Monthly Archives: November 2014

Is a fully funded United Nations enough?

The United Nations, if properly funded, has the ability to positively affect the masses. This is vital to assure people are properly nourished and guaranteed basic human rights, however, this does not have long-term sustainability. This is where social enterprise comes in.

While the United Nations helps those in need, Arc and other similar initiatives teach specific groups of these people to help themselves. For example, the Arc initiative teaches entrepreneurs in struggling parts of the world to manage and sustain economic growth in their business ventures. In this sense, the goal of social enterprise is, at some point, to no longer be needed.

I believe we need both the United Nations and social enterprise for third-world nations to accelerate development. The UN works to ensure basic rights are guaranteed for everyone, while social enterprise works to ensure capitalization of these rights. In other words, I do not think that a fully funded United Nations is enough because they do not have the same ability as social enterprises to create sustainable growth third-world nations. The United Nations helps get people in need on their feet, while social enterprise helps them continue to prosper once prepared to do so.

Sources: http://www.sauder.ubc.ca/Global_Reach/ARC_Initiative

Response to Zhenzhen Wang’s Post: Tesla’s Direct Sales Approach

As I was reading classmates’ blogs, I came across Zhenzhen Wang’s post in which she praised Tesla’s sales method. I agree that the company’s approach is very innovative and would like to further comment on it.

Most car manufacturers have dealerships that sell their cars, whereas Tesla wants to have a part in both manufacturing and selling. This is similar to the Apple Store approach. The beauty in Tesla’s approach is that they have eliminated the painful process a buyer goes through at a dealership: sales people are very aggressive, negotiating is an intimidating process, and you never really know if you paid a fair price. It makes the whole experience a general nuisance.

With Tesla, you pay for the vehicle online, pick it up at a showroom, and you’re gone in ten minutes. This guarantees you paid a fair price since everyone pays the same amount. Though there are some trade offs, such as a necessary down payment to have a test drive, this sales method adds to the overall experience of being a Tesla owner. Tesla provides customer service that adds value to their product and brand. It is one of many reasons why I expect to see the company continue to grow in years to come.

Sources: http://www.forbes.com/sites/quora/2013/06/04/why-doesnt-tesla-use-dealerships-to-sell-their-vehicles/

Inside the fall of BlackBerry: How the smartphone inventor failed to adapt

Blackberry was once an iconic Canadian brand on top of the mobile device industry that, in recent years, has seen its popularity and market share dwindle at the hands of the IPhone and Android. So what is the reason for the demise of Blackberry? To answer this question, we must look at Blackberry’s business model.

For years, Blackberry had been an innovator. Blackberry Messenger was the preferred instant messaging software that allowed users to message without the cost of data usage, while blackberry devices best fit consumer needs. While drowning in overwhelming success, the company failed to see changing trends in consumer demands.

We have talked about the importance of reaching a target market first, and when IPhone and Android came out with touchscreen phones, Blackberry had quickly fallen behind. Years later, when Blackberry finally launched a touchscreen phone, customers who wanted this feature had already made the switch and it was too late. Other customers had stayed with Blackberry because of its unique keypad. By giving up their main distinguishing feature, they had given up a competitive advantage and subsequently lost even more customer loyalty.

Blackberry’s failure to commit to their business plan is ultimately what led to its demise. The company failed to be forward thinking, deviated from its strategy, and is consequently nearing inferiority in an industry it once owned.

Sources: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/the-inside-story-of-why-blackberry-is-failing/article14563602/?page=all