Look at this sentimentality. Closing the circle of life of my blog with my final post on the same topic as my first: Business Ethics. It’s incredible how a few short months can add such a wealth of perspective on this issue. While preparing for this post, I read an article that made reference to business ethics, in the sports world. Recently, players in all leagues are being fined sums of money as high as $25,000 for inappropriate online actions, such as tweets or pictures. I was able to draw a strong connection to a message that has been constantly preached to us during Comm 101: How to create a positive online profile. With the current progressive nature of the online community, more and more business is being done online. From meetings, to looking for employees, so much of the business world is being digitalized. For young adults, including myself, paving their way into the business world, there is no margin for error in creating a positive image online. Personally, I have learned just how important our online presence is, and how it is near impossible to hide what has already been put online. One of the intangible lessons I will be grateful for from Comm 101 is the lesson on online responsibility.

In the recent class focusing on entrepreneurship, it was brought up that Facebook made a 3 million dollar acquisition bid for Snapchat, which was turned down. Since then I’ve been thinking about the social app, when I found myself confused as to why Facebook would want to buy out a company that makes no money. I did some research and found a few blogs that weigh in on the issue. It seems that Snapchat is valued so high because of the high volume it serves. In a Washington Post blog post, it is said that Snapchat serves around 350 million “snaps” per day. Another aspect in which Snapchat as impressed many is it’s growth rate. As stated in a New York Times blog, the amount of “snaps” has almost doubled in a few short months, going from around 200 million in June of 2013 to 350 million in September.

So it’s really Snapchat’s captured audience that business see as a potential opportunity to earn revenues. If Snapchat can sustain a level of growth, companies see it as an advertising platform. Personally, I think that advertisements on Snapchat would jeopardize the success of the app. I think advertisements on Facebook and Twitter work because of the complexity of the service. There’s frequently a high level of stimulation (text, pictures, etc.) on every page, so advertisements would blend in seamlessly, even go unnoticed. For an app like Snapchat, where the service it offers is so minimal and simplistic, I think advertisements would create distractions and would upset the user. For 3 billion dollars, I think Facebook would have to have some tricks up their sleeve on how to monetize the app.

In this blog post I’ll be drawing some parallels and ideas from classmate Kerry Stanley’s blog post on an athlete at Nike. 

In her post, Kerry describes a low-profile athlete that was previously sponsored by Nike, but subsequently dropped. Nike has hundreds of sponsored athletes ranging across the globe in all domains of sport. While there are obvious benefits for the athletes (apparel, income, celebrity status), Nike can reap huge benefits of its own athletes successes.

Watching athletes act inappropriately during games and online via social media, I began to think of the SWOT tool we use so frequently in COMM 101. It seems as though for Nike, these athletes are as much a strength and opportunity to the company as they are a weakness and threat. Combining this idea with the recent lecture on organizational behaviour, how can Nike as an employer of these athlete employees keep them happy and motivated to perform well and act professionaly? With the huge influence large sports figures have, it would seem beneficial to Nike, and society as a whole to keep athletes’ behaviour appropriate. For Nike, it’s athletes are key to income, and shareholders will not invest if the company has a poor brand image based on players’ actions.

In this post, I’ll be linking some ideas found in classmate Emilie Gibeau’s post.

In Emilie’s post, she talks about the importance of being able to foster positive change in employees. As we learned in class, through the Zappos articles, and from Professor Van Jaarsveld, there are large benefits of creating a positive organizational culture. Benefits that we looked at were increased productivity, happier office atmosphere, and heightened customer satisfaction. Another important aspect of fostering positive change and positive organizational culture is reducing costs for a firm, and thus increasing profits. As stated in this online article by Nicole Fink: “The Gallup Organization estimates that there are 22 million actively disengaged employees costing the American economy as much as $350 billion dollars per year in lost productivity including absenteeism, illness, and other problems that result when employees are unhappy at work” (Fink). If all it took to save a country’s economy 350 billion dollars was a more actively engaged employee with a positive workspace, I’ll bet it would be the number one initiative on every CEO’s to-do list.

Works Cited

Fink, Nicole. “The High Cost of Low Morale: How to Address Low Morale in the Workplace through Servant Leadership.” The Learning Edge. MSL Program, n.d. Web. 13 Nov. 2013.

Recently I came across a few articles about Houston Texans’ running back Arian Foster, a pro-bowler and integral instrument in the franchise’s offense, selling 20% of his future income in exchange for 10 Million dollars to Fantex, Inc. Fantex will then create shares of Arian Foster, and will offer his future incomes as a publicly traded asset. While he will not be listed in one of the major “playgrounds” that we learned about in class, NASDAQ or NYSE, Fantex has discussed this opportunity with the United States Securities and Exchange Commission. The IPO for one share of Arian Foster’s future incomes is $10/share with 1,055,000 shares being initially offered. This is a very interesting business opportunity, as investing in professional athletes could no doubt interest the large market of sports fans across not only North America, but the entire world. Shareholders would receive dividends from the stock from the different methods in which Foster creates income for himself. These include new contracts, sponsorships, as well as public speaking and cameo appearances in television and movies. While interesting, Arian Foster and his future incomes are in no way a “Blue Chip” company, and the risk of investing is very high. Fantex has outlined these risks of investing on their website. Risks such as on-field performance, off-field behaviour, and of course age and injuries could all limit Foster’s ability to create income. Of course, the risks could come with high rewards. Imagine for a moment that you had invested in Michael Jordan after his rookie season…There are big dividends to be earned. Fantex announced plans with San Francisco 49ers’ tight end Vernon Davis for a similar IPO.

http://vimeo.com/77062399

(Arian Foster’s Brand Video)

Works Cited

“Fantex Arian Foster.” Fantex Brokerage Services. Fantex, Inc. 17 Oct. 2013. Web. 7 Nov. 2013

“Fantex Arian Foster Brand Video.” Dir. Fantex Brands. Perf. Arian Foster. Fantex, Inc. 2013. Film.

Heitner, Darren. “Will You Soon Be Able To Buy Stock In Arian Foster?” Forbes. Forbes, 17 Oct. 2013. Web. 7 Nov. 2013.

Kim, Susanna. “What Will Happen to Houston Texan Arian Foster’s IPO After His Back Injury?” ABCNews. ABC, 4 Nov. 2013. Web. 7 Nov. 2013.

Earlier in the year, we discussed how there are some investors who may shy away from investing in Twitter because of a lack of “real” information in their IPO. However, investors are desperately seeking out opportunities to invest in Pinterest, which has made no money at all!

Why is this?

One possible reason why investors like Pinterest so much, is that it provides primary research for a business, essentially without the business having to conduct any research of its own! On Pinterest, users “pin” items that they like to they’re board, and from there, business can directly see which product users like, and which ones they don’t like. This would be a great way to see which products consumers are interested in buying, and would also help in creating an awareness about the business in question. Of course, along with any online site that basically sells your information to businesses, comes the sacrifice of privacy. In this case however, I think that it would be benefitting both the consumer and the business. From the business perspective, they are able to clearly see what products of theirs are liked by users from certain demographics, and for consumers, they are able to reach a wide array of products that they may not have otherwise known of.

Works Cited

Brustein, Joshua. “Why Investors Love Pinterest so Much.” BloombergBusinessweekTechnology. Bloomberg L.P., 24 Oct. 2013. Web. 24 Oct. 2013.

Not a Distribution Channel, or a Marketing Channel, but a television channel for Netflix.

Virgin Media, Inc., which provides television services in the United Kingdom, has agreed to a deal with Netflix to put the content-streaming company on their cable-box sets. Essentially, they are creating Netflix as a cable company. When this was reported, Netflix shares were trading at an all time high of $313, up a substantial amount from their previous high of $304 (Boorstin).

As I was reading this, the potential for Netflix to be featured as a “cable company” from other service providers around the world proposed an interesting question. Is Netflix no longer an internet-streaming company, or are they now a cable company that has the added benefit of being able to stream content online? If the latter turns to be true in the future as partnerships increase, it would potentially be a huge Point of Difference from other cable companies. Traditionally, NBC, TSN, Global, etc., have only been offered as television-based networks being provided to a consumer from a television service company. For example, here in Vancouver, Shaw and Telus are two examples of companies that provide the television service, while TSN and Global are the companies providing the content. With the added potential ability for Netflix subscribers to stream both original and third-party content both online and on a television set, Netflix’s subscriber base could see a huge increase. If this is the preferred direction of Netflix, it will be interesting to see how competing cable-companies will differentiate themselves from Netflix in attempts to still be relevant services.

Works Cited:

Boorstin, Julia. “Why Netflix is at a New All-Time High.” CNBC. NBCUniversal, 11 Sept. 2013. Web. 17 Oct. 2013.

$80, 000, 000.00

That’s how much money Floyd “Money” Mayweather is projected to earn from his ONE fight with Saul Alvarez. They don’t call him “Money” for no reason (Badenhausen).

$48,410

That was the yearly salary on average for a teacher in British Columbia in 2011 (British).

Every minute he fought Alvarez, Mayweather earned $2+ million. It would take the teacher about 41 years to do the same.

Obviously, these numbers are at the extreme end of the spectrum, but they are none the less true. Professional athletes are being paid a ridiculous amount, an amount that could be spent on bettering a country’s economy, providing more social welfare, reducing taxes…the list goes on, but it’s clear that all the money being poured into the sports industry could become a serious issue.

In a country where one of the largest platforms of every presidential candidate is what they will do to revive the economy, America is overpaying hundreds of athletes. While large companies are laying off workers, quarterback’s are making millions per year for tossing around the ‘ol pigskin. I’m not certain as to what methods of improvement could be instituted for the government, but it appears that there is just too much money tied up in one person, when an entire country is collapsing.

Being objective, not all athletes earn top dollar, however, all professional athletes have sacrificed essentially their entire life to the game they love just to make it to “the show.” The sports industry also generates huge revenues every year, and from team water-boys to stadium concession workers, many jobs are necessary to power one of the biggest entertainment industries in the world.

Even without sponsorships and signing bonuses, whether athletes earn too much money is hard to say with certainty. The provide a limited service, but at a very top dollar. While nothing is set in stone for the future, I would like to predict some sort of drop off in yearly salaries for athletes, with the money hopefully being reallocated to a more worthy cause.

Works Cited:

Badenhausen, Kurt. “Floyd Mayweather Will Earn More Than $80 Million For Record Breaking Fight.” Forbes. Forbes. 14 Sept. 2013. Web. 07 Oct. 2013

British Columbia Public School Employer’s Association. “Teacher Compensation 2011 Context and Considerations.” BCSPEA. BCSPEA. Apr. 2011. Web. 07 Oct. 2013

Red Bull Media House, a media-oriented segment of the Red Bull franchise, has signed TV deal with Fox Sports from 2014 through to 2016. Fox Sports has aquired the broadcasting rights to four major sports events that Red Bull is affiliated with: Crashed Ice, X-Fighters, Cliff Diving, and Air Race. Fox Sports’ FS1 and FS2 networks allow Fox to have 48 hours of programming per day, and Michael Bloom, Senior VP of original programming at Fox, said, “This is something we’ve had our eye on for a while” (Mickle).

(Red Bull Crashed Ice in Munich, 2010)

This is a huge partnership, as one of the largest television networks in America partners with the largest energy drink in the world. For both companies, this can be considered a huge win. Red Bull will generate increased awareness and interest in their product, as they are able to take advantage of Fox Sports’ massive audience. In addition, Fox Sports is able to double their programming per day, and include exciting and entertaining content that consumers will enjoy.

After completing the SWOT analysis of Monster Energy, I was very interested in this article. It could potentially be hard for Monster to find a partnership of their own to compete with Red Bull, although NBC Sports was the previous network to feature Red Bull’s events and may now be looking for a similar product to fill the void. It will be interesting to see how Monster handles this huge partnership, and what moves they will make moving forward to stay competitive.

Works Cited:

Mickle, Tripp. “Fox Deal a Milestone for Red Bull.” SportsBusinessDaily. Street and Smith’s Sports Group. 07 Oct. 2013. Web. 07 Oct. 2013

“For us, then, this is an evolution, not a revolution—an elevation, not a revelation. And this is just the next step in our ongoing journey.” – Muhtar Kent

Muhtar Kent, the Chairman and CEO of The Coca-Cola Company, has committed his establishment to promoting healthier decisions and fighting obesity. In the article, written by Kent himself, he proposes four key points in accomplishing his goal. These points are:  designs to give customers a lower calorie option, provide nutritional information on their packages, promote physical activities in the countries they serve, and possibly the most significant, market responsibly by not targeting advertisements to children under the age of 12 (Kent). Most of these changes would not jeopardize the company’s opportunity to create income, if anything the varying calorie levels in Coke products would attract business, as customers looking for lower calorie level beverages from other brands would no longer need to. However, by not targeting children under the age of 12 as potential consumers, a large market could possibly be lost. For example, the eight-year-old boy who watches a Coca-Cola advertisement on television, and then orders a Coke the next time he’s at McDonalds, might order a milk, or maybe water. As a generalization, children are often easily persuaded and convinced by marketing strategies, which makes targeting that demographic specifically appealing. However, this is not necessarily an ethical way to conduct business. The old saying: “It’s like taking candy from a baby” is applicable in this situation, as children are not aware of the consequences that sugary drinks impose, and for major corporations to “take” their business because children are as vulnerable as “a baby” would not be seen as ethical according to a modern society. This initiative from The Coca-Cola Company is a direct approach at them attempting to be a responsible company in their society. From Kent’s perspective, although possibly losing sales, child-obesity is a problem in society that requires a solution to not only be proposed, but executed. As stated in the chapter entitled “The Social Responsibility of Business is to Increase Its Profits,” Milton Friedman writes, ” The difficulty of exercising “social responsibility” illustrates, of course, the great virtue of private competitive enterprise – it forces people to be responsible for their own actions and makes it difficult for them to “exploit” other people for either selfish or unselfish purposes. They can do good – but only at their own expense” (Friedman). For Kent, the expense of possible revenue is outweighed by helping the global community. Personally, I believe that this ethical decision made by the company will prove to benefit them in the future, as it provides positive stigma to the brand name, and could possibly influence more health-aware consumers to purchase from their company.

Works Cited:

Friedman, Milton. “The Social Responsibility of Business is to Increase Its Profits.” Corporate Ethics and Corporate Governance. By Walther Ch. Zimmerli, Klaus Richter, and Markus Holzinger.  Berlin/Heidelberg: Springer, 2007. 177. Site.ebrary.com: The University of British Columbia Library. Web. 11 Sep. 2013.

Kent, Muhtar. “Coke CEO on Glabal Well-Being Commitments.” Coca-Cola Company. The Coca-Cola Company, 8 May 2013. Web. 11 Sep. 2013