Jeremy So's Blog

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

The United Nations is a large organization created to promote international cooperation. This entity is designed for tackling large international issues. Indeed, their funds are needed and justified. So, what’s the point of the Arc or social enterprise?

The Arc Initiative

Think global and act local, this is a core principle of the Arc initiative, and many social entrepreneurs. While the United Nations deals with issues around the world, these issues are often large problems that require the full and immediate attention of the United Nations. This leaves little room for the United Nations to support smaller communities in developing countries.

This is where social enterprise and the Arc come to play. Using a method known as micro financing, social enterprise can promote micro economies in communities where banking, among other things, never existed. The Arc works at the local level as well, facilitating an exchange of knowledge and skills. Aiding communities in South Africa, Ethiopia, Colombia, and Rwanda, the Arc is building a brighter future by building the stepping stones for economic well-being in these countries. With programs teaching leadership and business skills, the Arc is creating entrepreneurs of the future.

Community in Ethiopia helped by the Arc Initiative

I believe the Arc to be an excellent idea. Lack of education is often the factor that plagues developing countries with poor economies, and thus, a poor living standard. By starting at the roots and creating skilled and educated business leaders, these communities may begin to flourish, and perhaps, we may see a future where these countries do as well.

Image sources:

https://blogs.ubc.ca/amnamasud/2013/11/14/arc-initiative/
http://www.sauder.ubc.ca/Global_Reach/ARC_Initiative/Locations/Ethiopia

After reading Logan Presch’s blog on HR, two things come to mind: that’s an interesting point and I disagree. Logan wrote about an article suggesting that HR should be eliminated as a factor for business decisions. He agrees with the article, stating that optimal business performance can only be attained if HR and employee satisfaction are not factors in external business decisions. In my opinion, this couldn’t be farther from the truth.

Happy Zappo Employees Lead to Happy Customers

A business is only as good as its workers. HR and employee satisfaction are very important to a business’ success. A prime example is Zappo, which we examined in class 19. It prides itself and thrives on treating the employees well. While Logan acknowledges this, he believes that manufacturing firms (unlike customer service based companies like Zappo) should ignore HR in external business decisions. However, I see manufacturing firms as requiring HR in external decisions just as much as customer service based companies.

Even if a firm’s responsibility is to maximizing its profits, HR still need be considered in external decisions. Consider the investment made in the workers and their performance on the job. External decisions, like it or not, will affect employees. HR is crucial in this sense. Again, a business is only as good as its workers. Without the consideration of HR in external decisions, companies will suffer. Manufacturing companies are no exception.

For Logan’s original blog post, see this link.

Image source: http://archive.fortune.com/magazines/fortune/best-companies/2013/snapshots/31.html

Daniel Starr’s blog “Corporate Crime & Harper’s Government” discusses an article about Prime Minister Harper’s regulations on companies trying to do business with Canada. He believes, as does the author of the article, that Harper’s restrictions on contracts with companies are too strict. Such “strict” rules include not initiating contracts with businesses that have been convicted of serious crimes anywhere in the world. While it may seem unfair, I believe it is necessary for the government to set such rules and laws.

PM Harper Shows his Softer Side

I used to favour a more laissez-faire approach to the market, similar to that of Hong Kong’s government system. Indeed, Hong Kong has seen significant economic growth in the last couple of decades. However, success should not merely be measured economically. Social responsibility and social growth are also essential in any society. It is difficult to give such a task to businesses, as their focus and skills lie with profit maximization. Where should the onus of social responsibility fall? The government, as it is also their job to ensure that the general public’s interests are met, on top of keeping organization and structure of its society.

In this situation, where Daniel argues that many may suffer from the illegal/unethical actions of a few, it is also true that many may benefit from the illegal/unethical actions of a few. Thus, that argument does not justify milder regulations with these companies. Yes, these laws may be strict on these companies, but it also does its job as a deterrence. As the rule setters ensuring the public’s general interests, sometimes the government has to show tough love.

For Daniel’s original blog post, click here.

Image source: http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/rachel-decoste/harper-seven-years_b_2539322.html

According to this article, it is important for business owners to “talk money” with stakeholders, including suppliers, customers, and employees. The three main reasons are it shows confidence, it shows you have listened, and it’s a win-win.

Talking Money

Just like for business owners, I believe that this philosophy extends to all aspects of business. As I have come to learn, at least a general understanding of other fields other than your own is essential to becoming a successful and thoughtful person in any area of business. In other words, an accountant should be able to “talk marketing” and a person in marketing should be able to “talk operations”. While other fields may not interest you as much, it is important to have an understanding of them for a broader view of the business world and to be able to acknowledge and respect other perspectives (though agreement is not necessary). Even beyond business, it is important to understand what you are working with. For example, an entrepreneur in the gaming industry should be able to “talk coding”.

Above all, knowledge shows understanding and respect. Not just for others, but also for the business. The philosophy “it’s your business” requires knowledge and appreciation of one’s work and work environment, and benefits both the person and the business, regardless of whether the person is the owner or an employee.

For original article, click here.

Image source: http://valueofsimple.com/daily-money-manager-hand-guide/

After years of declining sales, Pizza Hut has taken the initiative to completely remodel itself. “So when you think of Pizza Hut, you think of a chain that has taken, essentially, a giant pizza, thrown a bunch of stuff on it, thrown it up in the air, it’s falling down, and they’re hoping it falls right side up.” According to marketing reporter Bruce Horovitz, that is Pizza Hut’s current situation.

New Pizza Hut Logo

Indeed that is the case. Trying to appeal to the younger consumers, Pizza Hut is now moving towards a restaurant where one can order and customize their pizza in numerous ways. With an additional eleven new recipes, ten new crusts, six new sauces, five new toppings, four new flavours, Pizza Hut is going all in. There’s more. With a new logo, new uniforms, and a new pizza box, it’s fun, it’s new, but most importantly (with all their chips in the pot), it needs to work.

Evaluating their business with the business model canvas, we can see that their revenue streams have been suffering sales declines for eight consecutive quarters. Pizza Hut has already found the biggest root to this issue, its value proposition. Now, it is attempting to change the outlook of its brand. However, is their method the best way to tackle this situation?

No. Instead, I agree with Darren Tristano (executive vice president at Technomic), and suggest a gradual approach with smaller changes over time. Such drastic changes, though targeting the younger consumers and making Pizza Hut seem more “hip” and “fun”, may also be overwhelming for customers, especially the chain’s loyal customers which Pizza Hut does not want to lose.

For original article, click here.

Image source: http://www.indiaprwire.com/pressrelease/food/2011021878191.htm

Technology enthusiasts everywhere are talking about the Oculus Rift, a headset that could soon make the virtual reality experience a reality. This could revolutionize the gaming industry, if not everyday life.

Oculus Rift

Though not completely aligned with Clayton Christensen’s definition of disruptive innovation, the Oculus Rift is certainly a form of it. Samsung recognizes this, and has already cooperated with Oculus to form the Samsung Gear VR. Some businesses, especially those that provide platforms for gaming (such as Sony and their PS3), may view the Rift as an impractical, expensive, and unnecessary innovation. I disagree, even though it has not yet been put to the test on the market. In the not too distant future, I predict the companies not incorporating virtual gaming into their product line will be left behind, seeing a fate similar to that of Blackberry’s.

Zeiss’ VR One

Some people, such as Carl Zeiss, see an opportunity with the Oculus Rift. Rather than cooperating with Oculus like Samsung, Carl Zeiss has formed his own virtual reality product, the VR One. Though nothing is set in stone, Zeiss’ VR One is predicted to have a slightly worse quality than the Rift and not support larger mobile devices. However, the VR One is also cheaper and supports a larger range of the smaller mobile devices. In every sense of Christensen’s definition, the VR One is a disruptive innovation of a disruptive innovation, and could very well outdo its Samsung and Oculus counterparts in the later stages of the virtual reality era if left unanswered.

For the original article, see this link.

Image sources:

http://www.forbes.com/sites/erikkain/2014/03/25/microsoft-should-have-acquired-oculus-rift-not-facebook/

http://www.wired.com/2014/10/carl-zeiss-vr-headset/

Based on the PESTEL analysis, used to analyze macro-environmental factors, the focus of this post will be on the political and environmental factors surrounding the Northern Gateway Pipeline, a hot topic involving Aboriginal contention to Enbridge’s pipeline.

Enbridge (Photo Credits: INGAA)

From a political standpoint, though Enbridge has received the support (or neutrality) from many Aboriginal groups directly affected by the pipeline (about 40% of the B.C. Aboriginal groups have signed deals to take a financial cut from the project), there is still enough opposition to stop the deal from going through. One group for example, the Nak’ azdli, are concerned about the possible environmental repercussions. To address these issues, Enbridge should have ongoing discussions with these groups to find a compromise (such as larger financial stakes, or greater investment in the pipeline’s integrity), which happens to be exactly the course of action they are currently taking.

Aboriginal Protest against the Enbridge Pipeline (Photo Credits: Financial Post)

Oil pipelines will always spark environmental concern due to the risks associated with them. Therefore, necessary precautions should be taken to ensure their integrity. Currently, the Northern Gateway project is quite safe, with minimal chance of disaster. According to Enbridge, the likelihood of a major rupture in B.C. is 1 in 1566 years, and for a “pinhole” leak is 1 in 79 years. As well, improvements may also be made in the future from the ongoing discussions with Aboriginal groups that are still reluctant.

Given all the right steps that Enbridge is taking to address Aboriginal and environmental concerns, it is difficult to see a future without the Northern Gateway Pipeline in existence, though only time can tell.

For the original article, see this link.

I found Chris Brogan’s blog titled “Find Intensity” very interesting and relatable. He describes what intensity really is, and the difference between doing, and doing with intensity. Included is also a video of the famous body builder and inspirational speaker CT Fletcher.

Chris explains how the realization of intensity, and performing with it, can change things for the better. He emphasizes two things in particular: stick to the plan and work with intensity. How does this relate to me and business?

I am a wrestler. Wrestling is the most intense sport both physically and mentally. Wrestlers understand toughness, the grind, and pain, but above all, wrestlers know intensity. The training is unlike anything else, and just as Chris put it, you don’t know it until you’ve done it. Rather than a sport, most wrestlers identify wrestling as a lifestyle. The dietary changes to keep a minimal body fat percentage, the daily 6:00am jogs, the weekly trips to the States for competition, and the weight cuts that can literally put you inches from death are just some examples of the lifestyle changes necessary to succeed in the sport. There is no fame. There is no million dollar contract. At the end of the day, it’s just you and your love of the sport.

Two Wrestlers Locked in an Intense Match

Wrestling has certainly taught me a lot about myself and made me a tougher person, but only after reading Chris’ blog do I realize the true nature of intensity. If you love something, intensity need not be forced. Rather, it should come naturally. This leads to dedication and passion, which in turn leads to success.

This is very applicable in the business world. Instead of focusing on the grades and getting my degree, I can work with intensity because I show up to class everyday eager to learn and better myself. And I don’t just mean from the books, but also from the people. And we see time after time, intensity and passion fosters success.

For the Chris’ blog post, click here.

Image source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wrestling

SeaWorld’s shares are, yet again, in massive decline. The decline is even more so than what analysts had predicted. This trend comes as no surprise to some. After CNN’s release of the film documentary “Blackfish” in 2013, a controversial documentary that revealed the questionable treatment of orcas, SeaWorld’s performance has been seeing a downward slope.

First off, let me say that I care about our earth and the treatment of humans, animals, and living things on it, however, I have always questioned if “Corporate Social Responsibility” made sense from a business perspective. I do believe that a firm’s responsibility should be to the maximization of profits. It does seem like there’s a dilemma in my beliefs (as social responsibility is not always a by-product of profit maximization).

People Protesting Seaworld’s Animal Cruelty

I used to believe that both of these ideals could magically work themselves out. Over the years, I have realized this is not always the case. Rather, my belief has now extended to something in between involving another party, the government, as the rule setters. This recognizes that firms are best at maximizing profits by meeting consumer demands (responsibility to shareholders and consumers), while the government is best at finding something in the public’s greatest interest (social responsibility to stakeholders and society).

What does this all mean and why does SeaWorld’s performance pleasantly surprise me? Well, the market is generally run by consumers voting with their dollars. It is commonly argued that companies have to take the charge with social responsibility. This is a fine pursuit, yet this always feels slightly artificial in a business sense. SeaWorld’s performance is truly when social responsibility meets profit maximization in the most natural sense. Consumers are dissatisfied with SeaWorld’s treatment of animals, they vote with their dollars, and SeaWorld suffers as a result and faces eventual bankruptcy if they do not change their ways (become socially responsible) to meet consumer wants.

When consumers want change, vote with their dollars, and vote for social responsibility, nature takes its course.

For original article, click here.

Image source: http://www.peta.org/blog/screaming-orca-fated-for-seaworld-urges-public-to-watch-blackfish/

A Dollar General store located in Michigan. (Photo Credits: Wikipedia)

The recent offer made by Dollar General to purchase the Family Dollar company has been turned down, leading to Dollar General’s attempt at a hostile takeover. In the billion dollar war of the dollar stores, Dollar General is now offering $80/share (a $9.1 billion offer), higher than their previous offer of $78.50/share.

The board of directors rejected the most recent offer because of antitrust concerns. These were addressed by Dollar General, offering to sell up to 1500 stores to appease the FTC, and pay $500 million to Family Dollar if the deal goes sour for antitrust reasons.

Are the “antitrust concerns” really as they say they are, or is there an ulterior motive? After all, board of directors often become replaced after hostile takeovers, so they may simply be protecting their jobs by hiding behind the convenient excuse of “antitrust” issues.

Or, are things transparent as they claim? Perhaps they are genuinely concerned for the fate of their shareholders. While this may be the case, the management executives are nonetheless acting as agents of the company, and ultimately, its shareholders (as discussed in Friedman’s article). With shareholders being fairly informed of the risks (unless they have been hiding under a rock), they should be able to determine what to do with their own shares.

So, is a hostile takeover really “hostile”? Perhaps to the board of directors, but not to the shareholders. Business ethics can be confusing, as illustrated in the film, Billy Madison.

For the original article, see this link.