First and foremost, although the United Nations and social enterprises such as UBC’s Arc Initiative share a similar goal in creating social change in the world, they achieve their respective goals in a different manner. The purpose of the UN is to create international peace and security, while promoting culture, individualism, and fundamental freedoms. Collectively, the 193 participating nations and partners embark on “multi-stakeholder initiatives” around the world, with the focus of fostering the aforementioned values. So why would we need social enterprises if the UN exist and is fully funded?

The UN is always in the midst of amendment: they solve prevailing problems and inequalities in the world by either getting their hands dirty or by pumping money, necessities, or whatever it may be into the struggling community. In contrast, social enterprises find solutions to global problems through innovation. For example, Jim Frurchterman promoted the use of technology to confront human rights issues. This form of innovating from within and listening to individual voices is what makes programs such as Arc Initiative invaluable to society and therefore needed even if the UN is fully funded.

The qualities of a social entrepreneurs include being ambitious, mission-driven, strategic, resourceful, and results orientated. These qualities resonate within Sauder students and that is why students like Arielle Uwonkunda, through her “renaissance trip,” have already become young and impactful social entrepreneurs. For these reasons, social enterprises and entrepreneurs are quintessential in cultivating growth and solutions to the world and to the individual.

As Felix Salmon puts it in his blog, Facebook can either “make or break media companies:  if it sends you traffic you’re golden; if it takes it away, you’re toast.”  Facebook’s desire to keep users within its universe is bad news for publishers on the open web.  Publishers that use Facebook are plagued with the loss of control over their readers, the loss of data, and are forced to share ad revenues with Facebook. I agree with Felix’s point that publishers face a tradeoff in either having traffic or control.  This raises questions as to how publishers should deal with Facebook, a “paralleled internet.”  Facebook proposes that media companies outsource their news and effectively become the supplier of content, while Facebook becomes the distributor.  I believe that the shared ad revenue that is generated is not enough for publishers to become merely a number amongst Facebook, just like its users.

If I were a publisher, the ambiguity of Facebook’s algorithms is something that dissuades me from associating my company with Facebook.  I have no idea how my content is being distributed and who is reading it.  However, if my media’s goal is to reach out to users and catch their attention, then fine, outsourcing content through Facebook is a viable option.  However, if my goal is to ultimately get users to use my web app, Facebook does not do a good job of that because it traps users within its servers.  Unfortunately, the vast majority of the media economy wants control over their feeds and therefore are suffering from Facebook’s internet dictatorship.

Felix’s Facebook Blog

http://www.felixsalmon.com/ 

Why businesses should refuse Facebook’s deal 

Intuitively, the University of Warwick’s studies make sense; however, I disagree with Graham’s suggestion that companies such as Zappos should cut costs at the expense of diluting corporate culture. Companies that clearly define and promote a distinct corporate strategy are ultimately the most successful.

 Zappos’ large-scale success is because of a distinct corporate culture that resonates within its employees and customers. Employees at Zappos are not being paid for high-end skills or talent; they are being paid for operational productivity. This is achieved through incentivizing employees by offering a family environment, health benefits, and opportunities for internal promotion, which all decrease employee turnover. Other successful companies such as Google do not need to offer benefits or compensation. They can have a cold, profit maximizing corporate attitude because employee turnover is actually desired. Technology companies thrive on cycling through top talent and need turnover to inject new ideas. Furthermore, young employees of tech companies better themselves through turnover by gaining experience from company to company.

The corporate culture of Amazon, Zappos’ parent company since 2009, is an example of another successful, yet distinct corporate culture. Amazon undercuts all low cost competition including Walmart through squeezing the life out its workers and through controversial cost minimization. Nevertheless, Amazon is by far the largest and most successful online distributor in the world that monopolizes the industry with its ability to buy out competitors.

Amazon – Dark Side of a Commercial Empire

The Future of Work: Amazon vs Zappos

Graham’s Blogpost

After listening to Paul Davidescu talk about his mobile app in class, I have become intrigued by technological entrepreneurship and in particular, how success is contingent on perseverance. After Tangoo’s initial operational failures, the company became successful through altering their business strategy. At the first sign of financial troubles, it is far too common for entrepreneurs to give up. Although we can give credit to Davidescu and his team for a successful recovery and launch, moving forward and monetizing new ideas will be very hard. For example, even as Tangoo usage increases, restaurants are unlikely to pay for a better profile or for advertisement on the app when there already exists many other direct methods of influencing customers. Subsequently, revenue streams are limited for most apps and that is why I would recommend making a premium app: adding wait times or aesthetically enhancing the app for example are some ways of making an upgrade desirable.

Tangoo’s November 26^th featuring on Dragon’s Den will give Tangoo an opportunity to leverage itself with brand awareness, connections, and many other intangible benefits that come from publicity. In addition, the investors, namely the “Dragons,” and Tangoo can mutually benefit from sharing equity in the company. The purchase of a stake in the company not only fuels Tangoo’s growth with immediate positive cash flow, it also gives the business a proper valuation, which is something that is always vague for small and upcoming enterprises. As the company begins to expand nationally, publicity and built up sweat-equity may be the catalyst of long run success. A report from Statistics Canada says that over 60% of small enterprises rely on local markets. Tangoo’s keenness to defy this statistic through expansion is great, but it will become harder and harder to infiltrate the smaller cities in Canada.

Tangoo Small Business Globe and Mail Article

https://tangoo.ca/

Paul and Tangoo team’s Journey to Dragon’s Den

Three years a go, Blackberry held 43% of the market share in Indonesia, which is the Canadian company’s largest “market-bastion.” Blackberry’s mismanagement has led to its demise, resulting in a 3% Indonesian market share today. The brand’s appeal has been lost in the emergence of low cost competition.

In order for blackberry to regain global market share and moreover mitigate losses, it is essential for the company to reevaluate their business plan. Recently, Blackberry has partnered with Foxconn, a Taiwanese based hardware manufacturer. Through outsourcing, this partnership will allow Blackberry to compete with lower cost androids, as Blackberry can cut manufacturing costs and can focus their attention on innovation and software development. However, Blackberry must clearly define their customer segment; previously, they had a significant influence on businessmen. This customer segment that once differentiated the Blackberry from other mobile devices has been lost. It may be too little too late with Blackberry’s current touch screen phones, as they are losing out to smart phones on both the high and low ends. This is not because Blackberry produces a relatively worse device; it is simply because the consumer mindset has changed and moved on. Although it is unlikely for Blackberry to regain its dominant market share, it can still compete and generate profits through the cost efficiency it achieves with Foxconn and through the decentralization of the company away from Canada.

Blackberry Article