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.