Stephen Ilagan's Blog

In response to Adrian Fung’s blog post “Is Social Entrepreneurship Really Possible?”, I would have to agree that Social Entrepreneurship is just another marketing ploy used by profit-driven businesses to attract sales. Adrian uses the examples of TOMS shoes and their “one for one” campaign. I have no doubt in my mind that this campaign only drives home the point that consumers should buy them as they are not only going to look fashionable, but they are helping other people. Ingenious, really. I side more with Milton Friedman when it comes to theories about how companies operate. The rise in “social responsibility”  is a response to consumer demand shifting to goods and companies that are environmentally and socially responsible. So really, Adam Smith’s “invisible hand” controlling the markets is still at play.

Of course, social entrepreneurs like Jamie Oliver and Muhammad Yunus are at play and do make a nice profit from their enterprises. However, these are extremely rare, and most of these social enterprises are focused on that – a social goal, rather than being a profit-driven business. The reconciliation of both is extremely difficult and most social enterprises end up functioning like charities, rather than businesses.

To find an innovative company, one simply needs to open the closest web browser. Google has completely redefined cyber space to the point where it is taken for granted. Google has gone even further than Schumpeter’s definition of the entrepreneur “revolutionizing the pattern of production”. Google has changed the way we think. That, in my opinion, is the true mark of an innovator, of someone who not only takes advantage of change, but pushes it forward as well.

When Larry Page and Sergey Brin launched Google in 1998, their mission was to organize the internet. Their “pursuit of opportunity” definitely exceeded “the resources they currently controlled” (Stevenson’s definition of an entrepreneur).

It hasn’t stopped at their search engine either. Google has constantly been trying to innovate; to take control of the fast-paced technology sector. In fact, in 2011, Google had over 50 acquisitions.

Their next big project? Google Wallet. If that isn’t innovation – completely changing a staple in our lives  and making it digital – I don’t know what is. As Drucker said, the entrepreneur “always searches for change, responds to it, and exploits it as an opportunity”. That is exactly what Google is trying to do in our digital age.

Target’s $1.8 billion purchase of most Zellers leases is old news, and many my fellow Comm101 bloggers (Akaash Bali and Karen Lee to name a few) have discussed the possibilities of what Target will bring to Canadian retail when the takeover happens, many people have forgotten what Zellers plans to do in the wake of a major liquidation.

In Tuesday’s Globe and Mail, an article titled “Zellers’ Last Christmas” outlined Zellers’ creative strategy for this holiday season. With the unique situation of having time before relinquishing their stores (Target’s takeover won’t be complete until March 2013), Zellers has the opportunity to plan out a strategy to maximize profits. Consequentially, with Zellers no longer focusing on gaining market share by trumping discount leaders (they’ll be gone soon, so whats the point?) they have started to stock inventory with higher margin items such as clothing and jewelry. Traditionally, Zellers had focused on advertising cheap, low margin goods (such as paper towels) during the holiday season. Now, Zellers is going digital in an attempt to maximize profits by advertising through Facebook, and letting consumers vote on weekly sales.

Its quite ingenious, really. Zeller’s unique situation makes it an ideal case study for  changing strategies and tactics in response to the business environment. As CEO Mark Foote says, “it’s a weird time”. Weird, but interesting. It is definitely worth following how Zellers handles the next year.