Month: November 2012

This is arguably the most famous quote from the classic movie, Ferris Bueller’s Day Off, and it’s particularly important in a university setting. When our motivation to attend Sauder comes up, my peers generally admit they are motivated mostly by the job security having a BCom from a reputable school would (hopefully!) bring them.  

When Tom Dobrzanski walked into the room to speak to our Comm class, I didn’t realize that he was a part of a band that has been on my iPod for years. I was amazed by his fusion of his love for music and his business acumen in creating Monarch Studios, filling an the need for a mid-size studio that could produce professional sound quality without the strings inherent in a big record label.

His example is truly inspirational to a business student such as myself. I especially liked the anecdote of how he would come to class with sawdust on his shoes from building his first studio in his parents’ basement- it just goes to show that with hard work and a little bit of ingenuity, you can create your own job and cater you life to your interests. His lecture reaffirmed my determination to use my business degree in a way that I find engaging, and make sure I never miss  an opportunity to combine my interests with my career.

Whenever I think about some of the great commercials I’ve seen, this one from Tim Hortons always springs to mind:

In today’s day and age, information is consistently broken down into bite sized portions. Marketing is reduced to taglines and blurbs on Facebook pages- but is that really effective? After reading Drew McLellan’s blog post for the Content Marketing Intitute, I’m starting to think it isn’t. Drew argues that “We buy based on our emotions and justify the purchase with the facts offered. But we very rarely buy on facts alone.” He cites campaigns such as the Dunkin Donuts “Fred the Baker” commercials and the Folger’s Coffee “Peter Comes Home for Christmas” advertisement as examples of storytelling marketing that provide a more subtle, nuanced marketing than today’s ‘just the facts’ approach.

Upon reflection, I have to say I agree with McLellan. The ad campaigns I remember and appreciate evoke an emotional response in the viewer- and those emotions can come from very unexpected sources, like this 2002 Ikea ad which won a Grand Clio and the Grand Prix at the Cannes Lions International Advertising Festival:

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

Some may argue that, in today’s world, this kind of storytelling is obsolete, but I think the connection it establishes between the consumer and the brand is a rapport that can be invaluable. As McLellan suggests, I would love to see storytelling integrated into today’s digital media tools- perhaps as in this Google ad?

Something to think about.

Some links for reference:

http://www.brandrepublic.com/News/183589/Watch-Crispin-Porters-Ikea-Film-Grand-Prix-winner/

http://www.boardsmag.com/articles/online/20030522/clios.html

After reading my friend Kat Wong’s blog on the TEDtalk “The Happy Secret to Better Work“, (check out her summary and thoughts here) I was inspired to check out the video. I was impressed with the speaker, Sean Achor, who was both funny and engaging, but I think that he misses a few key points in discussing the psychology behind productivity.

Achor posits that we need to “reverse the formula for success”, as our current understanding is hard work leads to productivity, which in turn leads to success, leading to happiness. Achor instead argues that employees that are happy in the first place will be more productive. In all honesty this seems like relatively simplistic reasoning to me which does not take in to account the complexity for human motivation.

Achor speaks to how, once we achieve the first ‘bar’ of success we set for ourselves, we tend to push expectations higher and remain unsatisfied. Though he may view this continuous goal setting negatively, I tend to consider this in a more positive light. It reminds me of a quote from one of my favourite movies, The Pursuit of Happyness:

It is impossible to define happiness, because it’s so specific to each individual. We can and should, as Kat points out, try and find happiness where we can in the little everyday things, but the bigger happinesses, especially in the workplace, are never truly satisfied.

What I would argue to Mr. Achor is this: Happiness can never fully be realized by anyone at any one moment in every sphere of their lives, and, if it is realized, that is no cause for joy. With the absence of something to strive for, we lose touch with the human condition of a constant struggle. For a company hoping to motivate employees, giving them comfort through things like benefits, positive office culture and incentives is a way to engender loyalty but, more than that, you need to give employees something to work for, whether it’s a social impact or a higher position.

To close, a quote from Sean Achor:

“If we study what is merely average, we will remain merely average.”

Words to live by.

When reading about Google’s corporate culture recently, it reminded me of Comm classes on “Corporate Social Responsibility” (CSR) and “People, Culture & Teams”.

When Google Inc. was founded in 1998 by Larry Page and Sergey Brin while at Stanford University, it was a search engine designed to use backlinks to check the ‘importance’ (and therefore determine the order in which sites would be listed when searched for) of websites. Today, we know Google  a tech giant, as servicing a number of needs, including apps, operating systems and phones. This year, as well as in 2007 and 2008, Google was ranked as the most attractive company to work for.

Now obviously it’s appealing to work for a big company and have access to resources you may not have had access to otherwise, but what sets Google apart? It’s likely their corporate culture, which endorses a laid back approach to business and simple, catchy corporate philosophies such as “Don’t be evil” (ie. you can make money without doing bad). This element of CSR embedded in the company’s ethos is certainly an element of what attracts potential employees to the company.

Furthermore, they take care to incorporate this “work combined with play” attitude within the infrastructure of the work environment itself, as you can see by this video, a tour around Googleplex, Google headquarters:

Google is clearly aware of the new ways in which the tech business is being run. As one employee states in the video “Google takes care of us”, and with gyms, free massages, amazing food and even laundry services, Google is creating not just a workplace, but a home, that is sure to attract the biggest talents in the tech industry.

Though not every company can afford to pamper their employees like Google, clearly taking care of your employees pays off. Google has experienced great success, and I would attribute much of it to their ability to cater to their employees and understand that a traditional corporate structure is not always the best one.
Some links for reference:

http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/best-companies/2012/full_list/

http://www.google.com/about/company/philosophy/

http://www.google.ca/about/company/facts/culture/

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wVZA1V4Ttc0&feature=plcp

Recently I had the privilege of listening to Wade Larson speak about his company, UrtheCast. During his speech, I was blown away by both the concept and the work he had done to achieve his vision.

When I realized the play on words in the name of the company (UrtheCast = EarthCast/You Are the Cast), it made me think about my own life in terms probably a little too existential for 9:30 on a Thursday morning. I paid close attention to the innovative ways UrtheCast would integrate social media, monetize their data by selling it to governments, and include product placement on their site. This made me think of my own life, in that I struggle to balance a social life, my education, and finding ways to make money.

Just as we have been taught that business models and strategies can be applied to many different kinds of business, from multi-national corporations to social entrepreneurship  in many ways they are relevant to out own lives. They say that art mimics life, and I suppose, in many ways, so does business. In the newly digitized and connected world where everyone  is a click away, a site has to be as organic and multifaceted as our lives. UrtheCast is a great example of a company poised to do just that.

Links for reference:

http://www.techshout.com/internet/2012/26/urthecast-plans-to-broadcast-the-earth-in-hd/

http://www.itproportal.com/2012/06/08/urthecast-when-youtube-meets-google-earth-glorious-hd/

Recently, the annual Victoria’s Secret Fashion Show was televised, and great controversy arose from a specific outfit in the show modelled by Karlie Kloss, as pictured below:

(courtesy of Fashionista.com)

The Native American inspired outfit was deemed by many both in the Aboriginal community and others to be offensive and patronizing. This reminded me of a blog by Rachel Warner on the outcry caused when McDonald’s announced their intention to open a restaurant at the base of the trail to the Golden Temple in India. Rachel quotes a protester as saying “It’s an attempt not only to make money but also to deliberately humiliate Hindus.” Many of Victoria’s Secret’s dissenters feel similarly  with outrage reaching such levels that the brand has issued a formal apology, and announced that the image and outfit will be removed from all promotional material.

This clothing was especially controversial not just for its appropriation of Native traditions and culture, but because Native American women have the highest rate of sexual abuse among women in North America, a fact which apparently escaped Victoria’s Secret’s notice when designing the racy outfit. As Milton Friedman stated, “the only social responsibility of business is to earn profits while following the law and basic ethical customs.” In my opinion, much like McDonald’s inconsiderateness towards local Indian culture, Victoria’s Secret clearly shows a violation of business ethics in that they are supporting a narrow, stereotypical view of a culture. A business practice doesn’t always have to be as “big” as child labour or hazardous material use in manufacturing to be unethical, sometimes it can come down to more socially constructed conflicts like respecting culture.

Links for Reference:

http://fashionista.com/2012/11/victorias-secret-apologizes-for-karlie-klosss-racy-native-american-runway-outfit-pulls-it-from-the-broadcast/

http://indiancountrytodaymedianetwork.com/ict_sbc/victorias-secret-flap-nothing-says-native-american-heritage-month-like-white-girls-in-headdresses

http://www.umich.edu/~thecore/doc/Friedman.pdf