Confession time: when I wrote my first blog post, I thought this was a really tedious assignment that was going to be torture all the way through. Nevertheless, I have to say that I’ve reached my 4^th blog post and I’ve been reading more articles than ever before and it’s been kind of (gasp!) fun. Anyways, getting down to business, (pun intended) one interesting article I read recently in the Daily Finance says that McDonalds is trying to add guacamole to its menu in an attempt to sway customers from Chipotle. To the untrained eye, this would seem like a great decision as McDonalds is trying to win back customers by giving them what they want. However, having learned about positioning has given me the insight to realise that what McDonalds is doing is a bad idea. Chipotle has established themselves as the leader of the guacamole market; by McDonalds trying to establish themselves as the leader, they will have to exert a lot of time and money.  In addition, McDonalds will probably give the consumer information overload and confuse them about what the brand is about. In order to reorient themselves, I believe McDonalds should stop trying to appeal to everyone and focus on the direction that has been working for them: fast-food burgers. This is not the first time McDonalds has tried to branch out (anyone remember the Mcpizza?) and nor will it be the last. Sometime, McDonalds will have to realise that it’s good to focus on your strengths and not always a good idea to try and give the consumer everything.

In my Comm 101 class, we have been told multiple times (and probably will be told many more) to take concepts we learned from class and try to analyse current events through those lens. So far, I have found this to be quite difficult until today when I found an article in CBC talking about an emerging social network called Ello that is aspiring to become a Facebook and Twitter alternative. In a nutshell, Ello’s claim to fame is that they’ll be ad-free compared to competitors and that personal information won’t be sold to third parties in the name of advertising. Having learned of Porter’s generic strategies in class, I can now appreciate what Ello’s trying to do. By using a differentiation strategy, Ello is hoping that its unique attributes (ad-free and privacy) will separate itself from the competition in a way that consumers will like. Personally, the only problem I see coming in Ello’s way is the cost. Currently, Ello is offering a free service that encourages users to donate. However, as Ello’s user base expands, I do not see them getting by without having to install a freemium model or making consumers pay money upfront to access the service. Ello has a great concept; the question is how they will apply it in the future to ensure its success.

As some of you in one of my classes might have noticed, I have been sick the last week and a half with a nasty little bug that the doctor called viral pneumonia. The illness hasn’t been particularly fun, but the good news is that it inspired me about what my next blog post should be. From an article in Canadian Business, I learned that there was an expensive drug called “biologic” which two companies wanted to ban other companies from selling for the reason of “protecting the consumer”. To me, what the two companies are trying to do is completely wrong and horrible for business in the long run. By trying to ban other companies, they are in effect making a monopoly on the product which would allow them to control the prices however they please. In turn, people who potentially need the medicine would not be able to afford it due to the high profits and could potentially die, which would be completely immoral and go against business ethics. Also, without any competition, the companies would stagnate creatively and there would most likely be no future breakthrough for that medicine. In the interest of human lives and the market the two companies should back off from their bills.

When looking at business ethics, I strongly believe in Freeman’s theory that corporations should attempt to align their views with consumers, producers, and most importantly, the worker. His opinion seems very sound to me and I was surprised to see how many stories I could find from last year that went against his idea. One article that I found in the Los Angeles Times that particularly astounded me was three business owning families of large companies (Hobby Lobby, Conestoga Wood, and Autocam) refusing to pay contraceptive coverage for their workers as it violated their free stance of religion. In order for a business to succeed, I have confidence that companies need to have workers who offer unique beliefs and ideas to the workplace. By a company enforcing one point of view, the worker loses his spark and individuality, becoming just another mindless drone. Looking further into the story, I was saddened to find that the companies won the Supreme Court case and were allowed to enforce their religious views. To be in a truly ethical business state, we need to be able to practice our freedom of conscience and religion without being penalised and deducted pay. Without originality, the economy would eventually reach a point of creative stagnation.