Ever think how ambulance is so ineffective in developing countries that they do not even save 10% of the patients? That’s exactly the case in India. Having recently covered social enterprises, I am intrigued by a blog post mentioning Sweta Mangal, an entrepreneur in India that acts as a private-firm, providing efficient and fast-response ambulance to anyone whether they can afford it or not.

The blog post gives me an insight of how turning something like an ambulance service into a profitable yet socially committed business is possible. The fact that Mangal also left a solid corporate career to set this business up, without ignoring profit-seeking nature of the business, is not something I often heard. The idea of the higher-income people paying more than the lower-income is viable; as it still ensures profitability while helping the ones that otherwise cannot afford the service while creates positive brand image and loyalty. Best of both worlds.

The concept of social enterprise and the fact that entrepreneurs are starting to embrace it amaze me. I didn’t think this is a feasible concept as I have always seen satisfying social responsibility as a non-profit thing and profit-making is a profit-maximizing firm thing. Combining both of them certainly take an effort and doesn’t ensure immediate profitability. However, firms will enjoy greater future profitability and social satisfaction.

Recently I came across an article exposing how Lululemon, in a way, discriminates plus-size customers by displaying only small numbers of large-size apparels in unattractive manner and providing only old designs for those sizes. It’s not merely an accident; Lululemon purposely do this so their brand is associated with fitness-conscious individuals.


I think this is a completely inappropriate brand image strategy for Lululemon as it is unethical to discriminate one over the other, ultimately the customers that ensure your profitability. The strategy alienates those with large body type, making them perceived as different or ‘uncommon’. This may, allegedly even, create body image issue and insecurities amongst those people, contributing creation of problems in the society. Furthermore, this may instead create a negative image for Lululemon, as current and potential customers feel that Lululemon do not appreciate differences in the society.

Reading through my classmates’ blog posts, I found that Darcy has similar issue brought up, which is a wrong marketing strategy of combining September 11th memorial with campaign for Blackberry Z10. Even though companies claim that they are doing these things without any intention of harming certain groups in the society, their strategies certainly proven to be incosiderate and unethical. Unethical business practices lead to negative reputation and hurt sales, as opposed to increase them.

Having recently covered how Zappos treats their employees right, I explored companies that provide similar benefits to their employees. Surprisingly, with their recent losses, Facebook is the best tech companies that employees can work in. Not only providing mediocre benefits, Facebook provides a relax environment for employees to work in; they don’t feel like robots working in cubicles, there’s instead a homey feeling in the office.

I think this makes employees feel like Facebook isn’t actually a place where they spend 9-5 working and eager to go home. Making the office like a home will instead make Facebook like home for them, so they actually enjoy being at the office and feel like work is not something to stress about but to be enjoyed like any other activities we do at home. For a tech company like Facebook, it is crucial to keep employees motivated and creative considering the intense competition in the industry that can destroy companies in an instant.

In one of Olivia’s posts, she also mentioned about how Google treats their employees well to keep them motivated and that is what she believed other companies should do if they want to be successful. I completely agree with her, as even if Facebook is having troubles now, they are regardless still a profitable company. I too believe that to ensure continuity and profitability in the future, other businesses should implement employees-benefiting practices not only to carry out their responsibility but to create excellent environment for employees to work to their full potential.

Kraft Foods Group is currently facing problems with its brand, Jello, a gelatin dessert snack that has been declining in sales.

From what I see, Kraft has been unfocused in marketing and creating the brand image for Jello. When it first launched, Jello was positioned to be a fun dessert snack for families and kids. Over the years however, the image has diluted into adult-oriented snack, that focuses on alleviating stress and being a source of happiness.

The transition of the brand position however made Jello’s image unclear; creating confusion amongst customers of the product’s perception. This means that consumers cannot relate to the product as it fails to offer psychological satisfaction of being a product that fit the lifestyle and personality of the consumers.

Moreover, as the diet pattern changes, targeting adult is not the most profit-maximizing strategy anymore. Adults now are more aware of health risks of consuming sugary food products, therefore hurting the sales of Jello’s products that are relatively high-caloric.

To avoid any further sales decline and ensure future profitability, Jello needs to focus on transforming back its image to families-and-kids-oriented as these target markets are more ignorant on the caloric factor of food and beverages and only looking for the fun of it. Furthermore, the classic Jello gelatin product, while regarded as time-consuming for adults, it is likely to be popular amongst families and children who like to do family activities on weekends.

People assume that being the first in everything would give you the first-mover advantage. It’s true in some cases, but it’s not necessarily that. Take for example Apple. I came across an online entry listing the things that Apple wasn’t the first in, which turns out to be most of their products. iPhone was certainly not the first smartphone and even Apple wasn’t the first to operate OS X system.

So, what makes them one of the most successful tech companies now? Apple approaches the customer in the simplest way. According to Ries and Trout, information overload is what makes customers shut down anything inconsistent with their knowledge and experience. What Apple did differently from their rivals is that their advertisement has always been succinct yet explanatory. The below example shows how ‘The biggest thing to happen to iPhone since iPhone’ which pretty much sums up how superior and large the new phone is compared to previous models.

Ries and Trout also pointed out that companies should not boast being the number one as it reflects insecurities. Apple never boast their superiority nor their success. I think what makes Apple really successful even if they are not the first is that they are not emphasizing on what they are the best in, instead they find the gap in the market and fill it in. Customers desire something that will be a lifestyle, not only something that fits their lifestyle. Apple did exactly that; making the brand a lifestyle that the customers live in.

Having recently introduced to the concept of Creating Shared Value, I was interested in investigating its application in the real world. I came across an article about Nestle creating the shared value. Nestle realized that investing in improving the community ensures sustainability and continuity of future profitability for themselves and also general increased in standard of living of the society.

Nestle and other 13 large corporations formed SAI Platform which deals with agricultural educational programs. This is what makes CSV effective; companies creating synergy to pool their resources into making a better community and share the benefits.

CSR niche market approaches such as fair trade and organics lack continuity in the future because only certain demographic group in the society benefits, as it seems to me that they are only short-term hypes. I realized that CSV is more of a quality assurance system, improving operations over time to be more efficient and sustainable. Although CSV is more of a long-term investment and more expensive, I believe that it’s a much better approach For CSV to be effective however, all stakeholders must believe on what they are doing while not having a ‘sustainable officer’ to implement regulations. CSV also acts as a motivation for stakeholders to work to full potential and implement sustainability in their works if they believe in the shared value and have ambitions to achieve it.

I came across an article of Ed Ainsworth claiming that cost leadership should be the primary strategy of all companies, is it though? Look at large companies that specialized in unique products; designer houses. They produce unique and trademarked luxuries that create particular customer satisfaction that varies differently for different people towards different brands. Can you say that they should focus on cost leadership instead of differentiation then? They have been thriving over the years and proving to be growing despite the economic turmoil in the past years.

“Ainsworth recommended companies communicate their plans to become a cost leader with their supply base and ensure suppliers are on board too.” I think that as long as there is a certain inelastic degree to the product, companies can continue to pass on the costs to consumers. Generic force for every company is heavily depended on the products it produces and industry it operates in. Cost leadership would be ideal for mass-produced consumer goods such as snacks and beverages. Other firms that offer products such as sports cars and luxuries are more ideally fitted with differentiation. The claim is not necessarily incorrect, but each company should consider factors to determine which force is more suitable for its operations.

Instagram is looking to start displaying advertisements in news feed, following the success of its predecessors. Is this the right move for Instagram? After all, it is a picture-sharing media used by personal individuals to designer houses. Who doesn’t get annoyed when ads are obnoxiously displayed?

But in this capital-oriented economy, who are we to complain? Instagram was recently acquired by Facebook, one of the largest advertising media, ergo advertisements would not be a surprise. People have motives. Looking at the state of the economy and fierce competition, profit-maximizing is expected to be the motive of all profit-seeking firms. After all, these companies employ significant amount of people and they actually matter to the economy. Advertisements are actually one of the few ways social media companies can derive revenue from. If they are not making money, for the very least, the local economy will be negatively impacted and it’s not what we want at all.

We complain about ads in Twitter and Facebook but we still use them anyway; we are addicted to them. So, I don’t think the move will harm Instagram. The lack of alternative and how people are psychologically dependent on it give it “inelasticity”. Hence Instagram will get the best of both worlds; receiving large inflow from ads and loyalty from enormous customer base.

Is being innovative not that necessary anymore in this current electronic market? If we talk about current consumer’s behaviour, innovation does not seem to be the sole interest that determine purchases anymore. Look for example, the Apple iPhones. Apple finally launched its “innovative” iPhone 5S and 5C which have been sold out everywhere. Not much has changed, except few design specifications. But how come every ‘updated’ products they launched sold out their first batch in just few hours?

Compare iOS7 to Android; features, layout and what not. Yet consumers still prefer iPhone over Android, despite the cheaper prices and earlier innovations. I personally think that how the company promotes themselves as is more crucial. Apple has youthful, trendy and innovative brand image that boosts consumers’ self-esteem, allowing them to charge higher prices. Even though no significant differences with other products, I think Apple has successfully make customers to be satisfied with the brand, not the product itself. Apple promotes lifestyle, not product.

What I’m saying is that concentration on R&D must not outweigh marketing. Companies like Apple build customer relationship, realizing that manipulating consumers’ behaviour is more effective into luring them to purchase rather than always coming up with new things that innovation may not seem that exciting anymore. Building customer loyalty through brand image establishment is more effective people are psychologically ‘forced’ to ‘need’ the product, not just wanting it.

Being green is the new black. Large corporations had started to be more sustainable and implemented human rights policies, as their ‘business ethics’ or for more realistic people, a marketing strategy. From Body Shop to Whole Foods, their ethical moves have earned them consumer loyalty, therefore a promising continuity. However not all firms behave the same, some believe in the cause some just aim for the good image and large returns. But is having business ethics proved to be fruitful?

Chiqiuta has been involved in being sustainable and concerned about treating their employees right. However, their expenses outweigh the benefit.

Chiqiuta refused to use non-environmentally friendly oils from Canadian tar sands after pressure from a green-group. The move proved to be more of a drawback for the firm as EthicalOil.org urged Canadians to boycott Chiqiuta products, due to Canada’s heavy dependence on oil market. Boycotts not only ruin a company’s image, but also hurt current revenue looking at the perishable goods and potential future sales due to image.

Does this mean having business ethics instead bring losses to companies? Sure, some companies have proved that the move increased their sales. But even Chiqiuta biggest rivals still thrive even if they do not carry on business ethics. The question is, does having business ethics guarantee a better future for companies?