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

Let us first distinguish the difference between the United Nations and a social enterprise. The United Nations is an international organization established to foster, promote, and maintain various aspects that govern our people: peace and security, human rights, social and economic development, environment protection, and humanitarian aid provision. A social enterprise, on the other hand, is an organization that uses commercial strategies not to maximize profit, but to improve the same aspects of society as the UN. If both organizations have the same goal in mind, why do they coexist?

Even if the United Nations were to be fully funded, its organizational structure differs from that of a social enterprise. The UN is a big organization with caucuses, committees, chairs, and procedures – coming to an agreeable conclusion or plan of action often takes time even then, a plan is only in its directional stages. Such initiatives are usually big projects aimed to target the bigger conceptual problems. Given that all their funds are to be supported, problems within the smaller communities still exist.

A social enterprise’s approach to combat these big conceptual problems focuses instead on sustainable businesses and projects in a smaller scale. The Arc Initiative, in particular, provides relief and developmental strategies to guide local businesses in countries such as, Ethiopia and Rwanda to overcome the bigger conceptual problems. Social enterprises such as the Arc, whether fully funded or not is needed because it is majorly operational and doesn’t seek to solely solve these aspects in short term, but looks to aid creation of long-lasting systems that would not require external funding. In my opinion, although social enterprises are of a smaller scale, they more effective to circumvent these humanitarian issues because they create sustainable change rather than the “conventional efforts” that seem to require constant and relentless aid.

Researched Links:

http://www.sauder.ubc.ca/Global_Reach/ARC_Initiative/About_ARC

http://www.un.org/en/ga/maincommittees/index.shtml

In the HBR blog post, Google Adds Benefits, Walmart Cuts Them; Oddly, the Logic is the Same, author and professor Peter Cappelli disects the two extremes of the employee benefits spectrum in today’s supposedly profit-driven society. On one hand, we have Google with top chefs and world-class gyms in their offices. On the other hand, we have Walmart’s easily replaceable part-time employees that have zero benefits in their hiring package. Google’s ideology: to keep their workers in the offices to innovate instead of away from headquarters to do daily things, is to maximize growth and therefore, maximize profit. Walmart’s ideology: to hire more part-time workers with little to no benefits, is to minimize cost and therefore, maximize profit.

The reason behind both extremes is the same: to maximize profit. But if we factor in the possible long term costs and human resources issues, is Walmart’s strategy truly effective? Employee retention is often an overlooked topic when it comes to profit maximization. Google’s strategy to “carefully cultivate” its people and culture is actually more profitable in the long run. With lower turnover and more satisfied employees, the company will not only reflect its positive work environment, but costs to replace and train their specially skilled employees will be minimal. With a high turnover rate because of minimal benefits, the training and hiring process will only add to costs, and unsatisfied workers will reflect badly upon the company.

In the end, the overarching goal to maximize profits instead of promoting and improving company culture is a slippery slope. Albeit it may seem the ones in the innovative industries are fairing well, but the problem of inequality in compensation continues to exist and grow. As the gap widens between the two extremes, the ones with cutting benefits will only suffer. Having been on the cutting end with minimum waged part-time jobs, and hoping to be in the benefits end in the future, I certainly hope this problem will resolve with the coming generation’s mindsets.

Researched Links:

http://www.google.com/about/careers/lifeatgoogle/benefits/

http://guides.wsj.com/small-business/hiring-and-managing-employees/how-to-retain-employees/

Flashback to April of 2014, I had two months left of high school, seven university offers, and one question on my mind: which university should I call my home for the next stage of my life? Being a pre-business-school student, I whipped out the calculator and did some quick calculations for my top choices. Even with scholarships, fund, and savings factored in, staying here in Vancouver still minimized my costs compared to going out of the province.

The physical building to house the students attending Vantage College.

A recent article from the CBC was focused on the new Vantage College that is “under construction” right now. Vantage College is a 127.5 million dollar project only for international students. The project is supposedly not only a physical building but offers services like “round the clock support, custom curriculum, and lower class sizes.” This college is for international students who do not meet the required English scores but meet all other academic scores. What the CBC didn’t manage to capture was that Vantage College is actually a program and not only a building and the the economic benefits the project will bring about.

Although the 127.5 million is big a cost, it is only a sunk capital cost. This number will soon be paid for with projected variable revenues of $50,000 per year in tuition per student admitted, and 1,000 students a year. Vantage College sounds, in retrospect, quite profitable in the long run. As many locals already complain of high tuition prices, increasing international prices will not only allow the foreign to pay for themselves, but subsidizes the fees locals have to pay. Some Canadian schools (ie. McGill) and most American schools have actually adopted this strategy of higher tuition fees from international students to balance low fees for locals. In several years, this project may not only pay for its original required funds, but profits will include an increase in jobs and a decrease in domestic tuition fees.

Having played devil’s advocate for this post, I do believe that financially, Vantage College looks to be in the green, but onto another aspect: how will this idea look towards the public? Will more international students dissuade domestic students from applying? Does this spending correspond with the university’s core values, tarnishing its reputation?

Researched link:

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/ubc-s-vantage-college-canadians-need-not-apply-1.2826142

https://blogs.ubc.ca/jonahrudy/2014/11/06/how-the-music-industry-is-shaking-off-its-old-value-propositions

Having read Jonah Rudy’s blog post, I found what I overheard to be quite the contradiction to his post. He mentions the use of the Internet changing value propositions of artists, gearing them towards more “theatrical shows while staying true to themselves.” I had agreed with the post, up until overhearing this the other day: “Taylor Swift recently released her ‘first official pop album’.” Presuming everyone knew that
Taylor Swift started out as a Country artist (one of her key value propositions), why is she now a Pop artist?

The blog post puts emphasis on the web as the reason for her fame and fortune, but I see it as the society and the changing market, industry, and technology. The music industry is no longer dependent on skill and reputation. Take Beyonce and Swift, for example, both recently “leaked” parts of their album online. This may seem crazy to the accountants and finance team, but to the marketing team, this is pure genius. The leaked songs served as advertisement for the brands; the brands knew their markets. Both artists did their market research and knew that most of their target market’s demographics are those living and breathing the web. This not only generated record breaking sales (with Swift selling 1.287 million copies of her new album in the first week) for both, but proved that keeping up with the trends is not only cost efficient, but a needed marketing strategy.

Back to the question of why Swift is now in the Pop industry. She originally established herself as a borderline Pop artist with “bubblegum tunes” in the Country genre; she is the only artist to claim that title. With enough fame,fans, and fortune, this transition was not only expected, but is supported by her targets’ demographics.

Researched links:

http://www.forbes.com/sites/hughmcintyre/2014/11/05/taylor-swifts-1989-moves-1-287-million-copies-in-its-first-week/

http://www.nola.com/music/index.ssf/2014/11/taylor_swifts_1989_has_already.html

The first months of school, I had often asked myself if I had chosen the right school. “What if I had gone out of the province?” “What if I had gone to SFU?” “Would I have a better time, more friends, more opportunities?” These questions mostly stemmed from uncertainty and midterm stress, to which I’m sure I would feel at any other school. But today’s Comm101 lecture gave me my answer: Sauder is the right decision.

Prepping for the lecture gave me a little insight of what to expect, but meeting and hearing the alumni present made me fall in love with my school. Starting off with Paul, CEO of Tangoo, a confident presenter and clearly a professional, I thought of him as a… generic entrepreneur, somebody I would admire but know I can never become; I didn’t have the connections, the drive, nor the ambition to start my own tech-based business. The only thing we had in common was our school.

The second presenter, Tom, owner of Monarch Studios and songwriter of the Zolas, was a little more relatable. With a music background as well, I’d always dreamed of combining my passion for the music industry with business to create a career that I loved. Although what he had that I don’t is courage. He was able to let go the opportunities of working in a firm straight out of university and instead pursued what he loved with all the money he had. I figured we only had two things in common: school and music.

The third and final presenter, Jenny Duffy, Vancouver choreographer, sounded like a superwoman. She made use of her “24 useful hours” in a day (something I often forget I have) to pursue her dreams, while advancing her career. With a full resume, she is somebody I can only dream to become one day.

Having said that, it may seem as if these presenters are only the cream of the crop and that there is no use in my aspiring to become anything like them. But here is my reflective thought of the day – yes, I many not have all their skills and all their courage to pursue my dreams, but what I do have in common is one thing: Sauder. They were shaped by the skills they learned at Sauder, and supported by this community. I may not be at that level just yet, but I have faith that this school I am so proud to belong to will one day shape me to be an alumna others will aspire to be. Because the tools and opportunities are there; it’s just up to me to seize them.