The United Nations is an international organization established to increase  security,peace and cooperation throughout nations. In many defintions the UN is explained as being a way to diminish the possibility of potential large-scale conflicts. Meaning that the UN focusses on large problems between Countries and doesn’t focus their expertise on the smaller scale problems happening within Countries.

Social enterprise and the Arc are necessary because they allow another solution to problems that are happening throughout many Countries. While the UN focusses more directly on Country to Country conflicts, social enterprise is able to focus on and get more personal with problems happening in small communities. The Arc presents a gateway for young people with visions to act on them through their program. Through Social enterprise, relationships are able to built with the the people they are working with to deliver a long lasting effect. The UN deals with immediate and large problems, leaving many smaller scaled social issues to be neglected; therefore, social enterprise plays a vital role by using it’s talents and expertise in many community based problems.

In the globe and mail there’s an article about Jacob MacKellar, a young man who wants to keep his family’s farming business alive. Farming is a tough business to get into but Jacob has done his research and noticed that as  society is changing and evolving there’s becoming more demand for health conscious food such as Edamame beans. He noticed that only 1 percent of Edamame beans consumed in Canada are actually grown in Canada. While there’s a high demand for non-imported beans, many consumers don’t have that option and that’s where the MacKellar family has found their niche.

I think Jacob’s ability to stay with the industry he wants while evolving and adapting their products to fit the consumer base is the only way to compete in such a hard industry such as farming. At the end of the article he says “This business is always morphing; I think if your business isn’t changing then it will in fact not work out.” I think for any company you need to continually review the trends, and be willing to change your business in order to get a competitive advantage. If your business isn’t changing while the tastes of your consumers are changing then you’ll eventually die out. Jacob saw a window of opportunity and took it, like what many businesses should do to keep up with today’s society.

In Jackie Huba’s blog she writes about her experiences with MINI and their brilliant marketing tactics. She, as a current MINI customer, recently received a thank you note along with MINI foldable speakers. MINI believes that it’s current customers are just as important as potential new buyers, leading MINI to continue to value their customers and stay loyal to them so their customers will do the same for them.

I think this tactic is brilliant, many customers tend to ignore their customers once a sale has gone through and shift their direction towards potential customers. In this day in age with so much communication through social media, the impression customers are left with means everything. Advertising and marketing has become more and more through word of mouth, people post their opinions everywhere and its accessible for almost anyone to have a look at it. For example Tom Dobrzanski of Monarch studios says since he has started his company, all of their marketing has been through word of mouth, meaning people with excellent experiences give great reviews and a person leaving with a bad experience will make sure all of their friends hear about it. I agree with Jackie that it’s a great business move to thank your customers for their loyalty and their patronage.

Media:

MINI logo. Digital image. N.p., n.d. Web. <http://www.google.ca/url?sa=i&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=images&cd=&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CAcQjRw&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.zeroto60times.com%2Fblog%2Flarge-car-logos-2%2Flarge-mini-car-logo%2F&ei=RvVfVJ3MFMj3yQTl_4CYDQ&bvm=bv.79189006,d.aWw&psig=AFQjCNF4fr7vQ-QbLJJtvkVWUb3FPyZiHA&ust=1415661249604652>.

Madison Jones’ blog post discusses her opinion on the the recent implemented fees for first checked bags for Canadian airlines. Madison may both agree and disagree with this policy however I strongly disagree. I predict that many people will react to this fee by refusing to pay it and instead packing huge carry on bags that do not fit in the overhead bin, forcing the cabin attendants to check their bag, free of charge. While the actual passenger whose bag is being checked is most likely indifferent to this service, it comes as an inconvenience to the attendants and an annoyance to the passengers who checked their bags properly.

I believe that having a free first checked bag gave companies such as WestJet a marketing advantage over it’s competitors. As well the storage beneath the plane is a sunk cost, it’s going to be there whether bags are in it or not, therefore the money paid for their first bags isn’t even going towards the service they’re paying for. (I agree with paying for any succeeding bags because there is only so much space and too many bags would mean paying for another way to deliver the bags.) This new policy takes Westjet away from its original vision – a low cost quality airline; a vision that made the company the success it is today.

There’s been a recent commotion about a new service called Shomi, an online streaming service offered to shaw and rogers customers. Huffington Post posted an article discussing the high possibility and likelihood of Shomi being a strong competitor for Netflix. I believe Shomi will always live in the shadow of Netflix for many reasons. Shomi’s monthly fee is $8.99 which due to a new change, is Netflix’s new monthly fee as well for new members however, current members will continue to pay the original $7.99 fee for the next two years, meaning they are less likely to switch. The Huffington Post article suggested that in order to increase their variety of shows a consumer would pay for an account for both services, I would argue that’s not true. One thing the article failed to mention is the fact that many people especially young people have started downloading virtual private networks such as Hola to gain access to Netflix from every country, immensely expanding the amount of shows they have access to. There are a few shows mentioned that Shomi has on it’s service that Canadaian Netflix does not, however I know many of those shows are accessible in other country’s Netflix. Finally Shomi is only available to Rogers and Netflix customers, shrinking it’s customer segment quite a lot in contrast to Netflix. Shomi therefore has no points of difference and lacks in many ways where Netflix doesn’t, allowing me to believe Shomi will never make it.

Picture source

Netflix and Shomi label. Digital image. Http://www.640toronto.com/2014/11/04/38924/. N.p., n.d. Web.

In the Vancouver Sun they wrote an article that discusses the issues related with Bc Hydro’s hydroelectric megaproject. While many argue that B.C. is continuing to grow, increasing the need for hydroelectric, First Nations argue back that building the Dam would compromise their rights as First Nations. There’s no right way to look at this dilemma but I think there’s two ways of going about it. Either look at benefit vs. detriment or compromise so each party gives something up but also gains something. In the first case I strongly believe it benefits a lot more individuals than it hurts by building the dam. However the chiefs involved have suggested and will support smaller projects to harvest energy, decreasing the individuals who get harmed but also decreasing the benefits from B.C’s Hydro’s project. The end of the article tells us that the spokesmen for First Nations have all been trying to meet with powerful conservative figures however they have only been able to meet with people who have small input in the final decision. I see this action as the conservatives not playing into consideration the thought of the First Nations, this seems to me that the  government will go along with the project, only taking into account the benefit it will have, ignoring the First Nations efforts.

A recent article talked about how Keurig Coffee has been sued by Club Coffee for breaking the competition laws. Keurig’s new one cup coffee making machine has a new technology that only allows the pods Keurig makes to fit in them. Club Coffee’s way of doing business was a low cost focus strategy. Meaning they only really have one product and focus on making it the best quality for as cheap as they can. Club Coffee doesn’t target individuals that are yet to have an interest in one cup coffee makers but instead they target the already existing market of one cup coffee drinkers. Meaning that all the buyers of the brand new Keurig machine were cut out of Club Coffees customer segment. Club Coffee needs Keurig and other names that make one cup coffee makers for their customer segment to even exist but that means that in this case Keurig can easily just cut them out of the business. If I was the CEO of Club Coffee and wanted to stay aggressive and reach a competitive advantage I would expand my products to not only making the coffee itself but also making a coffee machine. If Club Coffee would be able to make a cheaper yet just as reliable one cup coffee maker than they wouldn’t have to count on other business to make their business possible.

In class 7 we discussed that the world continually advances and changes and it’s necessary for a business to be able to adapt to these advances and changes. Upon my readings I disovered an article that staples, a pretty popular name in office supplies is starting to close its stores and move its business online. Not only changing the way they do business but what they sell as well. Staples is realizing that the market for ink, paper, pens etc. is getting swallowed up by the technology world, meaning that Staples is shifting to selling more of its “non-traditional” items over the usual paper and pens. The article says that online sales have increased by 8 percent while other sales are continuously falling, meaning that without this change they would most likely have been wiped out, much like what happened to blockbuster. Staples may not be completely there but they took the right step by choosing to evolve their business rather than letting the advancements of today’s world demolish it .

In Mark Bickford’s post he discusses the ideas that contrary to popular belief, promoting ethics in the workplace can actually help rather than hinder a business. In the article- “Is it better for business to actually do good or to just look like it’s doing good?” Craig Dowden expands on this idea as well. He states that organizations that demonstrate corporate citizenship behaviours (he defines as “investments made in environmental, social, or governance initiatives”) can be up to 9 times more successful in reaching their business goals. Both Authors prove that Ethics can not only not hurt a business but can quite positively influence it.

The popular saying of “Nice guys finish last” is the mentality many people have not only in the business world but in everyday situations, whether it comes to relationships, competitions or your job, many people believe the honest way is the worst way. I disagree with this mindset and believe if enough opened their eyes and look at the facts that are provided in Mark Bickford’s link in his blog and the article I included in here they would realize that Nice guys can finish first. No matter what business it is, and what it’s objectives are, following the rules will do nothing if not help your business. 

While companies don’t openly support unethical actions in their business place, management, through lack of involvement allows such actions to take place. Many guidelines are set in place to ensure deadlines are met and regulations are followed, however the expectations of the company when it comes to ethics is rarely ever touched on. In the article “the slippery slope of getting away with small stuff” the author provides examples of cases when an employee makes a few small unethical decisions and by everyone turning a blind eye to it pretty soon that environment allows the individual to make detrimental decisions to the business. Very often famous scams such as the one by “Ponzi schemer Bernie Madoff” mentioned in the article starts with just small actions. Giving the employee the benefit of the doubt and not implementing consequences for small unethical actions is what makes scandals possible. It may start with a small amount of stealing or lying but if they get away with it the first time, there is a stronger incentive to do it again. If an employee feels pressure to execute their tasks efficiently and successfully, they may end up cutting corners and taking shortcuts, unaware whether the business disagrees with their actions or not. I think businesses should have clear and obvious rules when it comes to ethics in the workplace because they owe it to both their employees and consumers.

References:

Borzykowski, Bryan. “The Slippery Slope of Getting Away with Small Stuff.” BBC Capital. BBC, 7 Aug. 2014. Web. 10 Sept. 2014. <http://www.bbc.com/capital/story/20140806-the-slippery-slope>.

Shapiro, Mike. Cartoon on the devil and business ethics. Digital image.Cartoon Resource. N.p., n.d. Web. 10 Sept. 2014. <http://www.cartoonresource.com/archive/business/ethics/bet140-sh.aspx>.