During the 1970’s, in efforts to try and slow down China’s rapidly growing population, the government implemented the one child policy rule. On October 29^th of this year, China’s one child policy was dropped to allow married couples to have two children. The main factors being that China is currently facing: a labor shortage, an aging society and an economic slowdown. In an effort to spark a baby boom and save the aging and declining workforce, the Chinese government has changed its policies. At the rate China is currently going, there are simply not enough workers to push the economy forward into the future.

 

In the past, those caught having more than one child had to endure forced abortions and sterilizations, ridiculous fines and
possibly the demolition of homes. With the ability to now have two children, many see this as the government giving the public more freedom, and in turn they should feel triumph and relief. For example, Bob McTeer comments in his blog that the whether or not the policy effect the economy “misses the more important point that a big dose of freedom has been granted”.

 

In my opinion, this is simply an act by the Chinese Communist Party to manipulate the public to allow them to remain in power. The fact of the matter is that there should be no restrictions on how many children the Chinese people want to have. There is not really full freedom granted if there are still restrictions on freedoms such as the number of children to have.  In addition, I do not feel this is the correct solution to changing the current situation in China. The Chinese economy is in a state of economic decline, and as a result having children is the last thing on people’s minds. The costs behind having and supporting a child are extremely high, especially for the working class (the people the Chinese government are trying to target by changing this policy). I feel the first solution to the problem is to fix the economy, and get it to a stable state, then they can start to convince the public to have more children.

 

External Sources:

http://www.cnn.com/2015/10/29/china/china-one-child-policy-ends-mckenzie/index.html 

TOMS is a world known shoe company famous for its unique look and its “one for one” business model. For every pair of shoes purchased, TOMS donates a pair to someone in need. Some believe this plan unintentionally causes harm as it tries to do good, as it can hurt local businesses and may not address the deeper causes of poverty.

 

Personally, I agree with and support TOMS “one for one” business model because I believe no matter what, they are creating a social impact. It doesn’t matter whether or not these people they are helping become dependant or not, what I personally believe makes a huge impact to an individual’s life is knowing that someone cares about you, that they know they are worth something. For example, giving someone in need a pair of shoes can help them avoid soil-transmitted diseases and cuts and sores that may become infected, or  go to school in areas where children are not allowed to attend barefoot. TOMS states that their actions “help address need and advance health, education and economic opportunity for children and their communities around the world”.

 

In my opinion, the thought and idea behind their “one for one” business model was originally an idea with good intentions which eventually turned into a business model. After undergoing criticism, they have improved their business model by giving different types of shoes based on terrain and season, or by creating local jobs by producing shoes in countries where they give. By doing this, they are no longer taking jobs away from local business, but in contrast allows them to flourish. The intentions behind the business model are good, and have shown other companies this model can be profitable. They have also demonstrated and shown to the world that they care about more than just their sales, they care for the greater good of many different communities. 

 

External Sources:

http://www.toms.com/corporate-responsibility 

http://knowledge.wharton.upenn.edu/article/one-one-business-model-social-impact-avoiding-unintended-consequences/

 

 

          This spring, Playboy has announced they will stop the publishing of nude photos, as part of a plan to redesign their company. With the easy accessibility of internet pornography, the images that Playboy provides have now become “passé”, as according to CEO Scott Flanders. Playboy is simply rebranding to keep up with its competitors. In August, their website stopped the publishing of nude images, and as a result their viewers expanded from 4 million to 16 million, a 400% increase. Opinions range from those who question the move, to others feeling change can be a good thing. The company itself notes that it may be a risk to go “non nude”, after all, “if you take nudity out, what’s left?”

Like Hafu and Eileen‘s posts on Playboy to end publishing nudes, I agree that this change in rebranding is overall a good business move, as it shows Playboy is able to keep up with changing times and advances in technology. Playboy is up against the internet, and it simply cannot compete against such a great force. It shows they really understand and have a grasp on their competitors, and know what they need to do to stand out. In addition, I feel this redesign in the company will appeal to new readers, and potentially could be of greater interest to women. Although the perception of what Playboy is will never change, they have used their reputation to implement what I believe to be a positive change.

Blogs Referenced:

http://blogs.ubc.ca/eileenli/2015/10/26/36/ 

http://blogs.ubc.ca/hafu/

External Sources:

http://ca.complex.com/pop-culture/2015/10/playboy-stops-publishing-nudes-photos 

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/playboy-stop-publishing-nudes_561c736fe4b028dd7ea4ef61 

http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/2015/10/13/playboy-magazine-nude-pictures-internet-porn/73856022/ 

Sophia D’Aguiar recently wrote a blogpost commenting on Chipotle previously being in the news about dropping a pork vendor after finding out the supplier failed to keep up with Chipotle’s “high” standards for animal welfare. Chipotle boasts about having “responsibly” raised standards for their pork, in which pigs are raised with access to the outdoors or deeply bedded barns without the use of antibiotics. As a result, 1/3 of Chipotle’s outlets stopped serving pork for a couple months, but this “carnitas crisis” has now been resolved.

Sophia commented on this news story stating, “with customers becoming increasingly aware of animal-welfare and increasingly interested in which of their favorite restaurants respect the animals, it is important for companies like Chipotle to maintain a strict policy.” Personally, I feel that it is incorrect to say that companies such as Chipotle “respect” the animals. If you respect animals, you simply would not eat them. What difference does it really make to the animals if they are going to be killed anyways? Yes, it makes a difference to the quality of the pork that humans consume, but  it does not make a difference to the wellbeing of the creatures. Chipotle states on their website that they have the standards they have and do what they do “for the animals”. This statement is completely contradictory as they are simply doing nothing for the animals, they are slaughtering them.

I have to agree that this is a step up in comparison to the way animals are treated in other fast food industries, but still in my opinion does not have anything to do with the respect of animals.

External sources:

http://blogs.ubc.ca/sdaguiar/2015/10/04/chipotle-and-the-fight-to-maintain-ethical-standards/ 

http://fortune.com/2015/09/28/chipotle-carnitasreturn/ 

http://chipotle.com/carnitas

http://money.cnn.com/2015/01/14/news/companies/chipotlecarnitas-pork/index.html?iid=EL

 

 

 

Barbie has just come out with a new ad, a video demonstrating what it would look like if girls are free to be who they want to be. Created in 1959, Barbie was Mattel’s best selling toy till 2011. This new ad for the campaign “Imagine the Possibilities” uses hidden cameras to capture people’s reactions to girls imagining what they want to become. This is a genius marketing strategy which rebrands and creates a new image for what has been known to be an extremely controversial toy. To some, Barbie is a symbol of female empowerment, to others a toy which reinforces gender stereotypes and an unrealistic body image. Barbie created a new brand identity, by changing how they were once perceived and combating them with today’s top social issues, in this case women’s empowerment.

Personally, I think this was a genius marketing strategy to try and alter the way people see Barbie dolls. They are dolls known for having unrealistic and perfect bodies, in addition to effecting body image, body satisfaction and of young girls. Whether or not this marketing strategy will be successful or not is up to the public’s opinion.

Growing up, my parents were against the idea of Barbie dolls, as they were opposed to the ideas of young girls believing these dolls were what they were supposed to one day become.  I feel that this was a great solution to try to tackle and combat their previous reputation, but for a lot of people including myself, I feel that their reputation has been tarnished, and in my mind whatever they do, they will always continue to represent unrealistic body image and female insecurities.

 

External Sources:

http://www.barbie.com/en-us/video/imagine-the-possibilitiesVIDEO LINK    http://firsttoknow.com/barbie-imagine-the-possibilities-video-revitalizes-iconic-character/