In Shanghai, China, there has been accusations of IKEA selling “furniture for kids that fails safety standards”. In the children’s sector, there were chairs and tables found that were too sharp, and could potentially harm children. However, nothing was done to IKEA, as the furniture was not specifically classified as children’s furniture, given that the standards only applied to children’s furniture.

After browsing through this article, a question arose in my mind: are companies supposed to be held responsible to the specific target segment that they market their product towards? In this case, the table that defied the specification wasn’t classified as a children’s product.

Personally, I believe that a company shouldn’t be responsible for the product being harmful in such an obvious way to a potential user. For a situation such as the table where the edges are visible, aren’t the buyers themselves responsible for determining whether the product meets their safety requirements? If the reports or standards violations were regarding an unknown or not as visible feature such as hidden sharp features, it would be understandable. However, sharp edges are clearly visible and buyers are able to judge for themselves.  Buyers are responsible for the products they choose to purchase. There are many products out there that could be potentially dangerous, depending on how it is handled or used.

Companies are allowed to market their product in any way, as long as they do not forget social responsibility. In this scenario, IKEA’s lack of specifics regarding the users allowed them to sell their tables to a larger target segment pool.

Sources:

“Ikea Accused of Selling Furniture for Kids That Fails Safety Standards.” — Shanghai Daily. N.p., n.d. Web. 28 Mar . 2013.

This post is a response to a blog from another student. Within the article that the author discusses, a new concept of liquid breakfast is being explored as the new on-the-go breakfast. This is an example of increased product depth, where the company adds a new product line in order to capture the new market for on-the-go breakfasts.

Within the blog, the author classifies the new liquid breakfast as product innovation, being able to provide nutritional value but consumed in a package  Despite the seemingly fresh idea, I believe that this idea is actually introducing a different way of consuming food, as opposed to a different, newly discovered product. In this product, what stands out it is how the food is consumed on-the-go, rather than the quality or mixture of the food. Therefore, packaging becomes a vital aspect of this project.

Distinct packaging and designing in this product allows the company to target consumers that seek to consume breakfast on the road , rather than those seeking to eat a nutritious breakfast at ease. Through my experience with individuals who care about nutrition, they are firm believers of solid food; therefore no type of liquid breakfast would be able to replace a solid breakfast. Rather than fulfilling the breakfast “need” as the author mentioned, I believe that this product is just a temporary alternative, thus going back to my main belief that this product will not revolutionize the breakfast foods industry.

Sources:

“Oatworks Enters Liquid Breakfast Trend on Big Food’s Coattails.” Oatworks Enters Liquid Breakfast Trend on Big Food’s Coattails. N.p., n.d. Web. 24 Mar. 2013.