Monthly Archives: October 2016

The current Western socio-political environment is in a volatile and unpredictable state.  With the ongoing Syrian crisis creating an influx of refugees, and xenophobes, in Europe and beyond, the rise of Black Lives Matter (BLM) in the U.S. over race relations, and statements of exclusion and division based on race and religion being declared by a certain presidential candidate, social issues are being thrust into the forefront. With that, then, comes “femvertising”.

“Femvertising”, described as creating “advertisements that aim to celebrate and empower women and girls,” has been employed over the years by corporations seeking to capitalize on the social movement towards female equal opportunity, self-loving, and empowerment. But is “femvertising” just a corporate marketing gimmick to increase profits by creating a false sense of corporate social responsibility? This is not always the case, but in some situations, yes.

In Tiffany Leung’s article “Feminism: The Newest Marketing Trend”, Dove is stated to be a brand “who strives to ‘[help women to] raise their self-esteem and realise their full potential’.” What separates Dove from other corporations that employ “femvertising” is that Dove goes beyond just claiming to care about women’s issues. With Dove, they realized that they needed to do more than just spew out empowering rhetoric, so they decided to create an entire campaign, the Dove Self-Esteem Project, with the aim to help young girls and women be comfortable with their bodies and with themselves. Dove’s tactics are an example of “femvertising” done right. Dove has created shared value with its consumers by reconceiving its products, mainly its soaps, into tools of empowerment and self-love as well as taking action towards achieving real social change.

On the opposite end of the spectrum are companies like H&M. Tiffany believes that the fashion conglomerate has established a positive brand image in the minds of consumers through “reorganization” in the company’s marketing approach, likely referencing the company’s advertisements involving women engaging in what is traditionally considered male behaviour or activity. However true that may be, and regardless of the ads’ positive messages, the reality of the situation is that H&M has frequently been criticized and investigated for its mistreatment of garment workers, comprised mostly of women, in the company’s factories overseas. Many of H&M’s factory workers have “reported either witnessing or experiencing termination of employment during pregnancy”, with sexual harassment also being strife. This, then, is a classic example of a company being unable to practice what it preaches, linking back to the false sense of corporate responsibility.

“Femvertising”, if done correctly, has the potential to spur real, positive change in how society views and treats women. Reaching this goal, then, means that corporations must truly believe in the messages that they sell.

Word Count: 450

The living wage, a polarizing concept defined as the minimum hourly wage a full-time worker must receive in order to be able to afford a normal standard of living, is being brought back into the national spotlight, this time in the form of protests in Quebec. After Alberta announced its plan to raise the minimum wage in the province to $15 by 2018, critics were vocal, citing future job losses and damage to small business owners as concerns. Proponents of the living wage, however, cite increases in the standard of living for the already employed, decreases in inequality for workers, and benefits for the economy in the long run as driving forces behind the movement to instate it. Let’s examine the facts and find out what could happen.

An increase in the minimum wage in Quebec, from $10.75/hr to $15.00/hr, would almost certainly increase unemployment in the province. This change in the macroeconomic environment, a macroeconomic force, pushes Quebec firms to re-examine their business models and trim down to become leaner by cutting jobs. At least in the short-run. As wages increase for unskilled workers, firms, then, are forced to adjust the wages of their skilled workers relative to the increase in the minimum wage. This results in more money in the pockets of consumers, which means more being spent on goods and services like shoes, electronics, and restaurant dining, and more money for companies. Higher revenues for firms and higher demand for their goods and services, then, means more employees needed by these companies to keep up with demand. Thus, more workers and labourers are hired, unemployment goes down, and most stakeholders are wealthier and happier than before.

With a result that seems to benefit all of society in the long run, why isn’t there unanimous, province-wide support? Besides the causes for concern already addressed in this post, Curtis Huang states, in his blog post on minimum wage changes in British Columbia, that increasing the minimum wage raises the standards and expectations of companies towards job applicants, meaning firms will demand workers with more experience, more references, and more qualifications (making it more difficult to get jobs). As well, he claims that companies will end up “charging customers more” through increased prices to offset the increase in their costs.

All the fears people have, of the uncertainty and the downsides, are all valid. Who wants to risk unemployment? Who wants to pay more for goods and services? Who wants a harder time landing a job? Nobody wants these things, but I strongly believe in aiming for greater societal benefit in the long term, albeit with short-term problems, rather than looking to fulfill our short-sighted desires for short-term satisfaction.

Word Count: 447

Oil, particularly its price, has been a concerning topic in the news over the past few years. As new, more efficient oil-collection technologies are developed and used, and as untapped sources of this liquid gold are quickly being located and drilled, the world’s supply of oil has seen a dramatic increase. Traditionally, global petroleum demand manages to keep up with global supply, with supply fluctuating above and below demand occasionally and vice versa.

This state of near market equilibrium was, in part, due to OPEC (Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries) actively engaging in supply regulation in order to maintain higher oil prices. But in 2014, the organization, in response to the increases in oil production by non-OPEC members that threatened OPEC market share, made the disastrous decision to uncap its oil production, a cost leadership strategy, in order to try to regain global market share. This change in OPEC’s operational strategy sent prices crashing down, which impacted, and still impacts, ALL petroleum-exporting nations’ revenue streams and their economies.

Now, two years later, OPEC has reversed its position and has enacted a plan to cut production “by up to 700,000 barrels a day later this year.” But will this be enough? I don’t believe so. After two years of near continuous and increasing petroleum output, there is now a huge surplus of oil on the market. This decision, however, is definitely a step in the right direction, but much more needs to be done in order for there to be any change in the current oil-market landscape. A reduction of 700,000 barrels of oil PER DAY might seem like a significant change to those unfamiliar with actual global oil production, but seeing as OPEC produces approximately 33 MILLION barrels per day, with the world’s daily output standing at around an astounding 96 million barrels per day (as seen in the graph above), 700,000 barrels is comparatively insignificant.

Though the global supply of petroleum is the primary issue being addressed, the other half of the equation, global demand, should not be overlooked. As OPEC begins the process of reigning in production, some of oil’s largest consumers, the most notable one being China, have seen their economic growths begin to slow down. This is seriously alarming because if the world’s oil supplies are unable to be brought down to be in line with demand, this surplus of global petroleum could last for many years to come.

What can oil-producing nations do about this situation? The obvious answer here is to have them severely restrict their own petroleum production in an effort to curb the surplus. This, however, would mean losing their global market shares, a trade-off many countries are not willing to make.

Word count: 445