Based on the article from The Globe and Mail:

Microsoft Unveils first Lumia smartphone without Nokia name

Although Microsoft purchased Nokia in May, they have unveiled a new smartphone under their own name. Although Microsoft only holds 2.8% of the market share of smartphones, they are ready to hit the mass market with this highly strategic new product. They are giving the “affordable” Blackberry Passport a run for their money with this new $137 product. This is a real differentiation strategy compared to all other smartphones. The surprising part about this reveal was the fact that the phone will not have Nokia’s name on it, but it is likely a good move for Microsoft.

Nokia’s marketing has always been focused around being strong, low cost, and simple but to keep their market share, Microsoft is looking to market in a high quality but low cost market segment. As the first major company to release a real low cost smartphone, they are better off doing it under their own name. Even with Nokia stocks up and Microsoft stocks down, the company is more likely to be taken seriously for quality as Microsoft. With a redefined strategy, Microsoft actually has a shot at increasing its market share of smartphones.

Based on the external blog written by Alex McEachern, lessons of customer loyalty are drawn out by the common household cartoon, The Simpsons:

https://www.sweettoothrewards.com/blog/10-simpson-loyalty-lessons/

The importance of customer loyalty was discussed in-depth through the example of Zappos, the shoe seller that offers a new type of customer experience. The Kwik-E-Mart demonstrates the importance of customer loyalty by Apu’s famous line “Thank you, come again” the same way that Zappos upgrades its customers to VIP for free. Zappos’ main marketing strategy is through word-of-mouth, and in Season 3 Episode 3 Homer revives Ned’s bankrupt business through word-of-mouth. That is the difference between Zappos and a traditional shoe store–it is worth talking about. If a business is effective but not worth talking about (there are no points of difference), it will be limited.

The image above shows one of the most fundamental lessons that we learned from Zappos: give employees what motivates them. Although most Zappos employees would likely choose twenty dollars over a peanut, many of them gave up higher paying jobs to work in a fun and rewarding environment. That is all from the organizational culture that Zappos offers.

These are only some parallels drawn between the Simpsons and Zappos, but all of these lessons are highly valuable for any business trying to retain customer loyalty as well as differentiate organizational culture.

“Thank you, come again”

In response to Neilinder Saini’s Blog “Ethical Market” which is based upon Gael O’Brien’s blog entitled “Business Ethics”.

https://connect.ubc.ca/webapps/portal/frameset.jsp?tab_tab_group_id=_2_1&url=%2Fwebapps%2Fblackboard%2Fexecute%2Flauncher%3Ftype%3DCourse%26id%3D_55007_1%26url%3D 

In Neilinder’s blog, he takes the point of view that the way that companies advertise to children to affect their point of view on often unhealthy options is ethically questionable. I would argue that it is good to teach these children at a young age that there are unhealthy options out there, and avoiding them is nearly impossible but it is a question of ethics of society to choose to educate them about the positive options available. As Neilinder mentioned, these foods are cheap, convenient, and often have motivation for kids including toys. The only goal of these businesses is to maximize profits and minimize costs while keeping a positive stigma. It should be promoted that these foods are good in moderation and that responsibility should fall to education systems. The good marketing by these corporations should be matched by marketing by governments and others to encourage moderation and exercise. It would be unethical of any organization to put down any type of enterprise that these children are bound to encounter, but better yet to educate them about how to react when they do encounter them. From a young age children are exposed to sexual education yet it is much later that they are exposed to the importance of healthy eating and moderation.

The point of this post is to prove that it should not be in the interest of the company to pursue healthier eating campaigns, as it fundamentally goes against the principles of capitalism. It is the responsibility of independent organizations.

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

The answer to this question is the same reason why governments would choose to fund large factories over small dog walking businesses: the scale of the benefit as they see it. Like governments, the UN will choose to fund things that benefit the most people from their perspective. Factories may employ hundreds or thousands of workers, but they will never teach people to be self sufficient and will limit their abilities to ever earn more than a minimum living wage.

Social enterprise and the Arc are ways to truly create shared value by creating clusters and promoting Mohandas Gandhi’s preachings of the value of self-sufficiency. Governments may see value in employing more people–which is a good first step, but these people will likely continue to live in poverty because they will never be enabled to benefit themselves.

Even if the United Nations were fully funded, their overall goals would not change. The United Nations being fully funded would more likely result in additional environmental and political summits than teaching self-sufficiency to people with an entrepreneurial eye but little education. There will always be space for initiatives such as the Arc, the Grameen Bank, and the world views of Gandhi because there is a constant need for innovation worldwide.

In response to Gideon Rapaport’s Blog “Microbrewing Industry” based on The Wall Street Journal’s article which can be found at: http://online.wsj.com/articles/how-a-brewing-hobby-became-a-business-1413751953?mod=trending_now_3

The focus of Gideon’s blog is on is how brewing at home produces a product which is superior to mass market brews which are found at bars around the world.

Even if the beer is better, there still needs to be a differentiation strategy behind the decision to start a brewing company and in this article there is none mentioned. The beer market is a mature industry with an abundance of competition so what might possess someone to abandon a stable job to pursue a hobby in a risky industry? To gain success in this industry, a target market and a specific differentiation strategy is necessary.

Jennifer Martin started her company, SIP Soda as an alternative to San Pellegrino. This is very similar to the situation of Scott Smith who gained success through his undirected beer company. The difference is that Martin saw a gap in industry for natural flavoured sodas to be served as an alternative to alcohol or classic soda. There is already a market for expensive beer and cheap beer and a taste difference is often not enough to win a market.

For a brand that does not want to be mass market, they must advertise very specifically to the narrow target market. As for cost, there is no cost strategy mentioned in the article, which should be something that Smith and the Wall Street Journal should use in terms of how to differentiate. This article makes starting a small business in a mature industry seem easy when truthfully there needs to be a motive behind the business.

Bibliography:

Hagerty, James. “Ho a Brewing Hobby Became a Business.” The Wall Street Journal. Dow Jones & Company, 19 Oct. 2014. Web. 3 Nov. 2014. <http://online.wsj.com/articles/how-a-brewing-hobby-became-a-business-1413751953?mod=trending_now_3>.

Vennare, Joe. “Grab a Drink from These 9 Local Breweries and Distilleries on Fittsburgh.” Fittsburgh RSS. Web. 3 Nov. 2014. <https://getfitpgh.com/drink-local-pittsburgh/>.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/international-business/us-business/ford-scraps-proposed-2-billion-investment-in-windsor-ont-sources/article21285428/

Taxes and tariffs may be looked upon negatively, but with an increasingly globalized world, it will make more sense for Ford to build their new factory in Mexico than in Windsor, Ontario. The North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) allows free trade across the borders of Canada, the US, and Mexico, and in this case, will cost Ontario approximately 2,000 jobs. This story has been told countless times in various industries as production has shifted to Mexico.

There were allegations that Ford didn’t even seriously consider the factory in Windsor and had already set out on the Mexico factory to invest $2 billion in building a new 1.5L engine. The company was seeking $700 million of government financial support, which was too high of a number for a potentially risky investment. Especially considering that Canada has a stable unemployment rate currently, the government seemed less likely to see the benefits.

In terms of risk and reward, Ontario’s government saw positive returns but they also took into account the risk coming from the automobile maker that has had vehicle recalls and other scandals recently. It is shocking that the business ethics here are not being questioned considering that Ford’s employees at the current plant in Windsor have won countless awards for the quality attaches to the product that they have produced in Canada for years.

As yet another factory is won by cheaper labour, these ethics should be questioned and the government should reconsider their involvement in this deal.