Interpreting the 1832 Reform Act Essay Example for Free

Interpreting the 1832 Reform Act Essay Summary: The Great Reform Act, a product of in tense debate, has produced an equally diverse debate among historians. One element of the controversy centres on the origins of the Act. How far was it designed to stave off a popular revolution, and how far to preserve the influence of the landed gentry or to buy off opposition by timely concessions? Or did the policy-makers not have time to formulate precise aims? The effects of the legislation are equally controversial. Did governments become more popular and more responsive to national issues? How did voting behaviour change? The answers historians have found tend to reflect the particular constituencies they have studied. Diversity rather than uniformity characterises both the motives for the Act and its historical effects. The 1832 Reform Act continues to arouse a great deal of controversy among historians. Older accounts by Trevelyan (1920), Christie (1927) and Butler (1914) treat reform as a timely concession to popular pressure and a Whig party manoeuvre designed to weaken the Tories. But since the 1960s there have been many alternative interpretations, and as we enter the new century it seems appropriate to draw together and reexamine these differing opinions about a topic which continues to fascinate teachers and students of nineteenth-century British history. Concession or cure? According to Moore (1966 and 1974), the Reform Act was not a concession but a cure, designed to revive electoral deference. Reform was meant to reorganise the electoral system, concludes Moore, so that there would be no power for the unpropertied, a clearer distinction between county and borough constituencies, an exclusion of middle-class influence from the counties, and with more seats for the counties a reinforcement of landed influence. Parry (1993, p 80) dismisses Moores idea, not least because counties continued to have large urban electorates, and Eastwood (1997) argues that rural voters were rather less pliant, and county politics more complex, than Moore appreciates. Eastwood shows that county elections were participatory events before and after 1832, and that rural elites continually had to negotiate with voters. There was no hegemonic paternalism and no simple correlation between landlord power and voting behaviour. OGorman (1984) also casts doubt on Moores assumptions about deference, and McCord (1967) has suggested that even if the government did have clear aims (which were, in his view, to remove anomalies and bring into the political nation worthy sections of the middle classes), ministers did not have the time, expertise and knowledge needed to draft legislation which would give effect to these intentions. Evans (1995, pp 93-4) points out that neither Greys ministry nor the Whig party were united on reform. Lack of information about different types of constituency and the extent of middle-class and landed influence, moreover, made it impossible to accomplish the reorganisation posited by Moore. There was no master plan, argues Evans, only general concerns about reserving political influence for property and preventing an alliance of middle-class reformers with the masses. For the most part ministers reacted to extra-parliamentary developments (on this point Evans appears to disagree with McCord, who thinks that the main features of the reform bill were settled well before popular pressure reached its height). Evans stresses that the reform crisis did not allow ministers the time (even had they the ability) to get into the minutiae of precisely who should and should not be enfranchised in particular places. Moores thesis has also been questioned by Hennock (1971) and Davis (1976), while Beales (1992) insists that redistribution of seats was far more important to the framers of the reform bill than expansion of the electorate. Mitchells interpretation of reform (1993) underlines this point. For Mitchell the reform bill was part of the old Whig struggle against the Crown. Senior Whigs believed that liberty and property were inseparable and that more influence for the propertied classes would serve as a barrier against royal tyranny. Liberty would be safe if property was properly represented and, since the rotten boroughs no longer served this function, seats had to be redistributed and borough voting rights revised. Vernon (1993) argues that the 1832 Reform Act enabled the elite narrowly to define the people as propertied men. It thereby contributed to a political closure experienced between 1832 and 1867. Vernons idea about democratic losses, however, must be balanced by the undoubted gains achieved in 1832, especially in terms of political influence for non-elite interests. Continuity or change? According to Gash (1979, pp 150-2). the general purpose behind reform was to make the old system more acceptable. The bill had enough scope to capture the public imagination while also appearing to meet a need, but it was a clumsy measure, incapable of recasting the electoral system, and its authors were always more interested in continuity than change. Ministers lacked the intention, information and experience to go farther than they did. They were working in haste to carry out a political pledge and did not profess to be logical. Milton-Smith (1972) suggests that generalisation about reform is unhelpful, since the bill was a highly flexible tool. Though it was presented by ministers as a final measure, they meant by this that it would satisfy existing demands. Whig leaders accepted that in future decades representation might have to be conceded to new interests, and Milton-Smith concludes that the reform bill should be viewed more as a concession than a cure. Other commentators, notably Bentley (1984, p 87), Parry (1993, p 99) and OGorman (1986), have stressed that reform did not greatly alter the social composition of the Commons, or make the electorate popular, or transfer power to the urban middle classes. Some historians have chosen to focus on what was achieved in 1832, rather than on what the reform bill did not do. Briggs (1979, p 253) pays modest tribute to the governments role in making it possible for an unwilling parliament to reform itself. The reform bill was a success, he adds, because it removed the danger of revolution, attached the middle classes to the constitution, and gave aristocratic government a new lease of life. Evans (1996, pp 223-9), Derry (1990, pp 195) and Phillips (1982) have examined the importance of 1832 in promoting new forms of political organisation, registration drives, party cohesion, the rise of urban and industrial influence, and a higher number of electoral contests (with persistent partisan voting). The instrumentality of reform is clear. The bill was not just a Conservative measure. It was also dynamic. In the 1830s and 1840s there were constructive social and economic policies, and the success of 1832 enabled Parliament to regain lost stature and command wider approval. This ties in with Mandlers thesis (1990, chs 1, 4) about the reassertion of an aristocratic governing style, and with Parrys idea (1993, pp 78-89) of vigorous liberal government. Parry claims that the Reform Act achieved its fundamental purpose, which was by bold means, to strengthen the power of government to locate, and respond equitably to, social tensions, unrest, and grievances, and so secure popular confidence in more active, disciplinary rule. Hence the Whigs interventionist approach of the 1830s and their eagerness to use the powers and opportunities provided by reform to transform the range and image of government behaviour. Parry may be exaggerating. He implies that Greys administration had clear goals and complete control over the process of reform, and that ministers really knew how they were doing and how to do it when, in fact, much was uncertain and unpredictable. The Reform Act was significant not only for what it did, argues Davis (1980). but for what politicians thought it did, and reform prompted a notable change of attitudes, especially among Tories who came to accept Peel as their leader. After 1832 Peel demonstrated that he was reconciled to institutional reform, and he saw clearly that the Reform Act made the influence of electors much more significant than it had formerly been. To Phillips (1980), the expansion of the electorate is a clear indication that reform was a concession, intended to appease the nation and satisfy a growing desire for inclusion in the political process. Political activity had mushroomed since the 1780s, and the reform of 1832 created a voting public corresponding reasonably well, proportionately, to that segment of the population apparently meriting inclusion among the electorate as a result of several decades of sustained political participation. Phillips presents a coherent argument, though it is easy to con fuse effects with intentions. In a detailed examination of parliamentary boroughs, Phillips (1992) has shown that the Reform Act significantly altered voting behaviour in some locations, but that the nature of change varied from place to place. Phillips argues that after 1832 voting became clearly and consistently partisan (partly an unintended consequence of voter registration). Voter turnout increased (it was already high in many places). Religious affiliation had more influence over voting choices than social class, as had been the case before 1832, and national issues rapidly came to dominate elections. Some electoral corruption continued, though it was politically irrelevant and rarely determined voting choices and election results. Another element of continuity, therefore, was the considerable freedom of choice enjoyed by voters. These findings are useful because they indicate that elections were already politicised and participatory before 1832, and that the Reform Act furthered political commitment in a manner that would not otherwise have been possible. Indeed, reform made previous changes irreversible. Yet Phillips probably claims too much. His focus on local conditions is not easy to marry with his view that the Reform Act facilitated the rise of national parties and national issues. Furthermore, reform gave government broader responsibilities, another reason why purely local contexts were superseded. Phillips identifies an increase in voting on national party lines, but he also states that reform had uneven results. Perhaps in his general conclusions he loses sight of this point. His sample of boroughs all survived 1832 as two-member constituencies, moreover, which makes them a questionable basis for generalisation. The Reform Act possibly had greatest impact in the new boroughs it created in 1832. On partisanship, national platforms, individual voter choice, participation and turnout in the post-1832 electoral system, the interpretation of Taylor (1997) differs greatly from that of Phillips. In Taylors account party was limited as an organisation and an idea. Consistency in voting took time to develop, as did party cohesion at local and elite levels, so that national platforms were not really significant until after 1867. Individual voter choice made little sense to contemporaries, adds Taylor. because they tended to vote as members of an interest or community, not as individuals. On this matter Taylor gives a salutary warning about the dangers of pollbook analysis, which tends to privilege the views of individual voters. He argues that the reformed system was meant to represent interests; this was the constitutional context within which elections took place. As for participation, demographic change led to a relative fall in the proportion of voters among the adult male population after 1832, and in some boroughs voter turnout declined. Many potential à ¯Ã‚ ¿Ã‚ ½10 householders never registered, and a large number of electors voted only once (particularly as first-time voters). The fact that there were six general elections within just 11 years (1830 to 1841) affected both registration and the inclination to vote. Much of this is incontestable, though the value of Taylors conclusions (like those of Phillips) must be balanced by a recognition of the diversity of borough constituencies. Did popular pressure really matter? Opinions differ as to the importance of popular pressure during the reform struggle. Though Briggs thinks that the bill relieved the danger of revolution, Rude (1967) notes the absence of a genuine revolutionary threat. Some historians deny that extra-parliamentary agitation did much to shape the struggle or its outcome. Clark (1985. p 402) insists that the timing and nature of reform owed most not to unrest and radicalism out of doors, but to party confusion, a conflict of opinion in cabinet and Parliament, and instability in high politics caused by Catholic emancipation in 1829. Clark blames Peel for betraying the old regime, the confessional state with its exclusive Anglican constitution, and asserts that parliamentary reform would not have been possible without Catholic emancipation. The constitution was already fractured by earlier surrenders, argues Clark, even before Greys ministry took office. Hole (1989, ch. 16) offers a different analysis. He contends that secular arguments had been replacing religious ones in political controversy since the I 790s. Therefore Clarks confessional state no longer existed in the late 1820s. Theological influences played no important role in the struggles over Catholic emancipation and parliamentary reform. Discussion was carried on primarily in political and social terms. Reform is not to be understood only in the intellectual and high political framework recreated by Clark. Any explanation of the reform struggle would be incomplete without some reference to popular pressure, and as excitement reached new peaks there were times when extra-parliamentary agitation had decisive impact: October 1831 when the Lords rejected the reform bill, for example, and May 1832 when the Grey ministry resigned. After the Days of May, indeed, reformers were sure that their activities had prevented Wellington from forming a government and promoted Greys return to the premiership. On the other hand, as Evans suggests (1995, pp 92-3), even in May 1832 when agitation was of more moment than Wellingtons efforts to form an administration, it is not clear that the unrest actually altered the course of events. Nor, in fact, did politicians ever lose the initiative. Wellingtons failure and Greys recall resulted directly from decisions made by William IV and prominent Tories. Brock (1973, pp 305-9) accepts that there was peril in 1832, though he points out that ministerial responses must be treated cautiously. Francis Place, Joseph Parkes and other reform spokesmen kept ministers informed of the agitation, but we cannot be sure how much ministers believed or how far they were unnerved by what they were told. Cannon (1973, pp 238-40) concludes that pressure from below was less important than decisions taken at the top. But could the unrest of this period really be ignored? Grey and his colleagues were conscious of enormous pressure from external sources, which is one of the reasons why they only returned to office after securing the Kings agreement to a creation of peers. Stevenson (1992, p 296) doubts that there could have been a rising had Wellington taken office in May 1832, for though the people had arms, they did not have the necessary leadership and organisation. This emphasises the threat posed to the established order not by the masses but by respectable radicalism and its methods. Newbould (1990, p 10) suggests that ministers were concerned less about an imminent popular revolt than about a future challenge from the wealthy, assertive and politically aware middle classes. Much was said about a resort to physical force, not least by Place in London and the leaders of the Birmingham Political Union, but this talk was meant to disturb elite politicians. The will and planning for an uprising were exaggerated for effect. Several historians have emphasised this in their explanations of reform; Thompson (1980, pp 887-903), Hamburger (1963, cii. 4), Thomis and Holt (1977, ch. 4) and Wright (1988, pp 89-95) conclude that the threat of revolution was n ever as serious as contemporaries believed or claimed. United action was precluded by divisions within the reform movement. The campaign in many towns was fragmented, and Birmingham was unusual because of the co-operation there between reformers of different social ranks. It cannot be assumed that Place, Parkes and other spokesmen were firmly in control of the masses (and there was still an insurrectionary minority on the fringes of British radicalism, though it lacked wide support). Another important point is that there was less violence in May 1832 than in October 1831. Contemporaries noted this, and some feared a sinister plot, assuming that radicals were so well-disciplined they could hold themselves back in readiness for a popular outbreak at some later time. Place allowed this idea to spread. Again, perception mattered more than reality. Place advised his allies not to hold meetings in case these revealed that the popular movement was more divided than was generally supposed. Whig MPs and peers made much of the danger of unrest when addressing Parliament, as did Grey and the King in their correspondence. Though some feigned alarm only to persuade opponents of reform to give way, others genuinely feared revolution. The fear was expressed often enough, and not only in public arenas. Private letters and records include such expressions, and perhaps these reveal what people were really thinking at the time. For Grey and his colleagues, and for the King, one of the most disturbing aspects of the reform struggle was the manner in which popular pressure became focused with the rise of political unions. The fact that these bodies had such authority, and yet for so long were answerable only to themselves, was a new and alarming development. Grey repeatedly emphasised that the only way to take the wind from their sails was to carry the reform bill, and Lopatin (1991) and Ferguson (1960) have argued that there would have been no reform without them. Words and concepts to note: Hegemonic paternalism: a form of control by the natural leaders of society; those who owned the land, that amounted to domination. Instrumentality: purpose served. Pollbooks: the records kept by returning officers of those who voted in particular constituencies.

Modern Day Prophets: Islam versus Christianity Essay -- Essays Papers

Modern Day Prophets: Islam versus Christianity In today’s world of chaos and war, many people are turning to religion. People look to organized religion not only for solace but on the contrary, they also look to attribute cause for the world’s woes. The terrorist attack on the World Trade Center on September 11th has many people looking to the religion of Islam for a culprit, as the men who flew the planes were Israeli suicide missionaries. These men thought themselves to be on a mission from God (Allah). This implies that they were acting on the words of a prophet, or thought themselves prophets. In response to this, I decided to research the major religions in today’s world that rely on modern day prophets for guidance. By doing so, I am attempting to prove the religion of Islam innocent by comparing it to many other religions that have similar structure but no terrorist intentions. The first question we come to when studying religions based on the teachings of modern prophets is this: can modern prophets exist? Christianity, one of the three major religions followed today, says yes. â€Å"†¦The Wisdom of God said, ‘I will send them prophets and apostles, and some of them they will kill and some of them they will persecute†¦Ã¢â‚¬â„¢ † (Holy Bible) This quote from Christianity’s great rule book also predicts that when prophets do come to the Earth, people will not accept them as such. This is fairly accurate in Christians’ reactions to religions that have their basis in Christianity but have diverged from the church into their own sects. One of the largest and strongest divergent sects of Christianity is known commonly as Mormonism. Mormons believe that there have been prophets in the past, so why should there not be pr... ...ny different faiths from an unbiased perspective: the Unification Church section. [6] Holy Bible. Book of Revelation, Chapter 12: verse 17. [7] https://webmail.stanford.edu/silkymail_pop/imp/login.php3 A sampling of statements regarding Mrs. Eddy’s place in Bible prophecy, which have been published by the Christian Science Publishing Society. [8] http://205.180.85.40/w/pc.cgi?mid=14891&sid=7271 Jehovah’s Witnesses and the use of the word â€Å"prophet.† [9] http://www.urantiafoundation.org/about.html A website about the Urantia Book and the subsequent Urantia Foundation. [10] http://www.geocities.com/muhammadsite.html A site explicating the role of Muhammad within history and the religion of Islam. [11] http://allafrica.com/stories/200211290320.html An interview with an Islamis scholar, Sidi Ali, concerning the terrorist attacks in the Middle East.

Business Model of Nike Essay

Introduction Nike Inc. was founded in 1962 by Bill Bowerman and Phil Knight as a partnership under the name, Blue Ribbon Sports. Nike’s main products are sports shoes, sportswear, sports goods. In this paper, we will talk about ‘The Challenge of Entrepreneurship’ ‘Competitive Business Model’ ‘Solid Strategic Plan’ ‘Feasibility Analysis’ and ‘Business Plan’. All of these topics are very important when we study the ‘EOE and SBM’, and in each topic have more than one point. We got ‘The Benefits of Entrepreneurship’ ‘Competition’ of ‘The Challenge of Entrepreneurship ’; ‘Core Competencies’ ‘Innovations’ ‘Sustainable Competitive Advantage’ ‘Key Success Factor’ of ‘CBM’; ‘Vision and Mission’ ‘Objectives and Goals’ ‘SWOT’ ‘Competitor’ ‘Business strategy’ of ‘Solid Strategic Plan’; ‘Industry and Market Feasibility’ ‘Product or Service Feasibility’ ‘Financial Feasibility’ and ‘5Forces Model’ of ‘Feasibility Analysis’. Now, we are going to show you the detail. The Challenge of Entrepreneurship The Benefits of Entrepreneurship Surveys show that owners of small businesses believe they work harder, earn more money, and are more satisfied than if they worked for someone else. (Via Dr. Josà © A. Torres Essentials of Entrepreneurship and Small Business Management Powerpoint) Opportunity to Create Your Own Destiny. Nike, originally known as Blue Ribbon Sports (BRS), was founded by University of Oregon track athlete Philip Knight and his coach Bill Bowerman in January 1964. The company initially operated as a distributor for Japanese shoe maker Onitsuka Tiger(now ASICS), making most sales at track meets out of Knight’s automobile. According to Otis Davis, a student athlete whom Bower man coached at the University of Oregon, who later went on to win two gold medals at the 1960 Summer Olympics, Bower man made the first pair of Nike shoes for him, contradicting a claim that they were made for Phil Knight. Says Davis, â€Å"I told Tom Brokaw that I was the first. I don’t care what all the billionaires say. Bill Bower man made the first pair of shoes for me. People don’t believe me. In fact, I didn’t like the way they felt on my feet. There was no support and they were too tight. But I saw Bower man make  them from the waffle iron, and they were mine.† (Via HTTP://en.Wikipedia.org/wiki/Nike,_Inc.) Opportunity to Make a Difference. In 1979, Nike Air cushion technology â€Å"Air†, by the inventor of the m. Frank Rudy patented, first applied on the Tailwind running shoes, the gas film in running shoes soles for the protection of the cushion. And Nike has created many print and television advertisements with Wieden+ Kennedy, Wieden+ Kennedy remains Nike’s primary ad agency. It was agency co-founder Dan Wieden who coined the now-famous slogan â€Å"Just Do It† for a 1988 Nike ad campaign, which was chosen by Advertising Age as one of the top five ad slogans of the 20th century and enshrined in the Smithsonian Institution. Walt Stack was featured in Nike’s first â€Å"Just Do It† advertisement, which debuted on July 1, 1988. Wieden credits the inspiration for the slogan to â€Å"Let’s do it†, the last words spoken by Gary Gilmore before he was executed. Throughout the 1980s, Nike expanded its product line to encompass many sports and regions throughout the world.[16] In 1990, Nike moved into its eight-building World Headquarters campus in Beaverton, Oregon. (Via HTTP://en.Wikipedia.org/wiki/Nike,_Inc.) Opportunity to Real Improve profits. In 2005, Nike â€Å"Air Jordan 20 generations†. Nike Free series, also in protecting the foot, like barefoot training is provided for the wearer. Nike as of May 31, total annual profits had 13.7 billion dollars, a 12% growth in the past fiscal year. On December 19, 2013, Nike Inc’s quarterly profit rose as a result of global orders for merchandise for delivery by April increased 13 percent. Future orders of shoes or clothes for delivery between December and April, rose to $10.4 billion. Nike shares (NKE) rose 0.6 percent to $78.75 in extended trading. (Via HTTP://en.Wikipedia.org/wiki/Nike,_Inc.) Opportunity to Contribute to Society and Be Recognized for Your Efforts. NIKE Charity Organization, is a Non-Governmental Organization Headquartered in PORT HARCOURT RIVERS STATE, NIGERIA. It is autonomous and submissive to the laws of the Federal Republic of Nigeria. They are determined to achieve our dreams and purpose of giving hope to the less privilege and to discharge our duties as members of non-profit organization in accordance to our core  values at National, State and Local Government levels. We are prepared to harness, strengthen and efficiently direct our efforts as much as we are out to join hands with other organizations, and individuals in the fight against the Girl Child Abuse. (Via HTTP://saccharinity.com/about_us.php) Competition NIKE is a consumer products company and the relative popularity of various sports and fitness activities and changing design trends affect the demand for our products. The athletic footwear, apparel, and equipment industry is highly competitive in the United States and on a worldwide basis. We compete internationally with a significant number of athletic and leisure footwear companies, athletic and leisure apparel companies, sports equipment companies, and large companies having diversified lines of athletic and leisure footwear, apparel, and equipment. We also compete with other companies for the production capacity of independent manufacturers that produce our products and for import quota capacity. Our competitors’ product offerings, technologies, marketing expenditures (including expenditures for advertising and endorsements), pricing, costs of production, and customer service are areas of intense competition. This, in addition to rapid changes in technology and consumer preferences in the markets for athletic and leisure footwear and apparel, and athletic equipment, constitute significant risk factors in our operations. If we do not adequately and timely anticipate and respond to our competitors, our costs may increase or the consumer demand for our products may decline significantly. (Via Nike-2013-form-10K) Designing a Competitive Business Model Core Competencies Nike’s quality , technology and brand is famous . Nike’s Air cushion technology is almost using in every basketball shoes ,it’s good for athlete’s foot . the Nike having its own core competence due to organization’s own skills and core competence it has taken a competitive advantage and now is taking a large market share. The core competence of Nike is to specialize in athlete’s foot wear and other sports items. As we know every organization has its R & D department .The R &D department of Nike is playing a vital role because of its innovations in foot wear how the  consumers can feel comfort by wearing their shoes and the quality that’s the most important factor to be given in shoes and they have different categories of shoes which is running shoes nick shocks, Jordan, and other types that is targeting different type of consumers having different perceptions. But most important thing of Nike is they don’t make shoes they design and then give their design to the production companies in Korea and china or Vietnam. Due to which they are more specialized in their innovation and in this way they have made their core competence in making innovative design of athlete shoes. Innovations Nike believe his research and development efforts are a key factor in nis success .NIKE strives to produce products that help to reduce injury , enhance athletic performance and maximize comfort success . (Via Nike 2013 Annual Report) Nike also find many expert in chemistry, exercise physiology, engineering, industrial design, sustainability and related fields ask they advices to fixed Nike’s shoes and clothing . Nike’s air cushion shock absorption technology is famous in the basketball shoes area .Nike’s Brand shoes like LBJ , Kobe and KD has many color and types . Sustainable Competitive Advantage External Analysis : Nike’s brand awareness is famous all over the world ,everyone buying shoes first chose is Nike . Nike sponsored the top athletes and gained valuable coverage. , like Jordan , LeBron James , .From the Nike’s 2013 annual report will find that Nike growing up every years . Nike has many competitors , like Adidas , Puma , Reebok and so on , but Nike’s market share is more than any other . Internal Analysis :As we know ,Nike’s product is quality , Nike’s has own R&D center to creative new technology ,like air cushion shock absorber technology ,environmental technology and so on .It’s basic technology to Nike’s product .Nike always find many creative thing to put in Nike’s product ,like knitting technology in his shoes .That’s awesome . Nike has employed creative marketing and advertisement platforms in building brand awareness and equity of its diversified products. For instance, the company uses Tiger Wood s a skilled golfer to build its line of golf products. It further employs professionals in various departments that include distribution, marketing, finance,  product management, research and design, information technology, and product development so as to sensitize the market of its diversified products Nike also operates an internship program every summer lasting for three months giving students an insight on the diverse brands. Other avenues Nike accomplishes diversification strategy is through mergers, joint ventures, takeovers, and acquisitions. The company also has an R&D unit called the innovation kitchen located in the main parent company in Oregon, to enable it to continue producing unique products such as the cushioning system in shoes. Key Success Factor Jordan Brand : Jordan brand is a big part of the Nike. Jordan’s shoes is popular in all over the world .Jordan shoes occupy the USA 10.8% market share in 2009 .Jordan shoes sales almost two times of Adidas . (Via :http://sports.sina.com.cn/k/2009-09-12/16084584096.shtml)So Jordan brand is a key success factors of Nike .) Jordan brand is popular in young people , every young people want a Jordan’s shoes it’s beautiful and comfortable .Especially Jordan’s air cushion technology , using in every basketball shoes . Technology :In addition to Nike’s own staff of specialists in the areas of biomechanics ,chemistry , exercise physiology, engineering , industrial design, sustainability ,and related fields , we also utilize research committees and advisory boards made up of athletes , coaches, trainers , equipment managers , orthopedists , Podiatrists , and other experts who consult with us and review designs , Materials , concepts for product and manufactur ing process improvements and compliance with product safety regulations around the world . (Nike Annual Report ) Advertisement : Advertisements play a significant role in the athletic apparel industry, as consumers rely on catalogues and online advertisements . Nike has many endorsers ,like Jordan ,James ,Durant and so on. These guys bring many customers .Nike has online store ,you can buy many things in this store ,before new product star sales ,you’ll get an e-mail about this product .Nike’s advertisement not only online but also in everywhere .It’s very amazing! Adidas :Adidas is a very famous company ,it’s very popular in world too .But in these years, Adidas’s market in decrease very fast .Because Adidas’s endorsers did not famous than Nike’s endorses .Adidas’s endorses including Yao Ming ,A.I ,D.Rose and so on .But they hurt or retied .Adidas’s  quality and technology is also well known .But Adidas lost because the endorses . New Balance :New Balance (I will call New Balance as NB for short ) is known as a most comfortable shoes .They has many new technology ,such as BIOSHIELD ,ABZORB EX ,REVAX ,ENCAP ,and so on .And NB is popular in young people ,you will find many youn g people wear NB in the street .IT’s a huge market to NB. Building a Solid Strategic Plan It’s a significant part of a successful business. It keeps the company to where they oriented, to meet their mission, goals and objectives, and lead it on the right way. A Strategy plan is to build a competitive advantage. It involved Vision and Mission Statement, also Objectives and Goals, SWOT Analysis, Competition Analysis and Formulate Strategies. We are going to find out what does Nike different from others, why it is unique, and what it has that others don’t. I am about to use Five Forces Model to analyze the competitive advantages for Nike. Vision, Mission, Goal and Objective Nike’s vision is â€Å"To bring inspiration and innovation to every athlete in the world.† The legendary University of Oregon track and field coach, and Nike co-founder, Bill Bowerman said, â€Å"If you have a body, you are an athlete.†. It’s their mission. (Via http://help-en-us.nike.com/app/answers/detail/a_id/113/p/3897) Their goal is to become and keep the number one sportswear brand all over the world. Their objective is keep down the manufacturing cost and keep their price down then they can occupied the market in some less developed countries who can become the economically dependent in the industry. (Via http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_are_the_objectives_of_Nike_company) SWOT Analysis. Strengths As one of the ‘Fortune 500’ company, Nike has numerous strengths. It is positioned at being the number one sportswear brand globally, it Offers their products worldwide, it has a very strong marketing campaign that increases brand familiarity, and it has no factories, it uses OEM (Original Equipment Manufacturer) to get the work done. It has contracts with above 700 shops globally in about 45 different countries. it also has offices in these different countries. It has chains of retail stores like  Niketown so that it can sell there. Its famous ‘Swoosh’ is instantly recognizable, and Phil Knight even has it tattooed on his ankle. Weaknesses The organization does have a diversified range of sports products. However, the income of the business is still heavily dependent upon its share of the footwear market. This may leave it vulnerable if for any reason its market share erodes. The retail sector is very price sensitive. Nike does have its own reta iler in Nike Town. However, most of its income is derived from selling into retailers. Retailers tend to offer a very similar experience to the consumer. Can you tell one sports retailer from another? So margins tend to get squeezed as retailers try to pass some of the low price competition pressure onto Nike. Opportunities Product development offers Nike many opportunities. The brand is fiercely defended by its owners whom truly believe that Nike is not a fashion brand. However, like it or not, consumers that wear Nike product do not always buy it to participate in sport. Some would argue that in youth culture especially, Nike is a fashion brand. This creates its own opportunities, since product could become unfashionable before it wears out i.e. consumers need to replace shoes. There is also the opportunity to develop products such as sport wear, sunglasses and jewelry. Such high value items do tend to have associated with them, high profits. The business could also be developed internationally, building upon its strong global brand recognition. There are many markets that have the disposable income to spend on high value sports goods. For example, emerging markets such as China and India have a new richer generation of consumers. There are also global marketing events that can be utilized to support the brand such as the World Cup (soccer) and The Olympics. Threats Nike is exposed to the international nature of trade. It buys and sells in different currencies and so costs and margins are not stable over long periods of time. Such an exposure could mean that Nike may be manufacturing and/or selling at a loss. This is an issue that faces all global brands. The market for sports shoes and garments is very competitive. The model developed by Phil Knight in his Stamford Business School days (high value branded product manufactured at a low cost) is now commonly used and to an extent is no longer a basis for sustainable competitive advantage. Competitors are developing alternative brands to take away Nike’s market share. As discussed above in weaknesses, the retail sector is becoming price competitive. This  ultimately means that consumers are shopping around for a better deal. So if one store charges a price for a pair of sports shoes, the consumer could go to the store along the street to compare prices for the exactly the same item, and buy the cheaper of the two. Such consumer price sensitivity is a potential external threat to Nike. (Via Nike 2013 Annual Report, http://www.quality-assurance-solutions.com/swot-analysis-nike.html, http://www.ukessays.com/essays/marketing/account-management-provides-special-treatment-in-marketing-administration-marketing-essay.php http://www.marketingteacher.com/swot/nike-swot.html) Analyze the Competition. Nike has some competitive Direct competitors- Adidas, New Balance and Li Ning. They offer the product that Nike does, and all of these companies have different key success factors. Adidas, is the most competitor od Nike with do doubt, they compete with Nike for No.1 sportswear branding for over 40 years But in these years, Adidas’s market in decrease very fast .Because Adidas’s endorsers did not famous than Nike’s endorses .Adidas’s endorses including Yao Ming ,A.I ,Derrick Rose and so on .But they hurt or retied .Adidas’s quality and technology is also well known .But Adidas lost because the endorses; New Balance is known as a most comfortable shoes .They has many new technology ,such as BIOSHIELD ,ABZORB EX ,REVAX ,ENCAP ,and so on .And New Balance is popular in young people ,you will find many young people wear New Balance in the street . IT’s a huge market to New Balance; Some Significant competitors like Under Armour and Skechers, they offer similar products like apparel or footwear, they compete with Nike in some fields. Some Indirect competitors like The North Face or Columbia, both of them are the most of the famous outdoor brand, they offer windbreaker or accessories that Nike does. They have impacts to Nike in some mutual markets. Conclusion: Nike does perfectly in quality and endorsement, they almost signed all significant players and teams all over the world. Adidas has no most strength but all factors are averaged. New Balance does best in technology, it can makes sneakers more comfortable. (New Balance has never signed any endorsers since it founded, so its score is little bit lower) Cost leadership. Nike uses Business Simulation Strategy. It has no factories, it uses OEM (Original Equipment Manufacturer) to get the work done, and it doesn’t has stores mostly. It offers products to Franchised retailers, and let them sell the products. It saved money from factories and rent, so its overhead is low. No shop, no labors,. quantity of materials, low too. If a supplier increases costs, Nike can easily change a new one with lower cost, Nike can do this because of its ability. Nike definitely has low cost access to factors of production. The enormity of Nike in respect to their suppliers gives them a huge advantage in production negotiations. Due to their high volumes for products, the cut-throat low cost nature of selecting a manufacturer, and coupled with the fact that Nike’s suppliers depend so heavily on them for their own success that they have little to no bargaining room toward raising prices, allows Nike to continuously enjoy low costs of production. Nike’s hardware and software technology implementations of using the not only using the best materials but creating them in a vertical fashion and housing an innovation culture from the top down, allow Nike a first move advantage into cost savings. However most of these advances only bring definite savings for a short time due to competitive parity within the industry, their creative nature definitely does benefit over the long run. Nike reduced costs by cutting some of its endorsements. Company research suggested the endorsement by the Italian soccer team, was not achieving the desired result. Michael Jordan, LeBron James, Kobe Bryant and a few other endorsers were retained while some other like Italian soccer team, were eliminated, to saving over $100 million. Nike does incredible in cost control. (Nike 2013 Annual Report) Differentiation. Differentiation strategy by Nike is used to gain market share advantage in the broad foot ware market. Aside from foot wear, the company boasts of products such as clothing, equipment, and even accessories. The strategy is achieved by producing consumer goods and services that customers perceive to be of high quality or have added unique features. This has been achieved by the company innovating state of the art athletic shoes that are publicized through dramatic â€Å"guerrilla† marketing. Marketing of the different products is designed to coerce customers that Nike’s shoes are not only superior but also a high fashion statement which is a necessary part of a lifestyle based  on athletic or sporting interests. The company has also differentiated itself by using highflyers that are best used in distinguishing sporting disciplines hence enabling the company reach its target market, for instance, the Brazilian national soccer team or even Michael Jordan. Also, Nike is different from others in their Ads. They show not only their technology but also leading endorsers like Michael Jordan, LeBron James, Kobe Bryant and Cristiano Ronaldo in their Ads of new products. At the same time, their Ads are also very creative and with imagination, make people who watched them unforgettable. (Via Nike 2013 Annual Report) Focus.

The Unequal Separation Of African Americans - 1453 Words

African Americans as a whole agree that racial segregation has affected their chances of employment, residency, education and access to proper health facilities. Many have stories and experiences of being qualified for a job but being turned down for being African American. Several experiments have been conducted where an African American would attempt to view homes in diverse neighborhoods and be turned down and white co-workers or friends would call immediately after and be invited to come in. Many African Americans have experienced mental health institutions and health clinics closed down in their neighborhoods while liquor stores, tobacco companies and fast food companies continue to market and open rapidly. The unequal separation of†¦show more content†¦Though racial segregation was outlawed it is still alive and systematically practiced in the United States. This has had extremely detrimental effects on the progression and opportunities offered to African Americans sp iraling into various branches of social, economic and political difficulties. Unequal educational opportunities for black students are a huge effect of racial segregation. Education has become a major problem dealing with racial segregation. Education is the foundation of literacy and success in America and African American students and schools are suffering. Schools in the U.S. are retracting back to segregation. As schools districts began to release schools from court order integration schools began to retract increasing test score disparities and national achievement gaps in large amounts not seen in four decades in the south. A national study conducted on the achievement gap between black and white students says â€Å"Nationally the achievement gap between whites and blacks during the integration period narrowed but as schools began to be released from court order integration schools became more segregated widening the achievement gap between black and white students† (Jo nes 1). Because of racial segregation the quality and access to education in African Americans is worsening over the years as school districts stop enforcing integration. But surprisingly, residential segregation has a big play in how well