Recently Apple launched their iPad 2 which Steve Jobs appearing briefly from his medical leave. An article from cnbc.com stated that "Shares of Apple jumped immediately following reports of Job's presence." Now I know Steve Jobs is a god among men when it comes to the technological development field but I personally think he is vastly over idolized. Since his sick leave, Apple stocks have dropped slightly but once he made his appearance they jumped back up and even rose. This, to me, seems slightly dramatic. There's much more to Apple than just Steve Jobs, and just because he is ill or makes some sort of appearance does not mean that there is either trouble or some sort of magnet for investment. I personally think this is a pattern seen throughout various companies, Microsoft for example.
Now my question is are these corporate and technological geniuses over idolized? Or are people not looking past the face of these companies?
_______________________
I agree that some Excutives, expecvially in the technology sectors, are over idolized for their genius. I think that it is unhealthy for a company to get their customers that dependent on a face in order to feel confortable about the company. In the instance of Apple, because the stockholders are so dependent on Steve Jobs, when he isn't around the company takes a stock hit. I think it would be smarter for companies to put the value of the company more on the performance and products than on the appearance of one executive.
In the same breath I think the way Steve Jobs has become iconic in the tech world has helped Apple while he is there. Whenever Apple is about to release a new product there seems to be a tangible buzz of excitement. I think this is in part due to how Steve Jobs represents the company. However I think it is important for Apple, as well as other companies to understand that a company can outlive a man, and a backup plan is important if they want to maintain the success they have been seeing.
Friday, April 1, 2011
Wednesday, March 30, 2011
Blog A: Urban Superstores
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/30/business/30aldi.html?_r=1&adxnnl=1&ref=global&adxnnlx=1301500815-E5ThXRfpwS11g3tnExpvow
The above New York Time’s article is discussing Wal-Mart’s difficulty in setting up a store in NYC. It is also highlighting a newer discount retailer, Aldi, and their quick and smooth entrance into the market, specifically NYC.
The article mentions Walmart as the bad guy. The author seems to suggest that Walmart is having trouble entering the urban market because they are seen as a big, bad, bully that no one wants to mess with. On the other hand, german based Aldi, is working with the city and the private owners of the leased buildings. The close relationship that Aldi has created has made there entrance into the market easier.
Lately Aldi has been focusing on its city market. When Aldi first started it was about 25 stores in 1976. Recently they have expanded to over 250 and they have primarily focused on urban areas. I think this is smart because of the lack of “superstores” in urban areas. Due to lack of space, urban areas provide problems for Walmart. However, Aldi provides a more specific inventory to their customers allowing them to provide many items in a smaller space. Not only does this allow them to move in to urban areas, but it also keeps costs down.
Aldi focuses on providing cheap, non-branded, specific groceries to its customers. It has a fraction of Walmart’s inventory yet they claim to meet the needs of the everyday shopper. My question is, Will Aldi remain successful? Is the urban/city market the one to go for? What does this mean for Walmart?
The above New York Time’s article is discussing Wal-Mart’s difficulty in setting up a store in NYC. It is also highlighting a newer discount retailer, Aldi, and their quick and smooth entrance into the market, specifically NYC.
The article mentions Walmart as the bad guy. The author seems to suggest that Walmart is having trouble entering the urban market because they are seen as a big, bad, bully that no one wants to mess with. On the other hand, german based Aldi, is working with the city and the private owners of the leased buildings. The close relationship that Aldi has created has made there entrance into the market easier.
Lately Aldi has been focusing on its city market. When Aldi first started it was about 25 stores in 1976. Recently they have expanded to over 250 and they have primarily focused on urban areas. I think this is smart because of the lack of “superstores” in urban areas. Due to lack of space, urban areas provide problems for Walmart. However, Aldi provides a more specific inventory to their customers allowing them to provide many items in a smaller space. Not only does this allow them to move in to urban areas, but it also keeps costs down.
Aldi focuses on providing cheap, non-branded, specific groceries to its customers. It has a fraction of Walmart’s inventory yet they claim to meet the needs of the everyday shopper. My question is, Will Aldi remain successful? Is the urban/city market the one to go for? What does this mean for Walmart?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)