Dr. Diane Hamilton's Blog
A Revolution in Hiring and Working with Eva Andres of Juniper Networks
Global Warming: Answers For Both Sides From The Most Terrifying Video You’ll Ever See
In a foresight class I teach, we compare Al Gore’s and Glenn Beck‘s views on global warming. It brings up some interesting discussions. A student recently posted this link in class and I think it is very well done and explains the two sides and how we may need to think about the subject.
The amount of interest in global warming may be dropping.  Denverdailynews reported, “A poll by the Pew Research Center states that the public’s priorities for 2010 did not include global warming. In fact, global warming ranked last as a priority, with just 28 percent of the public considering it a top priority, according to the 2010 poll.”
[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zORv8wwiadQ&fs=1&hl=en_US]Product Placement – Is it Shameless or Just Good Business?
I teach a lot of marketing classes where we talk about product placement. In a recent discussion we were talking about FedEx and the movie Castaway. I read that the company didn’t pay for that mention. I find that hard to believe but I guess it is possible.
Product placement is big business. Recently BeBe launched a new line of clothes based on its popularity from 90210.
Here is a list of some very noticeable products placed in movies that you may remember.
- Taco Bell in Demolition Man
- Popeye’s Chicken in Little Nicky
- Reese’s Pieces in ET
- New Beetle in Herbie:Â Fully Loaded
- AOL in You’ve Got Mail
- Several Dolls like Barbie, Mr. Potato Head in Toy Story
- Aquafina in National Treasure
- CNN in Contact
- Dr. Pepper in Spiderman
- Apple computers in too many movies to mention
Check out the following links for some more examples:
Movie-Moron.com – 10 Most Shameless Uses of Product Placement in Films
MetaFilter.com – Examples of Product Placement in Movies
Cracked.com – 10 Most Shameless Product Placements in Movie History
Listverse.com – Top 10 Blatant Examples of Product Placement in Movies
Wikipedia.com – The Complete Lowdown on Product Placement
Related Articles
When Companies Don’t Pay Employees: The Ethics of Grinding
With the current state of the economy, many companies are barely making ends meet. They are low on funds and are finding unfortunate ways to stay afloat. One of those ways is through grinding their present and past employees.
What is grinding? Think of the salesperson who is owed a commission from a company but they decide to quit and go somewhere else. Let’s say the company owes them $20,000 in back commissions. The ex-employee is still entitled to their commission. However, some companies may not have the funds or don’t want to pay the commission and stall on the payment. Meanwhile, the ex-employee is feeling the pain of not having their money and is constantly contacting HR or leadership to find out when it’s coming.
Unfortunately many of these companies play this game for many months before people end up going to lawyers. The company is betting the ex-employee won’t seek legal representation and even if they do, the corporation has the legal power and funds on their side. The company may get a threatening letter from lawyers but they know that they have the upper hand and hope that the ex-employee will give up over time, because they will run out of money and patience.
The ex-employee has a better case if they can find others who are not receiving their payments either. By all of them getting together in a class action suit, their power is increased.
It is illegal for companies not to pay money they owe. Technically there are labor relations boards that handle complaints. However, after checking with the local Arizona state labor office, they only will help you with your claim up to $2500. For a list of state labor offices, please click here. In Arizona, if your claim is under $2500, they will investigate it and it can take up to 90 days to be resolved.
If your claim is over $2500, they won’t even look at it. It is then up to you to go through the civil courts which means lawyers, money and time. . .Things that the corporations have on their side.
For more articles on corporate ethics, check out:
Are Products Really as Green as They Claim? 95% of Them Apparently are Not
via sinsofgreenwashing.org
A survey from the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) that was just released claims that 95% of those products that label themselves as green are misleading us. Many are making claims without the proof to back them up.Â
What is greenwashing? If you combine whitewashing and green, it implies deception in the use of stating  a product is “green” when it may actually not be. This is a big topic that my students and I discuss in my marketing and ethics courses.
To see the study, Greenwashing Report 2010, click here.
In the report, they state the following:
- Since 2009 the number of green products has gone up by 73%
- They list 7 sins of greenwashing including:Â showing no proof and being vague
- Big box stores are the best providers of greener products
- They examined over 5200 products
- Greenwashing, although a problem, is actually declining
Some Notable Findings from the 2010 Report…
What is Rapleaf and What Do They Know About You?
Â
If you look at Rapleaf’s site (now Towerdata), they describe their business in the following manner: “Rapleaf is a San Francisco-based startup with an ambitious vision: we want every person to have a meaningful, personalized experience – whether online or offline. We want you see the right content at the right time, every time. We want you to get better, more personalized service. To achieve this, we help Fortune 2000 companies gain insight into their customers, engage them more meaningfully, and deliver the right message at the right time. We also help consumers understand their online footprint.”
According to an article by Emily Steel from the Wall Street Journal, Rapleaf is building a database with all of our information in it. They do this by tapping into voter-registration files and looking at our social networking, shopping and real estate purchases. According to that same article, “Rapleaf says it never discloses people’s names to clients for online advertising.”
I’ve seen blogs that consider this “scare journalism”. Are these articles meant to scare us or are they something we need to worry about?
Here is what The Wall Street Journal found:
- Rapleaf knows your real names and email addresses.
- It can build rich profiles by tapping voter-registration files, shopping histories, social-networking activities and more. In effect, it can built the ultimate dossier on you.
- Rapleaf sells pretty elaborate data that includes household income, age, political leaning, and even more granular details such as your interest in get-rich-quick schemes.
- According to the WSJ, Rapleaf segments people into 400 categories.
- Rapleaf says it doesn’t transmit personally identifiable data for online advertising, but the WSJ found that is not the case. Rapleaf shared a unique Facebook ID to at least 12 companies and a unique MySpace ID number to six companies. Any sharing was accidental, the company said.
- Politicians, both Democrats and Republicans, are using Rapleaf. It has provided data to 10 political campaigns