In response to Stav’s blogpost on Coke and Pepsi’s new ‘green’colas, I am writing about these companies’ new, ‘healthy’ beverages. Both companies have created ‘green’ colas, which are sweetened with a blend of sugar and stevia (a natural sweetener), allowing the companies to present them as an option for people who crave pop but also want to eat healthy.  I agree with Stav that Coke has a head start over Pepsi because they started selling their product earlier, however I also believe that because Pepsi is only selling their product online, through Amazon, they also have an advantage.

Coke was the first company to release their new pop, giving their company the advantage of consumers thinking of them as the pioneers in the field of ‘green’ pop.  Pepsi’s product, on the other hand, seems almost exclusive, as it is only available through Amazon, making customers order it online to try it.  Ultimately, what it comes down to is whether Coke’s Coca-Cola Life or Pepsi-Co’s Pepsi True taste similar enough to their original products for their to be a demand for them at all.  Only consumer’s taste preferences (and whether the opportunity cost for taste is worth eating healthier) and time will tell whether ‘green’ colas will succeed in maximizing profits for these two companies at all.

Sources

http://www.sbs.com.au/news/article/2014/10/03/coke-and-pepsis-healthier-green-cola-dont-be-fooled

http://popsop.com/2014/10/pepsico-to-launch-mid-calorie-pepsi-true-available-exclusively-at-amazon-com/

http://www.businessinsider.com/pepsi-has-launched-a-new-green-cola-pepsi-true-2014-10

https://blogs.ubc.ca/stavkimhi/2014/10/05/pepsi-and-coca-cola-competing-in-a-new-market-niche/

http://i2.cdn.turner.com/money/dam/assets/141002092042-pepsi-coke-natural-620xa.jpg

http://i.ytimg.com/vi/63cJ3qNusp4/0.jpg

Toms is a social enterprise which was created by Blake Mycoskie in 2006.  The key focus of his business model has been to help those in need through the One for One program.  This means that for every one pair of shoes his business sells, they donate a pair to a child in a less-fortunate country. 

Then, in 2010, the massive shoe company Sketchers introduced Bobs.  Bobs look incredibly similar to Toms, and just like Toms, for every one pair of Bobs purchased, Sketchers will give a pair of shoes to those in need.  Although Bobs support ethical business practices in that they are helping people who need shoes, the question becomes whether it was ethical pf Sketchers to essentially copy Toms in terms of both their business strategy  and the style of shoes.

In my opinion, donating shoes and helping people is good, no matter the background of the business. However, it was not ethical of Sketchers to design Bobs to look the same as Toms.  Had Sketcher’s truly had the benefit of people (as opposed to their own profits and brand image) as the key goal, they would have taken the One for One approach but sold different looking shoes, so as to avoid competing with Toms.  This would have ensured that the maximum number of shoes would be given to the people who need them most.

Sources

http://claireabellemakes.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/08/toms-one-for-one-campaign.jpg

http://wefirstbranding.com/advertising/toms-vs-bobs-how-skeechers-shot-themselves-in-the-foot/

http://www.bobsfromskechers.com/story

http://lostgirlsonly.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/5200588548_38e4b2b1d8-400×248.jpg

A number of years ago, KGHM International developed the plan for the Ajax Mine, which would be located in the area around the city of Kamloops, BC. This was the first project in BC which was required to form a  consultation plan for the First Nations people, and since then the company has formed a partnership with them as well.  The EAO (Environmental Assessment Office) requiring this plan proves the First Nations people to be a political factor in this situation. Although things seemed to be going on fairly smoothly (apart from opposition from some of the people of Kamloops), the First Nations people have once again been excluded from business dealings as KGHM has changed some of the plans for the mine without consulting them. 

While it would have been quite easy for the KGHM to include the First Nations in making such decisions, they have now alienated the people they have been trying to work with. The First Nations people have since had to request more time to review the changes to the project.  This demonstrates a situation which easily could have been avoided had KGHM simply consulted the First Nations people before announcing the changes in their plans.  Although having the First Nations as a partner is very good for KGHM and Ajax Mine’s public image, stories like this can counteract the positive connotations surrounding the company’s name and image.

Sources

http://www.ajaxmine.ca/first-nation-partnership

http://www.kamloopsthisweek.com/first-nations-bands-want-time-ajax-file/

http://www.ajaxmine.ca/content/497/KGHMAjaxProjectLogo_1200x900.png

http://armchairmayor.files.wordpress.com/2011/11/minedraw.jpg

Dove is a company which produces soaps,lotions, and numerous other products, but it has become even better well-known for it’s campaign for self-esteem and ‘real beauty’. Although this campaign is meant to help women and girls feel better about themselves, which truly is an inspirational idea, it is not always received as such by the public. As stated in a Business Insider article, a few of Dove’s more recent efforts to spread their message of bettering our opinions of ourselves have been viewed in a negative way.  It is hard to believe the legitimacy of Dove’s motives when the company that owns Dove, UniLever, also owns Axe, a brand which is famous for it’s objectification of women in ads. This irony and apparent hypocrisy makes Dove’s campaign for Real Beauty appear fake and like it is just for the benefit of their brand name. Although it seems as though Dove’s campaign is ultimately for the better of society, it also appears to be a way to make Dove better known as a philanthropic company, improving their brand name and the popularity of the company as a whole.

Sources:

http://www.businessinsider.com/why-people-hate-doves-real-beauty-ad-2013-4

http://o.canada.com/life/doves-real-beauty-is-bogus

http://blogs.uoregon.edu/j350thedovecampaignforrealbeauty/files/2013/06/tumblr_mavu32nwMZ1rhp4nco1_1280-1apceh5.jpg

Whole Foods Market Inc. is making a world of a difference for some lucky local producers.  Whole Foods is based in Austin, Texas, with 399 stores (mostly across the US and Canada) open, and they announced their Local Producer Loan Program in 2006. This program was created to support local producers who are looking to expand their businesses.  While producers (who already supply Whole Foods with their products) receive a loan of between $1000 and $100000, Whole Foods gains more positive publicity in addition to their merchandise coming from more established producers.  Whole Foods has a niche in the world of grocery stores; they sell organic, sustainably-sourced, and ‘green’ products. Although their prices are often quite high, their targeted consumers are willing to spend their money on the high quality goods sold at Whole Foods. In addition to receiving money, the recipients of the loans also gain the bragging rights of being associated with Whole Foods, which would likely appeal to other businesses interested in their products.  I personally cannot think of any way in which the Local Producer Program is negative: it benefits the company, the producer, and customers can continue to buy the products they enjoy from their local Whole Foods.

Sources:

http://registerguard.com/rg/news/local/32208857-75/whole-foods-market-reaches-out-to-community-local-producers.html.csp

http://www.wholefoodsmarket.com/mission-values/commitment-society/loan-program-details

 http://urbanlivingbyalia.files.wordpress.com/2013/10/whole-foods1.jpg