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?