I chose to respond to Lara Galinsky blog post on social entrepreneurship because I was fascinated that laura, somone who works for an organization that promotes social entrepreneurship, says ‘it’ alone cannot change the world.

She talks about  a young, energetic freshman at NYU (Ripa) who approached her and said “I want to be a social entrepreneur.”Working in this field she’d never heard of social entrepreneurship referred to as an occupation.

She expresses that “Most members of this generation will not be social entrepreneurs. But if we can channel their altruistic energy and give them the tools, methodologies they will be change makers.” She expresses that this generation can make meaningful contributions to the world not by founding organizations but by bringing their best selves  “heart and head” to their work.

I disagree with Galinsky, as I believe social entrepreneurship requires more than just ones best self, heart, and head, and therefore those who are passionate about their cause and capable of working hard, can be successful in this field. It may not be defined as a ‘profession’ per say, but that’s because it is a fairly new concept, that needs consolidating.  I don’t see why it wouldn’t be possible for people in this generation to sell a product or service (operated through non-profit) with the dual purpose of generating income and creating a social, environmental or culture change.

One of the most entertaining classes thus far has been the one with the ”Dell angry customer” video. It made me contemplate whether outsourcing in general was a good idea, and in turn got me thinking about both the pros and cons.

In regards to the Dell video the pros are: it’s cheaper, it’s beneficial to the people in India as they are getting higher salaries than they would if they worked for local calling services, and one would get a higher educated and more qualified person doing the same job, from India than from the U.S.

One major con  (as illustrated in the video) is that perhaps the workers in India aren’t familiar with American culture, and therefore it’s harder to give advice and relate. The concept of customer service proves to be quite stressful and frustrating for both the customer and the worker. In the video the American citizen was fuming at a local worker, just imagine if it was an Indian one perhaps with a thick accent that the American couldn’t understand, how angry would he be then?

Although this is an issue, it is important  for humans to be patient and recognize the benefits of outsourcing to those without a job.

After the class on Supply Chain Management I was very interested in further understanding Zara’s supply chain and digging deeper into why the company is so successful.

I never saw Zara (a store close to my heart) as anything “special,” but now I see what exactly makes their supply chain so unique, and in turn leads to their success- “One day it’s in and the next day it’s out”.

After researching, the main reasons for their supply chain success are:

1. Quick response to demand: Zara creates up to 1000 designs every month based on store sales and current trends.

This makes sense as they can then produce accordingly, and iterate on their prospective designs.

2. Small batch productions: Zara produces small numbers of quantities for every product, which gives them the opportunity to quickly understand what designs are successful.

In retrospect, I definitely see this now. Every time i’d go to a store three days after I saw something I wanted, it would be gone.

3. Central distribution center: All of Zara’s clothing is shipped back to spain (central location) and from there it’s distributed to different countries based on the local requirments of those countries.

This illustrates Zara’s strong IT systems that back up it’s distribution.

Source:

http://cmuscm.blogspot.ca/2012/09/fashion-forward-zaras-supply-chain.html

I found the class “People Culture and Teams” on Zappos very interesting, as I’ve alway wondered what it would be like to mix work and play.

The CEO, Hsieh, illustrates the companies values perfectly: “We decided to be about providing the best service. We said, ‘We’re a service company that just happens to sell shoes.'”

Despite the slow beginning, the company was ranked on Fortune magazine’s annual ‘Best Companies to Work For’ list.

However, it’s important to also discuss the implications of having a company like this. Because their values are about “[Creating fun and weirdness],” and “[Building a positive team and family spirit”], it is important to consider what could go wrong. Personally I feel like there is pressure for workers to act enthusiastic and happy all the time, and that is just not natural. This in turn could promote employees to be fake and diminish the goal of a fun natural environment. We must also take into account the fact that those who feel presure to be something their not all the time (act happy when they’re not), may need someone to talk to in the work place to relieve stress (perhaps a counsellor).

Sources:

http://about.zappos.com/our-unique-culture/zappos-core-values

I chose to respond to Gianluca’s blog post because often times I have been frustrated with stores’ attempts to force me to embark on a lengthy journey just to get to my desired section. However, now I realize the true strategy in this system, and agree with Gianluca in that it’s a creative and intelligent concept.

He exemplifies the idea through the company Ikea, as they force their customers to walk through a maze of their products in order to be more profitable. I now further understand the motive behind this concept; what one doesn’t see one cannot purchase. I see that the purpose is to expose as much of the company’s products to the consumers as possible, in attempt to ultimately entice them to buy something they weren’t initially planning to purchase.

I agree that there is no such thing as “a quick run to IKEA,” as it’s a large store that forces one to channel through a maze in an attempt to hunt down what one is actually looking for. However, I don’t think it’s a huge issue. Consumers know the store is giant and full of option, and therefore should only go if they’re willing to spend the time.

Here is an example of a customer asserting he has to walk through the whole Ikea to get to one place (watch from 00:55-1:00 minute)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E1AOy3yb1Nc.

This directly relates back to the ‘point of difference’ idea; Starbucks basically needs to differentiate itself from other brands in order to entice consumers and have their brand stick. The company could do this through specialized add campaigns unique to their products, and advertise just why they’re different, and in turn better. The company could employ the use of effective slogans, and publicly illustrate their unique values (e.g. fair trade coffee). The company could spend money on marketing their ethical behavior in the hopes of appealing to a moral consumer base.

As if Facebook wasn’t doing enough, it has now launched a gift service that allows people to send real items (e.g. cookies, stuffed animals) to friends.  It uses the tagline “Real friends. Real gifts.” (Dembosky, september 28).

This service marks the social network’s first attempt into dealing with physical goods; up till now Facebook has restricted its activities to digital goods and gaming (e.g. music and movies).

April Dembosky (writer at The Globe and Mail) explains that Facebook can’t compete against Amazon’s shipping, she says it’s is missing the most crucial element-peoples’ physical addresses.

The system works in steps; when the user orders a gift, a Facebook message is sent to the friend asking for their physical address. This service provides a handful of products, such as cupcakes and Starbucks gift cards, and plans to expand to goods like socks, chocolates, ice cream, and even mini-dinosaurs!

This is another way for Facebook to make money, and even if the idea isn’t too innovative and new, it still prompts excitement. People may just want to try it out  because it’s “Facebook” doing something different. Many may also find it an easier alternative to Amazon,  as people are on Facebook most of the time anyway.

Sources:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/technology/facebook-launches-gift-service-ventures-into-amazons-territory/article4573963/

The fast growing yoga retail phenomenon, Lululemon, “[continues to defy its doubters with an almost 50-per-cent jump in quarterly profit to $57.2-million]” (Strauss, 2012).

Christine Day (chief executive of Lululemon) says the company is quickly learning from past mistakes, such as problems of bleeding colour dyes, and the brands’ discontinuing of a popular pair of loose fitting pants. To move forward from these set-backs, the company publicly apologized on Facebook, and announced the bringing back of the “still” loose-fit-pants in a “reinvented” way.

The company manages not only to fix their mistakes, but even profit from the changes it makes to fix them. Lululemon has added to its business model, and is continuing to get better at stocking enough products to keep up with consumer demands. However, at the same time the retailer limits the carrying of merchandise on its e-commerce site, in order
to create a higher demand.

Lululemon is a unique and highly recognized brand, with a highly desirable manifesto; this  is their public policy. They emphasize the importance of putting friends before money, trying new things, and leading a healthy life. What they stand for establishes a strong bond with customers, and therefore leads to successful sales.

By: MARINA STRAUSS -The Globe and Mail

Source: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/globe-investor/lululemon-earnings-jump-on-sales-gains/article4525921/

In Canada today, it is especially common that those graduating with arts degrees are not finding quality jobs. They are “struggling to find meaningful work,” says Lauren Friese (Founder at TalentEgg Inc.), as they choose a degree in arts, as apposed to a more practical program, such as business or engineering. Adelle Farrelly, a graduate with a an MA from U of T, expresses her frustrations: “[No one told me an English degree wasn’t an acceptable prerequisite for even basic grunt positions].” Upon graduating she was working at a coffee shop, just waiting, and in search for that ‘real job,’

Friese expresses her concerns about the way this country prepares its youngsters for the job market. She emphasizes the most distressing part: “the consistent devaluation of education in the arts,”(Friese, 1) a process, she says, that is denying arts graduates the opportunity to be a useful part of the economy.

We must consider whether it is the arts students, or the economy? Will these Students have brighter opportunities in the future, perhaps if the world moves further away from recession? This is useful to consider when discussing the future of grad students, as in today’s world even those in more ‘practical’ programs are struggling. Life is unfair.

Source: Graduate Employment (The Globe and Mail)

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/economy/canada-competes/why-are-we-training-our-arts-grads-to-be-baristas/article4507579/

It seems that the world’s largest mobile and smart phone company, ‘Samsung,’ is facing the dilemma between ethics, and cheap labor. As reported by the New York NGO of the China Labor Watch, the company is guilty of “employees working more than 100 hours of overtime in a month, children under 16 working in factories, with failure to provide safety clothing where appropriate” (BBC, 1).

The Labor Watch investigated workplace conditions at eight different factories in China, concluding that children were knowingly employed, they too working the hundred hours overtime. The investigation revealed the company’s lack of regard for safety measures, as there was no evidence following provision of protective clothing. Samsung is also accused of barring its workers from sitting down during shifts (standing up twelve hours a day), with documented instances of verbal and physical abuse, and with some employees only having one day off a month.

This implants a new image of Samsung in consumers’ heads; Nike isn’t the only brand exploiting workers to gain profit. If we are thinking like economists, we assume that producers are always seeking to increase revenue and profit, however, we must ask ourselves:How much are we willing to let others suffer for our own gain?

Sources:

http://www.bbc.com/news/technology-19504381

http://www.cbc.ca/m/touch/technology/story/2012/09/05/tech-samsung-labour.htm

http://www.canadianbusiness.com/blog/business_ethics/97780–samsung-chinese-workers-and-labour-rights

http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2012/sep/05/samsung-accused-exploiting-workers-china