Yuwei Wei's Blog

In a recent class, we each calculated our carbon footprints using the go-beyond calculator (http://www.go-beyond.ca/carbon-footprint-calculator). A few years ago I calculated my eco-footprint with a similar calculator. But instead of giving me an arbitrary number, it showed me how many Earths mankind would need if everyone lived like I did. Receiving this concrete number meant something to me – I was able to grasp just how much damage I was doing to the planet.

I believe that businesses and companies should be required to calculate their eco-footprints annually, giving owners and operators an instrument to gauge the effect of their business’s green initiatives (or lack thereof). These are the reasons why I believe this information should then be publicized:

• Public information allows for competition between companies trying to gain favour in the sustainability department
  

  Competing for sustainability may in fact be one of the most ethically-acceptable forms of competition.

• Provides incentives for companies to become more environmentally-friendly (or face consumer backlash or boycott)
  

  Companies try to please consumers and avoid customer backlash at all costs.

• Allows companies to see their progress, year after year, and create goals for eco-footprint reduction
  

  An instrument to measure a company’s level of sustainability will help them to set goals.

I believe that a great hurdle companies must overcome is finding the resources and time to dedicate to green innovation. In Comm 101, it was mentioned that consumers aren’t willing to pay more for environmentally-friendly products – we simply expect companies to fulfill that requirement. Because this is the case, it may seem like there is little monetary reward for companies protecting the planet. However, the implementation of a business eco-footprint initiative would shift incentive from cash to reputation, which in many ways, can be a greater motivator because it measures long-term consumer loyalty.

Link to Danny Brown’s Blog Post: http://dannybrown.me/2012/10/22/two-awesome-examples-of-promotional-campaigns-done-right/

Danny Brown has mastered the art of running a successful business blog:
1)Looking for innovative information or trending business topics
2)Framing this information in an understandable, concise, and engaging manner
3)Adding his own take – sharing his own (humourous) opinions, ideas, and experiences
4) Leaving audiences with a “moral” or a thought-provoking question

It is with excitement and fascination that Brown pens each of his posts and, in my opinion, there is no better way to get your readers to mirror the same passion and interest.

In this particular post titled “Two Awesome Examples of Promotional Campaigns Done Right,” Brown illustrates what is truly a battle of the ads, a “cheeky” competition between two renowned luxury car companies.

When Audi posted an ad stating “Your move, BMW,” BMW reciprocated with this “Checkmate” ad.

Audi then fought back with, “Your pawn is no match for our king.”

Like Brown, I truly appreciate the humour these companies have employed. The comicality that Audi and BMW utilise prove not only successful in garnering positive publicity (like being the topic of business blog posts), but in helping consumers see automobile companies as more than impersonal and money-oriented giants. It also proves that sometimes, the greatest opportunities come disguised and that bright minds and creative spirits are necessary to harness the potential in these chances.

In offering readers a “take-away,” Brown concludes that advertising is “alive” despite “social media and new media platforms” becoming the foundations for sharing messages. I believe that, sometimes, in a world where ideas are constantly conceived, it is beneficial to go back to the basics and rediscover the brilliance of simplicity. Innovation doesn’t just entail invention, it involves further development of old ideas that are known to work.

Link to classmate, Lara Hon’s blog post: https://blogs.ubc.ca/laramarie/2012/09/11/marketing-from-conglomerates-when-hypocrisy-attacks/

Like Lara, I believe Dove’s existence under the umbrella of Unilever is a fatal disadvantage. With Dove’s message being uniquely combative of mainstream media “beauty,” it relies heavily on the consistency of not only its own values but Unilever’s values as well. However, with Axe’s existence – its skinny, young, bikini-clad, beauty-exactly-as-the-media-portrays-it women – under the umbrella, consistency is unachievable.

Dove vs. Axe

What I find cowardly is Unilever’s handling of the situation. Because the messages of its various products don’t align, Unilever has chosen to rely on secrecy, lying by omitting the fact that Axe and Dove are connected, and hoping consumers don’t discover the truth! The lack of full transparency only prompts a stronger backlash upon discovery of the truth.

So can conglomerates do it right? SCJohnson aligns each of it’s products with one another and proudly associates all with the conglomerate (the end of the commercial “SCJ, a family company”).

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NVgdHQGxzIw

I believe that in carefully constructing each product’s image, SCJ has concurrently pieced together the conglomerate’s image . The result is that any merchandise under the SCJ umbrella automatically shares SCJ’s values of family, safety, and quality.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NKrm41xAcyo

I believe that just like the teachings of parents affect the attitudes of children, the values of conglomerates affect the products existing under their umbrella. Although a conglomerate’s goods may be diverse, a company must never underestimate the ability of consumers to make connections, to think critically, and to unearth mistakes. A reputation built on the refreshing redefinition of beauty is easily shattered upon discovery that Dove’s creators themselves haven’t yet joined the beauty revolution.

Sources:
http://www.thestar.com/article/280524–taking-the-axe-to-unilever-s-hypocrisy

http://www.scjohnson.com/en/company/principles.aspx

When Energy Aware CEO Janice Cheam spoke about the PowerTab’s competitors, I wondered why the company had opted not to patent their product. To me, it seemed like the obvious choice: ensure the product is perpetually perceived as innovative by preventing its replication (or perhaps improvement) by competitors.

Janice prompted realization that patents accompany great responsibility. Obtaining money to issue a patent represented only half of the endeavour. The other half is characterized by the continual struggle to defend that patent.

While claiming intellectual property might be advantageous for some, I came up with situations where it presents as a disadvantage:

• Issuing and defending a patent is money-draining. It is a fatal mistake to invest in a patent when a product’s profit doesn’t exceed patent costs.
• When a product is new or continuously changing, obtaining a patent today means that tomorrow’s innovations are not protected from plagiarism.
• Defending a patent may mean fewer resources (time, money, intellect) are invested in new innovations. Meanwhile, other companies have employed their resources to get ahead, creating more innovative products.

I was mistaken to believe that patenting is a “coming of age” process for all inventive companies. In truth, it’s a gamble, and oftentimes, refusing to roll the dice (like Energy Aware has) allows resource investment in continual product development rather then hefty legal fees.

In many ways, choosing to patent is a gamble.

It is increasingly important for companies to employ environmentally-sustainable measures in production and distribution. Considering Zara, a company whose  supply chain is such a great part of its identity, I pose this question: Is an extremely efficient supply chain created at the expense of the environment? Is the company that is taking the world by storm also doing it’s part for Mother Earth?

Companies like MEC have taken measures to become more environmentally sustainable. Other companies are expected to follow suit.

I came up with two ways a company could employ a more environmentally sustainable supply chain:

1)Utilize “nearby” sources when possible. This is especially practical for factors of production that are available in most nations. For example, if Zara can obtain fabric domestically, they can reduce transportation costs and the coinciding carbon emissions.

Constantly transporting material overseas requires a tremendous amount of oil.

2)Companies can pressure suppliers to use sustainable sources by threatening to switch to a competitor. Environmental awareness is easily forgotten amidst mass production and cost-minimization.

Something even as simple as cotton can be grown in a more sustainable way.

Both of these methods link back to Porter’s Five Forces and HIGH BUYER POWER. If a great portion of Zara’s consumers expressed preference for an environmentally-friendly supply chain, Zara must attempt to fulfill that need – or risk losing customers. Similarly, as Zara is a company representing a large percentage of a supplier’s market, its voice is loud and influential in determining the supplier’s survival.

The bottom line is that buyers have the responsibility to advocate for change.

Vancouverites are no strangers to homelessness on the Downtown Eastside.

The government has pumped taxpayer dollars into the creation of food banks, shelters, and transitional housing, however these bandaid solutions merely create dependence, a danger that drives individuals deeper into the poverty cycle rather than offering them an escape. I believe the solution lies in self-sufficiency, the product of social enterprises that collaborate with the homeless to promote the psychology of independence.

SOLEfood is a pioneer in social enterprising.

SOLEfood Farms is a pioneer in social enterprising, with hopes of fulfilling social and environmental goals. This company employs the marginalized – those living on the Downtown Eastside or in the inner city – to cultivate neighbourhood fruit and vegetable gardens. Partnerships with local restaurants, who buy the locally and organically grown produce, maintain the enterprise’s survival, but it’s the transformations of society that maintain the enterprise’s success.

I believe that a social enterprise does not have the goal of moneymaking for ITSELF. But the employment opportunities, the distributing of social tools (communication skills, team dynamics), and the dignity and confidence created in its employees guarantees the regeneration of THEIR financial health.

The following are the distinguishing characteristics of SEs that I have discovered: while businesses strive to earn profit, SEs strive to generate social change. While charities strive to aid those on the edges of society, SEs strive to integrate them back into society’s core.

http://1sole.wordpress.com/

In the realm of marketing research, understanding Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs means understanding consumer behaviour. However, I want to use Maslow’s Hierarchy to examine employee behaviour.

An introduction:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EH04OsNuvcw&feature=fvwrel

Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs.

I believe that an indicator of a company’s strength is how invested its employees are in its success. If employees work simply to receive a paycheque, with no motivation for self or company-development, they are struggling to scale tiers 1 and 2 of the triangle. In order to meet tier 3, employers must pay employees enough for them to feel secure in fulfilling basic human needs.

Social or Emotional needs represent the third tier. I interpret this tier to represent the working environment – are employers and fellow employees supportive? Do they reflect community or selfishness? An environment of encouragement is needed to move up to tiers 4 and 5.

A company that raises employees up to tiers 4 and 5 (Esteem and Self-Actualization) gives them opportunity to strive for recognition. Whether this means moving up the ranks or getting a pay raise, employees now have the foundation to seek involvement in their position – looking for ways to excel and improve. Now, further growth is up to the employee.

Notice that in the last tiers, we moved away from “needs” to choices that beget fulfillment. When being a company member generates fulfilment, the success of the individual translates into the success of the company.

My revamped Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs

I discovered a Business Career Blog that I wanted to share. What caught my eye was its writer. Guy Kawasaki worked personally with former Apple CEO Steve Jobs to market the first Macintosh in 1984. He was an “Apple Fellow” when the company was merely a budding business. I believe that a company’s success is built on the intelligence, creativity, and perseverance of it’s members, which is why Kawasaki himself might hold the secret to Apple’s triumph.

In this post, Kawasaki shares Steve Jobs’ wisdom:
http://blog.guykawasaki.com/2011/10/what-i-learned-from-steve-jobs.html#axzz28aLq3SSC

These are the points I found interesting:

2) Customers cannot tell you what they need.
Kawasaki claims that customers can only tell companies they want “better, faster, cheaper.”

I believe that any company entering a technological industry should be able to accomplish better, faster, or cheaper. Accomplishing more than one, however, can be risky, as outlined in Porter’s Generic Strategy. Nothing triggers more customer suspicion than a company that promises both the highest quality and the lowest price. It is up to the company to choose a strategy based on their product and their fit, but as demonstrated by the concise statement “better, faster, cheaper,” simplicity is best. Picking a unifying strategy and remaining consistent will ease confusion and position the product securely in the consumer’s mind.

7) Changing your mind is a sign of intelligence.
In order to stay ahead of the competition, a company must constantly reanalyze and revaluate. Re- is the key, and this includes reexamining ideas that once seemed unattractive. Because as times change, so do the viability of ideas.

Link to classmate Chris Williamson’s Blog Post: https://blogs.ubc.ca/sauderchriswilliamson/2012/09/12/world-trembles-over-iphone-5-apple-employees-tremble-for-other-reasons-all-together/

I was completely shocked to hear about Apple’s controversial treatment of their employees. One would think a company creating products as advanced as Apple does would be just as advanced in their philosophies on labour rights.

I agree fully with Chris’s views on this issue. Behind all of Apple’s sleek products, which seem to be the definition of “modern,” there lies an ugliness experienced only by those manufacturing its products – those who may never get the opportunity to use a Apple product in their lifetimes.

Ethics and profit do not have to be on opposite sides of the spectrum – it’s not about sacrificing one for the other. Take Toms for example. This shoe company has started a footwear revolution with the best of intentions: each pair of shoes purchased is matched with a pair for a child in need. Employee training goes beyond the mechanics of making shoes; each employee is trained to become a global citizen. This is business with ethics in mind.

http://www.toms.com/manufacturing-practices

Toms has started a footwear revolution.

Why is it that to most, the Apple logo symbolizes a new generation and transformation rather than inhumane practices, money-prioritizing, and controversy. What has Apple done so RIGHT that they can escape explosive public controversy that other great companies like Nike (http://www.stanford.edu/class/e297c/trade_environment/wheeling/hnike.html)  have not been able to?

http://www.quickmba.com/marketing/ries-trout/positioning/

According to this article, advertisers need to 1)Be the first and make a good impression 2) If you’re not first, find another category where you CAN be first 3)Be consistent with customer perceptions.

While there are several brands of bottled water on the market, Evian has chosen to distinguish itself from the pack by marketing as LUXURY bottled water – with the power to indulge youthfulness and health. In a choice that may seem silly (how can WATER be luxurious?), Evian has sidestepped the competition altogether (simultaneously pushing them into the category of “regular bottled water” – repositioning the competition), by creating its own category where it is number one.

Evian has distinguished itself from “regular” bottled water brands like Dasani and Aquafina.

Maintaining consistency in their brand has helped Evian remain first in their category. All of their commercials exude a clean and clear feel with a single message in mind – this high end brand will make you healthier, more energetic, and younger.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XQcVllWpwGs

And while some might cringe at the relative price of this luxury bottled water, the key is once again consistency – making Evian cheaper destroys the image of exclusivity.

But in order to be DIFFERENT, one must first be the SAME.Evian first establishes that it has the same points of parity as Aquafina: offering the convenience and safety of bottled water, before it offers it’s points of difference: it’s high quality and prestige.