Month: November 2010

Waking up in the morning is never a good feeling: the grogginess, the grouchiness, the I-wish-I-was-still-asleep-ness. For all you morning people, you probably can’t relate, but if you’re like me, a morning “Booster” is precisely what you need.

Booster Juice is a rapidly expanding enterprise of now 170 stores worldwide, founded only 7 short years ago. It prides itself as being “an incredible, healthy alternative to fast food” and holds a consumer image of being wholly nutritious and all natural.

Is this an example of a booming entrepreneur? Of course.

These yogurty concoctions are not the cheapest drink out there; yet customers buy into its image. Why? You feel healthy when you’re holding it. But most importantly, other people think you’re healthy when you’re holding it.

It’s not a secret that ‘healthy’ is the new black. According to a 2008 study, the company was ranked 2nd in the juice category and 166th in the Franchise 500.

As a customer who has admittedly bought into Booster Juice’s image, all I can say is keep up the good work!

Hewlett-Packard Company has faced turbulent times in the past decade, its reputation now laced with scandals; however, the latest PR leak has struck a final straw. Following sexual accusations from a former marketing contractor, Hurd resigned from his post as HP CEO and was promptly offered a job by the database software producer, Oracle.

In 2006, HP Chairwoman Patricia Dunn resigned when it was discovered that she had hired private investigators to spy on her board in order to plug an information leak.

The company’s shared values include “achievement and contribution, results through teamwork, speed and agility, meaningful innovation, and uncompromising integrity,” yet none of the recent company executives have managed to portray these values. If the top management within an organization fails to demonstrate the culture of the organization itself, how can the employees share the HP vision? In fact, how can consumers trust in HP at all?

Here, HP’s brand image has been the greatest hit of all. Consumers look for integrity within a brand image, and it is no wonder why stakeholders deviated away from HP following their crisis. If HP cannot reflect an “ideal” brand’s attributes, then it will continue to suffer.

HP must stay with the HP Way.

As the commercial claims, Ford introduced the “carefree” and “spirited” Pinto model in 1970, as a comfortable suburban car that would compete against 4-cylinder European subcompacts like the VW Beetle and the Toyota 4-cylinder European subcompacts like the VW Beetle and the Toyota Corolla to reign as market leader; however, the Pinto design was severely flawed.

It was discovered that its weak rear bumper design left its fuel tank unprotected and therefore would combust upon any severe impact. Yet the company did not choose to fix the design. Instead, Ford argued that the cost-benefit analysis of fixing the faulty cars to paying lawsuits filed by the victims’ families would be better off if Ford did not change the design at all.

Of the estimated 500+ deaths incurred by the Pinto, could Ford possibly place a price on its victims? Is it ethical to use a cost-benfit analysis on human lives?

Arguably, Ford was doing nothing wrong: as an enterprise with the goals of maximizing its profits by definition, it was simply taking the actions that any “rational” person would have made. But when consumer trust and brand image are at stake, Ford made a compromising error.

As the generation of the new millennium, we are told to push the boundaries of the limitations set by society, whether through the creation of something new and innovative or through solutions of pre-existing problems. As was discussed in class, innovation often arises between the collaboration of two apparent polar opposites, such as engineering and business.

Kinetic Sculptor, Theo Jansen states in the video above, “The walls between art and engineering exists only within our minds.” The limits we set for ourselves as hopeful entrepreneurs, sprouting accountants, or others only defines what we will become in the future. As members of a business community, innovation is something hard to distinguish. How can I create an idea that others will buy into so I can get a rich return? How far am I willing to stretch the limits of reality and my resources to create something others may ridicule or love?

The answer in a willingness to take risks. Be open to failure. And continue to persevere in the face of adversity.

It seems as if everything that is to invent has already been invented; yet when shown man made wonders like Jansen’s ingenious moving structures, it is never impossible to dream.

On the home page of their website, founders Randal and Gregor happily proclaim their mission “To astonish your taste buds, nourish your body, unite you with the best sources of food and drink on this planet, and grow a progressive business from which happiness flows.”

It is no wonder how this new, innovative, local company has grown from but a few short years (since 1994) into a company unafraid of presenting their drinks in a fashion that most consumers would presume to look like mushed up veggies and fruit. But to be fair, their drinks are exactly that!

These west coast farmers took the risks necessary to realize an opportunity they had saw in purely organic drinks, raw and organic to the very sense of the words. Although they are currently operating under considerable monopolistic competition, their product is unique and their way of production is unique as well.

The speed at which this company has grown is astounding, recently launching a new line of Happy Planet “shots” that provide a natural booster of energy in a compact drink.

They are perceived by the public to be a $200 million dollar company owned by Coke, when they are simply a Vancouver-based company with only 22 employees; however, this is no longer just a small business run by hopefuls, but a progressively innovative company that is infiltrating supermarket shelves one “Abundant C” at a time.