“If the UN was fully funded, would we still need social enterprise or Arc?”

The United Nations is a multi-purpose organization that strives to address the many social, economical and environmental issues that plague the world. However, the UN can only do so much on its own, and that is where social entrepreneurship, and subsequently, programs like the Arc Initiative, steps in. Even if the UN is fully funded, money can only temporarily alleviate the problems developing countries face, while a collective effort to take action is necessary for a long-term approach to diminishing these problems. How I think of it is that if the global issues that need to be addressed are diseases, then the UN provides donations for medicine, which will help in the short-term, while social entrepreneurs are the researchers that examine the problem from many angles to try to find the core of the problem, and educate others on how to prevent the disease from spreading. That is not to undermine what the UN does, as resolution of global problems requires the work and assets of both the UN and social enterprises.

Then, the ARC initiative and other social programs are so necessary and important because they foster the growth of social entrepreneurs and provide them with the knowledge, relationships, and opportunities they need to make a difference. These programs encourage the participation of a larger community, and the exchange of ideas allows for a multidimensional view on global issues, which will be a more efficient and effective approach to coming up with relevant and innovative solutions than relying on just the UN.

With the influx of problems that plague the world today, what we need is not temporary relief; we need a solution, and that is what social enterprise and the UN collectively work towards.

The importance of employee engagement and a strong corporate culture to the success of businesses is becoming increasingly recognized. In a recent class, there was a discussion on Zappos and how its corporate culture has enhanced the company’s profit and success through increasing employee satisfaction.

However, this blog post adds a layer to the debate of whether of not a corporate culture like Zappos’, where employee satisfaction is so prioritized, is the best strategy by arguing that the passion of employees is more crucial to the long-term success of the company than the happiness of employees. Reading the blog post made me wonder: does happiness necessarily lead to passion? I do think that happiness leads to employee engagement, but I also believe that employee satisfaction is a one-time push that may result in employees adopting better attitudes, but won’t continuously push workers to actively seek challenges to reach higher performance levels. Of course, the conditions employees work under are important, but the core issue still remains in the work itself. No matter how pleasant the work environment is, whether or not employees reach their full potential still stems from their excitement about what they are doing. That is why I think businesses should reassess their work environment to hire workers who are more inclined to be passionate, and to encourage workers to work on projects they are interested in. After all, there is a difference between compliance and commitment. High levels of employee satisfaction or happiness may increase compliance, but passion (and employee happiness should naturally develop if there is passion) is what fosters commitment and is what will push the employee to go that extra mile.

Tealeaves’ website allows consumers to purchase tea as well as view promotional short films.

After being introduced to the direct sales model through the Tesla SWOT assignment and having the concept reinforced during Professor Mahesh’s lecture, I was excited to see an article, written by Sauder’s very own Jeff Kroeker, on Tealeaves, a local tea business that adopted a direct sales strategy to adapt to changing market trends after selling’s its luxury tea products exclusively to culinary professionals in the past.  Since the article stated that Tealeaves reaped many benefits through a personalized sales strategy, I started wondering: is there still a future for the “middlemen” of business?

As Professor Mahesh stated, adopting a direct business model brings consumers and businesses closer, subsequently decreasing the risk factor, increasing profit margins, and improving inventory turnover rates. Yet, I think there is, and will always be, demand for physical retailers. Many businesses have embraced e-retailing, but in industries like the accessory, apparel or food industry, many consumers still want to physically see and try products before purchasing them. Anyways, can you imagine not being able to purchase a bag of chips from anywhere but the manufacturer? Additionally, for relatively unknown brands, it is hard to build brand recognition without the presence of a retailer. After all, businesses do not just lose costs by cutting the middleman; they lose the marketing, the salespeople, and the reputation as well. Many startups will not have the $1.5 million budget Teavana had to produce short films to build brand awareness. Therefore, although a direct sales model may be beneficial to many businesses, I think that the presence of retailers is here to stay.

The sharing economy, which is based upon owners being able to rent out something they own for a fee, is consistently on the rise. Thus, I was excited to learn about a pioneer of the sharing economy, Airbnb, which is an online community that provides hosts and travelers with a marketplace to list and book non-hotel accommodations, through Eric’s blog post. I quickly realized that Airbnb, much like its other counterparts in the sharing economy, is more than just a cool idea; it is a disruptive innovation that is changing the hospitality industry.

Eric states that through the success of Airbnb, we may be able to see more of these companies gaining pace. However, I have noticed the protests against the legality of such companies, which are mostly fuelled by existing companies in the industry that do not want to give up their market share, and this can hinder the growth of the sharing economy. This article really describes the situation well: the stewards behind new innovations think regulators should invent new rules to adapt to new business practices while regulators think these businesses should adapt themselves to the old laws. It really just comes down to resistance versus adaptation. However, I think resistance is futile as market disruption is inevitable. Instead of trying to continuously build barriers around the hospitality industry, I think hotels can analyze the elements that contribute to Airbnb’s popularity and try to apply it to their own business models. Thus, I don’t think disruptive innovation signifies the end of any particular businesses, but rather, provides opportunities for businesses, and subsequently, industries, to grow.

Some of Airbnb’s most popular offerings…personally, I would love to stay a night in the Rosie Gypsy Wagon!

When businesses are able to align their economic interests with societal improvement through the concept of “shared value”, they are able to flourish. A great example of a company that has embraced said strategy is Kirin Company Limited, a Japanese integrated beverage and food company. Apart from introducing the first zero alcohol beer that tastes like actual beer, which will contribute to a decrease in drunk driving, drinking during pregnancy, and other alcohol-related problems, it has also introduced a specific division with the sole purpose of pursuing shared value opportunities. Creating a lasting reinforcing loop between commercial and social value is not easy, so I’m glad to see Kirin taking a gradual, but meaningful, approach to it.

How I think of shared value is that it is more than what companies do with their profits; it is how companies earn their profits. Although Kirin is still in the early stages of adopting a long-term shared value strategy, I think it is definitely headed in the right direction. Not only has it addressed societal concerns, but this strategy has also allowed Kirin to enter new markets, such as the non-alcoholic beverage market, making it a profitable strategy. I think the next great opportunity would be to redefine productivity in the value chain, as there are many opportunities for this, whether it is through the increased efficiency of transportation or packaging of goods, which will reduce costs for Kirin and address environmental concerns. I’m glad to see Asian companies start embracing this strategy of shared value, and I’m excited to see where Kirin goes with it.

Charmian’s informative post on the strategies McDonalds have introduced recently in an attempt to generate more sales, including an option to customize burgers, allowed me to relate McDonalds current situation to class concepts.

While I do agree that McDonalds needs to find new value propositions to offer to their customers, the strategies they are implementing do not seem effective. The “Create Your Taste” option that allows consumers to customize burgers to their liking does seem “fresh” for McDonalds, but in terms of long-term success, I believe the longer line-ups and wait times associated with customization will deter customers. After all, a point-of-parity for fast food chains is the short wait times, and sacrificing a point-of-parity doesn’t seem like the most sustainable strategy.

Instead, I think McDonalds should try to flatten its organizational structure to emphasize its divisional structure (divided by geographical region), enabling more flexibility so the menu items can cater to local needs more, which will definitely aid international expansion. However, what’s of utmost importance and urgency is the core issue: quality improvement. I think any other strategy may help retain its already-decreasing market share, but this strategy is the only one that may result in a gain of new customers. Advertising campaigns will not provide a satisfactory incentive for non-consumers, who mostly do not eat McDonalds because of the company’s reputation of horrible quality. Improving the quality of its products will be the best, and perhaps, only strategy for McDonalds to improve its sales and enjoy long-term success.

I saw these on the McDonalds menu in China, and the success of it makes me think that McDonalds can emphasize this strategy.

        Image Source

Ever since the Enbridge Northern Gateway Pipeline project was announced, it has been a source of controversial debate. In particular, the First Nations of B.C., including the Nak’azdli, have been strongly against it as most of the oil pipeline is planned to run through their traditional lands. If an oil spill does occur, the First Nations’ lifestyles will be greatly damaged as much of their traditions, such as gathering or fishing, are rooted in their land. Due to the Constitution Acts of 1867, First Nation land are protected by the Supreme Court and can not be used without their permission. This is a social and political factor that imposes a huge barrier on the pipeline’s development. As the traditional territory is so important to the First Nation identity, it will be hard to compromise with such high risks involved.

Another issue that stands out to me is of the First Nations’, and ultimately, B.C.’s economy. The possibility of oil spills leaves the coastal ecosystems, and subsequently, the fishing industry, which contributes greatly to the provincial economy, at high risk. Unless Enbridge is able to provide more security regarding oil spills, it should revisit its business model or develop a value proposition that appeals more to the First Nations and B.C. citizens. If the company does not show its corporate social responsibility, its value proposition, customer relationships, and image will be tarnished, and the project may not even be able to continue, which will be detrimental to the business. The company should take into account the interests of all stakeholders, and not just simply maximizing its profits, if it wants its business to be successful. Therefore, with these external social and economic factors present, I think it will be difficult for the Enbridge pipeline project to progress.

Image Source

When you have a brand that is as recognized as Coca-Cola, it is hard to imagine anything other than that iconic Coca-Cola logo on its bottles. However, when Coca Cola introduced the ‘Share a Coke’ campaign, where consumers were able to buy coke bottles bearing their names, it propelled Coke’s sales by 2%, which is significant as Coca-Cola’s sales have been continuously declining for the past 11 years.

The reason why the campaign has been so successful is because with personalization, consumers feel like brands are personally reaching out to them, making them feel closer to the brand and product. I think that this strategy is great as individuality is so emphasized in this generation, and this marketing strategy is also relatively low cost, and yet, is very impactful. In addition, Coca-Cola also took advantage of the digital marketing channel as the campaign’s website lets visitors create their own customized virtual bottles, which generated more hype on social media. However, the concept of personalization is nothing new. In fact, I’ve noticed many businesses reach out to their customers through emails starting with a personalized “Dear name” rather than a general “Dear customer”. However, Coca-Cola takes it a step further by personalizing the actual product.

While this marketing campaign can not be replicated, it teaches other businesses a lesson as it highlights the importance of brand perception and customization, and how advertising and social media can be used to influence consumers’ behaviours and experience.

Image Source

Blackberry, a once-dominant smartphone maker that has lost its position in the mobile marketplace, recently released the Blackberry Passport in an attempt to regain its footing. Comparable in size to a passport, the device offers an ideal experience for viewing documents and spreadsheets as well as a physical keyboard. The company also launched the Blackberry Blend, an app that links data across computers and mobile devices.

With this release, Blackberry is implementing the strategy of differentiation. According to Ries and Trout, positioning is highly important. In that sense, instead of vying for the leader position in trendiness or mainstream appeal, which Apple already possesses, Blackberry is focusing on targeting the corporate market, in which it was once an industry leader and retains a loyal customer base. Also, with the recent iCloud security scandal, Blackberry can capitalize by emphasizing its superiority in security, which is a relatively unoccupied “ladder”, especially through the release of the Blackberry Blend.

As the Passport is primarily a niche product, its market share will be relatively small. However, I believe Blackberry does not necessarily have to release mainstream models to remain profitable, but that they should find other sources of revenue. This way, Blackberry can focus on updating its software and releasing services while still creating niche products. By positioning the brand this way, Blackberry doesn’t have to risk diluting the brand and losing its principal consumers, and can focus on its core strengths that bring a unique value proposition to the market.

Image Source

There are few brands more beloved in Canada than Tim Hortons. That is why it was no surprise when the announcement of the $12.5 billion merger between Tim Hortons and Burger King in August ignited much debate. In particular, many Canadians have voiced their disapproval against the merger, worried that their beloved “Timmy’s” would be Americanized by Burger King, and would no longer be the national icon that is now a part of the Canadian experience.

From the consumer’s perspective, nothing will really change except their mindsets. According to the two franchises’ statements, their menus, choices and values will remain independent and unchanged. Instead, the deal will bring more opportunities for Tim Hortons to expand in America and internationally, which is something that it has struggled with. Additionally, Tim Hortons was owned by another American fast food franchise, Wendy’s, for eleven years (from 1995-2006), and yet, its brand has remained intact.

Therefore, Tim Hortons and Burger King should proceed with the merger. If Tim Hortons stores remain restricted to Canadian locations, it will hinder their chances of development as it is already highly saturated in Canada. Even if Canadian customers are first repelled by the idea, after they realize that the quality and essence of Tim Hortons have not been diluted, they will return. As a result, Tim Hortons will gain a new market of international customers, and still retain the majority of their Canadian customers.