I learned much more about the concept and practicality behind their 20% time by reading this post, very informative and opinionated.

I had written a previous post regarding this subject and Google’s performance management styles, and this post even further stresses their unique yet effective approach.

It’s very interesting how they use a rule that works implicitly as a culture guideline to encourage the innovation and creativity of the brilliant minds that they employee. It also states, “Google culture, much like Microsoft in the early 90s, has a very strong, competitive work ethic, and peer pressure and pride drive many people to work hard”, showing how their workers seem to get an emotional return for working hard at Google. Their employees are obviously successful academics, which can explain why they seem to have a “resistance” to hierarchy because they’ve come so far on their own and having degrees can be taken as a status symbol. Thus, how Google created an environment that provides much freedom and accommodations to their employees, a culture that nurtures the innovations they are capable of, and intrinsically motivates them, is truly impressive and a performance management model to strive for.

I found this post entertaining. It is really quite funny how dramatically a large firm like Starbucks would react to a small family owned one just to protect their brand positioning.

Yet I also wonder why they reacted so negatively to it. Having “Charbucks” around would only increase the brand awareness, channels, and revenue streams. Having a branded drink named after them in fact would enforce Starbucks as the name people first think of when we hear the word coffee.

Similiarly, when Netflix became aware of how many users were sharing passwords, they also knew that it may not be a bad thing. In fact, finding that many who borrowed passwords were likely to eventually day for the service.

Overall, interesting how Starbucks takes their brand positioning so seriously. Being Starbucks, they must know something about being a popular coffee chain. However, is it possible for such close watch on their brand image be restricting their possibilities?

I agree that the government and car manufacturers should be addressing the issues among the use of electric cars so that it’s popularity will increase among consumers.

However, I disagree that the government should not give subsidies to manufacturers. It’s extra pricey to make electric cars than normal cars, so it would be very helpful for those willing to invest in creating electrics. It will allow companies to pass a profit point so that they can innovate and keep developing electric cars advancements. With more to work with, they can develop cars, and have the money to offer them, that can run on different terrain and ultimately match the performance capabilities of a fuel-run car.

Electric cars is most likely not an easy industry to thrive in, so then again subsidies would be useful. With rising companies that can offer more, electric cars would develop as a trend and become of greater performance capabilities.

original: https://blogs.ubc.ca/ohhmichelle/2013/11/18/electric-cars/

Facebook creates “internet.org”, an alliance with a goal to bring about internet access to 4.4 million people around the world who do not already have it. This project will call upon the collaboration of many developers, mobile operators and device manufacturers to find ways for more people to go online.

It has stirred up a level of controversy, with from Zuckerberg masking behind charity to fuel facebook’s future profits. Many argue that they are complete out of touch with what the developing countries really need, such as clean water, shelter, and education.

So because it is not stated as a non-profit, does it really mean it’s all just a greedy plan to reap profit from second and third world potentially new facebook users? I’d advocate that even if it is, they are doing no harm. While it is arguable that many firms mask profit-driven plans under a surface of corporate responsibility, in this case, providing internet to a disconnected population only opens up a world of new opportunities. Suddenly, massive amounts of data is available to them, and they can reach out to grab these opportunities.

In all, it’s a win-win situation where Facebook makes profit while fueling a social initiative.

reference:

http://www.wired.com/business/2013/08/facebooks-selfish-gift/

Who said it’s time to say goodbye to traditional TVs?

It may be surprising, but since 2011, only 3.5% of 11.8 million television-watching Canadians have cut the cord. In fact, it only started cutting after the arrival of Netflix.

Television providers are still having a tough time, just to be clear, and who wouldn’t? Internet viewing is a vicious competitor with it’s significantly cheaper prices, flexibility and variety. It’s up to TV providers to pull together great enough programs to offer a value proposition that people are willing to pay that extra for. They do, undeniably, have a great competitor advantage of much more money to pay for the ought-after content that Netflix is lacking.

Samsung has been forecasting trends, and has recently come out with a line of elegant 3D TVs, expecting to catch in on that market while it’s still much alive.

Hopefully, when a generation arrives that doesn’t bother to ever get a TV subscription, TV providers will move quickly enough as to not end up like Blockbuster when Netflix arrived.

August this year, Google’s famous 20% time, where employees get one day a week to work on any of their self-determined projects, was announced to be dead. The reaction from tech companies in Silicon Valley and programmers worldwide was dramatic.

Now, with Google seen as a leader in innovation and creativity,  it’s interesting to look at the performance management involved. Working at Google is demanding, for sure, so the people they employ must have shown excellence in their respective fields before being hired. People with a passion for what they do, and are self-motivated to venture further. 20% time nurtured the undeniable talent of their pool of employees. 20% time projects include Gmail and Appsense.

Shortly after, Google officially responded to media outcries, announcing that 20% time is “alive and well.” Employees are still encouraged to pursue their own projects, and their are slightly different rules around it now. It does make sense that one of the world’s largest tech companies may find it dangerous to allow employees to stray from the company’s stated goals a whole day each week.

It has been proven by many studies that monetary (extrinsic) incentives are not going to produce groundbreaking or truly exceptional results. Google is just another example of how performance management that nurtures is more effective that one that enforces a rules.

reference:

http://www.wired.com/business/2013/08/20-percent-time-will-never-die/

http://qz.com/117164/20-time-is-officially-alive-and-well-says-google/

The idea is that by placing “little luxuries” here and there for consumers to purchase on a daily basis will bring life into their market.Which contrast the popular strategy of selling an abundance of low quality goods at a cheap price. Examples include gourmet ice creams at their 7 Elevens and cashmere sweaters at Uniqlo (a casual wear retailer with quality as a strength).

Shinzo Abe, the newly elected Prime Minister of Japan has managed to liven the stock market and spending on luxury goods, but retail sales have not proven to increase significantly.

They suggest that it his policies are overly optimistic of the reality of the market. “When it comes to day-to-day spending, people are still in penny-pinching mode. We can’t see any impact from Abenomics,” says Seven and I Holdings President Noritoshi Murata.

Yet, it is important to keep in mind that the consumer demographic is slightly different in Japan. There are more people in Japan with money to spend.

This strategy is definitely a contrast, and it will be interesting to see how it will turn out. People will have to pay much more for their goods, but if revenue increases overall, consumers buy less but higher quality items, I think that’s a pretty sweet deal.

However, if they turn out like Vancouver, where people make vacations out of travelling down to the States purely to shop. They may want to look at the possibilities of people switching to buying clothes in neighbor countries Korea and China.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/10/06/us-japan-fastretailing-idUSBRE9950H620131006

On October 7th, 2013 the Parti Québécois proposed a new $2-billion plan that would increase investments and jobs in Quebec. This plan, revealed by Premier Pualine Marois and Finance Minister Nicolas Marceau, hopes to create 40,000 jobs by 2017. In particular, $566-million would go into the renewal of infrastructure, which would include community centers, arenas and schools. Also, $516-million of the budget would go into the development of electric transit in Quebec.

In a microeconomic standard, this would be similar to Franklin D. Roosevelt’s First 100 Day Plan. With the government interfering with the economy, it would allow for more jobs to occur which would then stimulate the economy. For instance, the 40,000 individuals who were granted jobs, are now able to provide more for their family and put more money into the economy as they purchase goods, and new entrepreneurs will have more capital to pursue their ambitions. Overall, I think it is a applaudable proposal from the part of the Parti Quebecois as they attempt to put more money into the economy.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/montreal/pq-announces-2-billion-jobs-plan-1.1928834

As of April 1st, the only legal way to get marijuana in Canada is for medical reasons from producers approved by Health Canada.

Since then, 171 individual parties have signed up to gain a slice of the anticipated highly-valued market. It is suggested that medium-sized businesses will receive the most benefits from this new program.

The amount of people using marijuana is also expected to multiply from 500 to 37,000. The entire industry in Canada is estimated to be worth about $1.4 billion by 2024.

Opening up this market into the free hands of the public (while still being regulated by Health Canada) is definitely an eye-catcher for corporations and entrepreneurs. With such high demand, a bustling market is sure to form.

The question is, who will benefit the most? Will a single corporation rise dominant? And how will these new changes affect marijuana as a product?

Since growing illegally in one’s home is still cheaper, it is suspected that marijuana will be “customized” to target certain health conditions to compete.

I suspect that the market will prove to grow massively and dominant corporations will be able to generate lots of revenue.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/canadian-pot-growers-eyeing-medical-marijuana-free-market-1.1894621

In recent decades, the ethical and unethical practices companies use to achieve their profit goals have been hot topics of discussion. With a raging consumer culture, it is not surprising to see retail giants resorting to controversial methods of production to respond to our wants of cheap clothes.

A notable case would be that of the internationally successful fashion chain Gap, founded in 1969. The social consequences of their remarkable profit came to attention and were addressed in 2004 after being harshly criticized for their involvement in child labour.

They publicly announced bold policies designed to rid their production processes of child labour unethical practices and have since been making efforts to brand their name as a company that highly values social responsibility. In 2007 they even launched their collection of Product Red, a charity with purposes to fight aids in third world countries.

As a consumer, I find that I am much willing to enter a store of a brand that I know has claimed to have a commitment to their role as a global citizen.

Despite Gap’s many efforts, recent investigations have found that their contractors have been taking advantage of their imperfect policies. Thus, children as young as 10, from poverty-stricken families, are working in devastating conditions to sew together the clothes we buy at cheap prices from a local Gap store.

“Gap Incorporated has a rigorous factory-monitoring programme in place and last year we revoked our approval of 23 factories for failing to comply with our standards,” announces a Gap spokesperson.

Yet, the sources in which retail giants like Gap go to achieve competitive prices are questionable. It has been acknowledged that India is not free of guilt when it comes to child labour. “The reality is that most major retail firms are in the same game, cutting costs and not considering the consequences. They should know by now what outsourcing to India means,” says the Delhi lawyer and child labour activist, Bhuwan Ribhu.

Such consequences suffered by disadvantaged workers in third world and developing coutries can be directly connected to consumer demands of cheap clothing and ignorant habits. Also directly connected would be the factor of aggression believed to be necessary to a business’ success in a competitive world.

We as consumers live comfortably day to day, yet when we do come aware of the atrocities occurring in other parts of the world, how should we respond? If this is the result of companies responding to our wants, how responsible are we? Is there much hope to solve these issues when they have become so rooted into such a large and crucial system?

And to hit even closer to home, as aspiring business leaders, what will our decisions be? How can we assure that we value our social responsibility enough to reject unethical proposals that promise great revenue? How can we educate and learn from the consumer public and other stakeholders so that together, our interests form a synergy without negative side effects?