Joyce Li's Blog

Facebook has enlisted Taiwan’s HTC to help them produce a new smartphone, nicknamed “Buffy”. It will run on a tweaked version of Android and have Facebook’s services deeply integrated into the phone. Because they have heavily modified the Android system, they may not be able to use Google’s services, such as a media player and app store, and will have to find their own service provider for these things.

I believe that Facebook’s phone is a pointless venture because there are already so many “Facebook phones” on the market. Most smartphones these days already have Facebook apps, and for those true Facebook addicts, there are many phones already in existence with special Facebook functions. This market has already been fulfilled, and producing another phone to add to the mix doesn’t seem like a good investment. Nowadays, people also view Facebook as a greedy, selfish company that is set on taking all their private information and selling it, which doesn’t exactly make people eager to buy their products. And with companies like Apple and Google dominating the market, it is not wise for Facebook to fight against them rather than partner up with them. At the end of the day, Facebook is merely a social media service, and it will need more than that to succeed in the mobile market.

Original articles here and here.

A few weeks ago during Comm 101 Tutorial, we discussed Coca-Cola’s support of the World Wildlife Fund’s Arctic Home campaign. In short, Coca-Cola is donating 2 million dollars to the WWF over five years, and match consumer donations up to 1 million dollars until March of 2012. Also, they will be changing the colour of their red cans to white in honour of the polar bears that are ever-present in their advertisements, to raise awareness for the campaign.

Recently, they have donated $10,000 to the Polar Bear Alert Program in Manitoba to further promote polar bear conservation.

While all this is indeed generous, I can’t help but think that its all just a marketing strategy, masked by taking on an “eco-friendly” and philanthropic image. Coca-Cola is a massive corporation and one of the most successful companies in the world. 2 million dollars is practically pocket change for them. As for the colour change of their cans, it won’t cost too much to implement, but will indubitably boost sales as consumers like new, limited edition bottles and cans (ie: the Olympic coke bottles, those turned out to be very successful). And the $10,000 donation to the Polar Bear Alert Program? If $2 million is pocket change, then $10,000 is pathetic. Sure, $10,000 may help the PBAP in their operations, but I believe that if Coca-Cola really cared for the welfare of arctic animals and not just their own company, they would donate much more, especially to WWF.

Original articles here and here.

The following entry is a response to a blog post written by Robert Frank on Wall Street Journal Blogs.

Robert Frank discusses a new study by HNW Inc that reveals that half of the top earners in the U.S., or as the Occupy movement calls them, “the 1%”, don’t think that they are part of the 1%. Surprisingly, some of these people support the Occupy movement, sharing their dislike towards Wall Street, top executives responsible for the financial crisis, and they believe that the ever-increasing wealth gap is a problem. However, most of them believe that they already pay enough in taxes, and that they have worked hard to get to where they are.

Since we have heard so much from the so-called “99%” side, it is interesting to hear from the 1% who are being victimized. This sheds some light as to how the top earners think of the Occupy movement, and of themselves. They want to think of themselves as middle-class, and believe that “the rich” are always someone else (ie: it’s not their fault this is happening because they’re “not upper-class”). While the two groups do agree on some points, the 99% are pushing the wealthy to pay more taxes, while the wealthy feel like they already pay enough taxes, so why should they have to give up more of their hard earned money?

In my opinion, this is a dead end as neither group will budge, and nothing will get accomplished by protesting aimlessly. In order for the Occupy movement to work there needs to be a goal to move towards. In many places, it is too late because they have become a nuisance to the public, and people are getting impatient.

Read Dorfam’s post here.

If someone asked me which one of the three I would choose, I would choose money or power off the top of my head. But after giving it some thought, I would not choose power, because while power can be used to do good and change the world positively, it can also get to your head and can lead to abuse of said power for one’s own selfish wants and needs. I would not even consider recognition/fame because after your 15 minutes of fame are over, who will even care about you anymore? Besides, I’m a person who likes her privacy. Money could be considered equal to power because there is little that money cannot buy. Money is a big motivator for people, as everyone seeks a better, more comfortable life.

I’ll have to admit that I am definitely motivated by money. In fact, I just finished a research study that paid me pretty good money for an hour of my time. I am quite the avid shopper and on many weekends you can find me downtown scouring the racks for chic new clothes and hunting for the latest products. However, money cannot replace companionship (friends, family, relationships), nor can it provide lasting contentment. So I will have to agree with Dorfam that happiness is the best choice, and for me personally, money comes a close second.

The major Blackberry outage that occurred last month left most of its 70 million worldwide users angry, frustrated, and without Internet and email services for four days.  This only further degraded RIM’s (Research in Motion) reputation, as Blackberry smartphones are becoming less popular and iPhones are seemingly taking over the smartphone market. Scrambling to save their tarnished image, they apologized to customers with a compensation of $100 worth of premium apps from Blackberry App World, free to download until December 31st. This compensation seemed to be good enough for most Blackberry consumers, myself included.

However, RIM has recently been hit with class-action lawsuits from angry consumers in the U.S. and Canada, accusing RIM of breach of contract, negligence, unjust enrichment, and failing to provide consumers with refunds for the loss of service. The argument is that consumers “paid for a service [they] did not receive.” They are demanding to be compensated for their Blackberry service fees and legal costs. If the lawsuit is successful, it could be very costly for RIM, as they generate $3.4 million in revenue every day, and have over 16 million users in the U.S.

I believe that these consumers are overreacting by suing RIM. Yes, it was highly inconvenient for those four days, but RIM has already extended a peace offering of free apps for all Blackberry users, and are doing everything to make sure that it won’t happen again. For those who are still not satisfied, they could simply switch to another smartphone. Why go through the hassle of lawsuits over a few dollars wasted during the outage? It just seems unreasonable to me.

Original article here.

H&M is one of the largest chain clothing retailers in the world. With over 1500 stores worldwide and constantly expanding, H&M is at the forefront of fashion, offering chic styles at low prices. They offer a wide range of women’s, men’s, and children’s clothing, ranging from stylish basics to high fashion pieces, and their collections are frequently renewed.  Just last year alone (in 2010), they generated a profit of 3.9 billion US dollars. They opened 168 new stores in 2010 and 250 stores in 2011, primarily in the US, Spain, Germany, France, and Canada, and they are looking to expand in emerging markets in Eastern Europe, China, and Japan. The company is entirely self-financed. Within the last five years, sales have increased by 72% and earnings per share by 183%, so H&M can definitely afford this expansion.

H&M has taken some risks that proved to be very successful: having a large volume and many different styles of clothing at affordable costs (whereas many other stores have limited styles and sell them for higher prices). Producing clothes at this volume could lead to disaster if consumers don’t like the styles or the quality, but H&M has sacrificed neither in their mass production, and products continue to fly off their shelves. Their concept of fast fashion has worked out so well.

Besides expanding H&M stores, their ladies footwear range, and online shopping, H&M has also launched a new chain called “Collection of Style” (or COS), which is a more upscale version of H&M, featuring high-fashion pieces at competitive prices, combining practical basics with high fashion straight from the runway. Turnover is very quick and stock is changed every day. They have also collaborated with many high-profile designers to create limited-edition collections offered at affordable prices. They have worked with designers such as Jimmy Choo, Karl Lagerfeld, Madonna, Stella McCartney, Viktor and Rolf, and most recently Versace. All of these collaborations have been extremely successful.

Original articles: 1, 2, 3

J.C. Penney is introducing a new in-store gift boutique called Wrapt Boutique, which features around 300 products, most being luxury goods that consumers can just grab and go. The boutique caters to hassled shoppers looking for easy gift purchases (ie: for Christmas). “Our customer is pressed for time. We wanted to pull it together for her to make it easier. These are impulsive gifts. We are creating a wow factor.” says Jan Hodges, a senior VP at J.C. Penney.

Wrapt Boutique may also attract consumers who are not regulars at J.C. Penney, featuring products such as gourmet candy from Dylan’s Candy Bar, tea pot sets from The Museum of Modern Art (or MoMA), and other specialty items. J.C. Penney fan or not, I think Wrapt Boutique will appeal to a wide range of consumers and be the solution for many frustrated Christmas shoppers who want to purchase easy and affordable, yet chic and stylish gifts. What a clever move on J.C. Penney’s part to target impulse buyers, because I’ve certainly done my share of impulse shopping.

What do you think of J.C. Penney’s new WRAPT concept?

Original article here.

Image source

Starting yesterday (October 4), Starbucks’ new rewards program is in effect. Up until now, Starbucks has had no rewards program for loyal customers, which is surprising as many cafes and eateries nowadays have some sort of rewards program. Prior to this, Starbucks only had its “Starbucks card” program: you had to register a Starbucks card online, and you would get free add-ons such as syrups or soy milk, and a free birthday beverage each year.

The newly introduced program still requires a registered Starbucks card, but each time you make a purchase with your card, you earn a star. At 5 stars, you advance to the Green Level, in which you get free add-ons and birthday beverage, free refills on coffee or tea, and free beverage with whole bean purchase. If you collect 30 stars within 12 months, you advance to the Gold Level which includes a personalized Gold Card with your name on it mailed to you, a free beverage per 15 stars you collect, and personalized offers and coupons.

I am a huge Starbucks fanatic, so I will definitely benefit from this new program. It’s about time Starbucks started giving me something back after all the money I’ve spent buying its drinks.

What do you think of this new program?

Read Barbara’s post here.

Image source

Apple has been building hype for their new phone that was scheduled to be unveiled this morning. Naturally, people assumed that the new product would be the iPhone 5, because what else could follow the iPhone 4? Apple underwhelmed the public with the release of the iPhone 4S, which features a dual-core processing chip, 8 megapixel camera, voice command capabilities, and their new iOS 5 mobile operating system. The iPhone 4S and the iPhone 4 are very alike in that they have the same design, screen size, and user interface. They look almost exactly the same.

Now, consumers who do not have an iPhone or those who have the 3G or 3GS may want to upgrade to the iPhone 4S. But for those who have the iPhone 4, they may not feel that the features are enough to warrant an upgrade. There was no change to the industrial design and the user experience, so why spend the money? People were expecting a big change; expecting an “iPhone 5”- something different, new, and improved. All they got was an iPhone 4 with slightly better specs. In my opinion, the iPhone 4S did not deserve all the hype that it got, and it was a let-down to many.

TOMS shoes are extremely popular nowadays, especially among youths and also among adult women too. TOMS’ promise to its customers is that when you buy a pair of shoes, TOMS will donate another pair to a child in need, or as their slogan says, “One for One”. On the company website, the founder, Blake Mycoskie, tells of his travels in Argentina in which he witnessed countless children running around barefoot. This experience really touched him and inspired him to do something about this problem, and that’s how TOMS was founded; on an unfamiliar, but benevolent business model that turned out to be very successful.

Image source

Skechers BOBS copied TOMS’ entire concept. The same business model, the same shoe design, even the name is very similar. Skechers did not make any effort to be creative or genuine. Consumers will not respond positively to such obvious, self-serving motives. The authenticity is just not there.

Besides the lack of authenticity, a big reason why Skechers “BOBS” will not be successful is because many teenagers and young adults buy TOMS simply for the brand. They will view BOBS as a copy of TOMS; not as “the real thing”.

Do you think that BOBS was a bad idea for Skechers? Or do you think that anyone has a right to use TOMS’ concept?

Read original article here.