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.