The Bugaboo was born out of Mr. Barenbrug’s graduation project in 1994. However, there was a period between 2009 and 2010 when he was not chief executive and the revenue of the company was going down. Ultimately, because of  declining product quality, falling profits and increasing personal misery, he returned to the post. Only one year, the revenues in 2012 were €94m, increased from €82m in 2011. What are the key reasons that Mr. Barenbrug can lead his company to success again?

Firstly, Mr. Barenbrug has a clear positioning of brand. Just as he said ” I am in charge of the conceptual development and make sure that all the products have excitement and are better than their competitors.”. He tries his best to maintain the quality of the stroller is the best in U.S. For this reason, he owns Bugaboo’s factory in China to maintain quality and  calling it the “basis for our success”. This is absolute correct because the success of a brand  usually is due to its being first in the market rather than the marketing abilities of company.

Secondly, it is obvious that Mr. Barenbrug avoids the free-ride trap. When a company have built a wide range of product on a single brand name, it is better to use a new brand name when the company is going to introduce an new product because a single brand name cannot hold a multiple positions;either the new product will not be successful or the original product bearing the name will lose its leadership position. Therefore, when he was considering the wary of the PR machine’s role in advertising the brand, he strongly disagree with the idea that give away  strollers because it’s hype that can easily transfer to another product.

In general, the positioning of a brand is very necessary and needed. It is quite difficult to change consumer’s impression once it is formed. Therefore, companies should have a clear idea of their brand’s position so that consumer can easily understanding what are the features and functions of products.

Reference:http://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/small-business/sb-growth/success-stories/i-have-never-worked-extremely-hard-bugaboo-co-founder-says/article13891979/

As we all know that cows have a extremely high position in INDIA. People in INDIA not only respect cows but they do also willing to feed cow. The products comes from cow are very necessary for almost everyone. They produce valuable things—milk, dung and calves. It seems like that feed cows can be a good investment project and it can benefit the INDIAN’s family. However, the truth is that the householders are always worried about the problems caused by feeding. The fee is too high. The biggest outlay should be food—the average cow consumes fodder worth about 10,000 rupees ($160) a year. Also, Veterinary costs is adding up currently. According to a new and splendidly titled NBER paper, which looks at cow and buffalo ownership in rural areas of northern India, the average revenue on a cow is -64% once you factor in the cost of labour.

The reason why Indian families are willing to purchase a cow is because people lack a formal savings mechanism for their spare cash. According to the research, only 7% of Indian villages have a bank branch. In Indian culture, people do not like to spend their spare cash on Immediate pleasures; people afraid of make spending decisions will generate regret later. Therefore, they prefer to invest a cow which are illiquid assets rather than spending.

In my opinion, this kind of idea is a barrier for the development of economy. Consumption can stimulate economic development. Manufacturers can keep producing only when people keep consuming. What exact thing they should do is to save parts of their money and use the rest of money to invest a gainful project. After they get profit from the project, they should do this again. On the other hand, if they think that feeding a cow is very necessary for them, they can still keep feeding cows but change their management style and improving their production efficiency in the meanwhile.

Reference:http://www.economist.com/news/finance-and-economics/21587226-cattle-may-be-terrible-investment-decent-savings-vehicle-udder-peoples

In ChinaThe article by Brian X. Chen and Eric Ffanner told us that the cheaper IPhone, IPhone 5c, is making its way to the market and its price will be cheaper than the “traditional” IPhones. However, the cost of this phone will be $700 more in China compared to the price in the United States.

The overall aim of Apple’s production of IPhone 5c is to allow for more consumers to purchase a similar quality of IPhone at a lower price. However, with the $700 difference in China it is still withholding most of the Chinese market in consumption.
In my opinion, the reason why Apple would like to set a high price in China is because there are a lot of crazy fans of Apple in China.
“IPhone 5S is probably designed for wealthy Chinese who enjoy flashing smartphone the same way they show off jewelry (Chen & Ffanner, 2013).”
Therefore, Apple knows that if IPhone 5c can be sold in China, they will earn numerous profits from 700 million Chinese customers.
As Milton Friedman said “there is one and only one social responsibility of business – to use it resources and engage in activities designed to increase its profit so long as it stays within the rules of the game.” In this case, Apple chooses to get more profit instead of allowing for more Chinese consumers to purchase their items.

References:

B.Chen, E.Ffanner (2013,Sept). Cheaper IPhone will cost more in China.Retrieved from http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/12/technology/the-surprise-in-apples-cheaper-iphone-in-china-its-expensive.html?ref=business&_r=0      

Zimmerli., W. Holzinger, M. Richter, Klaus (2007). The Social Responsibility of Business is to Increase Its Profits.Corporate Ethics and Corporate Governance 173-179

When people are asked to image the picture of Hawaii, the first thing comes up in our mind will be sunshine, beach or fresh air. However, the environment of Hawaii is becoming worse and worse because of the development of cornfields. Therefore, the conflict and battle occur. Since Monsanto and other seed companies moved their factories to here, the residents of corn farms Hawaii gradually be aware of that they were exposed to dust and pesticides. The corn farms have polluted the air which force the residents to close their windows and install central air-conditioning. Consequently, some of the people start to group together and against these farms Couple weeks ago, legislative committees on the islands of Kauai and Hawaii have approved proposed ordinances that would restrict the ability of the seed companies to operate. It seems like a good ending. However, it is too early to define this case before we think about the opinion of their opponents.The companies states that their farms are safe and green and the industry is also essential to Hawaii’s economy. Honestly, we do can see that the seeds are Hawaii’s leading agricultural commodity which contributing $264 million to the economy and 1,400 jobs, according to a study commissioned by the companies.

As far as I am concerned, the companies are threaten by environmentalists because of the output of pollution. If the companies wants to keep running, they should put this on the first place to deal with. For example, they can begin to pay a part of attention on improving their technology and then reduce the pollution. It makes no sense to simply claim that their operations are safe. On the other hand, it is obvious that they did a bad job on the customer relationship. People will not surrender when their important benefit is under attacked. I suggest that the operations can properly donate some money on protecting environment to build a favorable public image.

Reference: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/10/08/business/fight-over-genetically-altered-crops-flares-in-hawaii.html?ref=international