Painting a New Picture: Contemporary Perspectives on Culture by Business Today

p.10 I n te r v i ew wit h RON MEYER: Vice C hair m an o f N B C U N I VE R SAL

p.22 An ABSTRACT ART Market: Redefining Art as an INVESTMENT

p.31 Sh a red P R O F I T, Sh a red G R OWTH: H ow P ro f i t Sh a ri n g C a n Dec rea se INEQUALITY

p.4 4 In tervi ew with PATR I C K COLLIS ON : Fo u n d er | C EO of STRI P E

WORDS FROM THE

EDITOR A

s I sat down to write this letter, unsure of where to start, I browsed the Business Today archives and found that thirty years ago in the spring of 1975, we published an issue of the magazine titled “Business and Governments.” The cover is a relic of the age; a comical series of line drawings showing slide projectors, twisted phone cords, Uncle Sam, women clutching their purses as they enter the workplace. A corner is occupied by a chipper young man with very plaid trousers and a rather severe side part reading a newspaper simply titled “Wall Street.” Thirty years later, we are asking many of the same questions but in an entirely different context. The dynamic relationship between business and society remains a landscape in constant flux, but as students, we hold more power than ever before. Within this issue, we look at student entrepreneurs, investigating what has made them succeed in ways our 1975 editors could not have imagined. The office drama of twisted phone cords has been replaced by omniscient iPhones capable of tracking every step you take, literally. 1975’s downbeat cover story asking about détente, trade, and “conflicting ideologies” between the US and the U.S.S.R. is replaced by a generation of students eager to explore the world through internships instead of vacations, from Oslo to Cambodia. But this is not to say that the problems within the relationship between business and society that existed in 1975 have been completely eradicated. The question of how to help women advance in the workplace remains rightfully fresh on everyone’s lips. New technologies such as egg freezing certainly add dimension to the work/life balance debate, but we remain years away from true equality both in and out of the workplace. After all, in 1975 a woman earned 59 cents to a man’s dollar, and today’s number, 78 cents, leaves ample room for improvement. Beyond the boardroom, we have yet to figure out the best way to structure this intricate relationship politically. Business Today’s Executive Editor, Edward Xiao, and I spoke with Paul Volcker about the widespread reverberations of the Great Recession, the transformed regulatory environment within financial services, and what this means for all sectors of the population, from bankers to consumers. More generally, our discussion tried to address the “what happened” surrounding why government attracts fewer and fewer of the best and brightest college grads. His answer? It appears “stodgy and inefficient.” The business landscape is punctuated throughout by dichotomies – private and public, corporate and entrepreneurial, domestic and international – all looking to profit at the end of the day and increasingly realizing that they can do so while maintaining a social conscience. Perhaps this is because they see a benefit to the corporate morale, or perhaps it is because they have seen the countless studies explaining how millennials not only hold massive purchasing power, but also expect the companies they support to give back in some way or another. So then what’s next? As millennials age, and if this trend continues, have we reached an age in which businesses see conscience as profit? At Business Today, we believe that it is vitally important for our organization to foster communication between business leaders and the next generation of students entering the workplace. And as part of a generation with incredible economic clout, it is also incumbent upon us to use our spending power wisely. But this is impossible if we are not well informed. It thus stands that at Business Today, our most important job is to document, analyze, and illuminate our present, crystallize our past, and try our best to look into the facts of a future where our consumer conscience becomes our corporate mantra as we become the business leaders of tomorrow.

CHANDLER STERLING EDITOR-IN-CHEIF

FALL 2015 BUSINESS TODAY

The BT Team

Business Today is Americaâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s largest student-run publication. Published at Princeton University, the magazine is distributed at over thirty of the top schools in the country and has extensive online readership at our website, www.businesstoday.org. Business Today is dedicated to presenting the opinions of students and business leaders. By examining controversial issues facing our world and exploring life after college, we hope to help readers prepare for their futures. The magazine has been published by Princeton University undergraduates since 1968. VAASVI GOYAL President ERIC DOBOSH Director of Strategy CHANDLER STERLING Editor-in-Chief of Magazine ISABELA PENA-GONZALEZ Editor-in-Chief of Online Journal COLLEEN KANG International Conference Director KELLY ZHOU Startup Conference Director OLIVER QUINTERO Seminar Series Director KRISTEN MCNIERNEY Director of Membership & Outreach EMILY SPEYER Director of Web,Tech & Analytics MIHIKA KAPOOR Director of Design STERLING SIPP Director of Finance & Corporate Contacts DANIEL TORO Director of Investments Business Today Princeton University 48 University Place Princeton, NJ 08540 609.258.1111 magazine@businesstoday. Business Today is a publication of the Foundation for Student Communication, Inc.. FSC, a 501(c) (3) non-profit foundation, is run entirely by students for students at Princeton University. In addition to the magazine, FSC sponsors International and Regional Conferences held across the country that bring together students and executives to discuss the future of business. For more information, visit our website, www.businesstoday.org.

Photo by Allegra Dobson

CHANDLER STERLING Editor-in-Chief of Magazine EDWARD XIAO Executive Editor of Magazine ISABELA PENA-GONZALEZ Editor-in-Chief of Online Journal ISABEL CASSERLY Executive Editor of Online Journal MIHIKA KAPOOR Director of Design NATALIA PERINA Magazine Business Manager REBECCA FLEMING MATTHEW LUCAS ANNA POUSCHINE Editorial Board

Editorial

Ayesha Ahmed Hammad Aslam Isabel Casserley Jason Choe Jamie Downey Melissa Fulenwider Ali Hayat Tim Lau Seyi Lawal Mo Luo Lucas Mazzotti Carly Millenson Liz Ostertag David Sahar Katherine Shifke Isabel Shipman Christina Styer Tammy Tseng Amelia Zhou

Design

Kaitlin Demarest Hiba Elbuluk Elaine Fang Natalia Perina Cover design by Mihika Kapoor

FALL 2015 BUSINESS TODAY

CULTURE

PRODUCTI VIT Y

p.10 Interview w ith

p.10 Intervi ew wi t h

p .31 St andi ng OUT Early:

p.14 The ENG AGE ME NT o f

p.14 The ENGAGEMENT of

p .32 Co l l ege

PAUL VOLC KE R : Chair man of TH E VOLCKER AL L IANC E Business Lea d er s in POLITICS

p.16 Interview w ith

JOH N PHILL IPS: Chair man | C E O of ARI STOTLE , INC .

PAUL VOLCK ER: Chai rm an o f THE VOLCK ER ALLI ANCE Busi ness Leaders i n P OLI TI CS JOHN P HI LLI P S : Chai rm an | CEO o f ARI STOTLE, I NC.

p.2 2 Corporate PHILANTROPY

p.2 6 Interview w ith

p.2 6 Intervi ew wi t h

FALL 2015 BUSINESS TODAY

How Co l l ege S TUDENT S Are Rei nvent i ng ENTREP RENEURSHIP

ENTREP RENEU RSHIP: The NEXT GEN ERATION o f CEO’s

p.16 Intervi ew wi t h

p.22 Corporate PHILANTROPY

JACK H AR R IS: CEO | Presid en t of JA GEORG IA

MARKETPLACE

p.6 BT BITS: Ap p s for

STUDENT PERSPECTIVES

BT BITS

B U S I N E S S T O D A Y

p .34 I ntervi ew wi t h

JONNY COHEN : Fo under | CEO of GREENS HI ELDS

p .36 I ntervi ew wi t h

JACK HARRI S : CEO | P resi dent o f JA GEORGI A

BI LLY MCFARL AND: Fo under | CEO of MAGNI S ES

p . 4 0 E G G - F RE E Z I N G:

A S o lut io n to t h e W O R K/ L I F E B a l a n ce

p . 4 2 T H E RA N OS :

H ow O N E D R O P o f B lo o d C a n H ave a RIPPLE EFFECT

p . 4 4 I n te r v iew w i t h

R O B E R T J. H U G I N : Cha ir m a n | C E O o f CE LG E N E

START @ A STARTUP

GLOBAL PERSPECTIVES

OF CONTENTS

WOMEN IN BUSINESS

TA B L E

p.52 FITNESS St ar t u p s

p.64 BT EX P LORES

p.54 AC TIVIST INVESTORS

p.66 Net NEU TRAL ITY:

an d W hy Th ey M at ter

W h o WON?

p.56 Too G O OD to b e

FREE?

p.58 Ou r H IDDEN

P r ivate S ector : H ow a G RAIN STORAG E WAREH O U S E Tu r n ed in to a Th r iv in g Family Bu sin ess

FALL 2015 BUSINESS TODAY

BT BITS

BT BITS by Chance Melancon Today more than ever attracting and retaining talent is much easier said than done. Companies that aspire to become the employer of choice in Silicon Valley require an unwavering commitment to investing in great leaders and fostering a symbiotic workplace environment. We’ve compiled a list of the most recognizable tech companies with employee perks that range from sensible to truly ingenious.

It’s only fitting to begin with the company that not only offers the least amount of employee benefits but rather none at all. Instead of baconcovered-money (see Scopely) the folks at Ask.com hand the wheel over to its workers letting them decide the length of their vacation time. If a longer period of rest and relaxation is what it takes to boost productivity, perhaps other companies should take a few notes on what is working at Ask.com.

FALL 2015 BUSINESS TODAY

T h e highly touted search engine Google is a leader in employee happiness. They may offer so-called outrageous employee benefits but they offer nearly everything else. The legendary Googleplex, or Google HQ where some scenes in “The Internship” were filmed, is a recently graduated university alumni’s dream. The campus is stocked with everything a budding programmer or seasoned executive may want in a workplace: volleyball out back, in-house haircuts, swim-in-place pools, free gourmet meals, public art, organic gardens, professional masseuses, yoga and employees are even allowed to bring their adorable puppies to work.

EMPLOYEE PERKS IN THE

TECH INDUSTRY Scopely may not be as well known but as a leading touchscreen entertainment network many people are familiar with its products like Yahtzee with Buddies! and The Walking Dead Road to Survival. But then again the tactics they employ to draw in up-and-coming talent demand attention. With obvious popular cultural relevancy Scopely crowns new hires as “the most interesting engineers in the world” while providing them with a year’s worth of Dos Equis. The most appetizing aspect of this compensation package though isn’t the custom-made tuxedos, the self-portrait paintings nor the cigars, but a briefcase that shelters $11,000 of cash swaddled in strips of bacon. Yes, bacon.

AirBnB has been making significant headway in what is termed the sharing economy. For people who have a strong sense of wanderlust AirBnB allows them to get up close and personal with the culture of their respective travel destinations by ditching the traditional hotel and setting them up with a local host. AirBnb treasures profound experiences for its employees as well. AirBnB coupons let workers telecommute or essentially work from anywhere in the world. But employees have to first get there so AirBnB pays all of its employees $2,000 a year to travel anywhere their hearts so desire. At most companies people dress down for Fridays. At AirBnB though people dress up, especially for particular theme days such as when employees dressed up in the likeness of characters from Mad Men.

FALL 2015 BUSINESS TODAY

CULTURE

Superh

Comic Boo

FALL 2015 BUSINESS TODAY

heroes in Film

A 15-Year Industry Trend by Lucas Mazzotti

hen Christopher Reeves first donned the red tights in Richard Donnerâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s 1978 Superman, an entirely separate and unique genre for big-budget superhero movies emerged. Titles including Batman (1989), Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles (1990), Conan the Barbarian (1982), Flash Gordon (1982), and other popular comic book character hits (including multiple sequels and further installments in both the Batman and Superman series) rose to prominence and reflected the growing popularity of superheroism in film. However, the period beginning in 2000 and continuing up through the present day is, by far, where the superhero film industry has grown most significantly. In particular, Marvel and DC Comicsâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; blockbuster hits have generated record-breaking box office profits and ignited a sustained and intense interest in comic book superhero films, which have since become Hollywoodâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s greatest cash cows. This past year alone, 3 films based on Marvel comics hit the box-office: The Fantastic Four reboot, The Avengers 2: Age of Ultron and Ant-Man. Despite what many consider to have been an underwhelming response to The Avengers 2: Age of Ultron, it still became the 3rd highest domestically grossing superhero movie of all time (total unadjusted domestic lifetime gross) (Arnold). Next year, 7 major superhero films are scheduled for release; several additional films are scheduled for release each year until at least 2020. Where did this surge in popularity for superhero movies (in particular, for DC and Marvel comics characters) come from? How have studios profited from this development, and is it sustainable? What draws audiences to superhero movies? What are some of the criticisms that the industry has faced? Examining the rise of comic book superheroes in modern film reveals details about audience preference, technological development, the American geopolitical environment, the profitability of the film industry, dynamics of studio financing of big-budget films, and even cultural norms and biases. By studying the past 15 years of the superhero film genre, clues are revealed about where the industry is heading, and why studios are willing to put so much money into production of these films.

FALL 2015 BUSINESS TODAY

The first few successes, the MCU and the DCEU The modern superhero film trend was arguably jumpstarted by the wide and unexpected success of X-Men in 2000. This victory led the way for the successes of “Spider-Man,” a reboot of “Spider-Man,” a reboot of “Batman” and two reboots of “Superman” (“BLOG: Now Showing”). Subsequently, Marvel Studios formed and released Iron Man (2008). Iron Man’s release marked the beginning of an ambitious plan to formulate a continuous universe (Marvel Cinematic Universe, or MCU) stringing together all of its next major releases. The first ‘phase’ of Marvel Studios’ 3-part schedule also included The Incredible Hulk (2008), Iron Man 2 (2010), Thor (2011), Captain America: The First Avenger (2011) and culminated in Marvel’s The Avengers (2012). To date, The Avengers is the highest domestically grossing superhero movie of all time and fourth highest domestically grossing film of any genre, having earned $623 million in its domestic lifetime, and well beyond that figure globally (Arnold). The second phase of Marvel’s schedule spanned from 2013 to 2015 and included 6 new films, including sequels to Thor, Iron Man, Captain America and the Avengers. The third phase is set to commence next year and include an additional 11 films through the end of 2019. DC Comics has developed a similar schedule, planning to release 10 titles between next year and 2020. All of these films will be connected through the DC Extended Universe (or DCEU). How can these entertainment studios possibly have planned so far and so confidently in advance? The answer lies partly within the concept of the continuous universe. Nick Cannata-Bowman of The Cheat Sheet writes, “there’s little audiences love more than seeing characters from one movie interact with ones from another. It’s why The Avengers and Age of Ultron are some of the highest-grossing movies of all time, and explains the incredible popularity of the expanded DC superhero universe.” This is a strategy that makes audiences excited for the next installment of the franchise - a strategy that makes audiences willing to sit through 15 minutes of end-credits in order to see the 30 second clip at the very end that reveals a little bit more about the next film to come. Why we love superhero films The success of these movies, aside from using the interactions within the MCU and the DC universe, comes from the marketability of the characters they portray. Matthew McAllister writes, “Comic book materials attract a youthful moviegoing demographic, appeal to nostalgic older audiences, and offer thrills and well-defined archetypal characters, especially heroes who also have well-established track records for popularity,

FALL 2015 BUSINESS TODAY

licensing, and sequel potential” (Dittmer). These are characters who participate in plots with familiar elements. Usually they begin as some sort of Everyman, or, at the very least, someone with good character who the audience can sympathize with (an intellectually curious, well-to-do scientist Bruce Banner, an orphaned Bruce Wayne, a young outcast and subsequently newspaper-reporter Clark Kent). These characters discover or realize

It is the familiar but fantastic nature of the stories that makes them so popular, particularly with characters who already have well-developed reputations. their powers in some way, and then face trials as they fight for justice and the preservation of mankind. It is the familiar but fantastic nature of the stories that makes them so popular, particularly with characters who already have well-developed reputations. Other arguments for the increased popularity of superhero films in the past 15 years often center around the American geopolitical climate as well as technical advances in special-effects rendering. Jason Dittmer, in “American exceptionalism, visual effects, and the post-9/11 cinematic superhero boom” argues that it is a combination

of both. The American exceptionalist idea that the United States is unlike other countries in its creation and its role in the world is embodied by the ‘American monomyth’ suggested by Jewett and Lawrence (2003), which they describe as a narrative in which helpless communities are saved by hero who refrains from integration with the political community (Dittmer 115). This narrative is structurally very similar to the tale of the superhero, who generally operates with some heavy degree of autonomy either within or outside of the U.S. political framework. In some senses, it is akin to vigilante justice. Dittmer remarks, “the cathartic quality of violence in the wake of perceived victimization is shared between both the fictional superhero world and the immediate post-9/11 American landscape” (116). It is perhaps for this reason, as well, that theatrical depictions of villains, terrorists, and the general settings of superhero films have taken on a considerably darker quality. Aside from this proposed resonance with the post-9/11 American geopolitical environment, Dittmer and others suggest that the radical advancement of special effects technologies have been another main driving force for the increased popularity of superhero films. As Dittmer notes, special effects have always been a sort of driving force for the marketing of superhero films, even before 2000. For example, the special-effects success of Superman (1978) was advertised in its tagline: “You’ll believe a man can fly” (120). Production studios roll out the highest budgets possible to render and refine the most state of the art and fantastic special effects conceivable, contributing to an aesthetic of astonishment that nests itself at the forefront of suspension of disbelief. The emergence of 3-D films, IMAX, and other enhanced viewing possibilities for audiences also speaks to the importance of the viewer experience, particularly with Marvel and DC’s blockbuster hits.

COMPETITION REVENUE PER FILM

$260 million $224 million

$200 million

IN YEARS WITH

3 movies

4 movies

7 or 8 movies

How long can they keep it up? Both the critical and commercial failure of this summer’s The Fantastic Four has ignited a conversation in which many critics have voiced the concern that producing such a high volume of superhero movies simply is not sustainable. Eventually, audiences will get bored; then, the trend will die out. Steven Spielberg told the Associated Press that he believes superhero films will “go the way of the Western.” Later, he told USA Today in a clarifying statement, “With a number of blockbusters in one summer - those big sort of tentpole superhero movies - there was going to come a time where two or three or four of them in a row didn’t work” (Harris). Failure is a dangerous prospect when it comes to these high-budget films. Many now take over $200 million to produce, and a major failure of just one can have major consequences for the production company. The Fantastic Four reportedly lost 21st Century Fox $60 million dollars (Harris). Dittmer writes, “Whole studios may collapse because they are so leveraged to produce that failure. For instance, the box office failure of the $180 million The Golden Compass (2007) led to the merger of New Line Cinema with Warner Brothers Pictures” (119). How many failures would it take to stop Marvel or DC from attempting any more superhero films? Some have also raised concerns about the effect that competition will have on film revenue as so many new titles are being released each year. Cowen and Co.’s Doug Creutz remarked to Variety, “our experience in the animation genre suggests this very likely will lead to a decline in per-film box office due to competition.” In years with 3 superhero movies, each will one will gross an average of $260 million in revenue. When there are 4 superhero movies, average revenue for each falls to $224 million; revenue for seven or eight films could potentially drop to below $200 million (Graser). Superhero films face other criticisms as well Aside from confronting the possibility of major box office failure, recent superhero films have also faced thematic criticism. Some suggest that the general darkening of the genre has made all of the films less accessible to children - the demographic superheroes were originally designed for. Others argue that the comic book superhero films (particularly Marvel’s additions to its franchise thus far) have been lacking in diversity. The first accusation, that the films have fallen from their roots as children’s stories, originates before the recent surge of superhero movies since 2000, although the modern trend has undoubtedly contributed to this shift. Jeet Heer of The New Republic writes that the transformation of super-

hero stories to darker and grimmer began with writers Frank Miller and Alan Moore in the 1980s with their breakout graphic novels, The Dark Knight Returns (1986) and Watchmen (1986). Heer believes that in following this trend, the genre made “a fundamentally wrong turn, and now has lost touch with its best tendencies” (Heer). Superhero films, in Heer’s view, are no longer the visual representations of children’s daydreams that they should be. They are, instead, full of extreme violence and lurid sexuality (Heer). Marvel has also fallen under criticism for its lack of diversity through its superhero films to the present day. The studio is currently planning the release of two titles, Black Panther and Captain Marvel, which will center around African American and female protagonists, respectively. But Alyssa Rosenberg in her Washington Post blog has challenged Marvel not to just demonstrate that people of color and women can do the same job under the same circumstances that white men can, but to “change those roles and those institutions, to demonstrate that the way things have always been done is not the only way they can be done.” She and others have argued that ideally, Marvel will do more than simply put people of color and women into roles that have traditionally been filled by white men - they hope Marvel will push the creative boundaries to demonstrate their being able to bring new, exciting and unique outcomes to a traditionally static genre, including new takes on what it means to be super and how to demonstrate new insight. What’s next? Most likely, audiences will see all of Marvel’s and DC’s planned releases realized. But by 2020, the cinematic landscape may have changed dramatically. Stiffer competition, criticisms concerning appeal across different demographics and inclusion of more diverse characters may force the entertainment studios to reexamine the formula that has worked so effectively for them for the past 15 years. New technologies could make the films cheaper (or more expensive) to produce, limiting or opening the market to independent contributions. The aesthetics of special effects may shift more towards or further away from astonishment as an objective. The subtle changes across the films that are released within the next 5 years will, to some measurable extent, reflect the changing cultural norms of American society. However the production and distribution of these films may shift in the future, the past 15 years of superhero films have provided information that has shed new light on how movies shape the culture, and how culture shapes the moves. Undoubtedly, these 15 years will continue to be crucial to the future study of how art, culture and business intersect.

HIGHEST GROSSING SUPERHERO FILMS OF ALL TIME

1 2 3

The Avengers (2012)

$623,278,547

The Dark Night (2008)

$533,345,358

Spider-Man (2002)

$403,706,375

FALL 2015 BUSINESS TODAY

BRIAN & KELLY DOUGLAS ????? Itzy Ritzy

Paul Volcker was Chairman of the Federal Reserve System from 1979 to 1987. Following this position, Mr. Volcker became chairman of Wolfensohn & Co., a prominent New York City investment firm. He was a founding member and chairman of the President’s Economic Recovery Advisory Board from 2009 to 2011. In 2010, President Obama proposed bank regulations that were dubbed “The Volcker Rule” after Paul Volcker. Paul Volcker earned his bachelor’s degree from Princeton University and his master’s degree Isabel Shipman: Hi Brian! How are you? Brian Douglas: Good! Kelly Douglass: I’m here too. IS: Okay. Great! Just to let our readers know your company Itzy Ritzy is a supplier of really high-quality, sustainable baby products. Firstly, why did you choose baby products? What made you enter this market, what stood out to you, and what drew you in? BD: Taking a slight step back, Kelly and I were both in New York. I’ll give you a relatively brief background. She came out of IT consulting and healthcare. My background was M&A investment banking but both of us wanted to do something more entrepreneurial. Neither one of us really had that “big idea.” So it’s not like we had this new invention or anything like that so to get into a more entrepreneurial environment we looked at leveraging our own knowledge, our own background and looked to acquire a company. In 2007, we made that decision and started a process to go out and start sourcing potential targets and potential companies to acquire. We narrowed that search down to a little bit of a focus and one of those areas was children’s products and services and there was a lot that we liked about this industry. It is a very fragmented industry in that of the different brands, the different manufacturers, there were a handful of household names—

if you’re a parent and even if you’re not a parent—you’ve heard of, but there aren’t many like that. And then you get thousands of mom-and-pop type companies, and we’ll call them anyone that does under a million dollars in revenue and, kind of, in between that vast middle area there just weren’t that many companies. And so we thought if we come into an industry like this and we take a micro-company, a mom-and-pop type company and bring it into that middle area. So there’s one of the things we liked about the industry. Another is we liked the customer profile. You’re selling to primarily the mom but parents who want to buy and acquire things for their baby they think is the best, or good for their kid, that it expresses what kind of mom you are. When you get down to the actual buyer, the end customer, they become a little less price sensitive as long as they see that they’re getting the value that they’re seeking whether that’s fashion that mom likes or the functionality that makes the best thing for your baby. It’s like buying for your pet: you want to go out and get the best doggy toy or the best food that is available. I think the pet industry and the baby industry have a lot of analogies. We liked that as well in terms of the customer profile and then we had the idea about ten years ago when you would go and become a new mom like Kelly did when we became new parents, a lot of times your choices for your baby products and your baby gear looks either solid black or solid grey or a lot of cartoon characters. There just wasn’t

as much “Hey I’m a young mom now and I live in Chicago, I live in New York, I live in LA, wherever, and I like my sense of style and I think that I’m on-trend and when I go out to get a diaper bag or I want to get different baby products; I don’t see anything that fits my fashion.” So we saw a little bit of opportunity there. So there were a lot of things about this industry: fragmented, purchase of love, we some easier to identify opportunities that we really thought, “This makes sense of why to get into it.” On the personal side we were young parents with little ones and we could definitely identify with these products. IS: Okay great. Kelly do you have anything to add or should I continue? KD: In the beginning it was true there wasn’t a lot of good fashion out there. It was really more like life is good. Essentially we started a company and the whole industry has started to advance quite a bit and we continue to keep current with what’s on-trend and really be in touch with millennial moms and social media and instagram and really just being in-tune with a modern mom, which has evolved since we started the company. IS: Okay great. So just a question for Brian. So to start off you said you came from an investment banking background. How is starting Itzy Ritzy and becoming your own boss a cultural change for you whether in terms of work-life balance, the pace of your

FALL 2015 BUSINESS TODAY

day or your business goals? BD: The change in culture; the easy things you can identify. I think you can look one level deeper. From my own personal experience because I had started with a very large bank and then I went to a boutique firm, and there were a lot more similarities actually. I went to a bank that when I joined was the thirtieth person in the nineteenth or twentieth banker and there was a great atmosphere of being, or as much as you can in that industry, of being entrepreneurial because we were trying to build a new company. I really liked it. It was

a really good shot at that. I think the pressures are more intense because there’s no fallback. Everything you’re doing is what you’re doing and you’re consumed by it so that I think it’s a lot riskier and a lot scarier but certainly much more rewarding. IS: Okay and Kelly, just expanding on that a little bit, your career before Itzy Ritzy seems a little bit more eclectic and you were dealing with having two children so how did that transition into your position now? KD: Sure so before having kids I was just a worker. I was going on the partner track at Accenture to be an IT consultant and I left that to run two nursing homes which was a really big opportunity at the age of 25, eighty people reporting to me. I was very career-driven. Then once I had my first daughter I stopped working and lived in Manhattan and just being a mom and raising her in the city while Brian was working crazy hours as an investment banker so it was a total shift out of working to being at home and then starting to get the itch of I really need to be using my brain and my skillset and doing something more. So that’s kind of the route I went. I think that I was super excited and eager to be doing things creatively again and not even again because my other work wasn’t super creative so that was big change. You could see the whole process through so in consulting you would go in and fix one piece of a problem, but when it’s your own company you get to come up with the purchase of a product all the way through focus group testing, product development and then marketing of that product and the distribution of that product and you really get to see every piece of a company which I wasn’t able to do before.

Method 1 Method 1 Method 1 Method 1 Method 1 Method 1 Method 1 Method 1 Method 1 Method 1 a wild west. We didn’t do everything a large bank with lots of resources would do or be able to do. It was a very talented group of people and super smart people that I worked for. You would want to be scrappy and get it done. There was a mentality of roll up your sleeves and get it done. I think that actually translated very much so to what we’re like now. I think the skillset for what I more often do in the company was a great translation. We’ve actually gone through the process and acquired a couple brands. Certainly being familiar with our own financial statements, how to speak to banks, commercial banks, has certainly been a huge benefit. A lot of that initial education came out of business school but a lot of that understanding came from being a banker. Obvious differences, and Kelly probably has a lot of differences, when you’re running your own business: I hadn’t reached a level in banking where I was owning the clients. Here we do. If you think about it, it’s almost like a game. Let’s keep score. How well are you doing? All of the decisions that Kelly and I make are our decisions. If you’re wrong what’s the consequence? If we’re right how does it go and manage this? So that was different from any job I had previously because truly all of the decision-making started and ended at the beginning of the company with Kelly and with me. Big difference there. I don’t know what you [Kelly] think about any differences or career paths. KD: I think freedom is what I really like as a working mom. I was used to being a boss and in charge of a lot of people and really my expectation was that for people coming to work was that they did a great job, and once I became a mom I realized how important it was to have flexibility over my own schedule and to be there for my kids and so that flexibility has been really great to try and balance it all which is always hard but I think it offers

FALL 2015 BUSINESS TODAY

IS: Okay great so with that and just because our focus for our magazine this issue is kind of the wide reach of culture, I just wanted to ask how is your executive structure considering that the two joint CEOs are married? How has that influenced your company and your path especially as a family-focused company? KD: Sure. I think in the beginning I was really trying to pretend we’re not married and just be at work and try to be vey separate at work. “Let’s not talk about the kids. Let’s not even have my last name on the business card,” because we were so tiny and we were trying so hard to be professional and I think that’s evolved over time. We try to keep it very professional in the office but it’s a lot more fun now that people know about our kids and we talk about them as if we were married. I think we try to keep a real division of labor of what we’re responsible for in the company so that we’re not constantly up against each other. BD: I agree with everything you said. I would say we actually err more towards the side of professional than not in a company of this

size. In the beginning I think it’s very helpful providing unwritten structure. In terms of Kelly and I being married if you didn’t know anything and you just walked in from the outside you wouldn’t see anything at all. You would see two executives. They agree. Sometimes they disagree. Never is there a kind of the husband-and-wife team. There’s nothing of that. Kelly’s right. We benefit greatly whether it’s a married couple, friends, or co-founders or whatever. I think we benefit greatly in that we’re still small in so there’s a lot of overlap in what we do but our core and our skillset is more complementary than overlapping. I think we try as best we can to defer to the other person when it’s their arena. I think Kelly is outstanding in identifying trends and new product development where I don’t think I am as strong. Where I have a comment or a question or something to say I think I very much defer to Kelly. If we want to go out and do a capital raise, talk to three different commercial banks, (1) I don’t think Kelly would have any interest in leading that effort, and (2) I think we luck out a little bit that in if we both saw ourselves as marketing wizards and if we were just constantly all over each other stepping on each other’s feet that could be rough and I think that could create a culture very uncomfortable for the employees. It’s not quite like that at all. Of course the other employees know we’re married but my guess is that I don’t think they see this as a husband and a wife leading that it’s [more] like, “yeah they have to be married but here are two executives leading the company.” IS: Okay great. Well it seems like it’s working really well for you. Now I want to focus a little more on your product and your company so you explainied a little bit at the beginning but as a start-up sort of company how have you set your product apart and sort of your image apart from competitors to make yourself worth purchasing over another brand? KD: I think having a first baby was really helpful because it brought me back to all of the things a new mom experiences and what really is important and what swaps with the baby industry and baby products and what you really need is something easy and high function and you also want it to look nice so that’s what rejuvenated me towards the brand after we had our first baby. I think that was super helpful and the other thing was making an effort to stay fresh and topical and know what m o m s are really about. So not easing out on products because our oldest kid is now ten and not going into junior high-type products but really staying current with what a first-time mom wants and needs. BD: I agree with all that. I think we also tried to stay pretty true to the core of the brand

and what I mean by that is when we got into the business—exactly like you said, “Why Itzy Ritzy?”—nobody knows this company when we’re starting out you know. “Who are we?” and we really tried to balance within the products within the who is the brand; this balance of fashion, fun and functionality, and it doesn’t sound like a lot but it’s kind of the crux of who we are and the products we come out with whether it’s the packaging or the marketing we try to make sure that brand statement comes across and we’ve done I think a pretty god job of not straying from that. And what that has allowed us to do is when someone sees our product or our brand, they know what that stands for. And we’re at the early stages, or mid-point stages of people, customers understanding that. “Oh this is an Itzy Ritzy product. This is what it means when I get an Itzy Ritzy product.” Let’s try to carve out what this brand is and if you like our fashion and if you have a need for this product we hope you’ll go with our product for those reasons. It doesn’t sound like a lot but building that brand and staying true to those values I think has served the company well. KD: We have a true brand and a loyal following and really engaged users; moms really engage with us on facebook and instagram and really are devoted to the brand and know there is going to be quality and there are plenty of people that have knocked off our products or alternative store products but you know what you’re getting with Itzy Ritzy and people want Itzy Ritzy. It’s the brand, the fashion, the quality and to be apart of our community that we’re building with our moms

and dads. IS: Speaking to the quality in the same lens, how have you set yourself apart on the manufacturing side? KD: Just little things like we will deny sample after sample until its perfect and the fabric is soft and the printing quality is perfected. We are almost in the details to a fault and the micromanaging effort is a key piece of our business where it needs to be done and it needs to be done correctly even if it slows us down. IS: Okay. Interesting. So just about starting your company I noticed that you started Itzy Ritzy by purchasing an already existing company. What do you think were the pros and cons of that and if you could do it again would you do the same thing? KD: We try not to focus too much on that start; we really [don’t] like to focus on it being Itzy Ritzy versus the company we acquired. BD: I’ll answer it in reverse order. Would we do it again that way? Yes. Personally, 100 percent. What we really acquired was a tiny little customer list but we had a going concern, a little bit of a structure, things that some people who have done this before might say, “Oh I can put this together in a couple of months,” but just having a bank and an accounting system. Things as simple as desks and computers for everybody, on-going sales.

FALL 2015 BUSINESS TODAY

It was very helpful for us going into to this to have sales reps and a helpful list of customers so that we could jump right into this industry and there was a little bit of knowledge that we acquired as well. Looking back if we knew what we knew today, no, we didn’t acquire all that much given our current level of knowledge but back then yes I think it very helpful to acquire a business and get into the industry that way. Yes I would do it again that way knowing what I know now if I was back in 2007. Kelly’s right. Getting into the industry, it was a fast-forward way of putting the infrastructure in place and paying for it all at once instead of slowly “do that,” slowly “do this.” We really marked time since launching the brand. The first four, five months, “Do we have everything in place to push the button? Okay let’s go.” It really just allowed us to launch the brand and get a running start and do that in a shorter period of time than if we had started from scratch. IS: Okay. Great. Just to finish off, do you have any more general advice for someone who wanted to start their own company? How much of what you’re doing now has been a learning curve? BD: Yeah, Kelly do you want to start? KD: One thing before I get to that question that I just want to say about where we’re at now is that we’re in such a super exciting place. We are now able to recruit amazing talent: we just [got] a new creative director from New York City and she moved her family to Chicago to a neighboring suburb we are in from some competitors in the space. We recruited a new VP of sales from another competitor in the space. So it’s really exciting time for us that we have grown our company and continue to grow our company. We’ve always had good internal talent but now we’re really able to recruit outside talent and I have a phenomenal team that everyone is super fun like yesterday they came into the sales meeting and brought in champagne and orange juice and pastries because it was my birthday. IS: Happy birthday! KD: Thanks! Just a great group of people and our team and new product development and new fashions and so much excitement around Itzy Ritzy right now that it’s a really fun time to be involved with our company and moving onto your question about advice. Have a good support staff, partner. If you’re not going to business together—if you’re a married person—you really need to have a good supportive partner. I think what sets us apart as entrepreneurs from people with just good ideas is you really need to have the courage to go for it which is every scary and intimidating but certainly worth it. Network, and make good relationships and be willing to help people along the way. I take lots of calls from brand new start-ups and moms and it’s a lot of time out of my day that could be used to advance Itzy Ritzy but I think it’s important because

FALL 2015 BUSINESS TODAY

you never know how those relationships are going to work out. I particularly like to support female entrepreneurs and women trying to get into the space. IS: Great. BD: I won’t add on too much. My one piece of advice as best you can let’s say you made the mental decision this is the direction you want to move in, try to have a very clear vision of what you’re trying to create. Are you trying to create a lifestyle business that will allow you to travel and some day hand this over to your kid? Okay great. Are you trying to grow something into the next billion dollar company? Fine. Are you trying to do this in three years, five years, twenty years? Try to have a real crisp idea of where you want to take this because that’s going to dictate a lot of what you do and you’ll have twists and turns. But if you want to build a billion dollar company in five years, you’re going to have to raise tons of capital. That becomes a very different type of environment and a very different type of endeavor. Do you want to bootstrap this thing and roll up your sleeves and kind of see what you can do every year but that’s a very different mentality and a very different task than the first example. I think you need to realize and really think about what do we want to do and what our end game is here. It’s really going to drive how you do things. You start operating with a way that’s inconsistent with that stated end goal, you want to create a billion dollar company and you don’t raise any cash it’s probably not going to happen. If you want to have a nice little lifestyle business and you go out and raise five million dollar seed round those investors are going to expect a lot more than you growing a business you want to turn over to your kid. Just making sure you have as much foresight with where you want to go and align the strategy of the day-to-day with your goal. IS: You guys’ company seems really successful like Kelly was saying. Seems like there are a lot of things in the works, your products have been celebrity favorites so congratulations to both of you. From Business Today we wish you the best of luck. KD: That’s so sweet. One thing we might want to add [for the readers] is every summer we do a college intern class and it’s an unpaid internship in Naperville, Illinois. Certainly send a resume or an email to info@itzyritzy. com. IS: Okay great. I’m sure someone would be very interested. KD and BD: Thanks Isabel. IS: Thanks. Have a great day.

Faith in the Workplace

RELIGION MORALITY POLITICS

Complementary or Conflicting? by Liz Ostertag

s Princeton students, we often imagine walking through Fitzrandolph Gate, ready to take on the world. For some, Princeton may have drastically affected career goals; for others, their journeys were far more predictable. Regardless, after we leave this school, we are expected to carry what we have learned here to our chosen vocations. Princeton has molded our minds to think creatively, to solve the world’s most difficult problems, and to think about the larger meaning behind all that we do. For the class of 2014, the Career Services annual report stated that of the students entering the workforce after graduation, the highest vocational fields were “Professional Scientific & Technical Services,” of which 15.4% joined, and Finance and Insurance, of which 12.5% joined. Princeton is far from unique amongst colleges regarding this interest in business. So how do we carry over all that we learned here in our liberal arts courses to a career in business? Business ethics is defined as the study of proper business policies and practices. Beyond its textbook definition, however, the field is complex, and encompasses moral, religious, and political ideologies. Corporate corruption is widespread and all-toocommon today, which is often derived from leadership at firms. Princeton has a long history of graduating future CEOs and senior management at firms, which makes this issue all-too relevant. How do we, as students, ensure that we will enter the business world with a well-defined ethical framework for making decisions? Religion is a common tool for CEOs and employees to make rational, ethical decisions in the workplace. An article published by Fortune in 2014 called 7 CEOs with notably devout religious beliefs covers the religious beliefs of seven different CEOs who claim that their faith greatly impacts their business decision-making skills. The CEO of PepsiCo Indra Nooyi, states that she attributes her strength to her Hindu faith. In the interview, she stated, “[Our] house was a deeply religious house, and every occasion of life and death was observed with great

care and exacting standards”(Rossi). She uses religion to cope with difficulties both in the workplace and home. As a woman Nooyi has conflicting emotions regarding her desire to be the best wife, mother, daughter-in-law and corporate executive possible. Her religion grounds her, and provides her with a framework for achieving at the highest level, yet simultaneously living her life grounded with perspective and knowledge of an entity greater than herself. Many other executives also attribute their leadership qualities and abilities to their religion. The CEO of Tyson Foods, Inc., who is a Southern Baptist, finds strength in his religion, which greatly influences his style of leading. Donnie Smith, the CEO since 2009, says that he carries his faith everywhere. Tyson also founded the Tyson Center for Faith and Spirituality in the Workplace at University of Arkansas’ business school in 2009. The CEO of Republic Airways Holdings, Inc. Brian K. Bedford, a Roman Catholic, regards his religion in a similar light. When he was featured on the hit television show “Undercover Boss” in 2010, Bedford was open about the importance of religion in his life, openly demonstrating his daily routine of praying and reading the Bible before sleeping. Other faith initiatives have grown in popularity in workplaces as well, such as office chaplains. Chaplains have had a history in the military and on college campuses, yet only recently have expanded to the workplace. As guides in the office, chaplains help people talk through frustrations in the office. Although almost all workplace chaplains are Christian, they rarely bring up faith unless asked about it. Instead, the conversations are mostly secular, targeted at decreasing anxiety and improving satisfaction amongst employees through self-reflection. However, when associating business and religion, numerous concerns arise. In 2015, Kim Davis, a country clerk of Rowan County, became international news when she defied a federal court order requiring

that she issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples. Her religious devotion to God prevented her from carrying out her duties as county clerk. She felt the law could not overpower her faith, and she valued her devotion to God above the duties of her job. Many fear the spread of spirituality in the workplace due to cases like those of Kim

Corporate corruption is widespread and all-toocommon today, which is often derived from leadership at firms. Davis. These extreme examples instill trepidations in outsiders, particularly those who do not consider religion or faith a major facet of their life. As these initiatives develop and flourish, should we allow religion to become more of a public entity in the workplace, or should it be limited to the home? Should we view religion as a valid ethical framework? Is the presence of religion too risky for profitability and productivity in a secular work environment, or is it a valid means for decreasing corruption and improving morality? As we continue our separate journeys at Princeton, valuing ethical and moral behavior in the classroom and workplace is something for which we should all strive, regardless of the tools we use to develop this framework.

FALL 2015 BUSINESS TODAY

ABSTRAC Redefining Art as an Investment

I Today, this connection might appear to be an “umbilical cord of diamond” as increasing capital is being injected into the art industry.

FALL 2015 BUSINESS TODAY

n his groundbreaking 1939 essay, “AvantGarde and Kitsch,” Clement Greenberg described the connection between avant-garde artists and society at large as an “umbilical cord of gold.” Greenberg called for artists to distance themselves from mass culture in order to specialize their craft – they ought to create paintings for other painters, poems for other poets, and music for other musicians. But all the while, the artists must rely on society’s elites to provide financial backing for this artistic refinement. Today, this connection might appear to be an “umbilical cord of diamond” as increasing capital is being injected into the art industry. It is not limited to new art, either—auction houses are bringing in record sales. On May 11th, Christie’s show, “Looking Forward to the Past,” brought in $705.9 million – well over a pre-sale estimate of $500 million. In the show, Picasso’s Les Femmes d’Alger became the most expensive painting ever sold at an auction at $179.4 million, and Giacometti’s l’Homme au Doigt set the record for sculptures with a price of $141.3 million. When including private sales, the price tags grow even larger. Globally, 2014 marked the highest ever recorded year for the art market, with combined sales of over $57 billion. Qatar acquired Gauguin’s When Will You Marry for $300 million last February, making it the most expensive painting in history. In fact, nine out of the ten most expensive paintings in history (adjusting for inflation) reflect transactions made in the last decade. The art market currently has the semblance of a bubble. Prices are quickly rising to bewildering numbers, and few works are losing value. The rise of social media has directed much attention to museum and gal-

lery shows, thus contributing to a frenzied attitude towards the art scene. Although the denial of a bubble is often an indicator of a bubble, many experts do not expect prices to fall in the foreseeable future. They argue that these high prices are here to stay, as the art market advantageously capitalizes on its exclusive characteristics to offer a desirable investment for the global elite. As international billionaires seek to invest their wealth, art has proven itself to be a highly intriguing option through its very limited supply. Throughout the canon of art history, academics have distinguished a handful of truly essential works that exerted great influence. Typically, works from the Impressionist, Modernist, Post-War, and Contemporary eras tend to be the most sought after. These discernibly timeless pieces have values protected by a “store of value” effect, meaning their deeply embedded place in history will preserve their global, monetary value for years to come. Compared to other luxury items as investments, art provides an opportunity to “park liquidity,” according to Giovanni Gasparini of Christie’s. Yachts, for example, require expensive maintenance and ultimately become technologically obsolete. Real estate investments are often dependent on political stability, which cannot be guaranteed in an increasingly global market. Even stocks and Bitcoin lack a consistent value. Other artistic mediums such as films and music can easily be duplicated or streamed, preventing them from ensuring scarcity. Tom Flynn, the director of art appraisal at Kingston University in England, points out that art prices are primarily dependent on demand for art as an asset. As he explains, “[The cyclical process of art sales]

CT ART

market

by Anna Pouschine is being driven by almost unprecedented levels of wealth in the world, and by an influx of people from finance who are treating art as a pure asset class.” The stability of these prices thus depends significantly on the world’s most elite and their continued desire to put money into these tangible goods. Art is consequently able to use this inherently short supply to attract increasingly large investments. Billionaires, particularly as developing countries experience great economic growth, are able to keep their money in highly portable and reliable canvases. As JJ Charlesworth explains in Artnet news, “Alongside global prosperity has come a lot more political instability, and it’s in the interests of the social elite to keep their options open as to where they relocate.” For the small group of wealthy buyers, these portable assets provide great security by their internationally liquid nature. Aside from its financial advantages, art’s reflective nature provides owners with a greater sense of meaning than traditional assets. Esteemed collector B.Z. Schwartz explains the emotional appeal of owning art. “Art is different from other assets. It’s personal. It is more like buying a home or a piece of jewelry in that potential appreciation in value is not the major consideration in selecting it. You might buy Apple stock for your portfolio even if you are a committed user of a PC and an Android, but you wouldn’t buy a house you hated in a neighborhood that didn’t feel right for you if you had to live there every day. The most interesting collections, like homes, are personal and reflect the point of view of the collector.” Owners develop connections to their works, which provide intellectual stimulation – a characteristic lacked by more traditional investments.

Indeed, many people from the general public seem to be more actively seeking this personal engagement with art. This past year, with over 98,000 visitors, the popular Art Basel fair proved to be the best yet for many prominent dealers. In addition to the high demand for exquisite art among collectors, young people now have greater opportunities to engage in art. Cultural institutions have developed strong social media presences in order to strengthen relationships with younger visitors. For instance, the Metropolitan Museum of Art enlisted the help of Dave Krugman, a 26-year-old social media consultant, who strengthened the Museum’s social media presence through creating the popular #emptymet. The Museum’s account – less than 3 years old – currently has over 800,000 followers and has roughly 10,000 – 15,000 likes per photo. Taylor Newby, the Metropolitan Museum’s online community manager, describes their Instagram presence as beneficial to attracting young people to the museum. “It is crazy huge, and among our social channels like Twitter and Facebook, the Instagram users are the most engaged, with many more people who are really active. It’s helped us connect with a whole new audience, because across the board, they skew younger than our traditional visitors.” Not only does social media reach out to younger visitors, but the sequential social media posts by these active users also helps spread publicity to their own followers. While publicity has long been an integral part of museum operations, individual artists are facing greater pressure to construct brand-like images. The role of the artist has far strayed from the image of a lone craftsman tirelessly laboring over beautiful crafts, exemplified by Michelangelo. Rather,

Billionaires, particularly as developing countries experience great economic growth, are able to keep their money in highly portable and reliable canvases.

FALL 2015 BUSINESS TODAY

PRICES TIMELESS

ABSTRACT

the role of the artist today more closely reflects the artist-as-celebrity image popularized by Warhol. Many big-name artists no longer play significant roles in the actual reaction of the works – rather, they conceptualize the idea and direct a comprehensive team of laborers, while crafting an intriguing public guise. Prominent artist and public figure Damien Hirst was describing this pressure to be branded when he told the New Yorker, “Becoming a brand name is an important part of life. It’s the world we live in…The hand of the artist isn’t important. You’re trying to create an idea.” Hirst has attempted to expand his image by dabbling in other ventures with mediocre success – he wrote a biography, opened short-lived restaurants, and recorded several songs. All the while, he remained in the public eye by honing a devilmay-care persona. However, Hirst’s most notable business venture was his decision, along with business manager Frank Dunphy, to sell the complete show Beautiful Inside my Head Forever directly to auction, thus bypassing gallery owners to increase their own cut of the profits. Hirst was widely criticized for this decision. Dealers were upset over being sidelined in the sale. Collectors were wary that the works served to amplify the sale rather than contribute to artistic progression. Ultimately, the sale proved successful by bringing in slightly over the pre-sale estimate. Yayoi Kusama, generally regarded with less controversy than Hirst, has similarly created a notable persona. Many of her endeavors outside visual art itself remain artistic, including fiction writing, film, and a performance piece. However, she has also branched out into commercial markets. Over a long career, she launched a line of Avant-Garde clothing at Bloomingdales, designed cell phone and accessories for Japanese telecommunications operator KDDI Corporation, and created a Lancôme lipgloss line. Most recently, she has worked with Marc Jacobs to create a collection of goods, including clothes, jewelry, and accessories, and for Louis Vuitton. Unlike Hirst, who has capitalized on his intriguing public image for financial gain, Kusama seeks to gain a sense of support from the media. In accordance with the notion of an artist as a misunderstood genius, Kusama appreciates a clearer connection to her audience. According to the Economist, “[Kusama] begins each working day by reviewing her press clippings. Some people view the media as a curse. For Ms. Kusama media coverage is an instant, if short-term, panacea against her fears of self-annihilation. It’s as if her media image helps her reaffirm her sense of self.” As artists continually endure critiques and challenges, a media image can help them claim a sense of ownership over their identity, in which they have increased control over how they will be perceived. Perhaps one notable effect of this increased capital and attention devoted to

art market picasso

“AVANTGARDE” KOONS INDULGEN

BEAUTY hirstKITSCH 20

FALL 2015 BUSINESS TODAY

art is the greater scale of artwork. Due to various developments in technology, artists have greater ability to carry out their most elaborate ideas. Thomas Crow explains in Art Forum, “Far beyond what used to be regarded as a normal complement of studio assistants and fabricators, the output of each can depend on collaborators and assistants operating on multiple continents and numbering in the scores.” Consequently, many of the most illustrious contemporary works are jarringly expensive – both due to monumental sizes and complex, labor-intensive procedures. For example, Jeff Koon’s Balloon Venus (Orange) achieves its hyper-realistic balloon pressure by using a custom-made stainless steel alloy and CT scanning (traditionally used to detect brain tumors) to cast the sculpture. For East-West/West-East, Richard Serra shipped four steel plates, each weighing several tons, from Germany to Qatar, to create a sculpture that spans over a kilometer. Kara Walker’s A Subtlety was a 35-foot nude sculpture comprised of sugar in the old Domino factory in Brooklyn. Ai Weiwei filled Turbine Hall at the Tate Modern with 100 million handcrafted, porcelain sunflower seeds for Sunflower Seeds. It can be easy to condemn the art market for this apparent excess, be it for outrageous prices, atmosphere of indulgence, or stubborn dedication to kooky ideas. However, the underlying objective of art remains: to represent our own moment of existence through a timeless object of beauty. Crow suggests that the art market is, ultimately, deserving of this attention. He explains, “Leaving matters of taste and decorum to one side, however, it is surely a curious position for anyone with a vocational and emotional investment in the centrality of art to complain that it has come to be overvalued by society.” Schwartz continues by emphasizing the personal benefits brought about by art. “In my experience, artists make art regardless of the market - they cannot help it, that’s why they are artists. There are a handful of artists who are very wealthy, but most work at other jobs to support themselves, but they still create art. One of the marvelous things about collecting contemporary art is that I can talk to the artists. They see the world through a different lens and make me reconsider even ordinary things.” Perhaps the greatest achievement of today’s market is the facilitated means of self-expression. Artists are able to carry out more elaborate ideas through advances in technology and greater capital. Viewers reap the benefits of improved communication through facilitated opportunities to look at art. Ultimately, if these changes are drawing more attention to art itself and sparking more conversations, then art is better carrying out its original purpose of providing enjoyment.

STUDENT PERSPECTIVES

LETTING IN THE LIGHT THINKING OUTSIDE THE BOX A Spotlight on Student Entrepreneurs p. 22 - Darshan Desai | Plan p. 24 - Shubham ____ | ______

DARSHAN DESAI Founder Plan

Chandler Sterling: To begin, can you tell me a bit about how you came up with the idea for Greenshields?

I feel that a very connected world is a much more socially responsible world, and issues like the environment are becoming too big to ignore.

JC: I guess a lot of people could have seen the problem but I think that it’s important not to just think that someone’s going to change it or someone made it or designed Jonny Cohen: I came up with Greenshields it that way. I find that people often just when I was in 7th grade after I took this accept things but if we really want to make class at Northwestern where we built derby things more efficient, we need to question cars and I got excited by the concept of them. We should constantly be questioning aerodynamics. I was thinking about things everything about our surroundings. I think that could be made more aerodynamic and that’s a way we could optimize our exisI came across the school bus as something tence – not seeing things as the way they that could be improved upon. In high are but the way they could be made more school I began to work on it at high school efficient. I have a philosophy that everyat first with one of my physics teachers. thing can be improved and it’s just a matter Then after I got a larger grant from Pepsi of time until someone does it. for 25,000 dollars we partnered with the Northwestern Segal Design Institute and CS: What were some of the biggest chalstarted researching, building, and optimiz- lenges you faced in this process? ing a prototype. We went through wind tunnel tests, virtual wind tunnel tests, and JC: Right now the biggest challenge is regeventually on to road tests. We started a ulations. In the beginning it was trying to pilot program in April 2014 and now we figure out where to go and where to start, are working on projects in Florida and Illi- and I think if you search around and send nois, which are super exciting. lots of emails someone will take an interest in what you’re doing. Especially if you’re CS: What motivated you to take this idea fortunate enough to be a student. and transform it into a reality, versus being intimidated by the prospect of starting CS: Do you think college campuses in something? general are equipped to help startups and

entrepreneurial students achieve their potential? JC: I do. I got accepted into some incubator programs where I’d be required to drop out and I didn’t accept any of them. I think that school is an incubator in itself. When you’re a student you get to have that fantastic label that allows you to talk to all sorts of people and ask professors questions. Then there’s the access to competitions, events, and alumni resources. I’ve been connected with tons of alumni who have been very helpful. This is not to say that very successful startups haven’t come from dropping out, I admit that the biggest weakness for Greenshields is that I don’t have enough time to work on it, and dropping out gives you that time.

Now, getting the data back from our program in Florida is incredible. Also meeting other entrepreneurs is always exciting. At these conferences it is always insane to have famous entrepreneurs interested in “my little Greenshields” where they’re worth millions of dollars and I’m just trying to put hats on school buses. CS: Where do you think this sudden, widespread interest in socially conscious entrepreneurship has come from?

JC: I think that society has become more moral as time has gone on; it’s just kind of become pretty cool to do something socially responsible. In general we’re so much more aware of the bad and good that’s happening in the world now than in the years before us. For example, the horrible CS: What were some clear moments of shootings at the university in Kenya, thirty success? to forty years ago we might not have heard about that. More positively, the fact that we JC: I have a pretty vivid image of when can hear about inventions from the other we initially did trials with Northwestern. side of the globe just as they’re launched We did the same distance with our prod- is pretty cool. I feel that a very connected uct on and off the bus and with it off we world is a much more socially responsible kept seeing the numbers increase, indicat- world. Plus, issues like the environment are ing inefficiency, where it didn’t with it on. becoming too big to ignore. With innova-

tion and technology we’re trying to make things more efficient, and there’s money in things like big data. CS: Finally, what advice would you give to college students looking to invent something with a social conscience? I think that there are a lot of social issues around, and I picked a small niche nut there are more than enough lying around. Be critical to how things are designed. It’s easier with things that interact with humans on a day-to-day basis. So for Greenshields, I would see a school bus passing by every single day and I started to question its efficiency. I love the human-centered design philosophy and try and think about that a lot. The other thing would be that if you’re young and a student, you’re at a university and surrounded by so many great opportunities. There are lots of people trying to innovate and just brainstorming with friends and being around people who want to do something is a great way to learn. Interview by Chandler Sterling

FALL 2015 BUSINESS TODAY

JONNY COHEN Founder GreenShields

Chandler Sterling: To begin, can you tell me a bit about how you came up with the idea for Greenshields?

I feel that a very connected world is a much more socially responsible world, and issues like the environment are becoming too big to ignore.

FALL 2015 BUSINESS TODAY

POWERFUL

VALUES that power your life NOVECâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s rates are lower today than six years ago, thanks to our commitment to keep costs as low as possible. At NOVEC, these same values power everything we do, while we power so much of what you do.

www.NOVEC.com

What legacy do you want to create for yourself? At EY, we are proud to work with the innovators and game-changers of today to create new legacies for AD2tomorrow. Through a the world career at EY, you will become the builders of legacy --- for our clients, our communities and yourselves. #LegacyBuilders Learn more at ey.com/careers

MARKETPLACE

Shared

Profit, Shared

Growth

How profit sharing can decrease economic inequality and increase growth by Jamie Downey

FALL 2015 BUSINESS TODAY

espite large scale climate change, economic downturn, and the implementation of a controversial health care plan in the United States, Barack Obama announced in 2013 that income inequality and the gradual dissolution of upward economic mobility was the “defining challenge of our time.” Though the issue received little attention in the following midterm elections, it seems to be a central focus of many of the presidential campaigns—on both sides of the aisle—for the upcoming 2016 election. Former Secretary of State and presidential hopeful Hillary Clinton announced that she believed that the main challenge in the American economy was the achievement of steady and fair income across all socioeconomic classes. To demonstrate the gravity she saw in this cause, she accompanied this announcement with a plan to incentivize and incorporate profit sharing among american businesses. Her plan outlined tax credits and benefits to encourage companies to implement profit sharing along her guidelines, which would, in turn, encourage “Rising Incomes, Sharing Profits” across a larger portion of American business and the american workforce. To understand how profit sharing might impact modern business, and why such a plan would be valuable for businesses and employees alike, we must first examine how profit sharing works. At its most simplistic level, profit sharing is a system in which employees receive a portion of their firm’s net profits. Thus, based on the annual performance of a company, employees can receive small or large amounts of compensation, in addition to their regular wages. From that simple foundation, however, come a variety of potential systems for implementation, as well as even more possibilities for growth.

Variants can include deferred profit sharing plans, where companies average and bundle profits over a five year time-span, which can help to deter the impact a single year of poor yield might present for the company and also for it’s employees. Moreover, these plans can vary based on the type and the amount of profit incentive received by the employee. While some firms may offer huge percentages of employee wages as profit share, others may offer more modest packages as a supplement to traditional annual wages, and compensation can come in the form of a lump sum of cash or in stock in the company. Generally, these types of plans can be attractive for employers as it allows the company more flexibility in wages, based on company performance in each year. Additionally, some companies find such a plan valuable as such plans can provide workers with a direct and clear incentive to increase and maintain productivity at higher levels than workers with more traditional wage plans. Though Hillary Clinton announced her plan earlier this year as an alternative to the much more ubiquitous traditional wage programs in the United States, the concept of profit sharing in American business is hardy a novel concept. In fact, the history of profit sharing in American business follows American history back to the country’s inception, and has been promoted by presidents just as long. The first law incentivizing profit sharing was implemented as one of George Washington’s first acts as president, immediately following the American Revolution. In the economic and cultural remains that the Revolution left in it’s wake, President Washington and then Secretary of State Thomas Jefferson noted a sharp downturn in American cod fisheries, then one of the fledgling country’s biggest exports. This had come as

FALL 2015 BUSINESS TODAY

Many companies see a greater sense of ownership develop in their employees, as even the lower level workers associate their work directly with the profits made by a company.

FALL 2015 BUSINESS TODAY

a direct result of British aggression, which had destroyed ships, ports, warehouses, and other essential portions of the cod fisheries. Washington and Jefferson, recognizing the importance of this failing market, as well as the economic delicacy with which they’d need to address this problem turned away from simple funding or subsidy programs and instead offered tax credits for those companies who participated in profit sharing programs. These programs directly incentivized not only profit sharing providing a significant amount of compensation for all employees, but also across the entire catch, not just for a portion. This plan, which was the first, but certainly not last, of the profit sharing laws enacted in the United States, saw widespread success and helped to contribute to the recovery of one of America’s largest exports, and the growth of the young nation. When Jefferson consulted one Philadelphia’s most successful ship owners, he noted that the plan produced his most efficient and productive ships, especially when compared to ships without the same systems. Though this was one of the first instances of American profit sharing, the system—as it is more widely understood and implemented today—didn’t grow into its own until the 19th century. At that time, successful companies like Pillsbury implemented profit sharing plans to provide bonuses to their employees through shares of profit. These came on top of already extant wages, a system most commonly employed today. Following that, in 1916, the Harris Trust and Savings Bank of Chicago created the first deferred profit sharing plan, which organized the profit shares over a number of years, in order to make more secure payments to employees, and to make the plans more resistant to short term rises or falls. This new creation, which formed one of the most common variant of profit sharing plans today, allowed employees and employers alike to expect more certainty and average rewards as a result of profit sharing plans. These plans continued through World War II, allowing companies to increase the compensation for their employees without raising base wages— often the only way that many firms could afford and rely on to steadily increase their worker’s compensation. Following that era, however, many companies abandoned their profit sharing programs in favor of more standardized wages for all employees, only providing “bonuses” drawn from company profits for upper management. Despite the widespread abandonment of this type of plan, there are examples of successful profit sharing programs across America. Companies like Proctor and Gamble, Southwest Airlines and Edward Jones. While these examples are somewhat rare in the modern business world, each of these prosperous companies employees profit sharing as a fundamental part of their business model, and can attribute at least some measure of their success to these types of programs. WIthin these companies, and interesting business culture is often

developed, and firms often see larger scale changes to their structure than just revising the way that employees are compensated. On a company-wide scale, many companies see a greater sense of ownership develop in their employees, as even the lower level workers associate their work directly with the profits made by a company. When a company implements this type of system, it provides direct insight for employees to increase their productivity and become more invested in the performance of the company as a whole, as their annual compensation is intrinsically tied to these measures. However, this change in employee mindset—which can be incredibly valuable for any firm— often have to be associated with larger scale changes on the part of corporate management. First, employees often have to be provided with a ‘line of sight,’ or some method of visualizing how their work can directly impact the success of a company. Similarly, employees must also be presented with more agency and a larger responsibility in a company’s decision making. With these plans, employees—from the bottom to the top of a company—gain a sense of ownership and responsibility for the performance of the company, but must necessarily have some say in the strategy and decision making of the firm, to accompany their greater investment. This environment can be achieved through open and clear communication across the board, flattening management structures, and employee involvement. While these changes might represent logistical difficulties and major restructuring programs for any company not already structured in this way, the longer-term benefits of profit sharing often overwhelm the short term difficulties. According to Joseph Blasi, a Rutgers University Professor and contributor to the creation of Hillary Clinton’s plan, “Over the longer term, the empirical evidence suggests that companies on average will experience higher productivity, lower worker turnover, greater loyalty and greater willingness to work hard on the part of their employees, particularly when profit sharing is combined with a supportive culture. However, a key condition is that the profit sharing be on top of fair fixed wages and not a substitute for fair wages.” The upsides of profit sharing emerge on a larger economic scale as well. Though corporations can experience growth and prosperity through the implementation of such plans, larger scale adoption of profit sharing as an alternative to traditional wage schemes can have a profoundly positive impact on the macroeconomy, as a cumulative result of the benefits provided to individual groups. In response to the announcement from the Clinton campaign, Princeton University economist and presidential economic advisor Alan Blinder backed profit sharing, saying that these plans “would lead to more dollars in the pockets of workers across the country. When companies share profits, not only do workers benefit but the companies themselves see higher productivity and make a stronger contribution to our economy. It’s a

win-win, and I’m glad Hillary is making this issue a priority.” Blasi echoed this sentiment, predicting “economy-wide performance effects. I would expect to see increased productivity, lower turnover, and evidence that workers were receiving a better share of firm performance.” Profit sharing plans attract politicians and American voters interested in mending the systemic failures of the American economy, both in terms of economic stagnation and income inequality by providing a large-scale, implementable and proven tactic for fighting some of the greatest ailments of our nation. But can profit sharing be reasonably implemented at such a large scale? For the time being this issue remains unclear. It’s worth noting, however, that such plans— when implemented correctly—can appeal to all classes, and across both ends of the

American political spectrum. Discussing the program’s bipartisan appeal, Blasi writes that “Whenever profit sharing was studied by Congress and whenever the idea became part of Congressional legislation, the support has always been strongly bipartisan. The idea of profit sharing is broadly consistent with many powerful Republican themes such as the importance of rewards for personal responsibility and effort, the idea that an entrepreneurial attitude is important in American business, and the notion that business can make a strong positive contribution to addressing social and economic inequality in society. I expect that politicians on both sides of the aisle will speak with support about the profit sharing idea.” Similarly, one can argue the benefits of profit sharing for employees—who will often receive higher levels of compensation—and for managers

alike. The benefits of profit sharing can be numerous and massively significant, but barriers like short term difficulties, organizational restructuring and short term losses as employees adjust to their new payment structures may keep some firms—particularly those for whom these plans would represent the most significant upheaval—from participating in these plans. However, profit sharing is one of the oldest and most revolutionary ideas in American business, and it’s legacy can never be denied. The effects that profit sharing can once again have as a cornerstone to business in the United States rest in the hands of politicians and business leaders, but one hopes that some see the benefits and the enormous potential these plans have, just as Washington and Jefferson did, over 200 years ago.

FALL 2015 BUSINESS TODAY

Alphabet and Paradigms in Tech Innovation A Closer Look at Google’s New Parent Company

n October 2nd, 2015, Google’s stock closed at a shade over $625. By Monday, Google’s stock hit 0—as a result of the company becoming a subsidiary of a new company owned by Larry Page and Sergey Brin called Alphabet. In a very sudden announcement, Google recently divested itself of some of its most ambitious ventures, from wifi balloons and self-driving cars to immortality, turning them over to its new parent company.

Operationally, Alphabet differs very little from Google; profits from Google’s core services (such as Search) are funneled into their more experimental ventures such as Google Labs and Google X. Importantly, however, Google’s new reorganization exposes almost all of their experimental projects’ finances, a consistent pain point for investors infuriated with Google’s opaque financial reports hiding the money being funneled back into the company. Alphabet has slowly moved into operation in the past two months, and investors have praised Google for bringing greater transparency and openness to the company. It’s not hard to see why. Google’s new move fundamentally changes the way it goes about its projects. In many ways, Google’s corporate change-up has a lot of promise and could dramatically accelerate the pace of innovation. Yet at the same time, Google’s move may not quite live up to all its hype. Openness and Awareness The important direct consequence of AlphaThe important direct consequence of Alphabet is the financial reshuffling: under Alphabet’s new organizational scheme, subsidiary companies, as separate entities, will also release financial reports to give investors some insight into how and where Google earns or loses money. This may be attractive to investors, allowing Google to put more money into experimental projects. First and foremost, Google’s reorganization introduces some risk to investors. All Google stock was converted to Alphabet stock at a 1:1 ratio, and investors seeking to benefit from Google’s wild success will have to accept the risks that Alphabet, now holding several non-profitable companies, will undertake. However, Google does not risk losing many investors as a result of this reorganization. While investors traditionally value stability and consistency, Google’s track record and its ability to

innovate and create value has led investors to accept the increased risk and place their trust in Alphabet’s leadership. Most investors currently in Google will not be turned off by Alphabet. Alphabet also retains the same unusual stock format as Google, which has allowed Larry Page and Sergey Brin to retain complete control over company decisions. Class A and Class C stock are offered publicly under GOOG and GOOGL, but class B stock that grants control over board decisions is not tradeable and is owned only by Page and Brin. Page and Brin almost certainly will not stop innovating, and Alphabet’s new structure may help them attract more investors. As they have promised, Alphabet will almost certainly bring more transparency to Google’s experimental ventures. Although investors may still have little influence over how the money is spent, Google will be able to attract more investors now that they can at least see where the money goes. In the first day of trading, Alphabet class A and class C stock rose over 2%; although some of the increase may be attributed to hype, many investors are also genuinely more interested now that Google has become Alphabet. The Value of Secrecy Google must be praised for their dedicationGoogle must be praised for its dedication to good, ethical business practices and its willingness to be open (to some extent). Google’s reverse takeover will likely benefit both the company and its investors; investors will be more willing to fund Google’s ventures and Google will itself have more money to fund its ventures. Yet, when it comes to some of the problems Google wishes to tackle, there is

by Kai Lu

some value in secrecy and opacity. Several of Google’s ventures are extremely long term, high risk projects unlikely to make any real contribution anytime soon. A prime example is Calico, a biotech company seeking to reverse the effects of aging. Much like basic research, the importance of some of the work done in these projects will likely only be realized far into the future, for applications sometimes unclear. In this respect, it is more important that researchers and engineers be given freedom to work with little pressure for immediate results. The current investment climate is fast and demands instant results. Google may have been able to buck the trends for the past twenty or so years, but it also operated as a company with anywhere from 30% to 60% profit margins for the past several years that could hide the financials of its riskier projects under its wildly profitable search. It may not come anytime soon, but eventually Alphabet will face some investor backlash for a subsidiary that has very little to show for all of its work. For Alphabet’s most forward thinking projects, it may be better to work in relative obscurity. Research tends to vindicate itself over time, but over too long a period for most to wait. Big Changes Moving Forward Undoubtedly other ambitious companies will look to Google’s model as they try to grow and expand into other sectors, and the success or failure of Alphabet will play a huge role in how companies innovate into the next several years and decades. Tentatively however, Page and Brin seem to have managed to continue their winning ways, and Alphabet will represent Google’s next step forward towards global hegemony in innovation. $640.51

10/1

10/2

10/5

10/6

Alphabet’s stock has seen rapid rises recently.

FALL 2015 BUSINESS TODAY

My Boss’s Boss Doesn’t Exist The Influence of Flat Organizational Thinking on Business Culture by Matthew Lucas

he Corporate Ladder The long-enduring organizational structure of the “corporate ladder” has its downsides for workplace culture. It often makes it difficult for projects to get access to the resources they need from across the company, and systematically stifles the kind of spontaneous collaborative work that is so critical for innovation. Beyond that, it can make employees feel like just so many “cogs in the machine”. In an effort to combat those feelings and boost productivity and innovation, some companies do things differently. The so-called “flat” organizational structure has been around for as long as people have been organizing themselves into groups to pursue their goals, but it has only recently started to have its day in businesses; it

is particularly attractive to agile tech companies whose livelihoods depend on innovation. Flat structures take many forms, but the basic principle is to broaden the span of control and remove layers from the corporate hierarchy to bring different levels of employees closer together. In theory, this structure significantly reduces overhead, empowers employees to collaborate and pursue projects that will best leverage their particular skills to benefit the company, reduces employee stress and infighting over promotions, and generally improves the atmosphere at the company. The reality is never that simple, but there are many lessons modern workplaces can learn from both the successes and failures of flat organizations.

TALL PRESIDENT

My Boss’ Boss Traditional organizational structures take on a “tall” form, with the President or CEO at the top, who directs a suite of C-level officers or Vice Presidents responsible for either a) various functions within the business or b) various products within the business. Each of those officers in turn leads a small team of employees responsible for various sub-functions or sub-divisions; the organization branches from there, with clear chains of authority. The number of people subordinate to each manager is usually small, i.e. the “span of control” is narrow. This means that as an organization grows, so too does the complexity and depth of its middle management tree—more managers are needed to manage the managers, and they in turn need more managers, and so on. A “flat” organization, by contrast, has a wide span of control. In the most extreme case, its members will be entirely democratically self-organizing. More typically, however, the organization will adopt some form of in-between structure, maintaining a President/CEO and some form of supervisory board, but flattening the layers below that. There is no definitive number of management layers or ratio of management that separate a flat organization from a tall one, but the general philosophy in a flat organization is that less is more. Flat Organizations that Could It is difficult to imagine how a utopian, collectively self-organized group of employees could manage to accomplish all of the tasks needed to run a business on a day to day basis—hiring decisions, financing, project assignment, follow-through, compensation, risk management, marketing, etc.—but some companies make it work. Software developer Valve, known for the Steam distribution platform for PC games and for the critically acclaimed and highly

FALL 2015 BUSINESS TODAY

successful Half-Life and Portal series, has been “boss-free since 1996”, the company’s founding. Valve uses an open allocation plan for its approximately 300 employees, who are free to switch between teams/projects at will. When you look on the company’s website, you will not find a list of leaders or directors anywhere—just an alphabetical catalog of all of the company’s employees. Morning Star Company, one of the world’s largest tomato producers, also uses a similar model across its tomato processing

The flat organization approach is heavily reliant on the team having a common understanding, and common goals. and trucking businesses. Morning Star has been described by HBR as “the world’s most creatively managed company”. Its founder, Chris Rufer, is an unassuming “leader”. Similar to Valve, Morning Star has no titles and no promotions. Workers are encouraged to explore options and define their own work tasks that will benefit the company, absent directives from others. Perhaps most surprisingly, this approach extends beyond Morning Star’s 400 year-round employees to the more than 2,000 seasonal workers who are brought on for the yearly harvest—and the company has still achieved growth and success that far outpaces its competitors. The flat structure is not confined to small businesses either. W. L. Gore and Associates

is one of the largest private companies in the world, with over $3 billion in revenues, and a technological leader in synthetic polymers for everything from space suits to medical devices. Gore has over 10,000 “associates” (not employees), all of whom operate in what Gore calls a flat “lattice” structure. At Gore, “leaders emerge naturally by demonstrating special knowledge, skill, or experience that advances a business objective” and gaining a “followership” within the company. Associates have an astoundingly low turnover rate. Gore’s nominal CEO, Terri Kelly, who has worked at Gore since graduating from college, has said that she only carries the title for the sake of the world outside the company. “It’s helpful that folks know who I am. But internally, I’m an associate,” she said in a radio interview with WBUR. Chinks in the Armor But Gore CEO Terri Kelly also went on to say that working at Gore brings unique challenges. “It’s a lot of work” to create an environment like Gore’s. A lot of her time is spent establishing the company’s mission, core values, principles, and decision-making philosophy—creating a “framework” that will empower Gore’s associates and allow them to work effectively, with an understanding of the company’s common purpose and general boundaries. “If you don’t do that, it truly just becomes chaos.” The flat organization approach is heavily reliant on the team having a common understanding, and common goals, which can skew hiring and compensation qualifications away from technical skills and more toward personal factors. Leadership roles in a “non-hierarchical” system can devolve into a “high school-like” popularity contest, according to a former Valve employee. The flat structure also has a serious weakness in handling disputes among employees, as code-hosting company Github learned the hard way last year after an alleged harass-

vs.

FLAT PRESIDENT

The general philosophy in a flat organization is that less is more. ment case; one of the company’s founders resigned and the company finally acquiesced to public pressure over its mishandling of the situation, hiring more HR professionals and introducing middle management to the previously flat company to restore order. Perhaps the most difficult thing about making a flat organization work is convincing the outside world and the people who work there to be comfortable with the unconventional career path. In a flat organization, career progression is horizontal - you develop your skillset, make more connections within the company, and come to understand the whole business better. You will no doubt become a much more valuable employee over time, but the reward for that is not so clear. Even if your colleagues recognize your increasing value to the company and increase your compensation, there is no promotion waiting for you. It is very difficult to shake that military-like mindset of rewarding competence with increased responsibility—and difficult to prove to employees that, should they want to keep their options open, other employers in the industry will still recognize their skills and abilities absent a formal title and job description. In addition to the model’s inherent weaknesses, it is very difficult to retrofit it to an existing organization; most successful flat organizations have been flat and nonhierarchical since their inception, and had strong, principled guiding hands (in their founders/ owners and first employees) to help them along. Online retailer Zappos (an Amazon subsidiary since 2009) transitioned in 2013 to “holacracy”, a type of nonhierarchical organization structure. More than 14% of the company’s 1,500 employees accepted an alternative buyout offer tendered by Zappos’ CEO Tony Hsieh, and its still unclear whether holacracy has had any tangible benefits in terms of innovation or sales. Flat organizations also tend not to get along well with shareholder demands for

short-term progress as their efforts often require years to bear fruit, and there is no command structure in place to dictate specific goals. With the exception of Zappos, every flat company mentioned so far is privately held. Finding the Right Balance The challenges of coordinating a successful flat organization make it unlikely to take over the business world anytime soon. But companies (even large companies) can learn from flat organizations. When they work—which seems to happen mostly when they are designed and built that way from the ground up—they can work extremely well. In a collectively-determined compensation structure, there are far fewer debates over unfair pay of executives. The open nature of meetings and projects allows even the newest members of an organization speak up and contribute when they have an innovative idea, and ensures that bosses and executives remain meaningfully engaged with the work and core purpose of their company, rather than being mere managers. Even if you never get the chance to work at a nonhierarchical business, it’s worth taking a serious look at the people who work at some of these places, and the work that they produce. With a bit of thought, it’s easy for most organizations to adopt at least some of their practices, like openness and availability of all “ranks” and departments across the organization. Make names easy to find, and skills of employees across the company easy for other employees to tap into. Keep managers keyed-in to the company’s core purpose by broadening their span of control, reducing opportunities for micromanagement. The corporate ladder has served businesses well for a long time, but they can learn a thing or two about the beneficial effects of a more open and flatter workplace culture.

Perhaps the most difficult thing about making a flat organization work is convincing the outside world and the people who work there to be comfortable with the unconventional career path.

FALL 2015 BUSINESS TODAY

utting the Cord C

People are moving away from costly and inefficient cable packages in favor of on demand, commercial-free streaming.

FALL 2015 BUSINESS TODAY

able has long been a financial powerhouse. Companies such as Disney have had huge amounts of bargaining power and subsequently profit margins due to high demand content like NFL games. Yet this consistently profitable market is being disrupted by new consumer internet trends. Cord-cutting refers to the transition from cable to on-demand streaming. This trend redistributes bargaining power from cable aggregators to distributors, potentially altering the profitability of major companies. The cable industry breaks down into three parts: content creators, aggregators and distributors. Content creators are the production companies, such as Paramount and Warner Bros, who actually create programs. Aggregators are the broadcast networks such as ABC and ESPN. Distributors are the final link that connects customers to programs. Distributors buy programming on a wholesale basis and deal with customers, billing and maintenance issues. In this model, aggregators hold the power. Aggregators will bundle different programs and channels together before selling content to distributors. Aggregators are able to match more desirable and less desirable content within one package to increase profitability. Consider the aggregator Disney. Disney owns Disney channel, ABC Family, ESPN as well as other less popular programs. Disney can create a package of 20 channels that includes ESPN and ABC Family, and a distributor like Comcast will then relay the

offer to customers. A 20 year old male will be willing to pay for this subscription for the various ESPN channels even though he is not interested in the 19 other programs. A family of 4 will pay for this subscription for ABC Family regardless of the other 19 programs. These two customers are now paying around $36 a month essentially for one channel; the average American household pays for 176 channels and only watch 19. Aggregators see all of the profit from this technique and can subsidize the cost of their less popular channels that are buried in the package. This traditional structure is being revolutionized by the introduction of online streaming. People are moving away from costly and inefficient cable packages in favor of on demand, commercial-free streaming. Few people are willing to schedule around live television hours or wait through commercials. Tivo type recording options were once acceptable alternatives but the convenience of over the top streaming cannot be beaten, especially in regards to new consumer patterns. Any college student could attest to the increase of binge watching a season in one day rather than one episode a week. Netflix is heading this trend with their low cost packages that are available on any device with internet access. Right now, Netflix is available in 50 countries with the goal of being available in 200 in the next 2-3 years. More than that, it has become a household brand and cultural phenomenon. They currently have 6.5 million subscribers

lem

with record growth in the last quarter. Analysts believe Netflix can expect to increase subscribers domestically and internationally. Domestically, Netflix can expect more subscribers thanks to the growing popularity and due to investments in advertising. Internationally, Netflix’s model allows them to enter new markets with low costs, as content rights have already been purchased and only wifi is necessary. Streaming companies have also demonstrated success in entering new markets. Netflix is currently heading a push into European markets, some that already have established local streaming services. Consensus proved that more streaming services available actually increased aawareness and subscribers for both companies. Yet European and Asian markets prevent other barriers. European countries are threatening higher content and streaming taxes in search of profit. China presents a special challenge due to the high rate of piracy. Why pay for a streaming service when you can watch programs online for free? The Chinese government is looking for ways to crack down on piracy and copyright violations. Although Netflix has the highest market share at 36%, competitors like hulu and amazon prime are starting to offer similar services, and it’s clear why. Streaming companies are able to bunch the roles of aggregator and distributor role into one. So, they act as content purchaser and customer service provider. This does require large initial investments in the purchase of content. But because costs are fixed and initial, each added subscriber increases profitability. This business model

benefits consumer and provider far more than previous cable models. Instead of distributors and consumers paying the ridiculously high rates set by aggregator powerhouses, consumers pay monthly rates that range around $10 dollars for access to whichever shows interest them. As more companies enter this market, a huge number of powerful companies could become obsolete. Aggregator business models draw a huge margin of their profits from advertisers. Without viewers, advertizing will necessarily lose value. Aggregators will most likely be pushed out of the business or into the new streaming model. And as more companies enter this market, subscribers will benefit. This streaming revolution returns the power back to consumers. Instead of consumers falling victim to which ever distributor is most reliable in their area, most streaming providers are available anywhere with wifi. The market will be more competitive, keeping costs more honest. This will also increase the importance of content and quality. Streaming providers seem to be entering a content war as each wants the best and most popular content to convince subscribes to chose Netflix over Hulu. Netflix, for example, is increasing its content budget in favor of more exclusive content, like the critically acclaimed Orange is the New Black. Hulu, on the other hand, focuses on maintaining current content so their streaming content more closely resembles live tv schedules. Despite protest from powerful networks, it is clear cord cutting will continue. ‘Netflix and Chill’ is here to stay.

As more companies enter this market, subscribers will benefit. This streaming revolution returns the power back to consumers.

FALL 2015 BUSINESS

Women in Business: Breaking the Glass Ceiling In honor of our Inaugural Women in Business Conference, BT Magazine is featuring female leaders in business. While the conference will be an annual event, the Women in Business Conference aims to create a year-round mentorship network for undergraduate women. Women who get accepted to the conference freshman year will be invited back every year until they graduate. Cohorts of 8-10 women will be created to build tight-knit groups within the larger community of the conference. Alumni will be invited back to speak to future attendees. Our hope is that these cohorts will help women to identify their career paths and support each other in order to achieve their goals.

KATHY WALLER CFO Coca Cola

BT: What was your college experience like, what were you involved in and how did that prepare you for the corporate world? Coca Cola: I went to the University of Rochester but I’m a native of Atlanta. I spent the first part of my college years adjusting to the cold. It made me wonder why I chose the University of Rochester, which I went to because I got a scholarship there. I was actively involved in things like chorus and singing but really spent most of my time studying. If they had opportunities like the ones you all are taking advantage of, I certainly did not take advantage of those things but after I graduated, and I was a history major, I worked for a year. My plan was to go to graduate school but I wanted to get my degree so I took a year off to study. During that time I worked for the city of Rochester, in their budget bureau, and I thoroughly enjoyed the work. But then I changed direction and decided to get my MBA instead, during which I thoroughly enjoyed the accounting courses. Then I decided to get my CPA and that’s kind of what happened. Then I went into public accounting, worked for Deloitte in Rochester then transferred to Atlanta, then six months later joined Coca Cola. BT: We also wanted to know a bit about your journey at this company and how you got into the position you’re in today. Coca Cola: So a lot of life is luck. When I joined Coca Cola, I started working in a group called Issues and Products at the time, but it’s now called Accounting and Research. That group helps the organization understand how to record all kinds of transactions, so any acquisitions or divestitures, any new accounting pronouncements, and it does the 10K’s and 10Q’s, SEC filings, etc. Another one of the things that group did was preparing the board presentations for the CFO to deliver to the board.

When Jack [last name] became CFO, I was invited to the [name] auditorium, because he rehearsed all the time, to listen to his rehearsal. When he finished, he asked the audience what they thought. Most people, as you know, would say that it was great and they enjoyed it, but I was new to the company and said, “Jack, a few parts went a little too fast and some parts I didn’t really understand, but I’m new.” So I went back to my office and later on got a call from Jack to come see him. I thought I was about to be fired, but instead he said, “How would you like to work with me on my board presentations?” So I had the opportunity to help him. I had a lot of exposure to Jack, a few weeks every quarter, to prepare him to give these board presentations. As a result of that, I developed a great relationship with the CFO very early on in my career. Now a lot of that is luck but it has come full circle and I am the CFO so hopefully I can pay that back. Then I went from there to a group called financial services, which acts as a liaison between corporate and field operations. My territory was Northeast Europe and Africa, so that’s when I started traveling with the company. From there, I went to the McDonald’s account, which is Coke’s largest customer. I took on the role as their comptroller, which is their finance person within the company. It was like running my own business, which was a lot of fun, and it was a sales and marketing team. During the week I did all the things sales and marketing people do and during the weekend I did all the finance stuff. I worked all the time, but it was a blast. I thoroughly enjoyed it, and I learned more about the business, customer service. Obviously the McDonald’s account is in our food service business, which is very different from our bottle and can business, so it was certainly more about dealing with the customers on a regular basis. I did that for three years and at that point I was there for a total of six. I also did the executive assistant job to the senior vice president on the business, and that’s when I got the chance to travel more with him

and meet more McDonald’s senior management people. So I went from McDonald’s back to corporate and then back to services, but this time as manager for the Africa group and the Minute Maid company. The Minute Maid company needed somebody and I was able to learn about our juice business, and the Africa group gave me the opportunity to travel with our president, who was here in Atlanta at the time. After that I moved to be Director of Financial Reporting, and that’s the individual who’s responsible for all the internal reporting, consolidating the worldwide information, logging it and reporting it out to senior management. I went from that to Chief of Internal Audit, then I became comptroller for the company, and finally CFO. BT: That’s an incredible journey. You talked a lot about traveling and the great benefits of that but besides that, what makes the Coca Cola itself so unique and how does that appeal to why you’ve chosen to be here for so long? Coca Cola: So other than the great people- and really, it’s mostly about the great people- it’s about being a great business. The company itself, which is 129 years old with a great history and great people, fits with me, who I am. Here we’re all about communities. The way we’re organized, our group and business unit offices do work in the communities they serve. We’re in over 200 countries and we’ve got business units all over the world and we have staff that handle the business in all those countries. But we have people, either in the bottling operations or our business units, that are living in those communities and care about those communities. So it really speaks to me- I love the fact that we give back to them. From Day 1, when I joined the company, one of the first things that I did was start supporting the [couldn’t make it out.] Through other things and now our sustainability efforts for our all communities, I’m so proud of that and it just fits with who I am. BT: Thank you. I’m assuming this would also fit with your identity but as a very influential female in the business world, do you have any particular views on women in business, especially with Business Today’s upcoming theme for the next year? We’re curious about your views on the issue. Coca Cola: Well I could speak for hours on that issue, so I will try to keep it short. 2007, [Name], who’s our CEO, started a group called the Women’s Lead-

FALL 2015 BUSINESS TODAY

ership Council, which I chaired for the first seven years. The purpose of the group was to increase the number of women in senior leadership positions. So he was working with HR and they have this room where they have pictures of the senior succession on the wall, and his first question was, “where are the women?” We didn’t have a good answer for that and a result, he started this group. It’s a group of 15-17 women from around the world who are not at the senior levels of the organization, but rather the director level, who are helping him solve the problem of how to get women into the senior levels. You might say, that’s an easy problem to solve- just start promoting them but the issue is often that at different stages in a woman’s life, she wants different things. You have to meet her where she is and you have to make sure that she’s got the right amount of experience for her to get to that level. And that’s often depending on her mobility and her family and children, so it’s often difficult to do. So you have to work hard to find ways we can help women first decide if that’s what they want and if so, how can she get the right experience to get her where she wants to go. It’s a global initiative, which is also a challenge for a company of our size, but we’re moving the needle. I may have to check my facts but I believe we were at 21% and now we’re at 31%. A lot of things impact the ability of women to get those opportunities, including that there are generally men in the pipeline who have been preparing for these opportunities all along, and so if you identify a woman and put her in front of a man who’s been preparing himself all this time for the opportunity, you can’t just snap your fingers and do it- you have to do it thoughtfully, and that takes time. We created this course called Women in Leadership. We take 40 women at a time and hold 2-3 sessions in a given year. That weekly program allows women to think about themselves for a change. Many times with work and family, you forget about yourself and only think of everyone else. This program is a step back and allows them to think about their own leadership style and what they want. So by the end of this week, they are more clear about what they want to do with their careers and the timing of that, because I’ve found that women opt out. Many say that they want a family and that they won’t take a senior role because I would like to have a family someday. Now what the fascinating thing is, and this is just a generalization, but you talk to a woman who says that and she’s not even dating anyone at the moment. In the meantime, how about stepping up and taking this opportunity? We have a way of pulling ourselves back from opportunities and we have to help them understand that it’s ok to be in different places at different times and allow yourself to go on the journey that you ultimately think you want. Then when you get to a certain place, if the family is more important at that particular time, that’s fine but work your way through it. Eventually the kids will go to school and something will change that will eventually allow you to continue your career. So that’s what we work with them on during that week. We’ve been working on this for a long time, and we still have a long ways to go. It’s a very important initiative here at the company. It’s very important for me personally because I feel like it’s part of my legacy to make sure that we get this right for the company going forward. BT: That’s really great. I had no idea that Coca Cola was so conscious of the women in business topic. Coca Cola: Well the other initiative you may not know about is 5 by 20; it’s the external piece of it. We’re empowering 5 million women into the Coca Cola value chain by 2020. The reason we’re doing that is because we firmly believe that when you empower a woman, she takes care of the family and her surroundings. You empower women, and they’ll do the right things for the community. Women add to our value chain in many different ways- as distributors, artisans.

BT: Building off all of Coke’s social programs and hearing all about Coca Cola’s succeedability initiatives and especially their focus on reducing emissions are environmental-friendly packaging, is that impacting the company on an internal level and how do you see it impacting society in the long run? Coca Cola: Internally, other than the fact that we care about the communities we lie in, we care about sustainability initiatives, which are very important to us as associates, and also because it matters to the communities. It is our Chief Sustainability Officer’s responsibility to make sure that we are true to the commitments that we make and to work with us collectively to make sure that we’re doing what we need for the communities. We do have to reduce our carbon footprint and water intake. Water is the first ingredient in our product, so we care not only about the use of water for our product but also for the communities that we work and produce our products in. But we don’t take their water, so it’s more about how do you replenish the water? Use less water and then replenish the water, so we’ve got plenty of initiatives which are all in our value chain. The three we focus on for the most part are women and wellbeing, water and wellbeing, and positive healthy living, but we have all sorts of other initiatives, such as our trucks and their carbon footprint. Externally, for our communities, they are key. Most of our communities in the U.S. don’t have a few that we would have in some other places in the emerging markets such as China and Africa. The initiatives that we have are often ours in addition to other companies’. Currently young women in Africa are responsible for gathering water. We’re working with NGOs to try and make the water come to them, whether it be via wells or pipes. How do you make sure that’s clean so that they don’t have to face any diseases? Those types of initiatives- they’re not only sustainable for us but also for the communities in which we live, which, again, is why I’m with the company. It’s important to me, and it’s important to us as a company. BT: I’m actually involved with an organization on campus called Engineers Without Borders and we actually send teams to Kenya, Sierra Leone and a lot of other places in Africa to deal with that water issue, and Coca Cola and other companies come to help out. Coca Cola: It feels good to help out and it’s also necessary. There’s always a business case too, as you want communities to thrive and you want people to buy your products but to see a young lady who used to have to gather water every morning be able to go to school, get an education and be able to do something with her life, it makes you feel good about the company. But as I said, there’s a clear business case for everything we do. BT: If you’re traveling so extensively I’m sure you can see firsthand the impact that you’re able to have.

Coca Cola: Particularly if you’re looking at the five by twenty program and what some of the women have done, it’s amazing. There’s a woman in South Africa with a small distribution center. We put that distribution center in place, help her learn how to take inventory and run a business, what to do with the profits, maintain a bank account, etc., and she takes that to then educate her children and employ other women in the business. We watch that distribution center grow to become a community center; it really grows on itself and it does make you feel incredible as you are traveling and meeting these people. We’ve helped to build schools because we care so much about education. We care about what’s going to make a vibrant community in the future. BT: Depending on what age these women you’re talking about are, it’s even possible for Coca Cola to sponsor certain women from that area coming to the Business Today International Conference. I think that would be such an incredible opportunity for them to get business experience and learn. Some executives do choose to do that, where they select certain people or a certain person to attend, if you were interested. Coca Cola: We have brought some of the women from five by twenty to Atlanta to spend time with us, and they’ve come through other NGOs as well. So now that’s an opportunity, thank you. BT: Our next question was about seeing how women in the business field have changed from the eighties to present day but I feel that you’ve already kind of addressed that. I don’t know if you have anything else to add to that.

dwkdqnwkmdnqwdnq.,wnsm. q wms q,.wmsqmw,dlkjdlqkwjdl;qkwjdlq,wml; kjlmqwmxqlkw

Coca Cola: Every year I do something for either our company or another company for International Women’s Day in March. It’s fascinatingwhen I first started doing research on this day, the initiative started in, I want to say 1919. Or even earlier than that. We’ve been working for a long time. And you ask the question, why can’t we get ahead if we’ve been working on this for so long? You look at it and just between times when men went off to fight in the world wars, women step up and they work in the factories and act as the breadwinners for the families, and then the men come back home and take the traditional roles again. It’s an amazing cycle that I was looking at over time. Whenever the economy gets bad, women take a back seat and vice versa. It’s such a cyclical process. Sometimes the women lose their jobs and can’t find comparable jobs or for some reason they then stop to care for the family and don’t continue to climb the ladder. Somehow we have to break the cycle because women have to power to really fix things because they look at the problem differently. But many people, especially if you’re looking out for the family, look to get the husband to work first before you get the female to work. We’ve got to fix and get ahead of this cycle, but you can’t get ahead of something that you don’t recognize. We have to say, it’s not the women that are leaving this time. Traditional roles have

FALL 2015 BUSINESS TODAY

to be redefined. BT: You say that lots of women tend to take the backseat. What motivated and inspired you to keep pursuing your career and what advice would you give to females graduating college right now? Coca Cola: Well, I am a dreamer. As I grew up and learned about things like creative visualization, I realized that dreams are important because you want to think about where you want to go and it helps you actualize your dreams. It reinforces things for you and you make things happen. Whether you recognize if you’re creating that dream or not, it happens. I believe in dreaming, and I believe in dreaming big. Now I didn’t dream this big, I will admit. This was not exactly how I was dreaming, but I’m glad I’ve got it. Nobody can ever take your dreams from you. And you don’t have to share them with anybody, although sometimes it’s good to so people know what you want to do. It’s all about what you do with them and what they mean to you. Put yourself in situations where things happen, and doors will open. You decide, ok that kind of looks like my dream, I’ll go through that door. And then other doors open. Part of that for me is freeing yourself up to dream about what could happen,

identifying a door when it opens and stepping through it, through the fear. Trust me, there’s a lot of fear. Fear of failure, fear of judgment, just a lot of fear. And you’ve got to work your way through it, but it’s not always easy. But I’ll tell you a story- when Mutar called me to his office saying that he wanted me to interview for this role, the voices in the back of my head said “oh my goodness, are you really ready for this?” That’s also what often holds women back. I sat in his office and had this conversation with myself, and finally said yes, I’ll go for it, I would love this opportunity. But often women sit in there and they don’t think they’re ready and take themselves out of the picture. So you have to work through the fear. Men have it too; the just don’t acknowledge it in the same way and they don’t let it stop them. We all have to stop letting it stop us because one thing I tell women at Coke all the time is that we have always figured out how to be successful. If you started at something but didn’t know how, you learned eventually. You figured it out. You’ll figure it out. It may be hard, yes. Maybe some days you’ll ask yourself, what was I thinking? But that’s okay! Just work through it, take it one day at a time, and it all works out. I’m a dreamer, I believe in

dreaming big, I still dream big even though I’m currently in the biggest role that I didn’t even dream about. I just believe that you create your own realities and every positive dream contributes to making that. People also have negative dreams and they need to stop that, because negative dreams can come true as well. So make sure they’re positive and uplifting, and they’re guiding you in a certain direction so my advice would be, dream. BT: Thank you! That’s a great note to end on. And on a last note, we wanted to ask you what your favorite flavor of Coke is. Very important question. Coca Cola: For me, nothing beats classic Coke. Now, if you asked me what other products of the company I really enjoy, I love Gold Peak’s sweet tea. I am southern through and through. I grew up on sweet tea and Coke. But if I’m going for a treat, I’m going for a classic Coke. BT: Thank you so much!

“Quote Quote Quote Quote Q

e Quote Quote Quote Quote”

FALL 2015 BUSINESS TODAY

KATHRYN HALL CEO & Co-CIO Hall Capital Partners LLC

FALL 2015 BUSINESS TODAY

Isabel Shipman: Hi Brian! How are you? Brian Douglas: Good! Kelly Douglass: I’m here too. IS: Okay. Great! Just to let our readers know your company Itzy Ritzy is a supplier of really high-quality, sustainable baby products. Firstly, why did you choose baby products? What made you enter this market, what stood out to you, and what drew you in? BD: Taking a slight step back, Kelly and I were both in New York. I’ll give you a relatively brief background. She came out of IT consulting and healthcare. My background was M&A investment banking but both of us wanted to do something more entrepreneurial. Neither one of us really had that “big idea.” So it’s not like we had this new invention or anything like that so to get into a more entrepreneurial environment we looked at leveraging our own knowledge, our own background and looked to acquire a company. In 2007, we made that decision and started a process to go out and start sourcing potential targets and potential companies to acquire. We narrowed that search down to a little bit of a focus and one of those areas was children’s products and services and there was a lot that we liked about this industry. It is a very fragmented industry in that of the different brands, the different manufacturers, there were a handful of household names— if you’re a parent and even if you’re not a parent—you’ve heard of, but there aren’t many like that. And then you get thousands of mom-and-pop type companies, and we’ll call them anyone that does under a million dollars in revenue and, kind of, in between that vast middle area there just weren’t that many companies. And so we thought if we come into an industry like this and we take a micro-company, a mom-and-pop type company and bring it into that middle area. So there’s one of the things we liked about the industry. Another is we liked the customer profile. You’re selling to primarily the mom but parents who want to buy and acquire things for their baby they think is the best, or good for their kid, that it expresses what kind of mom you are. When you get down to the actual buyer, the end customer, they become a little less price sensitive as long as they see that they’re getting the value that they’re seeking whether that’s fashion that mom likes or the functionality that makes the best thing for your baby. It’s like buying for your pet: you want to go out and get the best doggy toy or the best food that is available. I think the pet industry and the baby industry have a lot of analogies. We liked that as well in terms of the customer profile and then we had the idea about ten years ago when you would go and become a new mom like Kelly did when we became new parents, a lot of times your choices for your baby products and your baby gear looks either solid black or solid grey or a lot of cartoon characters. There just wasn’t as much “Hey I’m a young mom now and I

FALL 2015 BUSINESS TODAY

live in Chicago, I live in New York, I live in LA, wherever, and I like my sense of style and I think that I’m on-trend and when I go out to get a diaper bag or I want to get different baby products; I don’t see anything that fits my fashion.” So we saw a little bit of opportunity there. So there were a lot of things about this industry: fragmented, purchase of love, we some easier to identify opportunities that we really thought, “This makes sense of why to get into it.” On the personal side we were young parents with little ones and we could definitely identify with these products. IS: Okay great. Kelly do you have anything to add or should I continue? KD: In the beginning it was true there wasn’t a lot of good fashion out there. It was really more like life is good. Essentially we started a company and the whole industry has started to advance quite a bit and we continue to keep current with what’s on-trend and really be in touch with millennial moms and social media and instagram and really just being in-tune with a modern mom, which has evolved since we started the company. IS: Okay great. So just a question for Brian. So to start off you said you came from an investment banking background. How is starting Itzy Ritzy and becoming your own boss a cultural change for you whether in terms of work-life balance, the pace of your Isabel Shipman: Hi Brian! How are you? Brian Douglas: Good! Kelly Douglass: I’m here too. IS: Okay. Great! Just to let our readers know your company Itzy Ritzy is a supplier of really high-quality, sustainable baby products. Firstly, why did you choose baby products? What made you enter this market, what stood out to you, and what drew you in? BD: Taking a slight step back, Kelly and I were both in New York. I’ll give you a relatively brief background. She came out of IT consulting and healthcare. My

background was M&A investment banking but both of us wanted to do something more entrepreneurial. Neither one of us really had that “big idea.” So it’s not like we had this new invention or anything like that so to get into a more entrepreneurial environment we looked at leveraging our own knowledge, our own background and looked to acquire a company. In 2007, we made that decision and started a process to go out and start sourcing potential targets and potential companies to acquire. We narrowed that search down to a little bit of a focus and one of those areas was children’s products and services and there was a lot that we liked about this industry. It is a very fragmented industry in that of the different brands, the different manufacturers, there were a handful of household names— if you’re a parent and even if you’re not a parent—you’ve heard of, but there aren’t many like that. And then you get thousands of mom-and-pop type companies, and we’ll call them anyone that does under a million dollars in revenue and, kind of, in between that vast middle area there just weren’t that many companies. And so we thought if we come into an industry like this and we take a micro-company, a mom-and-pop type company and bring it into that middle area. So there’s one of the things we liked about the industry. Another is we liked the customer profile. You’re selling to primarily the mom but parents who want to buy and acquire things for their baby they think is the best, or good for their kid, that it expresses what kind of mom you are. When you get down to the actual buyer, the end customer, they become a little less price sensitive as long as they see that they’re getting the value that they’re seeking whether that’s fashion that mom likes or the functionality that makes the best thing for your baby. It’s like buying for your pet: you want to go out and get the best doggy toy or the best food that is available. I think the pet industry and the baby industry have a lot of analogies. We liked that as well in terms

of the customer profile and then we had the idea about ten years ago when you would go and become a new mom like Kelly did when we became new parents, a lot of times your choices for your baby products and your baby gear looks either solid black or solid grey or a lot of cartoon characters. There just wasn’t as much “Hey I’m a young mom now and I live in Chicago, I live in New York, I live in LA, wherever, and I like my sense of style and I think that I’m on-trend and when I go out to get a diaper bag or I want to get different baby products; I don’t see anything that fits my fashion.” So we saw a little bit of opportunity there. So there were a lot of things about this industry: fragmented, purchase of love, we some easier to identify opportunities that we really thought, “This makes sense of why to get into it.” On the personal side we were young parents with little ones and we could definitely identify with these products. IS: Okay great. Kelly do you have anything to add or should I continue? KD: In the beginning it was true there wasn’t a lot of good fashion out there. It was really more like life is good. Essentially we started a company and the whole industry has started to advance quite a bit and we continue to keep current with what’s on-trend and really be in touch with millennial moms and social media and instagram and really just being in-tune with a modern mom, which has evolved since we started the company. IS: Okay great. So just a question for Brian. So to start off you said you came from an investment banking

background. How is starting Itzy Ritzy and becoming your own boss a cultural change for you whether in terms of work-life balance, the pace of your Isabel Shipman: Hi Brian! How are you? Brian Douglas: Good! Kelly Douglass: I’m here too. IS: Okay. Great! Just to let our readers know your company Itzy Ritzy is a supplier of really high-quality, sustainable baby products. Firstly, why did you choose baby products? What made you enter this market, what stood out to you, and what drew you in? BD: Taking a slight step back, Kelly and I were both in New York. I’ll give you a relatively brief background. She came out of IT consulting and healthcare. My background was M&A investment banking but both of us wanted to do something more entrepreneurial. Neither one of us really had that “big idea.” So it’s not like we had this new invention or anything like that so to get into a more entrepreneurial environment we looked at leveraging our own knowledge, our own background and looked to acquire a company. In 2007, we made that decision and started a process to go out and start sourcing potential targets and potential companies to acquire. We narrowed that search down to a little bit of a focus and one of those areas was children’s products and services and there was a lot that we liked about this industry. It is a very fragmented industry in that of the different brands, the different manufacturers, there were a handful of household names—if you’re a parent and even if you’re not a parent—you’ve heard of, but there aren’t many like that. And then you get thousands of mom-andpop type companies, and we’ll call them anyone that does under a million dollars in revenue and, kind of, in between

that vast middle area there just weren’t that many companies. And so we thought if we come into an industry like this and we take a micro-company, a mom-and-pop type company and bring it into that middle area. So there’s one of the things we liked about the industry. Another is we liked the customer profile. You’re selling to primarily the mom but parents who want to buy and acquire things for their baby they think is the best, or good for their kid, that it expresses what kind of mom you are. When you get down to the actual buyer, the end customer, they become a little less price sensitive as long as they see that they’re getting the value that they’re seeking whether that’s fashion that mom likes or the functionality that makes the best thing for your baby. It’s like buying for your pet: you want to go out and get the best doggy toy or the best food that is available. I think the pet industry and the baby industry have a lot of analogies. We liked that as well in terms of the customer profile and then we had the idea about ten years ago when you would go and become a new mom like Kelly did when we became new parents, a lot of times your choices for your baby products and your baby gear looks either solid black or solid grey or a lot of cartoon characters. There just wasn’t as much “Hey I’m a young mom now and I live in Chicago, I live in New York, I live in LA, wherever, and I like my sense of style and I think that I’m on-trend and when I go out to get a diaper bag or I want to get different baby products; I don’t see anything that fits my fashion.” So we saw a little bit of opportunity there. So there were a lot of things about this industry: fragmented, purchase of love, we some easier to identify opportunities that we really thought, “This makes sense of why to get into it.” On the personal side we were young parents with little ones and we could definitely identify with these products. IS: Okay great. Kelly do you have anything to add or should I continue? KD: In the beginning it was true there wasn’t a lot of good fashion out there. It was really more like life is good. Essentially we started a company and the whole industry has started to advance quite a bit and we continue to keep current with what’s on-trend and really be in touch with millennial moms and social media and instagram and really just being in-tune with a modern mom, which has evolved since we started the company. IS: Okay great. So just a question for Brian. So to start off you said you came from an investment banking background. How is starting Itzy Ritzy and becoming your own boss a cultural change for you whether in terms of work-life balance, the pace of your Isabel Shipman: Hi Brian! How are you? Brian Douglas: Good! Kelly Douglass: I’m here too. IS: Okay. Great! Just to let our readers know

FALL 2015 BUSINESS TODAY

GENDER INEQUALITY IN THE WORKPLACE Where We Stand and Where We’re Headed by Melissa Fulenwider

FALL 2015 BUSINESS TODAY

74% of companies say they are committed to expanding gender diversity.

omen are all too aware that they are still underrepresented in corporate America. Despite this awareness and the attempts of companies to snag the most talented women as their employees through diversity recruiting events, gender inequality remains a sticky issue. Even though women are currently leaders of some of the most influential respected organizations internationally, from Hewlett-Packard to Yahoo and even the IMF, this is a rather rare occurrence. While women have certainly come a long way from being relegated to only feminine jobs, such as seamstresses and clerical work, closing the remaining gender gap in corporate employment is proving to be a difficult endeavor. Why are gender stereotypes so difficult to erase, and why aren’t more companies investing in women early? Following up a research report published by McKinsey & Company in 2012, LeanIn.Org and McKinsey & Company recently teamed up to publish a 2015 study called “Women in the Workplace.” The duo compiled survey data on over eighteen companies for their study, with over 30,000 employees participating, in an effort to promote gender equality in the workplace and embolden women to pursue leadership roles. All in all, the study leaves us wondering: why is gender inequality in corporate America so difficult to combat, and at what rate can we expect these disappointing statistics to improve in the future? While questions such as these are still far from being answered, “Women in the Workplace” forces us to confront the reality of the glass ceiling by digging into numerous companies and providing compelling statistics to back up their claims. While people tend to assume that female underrepresentation in the workforce has to do with women’s familial obligations or that they tend to leave corporate jobs more frequently than men, “Women in the Workplace” clears up this confusion, arguing that instead, this phenomenon has much more to do with “barriers to advancement and a steeper path to senior leadership.” As the study shows, women in senior manager or director roles are actually more likely than comparable men to remain at their company, and the gap between the percent of men and women in the corporate pipeline increases dramatically from entry-level positions to senior leadership positions, such as the C-suite. “Women in the Workplace” also seeks to prove the existence of barriers to entry by surveying employees about how they perceive

women’s chance of advancement. As the results revealed, people believed that women’s chance of advancement compared to men’s was about 15 percent lower at each level. While this is only people’s perception and cannot technically prove barriers to advancement, it is nevertheless significant because it shows that both men and women are at least aware of this inequity. Beyond the corporate realm, numerous studies have also explored why there is such a limited supply of women in leadership positions in American politics. For instance, a study published by PewResearchCenter on “Women and Leadership” earlier this year sought to dismiss false assumptions, such as that concerns about women’s worklife balance are a primary reason, and to uncover the true explanation behind this circumstance. Upon discovering that most Americans view women to be just as qualified as men to become effective political leaders, “Women and Leadership” went on to conclude that some of the primary reasons for the “double standard” that women pursuing high political offices face are that women are held to higher principles (38 percent of those surveyed reported this), people are simply not ready to elect female leaders (37 percent), and women do not have enough party support (27 percent). In terms of the traits that are directly applicable to political leadership, however, many Americans do not seem to draw many distinctions between men and women. In fact, the study interestingly revealed that many adults believe female politicians are superior at “working out compromise” (34 percent say women are better at this versus 9 percent say men are better at this), working to improve the lives of Americans (26 percent versus 5 percent), defending their beliefs (25 percent versus 10 percent), and “being honest and ethical” (34 percent versus 3 percent). Overwhelmingly, however, the public did not find major differences between the perceived capabilities of men and women to hold positions of authority in either business or politics. If we cannot blame the gender gap on overt prejudices against women’s ability to lead, then to what else might we attribute this misfortune? While most adults do acknowledge the persistence of gender discrimination in the workplace, “Women and Leadership” found that women are 17 percent more likely than men to do so. In addition, although explicit gender stereotyping is neither socially acceptable nor legal in the workplace, it is still evident through the types of professions that people find men

In a global economy where innovation and efficiency are advancing at an unprecedented pace, corporate America simply cannot afford to put diversity on the backburner.

FALL 2015 BUSINESS TODAY

and women best suited to. For example, “Women and Leadership” reports that only 8% of Americans believe women would be better at managing a professional sports team, compared to the 54% of Americans who report that men are more fit for the job; on the other hand, Americans are “two and a half times more likely” to report that women would be more successful than men at managing a retail chain or a large hospital. Gender discrimination also seems to play a significant role in the Silicon Valley, which is known for its high proportion of male professionals. Fenwick & West LLP’s 2014 study on “Gender Diversity in Silicon Valley” found that while 62 percent of Silicon Valley 150 companies had at least one female director, only 16.7 percent had two female directors, and 3.3 percent had three. These facts are striking when we consider, as a recent article in CNET does, that over 50 percent of the U.S. population is women, more than half of college graduates are women, and that women earn approximately 40 percent of the MBAs awarded each year. Discussing what it’s like to be a female executive in the technology industry, Debbie Sterling, founder of GoldieBox, which makes engineering games that are geared towards girls, explains, “The industry is still male dominated and it can be so aggressive and intimidating and almost feel like this club where you have to have a certain IQ or you’re not invited.” In addition, Debbie also references how the culture is discouraging for women, who tend to “undervalue their ability and intellect while men overstate them.” Despite these statistics, of the few innovative females who have come to dominate the tech world as CEOS, engineers, and investors, several topped Business Insider’s 2015 Silicon Valley 100 list. To name a few, Elizabeth Holmes, founder, CEO, and Chairwoman of the $9 billion biotechnology company Theranos, has designed a cheaper method for blood testing that is currently being implemented at Walgreens; Meg Whitman is one of the top paid CEOS among her peers as President, CEO, and Chairwoman of Hewlett-Packard; and Angela Ahrendts, SVP of retail and online sales at Apple, was compensated with over $70 million in 2014 as Apple’s only female director. The point is: having gender and ethnic diversity is an important source of innovation and variation of perspectives that Silicon Valley companies cannot afford to miss out on. The finance and technology industries are often applauded for the sense of meritocracy they aim to uphold, but the lack of women in leadership positions undermines this effort. Even though 74 percent of companies reported to McKinsey & Company and LeanIn.org that their CEOs are very committed to expanding gender diversity, only about half of those companies’ employees see gender diversity as a priority for their CEO. While the responsibility

FALL 2015 BUSINESS TODAY

for bringing about change does fall largely on corporate CEOs, it is also important to consider how women’s perceptions of their own abilities can be altered or improved. As “Women in the Workplace” concludes, women are four times as likely as men to believe their chances of job mobility are limited by their gender, which likely contributes to the “leadership ambition gap” where women are less excited about pursuing executive positions and frequently cite “stress/pressure” over work-life balance as what is holding them back. As a result of these trends, there are several avenues through which we can combat the gender imbalance in the workplace—to name a few, getting CEOs to more actively recruit female professionals, setting gender targets, expanding female networks within companies and organizations, or seeking to reverse women’s perceptions of their own limitations. For now, it is important to point out, however, that not all of the information obtained through “Women in the Workplace” and other similar studies is discouraging. For instance, men and women reported equitable levels of satisfaction with their jobs, finances, and personal lives. Additionally, mothers are 15 percent more attracted to pursuing an executive role than non-mothers, which suggests that motherhood does not diminish women’s ambition for leadership. The PewResearchCenter study also reported a supportive finding about mothers, citing how only about 20 percent of people expressed viewing family responsibilities as an explanation for why the number of women in leadership roles in business and politics is so minimal. Each of these observations is important because they show us that women are not necessarily consumed or discouraged by their limitations in the workplace; many retain their motivation and pride throughout their careers in spite of gender biases. The position of women in the labor force has progressed substantially over the past several decades, but there is still plenty of room for improvement. In a global economy where innovation and efficiency are advancing at an unprecedented pace, corporate America simply cannot afford to put diversity on the backburner. If America fails to make gender diversity a priority, she will risk missing out on obtaining a broader variety of perspectives and problem-solving techniques. Ultimately, regardless of whether change is implemented from the top down or the bottom up, “Women in the Workforce” asserts that it is a necessity which requires “authenticity and accountability” on the part of all actors in order to move from a verbal commitment to gender diversity to achieving it in practice. By setting concrete objectives and advertising them throughout the ranks of corporate America, companies can help women achieve the equality they hope and deserve to achieve in the workforce.

Why are there so few female elected officials?

38%

38% of people believe female candidates are held to higher standards

37%

37% believe people are not ready to elect women leaders

27%

27% of people say women candidates do not have enough party support

GLOBAL PERSPECTIVES

Culture & Business Corporate Siamese Twins by Palak Marwah

ndia - an ancient and historic land which has played a pivotal role in defining the social ethos of culture and tradition – prides itself on being one of the pioneers of the two most important roots of the present society: culture and business. There was a time, starkly different from today, when both these terms had no considerable region of overlap. Traversing back to the Vedic system of life in India, it was a staunch belief that any individual could be involved even in acts of culture or of business. There were a class of Brahmins who had to learn, teach and preach the cultural nuances to people, who were in return awarded with pieces of land, gold and food stock for their services. In contrast, the Vaishyas were assigned the job of agriculture, cattle rearing, money lending, trading or any commerce aligned field. Even though the hierarchy was pre-determined by birth and upheld by segregation, restriction on social intercourse and endogamy, it was acceptable to the society and worked wonderfully in maintaining the edifice upon which the pillars of the social structure and networks of commerce prevailing at that time rested. Even though both these spheres were considered mutually exclusive then, the routes to exchange and symbiotic growth of various countries in the pre-modern period were almost the same. While on the northern end, the Silk Road carved a path for trade and cultural exchange, southern India had maritime business links with the Roman Empire from around 77 CE which later led to the establishment of Indianized societies in Southeast Asia. It is evident from these ancient facts that business and culture have been two crucial aspects of every society, which if not voluntarily always exist and flourish together. It would be a folly to assume that business

(or trade) and culture were considered or maintained separately. In one instance epitomizing their effect on each other is a tale from the Chinese Manchu Qing Dynasty. Qianlong, 1711-1799, Fifth emperor of the Chinese Manchu Qing Dynasty, responded to Lord George Macartney, representative of King George, who visited China to open up and develop trade in 1793 – “Our dynasty’s majestic virtue has penetrated into every country under Heaven. I set no value on objects strange or ingenious and have no use for your country’s manufacturers.” Macartney did not even get to see the Emperor. Qianlong wrote the statement and left it on his throne and that is all that the British Emissary got from his trip. In reality, much of the difficulty had to do with the refusal of the English party to observe Chinese Court Etiquette. The Chinese chief minister persuaded the Emperor that since China was the center of the Universe and the most advanced civilization, there was no need to trade with the barbarian English. Macartney and his company would not kowtow or prostrate themselves in front of the Dragon Throne, but insisted that kneeling on one knee and bowing to the throne as they did for their King was sufficient. In contrast Isaac Titsingh, the Dutch trade emissary did kowtow and follow court etiquette and was quite successful. While this history demonstrates that culture and business are frequently interlinked, the slight distinction between the two, apparent to a layman, began to fall off as modernization and globalization paved their way into all countries and societies. Over time, extensive studies have been published on how culture affects business, leading to familiar concepts of “business culture” or “corporate culture. There are extensive pieces of study on the intercultural

Global technology and experience, combined with adaptability to local work culture make a lethal combination for any firm.

FALL 2015 BUSINESS TODAY

aspect of dyadic business relationship interaction from an individual as well as holistic perspective. So how does culture in actuality affect business or corporate life? “Culture” as defined by Ifte Choudhary, Associate Professor at Texas A & M University, refers to the cumulative deposit of knowledge, experience, beliefs, values, attitudes, meanings, hierarchies, religion, notions of time, roles, spatial relations, concepts of the universe, and material objects and possessions acquired by a group of people in the course of generations through individual and group striving.” Culture, according to him, has various layers – national, regional, gender, generation, social class and corporate culture. Whereas “Business” is most simply defined as “an organization or enterprising entity engaged in commercial, industrial or professional activities.” In such a literal environment, the business or corporate culture is, as defined by Lismen (2004), “a complex set of values, beliefs, assumptions, and symbols that define the way in which a firm conducts its business.” Culture reflects both abstract and identifiable components of a corporation from practices, beliefs, customs and values. During the advent of the Industrial revolution, it was believed that the asset base of any greenfield site and its prospective accelerated economics depends on cost structure (fixed and variable costs), value propositions, customer segment identification, revenue streams, key resources (suppliers and commodities), viability (economic

and practical) and key partners. All these elements were distinguished from immeasurable parameters like employee job satisfaction, quality of work life, consumer relationship management, post-deal services and sustaining customer belief in the brand. As the competition in every sphere from products to service providers has gotten more aggressive over the years, these unquantifiable elements have developed to play the role of the distinguishing “wow” factor for any corporate giant over its contemporaries. Hence corporate culture plays the role of the distinguishing element both locally, inside the firm in its daily affairs, and globally while expanding its dimension of business to other culturally distinct parts of the world. Corporate culture, on local, internal terms include the Organizational Climate of an organization and is a very clear reflection of employee job satisfaction. This includes making the employees feel valued, flexibility in work nuances, environment, basic amenities provided, vision penetration into the work force and overall positivity in the organization among other local factors. On a global scale, apart from all-encompassing ease of communication and shared online resource base, corporate expansion to various countries is unequivocally decided by adaptability of organizational practices to the local culture. Any organization needs to include and exercise cultural awareness in order to achieve a breakthrough in local markets. In most situations a firmly established

global name and loyal customer base do not ensure success in new markets. This is shown by this comprehensive plot between cultural awareness and extent of global involvement. Global technology and experience, combined with adaptability to local work culture make a lethal combination for any firm. Hence it is imminent that culture and business have grown to form a pair of Siamese twins. An epitome of striking the correct balance between culture and business and effectively utilizing the former to boost the latter, has been displayed by Coca Cola Company over the past few decades. Marking its re-entry in the Indian market after its 17 years’ absence in 1993, Coca Cola decided to go the Indian way by marketing its return in the form of Juloos – a traditional Indian procession involving a parade of trucks, vans and trolleys. This flashed Indians with the memory of their beloved drink of 1970s and connected well with the festive sentiments of general Indian society. In order to reign the South Asian sub-continent, Coca Cola utilized its knowledge of the fact that India and Pakistan, two neighboring South Asian countries with severely strained political issues that has even resulted in warfare, have very similar culture. Coca Cola in a move to unite our two countries did an incredible thing. They installed two interactive, high-tech vending machines in a popular mall at New Delhi, India and another one at a mall in Lahore, Pakistan. These “Small World Machines” used 3D Touchscreen

technology to capture a live image from New Delhi and project that to Lahore and vice-versa. The machine brought laughter, smiles, cheers and most importantly, a moment of happiness between these two estranged countries and fundamentally reshaped popular notions about the role of businesses in bridging old divides, healing old wounds and positively transforming the societies within the confines of which they operate. Apart from Asia, Coca Cola also spearheaded campaigns in the USA that were designed to bring its vision in line with American culture and helped it create a place for itself in the hearts of those whom it served. By the time the United States entered World War II in December 1941, Coca-Cola was already established as a symbol of the American way of life. In countless letters home, soldiers serving abroad spoke of fighting for the little things, like an ice cold Coke, rather than politics or ideology. In a mutually beneficial edict, Coca-Cola Company president Robert W. Woodruff declared that any American in uniform could get a Coke for 5¢, regardless of the listed price or cost of production. Coca-Cola’s advertisements during the war addressed the softer sides of the conflict. Rather than show war-weary soldiers enjoying their product, the company focused on Coke’s ability to bring people and nations together, as seen in ads portraying GIs intermingling and laughing over Cokes with British, Polish, Soviet and other allies from Alaska and Hawaii to Brazil and China, always

Coca-Cola’s advertisements during the war addressed the softer sides of the conflict. FALL 2015 BUSINESS TODAY

Other instances of good marketing leading to a larger share in the contemporary market include two very famous names – Marlboro and Amazon. 56

FALL 2015 BUSINESS TODAY

with a caption along the lines of: “Have a ‘Coke’—a way of saying we’re with you.” Coca Cola surely hit the bull’s eye with so much perfection that Coke has almost replaced water in every eatery in USA since then. The company perfectly achieves its aim of penetrating all the seven continents and briefly declared its vision with the very famous campaign “I’d like to buy the world a coke” where citizens of various countries of the world sing the Coke jingle in unison holding coke bottles in their hands. This commercial promotes basic values of racial equality and heralds the dawning of a common global culture of world peace and harmony. This commercial and song recorded immediate success selling 96,000 copies of their record in one day eventually rising to a sale of 12 million records. “I’d Like to Buy the World a Coke” has had a lasting connection with the public. The commercial has consistently been voted one of the best of all time and the sheet music continues to sell today. Thirty years after the commercial, Coca-Cola is still more than a beverage. It is a common connection between the people of the world. It declared to the world that business could be done very differently from the conventional methods of trade. Coca-Cola is a great example of how businesses can leverage their power and influence to celebrate international cultural diversity in ways that few other social actors can. Though a large corporation, Coca-Cola focuses on small community programs and invests a lot of time

and money in small-scale charity efforts which makes it a brand of the people. For example, in Egypt, Coca-Cola has built 650 clean water installations in the rural village of Beni Suef and sponsors Ramadan meals for children across the Middle East. Not to mention, the brand sticks with selling an emotion that can’t get lost in translation: happiness. Today, 3.1% of world’s beverages consumed around the world are Coca Cola products and you cannot be surprised. Other instances of good marketing leading to a larger share in the contemporary market include two very famous names – Marlboro and Amazon. Marlboro was first introduced to the public in the 1920s behind the theme “Mild as May”. The brand originally targeted a female audience through a series of ads in 1926 showing a feminine hand reaching for a cigarette. It faced trouble in the 1930s and attempted to rejuvenate itself with a clever advertising gimmick, changing the ivory tip to red in order not to smear ladies’ lipstick. During World War II, however, the brand again faltered and had to be taken off the market. Three brands, Camel, Lucky Strike and Chesterfields surfaced with a firm hold on consumers after the war. After the rationing of popular brands, such as Camel, and a severe shortage of tobacco during the war, the fifties were an exaggerated example of this change in American culture. Philip Morris saw its chance to reintroduce Marlboro in the early fifties when the first studies linking cigarette smoking to

lung cancer were released, after a disappearance of about 20 years. Unfortunately for Marlboro, formerly known to be “Mild as May”, the new filters were considered effeminate. The dilemma would be to appeal to the attitudes of an old group of customers with a new concern, addicted men who feared lung cancer. Philip Morris took the challenge to a Midwestern agency and reintroduced Marlboro to the nation in 1955 with the “Tattooed Man” campaign” The image of the “new Marlboro smoker as a lean, relaxed outdoorsman--a cattle rancher, a Navy officer, a flyer”, proved that there was nothing sissy or feminine about these filtered cigarettes. The first advertisements spoke directly to the masculine audience suggesting in a descriptive paragraph that they try “old fashioned flavor in a new way to smoke.” In New York after their introduction in 1955, Marlboro became the top selling filtered cigarette literally overnight, and eight months after the campaign opened, sales had increased 5,000 per cent. The “Tattooed Man” campaign provided a diverse pool of working men as applicants for the final Marlboro representative, effectively demonstrating the impact cultural trends can have over business graphs. Similarly, in the recent past, Amazon has shown its cultural awareness traits by ensuring that the online site sale days depend on the festive season of each country. For instance, the sale on Diwali (a major Indian festival), is singular and targeted to the Indian customer base, in contrast to July 4 sale in the USA. This ensures that the customers believe

Amazon to be an inherent part of their culture and society, giving Amazon its well-deserved status of the most trusted service in many countries. On the contrary, corporate history has seen instances where firms having an established clientele were forced to shut down due to their inability to adapt themselves to the rapid cultural changes that the world was witnessing with the influx of globalization. In 2006, after 33 years of offering up legends like the Talking Heads, Blondie, Misfits and the stalwart Ramones, CBGB, the most famous underground alt-rock/punk club in the world, closed its doors. It was shuttered to make way for a high-end men’s fashion store. Hence, it is pertinent to note that, culture affects business to the extent of having the capacity to build up or burn down a potential future market. With the gaps in the culture narrowing down at a faster rate, understanding trivial differences in foreign cultures is one art which can make all the difference in determining whether a business participates in the race to the top or the race to the bottom in every sphere of the corporate world. Undoubtedly, it will be a missed opportunity to ignore this inter-relationship of culture and business. Hence it is only wise to observe, dwell upon and develop the methods in which cultural awareness and adaptability can be utilized as an effective tool by businesses that control the levers of control in societies across the globe for sustainable, long-term business growth and development.

Hence, it is pertinent to note that, culture affects business to the extent of having the capacity to build up or burn down a potential future market.

FALL 2015 BUSINESS TODAY

South Africa Title Subtitle Bold Subtitle Light by Natalie Mangondo

o see a snapshot of what Africa will look like in the next 10 years, sit in a university class today. Prosperity in Africa is a question of leadership. I am Zimbabwean and have lived in South Africa for the last 17 years and have seen three completely different heads of state, well 4 if you count Kgalema Motlanthe (who was in office for about 7 months). My family in Zimbabwe have only known one, Robert Mugabe. As of today he has been in office for 27 years and 300 days. Now when people think of South Africa and Zimbabwe, we think of two very different images. When we think of Nelson Mandela and Robert Mugabe, both liberators, we have completely different ideas about them. Are these two things linked? An African countries prosperity and its leader? I firmly believe that. Nelson Mandela once said “Sometimes it falls upon a generation to be great, you can be that generation.” I strongly believe that we have reached an inflection point at which a great prosperous society can emerge from one generation. Now where do we find these leaders? In this country, you have a 4% chance of going to university when you are in grade one and only 1 in 100 grade ones in South Africa will actually graduate from college. There are two problems with this. One that number is far too small and secondly, it means that nearly everyone who graduates from university will essentially be running the country one day. We will be running the hospitals, school, business and in about 30 years, government. Our universities need to create a generation of innovative, ethical leaders that will make our continent a prosperous one. What do these leaders need to focus on? The drivers: the forces that will proper change across Africa. These factors will affect different African countries in different ways depending on how the government reacts. There will be a multitude of forces that affect Africa in the next 14 years, I will be focusing on those with the most important dynamics. The most obvious driver is economic growth. Today, 7 of the 10 fastest-growing

FALL 2015 BUSINESS TODAY

economies in the world are in Africa and the continent is increasingly moving more into the global limelight as a promising investment destination. The key reasons behind this growth surge included government action to end armed conflicts, improve macroeconomic conditions, and undertake microeconomic reforms to create a better business climate. On the other hand, out of the 23 poorest countries in the world, 19 are located in Africa. These countries and the

Without economic growth, it is hard to see how African countries can address the complex political, social, and epidemiological agendas that they face. rest that are growing at less than 6% annually find it difficult to pay for education, to address AIDS, and to fund police and military units that promote security. Without economic growth, it is hard to see how African countries can address the complex political, social, and epidemiological agendas that they face. African countries must grow or they will die. The second driver is demography. With Africa’s population set to double by 2050, unlocking the economic potential of the continent’s diverse regions will be vital to create the millions of jobs needed. Furthermore, the under 18 population is set to increase by two thirds to one billion in the same time frame. Unless governments act quickly and collaborate with private and education sectors alike, the growing population is going to significantly intensify existing challenges

on creating meaningful job opportunities to address youth unemployment in each market/country. Related to unemployment levels; larger populations who will also live longer will continue to challenge social services and welfare systems. The next driver is democracy. The first ten years of the democratic movements in Africa were devoted to overthrowing autocratic regimes with a few exceptions, like Zimbabwe. However the democracies that African countries are trying to develop are not noticeably different from Western countries. If democracy in Africa is to succeed, we need to develop our own democratic practices and institutions that are appropriate for our own social, historical and political environments. Otherwise, conflict will become a driver on the continent. The bloody 1990’s taught us this. Furthermore, when conflicts arise we need to develop techniques to end these. We need to rely on ourselves to end wars. The international community are not affected enough by these to be motivated to solve our conflicts and are fickle when deciding whether or not to get involved. Basically we need African solutions to African problems. This leads us to the final driver I will be addressing: the external environment. Yes, we have resources that the industrialised world needs from us. However, after we saw how the West did not need Angola to be stable or developing to keep the oil flowing. There is little reason to believe that the West will feel compelled to be involved in large parts the continent. For the West to be engaged in Africa, there must be a compelling set of opportunities provided by African countries. There will not be one scenario for African countries in 10 years, the continent’s countries will become a set of extremes based on the drivers mentioned. This is not unique to Africa. In Europe take a look at Germany vs Greece. In Asia, South Korea vs Burma. No continent has witnessed uniform development across a large number of different countries. The scenario each country finds itself in will be largely due to how the

African leaders combine the previously mentioned drivers. We, as the future leaders need to provide the political ideas and leadership to address our problems. Economic policy, democracy, governance and security will be driven by our ideas and initiatives. This does not mean we will not need outside assistance however we need to depend on African solutions to African solutions. The only way for us to have prosperity in Africa is if we are no longer junior partners in issues that directly affect us. This scenario sees African initiative emerging from a combination of domestic, regional, and continental reforms, with the common denominator being attempts to create local solutions to pressing problems. This scenario is one in which Africa shed its image of despair and begins to demand global attention for the right reasons. This may seem unlikely however East Asia was known as a region of economic stagnation and war only a generation ago and look where it is today.

4% of grade ones in South Africa will go to university

1% of grade ones in South Africa will graduate from college

7 of the 10 fastest-growing economies in the world are in Africa.

19 of the 23 poorest countries in the world are in Africa.

FALL 2015 BUSINESS TODAY

International Business Interculteral Operations and Litigation by Mo Luo Globalization and Cultural Understanding Globalization is as old as trade itself. Businesses were able to more effectively produce and sell their products by optimizing their organizations across various nations are regions. With each new iteration, globalization takes on a different character. In the age of colonialism, for example, powerful countries with multinational businesses used domination of local populations as a means of business and economic expansion. Businesses spent little effort specifically catering to their international workers or markets in a way that acknowledged their diversity and unique cultures. In many ways, however, the new wave of globalism runs counter to the previous hegemonic model. These new developments are driven by a few key trends. Economies in the emerging world have grown at unprecedented rates while markets in developed countries have been maturing. This has

FALL 2015 BUSINESS TODAY

Western governments are no longer as dominant and the average multinational firm now holds less sway over its labor pool and consumers.

driven multinationals abroad for profits and expansion potential to escape a weak economy and ever more demanding product and labor markets at home. As multinational firms expand operations and marketing abroad, emerging market countries continue to experience rapid economic growth. Indeed, fueled by Chinese manufacturing demand, emerging market economies had propped up sagging global economic growth since the financial crisis. This growth has allowed these countries to command greater political and economic power against both major world powers and multinational firms. At the same time, labor markets in the emerging markets have become more developed while local consumers have become wealthier and more demanding. Finally, now more than ever, globalization has become possible not just for the largest and wealthiest of firms, but for many smaller enterprises as well. Information technology and vast improvements in

communications have made coordinating logistics internationally much less costly. International travel has also become more convenient and less costly. For these smaller enterprises without deep pockets, however, hiring, labor, and marketing are less straightforward and much more critical without an international brand name or powerful backing. Indeed, the global marketplace has seen important shifts in power. Western governments are no longer as dominant and the average multinational firm now holds less sway over its labor pool and consumers. Multinationals must now be more cognizant of the diverse environments they operate in. One consequence is the emergence of the importance of local cultures. Business is an inherently cultural activity. Work and business culture, for example, is very much shaped by the culture and expectations of the people who work in the business and the customers of the business. Multiregional and multinational firms operate in many different cultures, many quite different from each other and each with its own unique aspects. For firms looking to make sales and grow revenues in these different regions and cultures, local sales and operations are critical. Local sales are made to local clients and a well-trained local team is much better equipped to understand the business culture and the nature of the client businesses. Developing and working with a local team, however, is a challenge that more and more multinationals are facing. Chinese Businesses in South East Asia As the Chinese economy grew at pace, Chinese manufacturers sought access to more resources, partially manufactured products, and markets. South East Asia became a key region where Chinese busi-

60% of Chinese see growing international business ties as a way to improve local incomes

nesses opened foreign operations. Driven by Chinese demand for raw materials, Indonesian mines, quarries, and manufacturers of basic products expanded their operations greatly. Other South East Asian countries such as Malaysia and Thailand also saw their manufacturing sectors grow. Keen on securing access to these markets and resources, Chinese firms sought to develop relationships with local firms in these countries. Malaysia and Thailand were natural favorites for Chinese businesses because of their large Chinese populations (around 10% each). Working with a partner business run by ethnically Chinese Malaysians, for example, gave the Chinese enterprise many advantages. The Malaysian business would bring with it all of its sales and distribution channels and expertise and its understanding of local business and client needs. Language and communication, furthermore, came naturally. Business culture and expectations were also already well aligned. Mostly working with businesses owned by any particular ethnic group, however, could also come with drawbacks. In Malaysia, for example, ethnic tension between the generally wealthier ethnically Chinese and the majority, the ethnically Malay has flared periodically. Most recently, Malays participating in demonstrations supporting the current government regime attempted to climb barricades into primarily Chinese districts in Kuala Lumpur and were pushed off with fire hoses. Chinese firms with primarily Chinese partners in Malaysia experience greater difficulty obtaining business with non-Chinese clients due to this ethnic tension. In Indonesia, however, Chinese businesses face a different problem: a dearth of Chinese local businesses to partner with. Instead, all Chinese businesses will usually work with building a local team or through Indonesian firms. In fairly young market such as Indonesia, sales and operations teams are not necessarily trained in the more sophisticated methods considered typical in a more mature market. It becomes necessary, for example, to train salespeople to gather enough data on sales of products and on the customer experience. Otherwise it is often the case the salespeople never form a complete understanding of the local market for their products. Training of course, necessitates clear communication and the Chinese business’s representative often will not speak Indonesian. In most cases with smaller Chinese enterprises looking to do business in Indonesia, the representatives of the two firms will communicate in proficient, though not native-level, English. The Indonesian representative will then translate to the rest of the Indonesian team while the Chinese representative will translate to the Chinese team. Meaning is sometimes lost and communication is often difficult. Finally, many Indonesians are reasonably devoutly Muslim while Chinese are largely agnostic to religion. Indonesians may not fully perform Salah and pray five times

a day but most do pray multiple times each day. The Chinese businessmen, who usually work with Western or Chinese clients, operate on a different daily timeline. Religious observation and personal life almost always take the back seat to business needs, leading to coordination frustrations.

Working with a partner business run by ethnically Chinese Malaysians gave the Chinese enterprise many advantages. Corporate Law and Arbitration One significant manifestation of local culture affecting business is in the legal environment. Different countries have different business laws and the interpretation of these laws vary across cultures. What an American court may deem illegal activities, for example, may be upheld in the courts of a different country. A dramatic example of the confusion around international litigation is Elliot Capital Management’s continued fight with the government of Argentina. Argentina had defaulted on its national debt and moved to restructure. Elliot’s Paul Singer, however, refused the terms of Argentina’s restructuring and demanded to be paid in full. Argentina refused and two US courts granted Elliot the full payment in damages. However, most of Elliot’s cases against Argentina, many in international courts asking for permission to seize Argentinian assets, were decided against Elliot. To avoid costly legal battles with little chance for speedy and clean conclusions, most international commercial disputes are settled through international arbitration. In international arbitration, the two opposing parties are given great freedom to formulate and agree on acceptable arbitration proceedings. Furthermore, the arbitrator is often a trusted and neutral expert in the field and judgments are trusted to be fair. Arbitration results are also more enforceable than decisions by courts, whose reach is usually subject to the specific details in certain national and international treaties. In a formal dispute, however, full litigation is still necessary for solving formal, legal disputes. In this case, culture, especially legal culture, becomes an important factor. One particularly important reason is that international courts are now more likely to reject decisions made by American

FALL 2015 BUSINESS TODAY

courts for international litigation. In cases of international litigation, the plaintiff’s home country’s court will have jurisdiction over the defendant in certain situations. Most international courts now believe, however, that Americans use too broad an interpretation of this long arm jurisdiction. This only serves to increase the importance of writing unambiguous contracts that will hold up in an international court. Legal Contracts and Chinese Linguistics For each single legal contract between an American and Chinese party in China, two copies are written. One in English for the American party and one in Chinese for the Chinese party and the Chinese government. The copy for the Chinese government is the contract that is approved by the government but the two copies have equal legal weight if both parties sign both contracts. In order for the Americans and Chinese to agree to exactly what the contract says, the two contracts must have exactly the same meaning. There is one issue: English and Chinese are extremely linguistically different languages. English and Chinese developed separately as languages and therefore have many subtle discrepancies. For example, in Chinese there is a phrase for an “inclusive before” which includes the date of interest, and an “exclusive before” which excludes the date of interest. In writing a contract then, the distinction between these two terms must be made completely clear. Indeed, Chinese tends to rely linguistically on a large set of words, all of which describe the generally same concept in great levels of detail. The Chinese language, however, tends to be more syntactically simple. English does not encode as much clear detail in the specificity of the word used. Instead, syntax and context are used to give words much greater meaning.

FALL 2015 BUSINESS TODAY

Firms doing business internationally will need to constantly adjust as the countries they are in change in attitude. Another more troublesome difficulty arises from a difference in English-speaking world’s and Chinese’s tradition in legal interpretation. Preston Torbert, founder of the Taipei and Beijing offices of Baker and McKenzie, wrote about this problem of Ejusdem Generis. He writes that in English-speaking legal culture, in the list: house, flat, cottage, or other building, other building is understood to mean all buildings similar in purpose to a house, flat or cottage. That is how an American lawyer would interpret the clause though a layperson may very well not. A Chinese lawyer would definitely not have the same interpretation. There is not implicit understanding of similarity of class or type for any list in Chinese legal interpretation. Instead for this contract to mean the same, the English and Chinese version must both specify whether other buildings includes only buildings similar to the mentioned, simply all other build-

ings, or some other category. While the English interpretation of the clause may seem strange, it rose naturally out of Western legal culture. In order to limit a legislature from enacting legislation with too broad or general power, English courts had interpreted the “general term” at the end of a list with the greatest reasonable restrictions. In Chinese, of course, there was never a culture of attempting to restrain the power of legislation, or the power of government in general. Such interpretations never took root. Intercultural Business Looking Forward Besides the inherent difficulty of handling linguistic ambiguity in writing contracts between parties of different national affiliations, the legal environment in especially emerging market nations is shifting. While the Chinese economy still produced and grew at astounding pace, pulling up the economies of the nations that sells China materials and investment and bought its goods, governments actively tried to clarify legal language and tradition interest of business-friendliness. With the crash in the Chinese stock exchanges and a slowdown in the Chinese economy, suspicion for the West has risen. Whether economic and legal reform will continue remains to be seen. Meanwhile, firms doing business internationally will need to constantly adjust as the countries they are in change in attitude. The importance of becoming more culturally cognizant, however, will always increase. Top MBA programs are already training their graduates to not think too much like Americans and understand how other cultures work and do business. The ability for a multinational corporation to work closely within all of its local cultures and markets will even more greatly determine its ability to flourish moving forward.

Corporate Culture in the Global Age How to capitalize on new markets, new partners, and new suppliers by Christina Styer

ompany culture is what sets businesses apart from one another. It is what uniquely defines an organization in a way that cannot be duplicated by a competitor. It dictates how employees interact with each other and with suppliers, partners, and clients outside the business. Corporate culture is also strongly correlated with the long-term financial performance of a firm: comprehensive research on the influence of culture on economic performance has found a clear link between strong, adaptive corporate cultures and long-term financial success. Company culture consists of and is reflected in a firm’s values, behaviors, climate, resources, processes, and success measurements. More than just the key words hanging on posters in the office kitchen or articulated in executives’ speeches, corporate values are reproduced in how a company invests its capital and time. They are reflected in the performance of employees at every level of an organization and across offices in all regions. Behavioral norms are executed daily when making decisions, especially regarding how to navigate and overcome obstacles. A positive and dynamic climate is one that attracts top talent by fostering enthusiasm, innovation, and engagement. How a company uses its systems, people, and supplies captures how it utilizes its resources to contribute meaningfully to the overall business. A firm’s processes are the measures it takes when putting ideas into motion. Positive measures of success reinforce the firm’s values, behaviors, climate, processes, and resources, energizing employees and motivating achievement. Achieving a positive corporate culture may seem simple enough through managing these elements at a firm; however, according to Deloitte University Press’s 2015 Human Capital Trends report, realizing a strong business culture is the number-one challenge firms face. Magnifying the already tough challenge of cultivating and maintaining a unified firm culture is the expansion of economic globalization. Nations are becoming increasingly interdependent on one another, integrating cultural perspectives, ideas, technologies, goods, and services worldwide. Going global presents companies with the opportunity to capitalize on new markets, new partners, and new suppliers. Demographic diversity in a firm’s customer base expands

market potential multifold, a gain that is mirrored in a more diverse product offering. A geographically diverse business portfolio also helps companies hedge against risk. Growing trade between nations allows for regions to leverage their natural resources and specialize in the production of specific goods and services to trade with other countries. Such specialization of the global workforce allows for more efficiency, lower costs, and better quality of goods and services. Rising globalization in recent decades is largely attributed to technological strides in transportation and communication, facilitating international exchange with minimal cost and time investment. Such developments in technology are not slowing down. About 3 billion workers, or nearly half of the world’s population, are currently employed by multinational companies, and much of the global growth expected over the next decade or so is projected to come from emerging-market cities in areas unfamiliar with the West, like Africa, Asia, and Latin America. A solid international consciousness is thus an imperative for anyone in today’s workplace. Realizing a strong global corporate culture, however, is a hurdle companies that have been multinational for decades still struggle to overcome. Common culture lags on the global level for several reasons. First, enterprises often overlook the intangible, people-oriented elements of culture to focus on the quantifiable components like process, resources, and measures of success. The people-related matters, however, are the ones that have the strongest impact on culture and pave the way for a competitive advantage over rival firms. Secondly, successful firms must overcome a corporate-centric attitude, adopting an understanding that the dissemination of culture occurs at all levels of a firm, not from headquarters down. Finally, businesses need to recognize cultural differences across regions and respond to those differences by incorporating variations into their core values at the local level. Accompanying these macro-challenges of globalization are a number of micro-challenges that affect the way a business operates on a day-to-day basis. Working for a global corporation means the manager to whom you report weekly could live and work on a different continent. While technology has facilitated the possibility of being global, most people

To better understand business culture, it is essential that it not be thought of as existing on a spectrum of “good to bad” culture. Forbes Magazine delineates this spectrum into an organizational framework that highlights three main capacities: the extent to which core values are demonstrated in employee behavior, the extent to which these values are localized, and the existence of an awareness of the need to adapt the company-wide to the local. Out of these categories comes four patterns of business culture in multinational companies: Global, Disoriented, Spearhead, Outpost. A global culture is the ideal companies strive to achieve. A well-defined set of core values that have been adapted to specific regions comprise this culture. Values, behaviors, processes, resources, climate, and success measurements are all designed to evolve with regional variations. At firms with a spearhead culture, corporate headquarters hold values strongly, while employees of subsidiary affiliates hold them weakly. When the opposite is true, and strong culture is found fragmented in firm’s subsid-

iaries but not company-wide, a firm is said to have an outpost culture. Poor leadership usually causes such inability to set up a uniform corporate culture. Finally, when a firm undergoes organizational changes, its culture often becomes disoriented and neither corporate headquarters nor subsidiary firms have a clear focus.

Culture work is all about finding a way to customize a universal vision to a local level Firms that have achieved a true global culture have had to commit to overcoming the common pitfalls mentioned above. One way to do so is to designate foci in multiple regions as cultural centers that can facilitate the reciprocal diffusion of information

between company headquarters and locales. This passing of information must be mutual to avoid the problematic corporate-centric mindset mentioned above. Firms with a positive culture must embody the standards the company aspires to and not undervalue its people. Multinationals must be flexible, willing to view themselves critically and rewrite core values as needed, understanding that this is necessary for success in disparate environments and not the mark of a company flaw. Firms that succeed are the ones that engage deeply with their suppliers and customer base, broadening social value and developing the resident talent pool. Developing human capital creates regional value that companies can turn into profit. Global firms must also enthusiastically participate in “culture work” to encode company values in diverse cultural contexts and also to distribute these values to other areas of the company. Culture work is all about finding a way to customize a universal vision to a local level. Managers must adopt a global skill set that involves understand-

China Mengniu Dairy Co. Ltd. has a 14% share

35% 35%

7% 7%

Chinese ice-cream Market

14% 17% 5% 5%

Nestle has a 5% share

19% 19% 43% Unilever has a 7% share

ing local diversity, culture, and regional needs. While product design, development, and testing occur on an international level, subsequent marketing and branding must be tailored to a specific region. Adapting locally is important to maintaining standard processes across nations. This localization, however, is merely a game of catch-up with local competitors. International firms face tough native competitors who, with a better understanding of the local environment, are much better equipped to navigate each unique business climate. Paul Polman, CEO of Unilever, recently stated that local competition, not other multinationals, poses the stiffest competition to multinational companies in emerging markets. To stand a chance at staying at pace with the local competition, firms must not only incorporate their business with native commercial markets but with local society itself. Some people oppose economic globalization, believing that multinationals

will over-expand, dominate, and stamp out regional business; a quick look at empirical data, however, shows that these suspicions are not substantiated. Take, for instance, evidence from a study about the Chinese ice cream market found in the MIT Sloan Management Review. In 2013, multinational NestlĂŠ S.A. held just a 5% share of the Chinese ice cream market and Unilever just 7%. The local Inner Mongolia Yili Industrial Group Co. Ltd. dominates the market with a 19% share, followed by China Mengniu Dairy Co. Ltd. with a 14% market share. This same pattern is seen in wide range of industries in China as well as in other emerging markets around the globe. The challenge of localizing is, thus, a time-consuming but imperative aspect of becoming a successful firm with global culture. A unique identifier of a business and a key predictor of its success, company culture and its consequences on business performance cannot be overlooked. Increasing corporate globalization is forcing company

Inner Mongolia Yili Industrial Group Co. Ltd. has a 19% share

culture to adapt regionally and necessitating employees to adopt a new global skill set. Firms are taking innovate approaches to overcome these challenges and invest in their regional success through strong culture. With globalization here to stay, only time will tell which firms surpass the rest and become icons of company culture in the global age. 42% of people (about 3 billion) employed by multinational companies

B U S I N E S S T O D AY â&#x20AC;&#x2122; S P L AT F O R M Magazine

Online Journal

Conferences

Seminar Series

Most widely distributed undergraduate publication in North America

Highly interactive, content-oriented site aimed at students

Annual Startup, Women in Business & International Conferences

On-campus seminars with leaders in the business world

CONTRIBUTE TO BT JOIN THE CONVERSATION

You know and love our conferences, so why not get even more involved by contributing to Business Today Magazine? As of this fall, we are seeking submissions at articles@businesstoday.org for our upcoming issue of the magazine as well as for the online journal. (www.businesstoday.org)

October 10-11 2015

The Start @ a Startup Conference, co-sponsored by Business Today and Sequoia Capital, brings together 250 outstanding students and 30 leading startups for a weekend in New York City. While Silicon Valley continues to revolutionize the West Coast, there is a clear disconnect between the two coasts when it comes to tech and entrepreneurship. The Start @ a Startup Conference aims to bridge this gap through an immersive weekend of keynotes, panels, seminars, and interviews.

CO-SPONSORED BY

Business Today was founded in 1968 with the mission of bridging the communication gap between undergraduate students and leading executives. Forty-five years after its founding, Business Today took on the challenge of adapting its mission to take on the world of tech, startups, and entrepreneurship with its first Start @ a Startup Conference. Now in its fourth iteration, the conference has become the largest in Business Today’s 47-year history with students from over fifty different universities across countless different majors, ranging from computer science and engineering to literature and fine arts. In addition to the incredible diversity of background, perspective, and interests, all of the students came together with a common passion for entrepreneurship, innovation, and problem-solving. This year’s conference brought together some of the most revolutionary and inspiring companies and tech leaders from the startup world. These people have developed ideas and built technologies from the ground up to transform the world we live in today. Varying in industry, size, and customer segment, these startups share the same unwavering determination to generate unique ideas and drive them to success. They have changed the way we live our lives—the way we travel, the way we learn, the way we invest—and continue to solve new problems each day. Over the course of this weekend, we all came together to explore the growing startup world from a new perspective. We got to speak with the founders and engineers behind the technologies and platforms we use every day. We got to ask them the questions and get the answers you can’t find on the internet. We got to hear their honest responses and get a candid look into the workings of a startup, both the ups and the downs. We heard founder stories about how their companies began, what problems they sought to fix, what challenges they faced, what advice they have moving forward. Through the conference, we built strong, lasting networks of startups and students and explored the world of entrepreneurship and technology through a new lens.

CO-SPONSORED BY

PATRICK COLLISON Co-Founder & CEO Stripe

FALL 2015 BUSINESS TODAY

T E S T I M O N I A L S Start @ a Startup Conference 2015

HENRY DORNIER | HARVARD UNIVERSITY “The conference was an incredible opportunity to interact with some of thw world’s most innovative startups and inspiring students. Through engaging dicussion groups, phenomenal keynotes, and recruiting opportunities, the event gave me a new perspective on the startup world that I’m extremely grateful for.”

AKASH JAIN | PRINCETON UNIVERSITY “BT’s Startup Conference is the closest you’ll get to Silicon Valley on this side of the country. It is a magnificent confluence of enthusiastic students and enterprising entrepreneurs, and the resulting atmosphere is electric. My own preconceptions on entrepreneurship completely changed there, and I cannot recommend it highly enough”

CATHERINE DENNIG | PRINCETON UNIVERSITY “I was blown away by how well executed the conference was. People get exposed to all the other students attending the conference, but also all of these amazing speakers. It was really incredible.”

FALL 2015 BUSINESS TODAY

2014

Business Today would like to thank the following companies for their generous support. Our programs, including the Business Today Magazine, would not be possible without them and the scores more who have supported us over the past

47 years.

Katherine Bradley

SPONSORS Americaneagle.com Ariel Investments Ash Stevens Bank of America Merrill Lynch Barry-Wehmiller

Buckeye Partners Canyon Partners Farrell Family Foundation General Dynamics Goldman Grant Thornton LLP

HEB Hewlett Packard Ingram Micro Inkling Instacart Lear Corporation

Lone Pine Capital Lyft Prescott Medical Communicatins Group Printpack Qualtrics

Robinhood Spencer Stuart Thumbtack

Chartboost Clark Enterprises Coca-Cola Continental Grain Corporate Executive Board Coursera Covestro Crown Holdings, Inc. Day & Zimmermann Drawbridge Essendant Evernote Fairview Capital Partners, Inc. Farmer & Company LLC Federated Investors FelCor Lodging Trust Inc.

Field Point Capital Management Fiji Water Flipboard Gatorade Heartland Payment Systems Houzz j2 Global, Inc. Jujamcyn Theaters Junior Achievement Kahuna Lebenthal Legg Mason Madison Dearborn Partners, LLC Maxwell W. Thompson Mitsubishi Corporation

Monumental Sports Mozelle Thompson NBC Universal Nicholas, Peter NOVEC Nubank Nutrisystems Orbital ATK PDQ Enterprises, LLC Penn National Gaming Percolate PIMCO Pyramis Global Advisors Raymond, Elizabeth Roger Sant Rosenthal and Rosenthal Rutter Associates LLC

Select Medical SES World Skies Shepherd Chemical Sift Science Southwestern Energy Square Stupp Bros., Inc. Sunny Delight Taylor Asset Management The Hersh Foundation The Motley Fool Transocean Walgreens Wealthfront Weebly Whisper Text Inc. Yext

Dollar Bank Eagle Global Advisors Edelman, Andrew Energy Trust Partners First Niagara Risk Management Frank Williams Hamilton Associates

JP Morgan Keller Family Foundation King and Spalding KKR Marshall, Gerstein & Borun New Mountain Capital New York Open Arms Health

Pepco Peter Georgescu Property Group Partners Sage Capital LLC Sierra Ventures Smithfield Trust STROCK Swift, Currie, McGhee &

Hiers, LLP Symantec Towle and Company Wallace Johnson Studio Wells Fargo

CONTRIBUTORS 5AM Ventures A.O. Smith Acorda Therapeutics Advisory Board Company Affirm Alliant Credit Union Aman Kapadia American Water Armdale Capital Avrett Free Ginsberg Barclays Barclays Birchbox Brown Brothers Harriman Burson-Marsteller Cadre Capital Growth Partners

DONORS Adam Lieber Canusa Corporation CH Douglas & Gray Wealth Management CSM Capital CWS Capital Partners Diekman, John & Susie