Continue reading Have Exchanges Reached the Limits of Automated Trading?

Have Exchanges Reached the Limits of Automated Trading? originally appeared on BloggingStocks on Mon, 10 May 2010 17:40:00 EST. Please see our terms for use of feeds.

Continue reading Victoria's Secret trips over 'sexy'

Victoria's Secret trips over 'sexy' originally appeared on BloggingStocks on Wed, 28 May 2008 18:00:00 EST. Please see our terms for use of feeds.

eBay gives Craigslist a 28.4% yank of the chain; Craigslist bites back originally appeared on BloggingStocks on Wed, 14 May 2008 16:04:00 EST. Please see our terms for use of feeds.

Ronald McDonald's first ad -- compelling or creepy? originally appeared on BloggingStocks on Mon, 16 Jul 2007 15:11:00 EST. Please see our terms for use of feeds.

I have to wonder if Martha Stewart asks for anyone's opinion before she attempts some of the moves that she does. I wanted to write a simple post regarding her settlement with shareholders stemming from her ImClone stock shares debacle but then I ran into this other interesting stuff. Now, CBS News reports that Martha Stewart has upset the native American community where she lives by filing an application to trademark a name they revere so she may use it for her own commercial purposes.

Martha would like to trademark the name "Katonah." It's the name of the village where she lives and it was the name of a 17th century Ramapough Lenape Indian Nation tribal chief. Representatives of the tribe find Martha's trademark application offensive and stand in strong opposition to the move. Ms. Stewart explains that she wishes to honor the name by using it in conjunction with a line of home furnishings and interior paint. The tribe however refuses to surrender the name to commercial status. "We welcomed her when she came, but we're frustrated and confused that she would try to exploit the town in this way," said local newspaper editor R.J. Marx in February, when his paper first broke the story.

I'm hoping that Martha will just let this thing die easy. After all, for her it's just a name. For the tribe and for the native American community at large it represents a tangible piece of heritage and I can fully understand why they stand against it being used for profit generation. Perhaps the Wisconsin tribal communities will get the idea from this situation and remove all the native American names from their casinos, but I'm thinking they probably won't.

Martha Stewart might need a couple good advisors originally appeared on BloggingStocks on Fri, 01 Jun 2007 14:30:00 EST. Please see our terms for use of feeds.

Starbucks (NYSE: SBUX) may get its wish to own the rights to Ethiopia's regional coffee names. Starbucks had spent several months attempting to discourage the Ethiopian government from seeking trademark protection for its coffee names, but will now try to license the names from the country.

Starbucks' efforts to keep the names unprotected resulted in a predictable backlash: National media coverage and numerous organizations lashing out at Starbucks for its self-serving attitude about trademarks. Now Starbucks is doing the right thing, forking over money for the rights to distribute and market products under those names.

Starbucks has to be careful about its image. Its size and success comes with the inevitable rise in anti-Starbucks sentiment, as evidenced by sites like Ihatestarbucks.com. The company has done extremely well to date maintaining the feel of its stores, and is consistently rated one of the best companies to work for, providing benefits to part-time employees.

But blunders like the Ethiopian coffee scandal will only hurt it. The bad press Starbucks drew was probably not worth the few dollars it was trying to save.

Starbucks moves closer to deal on Ethiopian branding rights originally appeared on BloggingStocks on Fri, 04 May 2007 18:30:00 EST. Please see our terms for use of feeds.

YouTube, (NASDAQ: GOOG) awaits those clever minds that shall reap the great rewards stored within it's pixels. Sources like LonelyBloggers are already reporting that "lonelygirl15" is actively seeking sponsors. Could it be that a cornucopia of income producing opportunities is at our hands? You had better believe so!

Google itself is just beginning to poke and prod the video web world to find sound and sustainable ways to legitimize YouTube as a profit generating force to be reckoned with. The GigaOM blog reported on Google's placement of Shashi Seth to spearhead those efforts. A nice choice of personnel for the task, I might add.

But what is most intriguing to me are some of the ideas that are swirling around in regard to the ways little guy might garner some of that cash. For instance, there's an idea that successful YouTubers could solicit sponsorships for name recognition spots and trademark icon placements. These "tubers" would, for a one time fee from $50 to $500, place a company's product image or logo in the lower corner of their video as a "watermark" image similar to those ghosted logos you see in the lower right corner of most of your favorite television programs. Also being considered are product placements within user videos.

What the proposition requires is that the YouTuber must be able to document prior performance (viewership) of their videos, they must exhibit proper business acumen, they need to be registered with the proper taxing authorities as a viable business and they need to understand negotiations and contracts. It is already believed that contracts for advertising via YouTube videos are to be solicited from Coke, Pepsi, EverReady, Kodak and Sprint Nextel.

Some bright techie with gonads, smarts and some business law background is going to lay hold of this concept and form a management group strictly for negotiating YouTube advertising contracts. They need to get in right now while the door is open wide. No doubt Google is aware that these concepts will quickly take root. It will be better for everyone if an independent gets in there and wedges the door open before Google tightens up the program.

( Off in the distance, I hear the sound of someone getting filthy rich!)

Rumors from the blogs: monetizing YouTube originally appeared on BloggingStocks on Fri, 30 Mar 2007 10:57:00 EST. Please see our terms for use of feeds.

Wal-Mart Stores Inc. (NYSE:WMT) has accused former advertising executives Julie Roehm and Sean Womack of having a sexual relationship and of promoting themselves at an advertising agency involved in reviewing the retailer's business as job candidates.

Roehm, who was fired in December after being head of marketing communications for less than a year, denied Wal-Mart's claims and Womack couldn't be reached for comment, according to the New York Times. She's sued the company for breach of contract and fraud. Wal-Mart has filed a counter suit. Womack left Wal-Mart with Roehm.

It's a pity that Wal-Mart got rid of Roehm. She tried to give the retailer's advertising some much-needed pizazz. The company's advertising is as boring as ever, which at time of heightened competition from Target Corp. (NYSE:TGT) is not a good thing.

In other news, Wal-Mart withdrew its application to trade market the acronym for "Everyday Low Prices" after competitors objected, according to the Wall Street Journal. This underscores the new reality for Wal-Mart which now needs to convince customers that they can get quality along with low prices.

That's not going to be easy.

Wal-Mart needs to take a good, hard look at its brand. It's a pity that the person who was best equipped to do it is no longer with the company.

Wal-Mart's breakup with former executives turns ugly originally appeared on BloggingStocks on Tue, 20 Mar 2007 08:01:00 EST. Please see our terms for use of feeds.

Did anyone really expect the fight be ween Apple Inc. (NASDAQ:AAPL) and Cisco Systems Inc. (NASDAQ:CSCO) over the term iPhone to last for long?

Intellectual property litigation is time-consuming and expensive. Companies will move mountains to resolve their disputes, which apparently has happened in this case. The Associated Press reports that the two companies agreed to allow Apple to use the name iPhone in "exchange for exploring wide-ranging `interoperability' between the companies' products in the areas of security, consumer and business communications."

I can only imagine how many hours it took the teams of lawyers involved in the case to come up with such a vague statement. Reading between the lines, it appears that Apple thought Cisco had the potential to delay the release of the iPhone. Even if Cisco eventually lost the case, that was a chance that Apple couldn't afford to take.

It remains unclear what Cisco is going to get for its troubles. All Apple agreed to do was "explore" insuring that its products would work with Cisco. That doesn't guarantee that anything will happen but it's in the best interests of both companies to try and make this relationship work.

As expected, Apple and Cisco bury the hatchet originally appeared on BloggingStocks on Thu, 22 Feb 2007 07:40:00 EST. Please see our terms for use of feeds.

Cisco sues Apple over 'iPhone' moniker originally appeared on BloggingStocks on Wed, 10 Jan 2007 19:19:00 EST. Please see our terms for use of feeds.

Continue reading Utube sues YouTube, but willing to settle with Google

Utube sues YouTube, but willing to settle with Google originally appeared on BloggingStocks on Thu, 02 Nov 2006 10:08:00 EST. Please see our terms for use of feeds.

Starbucks mistreats Ethiopian coffee growers? originally appeared on BloggingStocks on Thu, 26 Oct 2006 10:14:00 EST. Please see our terms for use of feeds.

AppleInsider is reporting that Justice Edward Mann will be handing down a ruling on the Apple vs. Apple case a week from today.

Recall that in March, Apple Corps, owner of the Beatles "Apple" trademark, brought charges against Apple Computer claiming that the terms of a 1991 settlement  were broken when Apple launched iTunes. In the previous agreement, Apple Computer agreed to not distribute music content on "physical media." Currently, Apple claims that the electronic distribution of music inherent in iTunes is not a breach of the agreement. Apple Computer also agreed to pay Apple Corps $26 million, peanuts considering the value the brand garners today.

The bear case for Apple Computer includes risks that damages might run considerably higher this time around or, worst case, that Justice Mann will order some type of restriction from use of the trademark.

That said, I would not be surprised to see some type of an agreement before the judgment as neither side will benefit from the lengthy appeals process a judgment might provoke.

Even still, while an Apple a day may keep the doctor away, apparently, it does little to keep the lawyers at bay.

Apple Computer vs. Apple Corps ruling due May 8 originally appeared on BloggingStocks on Mon, 01 May 2006 15:30:00 EST. Please see our terms for use of feeds.

iPod joining Kleenex, Xerox as 'generic' names to describe category? originally appeared on BloggingStocks on Fri, 31 Mar 2006 15:22:00 EST. Please see our terms for use of feeds.