With regards to Chelsea’s recent post about Adidas slowly losing out to companies such as Nike and Under Armour. Whilst I agree that Adidas should look towards a marketing strategy similar to that Of Nike, I do not believe that it is essential towards Adidas’ future success.

I believe that Adidas’ marketing strategy should be getting their brand name across. One of Nike’s reason to being more successful than Adidas is Nike’s big endorsement deals with big names such as Cristiano Ronaldo. Especially in this industry, brand loyalty is a huge thing. With regards to basketball alone, Nike has celebrity endorsements deals with Kobe Bryant, Lebron James, and Kevin Durant at the same time, thereby controlling a major part of NBA’s fanbase as Nike owned 93% of market shares on basketball shoes (Maisonet). Personally I believe all basketball shoes are similar in design or performance; therefore it is quite reasonable to assume that Nike’s success comes from endorsements.

Adidas’ biggest basketball celebrity is Derrick Rose, who suffered from injury for the last 2 years. It explains Adidas’ dip on the shoe market as it is important to have an active ambassador to represent the brand. As a result, what Adidas should do is to continue to pursue young upcoming stars in the sports world, something that Under Armour is doing to try and break into the market share as well. Kevin Durant’s signature shoe for Nike, for instance, generated $85 Million alone. Thus, if Adidas can actively look for endorsement deals with potential stars, they could potentially return to the once sports giants that they were.

Sources Cited:

Forbes Magazine. “Sneakernomics: What Happened To The Big NBA Rookie Shoe Contracts?.” Forbes. Forbes Magazine, n.d. Web. 5 Oct. 2014. <http://www.forbes.com/sites/mattpowell/2014/07/08/sneakernomics-what-happened-to-the-big-nba-rookie-shoe-contracts/>.

“Why Kevin Durant chose Nike over Under Armour.” SBNation.com. N.p., n.d. Web. 5 Oct. 2014. <http://www.sbnation.com/2014/9/3/6098457/kevin-durant-nike-contract-under-armour>.

http://www.vancouversun.com/news/First+Nation+chiefs+stage+Site+showdown/10215965/story.html

Tradition and culture is a vital and important component in the history of British Columbia. This tradition has often lead to both benefits and consequences, most recently the rejection of a new $8 billion hydro-electric project built near tribal land, affecting the wellbeing of the first nations people by destroying wildlife and farmland.

The first nations influence on the decision to discontinue with the development of the project is considered as ‘political’ with regards to the ‘PEST’ analysis. An external factor regarded as the peace treaty and laws of the first nation could potentially affect the development of BC Hydro, therefore causing them to change their business model/development plan if necessary.

Ethically however, as the first nations government, is this the right thing to do? Obviously tradition has a large influence in political decisions in British Columbia, but in terms of society, the economic and development benefits that would be provided if the project is continued for me personally would heavily outweigh the consequences. Sustainability is a large concern not just for people in B.C but around the world, and for BC Hydro the project would create a market force that would benefit them greatly as the costs and time needed to replicate the same output would take a substantial amount of time.

Sources Cited:

“First Nation chiefs to stage Site C showdown.” www.vancouversun.com. N.p., n.d. Web. 5 Oct. 2014<http://www.vancouversun.com/news/First+Nation+chiefs+stage+Site+showdown/10215965/story.html>.

“Porter’s Five Forces.” Porter’s Five Forces. N.p., n.d. Web. 7 Oct. 2014. <http://www.quickmba.com/strategy/porter.shtml>.

“Understanding Pest Analysis with Definitions and Examples.” PESTLE Analysis. N.p., n.d. Web. 7 Oct. 2014. <http://pestleanalysis.com/pest-analysis/>.

http://www.bbc.com/news/technology-26481654

Facebook has recently been given the green light to purchase Whatsapp for a whopping $19 billion. However there has been a lot of controversy with regards to the privacy for many existing whatsapp consumers, and Europe’s Telecom’s market.

The deal has been criticized heavily by European Telecom companies, worried about their loss in revenue from free mobile messaging services provided by Whatsapp as well as concerns related to privacy for users.

Facebook is notorious for providing personal information to collect advertisement revenues, something that Whatsapp is committed to not doing. Whilst Facebook has stated that it intends to respect the privacy policies set in place for Whatsapp, Zuckerberg has in fact changed Privacy Regulations towards recently acquired companies. According to Friedman, these ‘acts of responsibility’ could just be to cover up an interior motive.

Friedman argues that as long as profit is being maximized the business is working responsibly. However if Zuckerberg does indeed change the privacy policies then he will be deceiving the public and current users, something  that might possibly affect Facebook’s reputation in the long run potentially limiting future users from using Whatsapp and instead using other competitors such as Wechat, KakaoTalk, and Viber.

Sources Cited:

Rawlinson, Kevin. “Facebook’s WhatsApp purchase opposed.” BBC News. N.p., n.d. Web. 5 Oct. 2014. <http://www.bbc.com/news/technology-26481654>.

CNET. “Facebook’s WhatsApp deal gets regulatory OK in Europe – CNET.” CNET. N.p., n.d. Web. 5 Oct. 2014. <http://www.cnet.com/news/facebook-whatsapp-deal-gets-regulatory-ok-in-europe/>.

Zimmerli, Walther Ch., Klaus Richter, and Markus Holzinger. Corporate Ethics and Corporate Governance. Berlin: Springer, 2007. Print.