To repeat what’s be said many times before me: We are exposed to an innumerable amount of product advertisements on a daily basis. For the most part we dismiss most of what we see; It doesn’t apply to us.

I, personally, have no need for maxi-pads, whether they be extra absorbent, or with sport-tuned suspension. It’s a tough sell to say the least. No matter how many times I witness the spilling of blue liquid, Kotex is no closer to making a sale. With the size of some corporate budgets, I can’t imagine the amount of money that’s wasted on promoting products to the wrong audience.

However, advertisements are moving towards a fit custom tailored for the individual. This is made possible through social network sites that have access to user-given personal information, as well as likes, hobbies, repressed childhood memories, and probably your SIN, too.

Our online social networks are only becoming more and more embedded as our phone’s keep us connected 24/7, auto update, as well as provide copious contributions to the fine art of stalking.

It doesn’t take much imagination to predict a future where adds are aimed with supreme accuracy, targeted not only at your unique characteristics, but also your mood, though status updates, where you are, via GPS coordinates, and even your thoughts, using Zuckerberg’s upcoming Facebook ESP app.

Sustainability, “living within our means”. These are now popularized terms, but what does there application really require? We keep hearing the way the average person lives in North America isn’t sustainable. People invite the idea of lessening their impact. But do they really know what that entails?

In the last few centuries, with some exceptions, the trend has been that every successive generation has more to work with, a higher quality of life, cheaper commodities and more opportunities. This expansion moves in the opposite direction of sustainability. People expect their lives to be filled with more luxuries than their previous generation. In a way, technology has brought this to us, but in order to be sustainable, we have to begin to give things up. And by some estimates, we have to give ALOT of things up.

But are North Americans prepared to do this? To give up their lifestyle for a benefit they will not likely see in their lifetime? It’s been mention many times that we have to become flexible and adaptable among other virtues, but the limiting factor will be how willing and altruistic people are in giving up their prosperity for a higher goal.

To complicate matters, the entire structure of industrialization, of cities, of world trade, was all conceived and formed before issues of sustainability were considered issues. A sustainable world will look entirely different than the one we currently live in, and will require a substantial amount of thought and recourse. Those preaching sustainability failed to communicate this.

So, with the whole GM bankruptcy thing starting to settle, there’s a few things that need to be said about GM’s relative positioning, and inter-competitivity AKA product overlap. Yes, they’ve done an excellent job of learning from their mistakes; their new products are orders of magnitude more appealing -in my personal opinion- due to exterior design, higher quality interiors, and improved fuel efficiency. And yes, they’ve shrunken their conglomerate, cutting out quite of few of their “souring” brands (Saturn, Pontiac, Hummer, to name a few).

Though they’ve come back to successfully focus on their four core brands, GMC, Chevrolet, Buick and Cadillac, there is still too much product overlap. During the 2010 Vancouver Olympic games, sponsored by GM, I was able to witness this firsthand.

At one point I saw, parked in a row, three different GM vehicles. These were the GMC Acadia, Chevrolet Traverse, and Buick Enclave, all in white. It was like an awkward party moment where three of your friends show up in the same shirt, distinguished only by the varying degrees of disgust on there faces. Luckily the Cadillac SRX, got the memo and was able to skip the party. If you didn’t get the metaphor, these SUVs are all similar to the point of excess, sharing the same platform. Differing badges and slightly altered bodywork set them apart.

The Cadillac is marketed as upscale, it’s positioning clear: power, luxury, prestige. That all makes sense to me. But the Buick, marketed as slightly upscale? Huh? Throw in the GMC and Chevy with no distinguishable positioning I will accept and you’ve got a self a nice mess of overlap. Note that each of these separate vehicles come with a host of trim and engine options. This does not apply solely to this model, it’s appears over the whole product lineup.

Yes, GM has greatly improved it’s thinking, but the problem still exists. It could be doing much better; four brands is still too many. Keep Chevrolet. Keep Cadillac. You’ve got your economy cars, and your luxury cars. Modeling japanese brand strategy (Toyota-Lexus, Nissan-Infiniti, Honda-Acura). Or if you insist on four brands, keep them out of each other’s way and give each an exclusive model.

The rewards system of today’s workplace is based on outdated motivational tactics. This is a well studied field with extensive research. There is little debate in the findings that, for white collar jobs, extrinsic motivators, essentially cash, have a negative effect on performance during higher thought activities. The best way to elicit the highest productivity is through intrinsic reward, namely complements, feelings of accomplishment, etc.

The strange part comes in when you consider that despite how grounded and substantiated this knowledge is, it is very seldom used in the workplace. Why are employers so resistant to let go of old, and obsolete methods of motivation? A few cutting edge companies incorporate this tactic, experiencing large success in doing so. Google and Zappos, to drop a few names, are examples of companies that use these advances performance enhancing tactics. Why aren’t more switching over? These companies could experience higher employee productivity, dropping costs, and wasted capital.

It seems the old way of doing things, the bonuses and salaries, are so ingrained in corporate structure, that it’s going to take more than a few studies and success stories to put this not-so-revolutionary idea into practice. In time, new leaders will ascend, leaders grown in an era with greater understanding of motivational theory.

Imbalances of wealth have always been a part of human civilization. Though some see a perfect world as one of equality, we really have no idea what this would look like, or how to act within it. Regardless of stance, the fact remains that during no other time in history has so much attention been directed to aiding those less fortunate. Through all the turmoil and global issues, there is a visible trend that we, as a species, have a a disposition towards humanitarianism. As warm and fuzzy as that statement may sound, the result of attempts to aid those less fortunate are not positive. Traditional endeavors to improve situations in poverty stricken countries are through philanthropic and non-profit organizations. By relying solely on donations and volunteers, revenue is limited. (We’re not that far yet.) The true path to the abolishment of national poverty experienced in a large portion of the world, is through social enterprise. Using ingenuity, and smart solutions, a profitable organization can bring a steady cash flow, employ the locals, as well as attract other ventures through it’s success. A area’s living standards can rise by magnitudes over time with subjection to commerce. Good ideas, in the long run are far more valuable than currency.

The environmental movement, the obsession with a greener future, and curbing climate change, is surprisingly superficial. Lately, green add campaigns have become a fad practiced by almost all major manufacturing corporations, regardless of field. Most of these same companies have transparency issues; much more effort is devoted to tailoring advertisements to green conscious consumers, than to the actual improvement of the product. In the end it seems, through all the empty claims of major manufacturers, the power shift into a greener era lies in a combination of the peer pressure and basic economics. Hummer, the brand every environmentalist loved to harp on for its dismal fuel efficiency, is finally toast. Note that this is not through GM’s initiative, but simply because it’s no longer profitable. This is the way it’s going down. It’s not a new concept, public attitudes as well as rising fuel prices are changing the auto industry. The same will apply to other segments. Power really does lie in you to make the change, to bolster a cliched phrase, though not entirely. There may be altruistic individuals, but you’re hard put to find a society that behaves as much. Because of this, we have to wait for something to make economic sense before the world makes the shift.

The newest member of Apple’s product lineup, the iPad has been recently introduced. It has a hard road ahead of it, needing to pave it’s own market niche.

Steve Jobs, upon introducing the iPad, spent a considerable amount of time trying to justify the its existence, explaining how it fits in between the laptop and the smartphone. He made sure to distinguish how the iPad is not in competition with Netbooks, the previous product existing in this segment.

However, the niche the iPad is trying to squeeze into is gradually closing itself. As technology advances, laptops are becoming more portable. As technology advances, smartphones are becoming more powerful. The need for and function of  the iPad is already questionable and becoming ever more superfluous.

Though the iPad’s redundancy is evident, I’m confident that if not in it’s current form, it will eventually succeed. The speed of Apple’s product upgrades, and the genius of it’s marketing will in time produce an iPad far more convincing of the public’s hard earned cash. Aesthetics and simplicity seem to win over, and create fans out of, many Apple-goers; the iPad will be no exception. The stumble out of the gates caused by awkward naming and schizophrenic positioning will find redemption.

Hot in the news: the Toyota recall. I’ve heard talk of accelerator pedals more in the past month than rest of my life collaborated. This is more than coincidence. This is the effect of the world’s largest automaker recalling a reported 8 million vehicles to date.

As usual, the media has blown things out of proportion. The hypochondriasis that society seems to posses en masse is only worsening an already sticky situation (pun intended). It is implied through reports and quotes collected from various authority figures that if you own any of the recalled vehicles, you are in danger. To the contrary, Toyota states that unless you’ve been experiencing the defined problems in your vehicle, your vehicle is safe to drive.

Toyota takes a particularly large blow from this complication as it’s success has, up until the present, been based on product reliability, quality, and resale value. All of these commercial attributes have been seemingly tainted by the recalls.

The public uncertainty and vulnerability to persuasion is being exploited by some to push the ever present buy American policy. To the numerous misguided, this gives a bad reputation to the Japanese auto industry as a whole. Coupled with the recent Honda recalls due to airbag malfunction, this argument appears convincing.

The media continues to worsen business woes by simply reporting on them, exemplified in the economic downturn. This influence will only become stronger as the internet, and through it media penetration, advances.

Ryanair, a discount airline has found a legal, yet distasteful way to advertise free, to insanely low airfare.

I agree with Ryanair’s the minimalist pay-as-you-need business model. By paying only for what you use, you can save yourself plenty of cash that would otherwise be wasted on unwanted or unused pleasantries. With a little adjustment, this method could be applied to other industries and services and could potentially make consumers more aware of their spending, and reduce waste in an accidental push towards sustainability.

Where I begin to disagree with Ryanair, is the extreme to which it applies it’s policy. By advertising a low price hardly achievable by any traveler it’s falsely marketing itself. It makes up for this low entry fee with some ridiculous charges. The £40 charge it classifies as a debit transaction fee is nowhere near the actual cost of the transaction to the company and is a great of example of hidden the costs.

A more ethical and fair approach to the Ryanair strategy needs to be implemented. Increasing it’s base fee to a more realistic number would allow it to accept smaller profit margins on extra charges that are essential to a passenger’s flight. With some adjustment Ryanair can keep it’s competitive edge and system of business, albeit in a more virtuous manner.

In a new campaign against alcoholism, the Russia government rationalizes that alcohol’s availability is the main contributor to it’s abuse.

The average half litre of vodka now costs 2.95 USD in it’s country of origin. At first glance, this appears more reason for envy than alarm. But take into account that the average income of a russian citizen is roughly 60 USD (1,809 Rubles). Also assume that the average monthly wage for a Canadian is 3,300 CDN and a 500 mL bottle of vodka in Canada is 20 CDN, a realistic estimate. With a little math you can discover that the opportunity cost of a bottle vodka for the average Russian is over 8 times that of an average Canadian.

So if it’s not the availability of alcohol that causing it’s abuse. Why is the government raising it’s price? It seems it will have the same affect that Canada’s tax hike of cigarettes had on smokers. Those in need of their fix of nicotine didn’t change their habits. Likewise, Russian vodka users are already offering large percentages of their income towards alcohol. The price increase will only further squeeze budgets and decrease standard of living.

There’s a more complex reason behind alcohol abuse in Russia, and it needs to be fully understood before it can be effectively combated.