The official retirement age is being pushed back every year.  The amount of people over the age of 65 in the workforce increases every year.  What’s wrong with this picture?  There were several issues brought up in “Work until you drop” (source: The Economist) about the aging workforce.  The first issue brought up was the difficulty level of affording social benefits for an aging population.  One of the possible solutions is to increase funding for the healthcare segment through taxes.  I don’t think this solution is ideal because a large portion of Canadian’s taxes currently go towards the healthcare, and we already have the 11th highest tax in the world.  Another problem is that the pensions that most companies currently offer are pale in comparison to how much they were a decade ago in real value.  Moreover, people cannot afford to stop working even when they reach the official retirement age in their country because the age at which the government starts paying pension gradually delay.

Can you think of any other solutions for the aging population?  I think a possible solution would be to increase the pay for the nursing industry.  This would create an incentive for people to choose the nursing industry over other career choices.  Unfortunately, another problem might arise from this decision – where would the money come from?  Perhaps we can lower the standard of our social benefits and use that money in pensions instead.  This way the government would be encouraging people to work hard and then be able to provide a safety net when they retire.  There is no perfect solution, but I believe that the governments around the world need to take action in order to reassure that the aging population is sustainable.

^Professional cuddler (Samantha Hess) cuddling with Portland musician KaiKani

While Samantha Hess, was surfing on YouTube and came across this video, a spark of genius ignited and spreaded like a wildfire.  In the video, a guy was holding up a “free hugs” sign, and then there was a prankster, who held up a sign saying “deluxe hugs $2”, and ended up getting more hugs than the guy giving out free hugs.  Samantha then started a business – she charges people money for non-sexual cuddles.  Samantha’s site “Cuddle Up to Me” clearly states her rates, what’s appropriate, and where her services are available at.

Samantha’s business definitely targets a unique niche market.  I think the idea of entering an untouched market that no one has discovered is a brilliant brave act!  An untouched market either means that there is no potential in that market or no one has discovered it yet.  According to the article on Business Insider, Samantha now makes around $7,000USD a month, which she is quite content with.  She inspires me!  As an individual, she is now living comfortably while doing what she is passionate about, she believes that “everybody should have a way to reach out and feel comfortable with that.”  As a business, “Cuddle Up to me” is thriving as if I were to rate it, it would receive an extremely high score in the triple bottom line as her customers have a high level of satisfaction , it’s local – environmentally friendly, and her income is higher than another job that she has done before.  

When I read on Business in Vancouver that Save-on-Meats, a local diner and butcher shop located in Gastown of Vancouver, hires people who usually have barriers to entry to workforce, I was excited!  Upon further research, I noticed that they also provide meals for the Downtown Eastside Residents Association at a very low price.

Mark Brand, the owner of Save-on-Meats, is currently facing several lawsuits for late payments of invoices.  I felt conflicted about this – a part of me feels like the government should be subsidizing part of Mark’s costs for hiring people with special needs, but another part of me feels like it’s his fault for not running his business efficiently.  If the government did subsidize Save-on-Meats, would it be an unfair advantage for all the diners and butcher shops in the area?  Is it morally acceptable for the government to watch Save-on-Meats, possibly in the future, fail and stop providing jobs for the people who otherwise wouldn’t be able to get jobs?  These are difficult questions that need to be asked; I personally believe that the government should support and encourage social enterprise businesses, as they sometimes encounter more challenges when compared to businesses that are solely after profits.  There’s a fine line for how much to subsidize or in what ways the government should before it becomes unfair, and where that line should be drawn is a big question.

While I was browsing external blogs from other classes, Raza Razi‘s blog “Marketing – How Effective Can an Idea Be” caught my eye.  In his blog, he praised the ALS Ice Bucket Challenge due to its low cost and effective marketing strategy.

Smaller corporations often have trouble competing with the larger-scale corporations, but I agree with Raza that there are inexpensive ways for ideas to stand out and gain a point of difference in the consumers’ mind.  There are millions of products on the market, so product differentiation isn’t always possible.  What the companies can do is to market the same product in a way that it has never been thought of before in order to achieve a sort of illusion of product differentiation.  An effective advertisement can trick consumers into thinking that they “need” the product that the company is selling.  Unfortunately, and fortunately, low-budget and unique marketing ideas are often a hit or miss.

In the case of the ALS Ice Bucket Challenge, a simple idea raised over 100 million dollars!  I think that there is an abundance of clever marketing ideas in this day and age, but it takes more than that to succeed.  Good timing, a clear understanding of the market, endorsements from the right people, and a bit of luck are all essential ingredients for an marketing strategy to be effective.

While I was reading through my fellow classmates’ blogs, the word “Blackberry” in Iris Gu’s blog title stood out to me.  Blackberry used to be one of the world’s leading cell phone brands, but in the recent years, their sales plummeted.

Iris wrote in her blog that Blackberry cannot make a come back with the keyboard market because it cannot compete with the touchscreen market since they’re competing for the same market share.  I personally disagree as I see the users that prefer a physical keyboard on their phones are in different customer segment than those who prefer touchscreens.  I understand that most current smart phone users prefer touchscreens, but if Blackberry can shift their goal of competing with Apple, Samsung, and other cell phone companies, and into targeting consumers who are not satisfied with a touchscreen, then it has a chance of reviving its sales.

It is almost impossible for Blackberry to even attempt to break into already established leading cell phone companies’ customers base because it cannot compete with the brand recognition and customer loyalty that the other companies have already established.  However, if they can take over those who prefer physical keyboards over touchscreens, and then slowly build up their reputation again, then they have a chance of making a come back.