Comparing Two Similar Businesses Research Paper

Comparing Two Similar Businesses - Research Paper Example This research paper discuses more about the management strategies essentially in Amazon.com and Borders Books businesses. To arrive at the conclusion of this paper statistical analysis related to the topic of discussion was collected and previous works used. Amazon.com is considered the pioneer in online selling. It expanded in the late 1990s to sell the world’s largest selection of books, DVDs, videos, CDs, electronics, toys, tools, house wares, and kitchen gadgets. Through intermediaries’ conformities, Amazon.com in addition sells products from renowned retailers like Toysrus.com Incorporated., the Borders Group, etc. On the other hand, Borders Group incorporated is the largest after Amazon.com in the United States bookstore chains. It is the fastest rising bookstore chain. It runs 354 superstores in the name of Borders Books and Music. It features books and special events, like live music, and appearances by artists. This research paper analyzed and compared two buss inesses on such topics as management approach each took to Internet marketing and sales, three reasons for Amazon's success despite not turning a profit for the first five to six years, three reasons Borders, although initially successful and profitable, ended up in chapter 11 in relation for bankruptcy safeguard. In conclusion, in order for a company to flourish in the competitive market environment it should adopt the modern marketing strategies like marketing online, designing there website in a way that attracts many customers.

Analysis of Human rights Act 1998 Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 1500 words

Analysis of Human rights Act 1998 - Essay Example To abide the above said aims and to appease the people who are hankering for unity and unanimity, the Act incorporates some provisions which extends some rights to the people to enjoy these unity .These provisions give the so called conventional rights to the people from the all area includes offenders, suspects etc. But the question is how far these rights enjoyable to these offenders particularly for suspects whose status is neither in the culprit's nor in the normal persons. The question is whether their rights are being protected aptly or not is a crucial question before the Law. As said above the suspects also enjoy the benefits of the different provisions which meant for the well being of the society. Article 2 of the Act provides everyone present in UK has the right of life and no one can de be deprived of their life, including those such as suspected terrorists or violent criminals. Moreover Article 3 gives the suspects a right to freedom from torturing, inhumane or degrading treatment. It further says that even in times of war or other public emergency, a person has the right not to be treated in these ways .It is a also applicable to the suspects. By sticking to the individual fre... As said above the suspects also enjoy the benefits of the different provisions which meant for the well being of the society. Article 2 of the Act provides everyone present in UK has the right of life and no one can de be deprived of their life, including those such as suspected terrorists or violent criminals. Moreover Article 3 gives the suspects a right to freedom from torturing, inhumane or degrading treatment. It further says that even in times of war or other public emergency, a person has the right not to be treated in these ways .It is a also applicable to the suspects. By sticking to the individual freedom of living own life ,the Act empowers the persons to live in personal privacy taking into the account of rights and freedom of the others and also limits on the extent to which a public authority can do thing which invade your privacy about your body without your permission. The point is well explained in Law Vs R (2) and it was held that the principal purpose of s 8 of the charter was to protect an accused's privacy interests against unreasonable intrusion by the state. In the instant case, the mere fact that the police recovered the stolen property was insufficient to support an inference that the owners voluntarily relinquished their expectation of privacy in the item and the Court confirmed that the officer's conduct constituted an unreasonable search. It followed that there was a violation of s 8 of the charter. Moreover referring the principle 21 of the Body of the principles on detention, which envisages the well being of the suspects who is in detention by prohibiting undue advantage