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.