The Globe and Mail recently posted an article about Vale, a mining company, closing part of their operations in my hometown.  Thompson, Manitoba is a northern community that was built around a nickel mine, and Vale has announced it will be closing the smelting and refining factories in Thompson.  This will greatly impact the community, for the nickel mine is a primary source of employment.

This closure has to do with Canada’s changing environmental policies, as well as the low nickel prices.  Environmental policies restrict the emissions let out into the atmosphere each year, and the smelting and refining processes emit lots of gases.  However, these policies aren’t working as the government had hoped.  What these restrictions are actually doing is making Vale transport unrefined product out of Thompson via rail or semi, and refined somewhere else in Canada.  Therefore, the same amount of emissions are being let into the atmosphere, as well as the emissions from the transportation of the product.

I believe that this plan to shut down a part of the mine in Thompson is a bad idea because it isn’t solving anything.  The same emissions are going to be polluted, just in a different place.  The policies are just inconveniencing Thompson and Vale by creating more costs and less jobs.

Source: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/industry-news/energy-and-resources/vale-potash-puts-saskatchewan-mine-project-on-hold/article27372521/

In Stephanie Burns’ blog post “Why it’s Good for your Business to do Good” on chic-ceo.com, she analyzes why it’s good for businesses to contribute to charities and host charitable events.  In my opinion, Burns makes many strong points that should encourage business owners to get involved.

One point of focus is the fact that holding charity events makes both consumers and employees see the business positively.  Consumers like buying into products or services that have strong ethics, and employees generally respect a boss who cares about the employees as well as the community.  When a business has consumer support, it leads to customer loyalty, and customers tell other people about the great things a business is doing.

Another benefit Burns touches on is the networking and advertising opportunities created through taking part in a charity event.  Customers who would never otherwise see your business as well as other members of the professional community often take part in these events.  When they see your business shares the same values they do, they will most likely think positively of your business.  Connecting with like-minded businesspeople can be beneficial for both parties, setting you up with future potential partners.

Cennedi Mills recently wrote a blog post about the vandalism of the Cereal Killer Café in East London.  The fact that people in the area are getting angry about the business isn’t surprising, but the way the activists expressed themselves in inappropriate.  If the people local to the area dislike the business, they have every right to boycott the business and say whatever they want about it, but they have no right to damage it.

The owners of the Cereal Killer Café aren’t particularly wealthy; they are just trying to make a living through their business.  If they want to sell cereal at outrageous prices in hopes that customers will be naïve enough to buy it, then let them!  There is nothing stopping customers from walking out of the café and into a grocery store, where they can purchase large quantities of cereal for cheaper.

The business model of the Cereal Killer Café is obviously flawed, but that is no reason to put employees, customers, and the owners of the business at risk of being seriously hurt.  The public should’ve just let the business fail, as it would be expected to.  Now, the café is getting much more publicity than it would’ve had it not been vandalized.  The actions of the activists have worked against their intentions, as people felt bad for what the business had been through.  The whole fiasco ended up representing the neighborhood poorly and gained the business publicity(and there’s no such thing as bad publicity).

Sources:

Cennedi Mills’ Blog:  https://blogs.ubc.ca/cmills/2015/10/03/gentrification-in-east-london/

NY Times Article:  http://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/29/world/europe/london-cereal-cafe-damaged-by-anti-gentrification-protests-was-unfairly-targeted-owner-says.html?_r=0

Youth homelessness is an undeniable problem in Canadian cities.  Of those youth, the vast majority are unemployed.  HireUp is an organization with plans to change that, in turn decreasing the numbers of homeless youth in Canada.

Their strategy is all about connecting already-existing youth-serving organizations with businesses looking to employ youth.  Employers often stigmatize the integrity of a homeless youth, making it far harder to for these youth to actually find employment.  I think their strategy is a great way to solve more than one active problem in cities of Canada.  When homeless youth have no opportunities to make money, they often turn to crime, and become counter-productive to society.  Giving these kids opportunity to help themselves through getting employed and off the streets is important, and I believe not enough businesses are taking this problem seriously.

In order to live in a productive society, we need organizations like HireUp that are willing to take the initiative, get out in the world and actively help out.  These initiatives can change the futures of many youth, decrease crime rate, and reduce unemployment numbers.  Being homeless is like being trapped with nowhere else to go, and it’s time for more businesses to begin reaching out.

The “one for one” business model can be an extremely effective way to help people in need if it’s done correctly.  However, many companies are missing the mark on providing efficient and useful “one for one” services.

For example, Toms Shoes is a brand that embraces the “one for one” model, but isn’t making an efficient or useful solution to poverty-stricken families.  Yes, by giving away shoes to people who can’t afford to buy their own, Toms is succeeding.  However, the health benefits these people receive from wearing shoes can be provided through cheaper medical vaccinations, as well as health education to the poor.  Along with the inefficient health benefit, Toms shoes are poorly constructed for the environment these people are living in.  Toms are not the most durable footwear option, and paying $50 for ONE pair to be given away to a person in need is immensely inefficient. There is no way Toms cost even a quarter of the retail price to produce, and the money spent on shipping free shoes to developing countries could be spent elsewhere.

Companies like 2 Degrees that give meals to the poor are doing it right.  These companies provide a service that actively solves a problem for those in need, and do it efficiently.  I think companies like Toms should look at these companies that are doing it right, and adapt to a similar business model.

In Peter Breen’s blog post “Reaching a Tipping Point,” he explores how the concept of tipping restaurant servers is a bad idea.  He refers to tipping as “another way to get money out of people,” which is an inaccurate interpretation of what the tipping process means to the food service industry.  Tipping is an essential part of eating in a restaurant to the servers, as many of them are living off the income they receive.

In my experience working as a delivery driver for Boston Pizza, tips provided a huge incentive for myself as well as my co-workers.  The belief behind giving better service to get a higher reward is the reason many employees choose serving as a job.  Large restaurant chains usually pay minimum wage to their workers, and the current minimum wage is below the cost of living in most countries.  Tipping gives the servers money to put food on the table; therefore it is not just “another way to get money out of people.”  These large corporations that own restaurant chains are never seeing the money tips provide for servers, the tip money is getting put into the local economy.  Furthermore, many restaurants also have a “tip pool” system that relies on the assumption every customer tips.  If a server has a table that doesn’t leave a tip, the server must pay out of their own pocket to the tip pool that is redistributed throughout the kitchen workers and hosts.  Restaurant workers are often not in the most financially stable position, and tipping makes their situation a little bit better.

Peter’s Blog: https://blogs.ubc.ca/peterbreen/2015/10/04/reaching-a-tipping-point/

On Thursday, October 1^st, five of Canada’s provinces raised minimum wage.  Among them is Alberta, whose government has a plan in action to raise minimum wage to $15 by 2018.  The purpose of this increase is to attempt to decrease the amount of poverty-stricken homes, improving the quality of life for many citizens.  I think that this idea is not going to be as effective on Canadians as the government hopes.

When raising minimum wage, small businesses with a low profit margin will struggle to stay running, or be forced to raise prices.  If the business doesn’t raise the price of its products or services, they may be forced to lay off workers, which would only make Canada’s poverty problem more prevalent.  On a larger scale, multimillion dollar companies who have thousands of employees would lose a significant amount of profit.  It would only make sense for these companies to raise sale price of their services or products in order to compensate for their profit loss.  This would only further increase the cost of living, creating a viscous cycle of increase in living expenses and increase in minimum wage.  In Canada’s current economy, Canadian companies cannot afford to be struggling to make a profit.  If Canada is going to increase minimum wage, we need to make cuts in other places, and many companies can’t do that right now.

Source: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/economy/five-provinces-hike-minimum-wage/article26618941/

In the article Why Sweden is Shifting to a 6-Hour Work Day, the author discusses the concept of workers being more productive with a shorter work day.  The concept is built around the idea that the workplace will be more productive if the employees have time for life outside of work.  By spending less time at work, some businesses believe employees will be happier and more creative on the job.

I think the idea has its merits, but depends on the nature of the business.  For companies looking for innovation in their employees, shorter hours may benefit.  For example, an app developing company would likely benefit if the workplace was a positive and creative environment.  Personally, I find I do better work if I’m under the pressure of a time limit.  In a working environment, I often find myself trying to kill time waiting for the day to end.  The thought of having a shorter work day would definitely make me more productive while working on projects.

However, for companies that have employees in warehouses or doing maintenance work, the shorter time at work would probably not be as effective.  These jobs have little room for employees to make significant innovative decisions, and workers are generally less than optimistic about their jobs.  In my home town, a significant amount of people work in a nickel mine.  They work 10 or 11 hour shifts for the most part, and cutting hours only means less progress.  The company encourages overtime, so I couldn’t see them switching to shorter hours any time soon.

Source: http://www.fastcoexist.com/3051448/why-sweden-is-shifting-to-a-6-hour-work-day

In the article Mind-reading Marketing, Ann Handley explores 6 secrets about the human brain that are helpful when advertising a product or portraying a message to the public.  I found truth in these “secrets” from my own personal experiences as a consumer.

The first secret is that our brains react faster than they think rationally.  Handley stresses that by aiming for a gut-feeling to be felt; you are increasing the likely-hood of the viewer buying the product or receiving the intended message.  For example, the “It Can Wait” anti-distracted driving campaign does a very good job of aiming for the gut.  I recently saw an advertisement on campus that consisted of a wrecked car and a bold text message that was left unfinished.  It made me feel upset, in turn discouraging me from texting and driving in the future.

The next 3 secrets Handley shared had to do with images.  She concludes that viewers love images of faces, and that the colours in an advertisement inspire certain attitudes.  I found these remarks to be true, especially advertisements bringing attention to poverty or hunger.  The ads generally have black backgrounds with little to no colour, as well as a person with an upset look in their eyes.  This creates a somber mood for the viewers.

The last 2 secrets had to do with the wording of both the name of a product or service and the hooks and slogans used.  Many insurance companies use these secrets to their advantage, boasting how many people already trust their firm.  They also use words with positive connotation to name their brand (such as Allstate and Progressive).   This creates a positive attitude toward a company the viewer may not even know much about.

Source: “Mind-reading marketing” by Ann Handley, Entrepreneur Magazine Sept. 2015

Image Source: http://sfglobe.com/?id=898

In the twenty-first century, the problem of animal cruelty has been advertised increasingly due to social media and the internet.  Throughout this rise of attention, many international food corporations have been targeted as the sources of the cruelty.  In response to this targeting, some companies have decided to raise their moral standards. This rise in standard improves the quality of their facilities, as well as helps companies evade further targeting by animal rights activists.

McDonalds has begun requesting North American egg producers use a cage-free environment in order to improve the quality of life for the chickens.  Currently, ninety-five percent of North American egg producers use caged facilities that deny animals of their basic needs.  Behaviors like opening their wings and nesting improve the health and well-being of chickens, resulting in a better quality egg.

By McDonalds raising their moral standards, they are increasing the quality of life for animals, as well as creating a new marketing opportunity.  Advertising the use of cage-free facilities may allure customers of competing fast-food restaurants that don’t hold the same moral standards.  For example; in 2014, A&W began their hormone-free meat campaign, and the company’s stock price increased 21% over the year.  McDonalds’ cage-free campaign has the potential to increase it’s already huge consumption numbers, resulting in increased profits over the next ten years.

McDonalds egg mcmuffin

Sources:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/globe-debate/editorials/showing-corporate-leadership-by-putting-chickens-first/article26317444/

http://time.com/4026501/mcdonalds-cage-free/