This blog post is a reflection on the following statement :

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

Although the United Nations (UN) enforces a just set of principles and does a lot of good in our world, I believe flaws lie within their infrastructure. Firstly, the  UN is highly political which has affected the efficiently and productivity of their efforts. Because the UN is comprised of so many countries,  it’s hard to come to a consensus when making decisions. Secondly, the UN focuses manly on large global issues and rarely takes in depth action on smaller issues such as struggling communities. I think this justifiable because the organization can only do so much with it’s resources and has to chose to act on issues that have largest impact on the world as a whole. Thus, because they don’t act on smaller issues, I believe social enterprise is needed.

“Social entrepreneurs are society’s change agents, creators of innovations that disrupt the status quo and transform our world.”

I think we need social entrepreneurship because it has a direct, efficient and person-person effect society. Social entrepreneurs aren’t bound by the politics of the UN and provide a mutually beneficial relationship for all parties involved. For example, Arc provides a two-way exchange which benefits both Sauder students and struggling communities in a positive way. I think social entrepreneurship is vital to the economic growth of struggling communities because it does not just provide a short term fix that the UN may implement, but it creates sustainable and economically stimulating solution. In the long run, I think social enterprise is needed to improve the world economy.

Sources:

http://skollworldforum.org/2014/04/06/can-social-enterprises-really-solve-poverty/

This blog post is commenting and expanding on the idea’s presented in Bei Yuan (Bob) Zhang’s blog post entitled “Apple Supplier In The Spotlight Again”.

Owning a multitude of Apple products myself, I was surprised to hear that one of Apple’s suppliers has declared Bankruptcy. While reading Bob’s blog post, I found it hard to fathom that a supplier for a company that’s net worth is estimated to be over 500 billion dollars could go bankrupt. Reading on to discover that Apple’s none-negotiable dealings with GT Advanced Technologies was the main driving factor of their economic struggles provided me with some perspective of Apple from an internal view.

Bob made a point towards the end of his blog post that

“The way Apple treats their suppliers must change if Apple wishes to retain good business partnerships to maintain success long run for both companies.” 

I agree with this observation, and think this case has a lot to do with what we’ve learned in regards to Organizational Culture and Corporate Social Responsibility.

We’ve recently learned that organizational culture is crucial for the image of a company, retaining employees and getting return business. Right now I think apple does a good job on creating a quality products but after hearing this story, I think they need to re-evaluate how they handle supplier relations.

I think Apple should be more conscious of the welfare of it’s suppliers because it is ethically just and I also believe it will benefit them further down the road. If Apple were to allow for negotiation with its suppliers, they could create a shared value between companies like GT. I think creating shared value will not only ensure the economic well being of suppliers but will also strengthen the foundation of Apple.

However, I am by no means implying that Apple has a weak foundation because I acknowledge they are a innovative a successful firm who leads their industry. But , I still think this move would be advantageous because being in the competitive market that they are in, a new technology could be released at anytime. Thus, creating good supplier relations would benefit Apple if for example a disruptive innovator was introduced to the market.

Bob Zhang’s Blog : here

Bob Zhang’s blog post “Apple Supplier In The Spotlight Again”.

Source : http://celebsnetworth.net/apple-net-worth/

Image sources:

http://asalestip4u.com/2014/09/04/health-direct-institutional-pharmacy-services-inc-and-etactics-inc-reach-an-agreement-for-services/digital-handshake/

http://ibnlive.in.com/news/apple-ceo-tim-cook-hints-at-wearable-computers/394644-11.html

http://www.led-professional.com/business/company-information/gt-solar-completes-name-change-to-gt-advanced-technologies-and-enters-led-business

This blog post is commenting and expanding on the idea’s presented in Chelsea Choi’s blog post entitled “7 Eleven’s New Health Heaven”

Within her blog post, Chelsea provides some great insight in how the addition of new and healthier products will affect 7-Eleven. I agree with chelsea and that this decision will be valued by a niche group in the market because of the recent uprising in popularity of wholesome foods (consumer preferences) . However, I don’t think the healthy eating market trend Chelsea talks about in her post is something that applies to the market segment 7-Eleven targets.

Take for example my recent experience as a 7-Eleven customer. Just last week I found myself craving a late night snack. As it turned out, the only place open at the time was 7 Eleven so I preceded in treating myself to a couple of 99 cent donuts, which had more trans fats than the combined total of all the food I’d eaten that week. What I think this example brings to light is the job that 7-Eleven completes for it’s customers. I believe this job or purpose is to be a convenient way to satisfy a craving late at night. Thus, I think adding healthier products won’t add any value to current 7-Eleven customers.

 Chelsea acknowledges that the phrases like “fast and convenient” are associated with the firm’s identity. She also states that “7-Eleven may find changing its image so radically (to be) be difficult”. I agree with her and would go further to say that trying to change the perception surrounding 7-Eleven would be so difficult that it would not be worth the effort. If consumers are concerned with their health, I don’t believe they’d make a habit of shopping at 7-Eleven when their are alternatives like Whole-Foods, who’s current image is already based on health. Although you could argue that 7-Eleven’s long operating hours and lower prices would give them an advantage over businesses like Whole-Foods, I think the size of the market segment they’d attract wouldn’t be large enough to earn any real profit. 

7-Eleven is not the first to experiment with offering healthier menu items. Companies such as Burger King and Dairy Queen have done the same in the past. In both cases, these healthier items were discontinued because they were not popular enough to remain on the menu. That is why I agree with Chelsea that this move is “risky”, so risky that I think 7-Eleven should not indorse this change.

Link to Chelsea Choi’s Blog : here

Link to Chelsea Choi’s Blog post entitled “7 Eleven’s New Health Heaven”: here

Image sources :

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/7-Eleven

https://www.7-eleven.com/Hungry/Off-the-Shelf/Fresh-Bakery/Glazed-Donut

This blog post contains my thoughts and commentary on Francine Kopun’s article in the Toronto Start entitled “Kinect technology lets shoppers try on virtual clothes”.

Summary:

In this article, Kopun discusses a new product called Swivel, which combines Xbox Kinect technology and other patented systems to create a “virtual change room”. Swivel is designed for a customer to stand in front of a mirror-like screen and from there, he/she can choose what product they would like to try on. Instead of physically putting on different outfits, Swivel projects an image of the customer wearing the selected product.

A customer trying on a virtual purse

Disruptive Innovator or Cool Idea? 

One of the last disruptive innovations in the clothing industry was the creation of online shopping. In order to stay competitive, all major clothing retailers had to adjust their operations to include a forum where consumers could buy online. The reason I have brought up the example of online shopping is to compare it to what Swivel has brought to the table. It’s true that Swivel carries a certain uniqueness and provides services that can significantly speed up the shopping experience, but I don’t think it will have as big of an impact on this industry as something like online shopping. My reasoning is that if someone doesn’t want to take the time to try on clothes, they probably don’t want to take the time to go shopping either. I think the reason people go into stores to shop is so that they can not only see what they would look like in an outfit but also how it feels on their body. That being said, Swivel not being able to simulate how clothing feels is the major reason why I don’t think the industry will adopt this innovation.

Moreover, I believe this system is ineffective because of the clothing industry. I think that the shopping experience has almost reached a point of saturation as far as the addition of current technology. I think this is because of extreme variance of consumer preferences and body shape.

Going forward, I think Swivel is a intriguing idea and can be a good thing for large companies to have in a few of their largest stores to attract consumers. But on a large scale, I can’t see it being practical for clothing companies to incorporate this new technology into their operations because I don’t beleive the practice of trying clothes on can be effectively replaced, at least not with the current technology.

Women trying on virtual Dress using Swivel.

Article Link

Image sources:

http://mashable.com/2011/03/01/online-shopping-apps/

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WwUa14mNNhY

This blog is based of my thoughts and commentary on Morgan Campbell’s article in the Toronto Start entitled “Maple Leafs have sights set on expanding growth in China”.

Summary:

In this article , Morgan Campbell discusses the Toronto Maple Leaf’s latest ambitions which involve expanding their marketing campaign to China. It is hoped that this investment in China will strengthen brand equity and increase the overall revenue of the franchise. Moreover, China hopes that engaging in this partnership will aid in their bid for holding the 2022 Winter Olympics.

Priorities:

  Having grown up in a suburb 30 minutes outside of Toronto, it truly pains me to read this article. It is not a secret that Toronto has been struggling as a hockey franchise as they have been on Stanley Cup dry spell for almost 50 years now, which ranks as one of the worst in the league. So, when I read that the Leaf’s are putting their resources into marketing to a new segment based in China, it makes me, being a CURRENT fan, cringe.  To me, this decision by the franchise is a implication that the leaf’s value brand equity more than the rosters their writing every week. I think that instead of trying to create new revenue streams, the organization should focus on strengthening their value for their CURRENT stakeholders. Thus, I think the Maple Leaf’s marketing resources should be put into attracting the best players to Toronto as well as creating a winning franchise that fans, investors, and the city can take pride in as it once did many years ago.

In this article, it was also mentioned that the leafs want to become:

“a global force that becomes synonymous with the sport in every new market”.

But, what they also acknowledged was that the difference between the Leaf’s and teams like the Yankee’s that have done this already is that the Leafs aren’t a dominant competitor in the NHL (as the Yankees are in the MLB). That’s why I think the Leaf’s should focus on creating a stronger infrastructure of players and building up their reputation before attempting to expand into global markets. That being said, I believe that expanding to China should be re-evaluated as a long-term goal. Right now, I think the Leafs should re-asses their value propositions and ultimately work on bringing the cup back to Toronto. 

Article Link

The 1967 Stanley Cup Champions

Image sources:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toronto_Maple_Leafs

http://www.habseyesontheprize.com/2007/02/celebrating-1967-maple-leafs.html

In this post, I am commenting on the blog post entitled “Jack Astor’s New Sexist Ad Proves They Really Are Asses” written by Toula Drimonis.

Summary:

In this entry,  Drimonis expresses her strong opinion on the latest piece of marketing Jack Astor’s has come out with…

From what I interpreted, her main issue with the ad is that is it uses the (seemingly) derogatory term cougar as well as “tacky” and sexist humour which comes across as offensive. Drimonis also adds that she believes  Jack Astor’s whole marketing campaign “stinks” and that it is not “effective in anyway”.

Is Drimonis right?

For starters, I’d like to point out that Drimonis has a valid point as far as the phrasing of  the sign. Many people, especially those with feminist views such as Drimonis herself, would deem this Ad to be demeaning and I can understand how some might be offended. So, I believe she has some truth in her agruement.

However, from a business standpoint,  I have trouble agreeing that this marketing tactic is ineffective. Jack Astor’s as a brand is known for it’s gaudy advertisements, attractive waitresses and their appeal to dry humour. You don’t go to Jack Astor’s for a classy night out with the girls (depending on your definition of classy of course). What I’m getting at is that I think this advertisement lies perfectly in the value propositions of the firm. This ad is meant to appeal to Jack Astor’s market segment, where a large portion happens to consist of young men. In my opinion, Jack Astor’s marketing sector is quite clever and ads such as these continue to promote the firm’s identity and are an effective tool (as long as their humour remains within a certain boundary).

At the end of her blog post, Drimonis concludes by saying:

“Jack Astor’s logo is an ass. As in a donkey’s ass. I’ve never felt any which way about the company, but after today, I feel like that logo suits them perfectly.”

I believe she’s right, the logo is a perfect fit. BUT, I believe she’s missed the point. Jack Astor’s point of difference is being a playfully tacky restaurant with an easygoing atmosphere. The emblem of a donkey just further emphasizes the personality of Jack Astor’s. Thus, I believe the logo suits them perfectly, for the better. Some may say a donkey represents the restaurant as(s) well as any.

Article link: here

Image sources:

http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/toula-foscolos/jack-astors-sexist-ad_b_5555943.html

http://www.towifi.info/listing/jack-astors-front-street/