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

While it is true that a fully funded United Nations would likely be beneficial to various developing countries around the world, social enterprise is a different sort of initiative with effects that differ from the politics of the United Nations. One would hope that an action benefitting one member of the United Nations would benefit another, but the social enterprise is specifically oriented to that purpose. It serves to bring social change as well as profit to businesses and communities in developing countries and oftentimes also generates positive social and financial change in a developed world country simultaneously. Politics between countries are certainly a factor in social enterprises and economics play a large part in UN decisions, but UN funding is oftentimes well directed in dealing with political issues and social enterprise is a mutually beneficial symbiosis between citizens of countries that serve to create bonds not associated with the government as much as with the people themselves. As well, the face of business is changing so that social enterprises are becoming more popular and demanded by the public, as well as useful to the communities they exist in. More and more, companies need to also present some sort of environmental or social value so the social enterprise is an endeavour that serves both working parties as well as the public better than a change enacted by the government and the UN could.

In short: the social enterprise is a mutually beneficial project that serves the public and both business partners and raises profit and productivity where it exists, instead of draining money and efforts from the UN. That difference in method and purpose makes the social enterprise a more efficient way of improving economics and building bonds between regular citizens, and leaves political efforts to the better suited UN.

Now, to tie this into what I’ve learned in Commerce 101, I actually feel inclined to go beyond the class material and into the practical skills acquired from working in groups. Entering Sauder, I feel/felt as though a lot of the interactions between us are rooted in competition. We want to do better than the person sitting beside us because the higher we rank, the better our opportunities are upon leaving school. This competition manifests most easily in independent assignments. When I work alone I have total control over the project and that has its benefits. There is no time wasted on disputes, I can place emphasis on what I think is important, and the project will turn out the way I want it to.
That being said, I have come to prefer group work immensely. Being able to generate and discuss ideas with my peers allows us four times the creativity and innovation. For everything I can learn from reading a book and working on my ideas by myself, I feel as though I can learn so much more by being a part of something bigger. When we meet to discuss the projects, we respect each other and recognize that no matter how great our own ideas are, we always have something to learn from someone else in that room. As well, our differing personalities and skill sets compliment each others so that every task has someone fitted for it. That cooperation, that respect, trust, and the awareness that we are all working to the same goal drives the way we treat each other and the result is a positive environment where discussion is open and everyone’s opinion is of value. I believe that when we work together we as a whole are greater than the sum of our parts.

Commerce 101 has taught me that people and businesses are not so different. Of course I recognize that within a company, I will be doing plenty of group work and hopefully the respect and desire to learn from each other will stay, but I hope it expands beyond that to include other companies in the name of coopetition. It’s easier to reach the top when you don’t have to go it alone.

A response to an external blog link found here.

Coopetition means exchanging ideas and getting ahead with, not of, the competition.

No classically liberal economist or savvy business person will argue the importance of competition in global, national, or local business. The economy thrives on new innovations, differentiations, cost cutting strategies, means of operation – anything that will let a company get ahead and a consumer buy better for a lower price. Business need competition as motivation to keep pushing the boundaries and breaking through limits.

However, this blog post takes the idea of businesses benefiting from competition with each other to a different, albeit friendlier level. A company’s point of differentiation is its selling point, but that differentiation often leaves room for improvement in some other area. By cooperating with the companies that pose a threat, it allows the business to not only reduce that danger, but fill in the spaces its value proposition has left, thus targeting a broader audience with a better service.
Of course there are risks associated with working with a rival, but each successful business has a something to teach and something to learn and being willing to exchange this information could lead to broader scope for both companies.

His blog post can be found here.

It is generally recognized that Apple has changed in the last few years, something companies are wont to do following the death of the CEO. As Adam points out, it’s hard to keep innovation when the great mind behind it is no longer in the picture.

However, companies are not set in stone. As Ries and Trout would agree, a company needs a position, a point of differentiation if they hope to attract business. According to Porter’s generic strategies, (and as implied by Adam Sibbald) Apple has been very much recognized as using a differentiation strategy, with the target audience being whoever is willing and able to buy an Apple product.

Its cutting edge technology has certainly made it a brand worth notice, but for a company to keep its original image throughout the duration of its lifespan is difficult and in fact, if a company never changes that is almost definitely why it ended. Apple is traditionally disruptively innovative and yes, it comes as a disappointment to the public that Apple no longer seems to be pumping out new, incredible gadgets. But it should also be noted that quite a few of Apple’s products have seemed similar to previously seen technologies, so its originality is questionable in the first place. Now might be the time to offer updates and make Apple products more available to a wider market anyway. Despite whatever harsh criticism, Apple remains an unquestionably strong brand name and if the current strategy means shifting so that more people can buy in, that’s respectable. It might even let them stay on top.

Article found here.

Our classes on innovation and entrepreneurship, and CSR and the social enterprise provided a welcome perspective on the emerging importance of meaning and originality in the modern world. Still, I believe it was the alumni day that brought it together for me and reading this article, I see things in the business and in the person behind it that I might have previously overlooked.

Nicole Bridger’s story reminded me of Jenny Duffy: business students who used a practical degree to turn a dream into reality. What’s more, it’s clear that their motivation is passion for what they do and what they stand for, and that lets them give back to society in a meaningful way. They’ve turned a career into a vocation.

The How To for social enterprise.

My last blog entry highlighted the dangers of playing it safe. This example shows the reward that comes from risk. While untouched bank accounts stagnate the German economy, investing time, money, and passion into worthwhile causes creates positive flow in the economy, society, and self. Bridger’s experience also reminded me of Nolan Watson’s, in that they both sought experience first and that allowed them the ability to successfully manage their own start up. Business, and especially business with meaning (which is quickly becoming recognized as arguably the best kind) requires the desire to learn, the ability to take risks, some experience, some practicality, and a lot of passion and purpose. That, more than anything, is what I’ve learned.

Article found here

What’s the time value of money? It varies depending on interest rates, sometimes high, sometimes low, and sometimes, apparently, negative.

It’s not news that the European economy has been slow for some time, but Germany’s lack of spending and cautious tendencies regarding savings has caused Deutsche Skatbank to introduce negative interest as a means of generating cash flow out of the bank account and into the economy. Put into the context of our financial accounting class, it seems that a few of the higher class citizens are walking around with oxygen tanks in an environment where it is not needed.

The pressure to generate riskier behaviour reflects Germany’s cultural tendencies, which have presented themselves as an inherent problem and a possible indicator of what’s to come. The problems within the German economy could easily manifest on a larger, international scale where an aversion to risk and reward oriented behaviour could mean missed opportunities for not only Germany but it’s potential trading partners. Perhaps the caution is an important and notable cultural aspect, but it also seems to currently be doing more harm than good.

The recession gains speed.

The idea behind this negative interest rate is to have Germany see the time value of money measured in other investments than a simple savings account. While safety is important and oftentimes tempting, there is also value to be found in other means of investment, such as bonds, stocks, and property. As well, if the time value has become a negative number, choosing ‘safety’ only means guaranteeing loss.

This is a response to

Big Brother Marketing, blog post by Mark Graham.

Many find it alarming that so much of our personal information ends up in the hands of Google, available for sale to various third party organizations, calling it an invasion of privacy. Perhaps in ways it is, but it’s also undeniable that this new exchange of information has allowed for new communications between consumer and supplier to be more efficient than ever, and that might not be a bad thing. Yes, our information on our preferences is being sold but to what result? Hearing messages about things we might actually be interested in. Instead of the classic pebble throwing approach, marketing is quickly becoming something closer to a carefully thrown dart, reaching its specified target without wasting energy on those at the periphery.

While I am also concerned at the amount of information it seems necessary to give certain websites in order to access its features, with a certain sense of caution this buying and selling of information can prove extremely beneficial to all parties. We should pay attention to what information is being sold and what information we’re putting out in the first place, but I also believe it’s likely the company buying our information is more likely to use it to sell us a pair of shoes than to ruin our lives, and there’s nothing wrong with that. Marketing is the delivery of a message and this is a way to make sure the recipient wants to hear it.

http://thetyee.ca/Opinion/2014/07/26/Tsilhqotin-With-Gloves/

“Treat the earth well. It is borrowed from your children.” ~First Nations Proverb

In a globalized world of international business, companies and each of their members should make efforts to understand and respect the cultures over borders and oftentimes, they do. However, it can, on occasion, be easy to forget the interculturalism that exists within our borders, especially between Canada’s current citizens and its very first.

Tsilhqot’in protestors rally for their cause.

The recent legal victory of the Tsilhqot’in over control of their land and the prevention of logging, mining etc… is perhaps celebrated by all but the companies looking to conduct business in those lands and the government behind them. It would seem that in our modern day and age, the original vision of Canada has become lost. As a young nation, it’s true that our greatest exports are oftentimes the natural resources we find in plenty because the First Nations kept them sustainable. However, with the exploitation of these resources and the imposition on both First Nations land and values that dates back to the days our country was first settled, current sustainability becomes questionable. While the preservation of this land is a victory for the Aboriginals, it will certainly cause a decline in the productivity of the Canadian mining/logging companies.
It is certain that in Canada, awareness and respect for Aboriginal nations should be considered a factor in business. Although historically, Aboriginal demands have generally been overruled, their values align and indeed, parent the original vision of Canada. Though being unable to access their land may eventually spell for trouble for a variety of Canadian businesses, perhaps these values should be considered from the start and become guidelines, rather than walls.

Something we should all remember.

Article here.

Ben and Jerry’s says no to GMO’s.

Ben and Jerry’s isn’t just about incredible ice cream. The company has reworked each of its flavours to ensure that they are not made from genetically modified ingredients. This only serves to further their reputation as a socially conscious producer, as the fair trade label has been firmly printed on each pint of ice cream for quite some time.

This recent movement has largely been in response to some criticism Ben and Jerry’s umbrella company Unilever received early for opposing laws to made for labelling GMO’s. This transition seems to be for both the good of the company and good of the world. Interestingly, Ben and Jerry’s original selling point and indeed, what it still may be known for, is the unique flavours it offers and especially, the unusually large chunks of flavouring found inside the ice cream. The ethical image may have started out as just the cherry on top, but with the fairtrade label and the vow to go non GMO, it seems to have become it’s own scoop.

In fact, the Ben and Jerry’s website, found here places Ben and Jerry’s business plan above its ice cream flavours and in general, website content seems to be tipped more towards its business model, social behaviour, and The Ben and Jerry’s Foundation which works to promote social and environmental justice around the country.

Ben and Jerry’s website front page.

I was initially unsure whether to relate this post back to our studies in ethics or marketing, but there’s a degree of comfort in realizing it’s both. Much in the way President’s choice is relaunching its image, there seems to be a trend in company’s working to promote themselves as socially conscious corporations. Ben and Jerry’s mission, regardless of motive, reaches far past a better image and into the realms of helping those who need it. Although Ben and Jerry’s mission statement does make it a unique company, if the current trend continues other company’s will follow suit a greater number may pursue fair trade and non GMO products. But for now, Ben and Jerry’s is a leader in a cleaner, more ethical corporate world and besides that, their ice cream is delicious.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8sePkwzs-3o

“Marketing 101: if you live in any major city, you see 800 ads a day. In most of them, models are going to be looking at you like they want to fuck you. You’re so used to this that you don’t even notice it. But your body does. Your heart rate increases, you pupils dilate, you breathe faster, you become more alert. You’ve been tapped. Looking at billboards is supposed to feel like love at first sight. But it’s not real love, it’s just marketing. And without that, you wouldn’t even know who you are.” ~Scat (Syrup 2013)

Syrup (2013) is a movie about marketing, how the corporation does it, how we do it, and the effect it has on all of us. Plot summary here.

As Trout and Ries stated, positioning and marketing is a battle for the mind. Scat’s initial idea is unique and his product becomes the essential first of its kind the market, aligning with Ries and Trout’s claim that the best way to get into the mind of the consumer is to be first. Its selling point is also very simple: it’s a drink called Fukk, appealing to the very image conscious consumer, and with a name that sticks (another point that Trout and Ries make). However, after defecting to the other cola company (essentially Pepsi) he creates a similar product which shouldn’t sell as well according to the basic rules of marketing. The first generally claims the majority of the market. However, he manages to overtake the original product by marketing the new one in a way that appeals directly to the emotions of consumers.

“The success of this product depends on people being shallow, superficial, self-obsessed, greedy, and desperate for attention. This is the American dream in a can.”

While one would hope this isn’t a 100% accurate reflection of our world, the movie does provide insights into the world of marketing and what we’re really buying when we make a purchase. Scat is asked a few times what the drink tastes like, but he points out it doesn’t matter. When people buy the product, they’re not buying it because they love the taste. They’re buying a status symbol, something that makes them feel good about themselves, something the corporation has attached a price to beyond the worth of the syrup in the can. Filling those wants, the ones that surpass the physical need for caffeine or to quench thirst, is the real job that the consumers have hired the company to do. Their value proposition is not the drink. It’s the emotions behind it. More than they’re buying an energy drink, the customers are buying an image. That’s marketing.