This is in response to Troy Holme’s blog post, pointing out the dangers of Brazil’s new found deep-sea oil deposits. Since the economic down turn that reached it’s epitome in 2008, the United States is not the lone super power it once was. Markets like China, India, and Brazil are huge centres for manufacturing, innovation and resource production. However, increasing oil deposits alone do not guarantee global influence and power. A good example of this can be seen in Venezuela. Currently they have the largest oil deposits in the world, yet politically instability and the national oil company Petróleos de Venezuela has struggled to increase output.

This aggressive expansion however, like seen in Brazil, can pose huge risks. I completely agree with Troy Holme’s identification of the possibility of another BP oil spill catastrophe. The fact that the oil refinery is so far from the mainland that there must be a mid-way station built incase of emergencies is enough of a reason that a watchful eye must be kept on this development. The effects of the BP oil spill will be felt for decades, and our environment can surely not afford another one.

Effects on the underwater habitat as a result of the BP oil spill.

https://blogs.ubc.ca/jlively/2011/10/07/41/

This blog post is in response to Jamie Lively’s post regarding Nike’s relatively new advertisement featuring P.K. Subban of the Montreal Canadiens. It is no secret that former NBA Senior Vice President, and current NHL Commissioner Gary Bettman has attempted to appeal hockey in US markets. Whether he has been successful or not is a completely different debate, but there is no arguing the benefit of an advertisement like this for the game of hockey.

As Jamie stated in his post, advertisements featuring world-wide superstars from leagues like the NBA or NFL have been developed with huge production value for years, with the NHL lagging behind drastically in the “cool factor” amongst many American sports fans.

http://www.sportsnet.ca/hockey/2010/12/10/canadiens_redwings_preview/

With the exception of the Northern United States, Canadians, and various European countries, hockey is an extremely misunderstood sport, and people simply just don’t care about it. An advertisement like this has positive implications for both hockey and Nike. Like Jamie said, viewers can associate traits that P.K. Subban displays like hard work, determination and fun with the Nike brand. This is extremely good for the positioning of the Nike as the premier apparel for not just football or basketball players, but all sports.

http://youtu.be/A4cf2gW7YVM

http://blogs.hbr.org/ashkenas/2011/11/the-no-whining-rule-for-manage.htm

I had been searching vigorously for a blog-post to write about when I came across one in the Harvard Business Review, authored by Ron Ashekenas. He describes an anecdote in which a client of his used to keep a “no whining” sign. He then pointed out the peculiarity of such a sign in an office filled with professionals and grown adults. This bizarre and almost childish sign addressed a very common issue though: Everybody complains.

No one is excluded from this statement, no matter how hard we try, it is just a fact of life. People do not like to admit when they are wrong, or take responsibility for when they make mistakes. They also do not want to have to clean up after other people’s mess. The relation I see between this blog post and the Sauder School of Business in general, is that we can take this “no whining rule” and apply it to every group project, or committee we are apart of. The blog-post suggests two ideas and sub-tactics to allow for any organization you are apart of to be more productive:

Accountability

– do not present problems without attempting to solve them on your own

– do what you think is necessary to achieve results

– if you do not have authority or the resources to execute the solution, in which case they should propose a solution with a request for help

Positivity

– constantly remind your team to assume positive intent about others

– it’s easy to blame others when there’s a problem, therefore reminding group members that most people don’t wake up in the morning with the goal of making their lives difficult

– a more productive path would be to better understand the nature of the problem and move towards creating a joint solution

Twitter is a website created by Jack Dorsey that allows its users to “micro blog” just about anything they have to say by using a maximum of 140 characters. Twitter’s meteoric rise to social networking prominence is a phenomenon that can only be compared to Facebook. Like it’s major competitor, (it should be noted that many people who have Twitter have Facebook and vice-versa) , it’s membership has grown exponentially in the past few years.

Twitter is a product of entrepreneurship. Twitter harnesses our technological capability of transferring information at a level that has never been seen before in history. Blogging is nothing new, but Jack Dorsey’s team was able to make a user friendly interface that almost anyone can figure out within a few minutes, and turns those users into real time commentators on the world around them.

http://www.gadgetell.com/technologytell/article/twitter-turns-5-today/

There are many comparisons that could be drawn to competitors like Facebook, but Twitter has successfully differentiated themselves from other social networking sites by making access to information quicker and shorter. Their “short and sweet” 140 characters or less method has been so successful that other “micro blogging” websites have adopted the same model. They saw a significant gap in the market, and despite social networking giants such as MySpace or Facebook they took the risk to change the online world forever. At over 200 million tweets per day, it looks like Twitter is far from peaking.

http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/apples-supplychain-secret-hoard-lasers-11032011.html

Apple’s secret to market supremacy? Mastering the art of the supply chain. This integral, but often overlooked aspect of a company can easily distinguish the losing companies from the winning ones.

By micro managing almost every aspect of their supply chain, Apple has been able to increase their gross margins to almost 40%, when the industry average is around 10-20%. Analysts credit this success because of the sheer volume that Apple demands of their suppliers, and their ruthlessness. Apple designers will spend weeks on end in hotels just to be close to their suppliers and work on things such as tooling equipment. Although, the relationship that Apple has with its suppliers can be a love-hate one. The high volumes are positive for suppliers, but the requirements that Apple can demand are very specific, which can lead to deflated prices and lower profit margins. These circumstances have even caused some firms to not do business with Apple whatsoever.

Even when it seems like Apple’s operations can’t get any better, they decide to nearly double their capital expenditures on their supply chain to $7.1 billion. Not only is Apple dominating their external functions such as marketing or their physical products, but their changing the way companies operate as well.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/technology/tech-news/microsoft-snaps-up-skype-to-keep-rivals-at-bay/article2016439/

Microsoft has finally secured its acquisition of the web-based, video and audio calling giant Skype. But it wasn’t cheap. Even though Microsoft purchased the company for 8.5 billion, almost three times its value less than two years ago, it ensures that Google and Facebook did not. Even though they paid a hefty price, Microsoft feels that they are acquiring a company with services that are core to their mission and technological direction. They will now begin the difficult task of incorporating Skype’s services into all of their

http://www.brothersoft.com/skype-51174.html

products. Hopefully the use of Skype’s technology will increase the appeal for Window’s powered smart phones, which have almost no market presence. The benefit of Skype is that their audio and video calling service can be used with almost any type of platform or device. This will now decrease the gap between companies like Google and Apple, who have successfully created technology that is dominating the smart phone and tablet industries. Microsoft finally has a way of differentiating themselves from the competition. If they can successfully integrate this technology into their products it could be exactly what they need to gain the competitive advantage they have been lacking for the last decade.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/globe-investor/investment-ideas/fabrice-taylor/rim-like-motorola-needs-a-giant-partner/article2131662/

With the Apple acquisition of Motorola, it looks like Microsoft could possibly follow suit by purchasing a much smaller company for it’s assets as well. Which company could that be? None other than Research in Motion, who have seen their stock prices drop significantly from a lack of investor confidence and shift in consumer preferences towards Apple products.

Currently Microsoft has almost no presence in the tablet or smartphone market. RIM has a loyal consumer base of more than 60 million users. They also have tablet technology which could provide Microsoft a huge opportunity as the tides turn away from laptops and to tablets and smart phones. It is imperative that Microsoft somehow makes a move into these two very important markets. Windows and Office are their main profit earners and as tablet purchases begin to chip away from laptop sales, Microsoft’s value will begin to dwindle if they do not enter the market. For Microsoft this is the perfect opportunity to begin to steal market share back from Apple, who over the last decade has completely

http://www.thetelecomblog.com/2011/05/04/rim-strikes-bing-agreement-with-microsoft/

overshadowed them in innovation. In the enterprise world where Microsoft is very strong, a business friendly tablet coupled with Windows software could be what Microsoft needs to climb back in the innovation race with Apple.

http://www.businessweek.com/technology/netflix-hastings-get-it-right-09222011.html

Many Netflix users are in outrage. In early September the company announced it would be separating its DVD delivery and streaming service into two different companies. If users who used both services continue to do so, they will now be paying almost double what they were before. Subscribers who used only one of the services will now pay almost the exact same if not less.

Deciding whether this is a good business decision or not is difficult. In the short run it appears that Netflix CEO Reed Hastings has made a grave error. The Netflix stock plummeted 19%, and the company has had to decrease their projection of users from 25 million to 24. This has majorly affected their public image, and has left many subscribers with a feeling of distrust and alienation.

In the long run I completely agree with Roger Ebert. The DVD delivery service is quickly going the way of video rental stores and becoming obsolete. Streaming is simply the way of the future because it can be used globally and is instantaneous. I do however think that Netflix should have waited longer before making this decision. Over time they will increase their leverage over firms that release licensing to stream movies, which will allow Netflix to grow their streaming library. If they had waited until consumer preferences had majorly shifted towards streaming, then they possibly could have avoided their recent fall from grace.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/06/05/national/main511109.shtml

The McDonald’s “Beef Fries” incident is a prime example of taking advantage of the customer and bad business ethics. Since 1990, the fast-food giant claimed to have used only pure vegetable oil in the cooking of their fries. Problems arose when lawsuits were filed by various people in the Hindu and vegetarian communities. “Beef flavouring” was used to enhance the taste of McDonald’s french fries, which is a large concern for those who have dietary restrictions (such as Hindu’s or vegetarians), and cannot consume beef products. McDonald’s claimed that their fries were a 100% vegetarian product, but neglected to disclose the use of “beef flavouring” in the fries.

It is obvious to see the incentives of not disclosing a significant fact like “beef flavouring” to consumers when describing something as 100% vegetarian. If it is seen as vegetarian, consumers who would otherwise not purchase McDonald’s products, as many of them contain meat, now have a viable option at the fast-food chain. McDonald’s in this case took advantage of the consumer by not fully disclosing all the details of their products. If they had, many consumers would choose not to purchase McDonald’s fries simply because of their dietary restrictions, thus decreasing their revenues and profitability.