Hannah Vandenberg's Blog

Tom Dobrzanski was not unfamiliar when he walked into my Comm 101 class. Tom is a member of the band, the Zolas, a group I have been listening to for over a year, so to see him in front of me, was pretty exciting. To have him talk about his past experiences was even more exciting! What I didn’t know was that Tom used to be a student at Sauder School of Business, and that he has a Bachelor of Commerce.

Given that I love his music, that I’m a drummer and a piano player, and that we both are/were Sauder students, made listening to Tom a very inspirational experience. Instead of doing something like finance, marketing or accounting, like the vast majority of BCom students, Dobrzanski combined his business knowledge and his passion for music to create something outstanding. He is not only a member of a band, he is also  a producer and engineer. While in school, he was also creating a recording studio in his parents’ basement (Vertical Studios). A couple well known bands, such as Said the Whale and Hey Ocean! record their albums here. Due to his successes, Tom has been able to relocate and is now working on finishing his new recording studio, Monarch Studios.

I, along with many others, still don’t know what type of career I want, so seeing a Sauder grad tell us about how he strayed from the norm, followed his passions,  and became successful doing something he loves, was very inspirational! This really showed me, for the first time, that as long as I’m motivated and work hard, the possibilities for what I can do after I graduate are endless.

The answer is yes! In fact, some companies are socially responsible, and we don’t even know it. After reading Patricia Tumbocon’s blog, I realized that one of the big-shot companies in the food industry, Ben & Jerry’s, fits into this category. Ben & Jerry’s claim to fame is their ice cream, but they are also a B Corporation.

B Corporations are companies that meet the “rigorous standards of social and environmental performance, accountability, and transparency”. They are attempting to “create higher quality jobs and improve the quality of life in [their] communities. And, as the movement grows, it has become an increasingly powerful agent of change.” 1

Some of the great works done by these companies are:

• Caring Daily program – almost half of the cost of goods sold goes towards investing in small-scale suppliers
• Outsourcing key ingredients from community organizations
• The company’s lowest paid hourly workers make almost 50% above the living wage
• No animal testing

I think that this, in it’s entirety, is fantastic. It’s great that “B Corporations” exist. They are working hard to turn more businesses into positive businesses with ethical and constructive practices; are the way of the future. Being able to give companies a title such as “B Company”, should encourage people to purchase from these companies, and should hopefully encourage more businesses to try and become one of these. I was also very pleased to hear that Ben and Jerry’s is a B Corporation, because it means that a lot of people, whether they are aware of it or not, are supporting a socially responsible company. I hope that as time passes, more and more people learn about the socially responsible practices of B Corporations, and that more companies strive to share similar beliefs.

Sources:

1 http://www.bcorporation.net/what-are-b-corps/why-b-corps-matter

The owner of Frakas, a trendy clothing boutique, has three stores in total: two in Saskatoon, and one in Kelowna. This entrepreneur is trying to make her way in the fashion/business world one step at a time. For most new businesses, finding funding  is hard to come by. Another big issue is getting your name out there, so that potential clients know who you are. The owner of Frakas uses a solution that combats both issues: Blogging.

The Frakas Blog shows pictures of newly acquired items of clothing and accessories. It also informs clients of what the latest trends are. The blog features different contests that allow customers the potential to win some great prizes. The blog does all this, while remaining a source of free advertising.

I think that this interactive blogging system is great for the store. Having contests and giving fashion tips keeps buyers interested and insures that they check the blog on a regular basis. Because we live in a technological driven era, a blog is a perfect way for a store to reach people in its desired target market. Using social media as a means to advertise also allows the store to save exorbitant amounts on marketing fees.

UrthCast is a developing a new technology that will allow people on Earth to see what astronauts see. The idea is similar to Google maps, but incorporates a “live” aspect that one would find in movies. By installing two video cameras onto the Russian portion of the International Space Staion, UrtheCast plans to provides an “Image of the Earth Scrolling by.” In a promotional UrtheCast video, Scott Larson says that “you’ll be able to fast forward, skip, pause and rewind.”

The first I heard of this project was when Director, Co-Founder, Executive Vice President, and Sauder School of Business graduate Wade Larson, came to speak in my first year commerce class. Personally, I think that the idea is excellent! Mr. Larson is a great speaker and is very passionate about his career, which made it enjoyable to listen to.

Urthecast hopes to connect people by way of Social media. The video feed will allow you to tag portions of it, so people can show where they were and which events they were at. All this close-proximity however, begs the question: how will this not be a confidentiality breach? It may only be a matter of time before people start getting concerned about how much UrtheCast exposes. Then again, most social media sites can be considered as confidentiality breaches.  If this fact is overlooked, once people find out about Urthecast, I’m convinced it will become an app that they integrate into their everyday lives.

Gangnam Style is a new hit song by Psy, a 34 year old rapper from South Korea. Surprisingly,  municipal authorities allowed and helped Psy give a free concert outside city hall. The global sensation performed in front of 80,000 adoring fans, and performed his claim-to-fame song twice. The song is not only a hit in South Korea, but is also ranked 2nd in the US and the UK, and has over 400 million views on YouTube.

Ma Young-sam, the country’s ambassador, suggests that “as foreigners pay more attention to the singers, slowly they develop a liking for Korea… and if they like Korea, they will buy more Korean things.” He believes that the release of Gangnam Style will greatly help South Korea. He may be right. Everyone who hears the song can easily relate it back to Korea. The song has introduced the country to a whole new set of people who probably were never that aware of it. The hit song may turn out to be a great way to get worldly publicity.

I personally find it quite surprising that after working so hard to build up its reputation and worldly standing, South Korean officials willingly allowed their Country to be branded in this way. It says a lot when a strict country like South Korea lets a video like Gangnam Style out. It is clear that they think it has a lot of redeeming value. South Korea’s motives are understandable, but leave me with one burning question: how are people expected to take the country seriously after the release of Gangnam Style?

Source:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/international-business/asian-pacific-business/what-gangnam-style-is-doing-to-brand-south-korea/article4596798/

The iPhone 5 is out. Apple fans are so excited to go out and purchase the brand’s latest edition. The newest iPhone is said to have a bigger screen, higher resolution and updated software.

(Warning: this is not your average post about how great the iPhone 5 is)

Since the arrival of the new iPhone, there has been incessant talk about how great it is. This is not, however, what I’m going to talk about. I would prefer to focus on a different cell phone, one of the iPhone’s greatest threats: the Samsung Galaxy s3.

As I was flipping through some channels, an ad came on for the Samsung Galaxy s3. Their marketing tactics immediately caught my attention. In the ad, Samsung chooses to acknowledge the presence of the iPhone, but manages to present it as phone of the past, rather than the “latest and the greatest”. The commercial found a way to joke about different ‘new’ aspects of the iPhone 5 and show people that the construction of the new phone, when most features remained unchanged, was rather unnecessary. The way the Samsung portrays the Galaxy s3 makes the iPhone look a bit superfluous,  while simultaneously presenting their new phone to seem as if it’s the coolest product on the market. This commercial was really well done, and as your average consumer, I can say that it was quite effective. Samsung appealed to a younger generation and managed not only to promote their latest phone’s PoD’s, but also to make their company look much more favorable than Apple.

Photo Source:

http://accessandroid.com/droid-daily/4-reasons-why-apple-has-zero-chance-of-taking-down-android/

Ringling Bros. and Barnum & Bailey Circus is an American Circus that travels around putting on shows. The company markets themselves as being the “greatest show on earth”. Video evidence however, gives reason to believe else wise.

As I was perusing around various articles on PETA, I came across one concerning this particular circus. The article reveals that circus trainers were caught beating and abusing their performance animals. As a penalty for breaking the Animal Welfare Act, the company was given the largest fine in all of circus history: $270,000.

I was already aware that many circuses have been known to abuse their animals, so when I read about the fine statement, I was very pleased to hear that action is being taken to fight for the protection and proper treatment of animals. However, this good feeling was short lived. As I continued to read different articles, I found that even though one huge fine was given to the company, their behavior towards animals did not change. On September 27^th, 2012, the circus put on a show in Manchester, N.H. Video evidence shows that during a routine, one of the elephants, Luna, fails to perform a trick. When she does not cooperate she is hit multiple times with a bullhook, in her already-injured leg.

With further research, I noticed their many other accounts of animal mistreatment, and how they’ve been forced to pay a multitude of fines. One shocking incidence was back in 2004. While the circus was travelling from one venue another, the animals in the train cars started suffering from the intense Florida heat and from a lack of water. The problem became so severe that the 2 year old lion, Clyde, died in the car.¹

With all the serious offenses the circus has committed and with the many investigations and fines they have received, it begs the question : why is the company still allowed to perform today? And furthermore, why do so many people continue to pay money to watch these animals suffer?

Other Sources:

http://www.peta.org/b/thepetafiles/archive/2011/11/28/ringling-slapped-with-largest-penalty-in-circus-history.aspx

¹  http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A48042-2004Aug7.html

http://raleighdurham.about.com/od/localeventsandfestivals/ig/Ringling-Brothers-Circus-Blue-/Asian-Elephant-Display-at-Ring.htm

As children grow up, their parents stress upon them the importance of safely using the internet: never releasing too much personal information, and always using caution when signing “terms and Conditions” and consent forms. My analysis demonstrates however, that more and more frequently, companies make it difficult to avoid giving personal information, and make it so that when you do give it out, they are able to publicly release it, without any liability issues.

This is not solely my opinion; a similar point of view was also voiced by Iakiv Iagolnitser in his Blog. Iakiv talks specifically about Facebook and how the more information their users make public, the more money the website makes. There is clearly not much incentive for the website to offer personal protection; rather there is a fairly large motivation to try and get people’s information to be public. Before reading my classmate’s blog, I naively believed that because Facebook offered so many privacy settings, the website must be safe. I now see that this is not accurate. Although Facebook offers various privacy settings, they are frequently updating them, and simultaneously, making a whole new wave of users’ information available to the public, without the users knowing.

As marketing reporter Susan Krashinsky posts in her article, “The research findings raise concerns for the privacy rights of Canadians. Web leakage can involve the disclosure of personal information without an individual’s consent– or even knowledge”. This breach in confidentiality, thus far, cannot cause liability issues. At this point in time, it is just bad business ethics.

Is there a point when companies’ marketing tactics go from being effective to highly unethical? I believe there exists such a point. As it turns out, Dove does as well.

In 2004, Dove launched a campaign called The Dove^® Campaign for Real Beauty. The idea behind the campaign is to promote real beauty. To do this, Dove created ads using real women, in their natural state; at no point in the process were they graphically edited, modified or photo shopped.

Before Dove’s campaign the majority of companies used models who were underweight and suffering from eating disorders. Photos of these models were digitally transformed to make their appearances more appealing. When the photos were released they were of girls who had had their faces morphed by professional photo-shoppers until the photo looked more like a barbie doll than the real girl. They were not however, solely releasing a photo, but a false definition of beauty. Girls all around the world tried to look like these models, and when they could not compete with the edited photos, they lost self-esteem, were more self-conscious and a whole lot less confident. Companies and their marketing teams had managed to redefine “beauty”.  In 2004 a study was done, and results showed that because of all the unethical techniques these companies used, only  2% of women around the world could describe themselves as beautiful (Social Mission Article, Dove).

Media has such a huge impact on young children, and when companies start having control over a young girl’s self esteem and self worth, it’s unacceptable. I strongly believe that when a girl sees photos these “perfect” models, her definition of “beauty” can’t help but be swayed. Dove saw that many marketing techniques were becoming very unethical, and seized the opportunity to come up with a technique that was effective and ethical. It was at this point that Dove started the campaign for real beauty, in the hopes of re-instating the original definition of beauty and to help every girl “[grow] up with the self-esteem she needs to reach her full potential” (About the Movement, Dove).

Video: The Dove Evolution

The BYOB is a law recently instated in the province of British Columbia allowing customers to bring their own bottle of wine into restaurants. Will the law be equally beneficial to everyone?

The new rule will be beneficial to upscale restaurants. Generally, customers who visit these places are not overly concerned with the prices, and are not opposed to splurging on a nice bottle of wine. The demand for wine, in these situations, is said to be inelastic. Customers at fancy restaurants will choose to purchase a bottle of wine, rather than bringing their own, because it is all part of the experience, it’s convenient, they may get to try a new type of wine, and because to them, the price is irrelevant.

Contrarily, if the restaurant is a lower end restaurant, its customers are frequently more price-conscious or short on money. These restaurant may not benefit from having the BYOB rule, as many of their customers may try and save some money by bringing their own bottle of wine. In an interview, a manager at Earls, states that she does not approve of the law because “our profit is very high on wine” (Jennifer Saltman, The Province). Consequently, the restaurant does not earn the money it would normally make on alcohol.

In conclusion, we can see that the new wine rule at restaurants cannot be generalized and will not have the same effect on every restaurant. Whether the restaurant will benefit or not is all relative to the type of restaurant it is, the type of customers who attend and to how much money the customers are used to spending.

Sources: