Case Analysis Coursework Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 750 words - 1

Case Analysis - Coursework Example A company with the biggest presence in the cosmetics industry is Estee Lauder. Its products are unique. The qualities of the manufacturing capabilities of this company spark interest of any retailer Kohl’s. Kohl sales lately have been depleting, thus the company need a boost. The executives identified the cosmetics department as its biggest weakness since in comparison with the industry sales generated by the cosmetics departments of other retailer their fell 93% short in overall sales in comparison with the industry standard. In order to make the cosmetics initiative work this company utilized an innovative marketing strategy to get the ball rolling. This report analyzes the alliance formed by Estee Lauder and Kohl to bring cosmetics products to Kohl’s stores. The rare agreement Estee Lauder and Kohn entered was a marketing alliance based on Estee Lauder producing a new exclusive cosmetics brand for Kohl’s of top quality cosmetics which would not be associated in any way with the typical Estee Lauder products eventhough they would be suppliers. Branding is a marketing strategy that can pay off great dividends. Branding is strategy that creates value for a firm by investing the image of a brand through advertising and other marketing tactics in order to create customer loyalty which brings recurrent sales (Kotler). The branding strategy is also very attractive for a company since it creates a goodwill for the company due to the fact customer pay premium price for branded products. The benefits associated with offering an Estee Lauder based product line for Kohl include turning cosmetics business from a losing operation to a income generating department that could easily account for 1/7th in the total sale of the stores instead of th e current 1%. The profit margin of the company will rise and the customer traffic associated with cosmetics sales will indirectly boost overall sales since the

Oracle and Machiavellian Philosophy Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 2000 words

Oracle and Machiavellian Philosophy - Essay Example For instance, when a firm increases it prices by few cents, the consumers may want to fight back by making many complaints towards the company or deciding not to buy the goods. However, on the other hand, when a firm increases the prices at the higher range, the consumers will be surprised but still purchase the goods as they do not have any choice. The company is dedicated to creating quality products and services and as a result, the company has introduced unified process automation systems, services, and products. Its goals are to have products and services that will ensure that they give automated systems integrated with diverse business analytic functions for the consumers. Oracle has focused on â€Å"pampering† all its stakeholders. The key stakeholders that the company has placed them to the center of their operations are the customers. Oracle has implemented a Led-innovation strategy that ensures that the company all its services and products are aligned with the consu mers’ requirements contrasting the internal company goals. Before introducing any product or services, the company tends to research on the customer’s needs. For its standards, the company has implemented the ethical principle of honesty that is upholding the high standards for the Oracle Corporation. The principle provides honesty for the corporations and its employees as they deal with partners and stakeholders along with the company's customers. The company has embraced the ethical business ethics of honesty and with this code.

Press Barons Of The 20th Century Media Essay

Press Barons Of The 20th Century Media Essay Studying the history of communication incorporates a review of how media and media form have developed over the years as well as their impact in the socio-political spheres of the contemporary society. In this paper, the discussion shall exclusively focus on the history of the press barons in the 20th Century. The paper is structured in progressively discursive sections where the discussion is elevated in a sequential manner towards a conclusion. To begin with, the paper will define the term press barons and introduce the prominent press barons of 20th century. The second section with then detail the social and political impacts of the press barons with numerous examples as provided by relevant literature. The third section of the paper will review the press barons of the 20th century and their influence of contemporary media. The section will allow for opinionated hypotheses backed by credible research evidence, thus terminating with a conclusion on the issues raised throughout the paper. Press Barons of the 20th Century In typical use, the term press baron denotes a media proprietor, during the time when the media referred exclusively to the printed press. A press baron was any person who controlled, either by virtue of personal ownership or by having a dominant share portfolio in the mass media company. In other contexts, media proprietors have been called media tycoons and media moguls (Coleridge 1993, pp. 18 53). Media proprietors only became a significant group of celebrities at the close of the 19th century consequent to the launch development of newspapers as mass circulating publications (Coleridge 1993, pp. 18 53). During this era, the most notable press owners and or controllers included, Lord Rothermere, Lord Northcliffe and Lord Beaverbrook all from and operating in the UK, while William Randolph Hearst stood as the pioneer press baron in the US (Coleridge 1993, pp. 18 53). At the beginning of the 20th Century, the mass media platforms grew to include radio and television as well as book publishing houses and film studios (Coleridge 1993, pp. 18 53). Consequently, the proprietors of these new media became media barons and not just press barons as they had been referred to when newspapers was all the mass medium available (Coleridge 1993, pp. 18 53). For the purposes of this paper, the term press baron shall refer to the pioneer media proprietors who owned and or controlled mainly newspaper publications in the 20th century. In this age, the press barons of repute with the ownership and control of a series of newspapers, and later several radio and TV networks, have included Rupert Murdoch (News Corporation), Silvio Berlusconi, Robert Maxwell, Axel Springer, Ted Turner, Conrad Black and Bill Bresnan (Bagdikian 1999, pp. 148-154). To this list, one can add Samir Jain add Vineet Jain the proprietors of The Times Group, Serge Dassault of the Dassault Group, Richard Desmond of Northern, Shell and Express Newspapers, Michael Eisner the chairman of Walt Disney Company, Barry Diller the CEO of InterActiveCorp and Ted Turner, of AOL Time Warner (Bagdikian 1999, pp. 148-154). The Social and Political Impacts of the Press Barons of the 20th Century The press barons bore a power that had never been given to any other group of people besides political and religious leaders (Bagdikian 1999, pp. 148-154). The newspapers cultivated a following and the ability to influence popular opinion (Bagdikian 1999, pp. 148-154). The fact that leaders in the society depended on the press to reach to the masses meant that those who had a considerable control over the press acquired a power that seemed even superior to that of political and religious leaders (Bagdikian 1999, pp. 148-154). According to Goodlad (2003), the mass media gained phenomenal importance, popularity and impact during the 20th Century to an extent that the societys mode of life was governed by what the press dictated. Goodlad (2003) points out that the so called late Victorian period saw the press gain an enormous expansion stimulated by the perpetually improving technology, as well as the elimination of the stamp taxes and paper duties imposed on the price. Consequently, the cover price of most newspapers became available to the common populace. London newspapers were courted, feared and used by politicians from all parties as a tool to gain popularity or to attack rivals (Bingham, 2010). This trend continued to the late Victorian age and even during the Edwardian period. Newspapers had a perceptible partisan attachment and loyalty to a particular political party, most being biased towards either of the two dominant parties Liberals and Conservatives (Koss 1990, pp. 67 79). Goodlad (2003) reports of a German loyalty who visited London in 1904 and opined that the chief weapon of the various Parties is the Press. According to Goodlad (2003), it is not possible to gauge in precisely terms, to what extent the readers of these newspapers shared the social and political prejudices the newspapers ascribed to. What can be used as an indicator of the power of the press in its early days is how other forms of mass communication such as posters, church pamphlets and loud announcements in meeting places, declined in circulation as the press gained popularity (Boyce 1987, pp. 56 87). Another indicator of the power that the press barons were given by the society was by the level of effort most political leaders put in cultivating close relations and even patronage with the editors of local newspapers (Bingham, 2010). A good example of such leaders includes the Liberals Grey and Asquith who are documented to have cultivated close association with J. Spender, then an influential Westminster Gazette editor (1896 and 1921) (Bingham, 2010). The press became increasingly powerful after 1910 to an extent that even politicians sought to gain direct control and ownership of the newspapers as a strategy to gain political mileage (Bingham, 2010). Other politicians had their careers made, ruined or marred by press coverage. Stanley Baldwin, the embattled British Prime Minister, once publicly accused all of the London press of biased political coverage and personalized political agendas. According to Baldwin, the press exercised the prerogative of the harlot through the ages: power without responsibility (Seymour-Ure 2008; pp. 77 84; Bingham, 2010; Curran and Seaton 2009; pp. 44 75). Lord Northcliffes The Times is said to have played a very important role in triggering Asquiths resignation as Prime Minister of Britain in 1916, after a Cabinet crisis (Bingham, 2010). The same has been noted with the American press in the last century, most notably Rupert Murdoch of the News Corporation, who was repeatedly accused of supporting particular politicians and abusing his ownership and control of the media to popularize such politicians as Margaret Thatcher, Ronald Reagan and John Howard (Bingham, 2010; Curran and Seaton 2009; pp. 44 75). In 1918 for instance, Lloyd George unsuccessfully marshalled a take-over bid for the Liberal Daily Chronicle, followed by another unsuccessful ownership bid for The Times newspaper in 1922 (Bingham, 2010). The Labour Party in collaboration with the trade union movement founded the Daily Herald in 1912 (Bingham, 2010). By 1915, newspapers had become a powerful social and political tool for mass control to an extent that almost every party and or politician desired to own a piece of the industry (Bingham, 2010). However, in the 1920s, printing costs and advertising revenue competition made it relatively unrealistic for political parties to run newspapers directly. What resulted was a series of takeovers and buyouts favouring the emergence and growth of powerful newspaper chains owned and controlled by a few powerful individuals (Bagdikian 1999, pp. 148-154). Thus emerged the press barons most notably Lord Northcliffe who founded the Daily Mail and bought The Times between 1907 and 1922 (Curran, Aelst and Aalberg 2010, pp. 255-271). A huge number of the literature on press barons usually explores ways in which these media proprietors used their positions vindictively to further their political agendas (Boyce 1987, pp. 56 87). The literature concurs that, based on validated research, all the press barons especially those in Britain exercised a great deal of personal control over what was published in their newspapers (Curran, Aelst and Aalberg 2010, pp. 255-271). This control enabled them to wage and propel political campaigns that they personally subscribed to. Geoffrey Dawson, who was the chief editor at The Times between 1912 and 1919 as well as between 1923 and 1941, is documented for having close association with most of the powerful Neville Chamberlain government officials (Bingham, 2010). Consequently, The Times was a staunch supporter for the policies seeking to appease Nazi Germany, mainly proposed by the Neville Chamberlain government. This was against the stance taken by pro-Conservative newspapers li ke the Daily Telegraph (Bingham, 2010). It is notable that the prominent press barons of post-1945 involved themselves only to a minimal extent with party politics as compared to their pre-war peers (Bingham, 2010). The press had acquired the commercial success and potential that was more lucrative than political influence (Bingham, 2010). Such barons as Roy Thomson, owner of The Sunday Times since 1959 as well as The Times since 1967, had a pure commercial motive. In this age, newspapers gained a less partisan social role and refrained acquiring an editorial bias or loyalty to any party (Bingham, 2010). Besides the political influence, press barons were also very influential on the social front (Boyce 1987, pp. 56 87). The newspapers were a source of entertainment and in most cases determined what was accepted as entertainment and what was rejected. If a play or book was positively featured by the press, it garnered huge popularity (Coleridge 1993, pp. 68 97). Entertainment was largely popularized using the press to an extent that concerns were expressed on how the press was handling their double role of entertaining and informing (Coleridge 1993, pp. 68 97; Croteau and Hoynes 2006, pp. 84 93). This concerns triggered several market surveys, the most significance one being the 1938 Report on the British Press conducted by the Political and Economic Planning policy organisation (Bingham, 2010). The report expressed concerns that the press had acquired a dangerous trend where entertainment stopped being ancillary to the news and supersede or absorbed it (Bingham, 2010). Lord Rothermere and Beaverbrook premised most of their social campaigns on a belief that their popular newspapers could mobilize the power of their readers in challenging any social order or tradition (Lloyd 2004, pp. 28 94). This belief was partly correct in that people were only informed by the newspapers at that time, as the only source of news available to the masses (Bagdikian 1999, pp. 148-154). By 1930s, over 70% of the British and US population read a daily newspaper regularly and almost every family accessed a Sunday paper (Bingham, 2010). As Badsey (2010) posts, Lord Northcliffes newspapers constituted half the all newspapers sold in London in 1914. Badsey (2010) opines that it was Northcliffes success that ultimately ushered the press barons era in Britain. Northcliffe would be joined later in this league of nobles by his brother Rothermere and Canadian Lord Beaverbrook (Daily Express owner). According to Badsey (2010), almost every adult in Britain accessed a national an d or local newspaper on a daily basis, including those in tiny country villages where pages of local newspaper were frequently pinned on public notice boards. Press Barons of the 20th Century and their Influence of Contemporary Media I believe that the press barons of the last century have shaped the way contemporary media is owned and operated in several ways. To begin with, the press barons exercised great influence and control on what was published to an extent that their newspapers editorial policy became their personal campaigns. As Bingham (2010) notes, the British press at the age of press barons was accused repeatedly of being irresponsible and untrustworthy. They were accused of undermining and sidetracking the democratic process as well as poisoning the political debate of the country based on the political inclinations of their owners (Bingham, 2010). The 1921 press campaign that opposed government expenditure is a good example of initiatives exercised their clout to shape political and social issues. In this campaign, Lord Northcliffe and Lord Rothermere successfully backed candidates who supported reduction of government waste in three British by-elections, ultimately leading to a drastic cut in publ ic spending in 1922 (Curran, Aelst and Aalberg 2010, pp. 255-271). This trend is still evident, although the level of control that media proprietors exercise today is covert and subtle. Further, the common trend of the British and US media inciting hostility and apathy against immigrants in this countries as well as their ethnic minorities (which is only now declining) originates from this age when the press barons used their newspapers to campaign for what they felt was the appropriate patriotism (Bingham, 2010). Much of the ethnic hatred and acrimony witnessed at the close of the last century and the beginning years of this century originate from the traditions established by the press barons. As Bingham (2010) postulates, the trend of seeking popularity with the masses by brazening entertainment stories and presenting them as news or as more important than the news is what has nurtured the coarsening trends of public life witnessed today. Just like in the interwar period when celebrity news and personality profiles became an important part of the press coverage, modern media has grown to promote the intrusive and sleazy celebrity culture as more important to the informative content that such media could disseminate (Bingham, 2010). On this count, I concur with Bingham (2010) in noting that the contemporary trends where the media narrows public debate to a particular subject is a culmination of historical tendencies. Promoting human interest and celebrity stories dominantly above informative content, for instance, is a trend that has been inherited over the decades from the press barons who wanted to create popular readership. I believe that contemporary media determines who is elected as a leader in many nations of the world. The media endears some candidates to the electorate while depicting other candidates as villains. This tradition is not unique to contemporary media though. The largest basis of the press barons social and political power was based on ignorance and monopoly. Badsey (2010) opines that the lack of opinion polls or any other way of measuring public opinion, made politicians pay exaggerated respect to and fear of popular newspapers and newspaper owners. Nonetheless, press barons had a considerable power adequate to make a non-entity individual the prime minister of Britain. David Lloyd George for instance, belonged to this breed of so-called populist politicians who solely depended on the press to access power. He thus closely associated himself with the press barons in London as well as their editors, an effort that would ultimately pay off in his capturing of the Prime Minister post in 1916. Recent leaders whose popularity was linked to media patronage include President George Bush (US), Prime Minister Tony Blair (UK), President Silvio Berlusconi (Italy) among others. In Fleet Street, Press Barons and Politics, Collin Brooks narrates a personal account as a journalist and editor in the 1930s, both at the Financial News and the Sunday Dispatch (Crowson 1999, pp. 11 64). In his rise through the ladders to a chief editor, Brooks narrates of an intimate friendship and contact with Lord Rothermere, thus providing a unique and even rare insight into the press barons mentality and operations (Crowson 1999, pp. 11 64). What is most instrumental for the purposes of this paper is Brooks testimony of how the press baron orchestrated his perspective upon the right-wing Conservatism during the reign of Chamberlain and Baldwin using the press outlets he owned (Crowson 1999, pp. 11 64). Such tactics as covering what was supportive to the media owners personal allegiances and then avoiding mentioning whatever was contrary to that allegiance, are still being used by many media owners today. The history of the press barons also points out a very important social role that they played that of social advocacy (Boyce 1987, pp. 56 87). Whenever the press barons supported a particular cause, they were able to rally public and government support in a unique way (Boyce 1987, pp. 56 87). Using this ability, the press barons encouraged civic contributions and improvements, promoted agricultural and business interests, inspired encourage public safety policies and city planning initiatives, an encouraged economic growth and economic expansion among the population (Cox 2005, pp. 24 108). George Bannerman Dealey the founder and long-time proprietor of Dallas Morning News, is reputed to have is reputed to have helped initiate the revolution that modernized Texas beginning late 19th Century to early 20th Century (Cox 2005, pp. 24 94). He strongly advocated for reduced defence spending as well as for more federal investments in the state. A good example is how the Texan Morning New s championed the state government and public to initiate a public education system under the leadership of Dealey (Cox 2005, pp. 68 108). This trend is continuing today. Media owners and influential journalists still wield great influence in triggering social change and economic growth (Jenkins 1986, pp. 76 89). Their participation in charitable causes such as providing aide after a disaster usually attracts mass action. Whether it is to support girl child education in Palestine or to feed starving children in Southern Sudan, the participation of media owners and popular journalists always triggers great public support and collaboration (Curran, Aelst and Aalberg 2010, pp. 255-271). Conclusion This paper has endeavoured to discuss the history of the press barons in the 20th Century considering the press barons influenced the social and political scenes of the era in which they were most dominant. It has emerged that the press barons of the 20th Century have had direct impacts on the contemporary trends of media ownership, control and regulation. The paper has argued that the modern trend of seeking popularity with the masses by brazening entertainment stories and presenting them as news or as more important than the news was nurtured by the press barons who wanted a return on their investment. Further, the trend of owning a series of media outlets that continues even today originates from the need to reach as many people as possible so as to gain a political and social significance capable of influencing public debate and policy. Conclusively therefore, this paper opines that for the press to be truly independent and objective, and for the media to play an instrumental role in socio-economic development of the societies in which they operate, there needs to be separation from their owners influence. Perhaps the answer lies in limiting the number of media outlets that an individual controls, since the more audience a particular media owner reaches, the more powerful and influential he or she becomes. Such media tycoons end up gaining a leadership role whose mandate is not constituted or endorsed by the publics right to democracy (Badsey, 2010). A good illustration is that of the perceived importance given to the London press barons during the WW1, which ultimately saw them assigned public leadership roles they did not qualify. Lord Northcliffe for instance was appointed a Director of Propaganda in Enemy Countries as Lord Beaverbrook was appointed the head of a novel Ministry of Information (Badsey, 2010). Neither of these posts was of prime importance to public good. They were just appeasements to a few individuals who controlled the bulk of the nations only mass media outlets (Badsey, 2010).

Medieval Torture :: essays research papers

Torture is defined as in law, infliction of severe bodily pain either as punishment, or to force a person to confess to a crime, or to give evidence in a judicial proceeding. In the middle of ancient people torture has been used as a means of suffering and to punish captured enemies. It involves using instruments to force evidence from unwilling witnesses. In ancient Athens, slaves were always examined by torture, and for this reason their evidence was actually considered more valuable than a freemen. A free Athenian could not be examined by this method but torture may have been used rarely in executing criminals. Under the Roman Republic only slaves could be legally tortured and as a general rule they could not be tortured to begin the responsibility of their master. A lot of methods were used to torture people. And I am going to introduce all the methods possible. In medieval times punishment was often as cruel as the crimes. The people, who tortured sinners, used such a method called breaking with the wheel, the head crusher, or even the guillotine. The sinners would sometimes get hung. The rope that went around the sinners’ neck was called the noose. They hung sinners in gallows. They also used a hanging cage. They also made sinners sit in spiked chairs. The Iron Maiden was an example of one of these. Pressing was one of the tortures they used. Breaking with the wheel was another torture. Finger pillories and thumb cuffs were used. Although the whip left marks, it wasn’t as brutal. People often got whipped 15 to 20 times. They removed body parts quite a lot. The guillotine was used to remove heads. The headsman’s sword did the same thing as the guillotine. They also used a saw to remove arms, legs, and so many other body parts. The rack was used to stretch people out. It was the most popular instrument. They beat peo ple to death and burnt people at the stake. They also used the head crusher. Now I will tell you how these methods were used. They hung people by putting their head through a rope, then taking the floor out from under them. In the hanging cage, they locked someone in a cage and just either let them die of hunger, or rot. The spiked chairs were just chairs full of spikes that you were locked in until you speak up. Medieval Torture :: essays research papers Torture is defined as in law, infliction of severe bodily pain either as punishment, or to force a person to confess to a crime, or to give evidence in a judicial proceeding. In the middle of ancient people torture has been used as a means of suffering and to punish captured enemies. It involves using instruments to force evidence from unwilling witnesses. In ancient Athens, slaves were always examined by torture, and for this reason their evidence was actually considered more valuable than a freemen. A free Athenian could not be examined by this method but torture may have been used rarely in executing criminals. Under the Roman Republic only slaves could be legally tortured and as a general rule they could not be tortured to begin the responsibility of their master. A lot of methods were used to torture people. And I am going to introduce all the methods possible. In medieval times punishment was often as cruel as the crimes. The people, who tortured sinners, used such a method called breaking with the wheel, the head crusher, or even the guillotine. The sinners would sometimes get hung. The rope that went around the sinners’ neck was called the noose. They hung sinners in gallows. They also used a hanging cage. They also made sinners sit in spiked chairs. The Iron Maiden was an example of one of these. Pressing was one of the tortures they used. Breaking with the wheel was another torture. Finger pillories and thumb cuffs were used. Although the whip left marks, it wasn’t as brutal. People often got whipped 15 to 20 times. They removed body parts quite a lot. The guillotine was used to remove heads. The headsman’s sword did the same thing as the guillotine. They also used a saw to remove arms, legs, and so many other body parts. The rack was used to stretch people out. It was the most popular instrument. They beat peo ple to death and burnt people at the stake. They also used the head crusher. Now I will tell you how these methods were used. They hung people by putting their head through a rope, then taking the floor out from under them. In the hanging cage, they locked someone in a cage and just either let them die of hunger, or rot. The spiked chairs were just chairs full of spikes that you were locked in until you speak up.

Isolation and Resentment in Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein Essay

Mary Shelley’s novel, Frankenstein, deals with two very distinct individuals: the young-but-foolish Victor Frankenstein and his creation, the â€Å"Monster†. Victor is the main focus of the novel for the beginning chapters, while the rest of the work focuses more on the development and actions of the Monster. The characters of Victor and the Monster are first brought together during the Monster’s creation in Chapter 4 (34). It was Victor’s isolation from both his family and his peers that ultimately lead to his creation of the Monster, and it was the Monster’s feelings of isolation and resentment towards Victor that lead to his violent episodes. While these feelings are evident in both characters’ actions throughout the majority of the novel, it was during the Monster’s statements to Captain Robert Walton towards the end of the story that drives home the fact that the Monster’s actions were products of his repeated rejections when he attempted to be accepted by society and as such are not indicative of his inherent nature. It was these feelings of loneliness and resentment that drove both Victor and the Monster to their actions, and it is safe to assume that some of Shelley’s personal feelings of abandonment and resentment towards her mother bled through into her characters. These feelings are made evident by way of the diction of the characters, both elements of and deviations from the Gothic stereotype, the development of the characters throughout the story and the lack of any definite closure to the text. Shelley’s use of eloquent and elaborate language by the main characters could be construed as ironic, in that such well-spoken characters have sunken into committing the most terrible of sins, namely those of murder and hubris. It is this irony that makes the isolation and resentment that Victor and the Monster feel stand out in the reader’s mind; two characters that are so articulate in their speech are reviled for their differences from the rest of society. The sophisticated diction of the Monster in the final pages of the novel helps to lend a feeling of bitterness and remorse to the text. However, the Monster’s eloquent speech does not sway the Captain, as evidenced in the first line â€Å"I was at first touched†¦indignation was rekindled within me. † (154). This shows that no matter how well-spoken an individual is and how sympathetic that person might be, normal society tends to shun those that are viewed as different, whether these differences are physical or in the way that they communicate. Such eloquence, as evidenced in the Monster’s speech â€Å"Once I falsely hoped to meet†¦thoughts of honor and devotion† (154), is a direct product of how a person was raised; those that are raised in an environment where they are kept isolated, whether by choice or through the influence of society tend to develop such oratory skills as a way of hopefully being accepted by those around them. However, more often than not, such well-defined articulation of one’s thoughts leads to such a person being further isolated from society, and as such feeds feelings of isolation and resentment. It was due to realistic depictions of societal reactions like these that helped to solidify Frankenstein’s place as a Gothic novel. Shelley uses many common elements of the Gothic novel in Frankenstein, and the themes of resentment and isolation can be connected to the characters through these elements. Victor is depicted as a â€Å"weak hero†, whose isolation from the world in the development of his creation leads him from an otherwise successful career as a scientist. It could be inferred that Victor’s resentment towards his creation, whom he subsequently abandons, stems not only from his disgust with himself and what he has created, but also from the opportunities denied to him as a result of his irresponsible pursuit of bestowing life upon that which should remain lifeless. Although Victor knew that creating life through artificial means would be considered taboo by his peers, he decided to proceed with the project regardless, letting his scientific curiosity overtake his rational intellect. After he brought the Monster to life, he was realized the irresponsibility of his actions. During this time, Victor had severe difficulties connecting to other people, and he gradually worked to further distance himself from the rest of society, which lead him into an extremely depressed state (. Although there were points in the novel where Victor was able to experience a very temporary reprieve from his mental torments, in his mind he would never be able to fully experience mental peace until one of them was dead. In contrast to Victor’s rather weak characterization, the Monster could be depicted as the â€Å"hero† of the story, in that even while he is committing murders that should sicken the reader, he is still portrayed as a sympathetic character, whose actions are driven by his feelings of abandonment, betrayal and resentment that Victor engenders in him through his various actions, as well of those of human society in regards to the Monster [i. e. The Monster’s episode with Felix]. It is understandably unclear if any the characters can be definitively labeled as a hero or villain, for even though they both have committed acts worthy of abhorrence and disgust, in a sense, they could be considered to be victims of abuse and neglect as well. Due to this, it can be argued that both Victor and the Monster are accurate representatives of the Gothic hero/villain. A final example of Gothic elements that Shelley incorporates into her novel is that of the heroine in distress, in this case Elizabeth. Elizabeth is a good example of a heroine because she is a strong female character who is independent and dedicated, especially to the Frankenstein family after Victor’s mother dies. However, she breaks the classic Gothic mold of a heroine by the fact that she is a patient woman who almost never takes action for herself, and it is for this reason as well as Victor’s negligence on their wedding night that she ends up being killed by the Monster in the novel. Victor’s neglect towards Elizabeth on their wedding night could be due to his isolation during his developmental years, and as such was not comfortable in being tied down to Elizabeth. Victor appeared to have developed in a fairly normal manner, due to the fact that he had experienced a childhood that would be considered normal for the noble class in that time. This continues to be the case until he takes it upon himself match the power of God and attempt to bestow life. From this point, his experiments and eventual creation become his only obsession, and he can no longer interact with other people, even those that he sees on a daily basis while at the college. Victor is unable to communicate with other in any meaningful way during this time, as his mind is always preoccupied with thoughts regarding the monster he is responsible for giving life to. Based on this behavior, it gives credence to the question if Victor ever matured any further as an individual once he arrived at the college. In contrast, the Monster’s experiences during the period of his mental and emotional development were always abrupt and sometimes violent. This occurred when he realized that he would forever be rejected by the human race, as his physical appearance was so ghastly that all those that came in his presence were immediately stricken with fear as evidenced by Even his creator, Victor, who to the Monster’s understanding should love him even if others refused to, was so terrified of the Monster that he refused to fulfill his romise in making the Monster a companion. It is understandable that from that point on, â€Å"all joy was but a mockery† (116) to the Monster, and he decided that the sole purpose in his life was to destroy any and all the things that brought pleasure or comfort to his creator. These events are similar because they both represent periods in which these characters no longer are able to have significant social interactions with those around them. Dur ing his development, the monster was able to have many of the same experiences as a human would. For example, he was able to feel a wide range of emotions, from pleasure to hate, even pride and remorse; he developed intellectually through both his learning from books and his [unpleasant] interactions with society; he learned [much in the way that a child does] to use his physical senses to tell him about his environment. However, because of his grotesque appearance, he was made to feel that he would never accepted as a member of human society, and many of his interactions with humans gave no reason to dissuade him from such a belief. In Captain Walton’s final letter to his sister (154), he recounts the words that the monster speaks to him over Victor’s dead body. The eruption of angry self-pity the Monster displays brings into question the injustice of how he has been treated and compellingly captures and portrays the feelings of isolation and resentment he has experienced in regards to his interactions with society, providing both Walton and the reader a glimpse into the suffering that has motivated his actions. It was these feelings that lead the Monster to disappear with Victor’s corpse, presumably to avoid contact with any others of mankind until he eventually dies; however, the ending of the text is rather ambiguous, so it is possible that the Monster decided to return to revenge himself upon mankind. At the closure of Frankenstein, Shelley does not provide a well-defined ending. The last line, reading â€Å"He sprung from the cabin-window†¦lost in darkness and distance† (156), leaves the reader responsible for deciding how they believe the story concluded. The ending can be regarded as having been left open because although the story does provide a conclusion [in that it may be assumed that the creature took his own life after departing Walton’s ship], there is not enough concrete evidence provided in the text to prove beyond a doubt that this is indeed what occurred. It is entirely possible that the Monster would be unable to let go of his hatred of Victor, and by extension, mankind due to his isolation. Just because his â€Å"creator† died does not necessarily mean that he could let his emotions go, and it is this possibility that shows just how differently people view things; the reader can make of the ending what they will, but they will never know for sure how Shelley would have ended it otherwise. Through the speech of the characters, the Gothic elements applied in the text, the characters’ developments and the rather obscure ending of Frankenstein, it is evidently clear that Mary Shelley believes that isolation and resentment play key roles in how people relate to others, and how they develop their own behaviors. It is through the medium of her novel that allows her to express these beliefs, and she provides plenty of evidence in her text to back up these beliefs. The feelings of isolation and resentment that Victor and the Monster both felt towards society were key aspects of their personalities, and were the main driving forces behind their various actions made through the course of the text.

Nordstrom Incâ€analyzing Financial Performance

NORDSTROM INC—ANALYZING FINANCIAL PERFORMANCE RETURN ON OPOERATING ASSETS ADDITIVE DUPONT MODEL Summary Nordstrom is one of the oldest retail companies in the United States. It started from 1901 in Seattle and has been grown to a powerful retailer in national area. Selling high quality products is the most important method for Nordstrom to collect its revenue. At the same time, Nordstrom also offers credits and debts to customers by his banks. In this case, we are trying to analysis Nordstrom’s financial statements and calculate few simple ratios to approach the performance of this company.The main point in our analysis is to figure out how Nordstrom is using its operating assets to get returning. a). ROE is used to measure the net profit in a period as a percentage of shareholder’s equity. In other word, ROE means how much net income we can get by using shareholders’ investment. ROE is more important than net income in dollar terms because ROE is a ratio. Ratio allowed analysts to compare companies’ performance over the period. In fact, the ratio can also help us compare companies in a different size or different industry.Net income in dollar terms is not widely used because this method is limited by companies’ different situations. b). ROE and RONA are both useful methods to determine a company’s performance. However, ROE and RONA measure a company’s performance in a different way. ROE considers entire company’s income, expenses and gain/loss of a company’s profit; RONA only consider a company’s net profit from operating activities. On the other hand, ROE calculates all returns which come from shareholder’s building of equity; RONA only calculates the operating assets and liabilities which don’t include the financing activities.The non-operating portion of ROE represents is that a company captures profit from financing activities and investing activities (both of them a re not operating activities). c). Marginal tax rate means a rate of tax that one company needs to pay on its next dollar of taxable income. Marginal tax rate will affect company’s future economic decisions because this tax rate is related to the economic situation. So, companies not only need to consider federal income tax but also need to consider state income tax. Tax shield is the tax reduction, which is created by items that are allowed to take deduction from tax income.For instance, interest on debt is tax-deductible, taking on debt makes tax shield. Tax shield is an important method to saving cash flow and it is a significant part of companies’ business valuation (Wikipedia, 2012). d. (in millions)| Fiscal 2009| Fiscal 2008| Fiscal 2007| Operating assets| 6,579| 5,661| 5,600| Operating liabilities| 2,394| 1,938| 1,988| Net operating assets| 4,185| 3,723| 3,612| e. 2009 NOPAT= 441 + [(138? (1- 38. 5%)] = 526 2008 NOPAT= 401 + [(131? (1-38. 5%)] =482 The dollar amo unt of Nordstrom’s tax shield from nonoperation activities in fiscal 2009 is $53 ( $ 138 x 38. 5 % ). f. 009 RNOA = $526 /[($4,185 + $3,723)/2] = $526 / $3,954 = 13. 3% 2008 RNOA = $482 /[($3,723 + $3,612)/2] = $482 / $3,668 = 13. 1% g. RNOA is improved over the two years. In order to understand the increase, we can examine NOPM and NOAT. NOPM is 6. 1 % ( $ 526 / $ 8, 627) in 2009 and 5. 6 % ( $ 482 / 8, 573) in 2008. NOPM analyzes the amount of net operating profit after tax for each dollar that is been earned by sales. The increase in NOPM may be seen a small increase but if the volume of the sales is considered, the increase would have huge impact on a increase in net income. NOAT is 2. 18 % ($ 8, 627 / 3,954) in 2009 and 2. 4 % ($ 8, 573 / 3, 688) in 2008. The decrease in NOAT shows that the company is less efficient and effective in terms of generating sales by use of assets. To conclude, it could be said that the company achieved better probability by a worse use of ope rating assets. However, the stance of the company is good and becoming better if we emphasize the increase in RNOA over the two years. h. 2009 ROE = $441 /[($1,572+ $1,210)/2] = 31. 7 % Non operating return: ROE – RNOA = 31. 7 % – 13. 3 % = 18. 4 % 2008 ROE = $401 /[($1, 210 + $ 1,115)/2] = 34. 5 % Non operating return: ROE – RNOA = 34. 5 % – 13. 1 % = 21. 4 % The ROE is decreased from 34. % to 31. 7 % over the two years. The difference between ROE and RNOA shows that there is non-operating return. Non-operating returns shows the effect of debt to finance operating assets. Moreover, it shows that Nordstrom uses liabilities or debt to increase operating assets and earnings. Nordstrom uses debt and the cost of the debt is less than the earnings, therefore it is beneficial for the company. i. Net non-operating obligations 2007: $261+ $2,236 = $2,497 2008: $275+$24+$$2,214 = $2,513 2009: $356+2,257= $2,613 FLEV 2009: [($2,613+$2,513)/2]/$1,390 = 1. 84 2008: [ $2,523+$2,497)/2]/$1,163 = 2. 15 It shows that Nordstrom has $1. 4 of non-operating liabilities for every dollar of shareholder’s equity. The company has less financial leverage compare to year 2008. Additionally, the company does not have non-operating assets; FLEV measure can be used as company’s debt-to-equity ratio too. Spread 2009: 13. 3% – ($85/$2,563) = 10. 0% 2008: 13. 1% – ($81/$2,505) = 9. 9% Nordstrom’s RNOA earned 13. 3% and 13. 1% in 2008 and 2009, while the company paying only 3. 3% and 3. 2% for its debt. Therefore, it means that the company operating return exceeds the cost of borrowing. Non-operating return 2009: 1. 84 x 10. 0% = 18. 4% 2008: 2. 15 x 9. 9% 21. 3% j. Nordstrom| TJX| Return on equity| 31. 7%| 48. 3%| RNOA| 13. 3%| 38. 3%| NOPM| 6. 1%| 6. 1%| NOAT| 2. 1%| 6. 28%| Non operating return| 18. 4%| 10. 1%| FLEV| 1. 84| 0. 29| Spread| 10. 0%| 34. 9%| The ROE of Nordstrom is 31. 7% and TJX 48. 3% show that both of the compani es are very profitable. The companies are very different than each other in terms of strategies. Nordstrom mostly uses leverage in order to increase the returns; on the other hand, TJX uses mostly stockholders equity and less leverage. Both of the companies have the same NOPM at 6. 1% that states that both companies make 6. 1 cents after tax for every dollar of sale.Furthermore, TJX has better operating asset turnover (NOAT) than Nordstrom, which shows that TJX is converting its operating assets to cash three times faster than Nordstrom. RNOA is calculated by multiplying NOAT and NOPM that is 13. 3 % for Nordstrom and 38. 4 % for TJX. The non-operating return is different for companies. The numbers are 18. 4 % for Nordstrom and 10. 1 % for TJX. The numbers show that Nordstrom has more leverage than TJX. Nordstrom’s FLEV is much higher than TJX which shows that TJX has less obligations and leverage than Nordstrom with regarding to equity. TJX’s spread is 3 times higher than Nordstrom.Although both companies have relatively close non-operating expenses to non-operating obligations number ( cost of debt ), the difference in Spread is related to RNOA numbers. Additionally, TJX does not have many obligations, which lead to low non-operating return. k. In order to improve RNOA in 2010, the company can improve its NOPM or its NOAT. Nordstrom managements have to improve their sales and reduce the expenses so as to improve NOPM. Decreasing the amount of operating assets such as long-term fixed assets can increase NOAT. Additionally, they can try some ways to collect account receivable quickly, sell inventories quickly nd sell some property or equipment. In terms of liabilities, Nordstrom managements can defer to pay bill in account payable and income tax liabilities. These methods may improve Nordstrom’s RNOA. Conclusion Nordstrom Inc. ’s RNOA ratio shows that the company’s financial performance in 2009 is slightly better than in 2008 . More specifically, the RNOA is increased from 13. 3% to 13. 1 % over the two years but its ROE is decreased. The difference between ROE and RNOA shows that there is non-operating return. Non-operating returns shows the effect of debt to finance operating assets.Moreover, it shows that Nordstrom uses liabilities or debt to increase operating assets and earnings. Nordstrom uses debt and the cost of the debt is less than the earnings, therefore it is beneficial for the company. Based on the data from balance sheet, on the other hand, the managements utilized more liabilities in 2009 than 2008 to increase the returns.. That means Nordstrom’s managers did good jobs in financial performance in 2009. However, compared with others more successful companies in the same industry, such as TJX, Nordstrom managements should try others effective methods to improve their returns.

Word Choice Compliment vs. Complement

Word Choice Compliment vs. Complement Word Choice: Compliment vs. Complement Tom Selleck has beautiful eyes. We know that’s a little weird for an opening sentence in a proofreading blogpost, but we needed to illustrate what a â€Å"compliment† is. And partly we’re hoping Tom Selleck googles himself and reads this. We love Tom Selleck. Just look at that gorgeous specimen. Anyway, back to work. Today we’re discussing the difference between â€Å"compliment† and â€Å"complement.† Given their similarity in spelling and pronunciation, it’s understandable that these terms are confused sometimes. Yet each word has a distinct meaning, so it’s important to use them properly in your written work. Compliment/Complimentary As indicated above, a â€Å"compliment† is an expression of praise or approval: When I met Tom Selleck, I complimented him on his bushy mustache. He shampoos it every day. [Photo: Alan Light]This sense of â€Å"compliment† can be used either as a noun when referring to the praise itself, or as a verb when referring to the act of expressing praise. Meanwhile, the adjective â€Å"complimentary† has two meanings. One is to describe something or someone as having expressed admiration: After we were done talking, Tom Selleck thanked me for being complimentary. The other is to describe something as having been provided without charge or as a courtesy: I offered Tom Selleck the complimentary chocolate from my hotel room, but he declined. Complement/Complementary The verb â€Å"complement† means to â€Å"add to† or â€Å"enhance† something by making it more complete or effective: Tom Selleck’s sunglasses perfectly complement his Hawaiian shirt. Something which â€Å"complements† something else in this way can be described as a â€Å"complement.† Sometimes â€Å"complement† is also used as a noun meaning â€Å"the number of something required for a full set†: I wanted to go to Tom Selleck’s party, but he said they had a full complement of guests. The adjective â€Å"complementary† has the sense of â€Å"adding to† or â€Å"enhancing† something, and is used when describing two things that are useful or attractive together: The complementary combination of good looks and charisma made Tom Selleck one of the most popular TV actors of the 1980s. Also, he was in Three Men and a Baby. [Photo: Georges Biard] Compliment or Complement? Whether or not you’re intending to praise Tom Selleck, it’s essential to know the difference between â€Å"compliment† and â€Å"complement.† Remember: Compliment = Praise Complement = Add to/make complete The exception here is when â€Å"complimentary† means â€Å"free† or â€Å"as a courtesy,† as this isn’t directly related to praise. But as long as you can remember this general rule, you should be able to avoid confusions in your written work.