Blackberry Buyout

Written by: Alex Johnson

One of the most competitive markets around today is the technological market. Whether it’s phones, computers, or anything in between, the race to create the most appealing and innovative technology is just beginning. BlackBerry is a company that once sold smartphones so popular that they were referred to as “CrackBerrys.” So what happened to the once popular smartphone producers?

In the past few years, BlackBerry has failed to keep up with the technological advances of Apple and Samsung. It seems as though their prospects are continually dwindling, with their share in the smartphone market shrinking from 4.9% to 2.9% in just a year. Blackberry has taken the spot of 4th place behind other popular phones such as Androids, iPhones, and Microsoft.  “Blackberry really missed the whole transformation of the smartphone,” Segan said. Apple and Android phones continued to grow and become more and more popular, but Blackberry failed to release an really new or “exciting” hardware for its customers, ultimately causing its shares to decrease.

Blackberry recently released the Z10, their newest smartphone, in January of 2013. The reviews of the new phone were mostly positive, but there was nothing really new about the phone.  It mirrored most other smartphones on the market, and therefore failed to change the company’s prospects.

The fate of Blackberry resembles a recent situation that occurred with another well known company—Dell. Dell was once a powerhouse in the world of PCs. “It’s made-to-order model was no longer viewed as useful for consumers, while tablet computers and smartphones sapped demands for PCs” (Blackberry, Meet Dell). Dell was once the the number one PC maker in the entire world, and they have now fallen to number three. Both Dell and Blackberry can attribute some of their downfall to Apple and its increasingly new and inventive products. In 2009, BlackBerry had nearly 50% of the market of operating systems in smartphones, according to IDC. It now has 2.1% (Blackberry, Meet Dell). Dell faced a buyout, the purchase of controlling interests in a corporation by another corporation, after many failed attempts to return to the top of the market.

Blackberry faces a similar fate to Dell, but considerably worse. Blackberry’s continuing efforts to pull themselves out of their never-ending slump just were not working for the company. They attempted to “run a rapid auction and have a buyer identified in a few months” (Blackberry, Meet Dell). The company has announced a $4.7 billion buyout offer. Many investors are tentative towards the offer because they aren’t sure if they see a future in the company.

"Taking BlackBerry private doesn't solve the fundamental problems," said Ovum analyst Jan Dawson in a report. "It's likely that BlackBerry will be out of the device business entirely by the middle of next year. Unless Fairfax plans to radically change or accelerate BlackBerry's strategy, it's unlikely to be able to turn the company around.” (Blackberry Gets Buyout Offer).

So what is the fate of Blackberry? We may not know now, but let this company and other companies like Dell be a lesson to the rest of the market. If you plan on staying around, competition is key. In this world of ever changing technology, businesses must keep up with the world transforming around them and continually challenge their competition. Consumers will always want the newest and most interesting product.

" BlackBerry, Meet Dell: A Comparison of 2013′s Tech Buyouts - MoneyBeat - WSJ." WSJ Blogs - WSJ. N.p., n.d. Web. 24 Sept. 2013. <http://blogs.wsj.com/moneybeat/2013/09/23/blackberry-meet-dell-a-comparison-of-2013s-tech-buyouts/>.

"BlackBerry Gets Buyout Offer, But Does Firm Have A Future? - Yahoo Finance."Yahoo Finance - Business Finance, Stock Market, Quotes, News. N.p., n.d. Web. 24 Sept. 2013. <http://finance.yahoo.com/news/blackberry-gets-buyout-offer-does-224700969.html>.

"BlackBerry surges in buyout prospects."USA TODAY: Latest World and US News - USATODAY.com. N.p., n.d. Web. 24 Sept. 2013. <http://www.usatoday.com/story/tech/2013/08/13/blackberry-surges-in-buyout-prospects/2648001/>.

News, Bloomberg. "Analysts: BlackBerry problems spiral toward doom." Standard-Examiner - Top of Utah News & Multimedia. N.p., n.d. Web. 24 Sept. 2013. <http://www.standard.net/stories/2013/09/23/analysts-blackberry-problems-spiral-toward-doom>.

How Groceries Stores Manipulate You

How Groceries Stores Manipulate You

Written By :  Courtney Van Dusen 

Have you every realized the design of the grocery store? Wonder why the soda brands are next to the chips, or why gum and candy bars are placed right next to the checkout area? These are only a few of the many tactics grocery stores use in order to persuade consumers to buy more than what they intended to.

When checking out items, how many times do children ask their parents for a Kit Kat bar, or any kind of candy that lies right in front their faces? The items placed in front of the counter are called impulse items, these are the things people do not need but feel as if, “Oh it is only a dollar or so, nothing hurt”, but these little impulses build into a hefty profit for the store. Impulse buys are what grocery stores go off of when designing and placing specific items in to it. Another example is the placement of flowers or the bakery in the front of some stores, by using your senses  of sight (seeing the colorful flowers) and smell (fresh baked bread and cookies), this allows for the consumer to at least think about buying these  delectable products placed oh so perfectly in front of them.

Video: http://youtu.be/NZca5-bkKYw

Other procedures used are ones that include two different products, but they are often consumed together. Soda and chips are a great example for this.  “A team of researchers, including Coleman Chair Professor in Marketing Venkatesh Shankar” looked as the sales of chips and soda over 2.5 years and within 180 different stores. After moving the chips an aisle closer toward the soda, both sales increased by 0.7 percent and after moving the item farther away from the soda aisle, the sales decreased about 1.4 percent. Lastly, after placing the chips and the sodas in the same aisle, and facing each other, sales of both items increased to a 9.2 percent. These percents prove that the grocery store, and how they present the produce, can manipulate consumers into buying more than needed. Also, these increases in profit are common with a price-cut promotion just without any loss in profit, so basically, it is unnecessary to cut any prices on any product or service in order for customers to buy more.

This information can not only help profits for stores but manufactures for all of their revenues. Expressing how integrated marketing of certain items, such as soda and chips can increase sales leading to certain companies to own products in multiple categories. A company that is familiar to most and follows by this idea is PepsiCo, owner of Pepsi beverages and Frito-Lays snacks.

The typical factors that influence the purchasing of products are the demand by the consumers and the supply of the company, but the effect of placements and sense stimulants are big causes as well. By placing impulse and commonly purchased items in specific areas of the grocery store, sales are able to increase, and consumers will leave with more than proposed.

Works Cited

"Five Ways Grocery Stores Try to Trick You | Rodale News." Rodale News. N.p., n.d. Web. 1 Oct. 2013. <http://rodalenews.com/supermarkets-and-healthy-food>.

Houston, Chrystal. "   Store shelf strategy | Mays Business Online." Mays Business Online. N.p., n.d. Web. 1 Oct. 2013. <http://Maysbusiness.tamu.edu/index.php/store-shelf-strategy/>.

Water Scarcity

Olivia Marrero

A problem on the rise in  not only in the United States but also around the world is water scarcity. One would think about how much water there is on our plant and ask how we have a water scarcity. Only 2% of the warts water is freshwater, the the others 98% is ocean water. Some random facts about water scarcity are: The Ogallala Aquifer is being drained at a rate of approximately 800 gallons per minute. Right now, the United States uses approximately 148 trillion gallons of fresh water a year, and there is no way that is sustainable in the long run. Approximately 40 percent of all rivers in the United States and approximately 46 percent of all lakes in the United States have become so polluted that they are no longer fit for human use and every 8 seconds, somewhere in the world a child dies from drinking polluted water.

A quarter of the world’s people live in areas characterized by physical water scarcity. Looking at all these facts, the question pops up, “What is the government doing about this water problem?" As of right now the government is doing nothing about it this problem. Instead the govern ment desires to shift its attention on other things like the war in Syria or the ever increasing debt that the Unites States has. With so many other problems the government needs to desire wheather to take the water scarcity problem under there belts and come up with a plan about what they plan on doing. Water is extremely valube and with out it who knows what would happened, possibly WWIII. Every living thing needs water making it the most important aspect of life. The government could do a number of things about water shortage. But there are many people that believe that the government should not get involved because there already in control of so much.

Many believe that the government already has way too much control over everything we Americans do. That the government toys with us Americans like puppets. Personally, I think that the government needs  to do something about the water shortages in the United States. There are many options to choose from when considering what the government can do. One option would be putting on regulations on how much water people can use according to where they live and how many people live in there house. This sounds ridiculous but it is just one way that the government could step in. The most important thing that the government should do is build water cleaning plant around the United States to help out with the shortage, cleaning the polluted water making it into clean drinking water. Is the government doing enough to make sure that the United States conserving the amount of water out race will need to last a life time.

http://www.infowars.com/30-facts-about-the-coming-water-crisis-that-will-change-the-lives-of-every-person-on-the-planet/

http://science.howstuffworks.com/environmental/earth/geophysics/question157.htm

http://ge.geglobalresearch.com/blog/water-scarcity/

http://macaulay.cuny.edu/eportfolios/tomkiewiczs10/files/2010/04/Drought-Graph.jpg

Robots Taking our Jobs?

By Kelly Kempen

Many Americans love to use computers. Their main function is to make life easier for us right? Well, with new innovations and technology being thought up by the hour, should we worry about computers taking over the world? No, I’m not talking about a crazy i-Robot situation where they malfunction and destroy a city or anything; I am talking about jobs.

Many Americans have been replaced by robots in the workplace already, as it is sometimes cheaper to pay the maintenance fee of a machine rather than the income for a hundred workers. Yes, machines may be more efficient at putting together Barbie dolls, but what about the factory workers that lost their jobs because a machine was better than them. Could the use of robots in the workplace set the economy off balance? The answer is yes. Since we are a free market-mixed economy in the United States, the “unemployment problem” is not only the fault of the “person running the country” (cough, cough) like politicians like to throw around, but also the people running companies. These companies, by hiring robots instead of people, reduce your chances of getting a job, creating a larger gap between eligible candidates, and job opportunities. 

Hundreds of companies are inventing new systems and programs to replace the average Joe. Jobs we once thought could never be replaced; are being, or on the verge of being, taken over by robots. Obviously, the most commonly known of these replacements is a factory worker, but they are not alone. Odd jobs can be replaced too. For example, a few hospitals have already installed robot pharmacists who can fill out hundreds of thousands of prescriptions without error, Google is working on a self-driven car; which means even a truck driver could be out of luck in the near future, and as I was simply researching for this blog post, there was an advertisement for a “virtual receptionist” aimed at local businesses. Don’t be fooled by the thought that only “low-class” jobs can be replaced, even lawyers, people who pay thousands upon thousands of dollars for college degrees, could be replaced by robots who can read and decode law texts fast and cheaper than human beings.

Would it really be better for every company to produce goods using machines and not hiring even a few people? No, because if every single company did this, then the economy would crash since the firms would have all of these goods, but no one to buy them. If we don’t have people getting a regular income from a job- even if it’s just a measly factory job- there would be no circular flow of money; and it would all be stuck in the firms because the households would not have money to spend on the businesses’ products. Without a flow of money, an economy cannot run, and the most fundamental element of an economy is the people. Without people no such economy would exist; there would be no currency or trade-offs, or value of product. We must not forget why the economy is there in the first place, even when times are tough.   

• 5, 2013 there will be 1.2 million industrial robots working worldwide -- that's one robot for every, 000 people, and founder of How Stuff Works. "Jobs Replaced By Robots - Business Insider." Business Insider. N.p., n.d. Web. 24 Sept. 2013. <http://www.businessinsider.com/9-jobs-that-are-already-being-replaced-by-robots-2011-3?op=1>.
• "Almost half the jobs Americans thought were safe will soon be done by robots – Quartz." Quartz. N.p., n.d. Web. 24 Sept. 2013. <http://qz.com/127454/almost-half-the-jobs-americans-thought-were-safe-will-soon-be-done-by-robots/>.
• "Andrew McAfee: Are droids taking our jobs? - YouTube." YouTube. N.p., n.d. Web. 24 Sept. 2013. <http://youtu.be/WMF-Z74C1QE>.

http://qz.com/127454/almost-half-the-jobs-americans-thought-were-safe-will-soon-be-done-by-robots/

http://www.businessinsider.com/9-jobs-that-are-already-being-replaced-by-robots-2011-3?op=1

Weighing the “Free Rider” Problem: The Costs and Benefits of a Command Economy

Written by: Jacob Stern 

Weighing the “Free Rider” Problem: The Costs and Benefits of a Command Economy

            The term “free rider” is most often found in reference to the failings of a completely market-driven economy. In the market economy, because of uncontrollable positive externalities, in a free market we may find that many necessary goods and services are un-provided for. However, it would seem that in the command economic system, the free rider problem becomes much more prevalent, because no one has incentive to work. In determining the most effective economic structure, the ultimate question is whether or not the benefits of having public goods controlled by the government outweigh the sacrifice of market freedom and flexibility of the market system.

            A free market economy is widely regarded as the optimal scenario, as deregulation allows for freedom to innovate and build a business. Because all individuals are acting in self interest, it is also a very efficient form of economics; people are incentivized to provide for their own wellbeing and standard of living. However, in some industries, there isn't enough profit-driven incentive to sustain necessary infrastructure. This is known as the free-rider problem. Some of the common industries in which the government steps in include internal improvement projects (i.e. roads), public education (university system), and the common defense. These are necessary for the government to take on because none of these are profitable for profit-driven businesses. They are unprofitable because the positive externalities are uncontrollable. For example, maybe 30% of the people of the U.S. decide they don’t want to have a department of defense. Well, the other 70% still need a military, and so it’s provided. But if this were to be taken on by a private company, it would be unprofitable because 30% of the populous still benefits in spillover from the other people’s purchase. There would be no incentive to pay for it. Because the maintenance of a military is widely regarded as a universal need, it is taken on by the government and we share the cost.

            A command economy has a similar structure to the scenario previously described. However, in this system, every single industry, good, and service is government supported. This works great in that every necessary service is supported. But there are far more problems with it than there are solutions. First, while every necessary service is taken care of, there will always be problems that the government “solves” that would be better left alone in the first place, problems that become black holes for money. Even in our economy, which is primarily a market economy, we run into these kinds of issues. It’s called pork barrel spending – when we throw “extras,” or incentives, into a bill to get it passed. This is a source of a great amount of public waste.  Secondly, the government, no matter how much money is funneled into it, can never be as efficient as a private enterprise. Due to the lack of incentive, the system of personal accountability upon which the market system is based, becomes much less and effective.

In a mixed economy, we have a nice balance of the command and market systems: we have the flexibility of a free market, but the government does step in and take control of broad scope issues. The balance of private wealth and private interest with government support for non-profitable industries allows for optimization of the economy through the stimulus of public funding (esp. infrastructure), but maintains measures (private property) to ensure incentives that foster entrepreneurship and innovation. A mixed economy is by far the most effective in facilitating industry, progress, and growth, while ensuring that essential “nonprofitable” functions remain funded.

"Free rider problem - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia." Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. N.p., n.d. Web. 22 Sept. 2013. <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_rider_problem>.

"Microeconomics- the Free Rider Problem." McGraw Hill. N.p., n.d. Web. 18 Sept. 2013. <highered.mcgraw-hill.com/sites/dl/free/0070969523/837456/MicroeconomicsSampleChap02.pdf>.

"The Free Rider Problem (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)." Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. N.p., n.d. Web. 22 Sept. 2013. <http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/free-rider/>.

The Effect of ObamaCare in America

Written by: Brittney Tongco

The Effect of ObamaCare in America

            To the impoverished, ObamaCare is seen as a blessing. To the economy, ObamaCare is seen as harm. With this controversial subject, there will never come a civil closure in which all parties, citizens, and individuals agree on one idea. Simply, people under the ObamaCare mostly experience the benefit of the doubt that taxpayers’ suffer.  Inevitably, the negatives outweigh the positives when it comes from the perspective of high-income earners and large businesses.

            From the standpoint of ObamaCare users and small businesses, ObamaCare provides a sense of relief. Millions that are uninsured, that cannot afford, are now exposed to health insurance. Not only does this cover seniors, ObamaCare provides coverage for children and young adults up to 26--who are still dependent on their parents. With this, it is as if Americans are treated equally, giving each individual the right to have health insurance and coverage for unexpected personal misfortunes. Not only does ObamaCare aid the sick, it helps provide preventative care, which does have the ability to keep those under ObamaCare out of the hospital for longer periods of time, meaning that the high costs of ObamaCare could have the possibility of going down. For small business, owners are aided with tax credits up to 50% of their employees’ health insurance premium costs, according to ObamaCare facts. ObamaCare can also be a huge relief for small business owners because many struggle providing health or any other kinds benefits to their workers. By sacrificing benefits, small businesses have a higher opportunity to grow and flourish—the marginal benefit outweighs the marginal cost.

            With higher-income earners and large businesses, ObamaCare has taken a negative toll as it primarily considers the welfare.  With impressions and stereotypes of the poor, it is thought that the impoverished are lazy and are contrary to progressing change. Keeping these thoughts in mind, clearly those with higher income see how unfair it is to provide for people who did not work as hard as they did. The top 2% of businesses and persons are required to pay extra taxes. But why pay more when you have worked hard for your success?  With ObamaCare booming and thriving and users living prosperous with the aid, large businesses consider the government too intervening. With ObamaCare collecting high taxes, businesses cannot flourish efficiently. There could even be a loss in business because they are not profiting. Instead of being a mixed but freer economy, businesses sense the movement to more of a mixed economy but with more command as the government interferes with a businesses growth, which leads to the overall growth of the economy.

Click here for a video on Obamacare's Impact on Business and the Economy.  

With such a vast gap between the rich and poor in America, there is no possible way in which all social classes can agree on one thing when it comes to business and health. When one class thrives for success, another class cascades down—a constant teeter-totter or a seesaw. Unless the gap is reduced or diminished, America will never come to a conclusion, leaving ObamaCare as a positive and a negative factor in the United States.

Citations:

"Howard Dean: Obamacare good for small businesses - YouTube." YouTube. N.p., n.d. Web. 24 Sept. 2013. <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ANirgiwXqqk>.

"ObamaCare: Pros and Cons of ObamaCare." ObamaCare Facts. N.p., n.d. Web. 24 Sept. 2013. <http://obamacarefacts.com/obamacare-pros-and-cons.php>.

"Obamacare's Impact on Businesses & the Economy - YouTube." YouTube. N.p., n.d. Web. 24 Sept. 2013. <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MLjxbG4rjHU>.

"The Pros of Obamacare -." ObamaCare - Truths, Myths and Lies of The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA). N.p., n.d. Web. 24 Sept. 2013. <http://obamacare.net/the-pros-of-obamacare/>.

"The Top Ten Worst Things in Obamacare | National Review Online." National Review Online. N.p., n.d. Web. 24 Sept. 2013. <http://www.nationalreview.com/critical-condition/304361/top-ten-worst-things-obamacare-grace-marie-turner>.


"Top 4 Reasons Obamacare Will Harm U.S. Competitiveness - Forbes." Information for the World's Business Leaders - Forbes.com. N.p., n.d. Web. 24 Sept. 2013. <http://www.forbes.com/sites/chrisconover/2012/10/25/top-4-reasons-obamacare-will-harm-us-american-competitiveness/>.

Economics Of the Coffee Industry

Economics Of the Coffee Industry

Written By Annika Schulz 

      

                It's the taste of peace and of excitement mixed into one drink. There is an odd feeling that goes along with the dark drink, lightened to the flavor our taste buds enjoy the most.  Coffee.  It's all about that coffee that wakes up most of America in the morning, brings people together for a conversation, lightens a person's day with that taste of adventure and readiness for the day to come, or the sip of caffeine to stretch the students strength for a long night of papers and studies. Either way, coffee is a major part of our society! It is a staple! It is also not a product made in the USA, but made overseas and imported into our nation.  America must take action and work with the people of these foreign nations in an effort to come to an agreement agreeable for all, or we may lose the import of quality coffee into our nation.

We bring in and import our precious beans from Brazil, Ethiopia, Columbia, Kenya, Guatemala, and other countries not listed here, and that is how we have running and thriving businesses like Starbucks.  Not only do we have Starbucks, but we must not forget about the small, and sweet coffee shops, and they use these imports because we cannot grow coffee very well here in the United States.  In these other countries of Central and South America, there are prime conditions for producing and growing these coffee beans.  In fact, this plant is very, very particular about where it grows -- and I didn't understand that before.  Also, each of the beans must be handpicked.  Only the ripe and best beans are used and picked for roasting and producing, and no machine could do that. This summer I went to Honduras and visited a coffee farm, and it became very real to me just how much work goes into making such a simple drink.

                There is much that could be said about how coffee is produced, and how much effort must actually be put into making it, but I will not bore you.  Simply though, understand that it is a big process.  All of this effort though, is not rewarded with very big bucks though.  That's the problem, and farmers are complaining.  A solution must be find, or America’s favorite drink will be at risk. And not only that, but people of these other countries will be at risk because they will not have enough compensation for their work to support their family.

                So, in Brazil for example, they are producing a larger amount of coffee than was expected because the conditions were absolutely prime. Now, they have over-production, and there is not a growth in demand.  The result is that there is more supply than demand, and therefore the price goes down.   Such decrease in price and increase in production is  shown in the graph below.  In September now of this year,  it is all the way down to just over 110 cents/lb of coffee beans.  A little less than a year ago in October of 2012 the prices were up to 160 cents/lb.  Simply, this graph shows that the prices are steadily going down.  The beans must still be produced in the same fashion they were before, with the same amount of labor.  Now, the laborers are getting paid less, and there are strikes going up.

Over in these coffee growing countries, laborers are going on strikes! They are burning up these bags of coffee, and are demanding a change in the compensation they get for their work.  In the past, they were receiving much more money than now, and they would like to go back to how things were.  The price of coffee has gone down by a whole 70% in these past five years.   Yet perhaps though, not really how things were -- because the economy cannot really go backwards -- but rather, it is hopeful that a new arrangement will be made between the buyers in America, and the producers in these other countries.  But also, although we want to be fair to those workers in Central and South America, it would be rough if prices increased to produce coffee because that would mean that prices here in our local coffee shops would increase as well.  If prices increase, some people may not be able to afford it as much -- but, I do not think that the popularity of the drink will ever decrease.

                What will be the solution? Must America then buy all of that coffee that was produced so that the people of these countries will not be left stranded with too much coffee and not enough income for their work? Well, I don't know.  Perhaps you as readers could come up with a solution, or at least some ideas.