My parents bought me my first video game console when I was 5 and my first computer when I was 12. I spent much of my childhood in front of a TV screen with my friends. New innovations can help the next generation avoid some of the mistakes we made in our childhood.

Eben Upton created a computer designed for children at an affordable price, around 50 dollars. Their market price being low made me think they were using low-cost labor, so I was surprised to find out that the Raspberry Pi is being domestically produced in Great Britain. They must be extremely efficient in their production process. This is great for their citizens, as many jobs have been created.

This product is being integrated in selected elementary schools in the UK as teachers can use it in their classrooms. The Raspberry Pi could be used as a substitute to game consoles and video games. Yet it is not a globally popular product. The question for this company is how to expand and gain more popularity. I think they need to continue to advertise their product as beneficial in educating the youth, on a larger scale.

BBC Business Article:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-24435809

Blockbuster was mentioned in a previous lecture, and I was reminded that I used to rent movies from there all the time. They were a ridiculously successful company that was put out of business because of globalization; today people can just stream movies online.

Businesses have been forced to change as our world has changed. Personally I like to think about the opportunities for new companies and how old ones evolve. That’s why this article about a company, Nielsen, keeping track of TV show-related twitter posts interested me. Companies are adapting to the world today and social media is being utilized as a tool to gain profits.

I wonder how much value will be given to a company whose product is data from the Twitter world; I am sure there will be skeptics not willing to pay for that product. But crazily enough, I was reminded to watch the season finale of the series “Breaking Bad,” by a twitter post from one of my friends last Sunday. I am curious to see how companies who purchase this twitter information will use it to benefit themselves.

NY Times Article:

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/10/07/business/media/nielsen-to-measure-twitter-chatter-about-tv.html

It is hard for me to comprehend why the marketers chose this advertisement to represent their company, Dolce and Gabbana. The marketers are obviously appealing to sex, an activity much of the youth seems to be obsessed with. Yet the image the consumers see is basically a rape scene: a shirtless man is holding down the lady whilst the three other men are watching.

I think they were trying to send the message that “people who wear Dolce and Gabbana clothes have intercourse,” but I can’t believe a member of the company did not stand up and advocate against the advertisement. As we saw with the Sauder Frosh incident, rape is no joke and not to be taken lightly.

I really don’t think publishing this image would be worth the extra sales it would cause. I believe the big companies should be promoting ideas that benefit society in their advertisements, such as preserving the environment. At the very least don’t publicize such a horrible offense. This example shows me that some marketers don’t care about the message portrayed in their ads as long as it sells their product.

(got the image from google images)

Due to their patent, Myriad Genetics has a monopoly on the genetic testing of the BRCA1 gene in the USA. This test gives women insight on their chance of developing breast cancer in the future. If a mutilated BRCA1 gene is detected, the woman would be able to take the necessary precautions for her future.

The service Myriad is providing to their customers has the potential to save lives, yet they are charging $4,000 for one test. In a country where the GDP per capita is about 50,000, how many people can afford it? They are able to charge this ridiculous price and still make profits due to their patent.

Personally I find this unethical. I don’t think a private company should be able to patent a human gene for the sake of the citizens. In a free market society, the goal is to maximize profits, and some companies are willing to do this at all costs. There is a problem when a company has a monopoly for a service that has that much value to society. I am glad there is an ongoing lawsuit against Myriad and I hope the decision is based on morality, not greed.

NY Times Article: