I am opposed to the ‘one for one’ business model because…….

The first moment I heard Toms Shoes’s “Buy-One, Give-One” model, I thought it was a brilliant idea because this model can provide aid to so many people who are living under poverty. However, after reading some articles about Toms Shoes’s business model from COMM101 class, I have to say I couldn’t agree with this model anymore.

There is an old saying in China,” It’s better to teach a man fishing than to give him fish.” And what Toms has been doing is “giving people fish” instead of “teaching fishing”. Though the start point of this business model is to provide help for people who are unable to buy a pair of shoes, actually, this model did more “harm” than “good”. As Cheryl Davenport’s article “The Broken “Buy-One, Give-One” Model: 3 Ways To Save Toms Shoes” indicates, the Buy-one, Give-one model does not solve a social problem, but exerts negative effects on the local economy (nobody will buy shoes if they can get free shoes). But I don’t agree with Davenport’s second flaw: “Toms is designed to make western consumers feel good.” I think the reason consumers buying shoes from Toms is not simply because that purchase makes them feel good, however, I believe most of the consumers truly want to help since they realized there are thousands of people can’t afford a pair of shoes. But it cannot be admitted that social problems cannot be solved by giving out relief supplies. Because this may lead people to have dependency of those supplies and therefore stop working with their own.  People living in poverty doesn’t mean they are deemed to live in poverty, they are just lacking of strategy, ability, skills, ideas etc. to make a change in their life. So I think what Toms need to do is to help those people find their own way to make changes instead of giving them shoes.

As far as what we learnt from COMM101 class, Social Entrepreneurs are someone who recognizes a social problem and uses entrepreneurial principles to make a social change. Toms has already recognized a social problem, now it requires Toms to do something to make a social change and they should do more improvements on their Buy-one, Give-one model.

reference:

http://www.fastcoexist.com/1679628/the-broken-buy-one-give-one-model-three-ways-to-save-toms-shoes

-Comments on Fengge Yang’s blog post “#5 Target now shipping to Canada: Another Failed Venture?”

According Fengge Yang’s blog post, her opinion is that the re-enter of Target into Canada’s market is a another failure. And she provided reason to support her opinion. Firstly, consumer will be unacceptable toward the high shipping price from U.S to Canada. Secondly, she indicated that Target put itself at wrong position in the Canada’s market.

So I would like to say I agree with her ideas. Personally, as a consumer, I feel that I can’t accept the shipping fee either. I had several experiences of buying products from U. S’s online retailers and the shipping fee is normally ranged from $15 to $100. SO from the perspective as a consumer, it makes no sense to me if I buy low-price products from Target with higher shipping fees. And I also want to point out another thing, any imported item valued over $20 is subject to duty and sales tax. So if a consumer wants to buy Target’s products online, he or she also needs to pay much more in tax. So I also think that it’s not an easy thing for Target to re-enter Canada only if this firm could solve the higher shipping fee and tax problems

blog post link:

#5 Target now shipping to Canada: Another Failed Venture?

-Comments on Wen (Susie) Zhang’s blog post “One-Child Policy”

I think it is the right time for China to stop its One-child Policy otherwise the aging population will be larger and therefore will lead to several social issues (e.g  lack of labor force, gender imbalance, uneven distribution of medical system…).  I am the only child in my family, so I also have the same feeling as Wen Zhang. For example, I often felt alone during my childhood and was dreaming of having a brother or sister to play with me. So in my opinion, stopping the practice of One-child Policy is a wise decision. And I think the breakdown of One-child Policy will bring some positive impacts for China’s economy, for example, this will lead to increased consumption on baby-related products. And I also saw an interesting news, baby-related stock surged after the announcement of stopping One-Child Policy.

blog post link:

One-Child Policy

11^th November is famous as China’s Single Day, however, it becomes a new “holiday” in China in recent years—China’s Black Friday.  Can you imagine that, thousands of Chinese were waiting online on the midnight of 10^th November in order to buy the limited amount of discount commodities online. Many of my Chinese friends were kind of crazy on that day, they were extremely excited to shop online and they spent a huge amount of money to purchase commodities with e-commerce retailers.

Alibaba, as the biggest Chinese e-commerce retailer, announced on Wednesday that “Alibaba’s Single’s Sale surpassed their record of $9.3 billion in 2014 as they recorded sales of $14.3 billion”. I was shocked when I saw the huge selling volume that Aibaba made within one day. So I think Alibaba’s success also indicates the huge e-commerce market in China and the number of online retailers also increased rapidly in these years. But the truth is with the increasing market demand, there are a lot of problems exist as well. Firstly, the e-commerce market is lacking of monitor, I’ve heard so many people bought fake or poor-quality commodities online. So I think it’s necessary for online retailers to improve the quality of their commodities. And another problem is, the logistics and transportation industry is developing slowly with the rapid growth of e-commerce. So online retailers should cooperate with logistics and transportation companies to make sure the delivering process operates well and effectively. What is more, every online retailers are competing with each other, so personally I would say some online retailers are concentrating too much on competing with rivals.

resources:

http://www.investopedia.com/articles/investing/111215/alibaba-kills-singles-day-shares-decline.asp

https://www.internetretailer.com/2015/11/11/alibabas-singles-day-sales-top-chinas-daily-retail-average

Apple announced its fourth quarter report on October 27, 2015, and this company posted “quarterly revenue of $51.5 billion and quarterly net profit of $11.1 billion, or $1.96 per diluted share.”(Apple). This result is quite impressive compared with compare to revenue of $42.1 billion and net profit of $8.5 billion, or $1.42 per diluted share, in the year-ago quarter. However, one thing should be noted, is the truth that Approximately 67% of Apple’s revenue growth comes from China. So China’s market plays a significant role in Apple’s business.

In my opinion, Apple’s success in Chinese market can be considered as a mixed signal because Apple might be too much overreliance of China. If markets in China shift away from Apple, what should Apple do?

Though Apple has occupied a huge market share value of China’s market, the truth is that there are more and more rivals are sharing this big pie in China. According to Fortune, Apple falls to 3^rd Place in China Smartphone market with Xiaomi leading first and Huawei right behind. (Xiaomi and Huawei are both local companies in China.) So I think it is a warning for Apple that Chinese consumers are moving gradually  towards to local smartphone market.

As a result, I think Apple needs to change its strategy by expanding markets in other countries, for example, some developing countries. And it is important for this company to be aware of overreliance in China. Meanwhile, this company should not give Chinese market in a short period of time because it still holds the majority of Apple’s revenue and still need to work on holding more market share value in China’s smartphone market.

resources:

http://fortune.com/2015/08/03/apple-third-place-china/

http://www.investopedia.com/articles/investing/102815/china-put-shine-apple.asp?utm_source=NTU&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=NTU-10/30/15&utm_term=news-to-use

http://www.investopedia.com/articles/markets/110315/should-apple-investors-be-wary-overreliance-china.asp

Most people are used to drop their empty paper coffee cups into blue bins, but do those coffee cups actually go through the recycling process? The answer is “NO”. A CBC Marketplace investigation reveals the two of Canada’s largest coffee chains –Starbucks and Tim Hortons sent their used paper coffee cups to landfill instead of a recycling plant.

The reason behind this issue is the truth that the cups are difficult to recycle. Mark Badger, an executive at Canada Fibers indicates that “There is an extra cost of processing most types of hot drink coffee cups, teacups, because they’re a combination of paper and plastic” and therefore most of recycle facilities do not accept paper coffee cups. However, I don’t think this can be an excuse of not sending coffee cups to recycle process because the benefits of going through the recycling process outweigh its cost. And if Starbucks and Tim Hortons can take their social responsibility by recycling coffee cups, it will avoid a big waste of raw materials for producing coffee cups. For example, by providing ceramic mugs for customers who don’t need to take-out cup. This action can decrease the consumption of coffee cups and therefore reduce the material cost for producing coffee cups.

This news addresses me to the content what I learnt at COMM101 class about ethics and sustainability. It is important for companies to implement sustainable measures because it is a long-term process which can improve the overall productivity of the whole company by avoiding waste as well as promoting innovations. In other words, sustainability brings both economic and societal benefits to the company. For example, a sustainable business can be more attractive for ethical investors and therefore become more profitable. And a business with sustainability is more competitive in the markets.

resources:

http://www.cbc.ca/news/business/marketplace-tim-hortons-starbucks-coffee-cups-recycling-1.3278648