Category: Big Businesses (Page 9 of 10)

Sonics 2.0

November 2, 2007 / Andy Boyer

The NBA kicked off season #40 in Seattle last night, in a game notworthy for it’s few absolutes:

It wasn’t the actual first game of the year, as the team had played in Denver the night before
It may or may not have been the last home opener in team history.
They never looked like they would get killed, and never looked liek they would win.
The roster is stacked full of people you may have heard of, but wouldn’t recognize if they sat next to you.
The arena was almost full
The fans didn’t quite know how to root for the players and boo the owners

But that made for an interesting dynamic. Some of the recognizable attractions remain – like Squatch, the Boom Squad and Sonics Dance team. T-Mobile still has big ads and the Dunking Ushers still put on a cool show. But there were no more Starbucks ads, and unless I missed them, the Southwest Airlines promotion seemed to be gone. At least there was no ad for the Stillwater Savings and Loan or Petroleum Workers Union 476.

There were some very noticeable handmade signs that I’m surprised fans were allowed to bring into the arena, including, "Noklahoma" and "Trade Bennett." It certainly would not have been unreasonable for an ownership group to force security to remove signs that denigrade the team or execs.

The loudest roar of the night was not prompted by the scoreboard, Squatch or PA Announcer – it was started by the fans and was simply a cheer of, "Save Our Sonics" that reverberated through the stadium for a few minutes. KJR’s Softy Mahler could be seen in the corner of the stadium taking part, and maybe 10% of the stadium was standing for it. With a little more organization, this cheer could take on a bigger role in future games, much like the "Go" ‘Huskies" cheer at UW shifts from side to side.

And finally, here’s an angle people aren’t writing about. The sales, marketing, admin, HR and other folks who work for the Sonics today are all Seattleites. They don’t want to move to Oklahoma. So you have owners who want to go, fans who want them to stay, employees who want them to stay and players who don’t care.

But one thing that is absolute – Kevin Durant is going to be a stud.

Technology Finally Slows Down the Rockies

October 22, 2007 / Andy Boyer

Well, they’ve won something like 23 of 24 games, so other teams can’t stop them. But the Colorado Rockies finally found a nemesis they cound’t vanquish.

According to reports, "on Monday, there were 8.5 million attempts to connect with the computers in the first 90 minutes after sales started, and only several hundred tickets had been sold before the system had to be shut down."

One has to assume many of these 8.5 million attempts are from the automated robots now being used by ticket brokers and resellers. This indicates the technologies that have been so useful in selling tickets have now become an impediment to getting them to the real fans.

In fact, the Denver Post reports on the issue, including this section. "The bots pose a significant challenge to companies such as Ticketmaster, which won an injunction Monday blocking a Pittsburgh software company – RMG Technologies Inc. – from making and distributing such programs.

"We will not allow others to illegally divert tickets away from fans," said Ticketmaster chief executive Sean Moriarty in a statement.

The flooding process has also come under fire from parents trying to purchase "Hannah Montana" concert tickets for their kids, only to learn tickets are sold out minutes after going on sale."

Feeling Justified About My Taste in Music

October 18, 2007 / Andy Boyer

I finally found a band that I liked before Apple did. Here’s one of my favorites, The Fratellis, starring in the latest iPod ad.

U.S. Search Engines Have New Pot Hole in Dance With China

October 18, 2007 / Andy Boyer

When you have a few billion potential customers living inside your country, and a totalitarian monopoly on who gets to sell to them, you wield quite a bit of power on the global business climate.

Such is the case this week as the government of China is now redirecting searches from Google, Yahoo and Microsoft search engines, and sending them to the China based Baidu.com.

The fact that this action comes about 3 minutes after the Dali Lama received a Congressional Medal of Honor is at best, "sketchy."

This kind of activity puts American companies in a tough spot. From everything I know, supporting the Dali Lama is the *right* thing to do. China is effectively pushing American companies to try to convince the U.S. government to change their chance. This will not be the last time a U.S. firm is going to have decide on whether they are beholden to shareholder value or global ethics. Redirecting IP packets is simply the easiest thing China could do. It will be interesting to see what comes next.

Is Google trying to Affect Politics?

October 11, 2007 / Andy Boyer

So, here’s an issue that only matters when you are a company serving 40% of the ads on the Internet.

According to an article written by someone named Robert Cox, founder of the Media Bloggers Association, Google is not allowing a Republican senator to run ads that denounce MoveOn.org.

According to the article, the banned advertisements said, “Susan Collins is MoveOn’s primary target. Learn how you can help” and “Help Susan Collins stand up to the MoveOn.org money machine.” The ads linked to Collins’ campaign Web site with a headline reading “MoveOn.org has made Susan Collins their #1 target.” The Collins Web site claims that MoveOn has contributed $250,000 to her likely Democratic opponent and has run onine ads against her costing nearly $1 million. The Web site also displays MoveOn.org’s controversial “General Betray Us” ad.

So, is this paranoia? One one hand, a company should be able to run whatever ads it wants. But on the other, if you are the ad serving technology running ads on millions of blogs and web sites, doesn’t the line get blurry if you are banning ads you may not agree with?

Google uses the argument of, "You don’t have right’s to MoveOn’s Trademark so you can’t use it in an ad." But that’s a pretty slippery slope, and I’d be shocked if every other ad in Google Ad Sense avoids using an unlicensed trademark. In fact, the article states, "Google routinely permits the unauthorized use of company names such as Exxon, Wal-Mart, Cargill and Microsoft in advocacy ads. An anti-war ad currently running on Google asks “Keep Blackwater in Iraq?” and links to an article titled “Bastards at Blackwater — Should Blackwater Security be held accountable for the deaths of its employees?”"

If Google’s not careful, long term these kind of issues could turn into a reason for the DOJ to start looking into whether Google is a monopoly that needs to be broken up, using the same logic they used on Microsoft a few years back. Exept this time it’s not a piece of software Google isn’t allowing to be distrubuted, it’s censorship of speech. If a single entity that controls 40% of the online ads decides to censor those ads to affect public policy, even the non-paranoid might get a little spooked.

C’mon, Someone Thought This Was a Good Idea?

October 11, 2007 / Andy Boyer

(Note: Correspondent Garrett Galbreath contributed to this article)

This actually made me add a new category to the blogroll, one for "Dumb Ideas."

In an apparent attempt at global expansion no matter how little common sense the idea involves, Taco Bell will be entering Mexico. However, the company must change some of its marketing.

First, they will not be selling Mexican food. In fact, an ad reads, "It is a new fast-food alternative that does not pretend to be Mexican food." Instead their brand will be, ""Taco Bell is something else." Hmm, it’s lunch time, I feel like ordering "something else."

Second, there will be some unusual items, with a menu that projects a more "American" fast-food image by adding French fries — some topped with cheese, cream, ground meat and tomatoes. So basically, nachos, but using fries instead of chips.

And third, no tacos – the hard-shelled items sold as "tacos" in the U.S. have been renamed "tacostadas."

Why all the changes? Let’s ask the executive in charge. "Taco Bell wants to take advantage of the perception that if something comes from the United States, it tastes better, that a country that has been Americanized is willing to Americanize food that is central to its cuisine," Monsiváis said. "It is an absurd idea, and given that it’s so absurd, it may just be successful in upper-class areas."

In case you are wondering, YUM shares are struggling. Perhaps it’s because people are walking into the CEO’s office, announcing they have an "absurd idea" and having that idea greenlighted.

Now you might be saying, "Andy, you’re being way too hard on these guys. Why not try something, and if it doesn’t work, put it in the scrap heap and forget it ever happened, just don’t do it again." Well, I agree. So for a kicker – "Taco Bell failed with a highly publicized launch in Mexico City in 1992, when it opened a few outlets next to KFC restaurants."

Do You Need Cable Anymore?

October 3, 2007 / Andy Boyer

So, like everyone lese in the blogosphere, I wanted to make sure I passed along the news that Joost had finally come out of hiding and was in a public beta. If you don’t know, Joost is the new venture from the guys who built Kazaa and Skype. It’s a real attempt at "TV on the Internet." But, I wanted a different angle, so I’ve been waiting a few days as I figured it out.

Well, after scratching my brain a while, I believe Joost may be the straw that allows me to ask this question. "Do you need cable TV anymore?"

Let’s think about what I would watch on my Cable TV:

1) News: Realistically, I can read online everything I need to know. And every story that matters generally has a local or national feed I can watch.

2) Live Sports: I may not be typical, but I rarely watch sports by myself. If I care enough about it, it’s generally a social event. So, it sucks that I can’t host a party for the Seahawks game, but I certainly can find a place to watch it.

3) SportsCenter: So far, this is not replicable online. Score one for Cable TV.

4) Movies: $4 for a DVD.

5) Prime Time Shows: Many are now available online the week they air (or the week after). Since my TV Drama and SitCom watching has already shifted from "Live" to "Tivo," waiting a week isn’t a big deal.

So now let’s do a dollar for dollar comparison. For my $70 per month to Comcast, I would probably let the news run about 40 hours in the background, catch 2 or 3 movies, watch about 4-8 hours of Tivo’d material and catch a few episodes of Sportscenter. Without Cable, I lose out on the background news, am forced to the Video store for movies, have to go to a bar to watch the MLB playoffs, and have my selection of sitcoms and dramas cut down by some percentage, unless I want to buy them from iTunes. It really probably comes out a wash.

So is Cable dead? No, of course not. It’s a wash, not a landslide. And I’m probably atypical. But the fact that it’s a wash should be somewhat scary to Cable companies. Which is why this whole Net Neutrality thing becomes an important issue for us to keep an eye on. The Cable guys aren’t dumb, and they aren’t going to just let $70/month from 100 million households walk out the door. But that’s a different topic.

The Battle of Shareholder Value vs Environmental Concern

September 12, 2007 / Andy Boyer

So back in the 90’s, it started becoming en vogue for Corporations to donate profits to charitable organizations. This started a very interesting debate about whether companies should simply deliver value to their shareholders, or be responsible for bettering the communities in which they belong.

An easy argument was to drop the charitable giving money into the overall Marketing budget and call it "Community Relations." If a giant bank sponsors runs for Leukemia and Breast Cancer research, then one could argue the CPM was worth the donation. It’s a pretty compelling argument that you can get a lot of community goodwill on your side, which then helps with non-tangibles such as recruiting, brand management and corporate morale.

Fast forward to 2007, and the magic bullet is in going "Green." Companies are denting their bottom line to use recycled paper, advanced heating and cooling systems, subsidizing public transportation for employees and other efforts. And shareholders seem to be ok with that.

But what about Google’s latest announcement. According to a Google release, "Google.org is committed to finding innovative transportation solutions to reduce greenhouse gas emissions that cause global warming…As part of this initiative, we are issuing a $10 million request for investment proposals (RFP). We plan to invest amounts ranging from $500,000 to $2,000,000 in selected for-profit companies whose innovative approach, team and technologies will enable widespread commercialization of plug-in hybrid electric vehicles, electric vehicles and/or vehicle-to-grid solutions."

Now, you can look at this 3 ways:

1) Google makes $10 million in an hour, so it’s irrelevant to shareholders. Great PR move.

2) This is a completely for profit effort for Google, stemming from their M+A group, and Google Shareholders should benefit down the road.

3) This $10 Million is nice, but why is an online search and media company investing in Transportation, something they could not possible know anything about? Shareholders should be annoyed.

On a lighter note, what happens if Google ends up building the killer transportation app? Will everyone be commuting to the Microsoft campus on the Google Mobile?

Supreme Court Ends 96-Year-Old Ban on Price Floors

June 28, 2007 / Andy Boyer

I haven’t seen too much of this floating around the blogosphere yet, and maybe it’s my paranoia kicking in, but this morning’s Supreme Court ruling piques my curiosity.

From the New York Times: The Supreme Court on Thursday abandoned a 96-year-old ban on manufacturers and retailers setting price floors for products. In a 5-4 decision, the court said that agreements on minimum prices are legal if they promote competition. The ruling means that accusations of minimum pricing pacts will be evaluated case by case. The Supreme Court declared in 1911 that minimum pricing agreements violate federal antitrust law. Supporters said that allowing minimum price floors would hurt upstart discounters and Internet resellers seeking to offer new, cheaper ways to distribute products.

So, why is this interesting to the Internet and Ecommerce world?

What’s unclear from the article is how far the price floor extends. Let’s use Harry Potter books as an example. Even though the franchise sells more books than anything else being published, retailers actually don’t make that much profit on the sales. Thanks to major chains like Wal-Mart and Amazon selling the book at discount as a way to get people into their stores, the retail price hovers below other books.

But now it seems that the Harry Potter Publisher could set a minimum price if it wanted, effectively stopping Amazon from pricing below the competition.

This has further reaching effects if you start taking into account all the Amazon Associates and Ebay sellers out there. These companies have done a great job creating as close to a free market economy as you can get. Now, the law looks like it’s going to allow the stifling of that free market, putting the power back into the hands of producers, who can now decide the prices before they even reach the market. And I don’t have any idea how this affects the secondary market for items.

Another example is a widget system like Mpire.com whose whole reason for being is to help consumers find the lowest prices on items being sold on the web. Well, if this "lowest" price is being set by the manufacturer, how does any small discount retailer make any noise to grab a customer?

Unless I’m reading into this wrong, this appears to be a strike at Internet Ecommerce. Manufacturers don’t like when there is little surplus in their supply and demand graph, and have now artificially manipulated the system to get that surplus back. I’m sure there will be more to come on this.

Hey 7-11 Marketing Guy – This is What We Call a “Slam Dunk”

April 24, 2007 / Andy Boyer

Seriously, how come marketing opps like this don’t land in my lap….. Hello 7-11 PR guy. Please send 3 machines, along with cameras from Jay Leno or Jon Stewart show, immediately to the quartermaster. Start collecting emails from your boss and stockholders about what a good guy you are. Enjoy your 15 minutes of fame on Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity. Is this really that hard….

From the AP

Frozen drinks in the desert: Soldier’s mom trying to send a Slurpee machine to Iraq

ALBANY, Ore. — An Albany woman with a son in Iraq is raising money to buy his 82nd Airborne unit a machine that makes "Slurpee" type frozen carbonated drinks. Sharon Crary said her son, Pfc. Preston Crary, 21, a chaplain’s assistant, asked for a machine that could make enough drinks to serve up to 100 soldiers at a time. Preston told his mother the machine would be a "great morale booster." It would stay in Iraq when Preston rotates home in March or April 2008. His Army unit is a mixture of infantry, medics, mechanics and other support soldiers.

Because of red tape involved in raising the money and sending such a large item overseas, she has joined up with Give 2 The Troops, a nonpartisan, nonpolitical group formed to support deployed troops. Members try to get letters and care packages to soldiers in war zones.

"Working with the organization enables us to purchase the machine wholesale and provide a tax-deductible receipt to those making donations," she said. "The machine costs about $1,600 with shipping and supplies, such as flavorings and cups. I figure the total cost will be about $2,500."

Sharon Crary teaches private English speech improvement classes but is taking time off for the project.