According to the Wall Street Journal that Alibaba group set a record Nov.11th (a national Single’s Day in China) on China’s largest online shopping day as its marketplaces hosted $9.3 billion in sales.  It is a enormous sales record in history that makes many businesses begin to try to access with Alibaba’s operation model.

I came across an article about many famous department stores in States accept Alipay to woo rich Chinese Shoppers. Alipay is a payment tool that works as Paypay but more popular in China. One of the reasons that Alibaba reached such a big sales record is benefit from the convenient payment process of Alipay. However, I doubt about the effectiveness that those famous merchandise stores’ online shopping strategy by accepting Alipay. As a Chinese, also from the experiences I had from shopping on Alibaba, I clearly know that Alibaba got the sales record because of the big population in China and ideal discount of common goods. Take an example, as I know, during this Nov 11th online shopping day, people can even get a ideal price for a camera below $100 CAD. I don’t think the same strategy will work on those famous merchandise stores. First of all, those stores mainly sell luxury goods which means it is still expensive even they sells at a big discount. Most of Chinese online shoppers could not afford it. Secondly, since Alipay is a Chinese payment tool, it may increase the variable costs by accessing it, which is not worth to do that.

Therefore, even E-commerce is the hottest business model nowadays, it is not a proper way to mimic the sales model of Alibaba.

Read more about Alibaba sales record on Singles’Day : http://online.wsj.com/articles/alibaba-breaks-singles-day-record-1415686357

Can’t buy me love: Alibaba make $1 billion in 17 minutes of “Singles Day” http://mashable.com/2014/11/10/alibaba-singles-day-china-black-friday/

Canadians aged 50 and over have 64% more disposable income than people under 30, a gap which threatens this country’s economic growth and social stability.

I am quite interested in the post that wrote by my classmate Zhaoxuan: Companies should focus on its people – the employees. The original news article is basically talking about that the elder,s whom are much  independent and have more experiences, have more job advantages than the youth. People argued that it is another discrimination which aims at the young workers.

Personally, I am agree with Zhaoxuan’s opinion that  “a company’s corporate culture is fundamental to its success”. That is why we should focus on this kind of unbalance employment. I believe that the evaluation to hire workers should focus on their characteristics, skills and abilities. Employers should not criticize them by age, gender and so on. Those criterions cannot represent everything. On the other hand, it brings negative impact to the current employ market. The young people are depressed after they got a nice degree but cannot compete with the elder. It may also stop firms from innovating.

I have the following advices to the employers. Firstly, it would be a good try to increase more welfare for the elder workers in order to value their contribution. Secondly, a strict and careful evaluation progress for the new employees would be recommended for employers. It would help them to select and hire great employees.

Considering our recent topic “People, Culture&Teams”, I came across a topic which has a close connection with my generation — The Millennial. In the original article, the writer points out the pros and cons of the millennial generation. The millennial is quiet different from the baby boomer generation. They are the generation of innovations. They are good to thinking in different ways and quickly adapt into the new ways. On the other hand, they are also accused with the term “lazy, self-centered, demanding”. They are willing to relocate their workplace within two or three years. They sometimes complain about their current situation but pay little effort on their jobs.

Personally, I saw two sides of the relationship between the millennial and the company. First of all, It helps the company making progress by benefit from the contributions of their creative ideas. They push the company get in advance of the social development so that the company can make more profit and obsolete the old model. Secondly, since the millennial are easily to quit and relocate their jobs, companies need a good strategy to keep them stay as well as the older employees. Both of them are important to companies. It would be a heavy task for HR to find the balance point between the millennial and the baby boomers.

I would like to end with a meaningful sentence in the article “One thing is clear, the Millennials will soon be in control of careers and the workplace, so get ready for change.”

Rogers Youth Fund is our national commitment to helping every student ages 12-19 do just that.

Boys and girls clubs benefit from the Rogers Youth Fund is a good example showing the cooperation’s social responsibility. Rogers Youth fund program helps the youth to prepare for postsecondary school by offering them necessary tech and education.

It’s a good strategy for Rogers to perform their social responsibility and increase their brand value at the same time. Firstly, education is always a hot topic that most of the families takes seriously. Many youth lack of chance to be educated because of the poverty. Because of this educational program, they are able to overcome the barriers to education and get a job to get rid of poverty. Secondly, this strategy illustrates Rogers’s responsibility and their concern about this society. Particularly, it will bring the intangible benefits, including enhanced reputation and the potential to influence. It is another profitable aspect for Rogers.

Want to learn more about Rogers CSR report? Check it out:

http://about.rogers.com/Libraries/CSR_Reports/2013_Rogers_CSR_Report.sflb.ashx

Read more about Rogers Youth fund: http://www.rogersyouthfund.com/about-ryf.html

I came across a business blog that I sincerely interested in: Mixing Business Strategy, “Social Responsibility” The blogger Mary Ellen Biery wrote about how companies fulfill their social responsibilities and perform the business strategy at the same time, by using Toms shoes’ one for one program as an example.

After I read the material about social responsibility in the class prep, I started to explore how the company fix their social responsibility into their business strategy. Apparently, this blog figured out my confusion. “For some business, being socially responsible can help reach a new target market or customer.” Take Toms shoes for an example, because of their social responsibility business model, lots of customers are the big fans of the founder Blake Mycoskie, which also boosts its sales volume. Such a situation is predictable. As a consumer, what is in it for me is that Toms shoes is not devote their mind into profit but also fulfill their citizenship. If my purchase can help one child, why not? That is why Karen Mishra, an assistance professor of marketing from Meredith college, said:“Consumers more and more are looking to buy from socially responsible companies, and they’re actually willing to pay more for products in certain cases,”. 

The four social responsible component that provided at the last of the blog post is really helps me to better understand it. It is really important to make sure our promise can truly deliver to clients, do according to our abilities. That is why Toms shoes won such a big success that  a big group of potential customers following them and they  also making a proper promise back to clients.

On October 5th, my classmate Danyang wrote a blog post entitled First Nation: Economics vs. Environment. By reading the news article that interlinking in the post, I knew that the federal government led by B.C. premier Christy Clark had a consultation with aboriginal representatives and it seems like a big step between their relationship improvement. Basically, both sides denoted that they are looking for having a good partnership and build win-win situation.

I agree with Danyang’s opinion that the relationship between government and first nation are quite dedicate. Both of them have different “baggage” which delayed their consultation. As Grand Chief Phillip said: “Reconciliation is not for wimps, it’s hard work and we must all leave our baggage at the door.” I questioned about the effectiveness of this consultation. They were only verbally agree to each other but none action have being realized. Is the speech given by the premier is valid or effective? Will they really put down their baggage and have a better conversation? Like the three solutions that Danyang mentioned in her post, I would suggest that the government better proved their words by practical action to improve the relationship with first nation.

McDonalds Canada CEO John Betts, with the new McCafe home brew coffees now available at grocery stores. Photographed at the Queens Quay Loblaws store. KEITH BEATY/Toronto Star

McDonald finally launches its coffee packages in grocery stores in Canada.

As a key competitor in the coffee shop around the world, considering about chain coffee markets, McDonald finally made a big step to sell their products in the grocery stores.  In such a competitive coffee market, many coffee makers begin to open a new path to get more maker shares. Take an example, Burger King and Tim Hortons just signed a merge deal to get a good cooperation. This deal helps both brands to expand consumer markets in U.S. and Canada. On the other hand, McDonald, as a burger and coffee behemoth, definitely have to facing the threats from other fast food restaurants. By launching the store-sell packages is a good opportunity for McDonald to competitor with others. People can not only get express coffee from the drive-thus but also can enjoy it at home. It is a good strategy to maintain the big fans of McCafe and absorbs new customers. Promote brand popularity is a efficient way to gain greater marketing shares on fiercely competitive market.

Click here for the full article

Tim Hortons and Burger King are agreed to merger and the agreement did not stop by planning of the U.S. tax inversions.

Since many companies bearing the heavy burden of taxes in U.S., some of the companies seeking a chance to move out of the country in order to reduce their taxes. The deal of Burger King and Tim Hortons seems like helping Burger King deal with the taxes issues. Therefore, government of U.S. crash down on tax inversions, which makes a adverse impact that the local company cannot access foreign cash without paying taxes. However, it does not stop their deal. They confirmed the agreement finally and demonstrates that their cooperation is for long-term economic growth but not for tax benefit.

The final signature of the agreement is a powerful answer to the U.S. government. It demonstrates the the clear purpose of this merge to the public and also raise the reputation of these two brands. It is a good beginning for their cooperation. On the other hand, even though the U.S. government tried to stop the local company transaction by implementing the taxes regulations, it is impossible to work in the long term. Companies will still move out unless the government reduces their taxes costs.

Click here for the full article

Economic development cannot be an excuse to destroy our peaceful environment.

Federal government proposed a decision that BC going to invest $8-billion into a Site C hydroelectric megaproject. This project aimed to produce more clean energy by flooding valley and provide requisite energy for nearby industries. However, a delegation of B.C. first nation chiefs raise an objection to this project. The valley that BC Hydro going to operate is belong to Indian people. It is became a tradition for first nation people to farm, fish and even hold big ceremony there every year. They protest federal government destroying their peaceful land and impair their lives.

For achieving sustainable economic development, government should consider their economic project including environmental protection. Apparently, the Site C decision violated the regulation of  the First Nations. The project is not only impair their life but also violates their right of protect their habitat. As a leading role, government should consider the benefits of both sides and get supports from the First Nations. Destroying human’s habitats is like a way to kill people. Especially for the First Nations, they had signed the treaty with the government that is based on peace, sharing and co-existence.  Government should talk to the First Nations and consult together as to what it to be done.

Click here for the full article

I personally believe that a long-term business can achieve success by reaching agreements with the community, suppliers, etc. None of them can do a stand-alone operation.

Here is an example about a company did not perform the social responsibilities. Nestle, as the largest employers in the District of Hope in B.C., withdrawals the million of litres of water from the wells in Hope and did not report to the local government. Beyond that, since there is not groundwater regulation in B.C., Nestle Company pays nothing and charges costumers $1.19 for each bottle of water. Its behavior is not only causing the water shortage in Hope, but also deceives customers in order to earn a lot of profit by selling free water.

Nestle ignores its social responsibility for the pursuit of interests. However, government, community and company should have a good cooperation to reach their benefit separately. I would suggest that the government of B.C. and the community in Hope should work out the regulations to protect the groundwater. Nestle should actively collaborates with communities to make up the loss.

Click here for the full article