FORTUNE -- Traders have sent shares of Green Mountain Coffee Roasters (GMCR) soaring by 15 percent since opening Monday. The bid-up amounts to a huge sigh of relief: late Friday, the company announced that it would restate nearly three years' worth of earnings downward. But the total amount of the restatement comes to just $5.8 million, and the company blamed accounting errors -- not malfeasance -- for its 11 quarters' worth of erroneous financial statements.
But that doesn't mean Green Mountain's troubles are over - far from it. Some observers, including short sellers, thought the company's shares were overpriced well before Monday's runup, and even before the announcement in September that the Securities and Exchange Commission had opened an investigation into Green Mountain's "revenue-recognition practices with one of its fulfillment vendors."
Just a few months ago, everything was looking great for Green Mountain. Revenues and profits were soaring, as was the stock price, and the company was enjoying a growing reputation as a responsible corporate citizen. But lurking beneath all the good news was the simple fact that Green Mountain was about to face a flurry of competition that could take big chunks out of its industry-leading 36 percent share of the growing single-cup coffee market.
via money.cnn.com
Found this extremely interesting because one of my clients - 1Quickcup.com is an online business that sells K-Cups. There are a ton of nuggets in there..particularly interesting was a section on the dispute between Starbucks and Kraft. According to the article, Starbucks, which currently provides coffee for Kraft's Tassimo machines,is going to start offering their own single serve machine.
While single serve coffee only makes up 7% of the coffee market, its share grew over 100% last year.
Image Credit: Perez Hilton
The company in question is American Medical Response of Connecticut, an ambulance service. According to a complaint filed by the National Labor Relations Board, the conpany illegally firedan employee who was trash talking about a supervisor on her Facebook page.
The employee, Dawnmarie Souza, allegedly posted a critical comment about her supervisor, who had reprimanded her for attempting to join a union. The post, according to the NLRB, "drew supportive responses from her co-workers, and led to further negative comments about the supervisor from the employee." American Medical Response's policy reportedly forbids employees from discussing the company on social networking sites.
The implications for American businesses are huge.It's one thing to have to deal with unhappy customers on social networks, it's an entirely different situation when employees can legally discuss the corporate culture and specific individuals. If the National LAbor Relations Board is successful with this lawsuit, it will dramatically shift the balance of power between employees and their supervisors.
The board’s complaint prompted Morgan, Lewis & Bockius, a law firm with a large labor and employment practice representing hundreds of companies, to send a “lawflash” advisory on Monday to its clients, saying, “All private sector employers should take note,” regardless “of whether their work force is represented by a union.”
The firm added, “Employers should review their Internet and social media policies to determine whether they are susceptible to an allegation that the policy would ‘reasonably tend to chill employees’ ” in the exercise of their rights to discuss wages, working conditions and unionization.
This is the first case in which the labor board has stepped in to argue that workers’ criticisms of their bosses or companies on a social networking site are generally a protected activity and that employers would be violating the law by punishing workers for such statements.The case is scheduled to go to court, January 24, 2011.
Can we just say it's about time? As a business model, the Yellow Pages has about the same appeal and growth potential as home delivered newspapers.It is a declining market with little or no hope for future growth.
For consumers who are tethered to a computer, laptop, smartphone,or iPad, the Yellow Pages have become a big waste of paper instead of an important part of our daily lives. Note: According to the Yellow Pages Association, their research shows that 75% of consumers still use the Yellow Pages.
In the past several years, Yellow Page revenues have been on a steady decline. Today, many people think of the Yellow Pages as a great product that has outlived its purpose. It 's not only a waste of money to produce, it's an environmental train wreck. In a time when business are committed to sustainable practices by trying to reduce the amount of paper they consume, The Yellow Pages are not a symbol of green business practices.
What is being called the first ever partnership of its kind, Conservation Minnesota and The Yellow Pages Association have teamed up to create a website that gives people in Minnesota some choices about the phone books they receive.
The new website, www.donttrashthephonebook.org allows consumers to choose only the phone books they want to receive, opt out of getting any phone book, or choose the ways they can recycle their current phone books.
If you choose to opt out you have to opt out of three separate directories. The DEX opt-out is a bit confusing. When you click on the Opt-out button it takes you to a Welcome Page which makes you think you are ordering a phone book rather than opting out. Next you go to a page that has a bunch of sales copy on all their different products. If you are not thoroughly confused by then, you hit continue at the bottom of the page and it takes you to a page that says "Personalize Your Order."
Already have phone books that you want to get rid off? Instead of throwing them in the trash, the website provides you will information on how to recycle your phone books. It's based on your zip code . In Minneapolis it's easy - it's part of curbside recycling pickup.
But, if you don't live in Minneapolis and are unsure what you are supposed to do, just click on the recycle link, add your zip code to the drop down menu and you'll find what your options are. If the project works in Minnesota, The Yellow Pages plans to role out similar websites in other states.
This post originally appeared on BlogHer. Some edits have been made.
You've got to feel bad for Angela Bryant. She's the brand manager for Summer Eve's feminine wash. Not only is she charged with selling a product for douching - an activity the health care profession says is unhealthy and should be avoided, Bryant, by approving an advertorial in Women's Day magazine, is now associated with an ad that is sure to become a classic of how not to market to women.
You know she sat at her desk and felt like vomiting. In case she did lose her cookies, she hopefully had some of those new disposable Wisp toothbrushes by Colgate in her desk, perfect for such an occasion. If she didn't have access to a toothbrush, then maybe she had some Altoids. Either of these products could build a legitimate advertorial around feeling confident when talking to your boss. No one wants to go in and talk to their boss with remnants of the chili dog with raw onion that they ate for lunch.
Bryant's mistake was trying to offer women a solution to a problem that they don't have. When was the last time anyone in your work environment said of another worker, "Sometimes the aroma of her hooch is too strong"?
There is an entire field of study that examines sexism in advertising. Much of it is overt like this British business to business phone ad or the serially arrested Paris Hilton ad for Carl Jr.'s.
.
The Summer Eve's advertorial got the attention of so many last week not because it was blatantly using sex or sex appeal to sell a product, but because it was taking a real concern of women (career advancement) and dummying it down to saying using a douche product will help them succeed in their careers.
But Summer Eve is certainly not the first company to focus on a key woman's issue and make a ridiculous product association. In the 1950's Lysol tried to convince women that they should douche with their product and if they didn't, their husbands might divorce them.
Jack In The Box tried promoting their Fruit Smoothies with a menopause theme. In the TV spot, they send a message that drinking the fruit smoothies can help with hot flashes (a very real women's issue) and help prevent women from going "street rat crazy," (a stereotype of women-as-hysterical issue).
Does anyone think a fruit smoothie is really going to help with hot flashes?
The same "women are hysterical" theme was used n the 1950s by Marlboro. At that time, the cigarette was primarily marketed to women, and their message to young moms was that smoking their cigarettes would make them a better mom. From Lisa at The Society Pages,
Advertisers also like to play into the theme that women need to change their behavior in order to keep their husbands interested and satisfied. In the 1970s, Funky, a line of clothing, introduced the "Mistress Collection." The ads appeared in Cosmopolitan.
About a decade earlier, Folger's coffee used a similar theme to sell their instant coffee. In this 60-second spot, a husband insults his wife's coffee and says, "the girls in the office make a better cup of coffee on their hotplate." At the end of the spot, the husband likes the coffee so much that he has sex with his wife. Really.
Perhaps the classic ad in this genre of "women are just not good enough to succeed," is a Palmolive soap ad from the 1920s. In this ad about four years after the 19th amendment was passed, the advertisers admonish women, saying that all of their accomplishments are for nought unless they are also pretty.
Some of the best advice about maketing to women comes from a very unlikely source - David Ogilvy. In a term paper about Advertising, Women & Ethics posted on Scribd, the author shares some of Ogilvy's 1960s insights.When you adjust the language for 1960s attitudes, what he says makes a lot of sense.
... he does caution readers and potential advertisers to tell the facts. Ogilvy states, “the consumer isn’t a moron – she is your wife”, and then advises that advertisers not “insult her intelligence.” (124)
That's all we're asking for. Don't insult our intelligence.
(Note: Summer's Eve Brand Manager Angela Bryant has apologized for the advertorial in the comments of the Daily Kos, according to AdFreak.)
Note: For more on why women shouldn't douche, read Dr. Lissa Rankin's Owning Pink.
MoveOn.org has called for a national boycott of Target because the company contributed $150,000 to an anti-gay republican gubernatorial candidate in Minnesota. However, AT&T has gotten a pass even though that company contributed $17,000 to tea party supporting congressional candidate Michele Bachmann.
What's a consumer to do? It's one thing to say you're boycotting Target - you can still find just about everything they sell elsewhere. But, if you boycott Target, why wouldn't you boycott AT&T and give up your iPhone?
The following is a post I wrote for BlogHer on the issue of boycotting a company because of its political contributions.
On Sunday, I spent over $90 at Target buying some paper products, groceries, refill pads for my Swiffer Wetjet, and a package of Kong Air Dong mini tennis balls for my dog. Nothing I bought was exclusive to Target except for a bag of Archer Farms Key Lime Pie naturally flavored trail mix. I could have ended up with all the other items by stopping at Walgreens, Petco and Lunds grocery store.
But, I didn't. I made a deliberate decision to shop at Target, despite a move to boycott the company because it made a $150,000 political contribution to MN Forward -- a new "pro-work" organization that used the funds to create a political commercial supporting Tom Emmer. Emmer is the Minnesota Republican Gubernotorial candidate who may be pro-business, but who also supports anti-gay legislation. In 2007, he authored a constitutional amendment to prohibit same-sex marriage and civil unions.
As someone who lives and works in Minnesota, Mr. Emmer will not be getting my vote. And, Target will not be getting my boycott. My logic (such as it is) for not boycotting Target is similar to the logic I use for opposing the death penalty. Putting the morality of the death penalty aside, as it's currently executed, the death penalty is inconsistent, inherently flawed, and not fair. So, even if morally I didn't oppose it, the inconsistent nature of how the death penalty is doled out, would force me to oppose it.
I think about boycotting Target in a similar way. Boycotting is serious business, and if I am going to use boycotting as a method to show my displeasure over a company's political contributions, than I better be willing to investigate the political contributions of all the companies I do business with. Why Target and not AT&T? Okay, I'm not an AT&T customer, but if I were, would I really be ready to hand in my iPhone, because AT&T donated $17,000 to Michelle Bachmann's campaign?
What about the owners of my local wine and cheese shop? Are they politically aligned to my way of thinking or are they tea sipping Republicans? I have no idea, and unless I am now prepared to vet every business, I see no reason to treat Target differently.
Besides, when my mother refused to buy a Jane Fonda exercise tape back in the 80's because she disliked Fonda's politics,at the time I argued that one had nothing to do with the other. I really don't want my mom now saying, "I told you so."
There is the Facebook page, Boycott Target Until They Cease Funding Anti-Gay Politics. As of today, it has nearly 70,000 fans. And, if other companies are thinking 'thank goodness Target is taking the heat on this and not us,' they shouldn't get too comfortable. From that Facebook wall,
Lee Phile Be sure to cancel ATT service and dispose of your iPhones as ATT donates to Michele Bachman, MN CD6.... One of the most anti-gay candidates in congress. Down with ATT/Apple. Steve Mills Another company to be on the look out for: Chick-fil-A. They are supporting Strong Marriages Florida, an organization that is strongly opposed to gay marriage. Chick-fil-A even has signage outside their restaurants encouraging couples, straight couples, to do a check-up on their relationship. I refuse to give my mon...ey to them going forward. Please share this info with others.
Ed McCarthy Those companies who also contributed are:
Red Wing Shoes- maker of work shoes, boots as well as motorcycle boots since 1905
Best Buys- Retail Electronics
Pent Air Inc- Water Pumps, Pump supplies, Pool, HVAC
Hubbard Broadcasting- TV and Radio stations in MN, Wisc, NY and NM.
As far as the Target boycott goes, MoveOn.org says last week about 250,000 signed their boycott petition. However, signing a petition and actually boycotting are two different things. I would sign a petition condemning Target's financial contribution because I do want Target to know that I am very unhappy with them.
While fans of the Boycott Target Facebook Page share how they are no longer going to shop at Target, Matt Parker wrote this on the wall:
Matt Parker Best way to hit mega-corporations is to go directly after shareholders. Sales are important, but stock price is second to none.
http://www.facebook.com/campaigncorner
It seems that Parker's predictions are coming true. The L.A. Times is reporting that their investors are not happy with Target's behavior. In fact, three of their major institutional investors have sent word that they expect Target to revamp the process they use to make political contributions.
"Target should have carefully considered the implications that direct political contributions can have toward shareholder value," said Ola Fadahunsi, spokesman for New York Comptroller Thomas DiNapoli, the pension fund's sole trustee. "It's troubling to think that they can fund controversial candidates without properly assessing the risks and rewards involved."
When the news broke that Target was funding the anti-gay Emmer, many were shocked. Target has worked hard to build their reputation of being a good corporate citizen. When Target tried to explain why they put their money behind Emmer, Target CEO Gregg Steinhofer said that they were supporting MN Forward's candidates because they were pro-business.
In other words, Steinhofer was putting Target's reputation on the line because the Republican Emmer appears to be more pro-business than the DFL candidate, Mark Dayton. Now, MN Forward is an organization that is endorsing pro-business candidates from both parties.
In researching this story, I was surprised to see my good friend, State Senator Terri Bonoff is also the recipient of MN Forward support. They sent flyers to all constituents in her district praising her pro-business legislation. She did decline to be interviewed for this post saying she had already made a public statement about the issue.
Bonoff, of Minnetonka, issued a masterful response Friday that opted for "something else." She'll take the corporate praise, but clearly isn't keen on the legal change that made it possible.[...]I have always worked hard to maintain a constructive relationship with the business community that puts the needs of our state first. I’m also proud to have a voting record that reflects my commitment to equal rights for the gay and lesbian community, opportunity for working families, and the importance of a high-quality education," Bonoff said. “I am, however, concerned about the effect of the Supreme Court ruling in the Citizens United case, which opened the door to direct corporate spending in political campaigns.
About a week after the news broke, Target CEO Steinhofer apologized, sort of. He didn't apologize for making a bad decision. He didn't apologize for not vetting a candidate to see if his human right stance might be offensive. He didn't apologize for supporting a candidate based on a single issue. And, as Awakened Aesthetic blogged, he didn't apologize to consumers.
There were also no reparations made for the $150,000.00 already donated to anti-gay rights candidate Tom Emmer. After Target sat down to discuss corrective measures with the Human Rights Campaign – and even wrote up a few tentative agreements – they backed out. (In response, HRC will donate $150,000.00 of its own money to a pro-equality candidate in Minnesota. Want to help? Donate to the HRC by clicking here.)
So let’s keep this boycott going.
When the Supreme Court made its controversial ruling in the Citizens United case last January, many fretted about the risks. However, it is comforting to see how consumers have responded to Target's foray into political contributions. What Target and other businesses are finding out is that consumers are paying attention.
If nothing else, Target's recent experience with customer blowback should serve as a cautionary tale to other corporations that mixing business and politics can be harmful to the bottom line.
.
My StumbleUpon Page
Recent Comments