In business, there are many ways to motivate an employee.  You can give them incentives such as vacation time, bonuses and raises for doing better work; threaten to fire them; and encourage them.  For athletes, victory is the only thing that will make them work harder.  The UBC Football team is not overfunded – it is fair to for UBC to offer them scholarships, free flights, free jerseys, and free hotels.  After all, when American colleges use the same formula, the results can be staggering – The Texas Longhorns football team brought $165,691,486 in revenue to the university last year according to USA Today.

I am not trying to say that UBC’s football team has the potential to earn similar numbers but it makes sense what UBC is trying to do.  When they say that the football team is “Most Ready To Excel”, what they really mean is “Most Ready To Earn UBC Money”.  Football i
s a spectator sport and it makes sense that they want to invest in it and try to increase ticket sales.  As a member of the rowing team I know that I work just as hard as the football players and it is not fair that I can’t get the scholarships that they get.  It is unfair that I had to pay over $400 for rowing clothing when they get all of theirs for free and it is unfair that I had to sit in a bus for twelve hours when I could have gotten to a race in one hour on a plane.  But at the end of the day, I am not upset.  People don’t watch rowing and UBC won’t make any money off of my performance, and making money is what UBC really cares about most.

Sources:

https://blogs.ubc.ca/gregorallan/2014/11/09/motivating-a-t-bird/

http://www.usatoday.com/sports/college/schools/finances/

http://news.ubc.ca/2014/02/28/sport-review/

http://ubcrowing.ca/images/headers_and_logos/results_header.png (Image)

In a perfect world, the United Nations would receive enough funding to feed and protect people who have been marginalized by poverty or conflict in their area. However, social enterprise would be necessary even if the UN had enough funding. Without social enterprise, people would rely on external sources for all of their food, water, medical care and housing needs. What social enterprise allows people to do is control their own lives through micro-loans, for example, which allow entrepreneurs to gain funding for their business without being charged the unreasonable interest rate they would pay if they borrowed from somebody in their own country. One company that allows everyday people to help entrepreneurs start their business is Kiva. I believe that loaning money to people and allowing them to work is much more valuable than simply giving food or water to them. You can give a man a fish and feed him for a day or teach him to fish and feed him for a lifetime. Social enterprises like Kiva allow people to improve their life and accomplish their dreams, while the UN should only need to help people who cannot survive without intervention.

Sources:

http://skollworldforum.org/about/what-is-social-entrepreneurship/

http://www.kiva.org/

http://thesociallyconsciousblog.org/blog/wp-content/uploads/2010/10/Kiva_website.jpg (Image)

Elon Musk’s blog explains why he allowed other companies to access his patents – he believes that it is more important for the car industry to shift their focus onto electricity than for his company to perform. I think that Musk needs to realize that, while electric cars have begun to make a comeback, the car industry will not shift its focus to electricity just because they have his research. As he points out in his post, electric cars represent less than 1% of the market. If he wants the big companies to produce more electric cars, he needs to do it by scaring them into thinking they cannot compete without them.

It will take more than sharing his patents for sustainable energy to replace gasoline as the standard in cars. Instead, Musk needs to bring Tesla into the average home. The average family cannot afford the Model S, which starts at $70,000. If Musk wants to be serious about getting big car manufacturers to focus on electricity, he needs to expand to more than 1% of the market by producing a car for $20,000. He needs to take enough business from the big companies that they feel they cannot compete without more electric cars.

Sources:

http://www.teslamotors.com/blog/all-our-patent-are-belong-you

http://www.blogcdn.com/www.autoblog.com/media/2012/09/01-2012-tesla-model-s-fd-1347336745.jpg (Image)

Over the past two weeks, the price of gold has fallen over $100 to $1,137 an ounce and mining companies are struggling to turn a profit, as many spend well over $1,200 to produce one ounce. Many mining companies have been operating at a deficit – Iamgold Corp. spent almost $1,200 per ounce earlier this year and has been forced to cut that number to $1,136. Mining companies are concerned that they will need to downgrade if the trend does not reverse itself soon.

I believe that, in the end, mining companies will benefit from the short-term dip in profit. Gold has begun to recover since it hit the floor of $1,137, closing at $1,178 on November 7^th. It will not be worth under $1,200 for long; the drop in price is only a temporary setback. The only lasting result of the temporary low price will be the savings made by cutting unnecessary costs. Companies are now “watching [their] balance sheet[s] like a hawk,” as Paul Rollinson, Chief Executive of Kinross Gold Corp., said in an interview. When gold inevitably returns to its normal price, mining companies will be making more profit than ever before as their costs will be at an all-time low.

Sources:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/industry-news/energy-and-resources/as-price-of-gold-drops-mines-race-to-cut-costs/article21514818/

http://www.trunews.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/gold-ingots.jpg (Image)

Red Bull is known for its aggressive marketing strategies, but it crossed the line when it aired a commercial disrespecting the Titanic’s
victims. The commercial depicts a worker loading a crate of Red Bull onto a ship. When the captain walks by, he tells the worker to unload the crate despite its power to give you wings, saying, “Why on earth would you need wings on a ship? Stupidest thing I’ve ever heard”. The ship is then revealed to be the Titanic.

The ad attempted to use a tragic event to Red Bull’s advantage by implying that everyone on the ship would have survived had they been drinking Red Bull.  Howard Nelson, the Titanic Heritage Trust founder, said, “Red Bull is using a tragic event to promote and sell its products without care for the people that were lost.”Almost 150 people complained to the Advertising Standards Authority about the ad, and yet it was never banned. Death is not a joke, and Red Bull should have apologized and had the ad taken off air itself because, through this ad, they have shown that they are willing to ignore basic morality to sell more drinks.

Sources:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bI5C61x6nFE (Video) http://www.marketingmagazine.co.uk/article/1211947/red-bull-hits-iceberg-titanic-ad-draws-79-complaints?DCMP=EMC-CONMarketingDailyBulletin&bulletin=marketingdaily http://www.theguardian.com/media/2013/sep/24/red-bull-titanic-ad-investigation http://www.theguardian.com/media/2013/sep/26/red-bull-titanic-ad-escapes-censure

When Carmen Segarra accepted her job offer from the New York Federal Reserve, she expected to become a part of a culture committed to keeping investment banking firms in line and ensuring that the mistakes leading to the economic crisis of 2008 would not be repeated. However, she soon found that her superiors were not ensuring that the law was enforced – she was often reprimanded for scrutinizing firms’ questionable actions. The reason for her superiors’ reluctance to question banking policy is that many banking regulators go on to work for the same firms they regulate after their tenure with the Federal Reserve ends. They are concerned that banks will not hire them if they hand out penalties.

The only way to fix the system is to assign regulators to a specific bank for their entire career so they only sever ties with one bank and not all of them. If a regulator works exclusively against one particular firm, for example, Goldman Sachs, they will only damage their relationship with that firm and still have an opportunity to work for anyone else. Her boss once asked her, “Can’t we say they have a policy?” It should not be her job to say they have a policy. It should be her job to FORCE them to have a policy through every penalty she can hand out.

Sources:

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-09-30/here-s-theory-why-segarra-drove-new-york-fed-crazy-opening-line.html

http://wirednewyork.com/images/skyscrapers/goldman-sachs-tower/30hudson_liberty_state_park_28sept02.jpg (Image)