Hayley Moeller's Blog

“If the United Nations was fully funded why would we need the Arc or social enterprise?”

The Arc Initiative and other social enterprises are vital to not only the developing world, but to the people participating in fully developed countries as well. As was said in Class 20 Prep, the Arc Initiative received its name from the idea that business knowledge and ideas are flowing across an arc, from Sauder student/alumni to participant in the host community and back. Though full funding of the United Nations would allow for these underdeveloped nations to eventually become prosperous, it wouldn’t involve the same kind of personal interaction and relationship that is provided by the Arc Initiative. This genuine, personal learning experience is arguably the most important part of the Arc Initiative, as it allows for both the mentor and business owner in the host community to create a contact for life, and gives each a party a different view upon the business world and how it relates to the physical world.

It is no question that the United Nations helps underdeveloped nations, by providing funding, protection and opportunities for the country to become a part of the global economy. However, the United Nations would not be able to provide the personal element of mentorship that the Arc Initiative provides, regardless of the amount of funding it has. Because of this, social enterprise such as the Arc Initiative will always be important to the world, as providing wonderful learning opportunities for students who are looking to make a difference will never go out of style.

As has been recently publicized, Air Canada is soon planning on applying a charge of $25 for the first checked piece of baggage of each economy class passenger. In addition to this, Air Canada has also recently decided to crack down on the size of the baggage that a passenger is carrying on to the plane, meaning that if the carry on luggage is too large, the passenger will not only be forced to check the bag, but they may have to pay the $25 fee for it.

Obviously, people have been extremely upset and annoyed by this sudden change in Air Canada’s leniency on its baggage policy, and are not afraid to voice their opinions on the policy’s swift implementation to the staff. This is where the lesson from Zappos comes in handy.

As I read in class 19 prep, Zappos is highly dedicated to providing top notch customer service, with employees who genuinely believe in the core values of the company. They go through rigorous customer service training, allowing them to truly learn how to handle angry and unsettled customers. If Air Canada was able to implement a similar strategy, there is no doubt that the backlash on both the crack down on baggage size and the $25 fee would be minimized, as the staff would have the skills to diffuse tense situations with the upset customers. 

Similarly, Air Canada could learn from Zappos’ implementation of incentives that keep employees dedicated to their jobs and willing to put up with unpleasant customers, such as 100% health care coverage, life insurance, free food at work etc. Ultimately, staff who are treated well by the companies they work for, and fully believe in and support the work they do, will act far more passionately towards customers, and will not shy away from any opportunity to make the customer service experience for the shopper a memorable one.

In Yuval’s recent post, he explains how individuals in a workplace are motivated to do dishonest and unethical things, such as plagiarize or cheat, when faced with a stressful situation/time crunch. While reading this post, I couldn’t help but think back to this article in class 17 prep by Steven Kerr. In Kerr’s article, he describes the faults within a system that rewards a certain action regardless of the steps taken and effort put forward to complete said action, and suggests that successful businesses are the ones that truly reward the behaviour that they are looking for, rather than simply the end product.

The connections that can be made between the two pieces of writing are endless. In the companies that are described in Yuval’s post, there are obviously no rewards in place for honest, ethical behaviour, and instead only having work done by the deadline is rewarded. This seems to be contradictory in terms of overall business goals, as the reputation of any business that is known to reward those who plagiarize will surely be tarnished.

The best way to ensure that a company’s employees are doing honest, thoughtful work rather than copying it from some corner in the depths of the internet is to keep rewards in place for having work completed by the deadline, as that is still an important value of the company, but to also give some sort of reward to those who are using their own genuine ideas and knowledge. By rewarding these employees even just with a “hey, coffee’s on me today, keep up the good work,” they will be encouraged to continue putting forth their own work, and hopefully those workers who currently don’t will see a reason to begin doing so. And if not, then they should get the axe.

After reading Gene Marks’ blog post concerning a recent “Entrepreneur of the Year” distinction bestowed upon everyone’s favourite former Spice Girl, Victoria Beckham, I couldn’t help but wonder what the true definition of entrepreneurship is. Marks claims that Beckham is in fact a misrepresentation of a true entrepreneur, not because she isn’t a savvy businesswoman, but because she simply did not have to take any risks, financial or otherwise, to start her fashion company. However, I personally disagree with Marks statement that Victoria Beckham is not a real entrepreneur, as even though she did not have to go through the conventional “starving-dreamer-puts-life-savings-on-line-in-attempt-to-have-business-idea-become-reality” scenario, she still took a large risk in creating a high fashion label that has no connection to or affiliation with her celebrity status.

The main problem I have with Marks’ argument against Beckham is that he insinuates that only people without fame or fortune are able to be called entrepreneurs, as if the risks that these people take are somehow more significant than the risks encountered by someone with a lofty financial situation to fall back on in the case of failure to achieve profitability within the market. But there is far more to being an entrepreneur than just the magnitude of the risk being taken. As I learned in class 14 prep, there are 6 key personality traits that help to determine whether a person is suited towards an entrepreneurial path or not. Perhaps Beckham happens to possess all of these traits. In that case, is it fair to say that Beckham is not an entrepreneur simply because she has a lofty financial situation, completely disregarding these entrepreneurial qualities she naturally possesses and was able to utilize in the building of her fashion empire?

When Sodastream products began to enter the wish lists of consumers (including my own) just a short time ago, they were so widely coveted mainly because of their innovative idea, rather than the taste and flavour options made available. However, that is about to change. After striking a deal with PepsiCo, Sodastream is launching a test run of Pepsi brand products, meaning that consumers would then be able to make healthier versions of some of their favourite familiar PepsiCo soft drink flavours themselves, all from the comfort of their own homes.

Though this deal did create a large spike in Sodastream’s share value and would undoubtedly create a whole new incentive for people to purchase the at-home soda brewing system, one has to wonder what this deal would mean for PepsiCo. Based on the current consumer shift towards healthier products, some may choose to purchase a Sodastream (because of its smaller amount of sugar and lack of other unhealthy sweeteners), and buy their PepsiCo soft drinks only in the Sodastream compatible form. Though this would bring in some profit for PepsiCo, having consumers stop purchasing their standard form soft drinks in favour of the Sodastream version could also mean financial trouble for the company. Since this deal with Sodastream is just a trial run, it is important for PepsiCo to make sure they fully weigh the pros and cons of a full fledged deal, as the risk of losing customers of standard soft drink products to the Sodastream alternative may not be one that is worth taking for the company in the long run.

Sodastream/PepsiCo deal reference

In today’s world, corporate social responsibility (CSR) and the ethics associated with it are a huge deciding factor in a company’s support from increasingly concerned global citizens. Since sustainable living and philanthropist views are becoming increasingly popular within the everyday lives of consumers, many businesses are working to market themselves as possessing these qualities. But how many of these socially responsible seeming acts are just purely marketing stunts?

As described in the Guardian article by Amy Westervelt found here, CSR based marketing stunts are becoming increasingly popular among growing businesses, mainly because the company is able to come off to the public as caring about something other than pure profit, without having to actually put any serious effort into improving the way the company interacts with the surrounding people or environment. And though this strategy may seem like a foolproof plan in the short run, the transparency in a company’s dedication to their cause of choice is becoming increasingly evident. Does selling bottles of Pantene shampoo in pink ribbon bearing packaging, and encouraging women to donate hair for wigs during Breast Cancer Awareness Month really show any commitment to finding a cure when the shampoo itself contains carcinogens?

Though donating, whether it be a portion of profit or just the voice and image of the brand, is a thoughtful idea in theory, it is not beneficial to the company if what they are donating to has nothing to do with the core values of said company. This is because people are beginning to be able to see through these marketing stunts, and are far more willing to put their money into companies that have CSR engrained into their business model, rather than simply displayed through marketing when in need of a publicity boost.

Pantene references found here and here

The New Prosperity mine, set to be built in the BC interior, is ruffling a lot of feathers within the local Aboriginal community. So much so, that the Tsilhot’in people have decided to claim the land in which the mine is set to be placed as a tribal park. In terms of the company opening New Prosperity, Taseko Mines Ltd, the Tsilhot’in people are a vital external impact on the organization’s business model. They are essentially acting as the regulation on the mine, as if they do not approve of what the mine plans to do on the claimed Aboriginal land, then they simply will not allow the mine to enter. Because of this, Taseko needs to be extremely careful with how they deal with the Tsilhot’in people. One wrong move, and they will be denied access to their projected $1.1 billion project.

If I were a senior executive at Taseko, I would be communicating with the Tsilhot’in leaders as much as possible, in the hopes that they would be interested in striking some sort of deal with the company. If it were possible to convince the First Nations people that they would be included within the target segment of the company and were going to receive great benefits from the creation of the mine, there may be a fighting chance. Or, the mine could offer jobs to those within the Tsilhot’in community. However, at this point it seems very unlikely that New Prosperity will be given the go ahead on the newly claimed tribal park, and therefore it may be in the company’s best interest to begin looking at other possible locations for the mine.

http://www.vancouversun.com/news/metro/Unilateral+park+declared+Tsilhqot+includes+Prosperity+mine/10192766/story.html

At this point in time, Keurig is practically a household name. As the former patent holder and original creator of the individual serving coffee pod, Keurig maintains approximately 90% of the coffee pod market within North America. However, the company’s growth may soon be halted, due to a looming lawsuit which can be read about here.

Though Keurig is facing this upcoming threat, I can’t help but wonder if the market for Keurig will really be affected. As the first company to unveil the coffee pod product, Keurig has been able to maintain the top spot within the minds of the consumers, or the highest rung of the ladder, as Ries and Trout suggest. Since Keurig is seen as the inovative, original coffee pod, it is very hard for other coffee pod companies, such as Club Coffee or Tassimo, to break into the market. The points of parity between each of these companies are vast, making Keurig the stand out first choice regardless of a possible better product with one of the other, less popular companies. However, Club Coffee, the company looking to sue Keurig, is on track to change that, sporting one extremely important point of difference that could set it far apart from any other competitor: sustainability.

Coffee pods have always seemed to be extremely wasteful to me, as the consumer is throwing out a plastic package with each cup of coffee they make, and for some people, that is multiple cups per day. In comparison to this standard model, Club Coffee’s product comes in completely compostable packaging, making for no excessive waste with each cup. And with the direction society seems to be moving, this eco-friendly point of parity could move Club Coffee directly to the top of the ladder.

All facts referenced from the above link.

In Kimberly’s post, which can be found here, she makes some very valid points on why Target has failed in Canada. In my opinion, Target was doomed from the start. Growing up in Campbell River, a town of 30 000 on the island, we had always had a Zellers in one of our main shopping compounds. Now, anytime you went into Zellers you would see approximately 10 other people in the entire store at a time, staff included. Typically people would shop there only as a last resort, as the whole vibe the store gave off was just depressing. Then one day, it was gone. And guess what moved in… Target buying the Zellers location was big news in CR, and many people were very excited to have this big American retailer entering our little town. However, I was sceptical. Who said that this new Target was going to be any different that the old Zellers? What made Target so special in comparison?

Fast forward to this past Summer, when I was working at Moxie’s in the same plaza as our glorious new Target. I went inside on my breaks occasionally (because they have really good trail mix), and just like good old Zellers, I saw maybe 10 people, tops. Some people wonder what went wrong with Target, but I just wonder why anyone thought it was a good idea in the first place. Replacing one failed “super” store like Zellers with another practically identical store just does not make sense to me. Just because it is a big American company does not mean that it will offer anything more desirable to Canadian consumers… besides trail mix.

It is no secret that Lush Cosmetics has made it their mission to create natural, pure, animal cruelty free products that allows customers to feel good about their purchases from the company. However, Lush has gotten into its own fair share of controversy, not over the treatment of animals, but the treatment of one single performance artist in the UK.

The details of Lush’s controversy can be viewed here, but the basic gist of it was the performance artist being subjected to force feeding, injections, and discomfort, just as animals that undergo testing in cosmetic labs are. Though Lush was perfectly reasonable in wanting to raise awareness for such an unjust issue, some are questioning whether or not putting a human through the same torture is really a justifiable way to do so. An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind, as they say.

On another note, Lush’s objective for putting on such a show can also be brought into question. Though it is true that the company believes in the just treatment of animals, the “human guinea pig” stunt could be seen as more of an advertisement for Lush Cosmetics, rather than a true bid for fair treatment of animals. And when put into that perspective, mistreating a human being in order to get people to buy “ethical” products seems quite ironic, don’t you think?