BloggingStocks

Vermont's sexy snowboard controversy

Peter Cohan — Mon, 05 Jan 2009 14:15:00 EST

Filed under: Consumer Experience, Competitive Strategy

Freedom of speech has its limits -- even in Vermont. That's the conclusion I reached after reading about the controversy of a Burlington, VT-based snowboard manufacturer -- Burton Snowboards -- that puts an image of a naked woman on the surface of its snowboards. These boards are inflaming local passions -- more than 100 protesters marched in front of its headquarters in October to protest the boards and urge consumers to boycott its products.

Burton opened its operation in Burlington in 1992 and it has a reputation as a good citizen. It matches child-care payments and pays for half of a worker's gym membership. But according to the Boston Globe those good citizen points are outweighed by the anger ginned up by the surface of its snowboards. One office manager in Burlington said, "When you really think about it, it's a young man standing on top of a naked woman's body. I probably could have gotten past it, because I try to have an open mind, but seeing it like that, it's offensive."

Burton may move its operations out of Burlington rather than cave in to the protesters. Do you think Burton's should change its product or does it have a right to put those images on its snowboards? Would you buy one of its products?

Gallery: Burton Snowboards: too sexy for the slopes?

Peter Cohan is President of Peter S. Cohan & Associates. He also teaches management at Babson College. Portfolio published his eighth book, You Can't Order Change: Lessons From Jim McNerney's Turnaround at Boeing on December 26, 2008.

To see all 10 of Sarah Gilbert's top 10 best and worst naked advertising campaigns, click here.

Vermont's sexy snowboard controversy originally appeared on BloggingStocks on Mon, 05 Jan 2009 14:15:00 EST. Please see our terms for use of feeds.

Read | Permalink | Email this | Comments

Big company, small town: Ben & Jerry's, Waterbury, Vermont

Eric Buscemi — Fri, 27 Jun 2008 17:10:00 EST

Filed under: Competitive Strategy, Entrepreneurs, Unilever ADR (UL)

This post is part of our Big Company, Small Town series, featuring large companies and the small towns in which they are headquartered.

This entry in the Big Company, Small Town series features one of the great recent American business success stories, as this powerhouse brand came from very humble beginnings only 30 years ago.

Ben & Jerry's was started in 1978, when Long Island, N.Y., natives Ben Cohen and Jerry Greenfield used a $12,000 investment to open up a homemade ice cream scoop shop in Burlington, Vermont. The Ben & Jerry's shop grew rapidly in popularity, and by 1980 they began packing pints to sell in grocery stores. By 1985, the company's sales were more than $9 million, and it began building its manufacturing plant in nearby Waterbury, Vermont. The plant in Waterbury was then opened to the public for tours of Ben & Jerry's ice cream making operations, creating a tourist attraction for the town, which has a population of around 1,700.

Although Ben & Jerry's was bought in 2000 by Unilever (NYSE: UN) for $326 million, the company still maintains its local roots, with its headquarters in South Burlington and its factory still open for tours in Waterbury. The founders of Ben & Jerry's, while no longer holding any positions within the company, have worked with Unilever to make sure it remains as socially conscious as when they ran it, keeping that small-town, grassroots feel that made it such a success worldwide.

To this day, Ben & Jerry's maintains its Free Cone Day, which Ben & Jerry started to honor the first anniversary of their ice cream shop.

Be sure to check out more Big Company, Small Town posts.

Big company, small town: Ben & Jerry's, Waterbury, Vermont originally appeared on BloggingStocks on Fri, 27 Jun 2008 17:10:00 EST. Please see our terms for use of feeds.

Permalink | Email this | Comments

Hillary can't wait for Pennsylvania

Joseph Lazzaro — Wed, 05 Mar 2008 17:21:00 EST

Filed under: Other Issues, Politics

Tuesday's primary victories in Ohio, Texas and Rhode Island gave Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-New York, about all her campaign could hope for: solid performances and a chance to close the delegate gap in the next primary, in Pennsylvania on April 22.

Still, the delegate math remains rough for the candidate seeking to become the first woman nominated for president by a major U.S. political party. Sen. Barack Obama, D-Illinois, leads in delegates, 1477-1391, including pledged superdelegates, according to a Washington Post tally, and the Clinton campaign's strategy will now be to try to close the delegate gap to 60 or so with a win in Pennsylvania. Two caucuses, Wyoming and Mississippi, occur before the Pennsylvania primary, and Sen. Obama is expected to win each and increase his delegate lead heading into Pennsylvania.

In 187-delegate Pennsylvania, the demographics favor Sen. Clinton -- she's leading in statewide polls there - - and the Clinton campaign likes its chances. Pennsylvania has a large working class -- which, along with women voters and Latin-Americans, forms the bulk of Clinton's base. If Sen. Clinton registers a solid win in Pennsylvania, she can make the case that although Sen. Obama has the delegate lead, she has won in the major states of New York, California, Texas, Ohio and Pennsylvania, and probably would have won in Florida, had the delegate count been included in the Democratic Party's nominating process. That big-state coalition, and the fact that she's the candidate of the working class, would be two strong philosophical points as the campaign attempts to secure pledges from the to-date 353 un-pledged superdelegates. (Note: The number of un-pledged delegates is likely to decline by the end of the primary season on June 3.)

Continue reading Hillary can't wait for Pennsylvania

Hillary can't wait for Pennsylvania originally appeared on BloggingStocks on Wed, 05 Mar 2008 17:21:00 EST. Please see our terms for use of feeds.

Permalink | Email this | Comments

New Jersey may yet be no. 1 in taxes

Jonathan Berr — Thu, 05 Apr 2007 14:40:00 EST

Filed under: Economic Data, Personal Finance, Politics

When I read that New Jersey wasn't the least tax-friendly state, my civic pride was hurt.

This is worse than when Newark, Camden and Trenton were edged out by St. Louis for the title of most dangerous city. Having high taxes is a matter of pride to New Jersey residents like myself.

But the people at the Tax Foundation point out that New Jersey may yet take the title from the Peoples Republic of Vermont, which has won it for two years in a row. The state currently ranks number 10 and has advanced 14 places since 2000.

Last year, New Jersey's sales tax was raised from 6 to 7 percent. Other taxes, including one on cigarettes were also raised and a corporate income tax surcharge was implemented.

New Jersey is tops in property taxes no matter how you slice the data, according to the Tax Foundation's William Ahern.

Good, I needed something to brag about to my relatives in New York and Pennsylvania besides having the safest community.

New Jersey may yet be no. 1 in taxes originally appeared on BloggingStocks on Thu, 05 Apr 2007 14:40:00 EST. Please see our terms for use of feeds.

Read | Permalink | Email this | Comments

Do you live in a tax-friendly state?

Beth Gaston Moon — Thu, 05 Apr 2007 11:43:00 EST

Filed under: Internet

While Vermont might be the healthiest state in the union, its residents are paying dearly, according to recent findings from the Tax Foundation. Specifically, 14.1% of a Green Mountain State resident's income is funneled away to state and local taxes, making it the least tax-friendly of all 50 U.S. states. Maine ranks second, with 14.0% of a resident's income earmarked for state and local taxes. Rounding out the bottom five are New York, Rhode Island, and Ohio.

And for the 17th year in a row, Alaska was named the most tax-friendly state, as only 6.6% of an Alaskan's income will go toward state and local taxes. New Hampshire is second on the list, at 8.0%, followed by Tennessee, Delaware, and Alabama.

The tax burden calculated by this study combines state and local income taxes, property taxes, sales taxes, and others. To find out where your state ranks, click here.

Beth Gaston Moon is an analyst at Schaeffer's Investment Research.

Do you live in a tax-friendly state? originally appeared on BloggingStocks on Thu, 05 Apr 2007 11:43:00 EST. Please see our terms for use of feeds.

Read | Permalink | Email this | Comments

Here's to your health: Vermont tops list of healthiest states

Beth Gaston Moon — Tue, 03 Apr 2007 11:01:00 EST

Filed under: Internet, Rants and Raves

Last week, I linked to an article on the 12 most dangerous (and safest) states, based on various violent-crime statistics. Many New England territories were among those judged as "safest," and for the sixth time in seven years, Vermont has now topped the charts as America's healthiest state (I guess the locally made Ben & Jerry's ice cream is enjoyed sparingly!). The rulings, published by Morgan Quitno Press for the past 15 years, are based on 21 factors, including teenage birth rate, health coverage, and rate of certain diseases.

Next on the list is Minnesota, hitting number one in terms of the percentage of residents who exercise regularly and those carrying health insurance. The New England region rounds out the top five, with Massachusetts, Maine, and New Hampshire taking the three-through-five spots.

The remainder of the top 12:

Continue reading Here's to your health: Vermont tops list of healthiest states

Here's to your health: Vermont tops list of healthiest states originally appeared on BloggingStocks on Tue, 03 Apr 2007 11:01:00 EST. Please see our terms for use of feeds.

Read | Permalink | Email this | Comments

Mamas boycotting Delta over breastfeeding brouhaha

Sarah Gilbert — Wed, 15 Nov 2006 11:37:00 EST

Filed under: Bad News, Consumer Experience, Scandals, US Airways Group (LCC), Delta Air Lines (DAL)

My breastfeeding email lists are buzzing this morning with news of a sweet-looking New Mexico mother, Emily Gillette. She was flying on Freedom Airlines, a Delta Connection provider, and she was breastfeeding her 22-month-old daughter. Do you know about breastfeeding on airplanes? Many mamas like me swear by it; the sucking action keeps babies' ears from popping and there's nothing better to keep a fussy child from crying.

But the flight attendant on Emily's airplane wasn't so pleased, and asked the mom to cover up, notwithstanding the Public Accommodations Act which protects public breastfeeding in Vermont, where the airplane was parked (most U.S. states have similar statutes). When she wouldn't cover the baby's head with a blanket, as the flight attendant insisted, Emily and her husband and daughter were escorted off the airplane by a Delta ticket agent. While Delta did find an alternate flight for the Gillettes and paid for their hotel that night, it's worth noting that the flight from Burlington to New York had already been delayed three hours -- so in one small act, a family was transformed from slightly frustrated customers to the lead on tomorrow's Good Morning America.

Mamas everywhere are incensed. "I wrote a letter to Delta and canceled my flight!" said one working mom. Another said she was "so mad." The buzz at Blogging Baby is intense with many commenters indicating that they're avoiding Delta or airplanes altogether.

You can argue extended breastfeeding all you like but the ramifications for Delta Air Lines, Inc. (OTC:DALRQ) could be interesting, especially given the unsolicited bid by US Airways Group, Inc. (NYSE:LCC). Could the breastfeeding brouhaha put Delta over the edge?

Mamas boycotting Delta over breastfeeding brouhaha originally appeared on BloggingStocks on Wed, 15 Nov 2006 11:37:00 EST. Please see our terms for use of feeds.

Permalink | Email this | Comments