“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.

Amazon’s shares continue to drop as analyst estimate a loss of $40.5 million for the year, the largest since 2002. As Jeff Bezos, the CEO of Amazon, invests heavily into these products and services, it doesn’t seem like the company is generating the amount of profit it estimated. The CEO’s currently method of growth is to “spend big and count on sales growth to make up for minuscule profit.” However, this strategy isn’t working as Amazon continues to report losses. In fact, I contend Amazon is distracted by other activities, such as the drones, smartphone, television programming, and that it is sidetracked from its online-retailing services.

First, I believe that it was a correct move for Amazon to have explored other options and expanded into other industries, as many of its competitors like Target and Walmart were integrating Amazon’s initial concept of “order online and we’ll ship it to your door” into their business strategies. Due to the increase in rivalry and the approaching saturation in the online retailing and delivery market, Amazon sought out other options like the production of Kindles to create additional revenue streams. Fast forward several years after the introduction of Kindles, we have Amazon investing and selling its own smartphone that turned out to be a “flop”, as well as retail prices that aren’t as competitive compared to Target and Walmart’s. In fact, customers are turning to less expensive alternatives like Walmart, “whose online prices [are] approximately 10% lower than” Amazon’s and Target, whose prices are 5% lower than Amazon’s. Perhaps the increase in pricing, or the inability to drive these prices down, is due to Amazon’s investment in its other business activities. Amazon should focus back on its core activities: online retailing, and try to offer it at competitive prices.

http://time.com/3536969/amazon-fire-phone-bust/

http://www.internetretailer.com/2014/10/03/amazon-feels-pricing-heat-walmartcom-and-targetcom

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-10-24/amazon-ceo-bezos-faces-season-of-worsts-as-losses-mount.html

http://wac.450f.edgecastcdn.net/80450F/q103albany.com/files/2014/05/RS5193_160323946-scr.jpg

In the beginning of the October, Canadian Tire announced that it is going to invest in a digital strategy to bring products to its customers in a more efficient manner. Namely, Canadian Tire is aiming to “alert customers to deals on winter boots and shovels” via digital messages. While it doesn’t sound like a novel idea as all of us has received promotional emails from various retailers or stores with regards to discounts and promotions in the past, what makes Canadian Tire’s approach stand out is that it is alerting the customers about the deals on winter boots and shovels, as it snows.

I believe that Canadian Tire’s strategic thinking may very well provide them with a competitive edge over its competitors, as very few large retail stores provides such service. Also, by digitalizing and alerting through messages, Canadian Tire can better target the younger population, which are relying on and using more technology on a day to day basis to satisfy their needs (shopping online, looking at eflyers, etc.). Canadian Tire is taking advantage of today’s technology by providing customers easier access to its products; such ease may potentially lead to more profit. Canadian Tire’s strategy may even pave way to a growth in loyal customers due to its novel service (if they execute it well, that is).

Nonetheless, while this is an advantage and may attract potential customers due to its convenience, such digital strategy is not sustainable. Like McGrath mentioned, strategies these days needs to be transient — they need to be constantly revised, as such “advantage often evaporates in less than a year.” Especially in this day and age when technology develops rapidly, it would not be difficult for other firms to implement a similar or a more sophisticated system that would make Canadian Tire’s strategy seem outdated. As a result, Canadian Tire should continually look at what other firms are doing in response to its digital strategy and assess the opportunity cost of spending resources on developing the strategy if other firms are going to implement the same system.

Sources:

http://hbr.org/2013/06/transient-advantage

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/canadian-tire-to-make-multi-year-investment-in-digital-tech/article21002469/

The aboriginal people in Canada, officially referred to as the First Nation, can act as a powerful group that could potentially change a company’s strategy. In using a PEST analysis to examine the external environment for a business, the First Nation people can be regarded as an influential aspect of the S (social) in “PEST”.

As seen in the article linked, the First Nation people strongly opposed BC Hydro’s decision to construct a dam and a hydroelectric generating station. If successfully passed, the construction would cut through the lands of the First Nation people and destroy a plethora of wildlife and forests that would affect the lives of the aboriginal people. The First Nation chiefs strongly oppose BC Hydro’s project, and plan on taking their case to the Federal Court of Canada. Evidently, there is a conflict between the business and the First Nations. The actions that the group is taking may therefore impact the strategy of BC Hydro, as the First Nation chiefs are urging the government to reject the business’s proposal. BC Hydro would therefore need to reconsider and reconfigure its current project or abandon it if it does not go through with the government due to the First Nation people’s intervention.

http://www.vancouversun.com/news/First+Nation+chiefs+stage+Site+showdown/10215965/story.html

Stollery’s established its store in Toronto almost 114 years ago, and it has maintained its high-class position up until now, whereby the company has announced its closer next January or February. The article mentions that the firm has been facing rising competition pressure to sell its property. The question is, why? And how can we prevent this from happening in the future?

By applying some of Porter’s Five Forces, it is possible to identify the changes in the external environment, and possibly develop ways to make the firm less vulnerable to these changes if it were not closing.

The clothing industry — specifically the menswear industry — is growing rapidly, like the article mentioned. With the fact that the number of competitors is large, it immediately makes the market quite competitive. A company like Stollery’s would need to establish a unique selling proposition to differentiate itself from the many firms out there that are also offering men clothing. This also leads to the fact that there are a plethora of substitutes in the menswear industry, ranging from inexpensive to expensive stores with low cost of switching, making Stollery’s vulnerable to lost of sales if it is not differentiating itself. As a result, the buyer’s bargaining power is quite large — because customers have a large range of options to purchase menswear from.

Furthermore, there are few barriers to entry. There are few laws and regulations that are preventing new competitors from entering the market. Resources for producing menswear are also not exactly rare to the point that it is difficult to find. And while a certain degree of knowledge is required to operate in the menswear industry (such as the knowledge of trends, perhaps), it is not as difficult as, say, trying to enter into an industry like pharmaceutical.

Looking at just a few aspects of Porter’s Five Forces, along with the fact that “industry observers have said [Stollery’s is] tired and in need of an update,” it is evident that the changing external environment, especially the growth of competitors/substitutes and the changing tastes in fashion, contributed to the closure of an iconic menswear store. To give a possible start of how to deal with the changing external environment, Stollery’s may have utilized Porter’s Generic Strategy and perhaps focused on a smaller segment, for instance the focus differentiation strategy to reposition itself, as it seems like a high-end store.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/iconic-upscale-mens-wear-store-to-close-in-toronto/article20932353/

In the age where technology is so powerful, we often see news regrading breaches of security in businesses or leaked passwords on websites. Home Depot was no exception to falling victim to hackers hacking into their system and retrieving thousands of credit card information from their customers, causing huge security issues.

In his article of how Home Depot could’ve combated the hack, Justin Worland reported that experts are arguing that Home Depot (and companies vulnerable to hackers), instead of spending resources on prevention, should focus more on detection. Indeed, businesses should develop both proactive and reactive strategies in the face of an emergency or disaster. Home Depot, and other major retailers such as Target, has been adopting a primarily proactive approach in terms of keeping customers’ credit card information secure. While having a proactive strategy to combat emergencies is useful, it may be costly in terms of resources and time spent on trying to fix all loopholes in the system that the hackers can possible get through. It also applies to other businesses: to what extent is spending a great amount of our time thinking of possible emergency situations and developing the correct responses a productive use of our time? In fact, in general developing a proactive response to emergencies is usually more time-consuming and costly. As a result, having a reactive (detection) approach when dealing with hackers, especially for large retailers with enormous databases, can be the more efficient option even though it may seem counter-intuitive at first.

This case demonstrates that there is no perfect approach to developing a business strategy in response to change, and that it often depends on the environment the business operates in.

http://time.com/3404330/home-depot-hack/

http://time.com/3399822/home-depot-breach-exposed-56-million-credit-cards/

http://bookriotcom.c.presscdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/barnes-and-noble-booksellers.jpg

Many are baffled by the fact that Barnes & Nobles, the largest book retailer in the United States, started selling toys in their stores. I believe that the fact Barnes & Nobles diversifies into retailing books is due to the fact the firm was unable to respond effectively and quickly to the external environment.

As technology developed and many publishers began selling e-books, many national booksellers closed and their products, physical copies of novels, started to become somewhat obsolete. Ebooks became popular due to several reasons, one of the them being the fact that it’s less costly and the development and growing use of technology. While Amazon quickly responded to the changing environment by grasping the opportunity, the rapidly advancing technology, by producing an e-reader and selling ebooks, Barnes & Nobles was unable to react fast enough to produce a strategy that would take advantage of such a change in the public’s attitude towards reading books. Barnes & Nobles’s e-reader, the Nook, poses minimal threat to Amazon’s Kindle. Nonetheless, there are still a number of loyal customers who prefer hardcopy books to electronic versions. However, the fact that Barnes & Nobles began to sell toys, among other things, seems to be a sign that the firm has to find other ways to keep itself from closing.

http://time.com/3318591/barnes-and-noble-toys-nooks/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barnes_%26_Noble