My friend Jeff Wang’s post about Starbucks finally entering India made me think deeply about whether or not the business would really hit it off in India. At first, as the linked CNN blog discusses, the average person unaware of what really goes on in India, would say, “Oh, well Indians drink chai don’t they? I don’t think they would take to coffee!”

Well, the fact of the matter is, Indians are striving, perhaps just like the rest of the world, to be more and more like Western society. The new, younger, generations are taking after their counterparts halfway across the world in the Caucasian countries. Indian born and a resident until the age of 7, I would know best. When I grew up there, all of this was just starting: kids were starting to listen to Pop and Hip-Hop music created in North America and Europe. Slowly, the fashion began to evolve and nowadays, everything is changing very rapidly.

One thing that happens in India faster than anywhere else, for some reason that is out of my comprehension, is trend-hopping. Everything that becomes trendy, goes hot across the nation faster than you can imagine. Most likely, it’s the result of India being the second most populated nation in the world, and the largest democratic nation that’s open to infiltration by international media and influence more than China.

Starbucks won’t just be a hit because people will like it’s coffee, it will be the new thing because it’s the thing in America.

Image: http://s1.ibtimes.com/sites/www.ibtimes.com/files/styles/article_large/public/2012/10/19/starbucks-mumbai.jpg

As I was reading my friend Marissa’s blog post on TransLink raising its fares starting in 2013, I remembered also reading elsewhere that not only were there going to be sharp increases in fare, TransLink was also planning on cutting routes and reducing SkyTrain frequency*.

 This change in fares is seen as quite the outrage by Vancouver’s commuting population, whether it be students or people in the workforce. As it is, many people complain that the routes are serviced very infrequently and are thus very cramped. I, myself, have been left waiting for a bus that was supposed to depart at a certain time, but never really left… This left me no choice but to call TransLink and inquire about the whereabouts of the bus, only to receive a monotone apology along the lines of “I am very sorry for this sir, we will try out best to correct this in the future.”

For students like myself, commuting all the way to UBC from Surrey every day, I see the real face of public Transit and these fare increases will definitely affect my tuition as well, as the increase will be reflected in the cost of the UPass indefinitely. Not only is there a large void in the SkyTrain system (from Commercial-Broadway station to UBC), TransLink is planning on reducing service elsewhere to fund projects such as the Evergreen Line in Coquitlam (a fair bit smaller of a market). These factors are quite irritating to us as customers, but its the price we pay for such low taxes.

* http://www.burnabynewsleader.com/news/175694591.html

The Globe and Mail recently posted an article stating that “More than half of Canadian boomers [are] catching [the] entrepreneurial bug.” This brought up an interesting thought to me… is there such a thing as too much capitalism? Can we get to a point where there are just too many small business starting up that draw too much of the population away from the workforce that is so essential for any economy?

Although the article discusses those Boomers that are nearing retirement or have already retired, it is a trend that is not only seen in those nearing that age; even students and young workers are becoming more and more keen on starting their own businesses. Why wouldn’t they? You can be your own boss… and some would argue it’s the only real way to become “rich.” But what does that do for the economy?

Certainly it’s a good thing when people want to start their own businesses. Governments always try to encourage small business activity, because it produces jobs and many other benefits. But what if everyone just wants their own business? Then our workforce is reduced greatly… something that will have very negative effects on the economy. A shortage of labour will cause these small businesses, themselves, to pay high salaries to their workers and perhaps begin shutting down causing the owners large losses.

Although it is unlikely we will reach this point, it’s interesting to see how each and every one of us do affect the working economy greatly.

Recently, my friend Allister posted about the recent hoax that Samsung paid a billion dollar fine to Apple in nickels. Obviously, this is quite ludicrous if you think about it, but like myself, many people fall for it when they heart it the first time.

Not only does this tell you about how sensitive society is to news that can change their opinion of a business; it shows you how easy it is for any random person to literally flip public opinion on a matter. As it gets easier and easier for people to spread rumours through social networking utilities (Facebook, Twitter, etc.), people become more and more susceptible to being infected by some false propaganda.

Another great example of this is the recent news spread about a long loved and adored snack in India, “Kurkure”. First, claims began to roar that these chips, in fact contained plastic. Then, videos began to spring up that showed people burning the chips, which would not burn, but instead melt like plastic.

http://www.hoaxorfact.com/Health/plastic-in-kurkure.html

PepsiCo has recently come out with statements and their own social networking advertisement that Kurkure do not contain plastic and are safe to eat.

These two articles are excellent examples of how tipsy public opinion is and how, with social networking, any news can be spread faster than a disease, whether it’s true or just a hoax.

I thought Jeffrey Wang’s post about the marketing tactics of Apple was quite interesting. It really is intriguing how the change from Apple naming their products successively (ie. iPad 1, iPad 2, etc.) to them naming the new iPad… well “The New iPad,” can cause so much commotion amongst the population. Well, in reality, it isn’t just this change that causes commotion; Apple’s events at which they release their latest gadgets have become almost like pay-per-view boxing fights. People crowd to popular tech blog websites such as Engadget who blog live from the event for those awe-struck and dedicated Apple fans that can’t wait to get a glance of the latest pixel-packed screen or scratch-resistant material that Apple has introduced into their products.

What’s even more interesting is the ignorance of the general population…

My favourite late-night talk show, Jimmy Kimmel Live, recently featured a section in which they went out into the streets with the iPhone 4 and told people it was the iPhone 5. The response was profound… people ignorantly replied things like, “Oh yeah, it’s definitely faster than my iPhone 4” and, “it’s so much lighter and more HD.”

Really, Apple is just taking advantage of the population’s tendency to follow fads and trends. They’ve created this premium yet widely available and accessible brand that users follow blindly. The majority of the population knows very little about processor speed and hardware and software capabilities, yet they flock to Apple as their hands-down choice. I asked my PC-user friends if they would rather have a MacBook than a PC, and almost every single time the response was “Yeah… definitely, it’s just too expensive right now.”

Don’t get me wrong, I would rather have a MacBook, too, but I do find it very interesting how one least expects it, but Marketing has really become, in today’s widely inter-connected and socially diverse, the most important aspect of a business.

Ever since the start of the 21st century, Wal-Mart has faced countless criticisms ranging from those challenging their wages to those challenging the working conditions that Wal-Mart employees are subject to, just to mention a few.

http://www.businessweek.com/stories/2003-10-05/is-wal-mart-too-powerful

According to Bloomberg Businessweek, in 2001, Wal-Mart sales clerks earned $8.23/hour or $13,861/year; at the time when the federal poverty line for a family of three was at an annual income of $14,630. All this time, Wal-Mart maintained that the salaries they offered were competitive in the industry while other critics also noted that the wage cap was mainly in place to force higher paid veterans out of the company. The ethical conflict was greatly publicized and Wal-Mart spokespeople had their hands full with the situation.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/walmart/secrets/inside.html

Whereas Wal-Mart founder Sam Walton is quoted saying “I pay low wages. I can take advantage of that. We’re going to be successful, but the basis is a very low-wage, low-benefit model of employment.”
(http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/walmart/secrets/inside.html)

http://www.usatoday.com/money/companies/management/2005-11-02-walmart-employees_x.htm

In lawsuits like the one above from Missouri, workers accused Wal-Mart of forcing employees to work off the clock who were not paid the correct overtime amount as required by law. The ethical issue of working conditions for employees versus profitability was clearly evident.