Comm 101

It was only two years ago when the demise of Motorola occurred and Google swooped in with an astonishing buyout offer of $12.5 billion. Now under Google, Motorola has recently released a low-cost smartphone. The Moto G, as the phone is called, is priced just under $180, making it readily affordable for customers in developing countries. By introducing this new phone, Google is creating a new revenue stream, with specific focus in the South American market segment, by using a low-cost focus strategy. By utilizing Motorola, Google can continue to sell it’s higher priced phones through the Google brand, which will preserve its brand reputation, while more affordable phones will be sold under the Motorola brand. Through this strategy, Google will reap full benefits of the profits gained from both brands as they each target a different price range. Despite a lower price, the Moto G will also offer Playstore (Google’s app store), which makes it an appealing point of parity to Google’s existing smartphones. Eventually, Google hopes to market the phone to the Chinese market, but it must find a way to overcome political entry barriers, which can be seen by doing a CPEST for Google, as China does not currently allow the use of Playstore.

Winnie Ng’s Reply:

With many companies trying to create green sustainability, Ikea is stepping up and improving its brand image as a sustainable company. As stated in Nicole’s blog, “Ikea plans to install charge points for electric, or no emission vehicles at all its retail locations”. With the emergence and spreading popularity of hybrid and electric cars, Ikea’s advocacy towards sustainability creates shared value for society as global communities will benefit from these charge ports, and it will create a cleaner environment. Especially with Ikea being a large corporation, it will set an example for other companies to follow suit and go down the path of becoming a sustainable company who values corporate social responsibility.

Lately, the burning question that has entered everyones mind has been..who is Evan Spiegel? Only a few years ago, he came up with an idea to develop an app that combined instant messaging with pictures, with the hopes of targeting a young customer segment. Now, his idea has transformed into the popular app known as Snapchat. So why has Spiegel’s name been circulating around the public? Recently, the 23-year-old Snapchat CEO rejected Facebook’s $3 billion offer to buyout his company, which would have been Facebook’s largest acquisition yet, with Instagram ($1 billion) currently being their largest acquisition. In response to the media’s speculation of this rejection, Evan Spiegel has provided a response to the public, saying that he is waiting until early next year before considering any offers as he believes that the number of Snapchat users will grow and create a higher company valuation. With the high hopes of growing Snapchat to a company valuation of $4 billion, the opportunity cost of time is that the company may have hit its user capacity by next year. So the real question is, who lost out on the deal, Facebook or Snapchat?

Winnie Ng’s Reply:

Though I agree that Microsoft has been harsh on cultivating the best employees and “weeding out the weak”, I am personally a bit skeptical that completely removing the employee ranking system will have a more positive effect on the performance results of employees. The reason I think this is because I feel that employees work better when they are given an incentive to work. Through the ranking system, employees are more motivated to perform better, in my opinion, as most employees don’t want to be perceived as less competent than their coworkers. So instead of completely removing the employee ranking program, I think that Microsoft should reward their excellent employees and provide constructive criticism (and encouragement) to those that are less capable.

Not many movie addicts can say that they have never streamed a movie online. When asked why they do so, most respond that streaming online is more convenient than using other mediums, as it doesn’t require slow downloads or a bombardment of advertisements. Now, media streamer giant, Netflix, has admitted to the public that they utilize illegal piracy sites to decide which shows to buy. From this strategy, Netflix has not only become more profitable, but it has also gained more market power in the media industry. In an interview with Kelly Merryman, Netflix VP of Content Acquisition, she defended Netflix’s content purchasing techniques, as she explained how the company “looks at what does well on piracy sites” when making decisions. Netflix has been long promoting their service as a legal alternative to illegal streaming, where customers can pay $7.99 per month and gain full access to all of Netflix’s content. However, by utilizing statistics from piracy sites, Netflix has an unfair advantage over its competition and is going against its original value proposition of providing a legal service. The company claims to support ethical methods, yet it’s hypocritical actions tell otherwise.