Found via John Moore at Brand Autopsy: “Contest: Your Worst Starbucks Experiences“

I posted the above link for a few reasons. No matter what side of the Starbucks fence you fall on, I guarantee you the comments left detailing people’s worst experiences are quite funny. I tend to fall on the independent coffee house (flush with Fair Trade options, no less) side, so I thoroughly enjoyed the jabs. Far more important, however, is the reason John points out in his post:

“It’s bad stuff that’s actually good stuff because we can learn just as much from worst practices as we can from best practices.”

I don’t think he’s making any kind of groundbreaking claim, but it is definitely a point well worth being reminded of every so often. So grab a cup of coffee (Starbucks or not), enjoy the humor and hopefully learn something new.

TAGS: Starbucks | Best Practices | Coffee | Strategy

I don’t usually post about geeky computer stuff (something else I would call “fun”) but today I read an article by Jeffrey Zeldman that deserves some serious attention. I won’t go into a background bio of Zeldman as it will bore most, and those that might find it interesting probably are already familiar with who he is. Suffice it to say, if  you are interested in doing anything content oriented on the internet, he’s a good person to know about.

In an article on A List Apart Zeldman writes about “Web 3.0″ and does so with a fiery and somewhat catty voice. About half of the article deals with AJAX and other techie stuff, but the other half speaks to substance. Substance in the sense of having a real purpose in your business ventures, in taking the steps that are appropriate because they make the most sense, not because they are trendy.

I’ve been mulling over social dynamics, business relationships, purpose, ethics and a whole slew of other heavy issues for the past week or two. Some of the topics are related to issues I’ve been dealing with recently while others are offshoots from the exploration I’ve been doing. Yet, for some reason, everything seemed to gel together (finally) when I came to the end of Zeldman’s article. Yes, it’s about new technology and the internet. But it’s also about having a purpose. And about creating companies, services and products that have value. And about ignoring the guy in the room with the loudest voice (you know, the one everyone listens to because he knows all the buzzwords and smiles a lot—but when you really listen to what he’s saying, you realize that “hot air” would be a compliment…).

I may be reading too much into the article, but I don’t think so. I highly recommend everyone take the time to read it and read it again. And for those of you who are tired of substance-less companies and so-called pundits, file it away for those times when you are digging your fingernails into your chair because you can’t take any more of the hyperbole…

TAGS: Substance | Zeldman | Business | Ethics

In the midst of my attempts to play catch-up on all of the reading I should have completed so far this quarter, I was pleased to come across a very refreshing passage in my Managerial Accounting text this morning:

“Satisfactory ROI is important, but it is by no means the only objective of a business. In many practical problems, personal satisfaction, friendship, community responsibilities, or other considerations may be much more important than ROI.” [pg. 876]

Kudos to the authors for making such a statement!

TAGS: Accounting | Ethics | Business | CSR

I regularly follow Seth Godin’s blog and always find something interesting and insightful in his posts. Today is no exception.

Check out “Farming and Hunting” for a great analogy between how our ancestors progressed from hunter-gatherer to more efficient and sustainable methods of acquiring sustenance, and the challenge businesses face today in finding new customers. Here’s an excerpt:

“Fortunately, we discovered/invented the idea of farming. Plant seeds, fertilize em, water em, watch em grow and then you harvest them.

“The idea spread and it led to the birth of civilization.

“Everyone got the idea… except for marketers.”

TAGS: Marketing | Sales | Business | Godin

There’s a great post, over at The Stalwart, about what a housing bubble looks like when it bursts, specifically in Shanghai.

TAGS: China | Bubble | Real Estate | Houses

It seems the US Supreme Court decided that it didn’t want to weigh in to resolve a dispute between the University of Texas and an online dating service.

“The high court let stand a federal appeals court’s ruling that UT did not violate the constitutional rights of White Buffalo Ventures when it blocked 59,000 e-mails in 2003.”

At first I raised my eyebrows at the headline and content of the Wired article—I tend to get uncomfortable when “e-mail” and “ban” appear in the same sentence. However, by the time I made it to the end (which didn’t take long — the author is to the point indeed), I didn’t retain the sentiment. It seems that the dating site was sending email advertisements to UT email addresses (yes, legally obtained) in volumes that stressed the university’s computer system. Additionally, while sending the messages they claimed to have, “complied with all anti-spam laws and argued that a federal act that allows certain e-mails superseded the university’s anti-spam policy.”

Hmmm.

Is it too much of a double standard that I think there should be few, if any, restrictions on the manner in which I communicate online, yet I would prefer to never (and I mean NEVER) receive another spam email message in my inbox. And yes, I’d be very happy if the individuals and companies who spread their meat substitute around as if the entire world needs to hear their variety of penis enlargement solutions or hot stock recommendations were forced to stop.

Where is the line between hypocrisy and simply expecting a certain amount of decency from those with access to my email address? Is it reasonable for me to expect that I only receive a handful of crap in my inbox instead of a veritable shipping container’s amount? Heck, I’d settle for a bucketful.

Further, and here’s the real question I wanted to ask, is it ethical to send spam? Is it ethical to block spam? Is it ethical to block spam while also expecting the freedom to email personx@eventlastweek.com as a follow up, even though you may not be on their “whitelist”?

TAGS: Spam | E-Mail | UT | Ethics

My very good friend John Robinson brought the following situation to my attention and I am very glad that he did… It seems that Microsoft is again prioritizing the needs and desires of an oppressive Chinese government ahead of freedom of speech (article from the Toronto Star).

“Microsoft Corp. has shut down the Internet journal of a Chinese blogger that discussed politically sensitive issues, including a recent strike at a Beijing newspaper.”

Wow. This kind of behavior baffles me and will continue to baffle me after someone raises their hand as says, “Yes, but, check out this…”

“Richardson said the blog was shut down Dec. 30 or Dec. 31 for violating Microsoft’s code of conduct, which states that users must obey the laws of the country in which they are based.”

Sorry, I still don’t get it. Why is it that we fight so passionately for certain freedoms and privileges in our own communities, yet so readily contribute to the oppression of others when it involves money? Am I being too obtuse about this, or is there something inherently wrong with multinationals taking such action?

Here’s a bit more:

“Microsoft’s Web log service bars use of terms such as ‘democracy’ and ‘human rights.’… On the China-based portal of search engine Google, a search for material on the Dalai Lama, Taiwan and other sensitive topics returns a message saying ’site cannot be found.’… Web portal Yahoo was criticized last year after it provided information that was used to convict a Chinese reporter on charges of revealing state secrets.”

Why is it that a US corporation that tries to send milk to starving Cuban families will get a very hard smack on the wrist by the US Government, yet when Google, Microsoft, Yahoo, and a host of other businesses not only hold the duct tape, but also have a hand in affixing it over a person’s mouth, nothing happens? Something is not right here…

[Update]: I was just reading The Business Ethics Blog and saw Chris MacDonald’s post about the same topic. He does an excellent job of laying out the issues involved including the ethical dynamic that, “companies have an ethical obligation to comply with local law [when doing business in other countries].” It is a great read and I’d recommend that everyone check it out.

TAGS: China | Microsoft | Censorship | Communism

If you check out the ticker box in the right column for the Social Mutual Funds I track, every one was up at the close of the market today. The graphic to the right is a screenshot to preserve the “up” moment.

If you haven’t looked into social funds as an investment vehicle, I highly recommend that you do. Each has a specific focus and it is very easy to find one that parallels your views. There’s nothing as fulfilling as earning a nice return on your money while also supporting businesses that believe in the same things you do.

TAGS: Social Funds | Mutual Funds | Investing | CSR

I just received an email about the Business Ethics Fortnight competition hosted by the Center for Ethics and Business and thought I should pass the information on for anyone else who might be interested. The Associate Dean of my MBA program sent it to all of the students and I imagine at least a few, myself included, will show interest in competing.

The competition sounds like a lot of fun and a great primer for anyone interested in ethics and business. Following is more information about the competition:

“The heart of Business Ethics Fortnight is a student team case/presentation competition. Students put together teams of 3 to 5 members and select an appropriate case. (Team members may be either undergraduate or graduate students, and they may come from any department or program in a college or university. Teams may also be made up of a combination of LMU and non-LMU students.) In the past, teams have worked on published cases, problems they have done their own research on, or dilemmas that the Center has gotten from area businesses. The range of possible topics is virtually infinite and can relate to any area of business.

“Each team prepares a presentation in which students explain the legal, financial and ethical dimensions of the problem. They then recommend a solution that must pass muster on all three counts. (Not surprisingly, even though all three areas must be dealt with, judges place special weight on the strength of the ethical analysis of the problem and the ethical acceptability of the solution. For this competition, the ethical character of analyses and recommendations will be evaluated from the perspective of “philosophical ethics.” That is, as appropriate to the case, judges will be looking for discussion of at least: the amount and type of tangible good and harm involved; and the intrinsic character of the actions involved.) The idea of the exercise is to help students see that it is possible to do business profitably while at the same time acting ethically.”

TAGS: MBA | Ethics | Business Ethics | LMU | Cal Poly