Monthly Archives: October 2014

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.