Have you ever seen the Coca-cola listed in the fridge with your name? Sure most of you are. I also bought a bottle of Coca-cola with my name with out hesitation at the first sight I saw it. Apparently, “Share a Coke” is a thoughtful and therefore successful strategy for Coca company. No people would keep itself from getting a cola which printed its own name. The company fully get the mind of customer and apply to the operation. Moreover, some regions even introduce the service of special custom-order, which is pretty popular among teenager. As thus, Coca-cola is not just a can of sodas, but also a symbol that represents buyer’s identity and mind. Therefore, it has no longer that much connection with the words like “obesity” and “unhealthy” but a good for enjoyment.

While, the immediate success would not guarantee Coca’s longterm overwhelming. After all, cola induces obesity and many customer would prefer juice or energy beverage rather than sodas. People may be willing to buy one or two cola with their names but no more ever. After the enthusiasm of “Share a Coke”, most customers would return to their original preference. Thus, Coca has to always come up with new ideas to prompt people grab its product from the market.

Online-shopping, undoubtedly, has become a overwhelming shopping method among young people. As Dina Kasiri said, retailers are feeling threatened that the great popularity of online markets. And though online shopping is does convenient and lower-price, the whole society may face the problem of unemployment due to the surplus of online shopping. However, as for as I concern, online-shopping would not keep attractive for long time.That’t because it is convenient though, it’s quality of product and service is hard to guarantee and the procedure after sale does bother people. And with the online-shopping becomes more and more prevailing, the seller would be more and more sluggish since buyer have generate a sense of dependence on the online-shopping. Thus the outcome may be more and more dissatisfactory. For long term, some customer would begin to quit the online market and go back to physical stores.

While, at the same time, the tricky and evil means of lawbreakers would also become more and more practical so that the safety of online shopping and money transaction is harder and harder to guarantee. Therefore, there would be a time that push online shopping to decline.

People now have a more and more environmentally friendly conscious. And they are willing to spend time and effort to protect the environment in the ways they could. So as the companies. And the news exactly reflects this phenomenon, that is, the wills of the citizens and the strategy of LEGO go together and combat with Shell, who is the long term partnership of LEGO and keep laying a negative influence on climate by melting the ice on Arctic.
While, in the other side, turning out such a critical decision from LEGO, that is, stop cooperating with a partnership that has worked together for 40 years, is somehow miserable. LEGO must have benefited from Shell since they have got along well for so many years. Only because the strategy of Shell that melting the Arctic is running in the opposite direction with LEGO, and there is massive protest and intervene from the masses, LEGO has to quit Shell. In my point of view, LEGO is forced to do this since it carries social responsibility. And what it decides actually harms its interest as well because it lose a good and consistent partnership which leads it to seek a new one and adapt to the new one again, though keep cooperating with Shell would not guarantee its profit. What I want to say is that sometimes social responsibility would leave negative effect on the company.