Category: Uncategorized

Large corporate companies have proven time and time again that they have no limit to the marketing schemes they are willing to pull to make a sale. In a world facing increasing global warming, overflowing landfills and toxic air; the newest marketing technique is a little something called “greenwashing”. As its name suggests, companies are essentially ‘brain washing’ consumers to believe that they are buying a green product aimed to save the planet when in reality the company is benefiting more than Mother Nature is.

After reading Taylor Swift’s blog (a fellow Comm 101 student) titles “Bunnies Don’t Need Lipstick”, I realized that greenwashing is being practiced by some of my favourite cosmetics companies without me even noticing. One of these companies includes Clinique who claim that they “do not conduct animal testing on [their] products or ingredients, nor ask others to test on [their] behalf, except when required by law.” There are some countries such as China that require all products to be tested in their laboratories before selling. These companies such as MAC and Benefit claim that they avoid animal cruelty when possible, however if that were true they wouldn’t be selling in China. Other companies such as Lush and The Body Shop still manage to be financially successful while maintaining completely cruelty free. Rather than greenwashing, they invest their money in buying truly natural ingredients and letting that attract the customers rather than false or over exaggeratedclaims.

Another example of this tactic in use is Huggies “Pure and Natural” diapers. They package the diapers in green coloured plastic and label it “100% organic cotton” to deceive the buyer into thinking that they are benefiting the planet. In reality, the cotton on the outside is organic but the cotton in actual contact with the babies skin is still full of chemicals, just the same as regular diapers. On top of this, the diapers are not anymore biodegradable than regular diapers and still crowd the landfills.

I believe that these greenwashing techniques are relatively see-through when compared to companies that are truly green oriented. Consumers will soon begin to walk away from false claims if they believe strongly enough in decreasing pollution. Rather than greenwashing these companies should instead take measures to actually benefit the planet even if it decreases total profit in the short run. Customers will repay eco friendly companies by remaining loyal to them, which can increase profits in the long run.

Word Count: 405

 A crucial story currently in the media is the liquidation of Sears. One of the reasons that this event is so widely discussed is due to the fact that it is a clear representation of a shift in the way that we shop as a whole. Sears was founded 131 years ago, and up until recent years it has been a huge part of the way people shopped. I remember my mom taking me there as a child, because it had just about everything we needed in one spot. Now, you can find everything you need from your living room without getting off the couch, through e-commerce. In an article I read on the Vancouver Sun I learned that the CEO of the Hudson’s Bay Company, another department store, has recently left the company. This is making investors uncomfortable, by foreshadowing a future similar to Sears.

One point of difference that The Bay does have going for them, is that it markets to a slightly different niche than Sears did. They do still fit the department store description yet they tend to sell higher end clothes and accessories. Brands like Polo Ralph Lauren, Levi, Calvin Klein and Guess bring a higher price point and attract a customer base with more income. As a society we do still need brick a mortar companies as there are still people who don’t trust online shopping or are looking for a personal aspect. Customers like to talk to employees and receive help and recommendations when shopping. Along with this people also want to physically touch and try on the clothing that they are buying. Although we are not ready to become completely online, we are leaning much closer in that direction than ever before.

If The Bay wants to avoid becoming the next Sears, they are going to have to play to their points of difference by increasing the high-end brands to cater to an older and financially stable market. Since most online shopping is done by millennials who tend to have a lower income it decreases the e-commerce competition.

 

 

 

I remember being a little girl and being in complete awe of the Coach store window. The Coach brand oozed class and status with its leather handcrafted bags and classic timeless designs. Back in the early 2000s, coach was dominating the accessory industry. However, by 2013 you could walk into just about any thrift shop and find an array of Coach purses for pennies compared to their selling price. The downfall of a business usually stems from poor management, which has been noticed by the company and kick started a company reset.

One of the main issues that the company noticed was that they tried to expand too hard too fast. In the mid 2000s they changed from their classic designs and tried to branch out into multiple colours and fabrics. This decreased the quality of the bags and gave an almost tacky look. Andre Cohen, one of the presidents of the company states that the bran became “a bit overexposed” and “a bit too heavily distributed” in the last few years. Coach’s value proposition has always been to market to woman of status, reflected by their high prices and attention to detail. By this decline in sophistication, it depletes their points of difference and makes it harder for them to stand out in the consumers mind in a sea of accessory brands.

The brand reset began in mid 2014 when they hired new creative director Stuart Vevers, who has also worked for Givenchy, Mulberry and Louis Vuitton. This gave the company a blank slate for creativity and new leadership to change the old habits of operation. As a part of this brand reset they are renaming themselves “Tapestry”, and they have recently purchased both Kate Spade, and Stuart Weitzman. This creates a versatile brand that markets to a far larger range of consumer segments. Coach has always branded itself towards mature middle-aged woman, while Kate Spade sells handbags and wallets to a younger target audience. Combined with the Stuart Weitzman brand selling shoes they are becoming the triple threat.

In our readings for week 8 we learned about the positioning and the power of a name. I think by renaming the brand ‘Tapestry’ they are giving themselves a true fresh start and leaning away from any negative connotations or preconceived notions that the consumer may already have about Coach. The acquisition of Kate Spade and Stuart Weitzman is also a step in the right direction as they are now able to sell their product to majority of age groups of woman in the higher-class sector. I also believe that coach can continue to grow as a company under this new leadership, sometimes all a weak team needs is a new “coach”.

Word Count: 449

As highlighted in a recent BNN article, Walmart has released that they are partnering with a company called August Home to test out home grocery delivery services; meaning that they are coming into competition with Amazon. With the purchase of whole foods and their already established dominance over the ecommerce world,  Amazon is rapidly expanding and becoming increasingly more difficult to compete with.

If Walmart were to draw up a SWOT analysis, this would seem like a great opportunity at a first glance. It plays to their strengths, as they are a well trusted and reputable brand, which gives them an edge over startup brands in this field. Walmart is already succeeding when it comes to grocery sales and has strong ties with food suppliers, making the process of moving to online grocery sales much more efficient. However when you dive deeper, you realize that their threats may outweigh this opportunity. Amazon has also recently discovered a new connection with Olo, an online delivery network that is connected with both Chipotle and Applebee’s. This accompanied with their purchase of Whole Foods proves that they are not “just a tech company” anymore. They are already cutting whole foods prices of fresh produce making it even more difficult for walmart to keep up.

In order to standout in the online grocery world, Walmart is using what they call a “one-time passcode delivery” which gives the deliverer access to the home with a passcode that expires after one use. This way they can put the groceries directly into the fridge, attempting to give it a more personal feel. I see this as a great weakness, especially after what happened with the Equifax scandal we discussed in class. The risk of information leaks are so high right now, especially in businesses involved in this degree of competition. Technology is not always the most reliable and this advancement could be far too invasive for people to get on board with.

In my opinion, this attempt to get a creative and high tech edge may be too much for consumers to handle. Technology is not secure enough for people to trust in a company that doesn’t have a huge online security presence yet. It also may not be the right time for Walmart to try and advance into the same lane of sales as Amazon who has already made it clear that they are dominating in both the restaurant business and the online sales business.

(Word Count: 409)

Let’s talk business ethics for a moment. This topic comes across as extremely controversial to most, seeing as “ethics” itself is more or less subjective. This controversy can be seen it the two pre readings, Edward Freeman’s “Stake Holder Theory” and Milton Friedman piece titled “The Social Responsibility of Business is to Increase It’s Profits”

I have recently read an article from CBC news outlining how the increase in Ontario’s minimum wage could potentially cause the loss of up to 50,000 jobs, mostly from teenage and young adult workers. The motive behind this wage hike was to attempt to minimize poverty, as a reaction to the inflating prices and cost of living. This reminded me of a theory that I read in Friedman’s piece where he states that a business man “is pre-sumably an expert in running his company – in producing a product or selling it or financing it. But nothing about his selection makes him an expert on inflation. Will his holding down the price of his product reduce inflationary pressure? Or, by leaving more spending power in the hands of his customers, simply divert it else- where?” I found this paragraph deeply thought provoking. When I had seen the original article about the Ontario wage raise I immediately blamed it on the increasing inflation due to companied being greedy for more profit, and unethically raising prices past the point that was previously considered affordable by the mass majority of consumers. Friedman is trying to remove ethics from business, but I disagree. If inflation is not an issue of business ethics then where is it coming from?

I found the two pre readings on business ethics both fascinating sides to look at. One one hand Friedman is correct in the sense that when it comes to a business, the main goal of any organization is to make a profit. We are all human and we all have a need to eat, drink water, find shelter and so on; all of these things cost money. A business is a business, if there was a desire to change the world, the CEO would have started a charity instead. However, this is not to say that businesses should never make sacrifices to their maximum profit for an ethical reason. As Edward Freeman states, we must support all of the stakeholders that helped to build our company to what it is today. Without customers, employees, and financiers there would be no business and no money to spend. We DO have a social responsibility to give back to the society in which our business is thriving.

(word count: 431)

Welcome to my blog 🙂