Name a fast-food chain.

What’s the first thing that pops into your mind? McDonald’s? Burger King? According to Ries and Trout’s theory, customers rank brands in their mind, and a product’s positioning is hard to change once it’s formed¹. If such gigantic, highly-recognizable chains like McDonald’s already existed in the industry, what strategies would other 500,000² fast food places worldwide use to get into customers’ mind and gain the market share?

My Comm 101 classmate, Curtis Hoy, has perfectly answered this question with his blog post “Fast Food and Sex – An Unusual Combination”. Curtis talks about how Carl’s Jr, another fast-food franchise uses “sex-sells” advertising strategy and increases consumer awareness of the brand.

Frankly speaking, Carl’s Jr gives me the impression of “beauty and the beast” (however the setting changes to the world of burgers). Thick, juicy patties, rich sauces, shocking calories, sexy women and hungry guys…such image might not appeal to everyone, but it surely attracts the “hungry young males” who seek real food. Carl’s Jr never follows the health and fitness trends, but it’s completely fine since calories control-freaks are never its target market. Rich tastes come from real ingredients make the business special, and that provides a point of difference (POD) to the company in the world of healthy-living.

Carl’s Jr’s approach reminds me of another company, Wendy’s, but its brand image is in stark contrast to the one of Carl’s Jr. The most special thing about Wendy’s is arguably its salad menu. “Asian Cashew Chicken Salad is at just under 400 calories and packed with vegetables. It is an excellent source of satisfying fiber (6 grams) and protein,”³ says a typical dieter. Wendy’s provides many healthy options and satisfies customers’ needs for both fast food and healthy living. Its innovative products – fast-food salads – draw customers who normally avoid burger joints to the business, by acting as a “gain creator” (healthy, tasty and convenient) and a “pain reliever” (hard to get fast food with low calories).

I totally agree with Curtis’s opinions that smart businesses should “focus their marketing efforts on the narrower target market” and “position themselves in unique niches”⁴. Being a generalist and attempting to cater to everyone is neither a great nor implementable idea.

No matter what marketing strategy a business adopt, it should deliver the final results, differentiating itself from competitors and generating more profits. In this regard, Carl Jr and Wendy’s did a great job.

Now, if I ask you to name a “sexist” fast-food chain giving giant portions or a “green” fast-food chain carrying multiple salads, do you still think of McDonald’s?

Works Cited

1. Positioning by Al Ries and Jack Trout
2. General Health – Fast Food
3. Fast Food and Sex – An Unusual Combination
4. 9 Diet Expert-approved Orders At Wendy’s
5. Image 1 — Carl’s Jr.
6. Image 2 — Wendy’s
7. Video – Define your target market 

Social enterprises, Toms and SoleRebels, use “shoe power” to make the world a better place. Two companies share similar visions and missions — selling stylish and comfortable shoes in order to help the poor. While Toms adopts simple “Buy-One, Give-One” strategy, SoleRebels put more emphasis on creating shared values during the process of shoe-making.

Result-oriented v.s. Process-focused

Company’s objectives determine its business model. Blake Mycoskie built Toms after he witnessed many kids were shoeless thus weren’t allowed to go to school in Argentina. BOGO model was simple and efficient to achieve the goals of providing kids free shoes, since one purchase means one donation. On the other hand, Bethlehem Tilahun Alemu started SoleRebels with the aim of offering job opportunities to local artisans who had nowhere to apply their skills. In this regard, the business cared more about how its workers got paid and whether the cultural heritage were well kept in the manufacturing process. Paying workers three times more than the average wage in Ethiopia and covering healthcare and education fees for the workers¹ were the best practice. As well, it created shared values along manufacturing by using recycled tires, which reduces ecological footprint to a large extent.

Differences regarding long-term effects

As Kelsey Timmerman (the New York Times Bestselling author of Where Am I Wearing?) discusses in his personal blog², the differences between Toms and SoleRebels’s strategies come down to the “give a fish or teach how to fish” discussion. Timmerman argues that you give a kid shoes, they wear out or grow out of them, but if you give the kid’s parents a job, the whole family will always have shoes.

I find the analogy quite interesting and precise. In my opinion, Toms has good intention, but it doesn’t help fight poverty in the long run. The poor lack not only shoes/money but also the “infrastructure to create wealth”. Toms is socially conscious and creating a positive impact, but the impact is rather temporary. As we discussed in Comm 101 class, social enterprises are businesses that trade to tackle social problems³. SoleRebels’s model provides solutions to poverty: it gives local workers a fair pay, teaches them manufacturing skills and sends their children to school, all of which have long-lasting effects.

If you do something, do it correctly. If social enterprises decide to help, then they should use the resources most efficiently and make real changes.

 

Works Cited

1. Socially Conscious Shoemakers
2. The problem with TOMS shoes & its critics
3. Comm 101 Class 20: Social Enterprise
4. Image 1 — Toms
5. Image 2 — SoleRebels
6. Video: why good intentions are not enough 

As we discussed in Comm 101 Class 19 (People, Culture and Teams¹), organizational culture is a set of core values that shape behaviours in the organization and help build long-term enduring brand. Acknowledging the important role it plays in business operations, I wonder, does great culture guarantee a great return?

In fellow student Seham Abdul Karim’s blog, she has shared valuable insights into Google’s organizational structure and explained how it contributes to the giant’s success. Similar to Zappos, Google gives its employees enough freedom to pitch in creative ideas (according to 70-20-10 rule), encourages workers to project their “crazy thoughts” directly to the top executives², and offers generous compensations (free meals, healthcare, etc.). I agree with Seham that Google has one of the greatest culture and offers dream jobs that many people envy; like an “engineer’s playground”, Google gives its employees opportunities to explore their passions without concerning too much about the financial outcomes.

However, as the failure of Google Glass³ illustrated, Google didn’t pay much attention to the market needs while being dominant in research. It seemed to me that the company cared too much about its workers’ happiness and ideas rather than the ones of the customers, which isolated the company from the demand-and-supply world. Apparently, equipped with an optical head-mounted display, touchpad and camera that can record 720p HD videos⁴, Google Glass didn’t fail because of the technology, rather because of its vague, undefined value proposition. Customers didn’t know what problem it solved or why they may need it.

In my opinion, building working culture and making workers happy is important, but it should be based on customers’ and happiness and satisfaction. Culture is an intangible asset only when it creates actual value for the company, which, in most cases, is determined by the financial outcomes. Tying engineering work closely to business performance and customers’ needs should be part of the culture, helping the business advance in today’s customer-oriented market.

 

Works Cited

1. Class 19: People, Culture and Teams
2. Google’s Business Leadership and Organizational Culture
3. Why Google Glass Failed
4. Google Glass Review
5. Image 1 — three keys to organizational success

Continue reading

Canadian musical artist, Drake, has created a huge buzz worldwide with his highest-charting single “Hotline Bling” (e.g. Over 2,000 UBC students recreated Drake’s “Hotline Bling”¹). There is no doubt that the artist himself is capturing revenue from every angle as a result of his talent and hard work. But, is he the only one that benefits from the pop rush? No. Italian luxury brand, Moncler, has doubled its Maya jackets sale after the music video’s debut, as the singer is wearing an iconic Mocler jacket in the video².

The company may have never expected that crazy music fans would appear on the top of its customer list. Most customers, either appreciating the quality of the jackets or loving the fashion styles, are from middle to upper class who are willing to pay over $1,000 for a winter coat. This time, the customer segments are largely diversified – many customers buy “overpriced” jackets.because of their obsession with the pop star.

From my perspective, luxurious clothing brand’s collision with down-to-earth pop culture creates great potential for the business to expand its niche market and to enrich its brand culture. Many high-end fashion brands show no interest in branding in pop-culture market, as they believe it’s less sophisticated and somewhat “violates” the brand value. They enjoy playing “customer selecting” game and creating artificial barriers to keep the classic image of the brand³. Nonetheless, referring to Comm 101 Class 7 pre-reading: What is strategy?, companies must be flexible to respond rapidly to competitive and market changes. In this case, it’s necessary for Moncler to adjust marketing strategies in order to advance in the slowing luxury market.

Advocating through pop music videos might not be the company’s initial plan but such connections with pop stars add refreshing elements to the branding and provide a point of difference. As well, it helps the company gain a significant number of customers, who share few values with Mocler if there aren’t such connections between the brand and pop culture.

When the hotline bling, it can mean one more thing – endless profit opportunities!

 

Works Cited

1. Drake’s “Hotline Bling” recreated by over 2,000 UBC students
2. Drake’s ‘Hotline Bling’ coat a winter fashion sensation
3. Six must dos for successful luxury goods marketing
4. Class 7: Buisness Canvas and Strategy
5. Image 1 — Drake
6. Image 2 — Moncler store

 

 

Nestle Water Canada, notorious for taking hundreds of millions of liters of groundwater at basically penniless ($2.25 for every million liters)¹ and leaving local residents dry and high, has recently bought a well near Elora, Ontario and plans to pump up to 1.6 million liters of water per day².

Having been discussed in Comm 101 Class 15 (CSR & Sustainability), sustainability, as an important component of creating shared value, is highly valued in today’s society and has become a major differentiator in business operations. How does Nestle Water, a company that commoditizes public commons at a gigantic scale causing water shortage, jeopardizes the natural resources for future residential and agricultural use, and lays heavy burden on environmental protection (excessive plastic bottles production and carbon emission along shipping), relate itself to sustainable development?

Browsing through Nestle Canada’s website, I find that the giant deals with public questioning in a very smart way. Rather than addressing the concerns directly, the company points out that soft drinks are more water-consuming and less healthy in comparison to bottled water. As well, the research data shows that 63% people will still buy beverage in a package if they have no access to bottled water; the sugared and caloric alternatives often cause greater environmental impact and health issues. Moreover, while 1L bottled water requires 1.3L water to produce, it takes 3L for soft drinks³. The company “successfully” proves that the large scale of water consumption and plastic use are unavoidable in beverage industry (i.e. if it’s not used to produce bottled water, it will be used for soft drinks), and the existence of bottled water positively contributes to sustainable development and health promotion compared to soft drinks.

The argument seems reasonable; I’m almost convinced that bottled water is the best option among beverages. However, as I go further, I realize that saying bottled water is good (since it’s better than soft drinks) is like saying theft is good (since it’s better robbery) – one has no sugar, one involves no violence. If we want to make achievements in sustainable development, comparing something to the worse alternative only decelerates the progress. If drinking from the tap (the most healthy and cost-saving choice)⁴ is no longer commonplace in today’s society, what really creates positive value is to educate the public instead of giving them more alternatives.

Have you got tricked by the “green labels” on the plastic water bottles and thought they are really good for us?

Works Cited

1. Nestle Pays $2.25 to Bottle and Sell a Million Litres of BC Water
2. Nestlé Waters Canada plan to tap aquifer worries Elora, Ont., residents
3. Nestle Waters Canada
4. Bottled Water: why is it bad for you, the environment and water 
5. Image — Nestle Water
6. Video — Nestle says water isn’t a right