In this article from the Vancouver Sun,  author, Gordon Hoekstra, discusses the standing issue between Enbridge Inc. and the Firsts Nations people (of BC) regarding the construction of the proposed “$7.9-billion Northern Gateway oil and condensate pipelines”. The problem is that some First Nations groups, who own the rights to the land  Enbridge Inc. plans to ground the pipeline, are strongly apposed to the idea of a mass pipeline and furthermore have voiced that they “will take whatever steps are necessary to stop the pipeline, using the courts or blocking the project directly on the land”.

“Our elders have always said you cannot eat money… The food and the land is so important for us.” says Lillian, decedent of chief Kwah. 

The value Firsts Nations people place on land is intangible. Not only is it a source of food, it is a source of their culture, livelihood and personal identity. Matching the value Firsts Nations people place on their land with a dollar amount is a very tricky task for Enbridge.

The major reason why Indigenous people are opposed to the creation of pipeline is because they believe it will harm the river. However, Enbridge suggests that the risk of a spill is “remote” and shut off valves on either side of the river have been implemented in the blueprints for the pipeline in the rare case of an accident. Thus, the issue for Enbridge doesn’t seem to be the safety, rather I think the real challenge lies in convincing the First Nations people it is safe. Maybe a solution could be focusing on educating these groups on the logistics of the pipeline.

Damage caused to the Alberta Tar Sands

Because of the damage oil companies have caused to the Tar Sands, a very negative perception has been placed around oil companies regarding  the environment effects they pose. As we know, altering the perception of a group of people after it has taken root is a tough task.

I personally don’t see both parties leaving happy after this dispute is resolved. I think that money will show it’s limitations and that the First Nations groups who are anti-pipeline will remain that way… at least for the time being. Expanding on what I  said earlier, the only way I think the remaining First Nations groups will be on board for construction is if Enbridge can offer something that outweighs the value they place on their land. As a result, that leaves me asking myself, one: is that even possible? and two: if possible, is it an offer thats feasible for Enbridge?

Article Link

Although launching healthier menu options is good for the image of a fast-food restaurant, many of these efforts often result in failure. In Brad Tuttle’s article, we see the example of Burger King’s unsuccessful attempt at creating a healthy fry called “Satisfries”.

Satisfries contained 30% fewer calories and 40% less fat than their original fry, which is respectably healthier than most fries on the market. But, what Burger King failed to evaluate correctly is the functional job fries accomplish for consumers. Referring to the value proposition canvas, one must ask themselves why one goes to Burger King. I think it’s fair to say that the majority of people that go to fast-food restaurants aren’t overly concerned with calories. Hence, we can say that “the job to be done” for fries is not to be a healthy snack, rather it is to feed a craving. Therefore, Burger King targeting health factors of their fries seems almost counterintuitive and deficient. fast-food consumers don’t value the calorie-count of the fries as much as they value the satisfaction they offer. 

Furthermore, it’s very difficult for fast-food chains to target the segment of the market concerned with nutrition. Even if a company like Burger King were to come out with a really healthy menu, they’d be faced with the challenge of erasing the stigma surrounding their restaurant. The perception on fast-food joints like Burger King is another reason why attempts at creating calorie-causious items usually fail.

Article Link

When Target first entered the Canadian market their initial sales ell short of company predictions. This failure has had an interesting  effect on consumers’ perception regarding Target as shown in Holly Shaw’s article in the Financial Post . Following Target’s launch blunder, the company lost The Power of  Name effect, explained in an article by Trout and Ries on the Canadian market (article). Before expanding north , Canadians viewed Target as a firm that offered great quality brand names for a low price (powerful brand name).  However, when Target opened up in Canada, they failed to uphold that same reputation that made the company desirable in the United States. In short, Target Canada has failed to live up to its brand expectations from its U.S. counterpart and as a result,  has lost business  from a large portion of their target consumer base (no pun intended).

This weakness in brand strength has inclined executives to spend the next year putting their efforts towards adjusting the mindsets of Canadian consumers. Unfortunately for Target, this is not an easy task. As Trout and Ries explain, “it is quite difficult to change a consumers impression once it is formed”. Target has a lot of work to do in order to erase the poor impression Target Canada has built for himself. Walmart currently holds the majority of the marketshare and has a very powerful name in the mind’s of consumers. This article shows how in a recent pole Target actually offers lower prices than Walmart for identical goods. This proves that Target’s problem now is not competing in prices with Walmart (as it was when first launched in Canada), it is about competing for the minds of consumers.

Sources

Article : Target Article

Trout and Ries Article (reference to Power of Name): http://www.quickmba.com/marketing/ries-trout/positioning/