“If the United Nations was fully funded why would we need the Arc or social enterprise?”

“Give a man a fish and you feed him for a day; teach a man to fish and you feed him for a lifetime” this famous quote is a perfect illustration as to why even if the United Nations was fully funded why there would still be a need for the Arc Initiative and other Social enterprises. Funding is but one piece of the puzzle to make a positive and lasting change in third world countries. While the United Nations is a one of the most influential unions of countries that delegates and help solve problems that involve peace, security, development of third world countries, human rights, humanitarian affairs and international law, it is more successful solving large conflicts like that of the Suez Canal Crisis of 1956, and United Nations Mission in Sierra Leone which put an end to the Sierra Leonean civil war. However for smaller issues which are more widespread like those which the ARC Initiative deals with, I think the United Nations would not be successful.

The Arc Initiative, takes a different approach to solving problems, they work jointly with community organizations to collaboratively build programming such as internships, workshops and mentoring activities for young entrepreneurs fostering an environment of shared ideas and knowledge. I think this is a great way to tackle the problems facing the communities within which the Arc works in, as it is sustainable and nurturing.

Rachael Thain in a recent blog post  , talked about the way which Netflix has revolutionized the the way consumers watch tv shows and movies. It was not that long ago that netflix did not exist and consumers had to either watch their tv shows on cable, or wait for the show to come onto DVD to watch it in the comfort of their own home. Rachael Thain sighted two major advantages to Netflix over Cable TV, the fact that it is cheaper and that it is not regulated by CRTC. The effects of this are very positive of the consumer. For many years, the cable companies have had close to a monopoly over in home entertainment. I think this new competition is great for the industry as I believe competition, and possible loss of profit is the greatest motivator for companies to become more efficient. I think Cable TV has been too comfortable in their industry without the proper motivation to drive innovation choosing to increase prices and decrease service (adding more ads). The addition of Netflix is the much needed “kick in the but” for Cable TV to come up with new ways to draw consumers in. I think there is enough room in the industry for both netflix, and Cable TV however as both go for the top spot in the industry I think it will be the consumers who will benefit.

Companies and firms today all focus on Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR), however many of them do it for the wrong reasons, with companies like Walmart which donates lots of money to social causes but only when it suites the companies bottom line and use it as a smokescreen to hide problems within their own companies. Its as if companies like those think they can buy customers by donating money to charity. One company however which has CSR and positive social values at their CORE! Lush Cosmetics! I agree with Juliana Phan who commented on Lush’s marketing technique against animal testing.

I think companies like lush should be commended not only for standing up for their beliefs and values but their unique marketing techniques choosing to educated the public and hoping that the sales come from that. I think this is the right way to do CSR rather than focusing first on how to maximise sales then helping the community based on that. I feel like companies who do that are missing the boat completely and are why consumers are always so cynical about businesses motives. While a company’s responsibility is to the shareholders and to make profit if a company does choose to participate in CSR it should be for the right reasons.

McDonalds is a classic American Fast Food brand which has been ingrained into the american culture. Just as ingrained in American culture is their iconic slogan “I’m Lovin’ It”. After its great success one would think that McDonalds would not want to change their slogan however they have recently proposed to do just change just that changing the slogan from “I’m Lovin’ It” to  “Lovin’ Beats Hatin'”

Personally I agree with public opinion that this is a horrible decision by McDonald’s marketing team! Whats worse, is this idea could not have come at a worse time, as the multinational company reported its sales in the U.S. dropped three per cent in the third quarter. I think McDonalds decision to change their logo is being made with a lack of adequate time and effort which could have catastrophic implications of the company especially if it is debuted in a Super Bowl Commercial. I think the basis of this new slogan is Taylor Swift’s new hit single “Shake it Off”, where she says “Haters gonna hate (hate hate hate hate hate)”. What Mcdonalds doesn’t realize, is that this song will quickly loose popularity and McDonalds will be left with a slogan with lots of haters!

What would you do if you were given $5, and tasked to make the most money in 2 hours? While this may sound like a game show it isn’t. Rather it was an assignment by Dr. Tina Seelig to her class at Stanford University, as part of the Stanford Technology Ventures Program. She asked her students what would they do to earn money if all they had was five dollars and two hours and asked them to make a presentation to the class on what they did and how much they made. Some teams bought a lottery ticket, others bet it in Las Vegas. However the most profitable team didnt use the $5 at all. Instead they decided to use their most precious resource not the money but the three minute presentation time. They decided to sell it to a company that wanted to recruit the students in the class.

Upon reading this blog I asked myself what would I do if I received this challenge? I realized to be successful in this challenge, I would need to go “outside” the assumed parameters of the experiment. Experimenting and trying things out along the way you can learn many things you will never learn from a book or in classroom. This lesson is not only applicable for social experiments like this, but also in my school assignments here at Sauder as well. Through this I have also learnt that I don’t need a million dollars to create a successful business, but I have resources that are much larger and more valuable than money. It would be very interesting to try a similar experiment in Comm 101.

Today it is easier than ever to illegally download music, in some cases being even easier than purchasing it legally. While many do choose to forsake their ethics and download music illegally, there are many people in society today who choose not to do so and choose instead to support the artist. One of the easiest ways to support the artist is the stream their music on legal streaming applications or on the radio. One popular music streaming application is Spotify with both paid and free services the application appeals to a very large audience. However what many people do not know is that on Spotify, artists earn on average less than one cent per play, between $0.006 and $0.0084 while on the radio the going rate is $0.08 per song.

This came to my attention when I read an article about why Taylor Swift pulled her music from Spotify. What was most appalling, what the fact that this is a common trend amongst most popular music streaming applications including Pandora. While this low price still allows popular artists to generate a modest income (~$425,000 per month in royalties) what I dislike most is the negative trend in society. As society appreciates good music but is unwilling to pay for it appropriately. I worry that this downward trend in royalty revenue will deter new artists from entering the industry which will cause a loss of musical diversity.