Newfound source for loan collateral – Handbags!

http://www.forbes.com/sites/ceciliarodriguez/2013/08/18/the-latest-loan-collateral-hermes-chanel-gucci-dior-and-vuitton-handbags/#63ac4031348f

In the Forbes article by Cecilia Rodriguez, she discusses a new source of collateral that you can use to be able to take out a loan. This source is luxurious designer handbags such as, Louis Vuitton, Hermès & Chanel etc.

As most people, no matter how wealthy they are, tend to at some point in their lives take out a loan for something. Usually this tends to be for things such as houses where banks can reclaim the house if the person, who was granted the loan, is unable to pay it back.

It is now becoming a new trend amongst (mostly) women, to use their designer handbags as collateral when taking out a loan.

Since many handbags of designer brands can have a very high value, depending on how old they are (vintage) and if they are part of a very exclusive collection, using them as collateral is a clever and innovative way of handling your personal financial business.

Looking at this through the eyes of the person taking out a loan, it is a good alternative to using your house as collateral.

If you have been unable to pay back your loan and the bank is reclaiming the collateral, you would most likely be happier losing a handbag than losing your house.

However, even though some designer handbags may be of high worth, their value can vary drastically which means that using them as collateral may not always be the best idea. Another risk is that, even though the bank would have had it valued beforehand and ensured that there is a market for it, there is nothing that guarantees that the bag would not be damaged is some way or even stolen.

This could be a problem if it would happen that the bank would need to reclaim it and the person with the loan would have no way of paying it back and would be stuck with a big problem that would be hard for an individual to solve.

To conclude, banks are always analysing facts and making sure it is a relatively low risk to granting people loans. This would ensure that the bank is aware of risks and possible outcomes of having handbags used as collateral and if a person is granted a loan, the bank is confident that this is a safe option.

As for the individual taking a loan, they may feel a lot more comfortable taking a loan in the first place if they are allowed to use their handbags.

All in all, as a new innovative way of having collaterals for loans this is a good idea if risks can be minimised as both parts gains from it. The bank has a customer who is comfortable with the terms of the loan, and the bank is maintaining business.

Bibliography:

http://www.forbes.com/sites/ceciliarodriguez/2013/08/18/the-latest-loan-collateral-hermes-chanel-gucci-dior-and-vuitton-handbags/#63ac4031348f

http://www.spentmydollars.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/bags-2Bmust-2Bhave-2Btop-2Bdesigner-2Bhandbags-2Bfashion-2Btrends-2B2015-2B2016-2Bwomens-2Bbags-2Bgivenchy-2Bsaint-2Blaurent-2Bfendi-2Bchanel-2Bmichael-2Bkors-2Bdior-2Bbalenciaga-2Bit-2Bmust-2Bhave-2Bbags-2B.png 

All Publicity is Good Publicity

http://www.forbes.com/sites/maddieberg/2016/02/07/super-bowl-50-twitter-reacts-to-coldplay-beyonce-and-bruno-mars/#7197b3d55c65

This article from Forbes discusses how the Super Bowl has helped artists, Coldplay, Beyoncé and Bruno Mars, increase their sales by being the main topic in social media such as twitter.

After performing during half time at the Super Bowl bands and artists tend to have a drastic increase in sales of their albums.

As the Super Bowl 50 was watched by 167 million viewers[1] it is a great way for the artists to promote themselves and extend their products life cycles as the sales of their records were increased after performing at the game.

The artists were the topic that was all over Twitter which is a great marketing and promotion benefit for Coldplay, Beyoncé and Bruno Mars as their names were spread by word-of-mouth and it did not cost them anything. As they are not the ones promoting themselves and they are only the topic of conversation they do not lose any money to investing in advertisements etc. whilst still benefitting from it.

The Super Bowl is part of American culture and has high viewing figures every year. The atmosphere the people have when watching the game is hyped and excited, which leads to the potential customers of artists’ music more inclined to purchase the products in this state of mind.

During this event it is also very convenient to do market research, as well as real time marketing, as most of the people watching are discussing the topic on social media such as Facebook and Twitter for example. Companies (or artists etc.) can then easily access people’s opinions and use this to their advantage and use it in their market research on how to promote their products or where and how to advertise to increase sales.

Whether the opinions expressed are positive or negative the artists are in the spotlight and this often leads to people who are unfamiliar with the artists and their music to listen to it and read about them. This is what then leads to new customers, and for those who are already loyal customers to perhaps purchase more things connected to the bands or artists.

---

[1] http://money.cnn.com/2016/02/08/media/super-bowl-50-ratings/

Perceptual Map - Shoes

There is a lot of various shoe brands out there, which is a great thing for those of us who love shoes! One thing that is not so great, is that there isn't really a brand that sells high quality shoes at a good price...

That is where I can see a potential gap in the market. If I was to start producing shoes I would attempt to make shoes of high quality that are both nice looking, but most importantly of high quality at an affordable price.

Cars and Climate Change

http://www.forbes.com/sites/neilwinton/2015/12/09/vw-shares-jump-as-fuel-consumption-problem-appears-overstated/ 2015-12-14

Volkswagen had a scandal concerning their business since they had put devices into their cars that made the cars show different emission statistics than the actual facts. This lead to a sudden drop in sales of their cars and their shares in October this year.[1]

The article linked at the top of the page concerns the announcement made by Volkswagen in December saying that the number of cars where the emission levels were falsified were far fewer than first claimed. (Less than 40 000 rather than 800 000)[2]

This lead to a fast increase of returning customers seeing as the cars emission levels were what Volkswagen had first determined that they would be and could be sold without worry about extensive pollution.

As global warming is a major issue affecting the world today governments and organisations such as the EU are trying to find ways to decrease the release of carbon dioxide.[3] Due to these regulations businesses are forced to change some of their products and how they are produced, especially when it comes to cars.

The motor industry have to be on top of recent technology and must also carry on developing new more efficient tech that does not release any pollutants that toxify the air we breathe.

Customers are today very much aware of how pollution effects the environment and are there for interested in buying products, including cars, that are environmental friendly and therefore looking for the best alternative suited for this demand.

Apart from customers, governments (as mentioned earlier) are carrying out restrictions and setting up goals concerning fuel emissions.

Both these factors affect how car companies are able to sell their products. It also means that those type of businesses do not have the same freedom to develop their products as they have had previously but are now forced to follow certain guidelines set out by society.

It clearly shows how important the customer needs affect the path a business follows and how todays matter concerning the environment have a strong effect on a business success.

---

[1] http://www.theguardian.com/business/2015/nov/17/vw-european-sales-slip-after-emissions-scandal 2015-12-14

[2] http://www.forbes.com/sites/neilwinton/2015/12/09/vw-shares-jump-as-fuel-consumption-problem-appears-overstated/ 2015-12-14

[3] http://ec.europa.eu/clima/citizens/eu/index_en.htm 2015-12-14

Rivalry of Pharmaceutical Companies

http://www.forbes.com/sites/simonking/2015/05/28/why-pfizers-pursuit-of-astrazeneca-continues-to-shape-the-outlook-of-both-companies/

The article concerns the interest the pharmaceutical company Pfizer had in purchasing another major company, AstraZeneca.  An issue in the article is the prospect of the companies’ futures. Another around certain experimental treatments one of the companies is pursuing and how that will affect the business.

Seeing as the issue raised was concerning the purchase of AstraZeneca by Pfizer, such an outcome would have a huge impact on different stakeholders. A purchase of a company differs from a merger of companies. Had AstraZeneca accepted Pfizer’s bid of £63 billion[1], a reorganization would have been very likely. This may have led to a vast amount of AstraZeneca’s employees losing their jobs due to Pfizer already having most of the workforce that is needed.

AstraZeneca is a company owned by shareholders[2] and they are therefore highly concerned when a bid for the company is offered. It would affect their share in the company because it could either rise or fall drastically, and it would be hard to foresee which outcome it would be.

The competition between Pfizer and AstraZeneca is an external factor. Pfizer’s strategy for their business was to try to purchase a significant competitor. Though this did not go through, it still increased Pfizer’s share price with 16% this past year[3]. It was increased because people believed that Pfizer’s strategy in expanding and becoming larger is a long-term goal that will work in favour for the company.

This external factor has affected AstraZeneca in that the long term goals were in focus again and the CEO had to spell out clear specific targets to show they were moving forward as a business. There would otherwise have been a risk that another company would make a bid to purchase AstraZeneca. Since last year when Pfizer made a bid, AstraZeneca’s share price has risen 6% which is nowhere near the increase that Pfizer has had.[4]

There are several internal factors that may have been effected by the external threat a proposed bid like the above may have led to.

Ethics by the workforce may have been lowered as a new company would have introduced new employment guidelines and terms of employment.

The development of scientific research and drugs meaning the need to keep moving forward, may now be better and faster. Acquisition of a highly scientific company may have led to the progression of research of both companies combined and a higher knowledge of technology.

Another factor that may have been affected is the socio-cultural factor. AstraZeneca has a higher market share in Sweden than Pfizer for instance so they would probably have managed to expand faster into more markets seeing as the two companies have higher sales in different markets.

A year later, the acquisition of AstraZeneca by Pfizer never happened. Yet both companies have declared what long-term goals they have set for the future so a clear strategy has made it possible for each business to gain from it in different ways. It also shows how an external factor may force the people in charge of a company to act quickly, and the responsibility a CEO has, to make sure that a business maintains a competitive edge.

Bibliography:

http://www.astrazeneca.se/aktieagare  

http://www.forbes.com/sites/simonking/2015/05/28/why-pfizers-pursuit-of-astrazeneca-continues-to-shape-the-outlook-of-both-companies/  

http://33.media.tumblr.com/93df595e095e11e6ccb22dfbb64ec1dd/tumblr_inline_noloauA26U1tsdaxg_540.gif

---

[1] http://www.forbes.com/sites/simonking/2015/05/28/why-pfizers-pursuit-of-astrazeneca-continues-to-shape-the-outlook-of-both-companies/ 2015-11-15

[2] http://www.astrazeneca.se/aktieagare 2015-11-15

[3] http://www.forbes.com/sites/simonking/2015/05/28/why-pfizers-pursuit-of-astrazeneca-continues-to-shape-the-outlook-of-both-companies/ 2015-11-15

[4] http://www.forbes.com/sites/simonking/2015/05/28/why-pfizers-pursuit-of-astrazeneca-continues-to-shape-the-outlook-of-both-companies/ 2015-11-15

http://33.media.tumblr.com/93df595e095e11e6ccb22dfbb64ec1dd/tumblr_inline_noloauA26U1tsdaxg_540.gif (picture) 2015-11-15

Sharing is caring?

Most people who enjoy listening to music probably appreciate Spotify. Spotify is a place where you can stream music online for free (if you also accept advertisement) or for a monthly fee (without ads). It has tons of music available for everyone through top lists, genres and other tools that you can just click and start listening to the type of music that suits you.

I don’t think anyone would argue that Spotify is a great place to easily access quality music and it would therefore be very good for Spotify’s customers. But is it ethical towards the artists who work incredibly hard on creating their music to get so little in return?

From one stream of a song on Spotify the artist earns 0.006 to 0.0084 dollars[1]. An album may consist of about 15 songs and if you listen to each song on that album through Spotify it would mean that the band or artist earns $0.126 whilst buying a whole album, on iTunes for example, can costs $12.99 (Taylor Swift, 1989)[2].

The artists who do not focus as much on making money as on making music and sharing it with the wold would most likely agree with the Spotify users, that it is a great way to be able to listen to music wherever you are.

Some would argue that it is fair seeing as the artists still earn royalties and the alternative would have been piracy for a lot of people which would have been illegal and earned the artist nothing, it would basically be stealing. Piracy is a growing problem within the music industry so having a streaming tool that still generates money, even if it is less than they perhaps should get, may therefore be considered a good thing. And what generates most money for artists in general is still touring and playing gigs. Even so, there are artists who has chosen not to share their music on Spotify, The Beatles for example. Arguments for this may be such as the artists have a profession and as such they should be respected for it which also means being properly paid.

Spotify has therefore taken music lovers into consideration and thought about the need people have for music and for their sake made a tool for them to use. They can either listen to music for free but also having to listen to ads, or pay a certain amount of money every month without ads.[3]

The users have the possibility to listen for free, whilst the artists and bands still get paid.

The people who work at Spotify take both consumers and stakeholders (the bands/artists) in consideration when working and developing their company. The stakeholders get to share their products efficiently whilst the consumers have cheap and easy access to it. Spotify is trying to achieve a balance between the two parties so that everyone can appreciate the work created and be happy about it.

There is no doubt that Spotify makes a lot of money from this huge industry. But there is still a matter of opinion whether it is ethically correct or not to share the music in this way seeing as the artists are being “ripped off” their rightful earnings.

---

[1] http://time.com/3590670/spotify-calculator/ 2015-10-10

[2] https://itunes.apple.com/us/album/1989/id907242701?v0=WWW-NAUS-ITSTOP100-ALBUMS&l=en&ign-mpt=uo%3D4 2015-10-10

[3] http://www.spotifyartists.com/spotify-explained/ 2015-10-10

https://www.google.se/search?q=spotify&espv=2&biw=1366&bih=643&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0CAcQ_AUoAmoVChMI2qD1lcK6yAIVCfByCh0T0QCt#tbm=isch&q=spotify+user&imgrc=lR24atIxHb7j-M%3A 2015-10-11

Who says My Little Pony is only for little girls?

http://www.forbes.com/sites/laurenorsini/2015/09/25/hasbro-cashes-in-on-bronies-with-100-plus-my-little-pony-toy-line/

Increased sales of My Little Pony, amongst adults surprisingly enough, has led to Hasbro Inc. and Integrity Toys Inc. creating a collectible series of exclusive My Little Pony toys meant for adults.[1] Bronies[2], which is the collective term of male fans who are interested in Hasbro’s “My Little Pony: Friendship is Magic” series. This is quite controversial in today’s world, considering the gender-roles we are used to. But now, there is a large market amongst, mainly, middle aged men who enjoy playing with colourful toy horses.

The private sector is the category that Hasbro Inc. is classed as. Hasbro Inc. is a private, global company that produces toys, films and games amongst other things.[3] They sell their products all over the world. And is a multimillion dollar company.[4]

The fad of “Bronies” could possibly be sprung from people having access and opportunity to play with things they never had the chance to do before. Due to all stereotypes and gender roles, there are a lot of things a lot of people never got to experience during their childhood. Only now have grown men had the chance to play with little toy horses, an opportunity they never had as young boys. Even a special collection of “<3 My Little Pony” has been created just for those who never had the chance to play with this type of toy as children.

Hasbro Inc. have deepened their understanding of ethics. This has lead them to now also produce toys for adults in their business that works against the gender roles of society.

Hasbro Inc. have advertised their company through a film called “Ted2” which is a film for adults which features the Hasbro Inc. logo and it is used to promote Hasbro Inc. toys amongst adults. Mostly for getting people to buy things for their own kids or siblings, but now perhaps also to buy toys for their own enjoyment.

Hasbro Inc. has strategically advertised the “<3 My Little Pony” collection amongst adults. And in a similar and more general way, the company and the products they make have been advertised through the film “Ted2”.

Hasbro Inc. is a well-established business that is known in most parts of the world and has some of the top sales of toys for children. Now with the rapid increase of fans of “My Little Pony” the company has also been able to expand their sales even further, to an even wider consumer group. Whilst at the same time as increase sales, also fight against the norms of society.

---

[1] http://www.forbes.com/sites/laurenorsini/2015/09/25/hasbro-cashes-in-on-bronies-with-100-plus-my-little-pony-toy-line/ 2015-09-30

[2] http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Bronie 2015-10-02

[3] http://www.hasbro.com/corporate-2/documents/Corporate_Fact_Sheet_May_2015.pdf 2015-10-05

[4] http://www.hasbro.com/worldwide/worldwide-languages.cfm 2015-10-05