In a fast paced world where everyone seems to believe that “money makes the world go round” When I think about what’s being said, I realize how much I disagree with that statement. In a world where so much information is being thrown at you at all times through so many different outlets, we tend to forget the basics. The basics being that, “Humans needs humans.” Think about it, it’s such a simple yet profound statement. As a human being the companionship of another human being is a basic need in itself. A sense of belonging, a community, people. We need them, as much as we sometimes hate to admit it. Similarly, I believe that if the United Nations was fully funded, we’d still need Social Entrepreneurs because having money is important but somewhat useless without knowing where it’s going to go.
The UN and Social Enterprises like the Arc Initiative, go hand in hand, and are unable to function as effectively alone as they could together. If UN was supposedly funded well, then the way to allocate the resources effectively and efficiently would be the next job for which enterprises like the Arc would be a great help for. People need people comes more into effect when you realize the Social Entrepreneurs genuinely help make a difference in business but also in the lives of many people that may have felt stuck in the positions that they were in. And without them, a small yet sustainable business in these developing countries wouldn’t exist. Most of the time, people donate money to non profit organizations and these organizations do their best to get them food and water and all of the essentials they need for the time being, forgetting that the resources given are limited and that after it’s over, they are back to where they started. Social Entrepreneurs change that. The Arc Initiative had 1 day workshops in places like Rwanda, where they taught business folk the basic fundamental skills of business, things they could actually apply to their businesses straight away. That’s why Social Entrepreneurs are vital to creating better lifestyles for those in developing countries, because they help fund the appropriate things that ensure those countries will have something long term to live off of. Maintaining this effect is the job no one does better than Social Entrepreneurs which is why I think that even if the UN was fully funded, Social Enterprises like the Arc would still NEED to be around because that’s the only way of ensuring that citizens of these countries are learning the right things thus planting an entrepreneurial seed in their minds that they choose to help thrive; which would in turn help end the life of poverty and provide an increase in the country’s economy as well.

Celine’s Post: https://blogs.ubc.ca/celinechen/2014/10/05/post-4/

Original Article: http://www.forbes.com/sites/strategyand/2014/10/01/why-content-marketing-is-a-team-sport/?ss=salesmarketing

Referring to the Positioning article, it seems that even 30 second old ads can become stale
in the matter of minutes as the rest of the world moves onto other things. In a fast-paced environment like ours it’s no shock that we are overloaded with information to the point where it’s overwhelming to process it all at once. It is a time consuming task and the art of synthesis vanishes as we try to capture each piece of information and condense it so we can refer back to it in time of need in our minds. Because we try to categorize things, we sometimes lose the actual value of whatever it was we saw in a few simple words since it’s in comparison to its competing brand/company. Celine’s right about the fact that consumers then vs consumers now are much more different. We are much more aware, we have a vast network of information at our hands and we get bored fast and it’s important as marketers to always keep their brand changing, evolving, innovating because we all are, all the time.
Another thing that was interesting was the contrast between letting the consumer experience
the brand for his/herself or letting him/her experience the brand value. I think each is capable of maximizing positive reactions depending on the situation. When it comes to beverages and such, letting them experience it doesn’t hurt, but when it comes to high end fashion or anything for that matter, I think the specialty is definitely in letting the consumer get a feel for the brand just how luxurious and high end it is before letting them come to a decision. It creates an image of their minds of the kind of person they admire to be in relation to that brand which is a great incentive for the consumer to purchase anything.
The final interesting point brought up by Celine was that more often than not consumers do

Immediately disregard anything they see or hear on ads that is not consistent with either their own experiences or beliefs. Which is extremely accurate. How many times you have dismissed a TV show because you couldn’t relate to it? Or flip the channel past some infomercial because you had no need for the product the brand was selling? If it’s not something that interests you, or something that you are striving to get/be you have no care in the world towards it. I agree with Celine when she says that the best way to market a brand is to leave consumers with a positive memory or message of it.

The Heineken Stunt

What is Burberry Kisses?

Source: http://blog.penelopetrunk.com/2013/05/16/put-yourself-in-uncomfortable-situations/

Penelope Trunk, the founder and CEO of Brazen Careerist, an online website that powers virtual events and career fairs for leading organizations around the world, helping people network, improve and innovate. On the side, she runs a blog with straight to the point advice about running a business as well as personal and professional growth during each of her experiences.

One of her recent blog posts titled: Put yourself in uncomfortable situations is not only relatable but humurous and realistic as she explains how much businesses and the internet has evolved. There is no need to memorize anything anymore as the information required is at hand at the click of a button. Instead, what’s more important is thinking critcially, from different perspectives, and being able to syntheszie that information as such that companies and firms can look at as innovative and use it for any aspect of the business itself. Boundary Spanning, which is essentially a networking ideas and collaborating with others in order to synthesize the information differently was one of the top five future leadership qualities most CEO’s will look for in a candidate. She believes that instead of sticking to what you know, and sticking with people you know. It’s important to go seek information in places you don’t fit, with people you don’t belong with (and potentially don’t like) and to be nervous from time to time as it can become a positive incentive for you to really get things done.

For starters, let me just say I completely agree with everything she has said in this blog
post. She is right, memorizing is no longer a quality that is an outstanding asset anymore. It’s all about having the information and finding out what to do with it. There is an abundance of it, and moving onto the more important thing is simply finding a use for it. Shaping it in a way so it will fit the needs of the company/firm. In order to synthesize any information most effectively it is important to be around people who aren’t so likeminded. I think one of the common misconceptions is that all business people are often likeminded individuals, and that is not true. They are all focused towards the same goal; their endgame is the same, not necessarily the way their minds work. After a class on Culture, People and Teams it’s safe to say that people being different is often not the problem, rather the problem is the treatment of employees and the attitude of the employees in itself. It’s important for everyone in a company to be somewhat open minded to other’s ideas and opinions because that’s what gets things going. That is what helps in creating a better synthesis of ideas. Take our profs, Paul and Jeff, business individuals both of them, but one of them is great with numbers (an accountant) and the other was made for innovation(marketing). And together, COMM 101 is unlike any other course there is at Sauder. It is clear their personalities are contrasting, but that’s what keeps things interesting. They literally make up the two parts of a brain, one is left (logical, analytical, likes hard facts) while the other is more philosophical, thoughtful and insightful. It’s not surprise that their chemistry works well, but it also helps them bounce ideas off each other and sometimes one of them may see an idea a certain way, or in a way their counterpart couldn’t. The idea of complementary pairings is over-spoken but underused in the business world.
Trunk mentions to not only work with people you don’t like, but also to make yourself
nervous once in a while. As strange as that sounds, I can understand it. When you are nervous to present, (not too nervous) or to share an idea with others around you, it gives you a bit of an incentive to try harder and do better. The idea is that putting yourself out there, and mixing with things and letting yourself be exposed to things you’re not used to or things you’re not necessarily a fan of doesn’t have to be a bad thing at all. If anything, it can be one of the most enriching experiences of your life, and also useful if you choose to apply these skills to your business.

Original Article: http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2014/11/06/ads-nhl-jerseys_n_6116996.html?utm_hp_ref=canada-business

Justine’s Post: https://blogs.ubc.ca/justinebearss/2014/11/09/advertisements-to-be-placed-on-nhl-jerseys/

The NHL COO, John Collins recently said in an interview that they were seriously
considering ad sponsorship on the jerseys of the NHL Players. Though no time frame or any details were given.
Justine (original blog poster) believes that this is a good idea because ultimately the
brands that will have the chance to be endorsed by the Canucks and other teams in the NHL will be seen by a large audience, people that watch these games at home on a Wednesday because there’s nothing better to do, as well as avid NHL fans that would believe that what their players are endorsing are the absolute best brands, brands that they should most definitely purchase. This already exists in EHL (Euro Hockey League), as well as the NFL who have practice jerseys with sponsoring ads on them. This is a great way to generate revenue as the abundance of brands will have lots of competition amongst each other to get on the jerseys to begin with and then to request specific player jerseys will be even more costly. Overall it is a profitable idea and I think that they should definitely go with it.
However, there is one thing I am not quite sure about that Justine also didn’t touch upon
was the kinds of brands that they’d be sponsoring. What if they choose to sponsor fast food restaurants? Or maybe cigarette brands? Being hockey players, it is assumed and they are looked at as promoters and advocates of healthy living and eating fatty foods or smoking a sig or two are not necessarily the healthiest ways to live. Not to mention morally sound companies; one of the biggest liabilities I see here is that if any company is being sponsored on their jerseys does it specifically mean that those particular players condone the operations and logistics of each company? There’s always the chance of some misconduct in the company and if there is an outbreak then that will directly impact the hockey teams which everyone will question as to why they are endorsing such brands, and they are not knowledgeable about it then why not?
Despite these concerns, I do think this venture can bring in more money than it will cost should such a situation occur, because of which I agree with Justine’s idea of customer incentive increasing because the people that also would have their brands on these jerseys will be in the public eye all the time and the dedicated fans on their NHL teams will for sure look into the brands if not find something they can purchase from them immediately. It benefits both the NHL, as well as the brands it’d be endorsing to an exponential degree.

The relationship between regulators and those that work in the “sharing economy” (businesses involving people having to share their resources/accommodations of any kind) is often a conflicted one from the start. It can be blamed upon a series of things including lack of communication, lack of initiative sometimes taken by those working in the sharing economy and a serious misunderstanding of the nature of business that these firms are running.
Take Uber for example, a ridesharing service that has an app that can help connect you to someone that has a vacancy in his or her cab. Substantially, the concept is one that is useful in many different aspects, environmentally, because gas is used less since not as many cabs are being used, traffic-wise because the roads will be less congested if there are less cars on the road due to carpooling, as well as an increase in employment (more people required to do the job) not to mention the revenue being brought in will soon surpass the staggering 3.5 billion dollars already being earned. The article then talks about how the regulators feel about the business Going. Shervin Pishevar, an investor in a few of the sharing companies including Uber believes that expanding these businesses and bringing them to larger cities will have a huge influence the economies of each of them. However, many cities are awfully reluctant to allow these systems to expand by having subpoenas issued and such.
This is where regulation comes in. It is believed that regulation is what stops
the sharing economy from ever expanding the right way. The irony here is that the interest of the city’s economy and the goals of the sharing economy firms are often similar and can be worked side by side to achieve the best results. They all aim to help the customers, the government wants to protect them and these firms are doing just that but also making it easier for them. However, Regulators and people from this type of economy don’t necessarily mesh well, and they could learn a thing or two about being more co-operative with the regulators (or so the writers believe so)
A few of the reasons include the employees of the sharing firms be more forthcoming with their ideas. They owe it to explain the nature of their business, their plan, the input and what they expect to be the output. Using the Business Model Canvas there is an area given for everything including customer segments (who you are directing your service towards) as well as Value proposition (the quality of service being brought) which would help them explain as to why this service is so important and so necessary for cities to have. Because despite the advantages that would be advantageous to both the government and these firms; their lack of communication prevents this from happening. It seems to me that the firms need to be simply more receptive to the regulators at all costs. They should be well prepared with their business segments and ensure their counterparts (the regulators) that what they are doing is not only safe but beneficial and will aid them in the long run. Perhaps being a little extra nice won’t hurt either. Not to mention they ought to keep in mind that because they are coming into their cities (of the regulators/government) it’s the least they can do. Compromise is necessary and so is taking the first step towards being more understanding, and maybe then the conflict between regulators and the sharing economy firms will be solved.

Uber Driving Tips:

Article: https://hbr.org/2014/10/how-uber-and-the-sharing-economy-can-win-over-regulators/

Business Ethics has become a bigger deal than it was just years ago. Sustainability and ways to be “green” are ideal when consumers are putting their money in any business/service and they strive to make sure that the companies are not only eco=-friendly but morally sound as well.
Take this article, for starters, that states people react more strongly to companies that seemingly do not have any sort of ethical/environmental concern. While it is not guaranteed that those who are well-informed necessarily will make the right decisions, it’s obvious that it is wise in this day and age to have some sort of plan for the environment. Between 2010-2012, boycott rates have gone up by 123%, most of which are for either companies that have unsustainable palm oil or refusing the use of certain petrol stations, people no longer just want to invest in something that is not clean. Amnesty, Greenpeace, and the likes of these organizations are reaching out to people and the fact that the internet is full of information at the click of a mouse makes it even easier for shoppers to be aware of what goes on with these companies when it comes to their ethics and morals.
Going back to our Class 3: Business Ethics, the two contrasting viewpoints were of Friedman (http://site.ebrary.com/lib/ubc/reader.action?docID=10187339&ppg=171) and Freeman (https://www.youtube.com/embed/bIRUaLcvPe8) Friedman believed that the only concern that any executive working was to maximize profits and impress his boss essentially. He says that the only social responsibility any employee has to his/her business is to maximize profits. It seems to be a rather cut-throat approach as this point of view is not very tolerant or open to the ideas of unemployment or environmental concerns that do exist.
Freeman’s stakeholder Theory stated that in order for the business to thrive, the max stakeholders must thrive as well. Including its customers, the people working for the company, the suppliers, the community as well as the financiers. All of these stakeholders must be getting some sort of value from the business, then and only then will be the business thrive and survive.
How does ethics fit into this? If people are only willing to invest into something that they know is environmentally sustainable and morally correct, that is their value from the business. It is important because customers, as a part of the stakeholders must be satisfied with what is going on with the company. If we take Friedman’s approach, then companies don’t have to be sustainable at all, rather they can overproduce and cause pollution if they choose to as their moral obligation is only to their company and its profits. And what’s interesting is that this article is pretty much saying that’s wrong and in this day and age it won’t work due to people’s awareness of not only the environment but also all the toxic that’s being put in it.
I’ve always agreed with Freeman’s Theory simply because I believe that it is important to be morally aware of your surroundings as well as empathetic to others’ situations (incase of unemployment, for example) It’s important for a company to choose to be sustainable and not simply “seem” that way in hopes of increasing profit. However, that being said, a company can only do so much morally. A company at the end of the day, (and any business for that matter) is created as a service to people but the ultimate goal is always to maximize profit (make money) and it’s important to make sure that goal is being reached because otherwise it’s no longer an ethical business if they are not making any money. I can see where Friedman comes from when he says that essentially that’s what businesses are supposed to do, but it’s important to look at the bigger picture and sometimes make decisions that may not maximize profit simply for the greater good.

Original Source:
http://www.businessgreen.com/bg/industry-voice-blog/2364029/are-consumers-becoming-more-aware-of-environmentally-sound-business

According to Porter’s theory about the 5 factors of forces, one of them being rivalry. The rivalry is with a diverse group, the First Nations, that are taking over the New Prosperity Mine Park. It’s a division of Chilcotin and the mine that was found there is what’s making this a rather controversial situation, since the gold-copper project was estimated at about 1.1 billion dollars which is no longer going to go to these corporations but rather through the First Nations’ government.

This does seem a little rash as it’s only 4 months after the Supreme Court ruling, but at the same time, the First Nations have been dealt with unfairly and have been stripped of their land from years ago; and sharing some of it now shouldn’t be a problem. Businesswise, however, it is quite a loss and it’s also worrying because yes the First Nations seem as though they are progressing and organizing themselves well, in the past it’s been really easy for them to roll the other way. They tend to be rather wreckless and rash in their decisions which are made to protect themselves not in the smartest way but only in the way they know how. For example, the never-ending conflict between wanting to keep their Indian Status for the sake of tax exemptions and other small advantages but hating the sometimes negative connotations behind the word and the “limitations” they feel the status provides. Overall, I think this is a big step for the First Nation’s group to be making, maybe one that is necessary but rather it just seems that they may not be ready for it; after being treated so harshly for so many years it is going to take time for them to come back and be a strong force whilst also being effective; is this ultimately a loss for all of society and the government/economy? Only time will tell.

Sources:

http://www.vancouversun.com/news/metro/Unilateral+park+declared+Tsilhqot+includes+Prosperity+mine/10192766/story.html

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/background-the-indian-act-1.1056988

Sources:

http://hbr.org/1998/03/the-power-of-virtual-integration-an-interview-with-dell-computers-michael-dell/ar/1

Michael Dell (founder & CEO of Dell) talks about how he uses the direct business model plan which is the main cause of his success today. A direct business model consists of the suppliers, manufacturers and customers. It takes out many liabilities such as losing suppliers of a certain place; there is a liability in having a third party because sometimes they can bail or really screw things up since there is more than just one aspect of the business to worry about; same with the physical aspects, including a place to keep your inventory. With this plan Dell does not have to keep a place for inventory, rather they just order from Sony whenever they feel they need the certain amount of computers that they do, decrease risk in a huge liability. This plan is more efficient in my opinion because it lessens the amounts of things that can go wrong, and liabilities and risks go down. Instead of developing everything on their own, they take people who specialize in the aspects that they need and ask them to help. This also helps develop a stronger relationship between the customer and the manufacturer, which is likeable and can really help with customer service. Happy customers only spread their joy and are excellent at networking.

Sources:

http://www.quickmba.com/marketing/ries-trout/positioning/

Al Ries and Jack Trout, writers of the book Positioning: A Battle of the Minds (1981), show that their ideas from an older generation exist even now. Their basic belief is that in the market the way your brand is positioned and advertised is ultimately the determining factor in terms of whether or not your brand/good will be successful. Over a series of sections, Ries and Trout argue that not only is it important to have a good product, it is important to be first in the minds of the consumers. They genuinely believe that it is all based on human perception the success of a brand, which isn’t entirely wrong. The way we, the buyers, see the product is ultimately the decider of whether or not the product will be popular and create large profit for the respective companies. However, the amount of emphasis on being put first and almost toying with the perception and the minds of the consumers is not only a little worrying, but it is rather futile.

For starters, the product matters or at least it should. It matters whether or not the product is actually a quality product. And positioning of the product should not be prioritized over the quality. I also think there is a line between comparing your product to your competitor and conditioning the consumer’s mind into thinking that your product is different than its competitors when it’s not. It is important to claim something that is true and to be first. But sacrificing the quality of the product just to be first is questionable. I think that a if a product is truly a quality product it will, sooner or later, gain success simply because people will come to realize that this is worth investing in. It is possible to rush into something and realize that it is no good, and sometimes it can be too late to fix the product if enough people come to the realization that this is truly not a worthy product investing in.

There are also other liabilities with this idea, establishing leadership is important, yes, but so is establishing a good product which I feel that Ries and Trout really choose to ignore in this excerpt. By putting too much emphasis on marketing and toying with the mind of the consumer we forget that a good product can stand on its own without the need of well-crafted advertising. Take Blackberry for example, despite its signature keyboard, it’s well crafted marketing made Blackberry as good as it is, rising sales which eventually fell over time when people realized that it was not a good as phone as it seemed. This is why I think as much as Ries and Trout have excellent ideas, I don’t think they should be looked at as building blocks for success in a business.

Source:

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/02/06/business/cvs-plans-to-end-sales-of-tobacco-products-by-october.html

Recently, CVS decided that it would be in the best interest of its consumers if they were to ban all tobacco products including one of the most popular used drugs, cigarettes. This is huge considering the amount of sales being shaved off their monthly/yearly revenue rates; nearly amounting to 2 billion dollars a year it seems a lot worse simply because research and stats also show that since cigarettes are no longer being sold, complementary good such as mints or gum are also not being sold as much simply because people are not choosing to come to CVS because of the lack of drugs.

In my opinion, this is a rather controversial decision simply because both sides are right and wrong. Ethically it is a big step for CVS to choose not to sell something that brings so much business and it really shows how much they value their customers’ lives by choosing not to sell the cancer-causing drug. However, you can’t help but wonder whether they are doing more harm than good for their own business. $2 billion is a large amount and this raises the question of how much profit is enough? Where is the line between ethics and maximum profit and where do you draw it.

CVS did do the right thing, however, ethically and I believe that in time this is something that will be looked upon as a good thing, as opposed to the way it’s frowned upon slightly simply because it’s not the wisest business decision; but I wonder if other large stores like Wal-mart will follow this trend, or thrive off the fact that they are potentially earning more sales than their competitor?