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.