Put Your Money Where Your Mouth Is. Vote With Your Dollars

Are you feeling disempowered? Don’t feel as if your voice is heard, especially now that the election is over? What can you do and will it make a difference? As a consumer, you have immense power with your spending.

The Power Of The Purse

If you’ve been watching the political commentary (or reading the President’s tweets), the “power of the purse” was marked by consumers choosing not to buy products from Ivanka Trump’s brand. This was highlighted most recently, as Nordstrom responded by dropping the line. I’m not going to discuss our President’s tweet that his daughter was “treated so unfairly by @Nordstrom,” nor will I address the quote by a spokesperson for the first daughter’s fashion label, who asserted that, “the brand’s overall sales were up 21% in 2016 compared to the prior year. I will even bite my tongue and not comment on Kellyanne Conway’s promotion of Ivanka’s products on national television. (Although I might take issue with her fashion flair at the inauguration when it was noted that Paddington Bear picked out her outfit. Not to mention that she forgot that “Buy American” does not seem to cover her Gucci inauguration outfit.) I write about money and I’m trying to stay in my lane!

The point I’m trying to make is that consumers seem to “voting” a lot since the election. Neiman Marcus, Macy’s, Shoes.com, Belk, ShopStyle, Bellacor, Jet.com, and Gilt, have all dropped some or all of Ivanka’s line as well as other Trump-branded products. Also, the New York Times reported employees at T.J Maxx and Marshalls have been told that “all Ivanka Trump signage should be discarded.” The retail ballot boxes seem to be open for business.

The Cost Of The Walk Of Shame

Boycott campaigns are springing up. For instance, the hashtag #GrabYourWallet has formed and has millions of impressions and shares since Shannon Coulter, a brand and digital strategist, coined it in October of 2016. She compiled a list of retailers that have business ties to the Trump family and that list is growing.

She is asking retailors that carry Ivanka Trump’s Collection to boycott the products. These retailors include such stores as; Macy’s, Nordstrom, Amazon, Lord & Taylor, Marshalls, Zappos, etc. She is counting on people to vote with their money. The theory is that, even if sales are not hurt, reputations can be damaged.

An example of this theory was with Nike in the 1990s. It was revealed that they were using child labor and that resulted in a boycott. The goal was to create a blow to their reputation, if not to their bottom line. There was an outcry, Nike’s image was damaged, and sales were hurt. Another notable example of the “Walk Of Shame,” was with Dior. Their creative director and designer, John Galliano, was exposed as an anti-Semite after he made remarks in public. Dior fired him after a public storm of criticism.

Does Voting With Your Wallet Work?

For me, the most notable example of economics affecting politics was in South Africa. The ruling white minority didn’t just wake up one day and realize that their legal discrimination against the black majority was wrong; extreme economic pressure was applied to twist their arms. This started first with the consumer who “voted” not to buy products from companies who “supported” white South African companies. They spoke loudly.

Here in the U.S., people started to put pressure on American companies that had economic ties to companies in South Africa and could therefore benefit from apartheid. The pressure was felt and institutional investors, like banks, universities and pension funds, started to disinvest in South Africa. The movement started in the 60s, when the United Nations passed a resolution establishing a Special Committee against apartheid calling for economic boycotts and other sanctions. The movement didn’t gain real traction until the 1980s.

I was working at Chase Bank as the movement took hold. I remember being at a shareholder’s meeting in the early 1970s, which was conducted by our then Chairman, David Rockefeller. He indicated, in response to hecklers in the meeting, that Chase was not going to do business with South Africa until their discriminatory policies ended. I was impressed that the collective global shareholders were voting with their money. It worked. In 1986, the U.S. implemented the disinvestment campaign incorporating it into federal legislation. This all led to putting enough pressure on the South African government to start negotiation that ultimately led to the dismantling of the apartheid system.

As a side note, Britain never joined the movement. They said that they thought that the economic sanctions were “unconstitutional.”

The “bottom line” to all this? Economic pressure is real. So, get out and vote… with your wallet!

Hidden Figures Showcases The Value Of Workplace Diversity

Diversity makes teams better. Remarkable progress can be made when inclusion is at your organizational core. (Spoiler Alert!)

Theodore Melfi’s Hidden Figures is the film adaptation of the incredible true story of the women that crushed stereotypes to become recognized as some of the greatest intellectual minds at NASA. When our Waggl team saw this film it resonated with us immediately because we share core values like inclusion, and the importance of culture and progressive leadership.

The story illustrates the value inherent in diversity, and the remarkable progress that can be made when inclusion is at your organizational core. The year was 1961. Katherine Johnson was part of a group of female African American mathematicians working at NASA during the space race. These women were segregated while they worked in a different wing of the Langley campus, a societal norm that was at the detriment of NASA’s innovation and ambitious objectives.

Sometimes it takes a perfect storm of circumstances to reveal rare talent within the workplace. Decades earlier, President Roosevelt had declared there must be a push toward innovation in federal agencies. The nation’s young men were being sent to war instead of sent to work, and women found themselves with an opportunity to be compensated, albeit at a lesser scale. The precursor to NASA, the National Advisory Committee for Aeronautics (NACA), had hired Johnson and her colleagues. The space race intensified and Johnson was called in to doublecheck the equations of the first IBM computer calculating trajectories.

There was no way to have predicted just how important Johnson’s talents and insight could have been to not only Shepherd’s orbital journey but also the Apollo missions. NASA had overlooked the tremendous resources already existing within their workforce for years. In addition to Johnson, “Hidden Figures” also details the journeys of Mary Jackson, the first female engineer at NASA, and Dorothy Vaughn, who rose in the ranks to become a predominant computer programmer and supervisor.

We cannot create true progress and transformation without addressing the injustices that occurred in the past, and the echoes of those injustices that still exist in business practices today. However, we are able to honor trailblazers like Katherine Johnson by creating accessible platforms that deliver real change to organizations.

This post was co-authored by Hui Lin Tan of Waggl.

Is The Dow Jones Industrial Average Index Misleading Or Meaningless Or Both?

Like many of us, I thought that the Dow Jones industrial Average index (DJIA) is comprising thirty of the most important companies of the United States of America by using their market capitalization. I was completely wrong. There is no correlation between the importance of the companies and the index.

According to Wikipedia, DJIA is criticized for being a price weighted average, which gives higher-priced stocks more influence over the average than their lower-priced counterparts, but takes no account of the relative industry size or market capitalization of the components. For example, a $1 increase in a lower-priced stock can be negated by a $1 decrease in a much higher-priced stock, even though the lower-priced stock experienced a larger percentage change. In addition, a $1 move in the smallest component of the DJIA has the same effect as a $1 move in the largest component of the average.

Journalists have been using the DJIA as THE indicator of the strength of 30 of the largest companies in the United States. Size matters for the selection of the companies. Why does it not matter for the weighting of those companies?

Analyzing the composition might be an eye opener!

God bless Goldman Sachs!

Among the 30 companies composing the DJIA index, Goldman Sachs has the lion share. Yes, tiny Goldman is approaching a record $ 100 billion market capitalization. It had a record price yesterday. But few investors might know that 8.32% of the index is represented by Goldman Sachs. Yes, you read well. Each time an investor buys a dollar of the index one twelfth of that money is invested in Goldman Sachs shares. This is pure bonanza, but might explain some of the market value of Goldman. This is confirmed by the fact that an important portion of the twenty largest shareholders of Goldman Sachs are Exchange Traded Funds or indexed funds.

But it is also totally unfair: it gives a structural advantage to Goldman Sachs vis-à-vis its competitors of Wall Street. The next bank, JP Morgan Chase (#16) is only gratified of a 3.01% share while its market capitalization is $ 327 billion. With three times the market cap, JP Morgan Chase is only weighted as 40% of Goldman Sachs. In total, the four companies representing financial sector only represents 16.83% of the DJIA, contrary to conventional wisdom.

What about General Electric?

I do not want to give a heart attack to my former boss and friend, Jack Welch, and my former GE colleagues. However, General Electric is # 30 out of #30. The least important company of the Dow Jones. The fact that it would have a $ 270 billion market capitalization (2.7x Goldman) is irrelevant. It is gratified with a share of 1.10%. When one dollar goes to the DJIA, 8.3 go to Goldman and 1 to General Electric.

Should #8 McDonald be worth 4.20% ($ 105 billion) when Coca Cola ($ 177 billion) # 26 is worth 1.34%. The bottom ten include Microsoft, Intel and Cisco. Why would United Healthcare be # 5 with 5.46% when Pfizer is # 28 with 1.11%.

Telling the truth

No, the index is not manipulated. It has a methodology that explains those aberrations. The DJIA, by not being based on market capitalization, does not represent the substance of the components from an investor’s viewpoint. . It should therefore not be the bell weather of Wall Street. The media, and particularly the Wall Street Journal, have made the DJIA what it is not: an index representing the values of 30 American corporations.

Time for the SEC to look whether the DJIA might need to be more transparent to investors? Maybe the media should reconsider this index that, in fact, is meaningless.

10 Things Smart People Won't Say

There are some things you simply never want to say at work.

These phrases carry special power: they have an uncanny ability to make you look bad even when the words are true.

Worst of all, there’s no taking them back once they slip out.

I’m not talking about shocking slips of the tongue, off-color jokes, or politically incorrect faux pas. These aren’t the only ways to make yourself look bad.

Often it’s the subtle remarks—the ones that paint us as incompetent and unconfident—that do the most damage.

No matter how talented you are or what you’ve accomplished, there are certain phrases that instantly change the way people see you and can forever cast you in a negative light. These phrases are so loaded with negative implications that they undermine careers in short order.

1. “This is the way it’s always been done.” Technology-fueled change is happening so fast that even a six-month-old process could be outdated. Saying this is the way it’s always been done not only makes you sound lazy and resistant to change, but it could make your boss wonder why you haven’t tried to improve things on your own. If you really are doing things the way they’ve always been done, there’s almost certainly a better way.

2. “It’s not my fault.” It’s never a good idea to cast blame. Be accountable. If you had any role—no matter how small—in whatever went wrong, own it. If not, offer an objective, dispassionate explanation of what happened. Stick to the facts, and let your boss and colleagues draw their own conclusions about who’s to blame. The moment you start pointing fingers is the moment people start seeing you as someone who lacks accountability for their actions. This makes people nervous. Some will avoid working with you altogether, and others will strike first and blame you when something goes wrong.

3. “I can’t.” I can’t is it’s not my fault’s twisted sister. People don’t like to hear I can’t because they think it means I won’t. Saying I can’t suggests that you’re not willing to do what it takes to get the job done. If you really can’t do something because you truly lack the necessary skills, you need to offer an alternative solution. Instead of saying what you can’t do, say what you can do. For example, instead of saying “I can’t stay late tonight,” say “I can come in early tomorrow morning. Will that work?” Instead of “I can’t run those numbers,” say “I don’t yet know how to run that type of analysis. Is there someone who can show me so that I can do it on my own next time?”

4. “It’s not fair.” Everyone knows that life isn’t fair. Saying it’s not fair suggests that you think life is supposed to be fair, which makes you look immature and naïve. If you don’t want to make yourself look bad, you need to stick to the facts, stay constructive, and leave your interpretation out of it. For instance, you could say, “I noticed that you assigned Ann that big project I was hoping for. Would you mind telling me what went into that decision? I’d like to know why you thought I wasn’t a good fit, so that I can work on improving those skills.”

5. “That’s not in my job description.” This often sarcastic phrase makes you sound as though you’re only willing to do the bare minimum required to keep getting a paycheck, which is a bad thing if you like job security. If your boss asks you to do something that you feel is inappropriate for your position (as opposed to morally or ethically inappropriate), the best move is to complete the task eagerly. Later, schedule a conversation with your boss to discuss your role in the company and whether your job description needs an update. This ensures that you avoid looking petty. It also enables you and your boss to develop a long-term understanding of what you should and shouldn’t be doing.

6. “This may be a silly idea …/I’m going to ask a stupid question.” These overly passive phrases instantly erode your credibility. Even if you follow these phrases with a great idea, they suggest that you lack confidence, which makes the people you’re speaking to lose confidence in you. Don’t be your own worst critic. If you’re not confident in what you’re saying, no one else will be either. And, if you really don’t know something, say, “I don’t have that information right now, but I’ll find out and get right back to you.”

7. “I’ll try.” Just like the word think, try sounds tentative and suggests that you lack confidence in your ability to execute the task. Take full ownership of your capabilities. If you’re asked to do something, either commit to doing it or offer an alternative, but don’t say that you’ll try because it sounds like you won’t try all that hard.

8. “This will only take a minute.” Saying that something only takes a minute undermines your skills and gives the impression that you rush through tasks. Unless you’re literally going to complete the task in 60 seconds, feel free to say that it won’t take long, but don’t make it sound as though the task can be completed any sooner than it can actually be finished.

9. “I hate this job.” The last thing anyone wants to hear at work is someone complaining about how much they hate their job. Doing so labels you as a negative person and brings down the morale of the group. Bosses are quick to catch on to naysayers who drag down morale, and they know that there are always enthusiastic replacements waiting just around the corner.

10. “He’s lazy/incompetent/a jerk.” There is no upside to making a disparaging remark about a colleague. If your remark is accurate, everybody already knows it, so there’s no need to point it out. If your remark is inaccurate, you’re the one who ends up looking like a jerk. There will always be rude or incompetent people in any workplace, and chances are that everyone knows who they are. If you don’t have the power to help them improve or to fire them, then you have nothing to gain by broadcasting their ineptitude. Announcing your colleague’s incompetence comes across as an insecure attempt to make you look better. Your callousness will inevitably come back to haunt you in the form of your coworkers’ negative opinions of you.

Bringing It All Together

These phrases have a tendency to sneak up on you, so you’re going to have to catch yourself until you’ve solidified the habit of not saying them.

What other phrases should be on this list? Please share your thoughts in the comments section below as I learn just as much from you as you do from me.

The Top 5 Things To Know Before Quitting Your 9-5

Dreaming of quitting your 9-5 and getting the freedom to travel and work on your own terms?

Maybe you even declared around January 1, “THIS will finally be the year that I’ll quit my job!”

Now that we’re 45 days into 2017, how are you feeling about that prospect? Are you still inspired by the possibilities of this year, or doubting that your dreams of finally escaping that 9-5 could ACTUALLY come true this year? Wherever you are at this moment, here are five things you must know before quitting your 9-5.

These are things I WISH I’d known, things I teach my high-achieving clients as they build their businesses, keys that will make a HUGE difference for you. Even better, they’re things you can start working on right this minute, today, without having to wait to quit your job first!

1. Get over the fear of failure.

Most people let this fear and its partner-in-crime, the fear of what people will think, control their ENTIRE lives. The most common regret at the end of peoples’ lives, according to a lifelong hospice nurse Bronnie Ware?

“I wish I’d had the courage to live a life true to myself, not the life others expected of me.”

Don’t let that be you! How do we conquer this super-common fear? It’s simple, but not easy: by TRYING THINGS.

Choose something small, like a new workout program, creating a new habit that you do every day for a week, reaching out to someone and asking for their advice or insight on how they succeeded in building the life they wanted, or checking one thing off your to-do list that you’ve been putting off. Try it, and experience the energy that comes from completing it. Build that trust in yourself that you CAN accomplish things, and when the big stuff comes, you’ll be more confident and ready to give them a go.

2. Support & accountability are KEY ― get them now.

Why, oh why, do we stop investing in ourselves and our dreams after school?

It’s perfectly acceptable to borrow huge sums of money to get a formal education, but the minute we graduate, most of us start telling ourselves we don’t need to invest in ourselves anymore and that if we’re smart, we should to be able to figure it out for free. This is backwards! The most successful entrepreneurs are always learning, always investing in themselves to continually improve.

The most successful athletes are coached their ENTIRE CAREERS. Find an expert you connect with and get some support and accountability. After a decade of running my own businesses, I’m telling you: it will be the best money you ever spent on yourself AND your business.

3. Invest in business development continually.

After investing in yourself with someone who can support you along your journey toward building your business, you must next invest back into your business to continually generate new business.

Even before you quit your job, getting to know people who could become future clients is KEY! In the beginning, this may be an investment of time; it doesn’t have to be money. But always be bringing new potential business in, so that the money keeps flowing! P.S. If you’re an introvert like me, this is totally possible and doesn’t have to be torture!

4. There is plenty of business for everyone!

A lot of times, I hear “Well, I have this great idea, but the market is already saturated.” I call BS, and here’s why.

There are 2 billion people online, and they’re more targetable and reachable than ever. You only need the TINIEST fraction of those people to become your clients in order for you to make more money than you’ve ever dreamed of.

And YOU ARE UNIQUE.

Your story, your experiences, your personality, all of these things combine to mean that the way you run your business and who will want to buy your services or products is not the same as “all the other people out there already doing it.” Thank them for going before you and proving that there ARE people in the world willing to pay money for what you dream of doing, and get after it!!

5. Hire out your weaknesses ASAP.

That stuff you’re not good at? Those things you HATE and keep putting off? Find someone else to do them AS SOON AS YOU CAN!!!!

This gem comes from Sara Blakely, the youngest self-made female billionaire ever. “As soon as you can afford to, hire your weaknesses,” she shared in Business Insider.

I spent way too long doing everything by myself in the name of frugality. What that meant is that the things I’m best at, that I could make money doing most easily, were muddled by all the other business things (accounting, legal, taxes, technical work) that needed to be done, but took me 5 times as long as it would have taken an expert to do.

It cost me time I could have been spending on what I’m AMAZING at doing (helping high-achieving women uncover their unique gifts and create a business around them!), and it cost me money because I had to stop doing what I was good at to do these other things. Don’t fall into that trap!

It will save you so much time, frustration, energy, and money in the end if you start the practice of treating yourself as an expert in your field and using other experts in theirs.

There you have it! Which one speaks most to you? Let me know in the comments!

Christine McAlister is a serial entrepreneur, mentor, speaker, and expert on turning tragedy into business and life triumph. Her company, Life With Passion, helps high-achieving, motivated women rediscover their unique gifts and create freedom-based businesses.

Grab her free Top 10 Online Tools for bringing in money now, and join her Facebook community, Life With Passion Society.

Consumer Watchdogs Wake Up As Trump Dismantles Protections

Kelly Lewis is worried.

With a controversial new administration in power, she’s concerned that consumers like her will suffer. And for good reason. Corporate cheerleaders have been appointed to lead federal agencies dedicated to consumer protection. Much-needed regulations are about to be unceremoniously rolled back.

“I don’t think anyone will serve their customers better,” says Lewis, a guidebook publisher and entrepreneur.

Her misgivings are shared by many Americans, regardless of their political persuasion. A sense of dread seems to be sweeping the country ― a well-founded premonition that essential consumer protections are on the verge of being abandoned. The feeling is being fueled by the heated rhetoric of newly-elected politicians and their noisy surrogates who shout down any dissenters.

“There is a real reason to be concerned about how the government will protect consumer rights,” says Chris Dore, a partner at the consumer class action law firm Edelson PC. “Taking the teeth away from agencies like the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, Federal Trade Commission and Federal Communications Commission, poses a significant risk to how corporations will treat consumers. The rollback of regulations combined with a lack of enforcement will create an environment that will encourage companies to not only cut corners but blatantly take advantage of consumers to pad the bottom line.”

But while these may be trying times, they are not hopeless times. A strong net of consumer protection is beginning to unfold, comprised of advocates, attorneys and private groups. Together, they may not be able to replace a collection of soon-to-be neutered federal agencies, but they can help. So can you.

Watchdogs are waking up

There’s a sense among traditional watchdog groups (including, ahem, traditional media organizations) that times are changing. And they are slowly waking from an eight-year slumber.

You don’t have to work in a newsroom to feel the collective sense of urgency. Traditional service journalism is enjoying a resurgence the likes of which hasn’t been seen in a generation. Consumer advocates feel energized by the thought that government may yield to corporate interests without a fight.

Part of the challenge, at least for now, is separating the talk in Washington from the real threat. Simply saying you’ll get rid of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, for example, doesn’t make it so. Nor does it necessarily translate into a surge of financial service-related complaints. It’s a long, drawn-out process that moves at the glacial pace of government.

The most effective watchdogs aren’t waiting for the collapse of any federal agency. They’re speaking up now, hoping to avoid a consumer apocalypse. But beyond sounding the alarms, there’s not much more they can do than to wait for their first patient to arrive. That probably will happen soon.

Advocates for hire

But some companies also see an opportunity. Take Copatient, a service that helps negotiate your medical bills.

“Most consumers do not even know their rights when it comes to medical bills,” says Copatient CEO Thomas Torre. “Medical bills are big, complicated and expensive, and most people just pay them not realizing their rights as a consumer of healthcare.”

In fact, 8 in 10 bills reviewed by Copatient reviews contain savings opportunities related to errors or overcharges. Once errors are identified, the company helps consumers negotiate with the hospital or physician. On average, Copatient claims to save patients 40 percent ― or $3,000 on their medical bills.

Of course, Copatient isn’t free. It operates on a contingency basis, taking 35 percent of the money it saves its customers.

Another place where there’s both money to be made ― and consumers to be protected ― is air travel. Companies such as AirHelp offer their services to passengers who have been delayed or had their flights canceled in Europe, where a consumer protection rule such as EU 261 applies.

EU 261 requires airlines to offer cash compensation to delayed passengers in many instances. The regulation can also apply to passengers flying to the United States. AirHelp charges a 25 percent service fee for most of the cases it advocates on behalf of travelers, although the costs may vary.

DIY advocacy

Consumers are not waiting for their worst fears to be realized. They’re using all of the resources at their disposal to force companies to do what they promised and to protect their rights. But it’s not an easy path.

“There’s no magic elixir you can swallow to protect your customer rights,” says Cheryl Reed, a spokeswoman for Angie’s List, a business referral site. “But it’s not as hard as you might think to become an empowered consumer. It will take some time and effort, though.”

Marci Bloem decided to take matters into her own hands when she ran into trouble with DirecTV recently. AT&T, DirecTV’s parent company, claimed she owed it $167 for a gateway device, “when in fact I returned it when we switched servers in 2015,” she says.

Bloem appealed to AT&T in writing, but it stubbornly insisted that she pay her bill. The case dragged on for more than a year-and-a-half. Bill collectors began harassing her. Collections agencies got involved.

Finally, she decided to become her own advocate. She sent a brief, polite email to an AT&T executive whose name she found online. (I list the names, numbers and email addresses for AT&Ts execs on my consumer advocacy site.)

“Within one hour, AT&T phoned me two times and said they had found the gateway and I didn’t owe them anything,” she says.

She’s part of a trend. A more aggressive watchdog media, private companies and fed-up consumers are taking matters into their own hands. And sometimes, they’re winning. Maybe that’s what voters had in mind in the last presidential election ― that no one can do a better job of protecting consumers than consumers and private companies. Indeed, that the government has no business protecting consumers.

But the message seems to be getting lost on people like Lewis, the guidebook publisher. She isn’t sitting around to wait for the protections she’s relied on to be removed. Like many consumers, she’s discouraged by the direction the country has taken, if not also despondent.

“This is a loud signal for me to leave the United States,” she says. “I am planning on moving abroad.”

Christopher Elliott specializes in solving seemingly unsolvable consumer problems. Contact him with your questions on his advocacy website. You can also follow him on Twitter, Facebook and Google or sign up for his newsletter.

As MNCs Retrench, Reigniting the Power of Global Brands

In an era of diminishing profits for global corporations, brands are bulwarks against commoditization. They are not expenses. Strategic investment is required.

New World Disorder

The Economist recently published a survey on the retreat of multinational companies (MNCs). More than a response to President Donald Trump's protectionist browbeating, retrenchment is a result of structural headwinds including: local governments increasingly committed to enabling small business; supply chain decentralization; and instant global markets for small companies courtesy of the internet.

Not surprisingly, the financial performance of organizations that generate more than 30% of revenue outside their home country have regressed markedly; over the past five years, profit is down 25%. For forty percent of MNCs, return on investment (ROI) hovers around 10%, the danger zone of underperformance.

Selective Investment Required

In boardrooms around the world, cost cutting is the rage.

Centralization of resources is a rallying cry. Local marketing budgets have been slashed. From Mattel's Barbie (a very American girl) to Rolex's Submariner (aspirational in the West but "clunky gold" in much of Asia), globally-produced content -- too often tone deaf -- is the norm.

Unilever and Procter & Gamble have imposed top-down decision-making infrastructures. Only low-end "activation" -- that is, transactional promotions -- have been left in the hands of local managers.

But cost cutting is a low road. Marketers should lift their sights by harnessing the power of global brands. They are MNCs' greatest assets because they convey trust and epitomize value. Indeed, there are few local products that compete at a price premium versus international brands.

This advantage, however, should not be taken for granted. In some sectors, local players are lifting their game. China's Alipay, a sub-brand of e-commerce behemoth Alibaba, has evolved from a Paypal knock off to a "digital wallet" tailored to Chinese spending habits. (Its Red Envelope service is youthful spin on ancient gifting traditions.) WeChat, once a pale imitation of WhatsApp, is now an indispensable social connector.

In the face of increasing local nimbleness, global brands must reinforce bonds with consumers around the world.

Four Questions

It won't be easy. Success will hinge on both analytic acumen and courage. CEOs should ask four questions before marching into battle.

Has your brand been defined as a "relationship" to ensure relevance and consistency?

Technological upheaval is disorienting. As a result, conceptual clarity is forsaken, leading strategic and executional chaos.

Some call a brand's North Star -- its raison d'être -- a "brand essence." Others, a "purpose." I prefer the term "brand relationship" because it implies consistent bilateral engagement that deepens over time -- across all touch points, analog and digital.

Great brand relationships are rooted in:

A universal "consumer insight" -- that is, a human truth that answers the question "Why?" Local brands are cultural-specific. But global brands must transcend geography. Sometimes they miss the mark. Unilever's Dove's "real beauty" is rooted in a woman's desire to define beauty for herself. But in market non-Western markets, self-esteem is a function of societal acknowledgement. Identities are externalized.

The "unique brand offer" -- that is, a "product truth" or "brand truth" capable forging long-term competitive differentiation.

LEGO, a brand that has celebrated creativity since 1932, appeals to human truth. The name lego is derived from Danish phrase "Leg godt," which also means "I put together" in Latin. Every manifestation of LEGO's brand relationship, "inspiring the builders of tomorrow," strengthens brand equity. The company's award-winning retail outlets are designed with innovative displays and spaces for family "building" events and kid-friendly exploration areas. At several locations worldwide, LEGOland encourages kids to open their imaginations at construction sites that dot the theme parks. To the tune of almost $500 million in global ticket sales, the 2014 film The LEGO Movie is perhaps the most successful branded entertainment in recent years. It tells the tale of an ordinary construction worker, Emmet, battling nefarious Lord Business whose ambition is to glue everything in the adaptable LEGO world into place.

Have you leveraged your brand relationship to forge a strategic brand portfolio?

In markets in which "bigger is better" -- Northeast Asia, for example, where the scale of conglomerates is considered reassuring -- brands are "stretchable." Consumers are willing to embrace brands that extend across disparate categories. This is true across Japanese keiretsu, Korean chaebols and Chinese state-owned enterprises (SOEs).

The vast majority of local brands, however, manage their portfolio in a ham-handed way. China's Xiaomi, a manufacturer of low-priced mobile phones that once boasted a dedicated fan base, is typical. It squandered a shot at greatness through promiscuous diversification across an ever-widening range of products presumptuously dubbed an "ecosystem." Xioami's founder, Lei Jun, never clarified the brand's role in life. There is no meaningful brand relationship so sales strategies are price-driven. The same is true for many indigenous brands from Korea's Lotte to Japan's Hitachi.

Global brands are skilled in articulating relationships, a competency that can: a) reinforce superiority versus local challengers and b) facilitate profitable management of sub-brands and new categories. A good example: Under Armour's brand relationship -- champion of underdogs who dare to compete against the best -- provides coherence across sub-brands including UA Heat Gear, UA Coldgear and the UA Glow Collection. It also infuses soul into efforts to scale the business. According to branding guru David Aaker, "Under Armour has systematically added lines of clothing while continuing to focus on delivering the functional and self-expressive brand promise. The latest venture into women's clothing has the earmarks of future success."

Have you harnessed the assets of your brand relationship for maximum relevance in consumers' lives?

In a hydra-headed digital world, the ultimate commandment of marketing still holds: relevance is sublime.

Consumers suffer from disorientation wrought by technological change -- a universe of bits and bytes, atomistic fragmentation that dulls the senses.

Digital technology offers an infinite--and intimidating--range of ways for brands to engage with consumers. Connections happen in real time. Augmented reality redefines individual field of vision. Social network feeds provide consumers with non-stop "news" as they go through their day.

Some brands use technology in a way that confuses or commoditizes. For example, in 2014, several McDonald's franchises in Spain took advantage of their powerful wifi network signal to hijack customers who were eating in nearby establishments. By changing their signal name into a message--for example, "Free drink with your McMenu," or "Come eat with us and have a sundae on the house"--the McDonald's franchises lured people into their restaurants. The local stunt was clever and generated a burst of incremental sales. But the fast-food chain missed an opportunity to combine hard-hitting discounts with reminders of why people love McDonald's--that is, quality food and family friendliness.

But more and more brands -- not only ecosystems such as Amazon, Google and Apple -- invest in technology that makes lives better. Johnson & Johnson produced Band Aid "Magic Vision," an augmented reality app in which Muppets laugh away the "ouch." Procter & Gamble's Pampers asks tired parents to tune into ZZZ FM, a radio station that broadcasts white noise so babies can sleep soundly. Brand experiences--from Trailhead, The North Face's hiking path locator, to Allergycast, Johnson & Johnson's pollen index counter--transform passively received "propositions" into actual services.

Importantly, data should be used to identify what experiences can deepen a given brand relationship. Prophet, the global strategic consultancy, encourages marketers to pursue continuous -- or "relentless" -- relevance. The firm's Brand Relevance Index (BRI) recently surveyed 45,000 consumers around the world to find which brands they "can't imagine living without."

To derive the BRI, Prophet measured four pillars of relevance:

Customer obsession: "Everything that is invested in, created, and brought to market is designed to meet important needs in people's lives."

Ruthless pragmatism: "Products are available where and when customers need them, deliver consistent experiences, and just make life that much easier for people."

Pervasive innovation: "Even industry leaders don't rest on their laurels. They push the status quo, engage with customers in new and creative ways, and find new ways to address unmet needs."

Distinctive inspiration: "Emotional connections are made, trust is earned, and often exist to fulfill a larger purpose."

Prophet's United States top ten list was a nice combination of brands that "born digital" and others that weren't: Apple ("the gold standard for practical innovation"), Amazon ("What can't it do?"), Android ("the green guy strikes back"), Netflix ("Cant. Stop. Watching."), Google ("making search sweet"), Samsung ("the innovation trail blazer"), Nike ("celebrating unlimited you"), Pinterest ("the apex of inspiration"), Pixar "(sticking to its story") and Sephora ("ever more digital").

Have your markets been culturally "clustered" to achieve balance between global and local execution?

At WPP's 2015 Board of Directors meeting in Beijing, CEO Martin Sorrell stated, "Clients want either global or local. They tell me all the time. Nothing else interests them."

Too many companies swing between "one size fits all" and localization of everything from packaging design and retail design to content creation. The former precludes affinity. The latter is messy and financially unsustainable.

Instead, markets can be "clustered" according to culture. Global brands -- again, rooted in human truth -- must be brought into alignment with worldviews. Culture-based clusters -- across which common marketing programs can be executed -- balance relevance with operational efficiency.

Whenever I am asked what makes Confucian countries -- China, Korea and Vietnam -- really different from the West, it's not just the lack of individualism--it is the level of ambition. In China, for example, everyone is ambitious. Women want their piece of the sky, just as men do. A study by the Center for Work-Life Policy found that just 36 percent of college-educated women in America described themselves as "very ambitious," compared to 65 percent in China. A further 76 percent of women in China aspire to hold a top corporate job, compared to 52 percent in America.

The "tiger mom," forcing extracurricular activities upon her child to make sure he gets into Harvard 18 years later, is not a myth. Not all mothers are like this, but ambition remains a palpable force in Confucian societies. They were the first to become socially mobile societies; engrained in the Chinese psyche is people can achieve success by mastering convention and internalizing the rules. The desire to get ahead binds people together. From the bourgeoisie in the bustling metropolises of Seoul, Beijing, and Hong Kong right down to the farmers in the fields, all want to be an emperor of their small corner, no matter how modest their origins.

So the relationship between individual and society in Confucian countries is fundamentally different than in Anglo-individualistic ones. Across the Confucian cultural cluster, brands need to do more so cross-market resources should be pooled accordingly.

In Northeast Asia, Ford's "Go further" can align a global focus on "democratic technology" with how its cars and "mobility solutions" help the new middle class get ahead in life.

Nike's "Just do it" is a rallying cry to release individual potential. Everywhere. But, across Asia, the brand's shoes, apparel, Nike+ social platforms and wearable tech products are tools on the battlefield of life. In one recent campaign, Nike actually exhorted Millennials to yong yundong, or "use sports." Social platforms generate social currency by broadcasting achievements to a wide audience.

Forward momentum in life can also be warmly emotional. In many Northeast and Southeast Asian countries, expecting fathers are not allowed to join their wives in ultrasound rooms. For women, it only makes the pregnancy journey lonelier than it already is. So Bayer's Elevit, a prenatal nutritional supplement that "nourishes your unborn baby's heart," developed a wearable device that enabled fathers to actually feel the heartbeat from far away.
___________

In conclusion, multinational companies face tough times. But blind cost-cutting triggers low relevance and low margins. Instead, marketers should unleash the power of global brands by: a) achieving consistency born of a clearly-defined long-term "relationship" between consumer and brand, b) leveraging "stretchability" to introduce a broad-yet-cohesive brand relationship portfolio, c) pursuing "relentless relevance" enabled by technology and d) deploying resources across culture-based clusters.

How Trump's Environmental Policies Can Kill 220,000 Jobs And Eradicate Dozens of Species

This story has been condensed from a piece on Ecosystem Marketplace

US President Donald Trump and his cohorts in Congress have vowed to revive rural America by eliminating what he claims are burdensome environmental regulations, but the best that can be said about the initiatives launched so far is that they  might boost profits for some of the energy and agriculture interests that support Republicans on the House Resources Committee.

You can't, however, say they'll create more jobs than they destroy, because profits aren't jobs. In fact, they're often the opposite: companies save money by cutting jobs, and in this case, the jobs they cut will be those that pay people to plant trees, restore rivers, and turn soggy, unproductive farms into wetlands that filter water, purify air, and slow climate change.

Those jobs are part of a $25 billion "restoration economy" that directly employs 126,000 people and supports 95,000 other jobs - mostly in small businesses - according to a 2015 survey that environmental economist Todd BenDor conducted through the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.

That's more jobs than logging, more than coal mining, and more than iron and steel, as you can see here:

The restoration economy is already providing jobs for loggers across Oregon, and even some coal miners in Virginia, but it could disappear if the GOP environmental rollback continues. Here are 11 things you need to know to understand it.

1.   It's not Solar and Wind

The restoration economy is not to be confused with the renewable energy boom that employs 374,000 people in solar parks and 101,738 on wind farms. Like those, however, the restoration economy is part of a burgeoning "green economy" that's transforming forests, farms, and fields around the world.

2.   It's Government-Driven

State and federal governments helped the wind and solar sectors get off the ground, but both of those sectors are humming along on their own now because they provide a cost-effective way to produce electricity, which everyone needs.

The demand for restoration, however, isn't as automatic as the demand for electricity is, because most companies and even some landowners won't clean up their messes without an incentive to do so.

Economists call these messes "externalities" because they dump an internal responsibility on the external world, and governments are created in part to deal with them - mostly through "command-and-control" regulation, but also through systems that let polluters either fix their messes or create something as good or better than what they destroy.

Under the Endangered Species Act, for example, a local government that wants to build a road through sensitive habitat can petition the Fish and Wildlife Service for permission to do so. If permission is granted, it still has to make good by restoring degraded habitat in the same region.

3.   It's Often Market-Based

Pioneered in the 1960s, environmental markets offer flexibility in meeting commitments. That local government mentioned above, for example, can either restore the land itself, or it can turn to a "conservation bank".

These are usually created by green entrepreneurs who identify marginal land and restore it to a stable state that performs ecosystem services like flood control or water purification. They make money by selling credits to entities - personal, public, or private - that need to offset their environmental impacts on species, wetlands or streams.

At least $2.8 billion per year flows through ecosystem markets in the United States, according to Ecosystem Marketplace research.

4.   Infrastructure Also Drives Restoration

The federal government - especially the military - holds itself to high environmental standards, as do many states. Government activities alone support thousands of restoration jobs.

Government agencies are big buyers of credits, often to offset damage caused by infrastructure projects, but the link between infrastructure and restoration goes even deeper than that. In Philadelphia, for example, restoration workers are using water fees to restore degraded forests and fields as part of a plan to better manage storm runoff. In California, meadows and streams that control floods are legally treated as green infrastructure, to be funded from that pot of money. "Green infrastructure", it turns out, is prettier than concrete and lasts longer to boot.

Trump wants to "expedite" infrastructure roll-outs, and he can do so without weakening environmental provisions by removing unnecessary delays in the permitting process (see point 11, below).

5.   Markets Can Reduce Regulations

Nature is complex, and rigid regulations often fail to address that complexity, as environmental economist Todd BenDor makes clear when he points to regulations requiring the placement of silt fences in new subdivisions along waterways.

"They're supposed to prevent erosion, but they often fail or are put in the wrong places," he says. "Markets can simply enact a limit on erosion, allowing the landowner the freedom to be creative and efficient in any way they see fit in order to meet that limit."

Done right, environmental markets can replace overly prescriptive regulations, but they still require government oversight and regulation.

"Markets are entirely reliant on strong monitoring, verification, and enforcement of limits," says BenDor. "Provisions must be made to ensure that, but in reality it's often a problem."

6.   Restoration Stimulates Rural Economies

In 2015, BenDor published a study called "Estimating the Size and Impact of the Ecological Restoration Economy", which found restoration businesses in all 50 states. California had the most, but four "Red" states filled out the top five: Virginia, Florida, Texas, and North Carolina. Last place went to North Dakota.

By their very nature, restoration projects are located in rural areas, and a study by Cathy Kellon and Taylor Hesselgrave of EcoTrust found that Oregon alone had more than 7,000 watershed restoration projects, which generated nearly 6,500 jobs from 2001 through 2010. Many of those jobs went to unemployed loggers.

"The jobs created by restoration activities are located mostly in rural areas, in communities hard hit by the economic downturn," report authors wrote. "Restoration also stimulates demand for the products and services of local businesses such as plant nurseries, heavy equipment companies, and rock and gravel companies."

7.   It's been Mapped

Last year, the US Department of Agriculture's Office of Environmental Markets, together with Ecosystem Marketplace publisher Forest Trends and the Environmental Protection Agency, published an online Atlas of Ecosystem Markets, which you can access here.

8.   The Jobs are Robot-Proof

Environmental regulations didn't kill coal; natural gas and renewables did. Regulations didn't stifle the western oil boom, either; that was low energy prices. Even if Trump & Co do prop the coal sector, jobs won't go to people; they'll go to machines, which took most of the jobs America lost in the last decade.

BenDor's research shows restoration jobs are evenly divided between white-collar planners, designers, and engineers and the green-collar guys doing the actual earth moving and site construction.

Almost all involve time in the great outdoors, and they can't be exported or done by robots.

9.   The Jobs are Cost-Effective

Because restoration work is labor-intensive, the money goes to people instead of machines, and every $1 million invested generates 33 jobs on average. Every $1 million invested in oil, on the other hand, generates 5.2 jobs per $1 million invested. In coal, the figure is 6.9 jobs.

10.  It Doesn't Stifle Business

Some industry groups claim the Endangered Species Act blocks development, but researchers reviewed 88,000 consultations between 2008 and 2015 and found that no projects had been stopped or even changed in a major way to protect habitat.

Even proponents of the system concede, however, that the permitting process is slow and tedious.

11.  It Can Be Improved

While the Fish and Wildlife Service administers credits for mitigation of endangered species, the Army Corps of Engineers approves mitigation credits for streams and wetlands, and they're notoriously underfunded. This leads to long and costly delays, according to unpublished research that BenDor conducted with Daniel Spethmann of Working Lands Investment Partners and David Urban of Ecosystem Investment Partners.

Delays are so costly, they argue, that companies in the restoration sector might be better off paying 50-fold higher permitting prices that would give the agencies the staff needed to properly process permits, akin to expedited building permits, rather than paying banks the interest on loans for land where environmental improvements are being held up.

Personal Finance Checklist At Age 50

In a youth-oriented culture, it is easy to feel a little over the hill by the time you turn 50. When it comes to building wealth though, your 50s are the prime of your life - a period when you have a chance to emerge from debt, enjoy your peak earning years and start to see your investments make a serious contribution to your net worth.

To take advantage of this crucial phase of your financial life, it is important to understand some key factors that can help you make the most of your 50s.

Personal finance checklist at age 50

As you look over your financial situation once you turn 50, here are some things you should attend to:

1. Shift more heavily from borrowing to saving

Early in your career, accumulated savings are likely to be modest and it seems you are taking out one loan after another: student loans, car loans, home mortgages, etc. By the time you reach age 50 though, you should have greatly reduced your debt burden. In its place, you should see a growing portfolio of retirement assets. This is the type of trend that can feed on itself: the more you retire your debt, the more of your monthly budget can go to savings rather than loan payments.

2. Estimate your Social Security benefits

The U.S. Social Security Administration will provide you with a free projection of your retirement benefits based on your career earnings so far. While this will remain subject to change based on your subsequent earnings, by age 50 you should have enough of a track record to get a sense of what contribution Social Security will make to your retirement income. This projection can also help you start to think seriously about the pros and cons of retiring early or working longer to achieve the maximum annual benefit.

3. Reassess your retirement goals

In addition to Social Security, look at your other retirement savings and see how much income they project to provide. Knowing where you stand will help you make more concrete plans about the future, including when to retire and what kind of lifestyle to expect.

4. Use catch-up retirement saving opportunities

Looking at your projected Social Security benefits and your savings accounts relative to your goals may tell you that you have some catching up to do. Fortunately, the government gives you some catch-up opportunities in the form off additional tax-deferred retirement contributions to 401(k) or individual retirement account (IRA) plans that you can make once you turn 50. Use this as an incentive to start making extra contributions.

5. Keep your asset allocation aggressive

People often feel their investments should get more conservative as they get older, but age 50 is too soon to throttle back to a less growth-oriented asset allocation. At that age, you are probably still more than a decade away from retirement, and still have an investment time horizon of some 30 or so years stretched out ahead of you. Plus, if you are contributing heavily to your retirement plans, this positive cash flow will help smooth out some of the volatility from growth investments.

6. Update your will

If you first made a will when you started your family, you might find things are radically different by the time you turn 50. Your kids may be on the verge of adulthood and your net worth may be substantially greater, so it is a good time to take a fresh look at what provisions you've made for your survivors.

7. Don't be shy about discounts

Turning 50 makes you eligible for AARP membership. Don't let that make you feel old - just look at the discounts available, and think of it as an advantage you've earned.

8. Take advantage of senior checking accounts

Some banks offer checking accounts for older customers that have no monthly fees. Eligibility is often set at age 50, and with free checking getting harder to find these days, signing up for one of these accounts can be another advantage of getting older.

9. Survey your career opportunities

Since these can be your peak earnings years, you should assess whether your current employer is the best place to capitalize on those years, or whether you could do better somewhere else. To think more defensively, you should also take an honest look at whether your job skills need freshening up so your employer does not view you as out of date.

With proper attention to your finances, this could be your greatest decade for wealth building. After all, it is too late for procrastination and too early for slowing down. This is prime time.

More from Richard Barrington and MoneyRates.com:

Personal finance checklist for age 40

Turning 30? See this personal finance checklist

IRA money market accounts

Exxon Adviser Resigns Over Oil Giant's 'Targeted Attacks' On NGOs

A research scholar at New York University has resigned from Exxon Mobil Corp.’s External Citizenship Advisory Panel, citing what she calls the oil giant’s “targeted attacks” on environmental groups under former CEO Rex Tillerson’s watch.

In a letter this week to Exxon Mobil Foundation president Ben Soraci, Sarah Labowitz expressed her disgust with the company’s continued assault on organizations investigating whether Exxon covered up the risks of climate change.

Labowitz, a co-founder and co-director of New York University’s Stern Center for Business and Human Rights, told The Huffington Post that she has studied many companies facing serious public criticism, often in her field of human rights. For the most part, she said, “they don’t shoot the messenger ― which is what Exxon is doing.”

As Labowitz put it in her resignation letter to Soraci, “Few respond with the kind of vehemence and aggressive attack strategy that Exxon has executed over the last year.” 

Exxon’s current strain of legal trouble dates back to November 2015, when New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman subpoenaed the oil giant to obtain documents related to allegations that it had lied to the public and its investors about the risks of climate change. In March, a coalition of state attorneys general, including Maura Healey of Massachusetts, pledged to crack down on corporate climate fraud, after InsideClimate News and the Los Angeles Times reported that Exxon executives were aware of the climate risks associated with carbon dioxide emissions but had funded research to cover up those risks and block solutions.

In June, Exxon hit back, filing a lawsuit against Healey in the company’s home state of Texas in an effort to bar a civil investigative demand from her office. Shortly thereafter, Labowitz told HuffPost, the company began advancing a conspiracy argument that she finds particularly troubling.

In October, Exxon filed a motion in U.S. District Court in Fort Worth, Texas, that sought to invalidate Schneiderman’s subpoena, arguing the investigations by the New York and Massachusetts AGs were “biased attempts to further a political agenda for financial gain.” The company claimed that “revelations from third-party disclosures about secret and deliberately concealed collaboration with anti-oil and gas activists and a private law firm” had shown the AGs were “incapable of impartial investigations” and were “attempting to silence political opponents.”

Exxon Mobil then turned its attention to non-governmental organizations, including the Union of Concerned Scientists, warning them in a series of letters not to destroy or delete communications related to their probes of Exxon ― including communications with the press. The move hinted at future subpoenas. 

At that time, a company spokesman told HuffPost that Exxon had been left with no choice but to “vigorously defend” itself. To show what Exxon was up against, the spokesman shared a link to a draft agenda for a January meeting of environmental group leaders at the Rockefeller Family Fund. First covered by The Wall Street Journal in April and later published at The Washington Free Beacon, a conservative site, the letter appears to list several of the meeting participants’ common goals, including “to establish in the public’s mind that Exxon is a corrupt institution that has pushed humanity (and all creation) toward climate chaos and grave harm.”

Created in 2009, Exxon Mobil’s External Citizenship Advisory Panel consists of five independent experts and is tasked with reviewing the company’s corporate citizenship activities, including its effects on human rights and the environment. 

Labowitz, who had served on the panel since 2014, told HuffPost that she began to notice a pattern. She raised her concerns, both privately and during formal advisory meetings, and encouraged company leaders to find alternative approaches. 

Then last week, Exxon “doubled down,” as Labowitz put it. In court papers filed Feb. 1, Exxon wrote that the Massachusetts and New York AGs were “at the forefront of a conspiracy to violate ExxonMobil’s constitutional rights,” as E&E News reported. 

“I think that’s the wrong way to go,” Labowitz said. “I don’t think it’s helpful to them and I don’t think it’s helpful to society at large.”

In her scathing resignation letter, Labowitz argues that Exxon Mobil’s approach undermines democratic principles. “I am disappointed that instead of examining its own record and seeking to restore a respected place for itself in the public debate, Exxon has chosen to turn up the temperature on civil society groups,” the letter reads.

Exxon spokesman Alan Jeffers told HuffPost that while the company regrets Labowitz’s decision to resign, it takes issue with some of her conclusions.

“We have never characterized any action by civil society representatives as illegal,” he said in an email. “What we have done is defend the company, on behalf of all shareholders, from politically motivated investigations that are biased, in bad faith and without legal merit.”

“We did not start this,” Jeffers went on, “but will vigorously defend ourselves against false allegations and mischaracterizations of our climate research and investor communications.”

Labowitz’s departure comes just days after Tillerson, the former Exxon head, took over as President Donald Trump’s secretary of state. During his confirmation process, Tillerson faced serious questions about his ties to Russia and the company’s decades-long, well-documented climate change cover-up. He refused to discuss what the company knew about climate change and when it knew it, saying, “Since I’m no longer with Exxon Mobil, I can’t speak on their behalf.”

Kathy Mulvey, climate accountability campaign manager at the Union of Concerned Scientists, said that Labowitz’s departure “speaks volumes” about the kind of corporate citizen Exxon is. 

“All companies try to protect themselves, but Exxon’s recent attacks have crossed a line,” Mulvey said in a statement. “Going after nonprofits and interfering with independent state investigations shows that ExxonMobil will stop at nothing to protect its bottom line. Ms. Labowitz took a bold stand against ExxonMobil’s climate deception and bullying.”

Mulvey urged other panel members to likewise call out the company’s behavior.

Ultimately, Labowitz says it will be important for Exxon to restore itself as a credible participant in the climate change discussion. If it continues down its current path, Labowitz believes it will do so at its own peril.

“I hope they find a way out of this. I don’t think that this kind of attack strategy is the way forward,” she said. “What happens if they win in arguing this is an illegal conspiracy? I think that it erodes their credibility in a way that is so unhelpful to them, and to the broader debate about the response to climate change.” 

Labowitz - ECAP - Feb 6 2017 by Chris DAngelo on Scribd

Uberizing Big Trucks: 18 Wheels Have Never Been So Cool Or Important

For the commute-weary driver, autonomous technology represents a sexy splurge, but for fleet operations, full autonomy represents the singular business imperative of the 21st century.

When a nondescript tractor trailer trundled 120 miles down a Colorado highway completely unmanned last year, safely reaching a shipping warehouse with a cargo of 45,000 cans of beer, the experiment in autonomous freight movement was largely crowded out by flashier headlines by the big rig’s smaller cousin: the driverless car.

But while autonomous cars may be provocative, autonomous trucks are practical―and promise to be radically transformative for an industry struggling to balance hiring demands with liability, labor and safety regulations.

The lay public’s intense fascination in driverless rides is couched in their misunderstanding, or the media’s deliberate misstatement, of the technology’s current pace. Now, understand that it’s racing, but not faster than speed-throttling government regulation will allow.

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration rates autonomy―that is, the level of human or alternatively computer operation of a vehicle―at five graduated tiers.

At Level Zero, the human driver controls everything from steering to throttling. Skipping up to Level Two you find combined functions of cruise control and lane-centering, at least momentarily disengaging human drivers from control of the steering wheel and throttle pedals. At Level Three you begin to find restrained autonomy: drivers are still required to perform safety-critical functions (when variable weather or traffic conditions overwhelm the vehicle’s computers).

Levels Four and Five, though, are the moonshot: drivers are not required in either instance, and at its zenith neither are conventional human controls. Otto’s beer run, which relegated the driver to the sleeper bunk, clocked in at Level Four, the first in the nation.

The freight industry entered 2016 with a deficit of 48,000 truckers, according to industry figures, and the American Trucking Association estimates that this deficit may swell to 175,000 within the space of eight years.

Increase in shipping growth coupled with a diminished labor force requires longer routes, especially for owner-operators, and these more rigorous hauls create a whole host of safety concerns for the driving public.

According to federal statistics, in excess of 400,000 trucks crashed in 2014 (the most recent year for which that data is available). Human error―failing to recognize a dangerous situation or to respond properly―was to blame in almost every instance.

Cutting-edge computers of the sort employed by the driverless, beer-loaded big rig, which married advanced mapping, locationing, and radar, are capable of reading and responding to dangerous situations in ways no human can.

Just a few months ago, a family traveling down the Autobahn was alerted by their Tesla’s autopilot system (for now, a misnomer, as Tesla’s road-legal vehicles register at Level Two autonomy) to the imminent possibility of a two-car wreck down-road. Footage from the car’s dash camera records the alert just as the two cars collide in frightening fashion.

”When it happened, when the other cars started hitting the brakes, I also started hitting the brakes,” the driver, Frank van Hoesel told NBC News. “But then the car was already almost stopped.”

Apply that same technology to a 40 ton. eighteen wheeler and you’ve dramatically reduced. Reduced risk means diminished liability, which in turn squashes cost―for manufacturers, retailers, and consumers alike.

For the commute-weary driver, autonomous technology represents a sexy splurge, an investment in safety and sanity, but for fleet operations, Levels Four and Five autonomy represent the singular business imperative of the 21st century.

Increased operational efficiency, diminished liability, and safer roads ― who says practicality can’t be sexy?

Lights, Camera, Action: Reinvigorating the Big Screen

By Andrew Solmssen, Managing Director, POSSIBLE Los Angeles

It was not so long ago that seeing the latest Tom Cruise or Julia Roberts movie meant waiting in lines 50 yards deep. Those days—along with Mr. Cruise’s blockbusters—are gone. Times have changed in the last few decades: the drive-in died, smaller theaters popped up throughout the country, the VCR came and went, and now we stream. Throughout it all, the theaters have remained. And while many a Gen Xer or Baby Boomer prefers to watch the latest movies from the comfort of home, others continue to enjoy movies on the big screen—but in smaller numbers.

CEO and co-founder of the upstart Atom Tickets, Ameesh Paleja, is a 12-year Amazon veteran who helped launch Prime Instant Video, Amazon’s Appstore, Cloud Drive, and the Kindle product line. Seeing an opportunity to bring modern ecommerce techniques to a popular and traditional form of entertainment, he and his partners started Atom two-and-a-half years ago. Since then, the company has become a popular choice, especially among Millennials. Its app and website not only sell movie tickets but also offer social features, special offers, and pre-orders for concessions. We spoke with Ameesh to learn a little more about working in the movie industry, and what we can expect from Atom in the future.

Why did you get interested in the movie space?

About three years ago, I was approached by the executives at Lionsgate. They presented me with a fascinating problem: there are five-and-a-half billion unsold seats in the U.S. theatrical market. That meant that if we could just sell one percent more seats, we’d have a billion-dollar box office opportunity.

It was also a field ripe for disruption. None of the innovation you’ve seen in the ecommerce space—recommendations, personalization, and machine learning—had made its way to the digital ticketing industry. There is a ton of interesting techniques we can use that have now evolved from their infancy to where consumers expect them.

Why did you start as a mobile-first solution?

Though we have a website, mobile is our primary platform. We focused on where people are engaged. Mobile phone usage in the U.S. is obviously huge and growing. When you think about outside of the U.S., it's monstrous. In China or India or Japan, it's basically the only thing people use.

I had also stumbled on an astonishing statistic that said on average, a person unlocks their smartphone 150 times a day. That's on average. My dad unlocks it maybe 10 times a day, while people like me do it more like 400. That engagement with the device was a big deal and we wanted to be close to that customer.

Why aren’t people going to the movies more?

One of the big pain points is planning. All of us have experienced it. Whether it's these crazy group texts, email chains, or posts on Facebook, nobody can get their act together. That’s why we added group invite features to the app.

There are also a lot of ambivalent people sitting on the fence. We realized that social influencers could play a big role in getting them into theaters. Most people just want to go out with their friends and family. Let's say a bunch of your friends want to go see Star Wars and you aren’t interested in it—but you are interested in hanging out with them. We found the opportunity to leverage social influencers with these people.

Can you tell us some of the ways you’re changing the buying process for moviegoers?

Most new ecommerce experiences are taking on pain points and inconveniences in the purchasing process. With Amazon Go, the new grocery store, they’ve made it so you can shop without standing in line or seeing a cashier.

We looked at the entire ticket-purchasing process and found ways to make it easier. For example, we deployed tablet scanners inside the theater so people can skip the lines.

Another of the big things we do is pre-ordering concessions, so they don’t have to wait in line for popcorn or soda. In addition, we can send targeted coupons. For example, let’s say I know you like Junior Mints. If you haven't been to the movies recently, I can offer you a box of Junior Mints if you go. And if I know that when I get you to come to the movies, you’ll bring a few other people. Then, it becomes a simple ROI equation. The studio is happy because it’s getting revenue. The exhibitor is happy because your friends are buying popcorn. And you're happy because you love your Junior Mints.

Seems like a win-win.

I am glad you pointed it out. When we talk about disruption of space, typically there is somebody that gets the short end of the stick. In this space, we make everyone happy. It’s a very unusual situation, which is one reason I was so attracted to it.

What have you found to be the major driver of adoption growth? 

It's a somewhat complicated question because we're now moving from our infancy to our adolescence in terms of customer adoption and growth. Early on, we did a very good job of engaging customers through standard digital paths. Over 50 percent of our customers came from other people inviting them to the movies. We’re seeing that those who get invited by the app are likely to download it. Then, after they use it two or three times, there is a very high likelihood that they are going to invite new friends to join.

That said, we are still at a place where our biggest hurdle is awareness. Candidly, people just don't know about us. Customer acquisition has now shifted from simply leveraging digital channels to supplementing that with un-aided awareness campaigns.

One of the more unique features of your app is the user experience. Was that by design?

With over a thousand apps deployed every day, it's incredibly hard to differentiate yourself in the app stores. Part of the way that we do that is by having an incredible customer experience. It has to be unique, it has to be innovative, but it also has to be engineered well. Our customers are getting 60 frames a second, and it's really smooth whether they have a $50 Android phone from Best Buy or a brand new iPhone.

What is the biggest difference between the movie industry and technology companies like Amazon?

Speed. Movies take two or three years to get developed and a lot of the economics are built in way up front. So there is a significant amount of lead time to affect change.

At first, I said, “Why can't we just move faster? The data says this, so let's just do that." What I have come to understand and appreciate is that the machine is extremely complicated. That's not an excuse; it's an explanation of why it takes longer to innovate in a substantial way. We’re like a tugboat trying to steer an ocean liner.

Building trust is a big part of our process. Movie people bleed for their art. I really didn't understand that until I actually sat down and saw what they have to do to get these incredible stories to consumers. I am so accustomed to solving problems through data that solving problems through relationships is a new experience for me.

Are you planning to incorporate more brand content?

Our brand partners and advertisers are important to us, however, so is customer experience. One thing we're trying to do is create integrated opportunities to expose brands—at the point where they are endemic to a better experience. If it's about helping the customer enjoy their night out, there should be a clean way to integrate advertising into the experience.

What’s your favorite part of this?

The nice thing about movies is that the whole country loves to watch them. Seventy-seven percent of the United States will go see at least one movie a year. It's one of the most egalitarian and recession-proof forms of entertainment out there. Think about it—there is something for a three-year-old all the way up to a 93-year-old. For men, for women, for every race, for every ethnicity, you know, movies basically are the broadest entertainment category that exists.

What’s next?

We keep innovating. In 2016, we created pre-ordering concessions for the exhibitors, and that was a big deal. We also made a deal with Rogue One that connected the Disney consumer products division with the Disney Studios team. We are now selling T-shirts and hoodies for Star Wars when you buy your ticket, which has been successful for us.

In 2017, we’ll continue on that path. That drum beat of innovation will get louder and faster over time. But it’s also about building relationships with all of our partners—so that they feel comfortable with the changes that we're making.

Battling Menthol Restrictions, R.J. Reynolds Reaches Out To Sharpton, Other Black Leaders

Civil rights activist Rev. Al Sharpton, in October at an Oakland, Calif., church forum about the impact of banning menthol cigarettes. (Photo by Rachel Loyd/Oakland North)

By Myron Levin, FairWarning

Tobacco giant R.J. Reynolds, the top seller of the menthol cigarettes favored by most black smokers, is seizing on the hot button issue of police harassment of blacks to counter efforts by public health advocates to restrict menthol sales.

In recent months, the company has quietly enlisted black groups and leaders, including civil rights activist Rev. Al Sharpton and ex-Florida Congressman Kendrick B. Meek, to hold meetings at prominent black churches on the theme of “Decriminalizing the Black Community.” Sharpton and Meek, along with speakers from groups involved in criminal justice reform, have warned of the unintended consequences of banning cigarettes with the minty, throat-numbing additive–namely, the risk of creating an underground market and giving police new reasons to lock up black males. The meetings have been held at churches in Minneapolis, Los Angeles and Oakland, and in other forums.

Reynolds makes Newport cigarettes, the most popular menthol and the No. 2 U.S. cigarette brand overall, with a market share of nearly 14 percent. The company has paid travel costs for the panelists and contributed to their organizations, according to the panelists and Reynolds spokesman David Howard. However, promotional flyers (here, here and here) suggest that Sharpton and his National Action Network are the main sponsors of the meetings, rather than the tobacco company.

Anti-smoking advocates have blasted the campaign as deceptive and a scare tactic. “How can the tobacco industry care about criminalization when they don’t even care about killing you?’’ said LaTrisha Vetaw, who attended a Jan. 25 meeting at the Greater Friendship Missionary Baptist Church in Minneapolis, where a few dozen people turned out to hear Sharpton and be treated to a lunch of chicken, mashed potatoes, green beans and cake.

‘Unintended consequences’ of a ban

Sharpton led protests against police abuses following the death in New York City of Eric Garner, an incident frequently invoked at the meetings. Garner died in July, 2014, after police put him in a chokehold while arresting him for allegedly selling untaxed single cigarettes, or “loosies.” But in his remarks in Minneapolis, Sharpton said repeatedly that he had not made up his mind about a menthol ban, according to a tape of the meeting. “I am not on either side of the argument,” he said. ”I want to hear and listen.”

In an interview with FairWarning, Sharpton said Meek, a Reynolds consultant who serves as moderator at the meetings, ”asked us to consider the unintended consequences of a menthol ban,” and also asked him to appear at several of the churches. Sharpton said he expects the National Action Network to take a position on a menthol ban at its convention in April.

Meek, who could not be reached, is a former Florida highway patrolman later elected to Congress, serving four terms in the House of Representatives before losing to Marco Rubio in the 2010 race for U.S. Senate. Over the years, the tobacco industry contributed $202,510 to his congressional campaigns and leadership political action committee, according to data from the Center for Responsive Politics. Meek received $104,342 of that in the 2009-10 campaign cycle, more than any other member of Congress except North Carolina Republican Sen. Richard Burr.

Meek and the others have stressed that they aren’t in favor of smoking. “We have to deter smoking, okay,” Meek said at the Minneapolis meeting. “But we also have to make sure that…we’re not giving tools to law enforcement” to ensnare more young blacks in the criminal justice system.

There is almost no chance of a menthol ban at the federal level. But as reported by FairWarning, some local officials and anti-smoking groups have taken up the cause of regulating menthol sales. In Chicago, sales of flavored tobacco products, including menthol cigarettes, are banned within 500 feet of high schools. In Berkeley, Calif., a law that took effect January 1 prohibits such sales within 600 feet of schools. Advocates in Minneapolis and St. Paul, where menthol cigarettes are exempted from an ordinance restricting sales of flavored tobacco products to adult-only tobacco shops, are trying to repeal the menthol exemption.

Menthols account for about 30 percent of U.S. cigarette sales, but are the choice of more than 80 percent of black smokers and more than half of smokers under age 18, according to research cited by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. About 47,000 African Americans die annually from smoking related causes, according to agency estimates.

There is no evidence that menthols are more toxic than other cigarettes. But health authorities describe menthol cigarettes as a starter product, saying menthol anesthetizes the throat, helping beginners to tolerate the harshness of tobacco smoke so they are more likely to become addicted. For these reasons, said a 2013 report by the Food and Drug Administration, it is “likely that menthol cigarettes pose a public health risk above that seen with non-menthol cigarettes”–a conclusion cigarette makers hotly reject.

The landmark 2009 law that authorized the FDA to regulate tobacco products included a ban on candy, fruit and spice cigarette flavorings because of their appeal to young smokers. But Congress punted on menthol, directing FDA to do research on whether it, too, should be restricted or banned. In 2013, the FDA put out a call for comments on a possible menthol ban, but has done nothing since, and there appears to be almost no chance the Trump administration will act.

‘Being ahead of the issue’

Along with Sharpton and Meek, speakers at the Reynolds-sponsored meetings have included John I. Dixon III, former president of the National Organization of Black Law Enforcement Executives, which lists Reynolds American Inc. , parent of R.J. Reynolds, as one of its corporate partners. Other panelists have been Neill Franklin, a former Maryland State Police narcotics officer and executive director of the Law Enforcement Action Partnership; and Art Way, Colorado state director of the Drug Policy Alliance.

Franklin said his group, whose focus is ending the war on drugs, received $75,000 from Reynolds in 2016 but is not controlled by any of its donors. “My place in this is to give education to people about what potentially could happen if there is a ban,” he told FairWarning. “To me, it’s being ahead of the issue.”

Way said opposing a menthol ban is a ”natural fit” with his group’s “general concerns over [the] black market and the kind of unintended consequences of banning popular substances… We say what we want to say,” and reach larger audiences, ”basically on Reynolds’ dime.”

The forums haven’t been limited to black churches. Last June, at the annual convention of the National Newspaper Publishers Association — the trade group for more than 200 African-American community newspapers–Meek, Dixon, Franklin and Way were listed on the program for a “Panel Discussion, Criminal Justice Reform–Hosted by RAI Services Company,” a reference to Reynolds. In 2015, Reynolds contributed $250,000 to the publishers association, according to a document posted on the company’s website.

“Yes, RAI has provided some funding to those organizations,” the Reynolds spokesman, Howard, said in an email to FairWarning. “We work with these organizations in an effort to engage in conversations to work to resolve controversial issues related to tobacco use in a responsible manner, while ensuring that any new rules or laws do not result in troubling unintended consequences.”

But Vetaw said the company is blowing smoke. The tobacco industry “is great at marketing … so they send celebrity Al Sharpton,” said Vetaw, who is policy and advocacy manager for the North Point Health and Wellness Center in Minneapolis. “A couple of people in the room said, ‘Well, Al Sharpton’s here so this must be important.‘”

Valerie Yerger, who attended an October meeting at the Beebe Memorial Cathedral in Oakland, had her microphone cut off when she tried to raise the issue of Reynolds’ involvement in the event, according to interviews and a report by Oakland North, a newspaper published by the UC Berkeley Graduate School of Journalism. Yerger, an associate professor of nursing at UC San Francisco who has researched the history of tobacco industry support for African-American groups, said the campaign shows that cigarette makers are continuing to use ‘influential black leaders and their organizations as a front group to promote industry interests.“

This story was reported by FairWarning (www.fairwarning.org), a nonprofit news organization based in Pasadena, Calif., that focuses on public health, consumer and environmental issues.

American Apparel Post-Mortem: A Lesson In Visionary Leadership

The beginning of 2017 came with disappointing news from American Apparel. As a crusader for domestic-made products, the retailer's weakness came not from its altruistic model, but from errant leadership and a reluctance to grow with market changes. A brand that had a strong identity and morals lost its way from the top down, ultimately leading to its demise through an acquisition and shuttering of its retail stores.

In the brand's infancy, founder and CEO Dov Charney displayed unique leadership and forward-thinking visions. The brand's identity began to evolve as early as 1997, becoming known as a no-frills American-made manufacturer of quality products that rejected what has become a standard practice of human exploitation in the apparel industry. It swiftly gained recognition, opening 150 stores after its first year and nearly doubling that in the next three years. It continued to gain traction and in 2008 company shares reached $14. Yet Charney's infamous reputation for inappropriate behavior and the company's inability to change with the industry caused it to sell recently to Gildan Activewear Inc, a Canadian clothes manufacturer.

Contract Help from Employees
The signs were there. Once a desired workplace destination, in recent years American Apparel's ratings on sites like Glassdoor.com have plunged, with comments from current and former employees deriding the culture and leadership. A proactive leadership team will internalize this kind of feedback to 1.) determine if the gripes are legitimate, and if so 2.) concoct an action plan that addresses the issues.

In a similar vein, strong leadership will take time to walk through their company and hear what employees from every level have to say about their jobs. Usually problems arise for employees that work with the product or customers every day and can identify what is not working.

For example, talking with a store-level employee might yield information about displays that work and don't. Factory-level employees, while not high on the org chart, can likewise be valuable sources of information about supply chain issues and specifically what is not working.

These criticisms can be the biggest assets to your company. Documenting these ideas then trying to find solutions can move your brand to leading the industry rather than just playing catch-up. It has been publicly reported that previous American Apparel leadership had significant mismanagement the brand, creating a ripple effect that led to disorganization and the dissatisfaction plainly evident on Glassdoor.

Create a Culture of Engagement
So what is the solution? A Hay Group poll found that engaged employees showed 43 percent more productivity. Engagement can come in the form of encouragement, transparency and integration in company happenings. Having employees understand how their work contributes to the overall company's goals can help engage employees.

Transparency between employees and leadership can also give employees the confidence to approach leadership to raise concerns and bring ideas. Target recently used this model in their internal communication to create a culture of togetherness and inclusion. That culture will allow your employees to feel empowered rather than hindered to contribute.

Conversely, when your brand and its leadership are at loggerheads over litigation, remaining silent only breeds unease and anxiety.

Embrace Change
Since its founding, American Apparel remained positioned as a young-ish, niche brand that marketed with controversial sexualized advertising. The campaigns had stayed relatively similar all through its life. Many consumers knew what to expect and did not see much change in their product.

But some things did change. For instance, the age-old axiom that "sex sells" has, during the dawn of a new era in social justice and gender equality voices, weathered criticism. A look at the brand's arc of advertising sees a relentless adherence to this strategy, even as the world around it changed.

Responding to changing market forces and consumer trends is as important as good ideas themselves. American Apparel had a strong business model - producing quality products without human exploitation - but failed to hammer home that message in marketing their products. Operationally, the brick-and-mortar outlet failed to innovate online and create a strong online shopping presence.

Perhaps these changes could have saved the company, or at least staved off bankruptcy a bit longer, but they are far from the only brand to meet this kind of demise. The scandal with their then-CEO - and the failure to replace him in a timely fashion - stunted their growth and ultimately their demise. One important role of leadership is to continue to look forward for the brand, even when that means cleaning house.

Remember Brand Identity
While change can mean growth, forgetting your brand and confusing your consumers can be detrimental. Your brand identity is set to tell the story of your company in a clear, consistent voice. It is what consumers will connect with and learn to trust. Brand loyalty has become as strong as advertising in the past years; consumers will forgive a company numerous failures if they feel the brand is connected to them. Keeping your brand in mind when you are thinking of taking the company in a new direction can help your consumers feel comfortable and enthusiastic with the change.

American Apparel made the mistake of not reiterating why they were spending $30 for a T-shirt. Its original mission was to produce quality American products without exploiting its labor force. This message was not reinforced in its marketing and consumers began to seek cheaper, faster fashion. Its failure to advertise its message led to its failure when the change to fast fashion dominated the market.

While Dov Charney brought a strong vision and a commendable mission to the apparel industry, he also became a distraction that drew attention from the core product and inhibited the leadership's ability to keep up with market trends. True visionary leadership doesn't only come from visionary individuals. Constant auditing and contribution from all employees will help your brand stay on top of its needs and the needs of consumers. Innovation is a very delicate to get right and see through to success. It's a moving target. If you miss it often enough, you will find yourself out of chances.