I recently read Christian Noel’s Blog on Apple hiring former Burberry CEO, Angela Ahrendts, as retail chief. After having read Christian’s blog on this rather unprecedented piece of news, I couldn’t help but ask myself: why would a woman of Ahrendts’ caliber, running one of the most prestigious brands in fashion, leave her coveted profession, simply to work for Apple? The logic behind her decision just did not make sense (at least to me, anyway). So I did some research.

It turns out that some business experts are speculating Apple will utilize its “minimalist aesthetic” approach to expand into the world of luxury goods. Scott Galloway, founder of L2, claimed that Apple’s press release of hiring Angela Ahrendts to effectively oversee its retail stores is a “giant head fake.” In other words, Galloway’s prediction is that hiring Ahrendts was a pivotal act of Apples’ great master plan to being the “strongest brand in the prestige sector.” “The scenario makes perfect sense, as Apple has all the characteristics of a prestige brand,” Galloway said.

The veracity of the experts’ speculation on Apple’s future plans are questionable at worst and interesting at best. Nonetheless, one can conclude that Apple’s recruitment pitch to Angela Ahrendts was a convincingly impressive one. Did I mention Ahrendts made 26 million last year with Burberry?

Check out Christian’s blog here: https://blogs.ubc.ca/christiannoel/

Read more about the speculations on Apple’s expansion into the luxury market here: http://www.forbes.com/sites/barbarathau/2013/11/13/beware-michael-kors-louis-vuitton-apple-to-expand-into-luxury-fashion-and-accessories-expert-predicts/

Photo credit: http://www.giantbomb.com/apple-inc/3010-5815/

I recently came across Julie Park’s blog on the new online grocery: AmazonFresh. AmazonFresh is a branch of Amazon.com that gives consumers the opportunity to indulge in the new trend of online grocery shopping. While I agree with Julie on the plethora of benefits one could reap from purchasing groceries with mere clicks of the mouse (e.g. the time-saving, convenient and variety-filled nature of the online store) I thought it would be worthwhile to play the devil’s advocate of online grocery shopping.

First and foremost, my research shows that a colossal con of online grocery shopping is the fact that one can no longer hand-pick their groceries. Online grocery shoppers must wave adieu to the experience of silently knocking on watermelons or doing a comprehensive rotational check on apples, as these practices are replaced by the person responsible for compiling the online order. In other words, online grocers are bound to receive a bad apple or two come delivery day. Other cons include the lag of the couponing process, anti-social nature of the online transaction and last but not least, waiting for the online delivery order itself.

Read Julie’s blog here: https://blogs.ubc.ca/juliejeehyepark/

Explore the pros and cons of online grocery shopping here: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/05/29/online-grocery-shopping_n_1554113.html#s1033618&title=WATCH_Using_Coupons

Photo credit: http://www.sosemarketing.com/2010/11/08/online-grocery-shopping-seems-to-be-getting-bigger-and-specialized/

Cadbury has recently discovered that trademarking its signature purple is no walk in the park. And not just any hue of purple – Pantone 2685C, to be exact. Attempts to trademark this iconic purple shade in Britain have been challenged by all-time rival Nestle. While the court rulings have yet to be finalized, we are given a precursor for Cadbury’s impending challenge of trademarking Pantone 2685C; in October, a three-judge panel concluded Cadbury’s “vaguely worded trademark” provided an “unfair advantage” over other competitors.

In light of Cadbury’s uphill struggle with trademarking its iconic purple colour – the very shade that has been imprinted on all Dairy Milk wrappers since 1914 – it is worth noting a paramount marketing strategy that is often foregone by the pursuit of companies attempting to develop the most innovative, ingenious branding techniques. That is, the importance of colour. In essence, there is a simple yet effective beauty of using a memorable colour to establish and cement brand image. After all, consumers today commonly (and subliminally) associate brand with colour (e.g. red with Coca-Cola).

A word to the marketing-wise: colour is your friend.

Photo credit & source can be found here: http://www.canadianbusiness.com/companies-and-industries/who-owns-the-colour-purple/

Snapchat founder Evan Spiegel reportedly turned down a 3 billion acquisition offer from Facebook. For a company yet to generate any revenue, Spiegel’s rejection of Facebook’s generous offer came as a shock to many. Quite inevitably, the refusal begs the question: what makes Snapchat so inordinately valuable?

According to Joshua Brown, blogger of “The Reformed Broker”, the underpinning of Snapchat’s value lies within its unstoppable force of attracting the younger demographic, namely high school and college students. It just so happens that teens are all the rage with the top dogs of the social media and tech industry, such as Google, and of course, Facebook.

The impetus of Facebook’s obscene 3 billion dollar offer for Snapchat is twofold. Not only is the social media king seeking to appease its worry of slowly losing the attention of the younger demographic, the offer was also a preventative measure. That is, attempting to prevent Google from seizing the teenage wonder that is Snapchat.

And let the war for Snapchat begin.

Photo credit & The Reformed Broker blog can be found here: http://www.businessinsider.com/snapchats-value-a-form-of-delusion-2013-11

“Save money. Live better.” The classic yellow and royal blue branding. The iconic smiley face. How can consumers of today’s society not associate the aforementioned with the largest retailer in the world: Wal-Mart? Society generally perceives Wal-Mart as the quintessence of all successful retailers, with its loyal consumer base and reputable brand name, among a plethora of other factors. But is Wal-Mart really as successful as it seems?

Wal-Mart recently announced its third straight quarter of steadily declining same-store sales. This time around, the metric depreciated by 0.3%, a paramount measure of any company’s welfare (or lack thereof). To make matters worse, the loyal customers that frequented Wal-Mart, amidst it’s stagnating sales, spent substantially less than their previous visits. What is the prominent reason for Wal-Mart’s persistent setback? Ironically enough, the heavily promised (and marketed) “low prices” simply aren’t low enough. Customers are shifting gears to retailers of even lower prices, namely, dollar stores. In addition, some customers expressed their frustration of poorly stocked shelves, a direct ramification of the retailer’s frugal employment practices.

Walmart’s subtle but distinct downfall over the past three quarters begs the question: will this unfavourable trend be a permanent one? Only time will tell.

Picture & source from: http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2013-11-14/why-walmart-really-needs-food-stamps#r=hpf-s

The premium yoga wear brand, Lululemon, most prevalently known for its classic omega symbol stamped on its merchandise, is undoubtedly the hallmark of a successful company. With its soaring revenues, skyrocketing stock prices and reputable brand image, Lululemon is a retail force to be reckoned with in the yoga wear industry. The next step for progressing this prosperous company seems to be in the hands of the global market: that is, international expansion. Such tremendous expansion appears to be a paramount feat for Lululemon, as the Canadian retailer is keenly observing the international markets amidst the chaos of searching for a new chief executive. A lucrative, untapped market appears to lie within the borders of Canada’s southern neighbours, the United States with the “capacity to handle some 300 stores, doubling its footprint.” Another promising market seems to be mainland China, where shoppers may be tired of purchasing merchandise from mainstream athletic brands. Despite these idyllic speculations, pursuing such an ambitious venture is bound to be entailed with risks. The capricious nature of the global market and the unpredictable outcome of translating Lululemon’s grassroots style to foreign markets are a few of a myriad of potential risks laying ahead for the retailer.

Read more here: http://business.financialpost.com/2013/10/09/lululemons-next-challenge-is-international-growth/

Who would have thought that reducing the caloric content of fries would produce some “fat” returns? By merely offering 40% less fat and 30% less calories than McDonald’s classic french fries, Miami-based Burger King’s shares have increased by 18% in 2013 alone. Burger King plans on “fattening” the margins further by selling the new “skinny” fries, deemed “Gratifries” in Canada, by selling them at thirty cents greater than the regular fries offered. While the business strategy behind the introduction of “Gratifries” may seem eccentric on the surface, it turns out that such a strategy is not that surprising, after all. Due to the healthy eating movement that has been encompassing society the past few years, offering a relatively “healthier” alternative to the infamous “cheat day” food has sparked demand for the usually stagnant fries market. In addition, a fast-food chain would simply want to sell more fries due to the paramount principle of firms: profit maximization. Fries are, in essence, an enormously lucrative commodity. It has been reported that “out of every $1.50 spent on a large order of fries at a fast food restaurant, perhaps 2 cents goes to the farmer that grows the potatoes.” So what is the bottom line to this story? For consumers, it is advised that next time they have a “hankering for fries and want to save a few calories, give Burger King Gratifries a shot.” For producers, it is imperative to recognize that not all fat things (ahem, wallets) equal fat pay checks.

Find the picture here: http://www.google.ca/search?client=safari&rls=en&q=gratifries+burger+king&oe=UTF-8&gws_rd=cr&um=1&ie=UTF-8&hl=en&tbm=isch&source=og&sa=N&tab=wi&ei=vRVRUriqDMioiQLu3oHYDA#facrc=_&imgdii=_&imgrc=aA0CtrlBefWrDM%3A%3BTrxcrDziUh197M%3Bhttp%253A%252F%252Fwww.potatopro.com%252Fpictures%252Fgratifries%252520454.jpg%3Bhttp%253A%252F%252Fwww.potatopro.com%252FNews.aspx%3B454%3B445

The article can be read at: http://www.bnn.ca/News/2013/10/4/Burger-King-tries-to-fatten-margins-with-skinny-fries.aspx

In most recent months, BlackBerry has made a plethora of business news headlines regarding its imminent corporate demise. And it appears that BlackBerry won’t be alone – HTC may just as well be delving into the Abyss of Failed Companies. The gateway of HTC’s impending troubles has manifested itself into the abysmal form of a quarterly report.  That  is, HTC reported its first ever quarterly loss as it continues to lose its once prosperous footing in the smartphone industry. In just the three short months leading to September, HTC suffered a whopping 100 million dollar loss. What exacerbates this Taiwanese company’s fortunes further is the fact that over the past year, company shares have fallen by more than 50%, thanks to investors hopping aboard the market shares train of all-time rivals, Samsung and Apple. While HTC has launched new, innovative products like the HTC One with a desperate hope to “regain some of the lost ground”, analysts have reported the prospects of HTC’s road to recovery as nothing short of dreary. In essence, it is safe to say that if HTC doesn’t make a groundbreaking comeback soon, BlackBerry will soon have company at the bottom of the smartphone totem pole.

The picture and a more detailed account can be found here: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-24393975

The year of 2013 is the year of H&M. Just as all-time rival Zara reported mediocre earnings this latest quarter, it appears H&M is cruising to the coveted number one spot in the world of large retailers.

The list of H&M’s fruitful successes is manifold. Let’s start with numbers. H&M reported a third quarter net profit of 690 million, marking a 22% increase from the same quarter in 2012. Investors saw the window of H&M opportunity and elevated the retailer’s share price by 6%, an absolute all time-high. And this is just the tip of the iceberg of what is to come for H&M – the Swedish company expects earnings to keep skyrocketing. With aggressive (and successful) expansion on the global stage, I would say that is a perfectly viable expectation. H&M recently opened its 3000th store in China, 200 of which were mind-blowingly opened within the past nine months. H&M also had thriving openings this year of new stores in Lithuania, Serbia, Chile and Estonia. Compared to 2012, sales jumped 8% in Germany, 13% in France, 37% in China, 46% in Japan, and, well, you get the point. The cherry on top of this mountain of retail success? CEO Persson described the August debut of an online store in the U.S. as being “very well received by customers” and stated the company’s “offering stands up well in the world’s largest online market”.

H&M’s stupendous succes is undeniable. What is even harder to refute is the precarious retail ranking Zara holds as of this year, thanks to their long time Swedish rival. A word to Zara: sleep with one retail eye open.

Read the full stories here:

http://www.cbc.ca/news/business/h-m-s-profit-up-22-on-strong-sales-at-new-stores-1.1869141

Picture also from: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-24280262

Nike is undoubtedly a forerunner on the business stage. Time and time again, Nike has emerged to be the leader of effective brand messaging (“just do it” anyone?), the hip trendsetter of all things workout apparel and sports gear, and until recently, the poster child for unethical “labor practices” (cough, sweatshops, cough).

While it wasn’t that long ago relentless protesters urged Nike crying, “Just don’t do it!”, regarding its unscrupulous means of production, Nike emerged once more as a leader – as a face of change – in the business world. Displaying one of the greatest turnarounds  of controversial business scandals, Nike has managed to recover from the crippling conundrum via increased monitoring efforts of production and frequent, “transparent” reports of conditions and pay in factories.

The detailed ethical revolution of Nike can be found here:

http://www.businessinsider.com/how-nike-solved-its-sweatshop-problem-2013-5

Although Nike has found recourse on PR and marketing platforms by displaying such a “transparent” turnaround, there still remain ongoing claims of “abuses, still-low wages or tragedies.”

However, the silver lining is this:

Nike’s ethical transformation can serve as a guideline in which other companies with alleged unethical practices can follow.

Essentially, It is safe to say that Nike “just did it” ethically… somewhat.