to close at the start of the year. Instead of focusing and clawing on the Tobacco industry, they should take care of more meaningful problems such as illegal drugs.

References:

Monaghan, A. (2014, September 23). UK tobacco firms protest at Labour plan to tax them more to pay for NHS | Business | The Guardian. Retrieved from http://www.theguardian.com/business/2014/sep/23/uk-tobacco-firms-protest-labour-cigarette-tax-pay-nhs

Thesing, G. (2013, July 30). British American Tobacco profits rise amid higher prices – Telegraph. Retrieved from http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/retailandconsumer/9899278/British-American-Tobacco-profits-rise-amid-higher-prices.html

We have all, at some point, made fun of workers in McDonalds, Burger King and other Fast food chains saying that if you are lazy in high school or in university, you will become one of them. The truth is that they work all day, frying, attending, cooking, etc. and they receive a worthless salary (US$7.25/hour). How can this be possible when companies such as McDonalds gain thousands of dollars each day?

The worst part is that even when McDonalds faces strikes all over the country, they make the public believe that these are staged demonstrations and that it is not really their workers who are fighting against this injustice.  McDonalds should instead respond by hearing what their workers have to say because in an enterprise what gives you profit is the human component, machines and artifacts can facilitate the work but they don’t have any creativity or intelligence, they just do as they are told.

I know it might be difficult to increase the hourly salary to US$15 and that even when President Obama is trying to raise the minimum wage to US$10.10 people say that it would kill job creation, but I cannot understand how McDonalds’ (and other companies) employers win fairly great amounts of money and not even think about how poor some of their employees are; some not even being able to maintain their own family.  They are so desperate that they do not care about being arrested and you know that when someone is not afraid of confronting the police, they mean it.

References:

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/sep/04/fast-food-protests-dozens-arrested-low-wages

http://www.theguardian.com/money/2014/sep/08/fast-food-workers-protest-strike-paid-mcdonalds

Welcome to UBC Blogs. This is your first post. Edit or delete it, then start blogging!