Michelle Lee's Blog

In response to Katie Chow’s post on the question of importance of Twitter for businesses, I agree with her on how it can be valuable to a company. Using this social media site to extend information to the public is an easy (not to mention free) way to market it’s company as well as to allow customers feel like they know what is happening with the company. This communication between company and customers  generates a sense of relationship in which customers can feel more loyal to a company if they know the company is also trying to keep in touch with it’s customers. On the other hand, companies must also be careful of the information that they do post. Unprofessional posts about what is happening for lunch or what not may hinder the brand’s reputation.

In this day and age, most companies do use social media platforms to reach out to its target market as the world become more and more electronic dependant andTwitter is a great way to rely information. However, it must be used responsibly (like with most things).

Last weekend, I was walking in Urban Fare, and ended up in the peanut butter aisle. I love peanut butter, so it was inevitable I would end up there. Walking down the aisle, I was expecting to see Kraft, a very dominant brand in the food industry. However, the first brand that caught my eye was Monkey Butter. I have never heard of the brand before but I was intrigued by it. One successful marketing strategy, I thought to myself, was where the company positioned the product itself on the shelves of Urban Fare. The reason why it was the first product to catch my eye was because the product was directly at eye level. This grabbed my attention compared to the other brands I didn’t even notice on the lower shelves.

Following up on my curiosity, I found out that this brand is, in fact, a Vancouver based company. Monkey Butter brands itself on the fact that their peanut butter is made in small batches and with only natural ingredients. Not only this, but they state that their peanut butter is suitable for vegetarians as well. These two points of differentiation successfully allows them to position themselves apart from Kraft peanut butter, which is more mass-produced. Consumers can think of Monkey Butter as a healthier substitute to Kraft peanut butter. Because health is currently a big social trend, Monkey Butter has captured a growing need for healthy food products, giving them a good sustainable competitive advantage.

By having appealing packaging with cute designs and colours, Monkey Butter has been able to attract consumers to a seemingly basic food product. This definitely changes the way consumers are used to seeing peanut butter.

Sher-Wood Hockey Inc. has decided to move it’s production oversees to China in order to remain competitive against its rival brands. After having been producing hockey sticks in Quebec for over 60 years, this transition was a major decision decided by the company. Because most other hockey stick manufacturers are outsourcing in areas such as China, production cost was lower for other companies than was for Sher-wood, giving other companies a competitive advantage.

Because of the increasing facilitation in the transportation of goods around the world through globalization, many companies are faced with more international rivals. As a result, there is a constant increase in pressure for companies to sell to its target market before any other company. This has led to an increase in mass production as globalization also led to an increase in the size of the target market. Artisan crafted objects are now being replaced with mass produced objects.

Rather than having wood crafted hockey sticks from the wood in the Carolinian forests, Sher-wood is moving it’s production plant to China in order to keep up with other companies as they are strategically finding better ways to improve their demand.

Marotte, Bertrand. “Sher-Wood Follows Rivals to China, Closes Quebec Hockey Stick Plant.” The Globe and Mail: B.1. Apr 08 2011.Canadian Newsstand Complete. Web. 8 Oct. 2012 .

Following up from last week’s post on sweatshops in Bangladesh, I came across another classmate’s blog that contained a similar post. Cherihan’s post explored the revelation of Primark’s use of child labor in order to produce some of their clothing. BBC’s Panorama Program found out that this UK company was using firms in India that worked with underaged children to embroider shirts.  Even though this company did fire the firms that dealt with child labor, Cherihan asked the question whether they would have done so had BBC’s Panorama Program not reveal this problem. If it was still hidden from the public, would Primark have done anything? This is similar to my last post and how Wal-mart had asked that the report that showed they were using sweatshops not be produced in order for the public to not know.

It seems that many companies use unethical practices in order to gain a little more profit but once the public knows about such, they claim that they knew nothing of it and try to fix the problem. It’s as if such ethical violations are allowed as long as the public is unaware of them.

Wal-mart is well known for their low prices. Even their trademark phrase is “Save money, live better.” However, in order for these prices to be low, the cost in producing these items must also be low to create a profit for the company. One factor that influences that cost of production is labor; something that Wal-mart has tried to lower by using sweatshops located in Bangladesh. The working conditions in these sweatshops are extreme such that the workers must work up to 19 hour shifts and are payed as little as 20 dollars a month.

SweatFree Communities, an activist group against sweatshops, created a report on the working conditions in these sweatshops but Wal-mart asked for the report to not be published.

Is it right for Wal-mart to produce products at low prices because they use sweatshops? Personally, I don’t think it is right to do so. Not only are there low wages and long hours, but allowing these factories to remain running allow the labourers to think that being in terrible working conditions are acceptable. We may be presented with low priced products at Wal-mart but understanding how they were made makes them a little less appealing.

Gogoi, Pallavi. “Wal-Mart Supplier Accused of Sweatshop Conditions – Businessweek.” Businessweek – Business News, Stock Market & Financial Advice. N.p., n.d. Web. 13 Sept. 2012. <http://www.businessweek.com/stories/2008-10-09/wal-mart-supplier-accused-of-sweatshop-conditionsbusinessweek-business-news-stock-market-and-financial-advice>