As Kamilla Bekbulatova wrote some days ago (you can see her original post here), logo colours are of utmost importance in becoming a successful and renowned brand. According to her research, she found out that people do, in fact, remember brands better because of their colours since most of them will provoke some type of reaction to the consumers.

Her post made me realize how companies need to put a lot of effort in every single detail in order to survive in today’s competitive market, since any small mistake or lack of attention to some minor detail may give them a disadvantage. For example, if a fast food company, who’s target market are children and teengers, decides to make their logo green and blue, it is very likely that they will not attract a very significant amount of people. This happens because the colours they chose gives the customers a more health-councious and trustworthy feeling, instead of an exciting and energy-filled feeling that children are looking for.

Also, it is impressive the brain’s power to associate colours to very specific things. therefore, it is also very important to make sure your logo colours reflect exactly what you offer because if they do, it is very likely people will assimilate your logo to various feelings and situations based on your colour choices.

In this precise second, millions of mice, dogs, rabbits, primates, and other animals are being poisoned, blinded and killed. Do you know why? Because of MAC’s lip-glosses, Clinique’s face powders, DOLCE & GABBANA’s blushes and many other products from renowned brands. However, The Body Shop is an ethical and natural beauty company promoting social and environmental change. They were the first international cosmetic brand in being recognized by the Humane Cosmetics Standard for the Against Animal Testing policy.

A couple of months ago, there was a news report about The Body Shop and their stores in Chinese airports. Choice was criticizing the company by having stores in Chinese airports since the Chinese government has the right to take cosmetics out of the stores’ shelves and conduct tests on animals. Many of The Body Shop’s customers were shocked about the news since one of the value propositions of the company is that their products aren’t tested on animals. A lot of news reports came out criticizing the brand and mentioning that since 2006 (when The Body Shop became part of L’Oreal company), the company had lost its value and that all the “against animal testing” was just a publicity stunt.

In my opinion, The Body Shop should have never become part of L’Oreal Company. L’Oreal commands more than 10% share of the prosper Chinese cosmetic market, and does animal testing, all of which are against The Body Shop’s values. Therefore, it is hypocritical of them to say they are against animal testing when they are trying to enter to the Chinese market and by belonging to L’Oreal. Those decisions might have cost The Body Shop a lot of loses, however, after the hard criticism Mark Kindness, CEO of  The Body Shop Austrlia,  said, “Until China changes its stance on animal testing, we are prepared to not enter that market… While it’s tempting in terms of the size, until the day comes that you do not need to test your ingredients or your products on animals, we will not be going into that market at all [emphasis added]”.

On the other hand, entering to the Chinese market would be a great opportunity for The Body Shop and its international expansion, however, that might cost the company a lot more criticism and the loss of credibility since a lot of customers would be disappointed with the brand. Thus, giving the bran bad reputation and bad publicity, reducing sales and impeding the company’s growth.

Sources:

http://www.choice.com.au/reviews-and-tests/food-and-health/beauty-and-personal-care/cosmetics/the-body-shop-sells-out-on-animal-testing.aspx

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/mar/12/body-shop-removes-products-from-chinese-duty-free-stores

http://www.smh.com.au/lifestyle/beauty/body-shop-under-scrutiny-as-crueltyfree-products-found-in-china-20140311-34iv0.html

 

 

 

 

Tomorrow, September 18th, 2014 the UK will hold one of it most important poles in order to decide if the Scottish population desires to continue as part of the United Kingdom or if it wants to have an independent country. This all started when the Scottish National Party(SNP) won the parliament elections in 2011, allowing them to call the vote. Backing their desire for independence, the SNP’s leader says that considering that almost 90% of the oil and gas supply from the UK comes from Scottish land, if they were an independent country they could be one of the richest countries in the world. However, the opposition says that oil, being a non-renewable resource, will one day end and, therefore, basing the future of an entire nation in solely one scarce resource is a foolish move.

Leaving all of the political discussion aside, this independence movement will, and already has, had an impact in the economy of the UK and of Scotland if the voting turns out “YES”. Due to all the uncertainty around what will happen tomorrow, investors are unwilling to invest in in the UK, therefore, their money would be more expensive for the UK. This results in less investments form business and less consumer spending, thus, explaining why the sterling has been in decline. Not only that, but if the the vote results in a “YES”, Scotland would need to adopt a new currency since the UK has already declared that there is no way that an independent Scotland would be allowed to use the pound. This would cause somewhat of a trouble for Scotland because without an established currency it is harder to attract investors. Also, this would be bad for the rest of the UK since they would lose their main source of oil and natural gas, thus, making it very likely for their debt to start increasing. In addition, if the vote is result in the Scottish independence, it is more than likely for the sterling price to continue in decline since the investors would still be hesitant to put money into the UK and Scotland until all of the separation negotiations are concluded.

If the result says that Scotland remains as part of the UK, the investors hesitation would end in the day following the results, stabilizing the sterling price and resupplying the businesses. Therefore, it is impossible to tell what will be more beneficial for the economy from both countries in the long run, however, tomorrow’s voting has already had some impact in the economy. Despite the results, tomorrow’s voting will definitely cause some changes in Scotland and in the UK.

 

 

Source: http://www.bbc.com/news/business-29103437

 

Chiquita, a company that has been in importing and exporting fruits for over a century, has recently advocated for a more sustainable and socially responsible action towards their own ways of doing business. Together with social activist groups, Chiquita agreed to only use sustainable farming techniques and all their products are certified by environmental standards. Also, Chiquita has defended women’s rights and promised that none of their products would come from a farm where sexual harassment has occurred. However, because of all these promises and agreements to become more sustainable and ethically responsible, Chiquita has fallen behind its competitors.

More concerning is the fact that Chiquita was the only company that had voluntarily disclosed that they paid the Colombian paramilitary for protection of their plantations, and as a reward for their honesty they are facing several lawsuits in America and in Colombia. Last year, Chiquita, attempted to please another green group and accepted not to use fuel from Canadian tar sands for its ships and in lorries. For this act of ecological sustainability Chiquita found a group attempting to boycott its products as a response.

Cases like Chiquita’s makes me wonder if trying to please everyone and being ethically responsible is worth it. Wouldn’t Chiquita be much more competitive if they did not choose to change to a more ethically and environmentally responsible company? How can the other less responsible companies be striving in today’s world when we say we are much more ethically conscious? Shouldn’t they be the ones who are suffering from their carelessness with the world and its resources? Why is Chiquita not receiving all the merits it deserves?

All in all, it is reasonable for the head of IUF (International Foodworkers’ Union), Ron Oswald, to complain “It’s not sustainable for any company in a competitive sector to make progress and gain no recognition for it.”

 

Source:http://www.economist.com/node/21551500