“If the United Nations was fully funded why would we need the Arc or social enterprise?”

I believe the main reason why, in addition to the United Nations, the world also needs projects like the Arc and social enterprise is because social enterprise lasts longer and it is more focused in terms of its goals to bring about social change.

The United Nations is fully funded, and they way the UN provides assistance to people who usually do not get the opportunity to achieve their dreams is through monetary aid. While the United Nations is heavily involved in issues such as health and safety of citizens, the organization is not fully dedicated to changing the entire society through long-term projects. Projects such as the Arc and social enterprise, however, develop a long-term relationship with countries or people in need. Social enterprise prolongs and maintains the relationship of assistance through continuously bringing positive changes to the society. For instance, what Arc is doing in many countries isn’t just a one-time project; instead, students, alumni, and the faculty returns to those communities year after year to keep on providing resources and skills to the citizens. As a result, the people in those countries now have more opportunities that they can take advantage of.

Also, although UN has a great number of resources, it is large and has many aims throughout the world. Compared to the (typically) more focused social enterprise that usually has one vision in mind, the UN may seem less focused and dedicated to bringing about change to a specific aspect in a society in need. Because of the strong determination and focus that is usually present in a social enterprise, it is important for them to exist and continue to bring about positive change in our society.

http://static.gamesradar.com/images/mb/GamesRadar/us/Daily/2010/10-Oct/28/Nintendo%20profits/Nintendo%20profits%20header–article_image.jpg

 This blog post is in response to Nathan’s post on Nintendo’s continuous decline in profit, the potential reasons why, and how Nintendo can attempt to recapture some of its lost customers.

As Nathan and the original article mentioned, Nintendo should take advantage of the growing mobile gaming industry and perhaps shift its focus out of handheld gaming devices. For instance, Nathan suggested that “Nintendo could potentially capture the young mobile market using their iconic characters (Mario) as their marketing strategy.” The mobile gaming industry is very profitable and is growing rapidly; however, I believe we must also consider the high degree of competition and rivalry within the market. Specifically using criteria from Porter’s Five Forces, we can see that the mobile gaming industry is a market with high level of competition — just take a look at the sheer number of free and paid games offered in Google Play and the App Store. Because the market is growing, it is also going to attract new competitors. Furthermore, not only is the customer’s cost of switching low, it is also difficult to differentiate itself from the thousands of varieties of games that already exist. There are also plenty of substitutes, for instance games that are not tied to electronic devices.

Though the use of its iconic characters may be a differentiation strategy, I believe Nintendo should conduct primary research on the potential of success and profitability of this direction before they immediately start developing game apps. The firm should especially focus on whether the customers will purchase Nintendo’s mobile games, given that there are already so many existing options. Nintendo may use the time and resources that would be spent on developing a gaming app to researching and developing an innovative product or service that is disruptive or novel to the industry.

https://blogs.ubc.ca/nathanlo/2014/09/30/nintendos-innovational-decline/

In this external blog, an opinion post written by Deborah Aarts, she argues that being the ‘lone wolf’ leader in an organization can ultimately be detrimental to the business and for the leader him-/herself. A lone wolf leader refers to a leader that is usually the only person at the top of the hierarchy within the business, with his/her vision dominating the organization. Aarts specifically make a point of having a partner when starting a business and leading the firm, drawing on successful examples such as Steve Jobs and Steve Wozniak of Apple and Mike Lazaridis and Jim Basillie of Blackberry.

I agree with Aart’s point of view since, as the business grows larger, it is certainly more difficult to unite the visions of all stakeholders to ensure that the business is going in the direction the leader wants. However, I do believe that such ‘lone wolf leadership’ is quite necessary in the early stages of a business. A partner may not necessarily have the same goals and visions for the business. This may result in sending mix signals about the directions of the business to its stakeholders, more importantly, to its employees and leading to an inefficient and ineffective business. The drive and the sole focus of a goal embodied by an individual may be more powerful and motivating than a partnership during the conception of a start-up, especially when it comes to transferring the same determination to the firm’s employees.

Yet, like the author mentioned, as the business grows it must adapt and should change the ‘lone wolf leadership’ style, primarily due to the aforementioned reason. The idea that the ‘lone wolf leadership’ style may be toxic in a large corporation, I believe, was reflected by Zappo’s decision to convert to a ‘holacratic’ corporate culture, whereby there are no job titles and no managers. Indeed, it is true that bureaucracy can sometimes hurt the business, and Zappos is avoiding that problem by becoming a holacracy where each employee has responsibilities, adds values to the firm, and a great amount of flexibility. All these factors, I believe, can actually unite employees under the same vision as they are empowered.

http://www.profitguide.com/manage-grow/leadership/the-dangers-of-lone-wolf-leadership-70801

http://qz.com/161210/zappos-is-going-holacratic-no-job-titles-no-managers-no-hierarchy/

While reading Jacqueline’s post on how Facebook video is now another means for small businesses to promote themselves on social media, it reminded me of the entrepreneurs/Sauder alumni who shared their start-up experience in class today. As Jacqueline stated, small businesses create Facebook pages to reach out to their potential customers and create brand recognition and awareness. Now with the automatically playing video feature, we as consumers are more exposed to start-up businesses more than ever.

Connecting to what the alumni and Professor Kroeker touched upon in class, the environment to which a business begins is of ultimate importance, especially in terms of PEST. In fact, whether a start-up is successfully is, to a large degree, dependent on the environment to which is it born out of. The Monarch, for instance, was able to take off because of the lack of personal tools like “Garageband” and the astronomical cost required to record albums in a large, corporate music studio. That being said, I agree that entrepreneurs must carefully observe the current environment and seize any opportunity or advantage they can take. In fact, I believe the widespread development of Facebook (and other social media sites) can certainly become an advantage to small businesses in terms of marketing strategy. It may even encourage growth in start-up companies due to how easy it is to establish and market a brand through social platform. The growing popularity and use of various social platforms may add to the attractiveness of the industry environment, given that the target market can be reached through social platforms.