As I am a teller at a financial institution constantly encouraged to promote VISA’s and traveller’s insurance, I definitely understand the pressures that come from making “sales”. Natural instinct as it is, I was automatically attracted to the headline: “The World’s Dumbest Sales Mistake“. Before the overload of technological innovation, the most common mistakes were as follows:

-Obvious sales person attire
-“The salesman voice” (overly excited, high pitched, enthusiastic)

But now, with internet, the new way to approach a customer is via email. Of course, this avoids face to face communication, which hinders the automatic shutdown and avoidance from customers; however email etiquette should now be put into prospective.

“…the dumbest thing that you can do today is to try to communicate to prospective customers using “salesy” language.”

Apparently, to my dismay, I am a user of such “mistakes”:

• “Thank you for your interest in our product!”
• “We guarantee customer satisfaction.”
• “If you need further information, do not hesitate to call.”

Now, after reading this article, I am left confused. How am I supposed to interact with consumers etc… professionally while utilizing the suggested “write like you’re talking to your pals” rule?

On the other hand, I can see why workplace culture is important to the success of a company. Companies such as Lululemon and Zappos use informal interactions with their consumers in order to stimulate loyalty and promote their business. By using less professional approaches such as off-topic and lengthy phone calls, as well as offering yoga classes and quirky window displays, you create more of a personal touch to your “professional” interactions, and thus making you appear more of a person than a typical sales person hunting for profit. While this is harder with email, learning to balance professionalism and “being a real person” is a good skill to keep in practice!

References:

http://www.inc.com/geoffrey-james/the-worlds-dumbest-sales-mistake.html
http://images.quickblogcast.com/4/3/9/5/9/238726-295934/usedcarNixonposter.jpg?a=56

In today’s society, it’s pretty hard to keep up with all the different technologies coming out. As a consumer, it’s hard to decide between whether or not you should buy the iPhone 5, or wait until the iPhone5S. If it’s already tough enough as a consumer, think of it on the suppliers side! With so much access to new technology, we can imagine how hard it is for a company like Best Buy to compete with other third party suppliers such as Future Shop, Walmart, etc… As a result, such competitiveness and similarities in products have caused Best Buy to slip in sales. However, Best Buy’s new CEO is considering one bold move that could save Best Buy and bring Best Buy to a new competitive advantage and brand identity: buy up smaller electronics companies so customers can’t buy them anywhere else.

In a way, this strategy is pretty risky. Because Best Buy is buying the smaller and less demanded brands such as Hitachi and JVC, success rate can be low, considering the fact the trend is to buy either a Sony or the Apple. However, this strategy is also very smart, as it can save Best Buy by giving them a brand identity. Should this strategy go through, Best Buy, to me at least, can be the company that sells the cheaper products for the consumers that can’t afford the Apple, the Sony, or the HP.

By buying out the smaller brands, Best Buy now becomes more exclusive, and becomes the main supplier for these brands.

Interesting to finally see the  ‘Brand Positioning & Value Propositions’ lesson from Comm101 being put to work!
References:

http://www.businessinsider.com/best-buys-turnaround-plan-2012-11#ixzz2CH4daSek
http://contrarianedge.com/wp-content/uploads/bestbuy-logo.jpg 

So far as a business student, I’m slowly learning that time is a powerful thing. When I finally have a day off from all the assignments and studying, instead of feeling relieved, I feel as if I should be doing something productive, and actually feel guilty or regretful to be having “spare” time. A recent paper from the University of Toronto suggests that companies who practice goal setting and offer performance bonuses to employees as motivation actually causes it’s workers to be increasingly unhappy. Of course, stumbling upon this article sparked much of my interest, since it totally contradicts my first year organizational behavior course in university. That being said, the paper argues that these company tactics prevent us from enjoying time off because we always think of it as losing money.

“When we think of time as a resource and connect that to money, we’re more likely to constantly feel stress, even when we’re not on a deadline or under pressure.”

Do I agree with this? Reading the article for the first time, I found it ridiculous to criticize companies for adding employee incentives in the workplace. Bonuses and goals are great ways for employees to become productive, and to add value  and purpose to their work. However, as I read the article for the second time, I realize that that it is indeed true, that companies have sculpted the minds of its employees; have brainwashed us to prioritize work over family and friends.

Being in Sauder, I realize that most of my colleagues are motivated by the monetary value that comes with a BCom degree. I myself am guilty of being in business just ‘to be in business’. As I reflect upon the society that surrounds me, I now see that money has become the mind’s motivation. We have become these work-driven robots, constantly stressed and constantly telling the people around us that we are “too busy” or “super stressed”. Even when we actually don’t have that much to do, we still make the appearance as if we are busy, and begin to naturally list out all the things we have due.

In conclusion to reading this article and skimming the paper, I agree that we feel pressured and stressed to achieve; however, I can’t think of anything that could elevate the situation. The problem is recognized, but unfortunately, as much as I would like to enjoy and indulge in time-off, we live in a world where everything has become a competition, and where the amount of time you put into work, is the amount of value and importance you contribute to yourself. 

References:
https://gsbapps.stanford.edu/researchpapers/library/RP2123-1.pdf

http://www.360solutions.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/time-vs-money1.png

http://www.businessinsider.com/people-now-believe-that-time-is-money-2012-11#ixzz2CGvlBbes

In response to Jessie Lin’s post ‘EU pushes 40% quota for women on boards’, I find it rather ironic that a gender specific quota must be put in place in order to avoid inequality. While I am a woman myself, I understand that it is important for us to make our mark in the professional world and have our voices heard. However, putting a quota and threatening companies with fines simply feels wrong.  If I were hired by company knowing that they must reach a target amount of female employees, I would feel as if I was hired for the sake of filling in the numbers, not for my working  abilities. Instead of putting quotas in, officials should focus on opening up more workshops and training opportunities for both women and men to strengthen their skills in order to compete fairly when looking for jobs. Landing a job should not be determined by whether you are a man or a woman; it should be based on the skills you have and the value that you can bring to the company. Putting a gender specific quota is not fair, and counteracts the notion of equality. Like what my mother always told me: quality over quantity.

As of late September, Facebook has launched it’s very own gift services where  users will be able to purchase and send real merchandise (teddy bears, vouchers, clothes, etc) to their friends. The new service features reminders linked to friend’s birthdays, ability to track delivery progress, and unwanted gift exchanges. To ensure satisfaction and convenience  the recipient will be sent a message to input their address, as well as their preferences of the buyer’s chosen gift (ie: size, color, etc). While this takes social networking to a new level and marks Facebook’s first attempt dealing with physical goods, we must consider the risks as it can be “potentially disruptive”. This gift service introduces Facebook into the e-commerce market, and if the service proves to be successful, Facebook will undoubtedly expand to more complex services other than small gifts. As a result, with Facebook’s popularity and it’s quick access to user information, it  has the potential to beat out other e-commerce companies such as Amazon and Ebay, and take over the virtual world.

Facebook has been growing and extracting user information like rapid fire, and has transformed itself into a necessity in an individual’s day to day life. Not only does Facebook have access to our current locations, schools, photos, and other private information, with the new e-commerce approach, they will now have our credit card information and home addresses.

The question of uncertainty remains: Is this safe?

References:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/facebook/9572936/Facebook-launches-real-gift-service.html

In reference to this article, my colleague asks:  “do believe that this telemarketer company is justified in hiring inmates?”

My response:

The ethics between hiring inmates for less than minimum wage is blurred; however, firing existing workers because of the cheap labor alternative is unacceptable.  I believe that hiring inmates is a good opportunity for inmates to learn and develop the skills needed for when they are released. I am a believer in second chances, and hiring inmates is a positive way for the inmates to become productive and learn to be responsible. In a complete business perspective, hiring the inmates at a cheaply cost is a smart way to cut down company costs, and I am impressed by the company’s ability to think of this approach. However, is it ethical to be paying 3$/hr? There is no difference between the prisoners and the sweatshop workers in China, but because these inmates are viewed as criminals, it makes it a bit more acceptable. On another note, as mentioned above, it is completely unethical and unacceptable to be firing existing law-abiding workers due to the new rush of cheap labor. These workers are capable individuals, “people [who] are coming in every day, and are generating a lot of revenue […] there’s no reason why these people should have been fired”.

Bottom line: It is unjustified for the telemarketer company to be hiring inmates if they are going to fire valuable staff.

On another curious note, will this become a trend? While it is certainly unethical for major companies such as Apple and Nike to manufacture their products in sweatshops with underage and underpaid workers, will it now become more acceptable if companies hire prisoners who owe dues to society instead?

References:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2012/aug/08/prisoners-call-centre-fired-staff

https://blogs.ubc.ca/larrycheong/2012/09/12/a-law-abiding-citizen-losing-their-job-to-a-criminal/

As of this month, Bell has offered a $3.4 billion dollar deal to buy out Astral Media, Canada’s largest media broadcaster. While the CRTC is on it’s third day of hearings on whether or not the deal should go through, Bell’s competitors are fighting in opposition against the contract. BCE is one of Canada’s largest telecom company, owning CTV television , former Chum radio group and other specialty TV channels. “If Bell is allowed to own both CTV and Astral, it will have overwhelming control over television on all screens in Canada,” said Pam Dinsmore, vice-president of regulatory affairs at Rogers. Rogers representatives also argue that it will be impossible for them to launch new services without paying the high costs of content owned by Bell, which would ultimately cut the services they can provide to their customers on their mobile devices. In a less competitive perspective, the deal will not only crumble Bell’s competitors, but also extinct media diversity, provide unreasonable market share to Bell and reduce employment opportunities.

In business, everything is about competition. Is it reasonable for Rogers to oppose the Bell-Astral deal? Yes, they need to protect their business, but is their argument valid enough to protect the media society as a whole? On the other hand, is it wrong for Bell to expand their company? When do we need to stop businesses from growing too much?

References:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/globe-investor/competition-bureau-flags-bell-astral-deal/article4548430/

Welcome to UBC Blogs. This is your first post. Edit or delete it, then start blogging!