The New York Times Magazine published at the beginning of the year this article on how Target and more large companies get close to the people that consume there. Every time a client walks in a store regularly, Target re-collects tons of data and, when it’s possible, it gives the client a unique ID number or code that recognizes his shopping. Target’s Guest Marketing Analytics department links your frequent shopping with your age, where you live, what your job is, your approximate salary, what credit cards you have and more. Big companies today know what we are interested in because of the research that has been done through psychological questionnaires, brain studies and habit formations. The way Target achieves high sales made me think of Management Information System because as a company they are using technology, recollecting data on the clients to offer them what they are interested in, and with this obtain the high sale rates needed.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/19/magazine/shopping-habits.html?pagewanted=2&_r=4&hp&

After reading Daniel’s blogpost RE: Sustainable driving and going to the class on Corporate Social Responsibility, my interest in the companies who help others but themselves grew. Within the many companies that have corporate social responsibility, is Pedigree, whose “consciousness” permeates everything they do.

What Pedigree does goes beyond simply making and selling dog food, they help homeless dogs to find a home and to help those in shelters. What Pedigree does is they donate one bowl of food to animal shelters every time they obtain a Facebook fan with the goal to donate 4 million bowls of dog food, enough to feed every shelter dog in America for one day.

What is fascinating is not only Pedigree’s ability to be a social enterprise but also how they’re an example that no matter how big a company is, it’s never too late to help

Reading Taylor Carkner’s blogpost on Greenwashing Corporate Actions a lot thoughts came to my mind regarding the veracity of company’s claim of being ‘ecologically friendly’. Firstly, Taylor brings up a good term that is not very well known; greenwashing. The following video details a few facts about greenwashing:

As may be seen, there are several things that companies do that consumers believe are helping the environment, when in fact they aren’t. An example of a company who’s involved in greenwashing is Fiji Water Company. The company claimed of making an ‘environmentally friendly’ water bottle, however,”the actual “greenness” of the “bottled water was not disputed, but rather that the bottler’s overall manufacturing distribution and packaging of the water uses a “greater amount more of natural resources” in the creation and transportation of the bottled water than competitors and that this results in the use of “46 million gallons of fossil fuel, producing approximately 216,000,000 billion pounds of greenhouse gases per year.””

Brantford’s blogpost Bic’s “For Her” Ballpoint Pens was so intriguing that I decided to look for other ridiculous gender-specific products. Primarily it seems as if the main concern that makes gender-specific advertising a huge success- or failure- is the stereotypical consumer behaviors; women like pink and men like beer. As simple as that.

However ludicrous that may seem to some, gender-specific has reached a limit. Chocolate bars.. for her?!

Apparently this chocolate designed for women is the answer to women’s “main concern”; weight. The market research carried out by Cadbury shows that women buy less chocolate in an attempt to be healthier and that ” According to industry research, annual sales of single chocolate bars have fallen by some 6.6 per cent in a market worth approximately £800m a year”.

But just like Brantford pointed out with Bic, is this actually a good business decision for Cadbury? Does gender-specifying products decrease potential profit? With a company as prestigious as Cabury, I believe that the Crispello will actually benefit or not even influence Cadbury at all, since other targets may be reached; women concerned about their overall health. However, wouldn’t it have been easier to simply call the chocolate a ‘low calorie’ chocolate so that both men AND women enjoy the benefits of Crispello whithout the shame of it being a ‘feminine’ product?

Surfing the I stumbled across an article about Starbucks’ inefficient supply chain & I remembered what  Mahesh told us a couple of weeks ago about supply chain operations. It takes a well-run supply chain to ensure that a barista pours a good cup of Starbucks coffee, as i is known that the journey from bean to cup is quite complex. Simply put:

“Coffee and other merchandise must be sourced from around the globe and then successfully delivered to the Starbucks Corporation’s 16,700 retail stores, which serve some 50 million customers in 51 countries each week.”

What was holding Starbucks’ pure success back was partly due to Starbuck’s rapid expansion and the difficulties that emerged in the supply chain organization trying to keep up with these worldwide expansions. But let’s face it, Starbucks was facing a HUGE challenge, imagine reorganizing the whole supply chain organization of a company as big as Starbucks. Primarily, the they had to reorganize the supply chain functions and consequently reduce costs and improve efficiencies. That is why people like Mahesh are crucial for a business’ success.

After reading @matthewchan94 ‘s blogpost The Online Video Marketing Scheme dealing with BMW’s stretegy for marketing, I decided to lookup the importance online marketing has on consumer behavior.

Nowadays, it seems as if the internet were our oxygen. Our dependency on technology has become somewhat ridiculous, as we seem almost useless without it. For this reason, businesses are taking advantage, and using online resources to influence why consumers choose one brand over the other. Simply put, without online ads most of us wouldn’t even know about the existence of such businesses. Has online marketing become not only a fad but a need? Would businesses endure without it? Take a company like Coca-Cola, whose ads have been not only memorable but controversial. Sure, one could argue that it has already gained sufficient importance so that consumers will still consume Coke despite the lack of advertisements. But what’s important here is that online marketing allows media to evoke emotions on consumers that they never thought they could have. Take for example, Coke’s video The Coca-Cola Happiness Machine , where the faces of the young showing surprise and joy cannot but produce sympathy and joy, allowing consumers to associate Coke with happiness and thus buy more Coke

Coca Cola Happiness Machine

  Jobs not TOMS

We’ve all seen the new fad of wearing the ‘socially responsible’ shoes. Yes, the shoes whose makers claim that for every pair of shoes bought, “TOMS will give a pair of shoes to a child in need”. Sameena Kamdar‘s post “Socially Responsible” Intentions: Purely altruistic, or profit-driven? reassured the point of view I had regarding how TOMS’ “philanthropist” ideology may be great marketing, but it is a perfect example of bad aid.

Some may ask whether ‘bad aid‘ exists, but there actually is such a thing. In her blog, Sameena pointed out the ethical perspective of using charity as a “business booster”. However, this goes way beyond TOMS as a business, it touches topics both political and economical for developing countries. The first example of TOMS granting bad aid is the fact that it will undermine local economies. Not only will it damage local shoe making economies but it also leads us to question TOMS’ apparent philanthropic deed; developing countries may need shoes for sanitary reasons, but what they actually require are fair jobs and quitting the dependency on other countries.   The following video encapsules how TOMS is promoting bad aid to developing countries:

A Day Without Dignity

Sources:

TOMS “Socially Responsible” Intentions: Purely altruistic, or profit-driven?

http://humanosphere.kplu.org/2012/04/its-day-without-dignity-day-skewering-kony-2012-toms-shoes-and-other-bad-aid/

After reading @Luai Ghazi’s Blog on “What is Facebook?” I pondered on his questioning on whether  Facebook should expand into the markets of  “online shopping as well as incorporating a search engine into the website”. Although Luai has a good point that by expanding into these markets Facebook would confront too big of a competition but possibly increasing profits, I also believe that online shopping would be a ‘no-no’ for Facebook. Firstly, if we consider the advertising fiasco on Facebook we may reinforce the belief that online shopping would not work as Facebook users claim that Facebook ads are distracting or not relevant as all they want to do on Facebook is communicate with their friends. However, it should also be taken into account that users don’t necessarily have to click on the ads, as it is said that “as long as the user sees your ad, they’ll want to buy your product or service.”

Similarly, I agree with Luai’s stand point that by trying new paths and opportunities the brand may expand and thus increase profits, just like other innovative social networking sites such as Instagram. But the real questions lies on whether Mr. Zuckerberg will take wise risks?

Sources:

https://blogs.ubc.ca/luaighazi/2012/10/07/whatisfacebook/

http://www.webpronews.com/facebook-to-advertisers-users-dont-have-to-click-for-it-to-pay-off-2012-10

http://www.google.com.mx/imgres?q=facebook+risk&um=1&hl=es&rlz=1C1CHFA_enMX491MX491&biw=1280&bih=562&tbm=isch&tbnid=64hGdXFJSw2WuM:&imgrefurl=http://www.seoconsult.com/seoblog/social-media-optimisation/5-facebook-risk-factors.html&docid=jgLkgAC4OXFSSM&imgurl=http://www.seoconsult.com/seoblog/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/Facebook-Facts.jpg&w=634&h=810&ei=rXdzUN-WCYHliALF9oDYDA&zoom=1&iact=hc&vpx=104&vpy=232&dur=2583&hovh=254&hovw=199&tx=124&ty=138&sig=110568508630677761705&page=1&tbnh=119&tbnw=127&start=0&ndsp=21&ved=1t:429,r:7,s:0,i:87 

As competition in the technology and computer business increases, the demand for PC seems to be a specie that is almost extinct.

Companies such as Intel, Dell and Hewlett-Packard are facing a serious warnings as their expectations for future revenue are beyond disappointing. The ever-more popular tablets are the main reason why the demand for PC’s have decreased in such a dramatic way. However, there seems to be a not so promising ‘bacon of hope’; Windows 8. It’s been three years since the release of Windows 7, therefore companies in the PC industry believe that the novelty in the new operating system wil launch the industry back into the competition.

Nonetheless, despite the potential slight increase in demand for PC’s this won’t be enough to compete with their head on competition; Apple. As tablets may be included in the PC sales, this illustrates why Microsoft is no longer considered as a threat for other industry competitors as consumers have ‘flocked’ to iPad consumption. Will the PC industry ever come back into the competition?

Sources:

http://www.forbes.com/sites/ericsavitz/2012/09/24/pcs-demand-continues-to-weaken-evercore-cuts-outlook/

http://finance.ninemsn.com.au/newsbusiness/aap/8529455/intel-cuts-forecast-as-pc-demand-falls

We all do our laundry. UBC students do it, celebrities do it, but does HSBC do it as well?

HSBC’s Mexico unit was accused of being inadvertently involved in the money laundry business by allowing the bank to be used by money launderers,cartels and terrorist financiers. Senate investigators alleged that the substantial sums of cash moved by HSBC from Mexico to the US could only be explained by an involvement proceeding from illegal narcotics. The statements made by the US bank regulators claiming that HSBC is lenient and deficient with anti-money laundering policies only reinforce these constant criticisms.

So what should  John Root, HSBC’s senior manager of group compliance, do? Despite his and HSBC’s failed attempts at changing Mexican culture, corruption stills reigns in HSBC’s realm. One would imagine though that such a highly esteemed bank would be completely against corruption, however as  David Bagley, HSBC’s head of compliance since 2002, said:

 “Despite the best efforts and intentions of many dedicated professionals, HSBC has fallen short of our own expectations and the expectations of our regulators,”.

Thus leading to question: will this “pervasively polluted” culture ever stop infecting businesses? Or when will the top dogs obtain the guts to put a stop to it?

Sources:

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/832b582a-d0f2-11e1-8a3c-00144feabdc0.html#axzz26KmBNgGT

http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2012/jul/17/hsbc-executive-resigns-senate