A provoking post that I’ve read is written as a challenge to Sauder itself as Jaideep Kular proposes that prospective Sauder hopefuls should write a detailed ethics plan as part of their admission requirements. In his words, “[students] need to lay out a detailed strategy of how they will achieve [their] goals.” Personally, I find the proposal idealistically brilliantly, yet flawed in its underlying assumption that every incoming applicant has at least some idea of how they want their business career to look, if any at all.

It’s completely realistic for each individual to have a general idea of life goals, but isn’t University the place where one finds themselves? I mean, many come into Sauder without a shred of insight regarding what they want to do with their lives, what to major in, and how to get there. In fact, I’m sure plenty chose business as it was the most “practical” choice rather than their number one passion. Yes, we all have a set of moral boundaries which we ought not to cross, but I certainly can’t lay out a detailed strategy as of right now regarding how to achieve my goals beyond the generic one liners. Hey, I WANT to have a clear strategy thought out already, but perhaps the process of discovery through failures, surprises, achievements, and downright life experiences is what I need to formulate that (still) imperfect strategy that’ll be more than just a cop-out.

In the 21st Century, sustainability is a concept that has permeated various industries, fashion included. In an industry such as fashion, plagued with a history of non-sustainable, wasteful, and even unethical practices (use of animal fur), new and sustainable reforms seems only fitting to go along with an increased awareness in adopting eco-friendly everyday practices by many consumers. Nowadays, many business courses offer an independent section regarding sustainable development as that is ultimately the direction in which most firms are headed in the future. An interesting new fashion start-up combines just that, sustainability (at its roots) with a social mission to help fund eye exams and cataracts surgery in less economically developed countries.

Founded by three Georgetown University students, Panda Sunglasses is a sunglasses company manufacturing its frames out of sustainably harvested bamboo. Unlike TOMS, as a social enterprise, Panda aims to help fund medical procedures rather than donating shoes according to sales. In my opinion, I believe that this is a more sustainable form of aid as a corrective medical procedure will result in life changing circumstances for individuals as opposed to a material donation (i.e. shoes) which is restricted to a functional life span. With medical assistance, individuals that were not able to work previously will now be able to contribute to their communities in a productive manner.

Article: http://www.youngentrepreneur.com/startingup/how-green-fashion-startup-panda-landed-on-top-retailers-shelves-in-6-months/

Nina Garcia’s post in the HBR blog highlighted the issue of maintaining the integrity of a brand’s design aesthetics, that it is possible to offer both quality products at an affordable price. However, the most interesting proposal that was made was that consumers don’t simply seek out the cheapest good, but rather, ones where quality has not been compromised for price.

However, considering Garcia’s background as a fashion editor as well as a Project Runway judge, from an everyday consumer standpoint I would argue that such holds true only in each individual market segment rather than the market as a whole. For example, a middle class working man may consider a tailored suit from a regular chain store such as Tip Top as perfectly acceptable in both quality and price, whereas an individual with a much higher income would not consider anything less than designer as “quality.” Furthermore, once a certain threshold has been reached, what even separates the quality in terms of construction of (for example) shoulder bags from Coach and Louis Vuitton other than the brand itself? What exactly constitutes a 500$ difference in pricing? Cost of labour? Perhaps. A 1000$ price difference? Suddenly the difference in cost of labour doesn’t seem to me as such a viable factor anymore.

As a Sauder Grad of ’06, Janice Cheam is the founder of Energy Aware Technology Inc., which aims to promote and facilitate more sustainable consumer practices. The idea behind Energy Aware Technology Inc. came about during a 4th year course known as “New Venture Design.” However, unlike her peers, Janice took the idea (the business plan) which was innovative in itself and actually made it happen, procuring funding through various different outlets.

It is often said that entrepreneurs are a special breed, as they possess both the ability to innovate in terms of either reinventing an existing concept, or creating a wholly new concept, as well as the drive to physically realise the idea. I think deep down, every individual has a dream to be remembered for creating something brilliant. However the inevitable obstacles that lie between the now and the establishment of a successful entrepreneurial venture are more than just a deterring factor. Having had the idea drilled into my head early on that job stability is good and money equates to happiness, it is difficult to fathom diving head first into a plan that may not equate future returns.

Although the fear of failure prevents many from moving forward with their ideas, nothing great ever came out of no risk taken.

A recent post that I’ve read in which fellow classmate Fidele Armstrong wrote highlighted the effective marketing of individual brands (such as Pampers, Mr. Clean, and Crest just to name a few) all belonging to Procter & Gamble. I would certainly agree that when one considers those brands, there are absolutely no ties established in my head relating them to each other, let alone all back to Procter & Gamble. I would argue that such is clearly the sign of effective product diversification, not simply brand positioning. I say this because all the above brands are clearly selling different products, hence by default, the brands would be positioned differently to consumers, and occupy a different level of a household’s consumption (if any) or demand. However, despite the technical disagreement I hold in regards to Fidele’s original post, I would agree that this is clearly a profitable strategy that Procter & Gamble has adopted to appeal to as many markets as possible. In fact, its individual brands have been positioned quite well and are easily recognizable within its respective markets (Pampers in the diaper industry, Crest in toothpaste, and Mr. Clean in household cleaning).