JASA company program trade show – calgary, 2013

It was announced last week that Canada Western Bank is investing $375,000 in the Junior Achievement program for western provinces over the next three years. Junior Achievement, a non-for-profit, is a group that provides financial, leadership, and business education to high school students in the form of in the classroom, and extra-curricular programs. As a part of this, employees of the firm will continue to provide their volunteer services in and around the classroom to supplement this type of learning.

As a product of the Junior Achievement Company Program myself, I have first hand experience as to the opportunities that such as organization can open young students up to. When I was in twelfth grade, the Junior Achievement of Southern Alberta (JASA) was able to provide me with the means to open up, and encounter the first hand knowledge that comes with running one’s own business. Though the company itself was not that successful (in fact it was embarrassingly not so), JASA’s program was able to open me up to opportunities and frontiers that no ordinary student would ever have been able to access before.

Though it looks good for companies to engage with NGOs and make partnerships with groups that do charitable work, I believe that CWB has found the perfect balance between engaging in the community, and keeping their activism relevant to what they stand for and believe in. CWB is investing in a group that helps youth, but it is also investing in a message and in education that they believe in, which makes the efforts that much more noble.

source: article

link to image: https://southern-alberta41285.thankyou4caring.org/image/trade.jpg

(see: saviour of the internet)

It would seem that those in favour of net-neutrality can let a sigh of relief out after yesterday. On November 10th, President Barack Obama made comments in support of the concept of “net-neutrality”, the idea that internet service providers (ISPs) must treat all traffic on the internet equally, rather than selling priority traffic to larger sites that can pay for it (your Googles, your Netflixes, etc.). His comments would come in the wake of a push by the Federal Communications Committee (FCC) to commercialize and profit upon internet space, and although it is rare that a President makes explicit comments condemning the actions of a federal bureau, indicating that this is a severe issue of contention within government, this ultimately will not deter the FCC.

What net-neutrality means, in the grand scheme of things, is that smaller internet start-ups would be given equivalent internet traffic capacity as larger companies. On the flip-side, however, if the FCC is able to monetize internet traffic, larger internet companies could take advantage of, and monopolize the ability to support internet traffic, essentially making smaller companies obsolete.

Though some greedy, entrepreneurial side of me (I call it “Sauder Mitch”) is telling me that there is an unbelievable amount of money to be made in monetizing internet traffic, the rest of me is still certain that ISPs need to keep the internet neutral. Though monopolies in general can be very dangerous, they can potentially be even more so in such a medium that is inherently free, like the internet.

source: Economist Article

link to image: http://www.economist.com/news/business-and-finance/21632020

not your average production company

In a blog post by Comm 101 classmate Michelle Liao, she detailed the rise to fame and success of a YouTube “vlogger” Shaycarl and his family, which reminded me of another business that I’ve taken an interest in over the past few years.

Rooster Teeth is a company that produces online comedy web-series and holds the current record for longest running online web show as it moves into it’s 11th season. But what started as a group of four guys in a spare bedroom has quickly blossomed into the multi-million fan-based internet mogul that it is today. However, for the longest time, skeptics were critical of the business, and wondered how well, if at all, an internet fan base could translate into a viable business.

However, earlier this year, Rooster Teeth was able to silence the critics when the Indiegogo crowd-funding campaign for their first feature-length film earned an astounding $2.5 million, making it the highest funded film project in the history of the site, from 37,000 funders.

It would turn out, that internet fame can scale, which provides a very interesting future for alternative media. With sites and services like Hulu and Netflix on the rise, as well as the emergence of real tangible financial success and security for internet companies and personalities like Rooster Teeth and Shaycarl, could this foreshadow the death of conventional media? It would certainly seem like a possibility as it stands.

source: article

link to photograph: http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/11/10/us-media-roosterteeth-idUSKCN0IU1OI20141110

big brother is watching you

I recently (as a mandate for this Comm 101 Blog Assignment) stumbled across an interesting blog that is solely dedicated to marketing. The “Jackie Huba blog” provides fascinating commentary on marketing strategies and techniques employed by businesses around the world, as they pertain to the average consumer. For instance, in a recent post, Huba outlines very briefly, in very simple words the foundations of the marketing campaign of Starbucks, and provides a relevant example of this strategy in action.

What makes this blog so enticing (at least in my eyes) is the universality of it. Though marketing is a field that can be discussed in extreme detail, this blog seems to refrain from doing just that. The fact that the majority of the commentary that is found in this blog uses basic every-man language certainly opens up the world of marketing strategy to just about everyone. Rather than getting caught up in difficult terminology and concepts, Huba’s blog simply provides basic commentary that can be enjoyed by both the casual reader, and those who have a more in-depth interest in pursuing the field of marketing. I, myself, am not particularly interested in marketing above other fields in the business world, but I find that posts in this blog are readable, interesting, and most importantly relevant to me, which is what helps to make this blog so uniquely relatable.

source: Jackie Huba’s Blog

photo credit: a registered trademark of Starbucks

a MUCH younger version of me on the right; incumbent mayor of Calgary, Naheed Nenshi pictured on the left.

Talking in class about entrepreneurship, as well as the readings about micro-financing reminded me about a program that is very dear to my own heart. There’s a foundation in my hometown (Calgary, Alberta) that goes by the name “Awesome Calgary”, and each month it distributes a $1000 no-strings-attached micro-grant to the business idea that they deem to be the most awesome.

Each month, entrepreneurs and businesses in development submit a generic outline of their pitch online, and the top three ideas of the month are selected to pitch their business plans in front of a board of trustees live in Awesome Calgary’s downtown office.

The goals of the organization are to support local business, and help to strengthen ties between the entrepreneurs of Calgary’s growing business world and the community around it.

For the month of April, 2012, a couple of friends and I were the grant winners with a social enterprise idea to help develop a stronger sense of community between young Calgarians, which did in fact include Cookie Monster (pictured above), the details of which certainly won’t fit within 200 words.

It is efforts like those of the Awesome Calgary foundation, and other organizations who promote the development of shared value between other businesses and the local area that really make a difference in shaping the business world. Any number of groups of people making money can be businesses, but programs like this really help to develop a business community, which is what makes what Awesome Calgary does all the more special.

source: Awesome Calgary Foundation Website

photo credit: Awesome Calgary Foundation

too close for comfort photograph of Alberta’s new premier courtesy of CBC

Although there is significant Conservative support throughout Western Canada (*cough* Alberta *cough*) in favour of trans-Canada pipeline initiatives to bring Albertan crude oil to other “less fortunate” areas of Canada, comments made by Albertan Premier suggested that there may also be significant support from an unexpected source. New-to-the-position and ex-neighbour-of-mine-back-in-Calgary Premier Jim Prentice suggested in mid-September that “among the strongest allies that Alberta has at the table are the First Nations of this province”.

Now before you denounce this as overtly untrue, which at first seems to be the case, you have to understand what exactly Prentice is saying. Later in his comments, he would go on to establish that the First Nations people to which he is referring are “in the oil business themselves”, which certainly changes the scope of his original comment. What this also does, however, is provide an interesting insight into the motivations of some of the First Nations people. Although there was a time in which preservation of the land and culture was at the forefront of importance to many of the province’s tribes, which is not to say that this is no longer the case, we now see First Nation’s people acknowledging financial gain as an incentive to cooperate with the government. Though this does not necessarily suggest the province’s tribes are receding from their staunch stance on preserving their land and culture, it does suggest that this generation is involved in commerce, and can be bought, a trend that is consistent throughout tribe to government dealings within Alberta recently (the Calgary ring-road being a perfect example).

sources: CBC

A recent blog post from classmate Gavin McQueenie discussed the intricacies of Facebook’s new advertising strategy, and how it was sure to boost revenue. For me, this prompted an interesting question, and an even more interesting answer. If social media websites are, allegedly, generating ridiculous amounts of revenue, they must also be generating ridiculous amounts of profit, no? Apparently, as is the case with other social media, and Facebook competitor, Twitter, this is not necessarily so. Twitter’s stock price which, despite a steep drop in May of this year, continues to climb and is sitting at nearly double what it was when Twitter went public in November of last year. Despite this, and despite the fact that there is a growing Twitter user-base, and despite the fact that there is a growing advertising platform on the site (all critical elements as outlined in Gavin’s post): TWITTER IS NOT MAKING ANY MONEY.

Believe it or not, based on GAAP analysis of Twitter’s numbers, Twitter is still in the red. In fact, it is estimated that Twitter is losing $0.98 per share this year, and will continue to lose $0.87 per share in 2015, despite earnings reports from the company that suggest their revenue is growing nearly exponentially. Although it is absolutely likely that Twitter will be profitable within the next number of years, there is still undying, devotional faith in the prospects of the company under it’s current situation (one without any actual money made).

In my opinion, the fact that Twitter isn’t profitable yet shouldn’t be a deciding factor for potential investors. However, it is essential to note that it is the case, and evaluate the applicable risk. Twitter may be a thriving and expanding company, but it just isn’t making any money yet, and investors need to be aware of that.

Sources:

Gavin McQueenie’s Blog Post

Additional Information: Time Magazine Article

Photograph

(note the disappointment on his face)

As per an article I read in The Economist (link found here), there has been a disappointing turn of events for the outcome of Ford’s 2014. The year began with promise, as Ford prepared to launch a record-breaking 27 new vehicles this calendar year; but as the year comes to a close, it’s becoming obvious that things aren’t playing out exactly (and certainly not as well) as Ford had hoped. As Ford continued this past week to unveil new models of some of their most popular cars at the Paris Motor Show, namely the C-Max, S-Max, and Monedo, the focus was not centred on the stage as they had hoped. Instead, the presentation fell in the wake of an announcement early last week that Ford’s earnings for the year are now projected to be $6 billion. Though this number seems large, it is nearly $2 billion lower than previous estimates for the year’s earnings. This announcement spurred a flow of investors trying to sell out of Ford for fear of what this omen represents. Even a huge, breakthrough year for Ford doesn’t seem to be enough to keep an old brand with an outdated mindset competitive in an ever-changing and ever-progressive industry. Is it time for Ford to re-evaluate the way in which they’re trying to retain their once iron-clad grasp on the industry? Or, is it time to accept that Detroit, Michigan may not be the centre of the universe, as other progressive, modern brands continue to take the industry and consumer world by storm?

link to image: http://www.usnews.com/dims4/USNEWS/cc52f47/2147483647/resize/652x%3E/quality/85/?url=%2Fcmsmedia%2F24%2Fa1f8653bd0141056fb70b8b05549fb%2F51761widemodern_ford_140108.jpg

(see: supreme luxuriousness)

A few classes ago, there was a discussion in our lecture that related to the way in which the company Tesla Motors could best advance to grow their company. A group that presented before the whole class suggested that they work on methods to cut costs and lower prices so as to make their vehicles more attainable by the general public, with the intent of selling more. However, this got me thinking. If it is Tesla’s goal to sell a brand of cars, which are both high performance and luxury, does this not develop a level of exclusivity within the brand? In other words, if Tesla’s cars become more accessible to the general public financially, to what extent do they become less exclusive and move away from the goal of the brand? This theory, of course, applies to all luxury brands with similar foundational values. The entire basis for legitimizing luxury brands is that they are exclusive, and therefore only those with the means to buy their products have access to them. Should Tesla’s goal really be to sell as many cars as possible? Or is it more in-line with their values and the basis of their company if they leave the hefty price tag, and retain the exclusivity factor of their vehicles? I would suggest the latter, begrudgingly of course, because that makes it all the more difficult for me to own a Tesla myself.

link to image: http://o.aolcdn.com/hss/storage/midas/299b849c02ea5e301c4088b5f7e2528e/200308646/01-2012-tesla-model-s-fd-1347336745.jpg

The regulation circumventing techniques employed by Goldman Sachs as outlined in the New York Times article pose questions regarding the delicate balance between pursuit of profit, and blatantly acting in a corrupt/unethical fashion. Goldman Sachs demonstrates, through their manipulation and artificial inflation of the price of aluminum, the way in which businesses will push the boundaries of morality in order to attain their financial goals. This begs the question, however: though Goldman Sachs is essentially hoarding stocks of resources, which is blatantly illegal, is it still wrong if they technically aren’t doing anything illegal? Should the boundaries of ethics in business be defined strictly by the law itself; or should “ethics” refer to a standard code of decency, superseding written rules, that businesses should adhere to regardless of the loopholes that they can find themselves taking advantage of? Goldman Sachs would certainly plead the former, but as a consumer who finds himself faced with artificially rising prices putting more money in the pockets of those who have more than they would/should ever need, I’m not so sure.

link to image: http://images.businessweek.com/ss/08/09/0904_first_jobs/image/goldman_sachs.jpg