The Wall Street Journal
"Wal-Mart Adds Guns Alongside Butter"
By: MIGUEL BUSTILLO
The secret is out of the bag; well, who knows if it were an actual secret. Wal-Mart is putting back the guns and ammunition on the shelves. In recent months, these products were only left in a third of the stores. This recent return comes with an effort to regain shoppers, specifically the men.
Wal-Mart has always been a powerhouse in the shopping world, but in recent months and years, it has faced issues with its efforts to brand and rebrand itself as the "one-stop shop." Five years ago, the guns and fishing section decreased due to a dip in sales, but now they are coming back into almost half of the stores with attempts to undo the damage placed on the stores by a failed attempt to rebrand the store as being more upscale. The fabrics section was another one that drastically decreased but is now coming back to stores in efforts to keep that demographic in the Wal-Mart shoppers family. Personally, my mother and grandmother were very disappointed when Wal-Mart did all of these major renovations to products and sections. They are both big sewers, so they'll be happy if Wal-Mart keeps its promise to bring the fabrics back. These are two of the "heritage categories" that Wal-Mart feels will bring it back our of the slumps.
The remainder of the article pens Wal-Mart officials' saying that they underestimated the power and importance of these products. It discusses how they plan to more forward with these new additions, and it discusses competitors such as Bass Pro Shops. Finally, the article recognizes Wal-Mart's "code of conduct," which makes them a leading retailer today.
Over the past five years, it has been interesting to me to watch this transformation and see the failures and successes. I knew things would backfire when Wal-Mart tried to do some many new things at one point. They put in higher scaled items and completely took out essential products and brands that shoppers had bought for years. My mom couldn't buy paper plates sometimes, and my grandmother couldn't buy some ingredients anymore that she has used in recipes for decades. Also during this time, Wal-Mart underwent an aesthetic rebranding with major or total renovations in almost every store. This by itself was a nightmare for shopper for months as things got rearranged, repainted, and restocked. Shoppers couldn't be patient, so they left. They couldn't buy their favorites anymore, so they left. Now, I see it that Wal-Mart is not completely failing, but they are about to crawl on hands and knees to get men back in their stores by adding the guns and homemakers by adding the fabrics and foods like butter.
For pretty much my entire lifetime, Wal-Mart has been a powerhouse in retail and a place where my family goes at least twice a week. My question is this: why did they try to change so much of an already really good thing?
Thursday, April 28, 2011
Thursday, April 21, 2011
A Royal Affair
The Wall Street Journal
"Wedding to Boost U.K. Retail"
By ALEX BRITTAIN, MICHELLE ABREGO and JENNA LAYNE VOIGT
"Wedding to Boost U.K. Retail"
By ALEX BRITTAIN, MICHELLE ABREGO and JENNA LAYNE VOIGT
Last week, an article reported that U.K. retail was on a fast downward slope, but this week's article about U.K. retail spreads a little hope. As the royal wedding is quickly approaching, many say that the retail items that are associated with the national event will help boost retail. Others say that the boost will be great and much needed, but it will only be short-lived. The reasoning behind this claim is the fact that U.K. employees will have a day off for the wedding. U.K. will also be celebrating two holidays that sandwich the wedding holiday, so production will be halted for three days almost back to back to back.
Food and drink sales are expected to sky-rocket as people start to prepare for their wedding parties. The pubs centrally located around the wedding processional are also expecting a hike in retail. People are hoping this will be a catalyst to get retail back on its feet, but researchers say high prices and job security are factors to prevent a long-term boost.
First of all, I am intrigued by the enormous attention Americans have put on this wedding. We have always been fascinated with the British Royal family, mostly because of Diana. I remember hearing girls talk about and drool over Prince William when we were in grade school. Everyone has been waiting for this wedding. Americans have eaten up the the footage and coverage of Diana, Charles and Camille, and William and Harry.
Now that the royal family and its power looks a little bit different from earlier times with Elizabeth and Victoria, it's interesting to see that U.K. businesses are counting on the royal family and its fairy tale wedding to help in this time of need. It will be interesting to see how things play out for retailers. It's always interesting to me when the American "first family" and the British royal family are compared. I didn't see articles about Chelsea Clinton's wedding being counted on to boost America's or even New York's retail. I know it's a little different, but it's always interesting to read and discuss.
Friday, April 15, 2011
A First Time for Everything
The Wall Street Journal
"Web Advertising Eclipsed Newspapers in 2010"
By: Nat Worden
We have the results, and web advertising wins, making a return to double-digit percentage increases and beating out newspaper advertising in terms of revenue for the first time. In this article released yesterday, PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP said that total Web advertisement revenue increased 15% in 2010, reaching $26 billion. In 2009, the industry dove three percent due to the economic downturn. Even though this industry is seeing the light again, the increase in 2010 is only growing at half the rate the industry was seeing before the recession began in 2008.
Nevertheless, the industry has to start somewhere, so they are excited about this turn of events, citing Facebook Inc. and Netflix Inc. and their business as reasons for the upturn. The maturity level that online advertising as reached compares with that of other mediums, so this new form is beginning to gain nods, acknowledgement, and respect. It was said that the increase in revenue during 2010 speaks volumes, showing the power of the Internet in this generation. Also, these numbers show that major brands are beginning to gain confidence in the Internet's power and are more willing to carve a bigger piece of the advertising budget to use online.
As a testament to Google, search remained the largest category for online-ad revenue at 46%, but it is down from 47% last year. It will be interesting to see if this is just a yearly fluctuation or if a new powerhouse will arise in the future. Speaking of Google, it's been interesting over the years to see how many people use Google. I don't have any problem with Google, but I've always used Yahoo! Search. I didn't realize how much of a difference there was until recently when I began to study this in class.
For the first time, mobile advertising was recording during the Interactive Advertising Bureau's annual report. This market is expected to see tremendous growth over the coming years. To me, this seems very obviously, especially when one looks at the dominance that the Apple iPhone and other smart phones have these days. The Apple iPad advertising revenue was also included in the mobile number, which ranged from $550 million to $650 million in 2010.
Because I am in this generation, I don't know what it was like without the Internet or mobile devices. I never studied advertising without considering the Internet. In my lifetime, the question about the lifespan of print has always been asked and debated. What is going to happen? Well, we have watched as print has survived. Now, it may have to keep evolving so that it can stay around longer, but isn't that the name of the game? With each new generation of consumers, companies and industries have to brand themselves for the consumer. The product can still have the "home grown roots" feel to it, but the advertising process will more than likely have multiple elements. I see it as no surprise that online advertising revenue is now ahead of newspaper's revenue, but I don't think this means advertising inside newspapers will completely die out. It will just look differently. Different people buy into a product for different reasons and because of different advertising concepts.
"Web Advertising Eclipsed Newspapers in 2010"
By: Nat Worden
We have the results, and web advertising wins, making a return to double-digit percentage increases and beating out newspaper advertising in terms of revenue for the first time. In this article released yesterday, PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP said that total Web advertisement revenue increased 15% in 2010, reaching $26 billion. In 2009, the industry dove three percent due to the economic downturn. Even though this industry is seeing the light again, the increase in 2010 is only growing at half the rate the industry was seeing before the recession began in 2008.
Nevertheless, the industry has to start somewhere, so they are excited about this turn of events, citing Facebook Inc. and Netflix Inc. and their business as reasons for the upturn. The maturity level that online advertising as reached compares with that of other mediums, so this new form is beginning to gain nods, acknowledgement, and respect. It was said that the increase in revenue during 2010 speaks volumes, showing the power of the Internet in this generation. Also, these numbers show that major brands are beginning to gain confidence in the Internet's power and are more willing to carve a bigger piece of the advertising budget to use online.
As a testament to Google, search remained the largest category for online-ad revenue at 46%, but it is down from 47% last year. It will be interesting to see if this is just a yearly fluctuation or if a new powerhouse will arise in the future. Speaking of Google, it's been interesting over the years to see how many people use Google. I don't have any problem with Google, but I've always used Yahoo! Search. I didn't realize how much of a difference there was until recently when I began to study this in class.
For the first time, mobile advertising was recording during the Interactive Advertising Bureau's annual report. This market is expected to see tremendous growth over the coming years. To me, this seems very obviously, especially when one looks at the dominance that the Apple iPhone and other smart phones have these days. The Apple iPad advertising revenue was also included in the mobile number, which ranged from $550 million to $650 million in 2010.
Because I am in this generation, I don't know what it was like without the Internet or mobile devices. I never studied advertising without considering the Internet. In my lifetime, the question about the lifespan of print has always been asked and debated. What is going to happen? Well, we have watched as print has survived. Now, it may have to keep evolving so that it can stay around longer, but isn't that the name of the game? With each new generation of consumers, companies and industries have to brand themselves for the consumer. The product can still have the "home grown roots" feel to it, but the advertising process will more than likely have multiple elements. I see it as no surprise that online advertising revenue is now ahead of newspaper's revenue, but I don't think this means advertising inside newspapers will completely die out. It will just look differently. Different people buy into a product for different reasons and because of different advertising concepts.
Friday, April 8, 2011
"There's an App for That"
The Wall Street Journal
"Mobile-App Makers Face U.S. Privacy Investigation"
By: AMIR EFRATI, SCOTT THURM and DIONNE SEARCEY
American consumers are becoming more and more dependent upon the flexibility, speed, and connectivity that a smartphone can provide. These devices connect Americans to people and places all over the world, and the phrase, "There's an app for that." has been engrained in our minds. We know that there are thousands upon millions of downloadable applications for consumers to enjoy, but what would we think if we found out these applications handed over personal information to outside companies for advertising and revenue purposes?
The article mentioned above announces that several application providers are now under an investigation to look into this potential breach of privacy. In New Jersey, federal prosecutors are currently trying to find out if application providers illegally obtained or gave out personal information about their consumers without the proper disclosure information. This means that a consumer's location, age, gender, and other information could have been given to another entity for the purposes of customizing advertisements found throughout the smartphone applications. This investigation is taking place because it is unclear whether application providers fully explained to their users what types of personal data they collected or why it was being collected. Collecting this type of data without knowledge or consent would be in violation of a federal computer-fraud law.
Many companies with smartphone applications are currently being issued subpoenas; one of these is Pandora, Inc. In a recent study, 101 applications were tested, and it was found that 56 of them transmitted a phone's unique identifier to outsider companies without the users' knowledge. Forty-seven transmitted users' locations, and five offered the users' ages and genders. At the time of the test, forty-five of the applications did not have a privacy policy located within the application or on-line.
This is becoming more serious everyday, for more people are switching over to the smartphone. Consumers want the latest and greatest in technology, but as we are becoming more aware, they don't want it to cost them their privacy. I am becoming more aware that Americans are generally more private when engaged in face-to-face conversation, but when online, everything comes out onto the page or text or tweet. Now, I know this article is not about the lack of censoring when users blurt information online for the whole world to see, but it is still linked in a way. Online privacy, whether from the consumers' side or the producers' side, is becoming a major issue in our country. Application creators need to take more responsibility and not take lightly the technological power that they now have over application users. Yes, consumers should be more careful when downloading and using technology, and we should look out for our own safety. Nevertheless, the creators need to realize that if they cut corners or give private information out to advertisers and other outside companies without consent from the users, it will be uncovered. Investigations will continue, and these smartphone application firms could potentially enter into a time when a major PR overhaul must take place. In my mind and in a perfect world, producers and consumers should work together by asking questions, researching, and remaining honest.
When this article was discussed in my Business Administration class, we were shocked that Pandora, Inc. was included in this article and that they could potentially suffer from this investigation. While my classmates and others love their Pandora applications, they still wonder why Pandora would give out personal information. Maybe Pandora does not do this; but for now, we won't know until the investigation is finished and the court rules. Have we given ourselves over to technology, allowing it to abuse our trust and privacy, or do we as consumers look the other way and not care about our private lives until they become extremely public?
"Mobile-App Makers Face U.S. Privacy Investigation"
By: AMIR EFRATI, SCOTT THURM and DIONNE SEARCEY
American consumers are becoming more and more dependent upon the flexibility, speed, and connectivity that a smartphone can provide. These devices connect Americans to people and places all over the world, and the phrase, "There's an app for that." has been engrained in our minds. We know that there are thousands upon millions of downloadable applications for consumers to enjoy, but what would we think if we found out these applications handed over personal information to outside companies for advertising and revenue purposes?
The article mentioned above announces that several application providers are now under an investigation to look into this potential breach of privacy. In New Jersey, federal prosecutors are currently trying to find out if application providers illegally obtained or gave out personal information about their consumers without the proper disclosure information. This means that a consumer's location, age, gender, and other information could have been given to another entity for the purposes of customizing advertisements found throughout the smartphone applications. This investigation is taking place because it is unclear whether application providers fully explained to their users what types of personal data they collected or why it was being collected. Collecting this type of data without knowledge or consent would be in violation of a federal computer-fraud law.
Many companies with smartphone applications are currently being issued subpoenas; one of these is Pandora, Inc. In a recent study, 101 applications were tested, and it was found that 56 of them transmitted a phone's unique identifier to outsider companies without the users' knowledge. Forty-seven transmitted users' locations, and five offered the users' ages and genders. At the time of the test, forty-five of the applications did not have a privacy policy located within the application or on-line.
This is becoming more serious everyday, for more people are switching over to the smartphone. Consumers want the latest and greatest in technology, but as we are becoming more aware, they don't want it to cost them their privacy. I am becoming more aware that Americans are generally more private when engaged in face-to-face conversation, but when online, everything comes out onto the page or text or tweet. Now, I know this article is not about the lack of censoring when users blurt information online for the whole world to see, but it is still linked in a way. Online privacy, whether from the consumers' side or the producers' side, is becoming a major issue in our country. Application creators need to take more responsibility and not take lightly the technological power that they now have over application users. Yes, consumers should be more careful when downloading and using technology, and we should look out for our own safety. Nevertheless, the creators need to realize that if they cut corners or give private information out to advertisers and other outside companies without consent from the users, it will be uncovered. Investigations will continue, and these smartphone application firms could potentially enter into a time when a major PR overhaul must take place. In my mind and in a perfect world, producers and consumers should work together by asking questions, researching, and remaining honest.
When this article was discussed in my Business Administration class, we were shocked that Pandora, Inc. was included in this article and that they could potentially suffer from this investigation. While my classmates and others love their Pandora applications, they still wonder why Pandora would give out personal information. Maybe Pandora does not do this; but for now, we won't know until the investigation is finished and the court rules. Have we given ourselves over to technology, allowing it to abuse our trust and privacy, or do we as consumers look the other way and not care about our private lives until they become extremely public?
Thursday, March 31, 2011
Facebook Part 2
The Wall Street Journal
"Facebook Taps Time Warner Executive From Time Warner"
By Geoffrey A. Fowler
A few weeks ago, Facebook announced that it would partner with Time Warner to offer movies on the site for a price around $3. It is still working out the details; but right now, the site is offering "The Dark Knight."
With this latest announcement, Facebook has created a new position and has hired Mark D'Arcy from Time Warner Inc.'s Global Media Group to fill the position. In May, Mark will begin working to increase the appeal of Facebook's advertisement offerings. Facebook wants businesses to incorporate the social-networking site in their marketing campaigns, so Mark and his team will work together to formulate new promotion ideas that will help make these businesses more aware of the benefits for working with Facebook. He wants to show these advertisers how to use the power of Facebook in such a way that tells a story for advertisers and their brands. Facebook wants to add value to the audience and stay away from advertisements that get in the way or annoy customers.
As of right now, the team is looking at ways for advertisers to use Facebook users' profile content like birthdays and photos as a way to be more interactive. Another goal of Mark D'Arcy is to work with the music, television, and film industries to better their experience and relationship with the social-networking site. Facebook representatives say that marketing is more engaging and effective when it is social by design. They know that Mark D'Arcy was the experience and personality to help further Facebook and the brands and agencies that advertise on the site.
In theory, I think this is a great idea. Facebook is a social-networking site that keeps users surfing the content for hours everyday. This new position will create a sense of unity and offer a common location or "point person," which will take the advertising section of this site to the next level. In reality, I don't know how effective it will be. The company is taking steps in the right direction to further its name and the experience, but the question is this: will consumers play their part in this process? Do viewers use the site for specific reasons like communicating with friends? Is there a way to advertise that really catches users' eyes and makes them subconsciously choose to purchase the product or utilize the service?
It definitely helps the cause by addressing the annoying advertisements that "jump" off the page by getting in the way of the site's actual content. From personal experience, this technique definitely puts a bad taste in my mouth and slows down my Internet experience. Facebook promises to create an advertisement system that is positive for everyone involved. I also think it was a wise choice to hire someone who comes from Time Warner. This helps the communication process and transitional period run smoothly since Facebook and Time Warner are working together on another new venture by offering movies on Facebook.
At this point, who knows what will really happen in the next few months and years for Facebook. Will a new social media empire arise, or will Facebook capture the dominate our time and relationships for many generations to come?
"Facebook Taps Time Warner Executive From Time Warner"
By Geoffrey A. Fowler
A few weeks ago, Facebook announced that it would partner with Time Warner to offer movies on the site for a price around $3. It is still working out the details; but right now, the site is offering "The Dark Knight."
With this latest announcement, Facebook has created a new position and has hired Mark D'Arcy from Time Warner Inc.'s Global Media Group to fill the position. In May, Mark will begin working to increase the appeal of Facebook's advertisement offerings. Facebook wants businesses to incorporate the social-networking site in their marketing campaigns, so Mark and his team will work together to formulate new promotion ideas that will help make these businesses more aware of the benefits for working with Facebook. He wants to show these advertisers how to use the power of Facebook in such a way that tells a story for advertisers and their brands. Facebook wants to add value to the audience and stay away from advertisements that get in the way or annoy customers.
As of right now, the team is looking at ways for advertisers to use Facebook users' profile content like birthdays and photos as a way to be more interactive. Another goal of Mark D'Arcy is to work with the music, television, and film industries to better their experience and relationship with the social-networking site. Facebook representatives say that marketing is more engaging and effective when it is social by design. They know that Mark D'Arcy was the experience and personality to help further Facebook and the brands and agencies that advertise on the site.
In theory, I think this is a great idea. Facebook is a social-networking site that keeps users surfing the content for hours everyday. This new position will create a sense of unity and offer a common location or "point person," which will take the advertising section of this site to the next level. In reality, I don't know how effective it will be. The company is taking steps in the right direction to further its name and the experience, but the question is this: will consumers play their part in this process? Do viewers use the site for specific reasons like communicating with friends? Is there a way to advertise that really catches users' eyes and makes them subconsciously choose to purchase the product or utilize the service?
It definitely helps the cause by addressing the annoying advertisements that "jump" off the page by getting in the way of the site's actual content. From personal experience, this technique definitely puts a bad taste in my mouth and slows down my Internet experience. Facebook promises to create an advertisement system that is positive for everyone involved. I also think it was a wise choice to hire someone who comes from Time Warner. This helps the communication process and transitional period run smoothly since Facebook and Time Warner are working together on another new venture by offering movies on Facebook.
At this point, who knows what will really happen in the next few months and years for Facebook. Will a new social media empire arise, or will Facebook capture the dominate our time and relationships for many generations to come?
Friday, March 25, 2011
The Real [Diet] Thing
The Wall Street Journal
"Diet Coke Wins Battle in Cola Wars"
By Mike Esterl
Ever since I can remember, there has always been that question, "Coke or Pepsi?" Just like one's allegiance to a particular sports team, each has a preference when quenching thirst with a nice "cola" or "soda" or "pop." Well as of last week, the Coke empire reigns as Diet Coke takes the number two spot leaving Pepsi with the bronze.
Usually, people talk about Coke versus Pepsi, but now could it be Coke versus Diet Coke? The annual report that was released just a few days ago shows that Diet Coke has stepped up into the running. For carbonated beverages as a whole, the market share is decreasing. I guess more and more people are taking parting with their "pop" for a healthier alternative. Because of this, the cola companies are competing even more for the market that still stands.
This is the first time that Coke and Pepsi have not been #1 and #2 or vice-versa. Beverage Digest, the publication that released this information, says that the signs for this change in standings were very clear. They say this directly relates to marketing strategies.
PepsiCo launched a new marketing strategy in 2010. It did not use spots during the Super Bowl last year, which was seen a taking a big risk. Instead, the company started its "Refresh Project." This is an online marketing project but is also an "online charitable-giving program" that served as a hub for giving $20 million "for refreshing ideas that change the world." The company stands behind the project, saying it will boost the company in the long run, for there were 87 million votes casts on the "Refresh Project" site.
On the other hand, Coca-Cola was increased its television marketing portfolio through its return to the Super Bowl madness. It has made an appearance during the last five Super Bowl games after being away from the big game for nine years. It has also pitched Diet Coke ads during the Academy Awards. These two were great moves for Coca-Cola, for the Super Bowl and the Academy Awards bring in the record viewer numbers each year.
While continuing the online tactics, Pepsi is going to be making a return to the TV screen with the premier of "The X Factor," Simon Cowell's new singing competition show. This show will be competing against "American Idol," who claims Coca-Cola as sponsor. Also, even though the original Pepsi did not appear during last year's or this year's Super Bowl, PepsiCo did run a spot during this year's big game for Pepsi Max. This new drink is competing against Coca-Cola's Coke Zero. From what I can see by watching friends, Coke Zero beats Pepsi Max every time.
Who knows what will happen this year between these two soda companies, but we know billions will be spent to reach the consumers. For now, Coca-Cola is classic. It's the real thing.
"Diet Coke Wins Battle in Cola Wars"
By Mike Esterl
Ever since I can remember, there has always been that question, "Coke or Pepsi?" Just like one's allegiance to a particular sports team, each has a preference when quenching thirst with a nice "cola" or "soda" or "pop." Well as of last week, the Coke empire reigns as Diet Coke takes the number two spot leaving Pepsi with the bronze.
Usually, people talk about Coke versus Pepsi, but now could it be Coke versus Diet Coke? The annual report that was released just a few days ago shows that Diet Coke has stepped up into the running. For carbonated beverages as a whole, the market share is decreasing. I guess more and more people are taking parting with their "pop" for a healthier alternative. Because of this, the cola companies are competing even more for the market that still stands.
This is the first time that Coke and Pepsi have not been #1 and #2 or vice-versa. Beverage Digest, the publication that released this information, says that the signs for this change in standings were very clear. They say this directly relates to marketing strategies.
PepsiCo launched a new marketing strategy in 2010. It did not use spots during the Super Bowl last year, which was seen a taking a big risk. Instead, the company started its "Refresh Project." This is an online marketing project but is also an "online charitable-giving program" that served as a hub for giving $20 million "for refreshing ideas that change the world." The company stands behind the project, saying it will boost the company in the long run, for there were 87 million votes casts on the "Refresh Project" site.
On the other hand, Coca-Cola was increased its television marketing portfolio through its return to the Super Bowl madness. It has made an appearance during the last five Super Bowl games after being away from the big game for nine years. It has also pitched Diet Coke ads during the Academy Awards. These two were great moves for Coca-Cola, for the Super Bowl and the Academy Awards bring in the record viewer numbers each year.
While continuing the online tactics, Pepsi is going to be making a return to the TV screen with the premier of "The X Factor," Simon Cowell's new singing competition show. This show will be competing against "American Idol," who claims Coca-Cola as sponsor. Also, even though the original Pepsi did not appear during last year's or this year's Super Bowl, PepsiCo did run a spot during this year's big game for Pepsi Max. This new drink is competing against Coca-Cola's Coke Zero. From what I can see by watching friends, Coke Zero beats Pepsi Max every time.
Who knows what will happen this year between these two soda companies, but we know billions will be spent to reach the consumers. For now, Coca-Cola is classic. It's the real thing.
Thursday, March 10, 2011
Facebook's Domination
The Wall Street Journal
“Warner to Offer Movies Through Facebook”
By Steven Russolillo
Tuesday, Warner Brothers announced that its recent partnership with Facebook. This partnership will allow Facebook users to stream movies while on the website for three dollars or 30 Facebook credits for a 48 hour time slot. The two companies are still working out the future plans; but so far, “The Dark Knight” is available to users. More movie titles will be available in the next few months. The article states that users will have full use of the site while the movie is playing; one will be able to post comments and status updates. Being in the initial stages, this is only available to consumers in the United States.
This new addition to Facebook puts the social-networking site in competition with Netflix and the many other companies who are quickly jumping into this new media market. Currently, Netflix is falling due to the new competition. Netflix’s shares were down 4.9% on Tuesday. Finally, the article lists the recent doings of Amazon.com, Apple Inc., Google Inc., and Hulu LLC. Amazon has released a subscription based movie and television package. Nothing specific is stated for the other three companies cited above. News Corp. who is part owner of Hulu also owns The Wall Street Journal.
First off, I am kind of surprised that Facebook picked “The Dark Knight,” but I understand that its fan page has the most “likes.” This movie is a great movie for the start, but my initial idea for this project would be to offer a hot button newly released movie. I also find it interesting to see how Netflix is slowing down and decreasing. With new competition, Netflix will have to act fast. I do not have a favorite with this new idea of Internet movie buying. To me, I’d like to stay with iTunes movies or the good ole Blockbuster. As a side note, it’s been hard to watch the situation that Blockbuster is undertaking these days, but it is all because of this emerging market for Internet movies. I also wonder why Facebook is reacting to the curve. Why aren’t they setting the curve?
All in all, this is a fascinating conversation to have to people about the future of movies and movie rentals. The Internet is taking over our lives, but how much of a good thing does it take to make it a bad thing? Why are we becoming so reliant on the Internet? Will we forever hand the power to computer programmers from now until the end?
Saturday, March 5, 2011
Part 2: [Well, Maybe Not Toyota]
The Wall Street Journal
"S&P Downgrades Toyota Bond Rating"
By: William Sposato
While all of the six major auto companies showed increases in sales this February, one still has something to worry about. Just days after the good news was delivered, Toyota was knocked off the "high horse" as ratings agency Standard & Poor's lowers Toyota's "long-term corporate credit and senior unsecured-debt ratings." The agency says this is a result of "weak profitability." This just another blow to the auto group, for they are still recovering from the world-wide vehicle recall that occurred almost a year ago. The article continues to timeline Toyota's most recent ratings: from 1985 to now, the auto company has dropped from AAA to AA+ to AA and now to AA-. In further reasoning for the lowered ratings, Standard & Poor's says that they do not see Toyota's profitability increasing at a high enough rate compared to competitors. Also, they cite the increasing prices of raw materials and gasoline as well as the strong yen as being additional issues for Toyota.
Thankfully the writer is not one-sided and gives representatives from Toyota the opportunity to speak about the situation too. Toyota's plan to is cater needs to the customers and implement technology that will reduce the response time concerning customer complaint from months to days. Toyota believes that an increase in customer likability will help S&P raise the ratings. Even though they have taken this hit, Toyota is still seen as more credit-worthy than Honda and Nissan. They have ratings of A+ and BBB+ respectively. Because of all this, Toyota is in the midst of a massive public relations overhaul to raise its standings with everyone. Rankers think that it won't be until 2012 when an major jump is seen because of last year's massive recall.
My first question is this: Why did the writer not define the terms on which S&P rates auto companies? Just days before this article was published, Toyota was cited with having a big percentage jump in auto sales. Shouldn't this jump mean that their likability and profitability had increased too? After reading both of these articles, it seems to me that the two are not talking about the same thing. Credit profitability and sales profitability must mean two different things. Also, it was shocking to me that Toyota's ranking has continued to decrease for many years now. In high school, all of my friends drove Toyota's Camry, Avalon, or 4Runner. I do not understand how this can be true when Toyota appeared to be so popular despite the massive recall. I guess I should be looking at a more global perspective rather than a Southern teenagers perspective. Nonetheless, the issue should have been addressed in a more in depth fashion in this article. Writers should not assume that every reader is going to know about the companies and rankings that are discussed. Ultimately, I hope that Toyota can see a turn of events sooner rather than later.
"S&P Downgrades Toyota Bond Rating"
By: William Sposato
While all of the six major auto companies showed increases in sales this February, one still has something to worry about. Just days after the good news was delivered, Toyota was knocked off the "high horse" as ratings agency Standard & Poor's lowers Toyota's "long-term corporate credit and senior unsecured-debt ratings." The agency says this is a result of "weak profitability." This just another blow to the auto group, for they are still recovering from the world-wide vehicle recall that occurred almost a year ago. The article continues to timeline Toyota's most recent ratings: from 1985 to now, the auto company has dropped from AAA to AA+ to AA and now to AA-. In further reasoning for the lowered ratings, Standard & Poor's says that they do not see Toyota's profitability increasing at a high enough rate compared to competitors. Also, they cite the increasing prices of raw materials and gasoline as well as the strong yen as being additional issues for Toyota.
Thankfully the writer is not one-sided and gives representatives from Toyota the opportunity to speak about the situation too. Toyota's plan to is cater needs to the customers and implement technology that will reduce the response time concerning customer complaint from months to days. Toyota believes that an increase in customer likability will help S&P raise the ratings. Even though they have taken this hit, Toyota is still seen as more credit-worthy than Honda and Nissan. They have ratings of A+ and BBB+ respectively. Because of all this, Toyota is in the midst of a massive public relations overhaul to raise its standings with everyone. Rankers think that it won't be until 2012 when an major jump is seen because of last year's massive recall.
My first question is this: Why did the writer not define the terms on which S&P rates auto companies? Just days before this article was published, Toyota was cited with having a big percentage jump in auto sales. Shouldn't this jump mean that their likability and profitability had increased too? After reading both of these articles, it seems to me that the two are not talking about the same thing. Credit profitability and sales profitability must mean two different things. Also, it was shocking to me that Toyota's ranking has continued to decrease for many years now. In high school, all of my friends drove Toyota's Camry, Avalon, or 4Runner. I do not understand how this can be true when Toyota appeared to be so popular despite the massive recall. I guess I should be looking at a more global perspective rather than a Southern teenagers perspective. Nonetheless, the issue should have been addressed in a more in depth fashion in this article. Writers should not assume that every reader is going to know about the companies and rankings that are discussed. Ultimately, I hope that Toyota can see a turn of events sooner rather than later.
Friday, March 4, 2011
All They Do Is Win [At Least in February]
The Wall Street Journal
"GM February Sales Surge" by John Kell
Finally, there is something to bring happiness to the car industry again. General Motors saw an increase of 46 percent in auto sales last month. This increase is a result of retail sales that were fueled by incentives as well as an upswing in the nation's economy. Also, the other five major auto makers also listed major sales increases from the previous month and the previous year. At the beginning of the month, online car-shopping websites predicted that February would be a great month of the auto industry; these percentages validate that prediction. The remainder of the article gives a very detailed break down of the brands and their cars and their performances during the month. It was quoted that having the right cars in stock, aggressive advertising strategies and a targeted consumer market was the key combination to the industry's success. It also goes on to announce that GM's achievements this month mark its strongest performance within the industry in more than a decade: it was its first annual profit since 2004 and its best yearly performance since 1999.
Finally, there are some negatives in the article. The final quarter showed the slimmest profits for GM. Nevertheless, it is still a profit, and they knew this would be the case as a result increased spending on new vehicles, decreased production of high-margin trucks and increased costs. Also, there was one auto company that saw a decrease in profits: Ford's Lincoln decreased eleven percent from last February.
This is a great article for boasting the morale of the auto industry. It shows consumers that citizens are buying cars more frequently and that General Motors is starting to turn around again. On the other hand, this article is too cluster by numbers and percentages. There is a better way to relay this information in such a way that is more relatable and understandable for readers. I know The Wall Street Journal has more of a following from business-minded people, but I still think some of the numbers lose their significance within this article. Also, if the article is titled to be about General Motors, then the writer should have given more attention to this auto company. Too much of the content revolves around the increased performance of the industry as a whole. If this were the real focus, then the writer should have titled his article something more fitting for this content. All in all, I am glad to see that the auto industry is starting to turn around and had a great month this February and am glad that someone is reporting this information to the country, but I still think that the information gathered was not presented in the best way. The writer's angle would have been better suited and probably better received if the information had been placed in a graph with a caption at the bottom. Looking at it this way, most readers would have absorbed more of the information that way because attention spans are not long enough anymore to read a bunch of numbers in paragraph formats.
"GM February Sales Surge" by John Kell
Finally, there is something to bring happiness to the car industry again. General Motors saw an increase of 46 percent in auto sales last month. This increase is a result of retail sales that were fueled by incentives as well as an upswing in the nation's economy. Also, the other five major auto makers also listed major sales increases from the previous month and the previous year. At the beginning of the month, online car-shopping websites predicted that February would be a great month of the auto industry; these percentages validate that prediction. The remainder of the article gives a very detailed break down of the brands and their cars and their performances during the month. It was quoted that having the right cars in stock, aggressive advertising strategies and a targeted consumer market was the key combination to the industry's success. It also goes on to announce that GM's achievements this month mark its strongest performance within the industry in more than a decade: it was its first annual profit since 2004 and its best yearly performance since 1999.
Finally, there are some negatives in the article. The final quarter showed the slimmest profits for GM. Nevertheless, it is still a profit, and they knew this would be the case as a result increased spending on new vehicles, decreased production of high-margin trucks and increased costs. Also, there was one auto company that saw a decrease in profits: Ford's Lincoln decreased eleven percent from last February.
This is a great article for boasting the morale of the auto industry. It shows consumers that citizens are buying cars more frequently and that General Motors is starting to turn around again. On the other hand, this article is too cluster by numbers and percentages. There is a better way to relay this information in such a way that is more relatable and understandable for readers. I know The Wall Street Journal has more of a following from business-minded people, but I still think some of the numbers lose their significance within this article. Also, if the article is titled to be about General Motors, then the writer should have given more attention to this auto company. Too much of the content revolves around the increased performance of the industry as a whole. If this were the real focus, then the writer should have titled his article something more fitting for this content. All in all, I am glad to see that the auto industry is starting to turn around and had a great month this February and am glad that someone is reporting this information to the country, but I still think that the information gathered was not presented in the best way. The writer's angle would have been better suited and probably better received if the information had been placed in a graph with a caption at the bottom. Looking at it this way, most readers would have absorbed more of the information that way because attention spans are not long enough anymore to read a bunch of numbers in paragraph formats.
Thursday, February 24, 2011
B&N Until the End?
The Wall Street Journal, February 23, 2011
"Barnes & Noble Profit Slides" By JEFFREY A. TRACHTENBERG
So, last week, Borders filed Chapter 11 bankruptcy. By definition, Chapter 11 is "a section of the bankruptcy Code that provides for thereorganization of an insolvent corporation under court supervisionand can establish a schedule for the payment of debts and, insome cases, a new corporation that can continue to do business." Earlier this week, it was reported that Barnes & Noble's profit has declined by 25 percent. Even though Barnes & Noble is the largest bookstore in the country, competing with Amazon.com, Google, and Apple is becoming even more difficult. In order to turn things around, Barnes & Noble has cancelled its quarterly dividend. Doing so has freed up $60 million that is planned to be used for digital strategies and other opportunities in the future.
Digitalization is growing exponentially these days because of online bookstores and e-readers. It has been said that this digitalization played a role in Borders' closing because the store did not jump on the digitalization bandwagon fast enough. Trying to keep up with this digital movement, Barnes & Noble has spent a large sum in order to stay in the running alongside the others said above. This sum of money is sinking profit for Barnes & Noble. The company's contribution to the digital movement is the Nook line of e-readers. Currently, Barnes & Noble makes up 25 percent of the e-book market in the United States, and they sell twice as many e-books as they do physical books within the store and online at BN.com.
By midday Tuesday, shares were down 11 percent, but Barnes & Noble says the company is still going strong. Even though physical book sales are continuing to decline, the quality of customer service when purchasing a Nook and the addition of educational books and games are helping Barnes & Noble remain confident. Barnes & Noble is also hoping that the closing of a couple hundred Borders stores will boost revenues again. Finally, based on Borders announcement last week, Barnes & Noble said that it will not be issuing any more sales or earning guidance for the remainder of the 2011 fiscal year.
When buying books, I always go to Barnes & Noble; I have never been to Borders. I have no personal knowledge of Borders' quality of service; but nonetheless, I hate to hear more evidence of the decline of physical books. Now, I love technology, but there is something about turning a real page of a book that brings satisfaction. In regards to the recent news, I think Barnes & Noble is doing a fine job of staying proactive during this digitalization boom. The store is still staying true to the physical book, yet it still recognizes the need to reinvent and redesign during this time of uncertainty within the journalistic world. Will physical books be gone forever? This is the million dollar question. The Nook has been a great life booster for Barnes & Noble during this time. It will be the comforting employees, who explain how a Nook works, that keep customers in the store.
This article is written very thoroughly. The author explains the situation at hand and elaborates on key pieces of information such as the numbers of Barnes & Noble and the digitalization boom. At times, I think terms like Chapter 11 should be further explained, but then I remember that this is The Wall Street Journal. Most business minded people, who already know this term, are going to be the bulk of the readers. Also, there could be a bit more definition or clarity when talking about the numbers; but in the end, I am glad this story is being covered in The Wall Street Journal. The business and the journalism worlds have collided, not just to discuss the life expectancy of a bookstore but also to discuss the life expectancy of the physical book and the digital world.
"Barnes & Noble Profit Slides" By JEFFREY A. TRACHTENBERG
So, last week, Borders filed Chapter 11 bankruptcy. By definition, Chapter 11 is "a section of the bankruptcy Code that provides for thereorganization of an insolvent corporation under court supervisionand can establish a schedule for the payment of debts and, insome cases, a new corporation that can continue to do business." Earlier this week, it was reported that Barnes & Noble's profit has declined by 25 percent. Even though Barnes & Noble is the largest bookstore in the country, competing with Amazon.com, Google, and Apple is becoming even more difficult. In order to turn things around, Barnes & Noble has cancelled its quarterly dividend. Doing so has freed up $60 million that is planned to be used for digital strategies and other opportunities in the future.
Digitalization is growing exponentially these days because of online bookstores and e-readers. It has been said that this digitalization played a role in Borders' closing because the store did not jump on the digitalization bandwagon fast enough. Trying to keep up with this digital movement, Barnes & Noble has spent a large sum in order to stay in the running alongside the others said above. This sum of money is sinking profit for Barnes & Noble. The company's contribution to the digital movement is the Nook line of e-readers. Currently, Barnes & Noble makes up 25 percent of the e-book market in the United States, and they sell twice as many e-books as they do physical books within the store and online at BN.com.
By midday Tuesday, shares were down 11 percent, but Barnes & Noble says the company is still going strong. Even though physical book sales are continuing to decline, the quality of customer service when purchasing a Nook and the addition of educational books and games are helping Barnes & Noble remain confident. Barnes & Noble is also hoping that the closing of a couple hundred Borders stores will boost revenues again. Finally, based on Borders announcement last week, Barnes & Noble said that it will not be issuing any more sales or earning guidance for the remainder of the 2011 fiscal year.
When buying books, I always go to Barnes & Noble; I have never been to Borders. I have no personal knowledge of Borders' quality of service; but nonetheless, I hate to hear more evidence of the decline of physical books. Now, I love technology, but there is something about turning a real page of a book that brings satisfaction. In regards to the recent news, I think Barnes & Noble is doing a fine job of staying proactive during this digitalization boom. The store is still staying true to the physical book, yet it still recognizes the need to reinvent and redesign during this time of uncertainty within the journalistic world. Will physical books be gone forever? This is the million dollar question. The Nook has been a great life booster for Barnes & Noble during this time. It will be the comforting employees, who explain how a Nook works, that keep customers in the store.
This article is written very thoroughly. The author explains the situation at hand and elaborates on key pieces of information such as the numbers of Barnes & Noble and the digitalization boom. At times, I think terms like Chapter 11 should be further explained, but then I remember that this is The Wall Street Journal. Most business minded people, who already know this term, are going to be the bulk of the readers. Also, there could be a bit more definition or clarity when talking about the numbers; but in the end, I am glad this story is being covered in The Wall Street Journal. The business and the journalism worlds have collided, not just to discuss the life expectancy of a bookstore but also to discuss the life expectancy of the physical book and the digital world.
Thursday, February 17, 2011
Oh No, Chevron!
The Wall Street Journal
In response to "Chevron Hit With Record Judgement"
February 15, 2011
Well this is not about another oil spill in the Gulf, but Chevron is facing charges as a result to environmental damages in Ecuador. An Ecuadorian judge has charged Chevron with a whopping $8.6 billion; and if Chevron does not publicly apologize within fifteen days of the charging, the fine will double. So far, officials representing Chevron say that they will appeal and that they will not pay or apologize.
Chevron acquired this litigation when it took over Texaco in 2001, but the issue is been in debate for eighteen years. The Ecuadorians say that Texaco caused much damage to the Amazon during its time in the country from 1965 to 1992. Chevron had no ties to Ecuador until to took over Texaco. Chevron's officials say that there is no scientific proof that the damage was done by Texaco, but the Ecuadorians say otherwise. This has been a bitterly fought battle with each side accusing the other of improprieties.
Each side is using its own court system in attempts to get its own way. Also, Chevron is suing the Ecuador for breaking trade agreements. Each side is appealing and threatening in order to stall. Although this whole situation may be a huge public relations nightmare for Chevron, the investors have not responded negatively, for Chevron's shares rose 1.3%. When the suit was first handed to Texaco in 1993, they decided that it should be heard in Ecuadorian courts; for at the time, American business interests were supported. In 2007, there was a transfer in power, and the new leader supports the Ecuadorian side. Now, each side is preparing financially for the next phase in the battle, for it is not over.
The article informs the reader about the entire issue. The writer should be applauded for scaling the story down to this word limit without losing the meat of the story. It is good that both sides have adequate coverage and that sufficient quotes were pulled from each party. It is an interesting story that hopefully will have a follow-up soon. While reading this article, I cannot help but to question Chevron's judgement on acquiring Texaco. Was this case not public knowledge? Did Chevron think it could handle the case? It would have been nice to have read a short segment where Chevron answered that question. I guess I could do some research to check on archives from 2001.
In response to "Chevron Hit With Record Judgement"
February 15, 2011
Well this is not about another oil spill in the Gulf, but Chevron is facing charges as a result to environmental damages in Ecuador. An Ecuadorian judge has charged Chevron with a whopping $8.6 billion; and if Chevron does not publicly apologize within fifteen days of the charging, the fine will double. So far, officials representing Chevron say that they will appeal and that they will not pay or apologize.
Chevron acquired this litigation when it took over Texaco in 2001, but the issue is been in debate for eighteen years. The Ecuadorians say that Texaco caused much damage to the Amazon during its time in the country from 1965 to 1992. Chevron had no ties to Ecuador until to took over Texaco. Chevron's officials say that there is no scientific proof that the damage was done by Texaco, but the Ecuadorians say otherwise. This has been a bitterly fought battle with each side accusing the other of improprieties.
Each side is using its own court system in attempts to get its own way. Also, Chevron is suing the Ecuador for breaking trade agreements. Each side is appealing and threatening in order to stall. Although this whole situation may be a huge public relations nightmare for Chevron, the investors have not responded negatively, for Chevron's shares rose 1.3%. When the suit was first handed to Texaco in 1993, they decided that it should be heard in Ecuadorian courts; for at the time, American business interests were supported. In 2007, there was a transfer in power, and the new leader supports the Ecuadorian side. Now, each side is preparing financially for the next phase in the battle, for it is not over.
The article informs the reader about the entire issue. The writer should be applauded for scaling the story down to this word limit without losing the meat of the story. It is good that both sides have adequate coverage and that sufficient quotes were pulled from each party. It is an interesting story that hopefully will have a follow-up soon. While reading this article, I cannot help but to question Chevron's judgement on acquiring Texaco. Was this case not public knowledge? Did Chevron think it could handle the case? It would have been nice to have read a short segment where Chevron answered that question. I guess I could do some research to check on archives from 2001.
Friday, February 11, 2011
The Rich Get Richer
In response to The Wall Street Journal's article titled "Pay Gap Widens at Big Law Firms as Partners Chase Star Attorneys"
The big law firms in this country are trying a new strategy as they seek to rise above the economic downturns that have struck the United States in recent years. The old strategy that encouraged team work is barely keeping some of these major firms above the rest. Research shows that clients are wanting the best of the best individual lawyer and care less about the entire team or the entire firm. Because of this and the economic state, the big firms are widening the payment gap between the "star" partners and the rest of the lawyers. Now more than ever, law firms in Washington, New York, and Chicago want the "star power." They will seek out the best of the best and pay them tens of millions while the rest only see figures in the hundreds of thousands.
"It's not without economic justification, but it comes with a cost in terms of ego and morale, " said William Roberts who worked for a big firm before starting his own practice in Boulder, Colo.
The old traditional ways are falling to the wayside as firms are craving after the big business generators, whatever the cost. Lawyers whose billing rates are not shaken by the economy are what is desired. Some firms like Swaine & Moore LLP keep their traditional ways of paying based on seniority and commitment to the firm, but saving million dollar bonuses for the "big stars" is becoming more of a normal thing.
Critically, it is a good thing to announce this occurrence to the public. First, it shows that the big and the small are struggling with the United States' current economic situation; but more importantly,it follows up by telling the world how certain a specific group is dealing with the situation. This article does not show any emotion to affirm or negate, rather it seeks to inform and call attention to what others think. Should this question our ethical standards? Are the big law firms staying ethical? In the article it calls into question the motive by saying, "The divergence hurts the firm's partnership ethos, creating a sense among some partners that being a lawyer is 'less of a profession and more about making the most money you possibly can." I would start to question if the lawyers are really honest or selfish and greedy. Are there alternative motives to raising the pay checks and widening the gap between the "stars" and the rest?
The writing immediately announces the issue and discusses both sides. Statistics from recent years show that the "piece of the pie" or the "bacon" is getting much bigger. It stirs up questions within the reader, but unfortunately the writer cannot say whether this is a good thing or a bad thing because this is not an opinion section. All in all, it is clearly written.
The big law firms in this country are trying a new strategy as they seek to rise above the economic downturns that have struck the United States in recent years. The old strategy that encouraged team work is barely keeping some of these major firms above the rest. Research shows that clients are wanting the best of the best individual lawyer and care less about the entire team or the entire firm. Because of this and the economic state, the big firms are widening the payment gap between the "star" partners and the rest of the lawyers. Now more than ever, law firms in Washington, New York, and Chicago want the "star power." They will seek out the best of the best and pay them tens of millions while the rest only see figures in the hundreds of thousands.
"It's not without economic justification, but it comes with a cost in terms of ego and morale, " said William Roberts who worked for a big firm before starting his own practice in Boulder, Colo.
The old traditional ways are falling to the wayside as firms are craving after the big business generators, whatever the cost. Lawyers whose billing rates are not shaken by the economy are what is desired. Some firms like Swaine & Moore LLP keep their traditional ways of paying based on seniority and commitment to the firm, but saving million dollar bonuses for the "big stars" is becoming more of a normal thing.
Critically, it is a good thing to announce this occurrence to the public. First, it shows that the big and the small are struggling with the United States' current economic situation; but more importantly,it follows up by telling the world how certain a specific group is dealing with the situation. This article does not show any emotion to affirm or negate, rather it seeks to inform and call attention to what others think. Should this question our ethical standards? Are the big law firms staying ethical? In the article it calls into question the motive by saying, "The divergence hurts the firm's partnership ethos, creating a sense among some partners that being a lawyer is 'less of a profession and more about making the most money you possibly can." I would start to question if the lawyers are really honest or selfish and greedy. Are there alternative motives to raising the pay checks and widening the gap between the "stars" and the rest?
The writing immediately announces the issue and discusses both sides. Statistics from recent years show that the "piece of the pie" or the "bacon" is getting much bigger. It stirs up questions within the reader, but unfortunately the writer cannot say whether this is a good thing or a bad thing because this is not an opinion section. All in all, it is clearly written.
Friday, February 4, 2011
2011: Year of Recovery for BP
The Wall Street Journal
On Tuesday, BP PLC had a fourth-quarter rise in net profit of 30 percent, and they resumed the quarterly dividend at seven cents per share. Downsizing in the United States and other new changes will begin their year of recovery. The article is good because it gets the readers' attention by a positive announcement and then continues that positivity by explaining that this year will be their recovery year. The story could have been covered from a different angle if the article were solely written around the "year of recovery" idea. Naming the article around the increased postings makes one think that that idea will be the main point; however, much of the article discusses the plan for 2011.
I take a great interest in this article because the oil spill greatly affected my home state Mississippi. Since the initial breaking news, I have followed the "BP Story."
On Tuesday, BP PLC had a fourth-quarter rise in net profit of 30 percent, and they resumed the quarterly dividend at seven cents per share. Downsizing in the United States and other new changes will begin their year of recovery. The article is good because it gets the readers' attention by a positive announcement and then continues that positivity by explaining that this year will be their recovery year. The story could have been covered from a different angle if the article were solely written around the "year of recovery" idea. Naming the article around the increased postings makes one think that that idea will be the main point; however, much of the article discusses the plan for 2011.
I take a great interest in this article because the oil spill greatly affected my home state Mississippi. Since the initial breaking news, I have followed the "BP Story."
Wednesday, January 26, 2011
EXTRA! EXTRA!
This is the first post for my new blog "Drew's News." Stay tuned for the latest and greatest in the news today.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)