Finally, A Reason To Travel To Ecuador

Yesterday I flew back to the US from London without too much hassle (word of warning to those flying in the UK: they now have a strict 1-bag carry-on policy for ALL flights). Overall my flight was mostly enjoyable and I got a lot of work done. Still I felt like something was missing, only I couldn't figure out what it was. Now I know, what I was really looking for was a lingerie fashion show while I was on the plane. Of course to have had that I would have had to have been on one of Air Icaro's new flights (there's a video along with the story, tasteful of course. Be sure to note the facial expressions of the passengers).

Seriously, I'm not creative enough to make this up. This belongs in the marketing hall-of-fame. Anytime I see something like this I can only imagine the "boardroom" discussion. I bet someone made a PowerPoint presentation with two slides:
-Problem: We're having trouble attracting business to Icaro Airlines (web site)
-Solution: Hire attractive models to give passengers 10 minute fashion show while they're on the air plane.

I hope whomever came up with the idea gets a raise. I did some research and there's actually a Wikipedia entry on Icaro (interesting note, Wikipedia already had the info on the lingerie show, what an amazing resource). Note they have a grand total of 6 airplanes (3 of which are called "Fokkers" -- I'd never fly in one of those). SIX AIRPLANES! That's not an airline. It's more like a car service. Hell I think a lot of companies have more than six airplanes. Seriously though, you run a tiny airline in Ecuador and you need to increase traffic. This is a great way to not only do that, but get a ton of free advertising (how much would you pay to appear in Dauber's World? Can I start the bidding @ $10K?).

Of course, seeing this makes me realize that we'll never get something like this in the States. If a US airline ever did this they'd get boycotted by all sorts of organizations. TV commentators would feign disgust and people would go on and on about how our morals are deteriorating. I for one applaud Icaro's efforts and promise to fly them the first chance I get.

Who's More the Fool? The Fool of the Fool Who Follows Him?

Ok, this is getting ridiculous. Yet another from the files of "truth is stranger than fiction". Another absolute gift has been handed to me. Do I really need to comment on this? Why on Earth is the CEO of Whole Foods posting on the Yahoo message board about HIS OWN COMPANY?!?! Do I need to list all the reasons that's retarded? Forgetting everything else, doesn't he have something better to do? Anything better to do? I'm more productive reading ESPN.com than Mackey is making those posts. I'm almost at a loss for words (I said "almost" stop laughing). Anyways, this may seem like a cop-out, but here's another article posted as-in. Enjoy...

Whole Foods CEO Mackey Posted
Comments on Stock Message Board

By DAVID KESMODEL and JOHN R. WILKE
July 11, 2007 6:03 p.m.

In January 2005, someone using the name "Rahodeb" went online to a Yahoo stock-market forum and posted this opinion: No company would want to buy Wild Oats Markets Inc., a natural-foods grocer, at its price then of about $8 a share.

"Would Whole Foods buy OATS?" Rahodeb asked, using Wild Oats' stock symbol. "Almost surely not at current prices. What would they gain? OATS locations are too small." Rahodeb speculated that Wild Oats eventually would be sold after sliding into bankruptcy or when its stock price dipped below $5. A month later, Rahodeb wrote that Wild Oats' management "clearly doesn't know what it is doing... OATS has no value and no future."

The comments were typical of the banter on Internet message boards for stocks -- but the identity of the writer was anything but. Rahodeb was the online pseudonym for John Mackey, co-founder and chief executive of Whole Foods Market Inc. Earlier this year, his company agreed to buy Wild Oats for $565 million.

For about eight years until last August, Mr. Mackey posted voluminous messages on Yahoo's stock forums as Rahodeb, the company confirms. The moniker is an anagram for Deborah, which happens to be the name of Mr. Mackey's wife. Rahodeb routinely cheered Whole Foods' financial results, trumpeted his personal gains on the stock, and bashed Wild Oats.

Rahodeb even defended Mr. Mackey's haircut when another user poked fun at a photograph in Whole Foods' annual report. "I like Mackey's haircut," Rahodeb said. "I think he looks cute!"

Mr. Mackey's online alter ego came to light in a document made public late Tuesday by the Federal Trade Commission in its lawsuit seeking to block the Whole Foods-Wild Oats deal. The 45-page filing, submitted under seal when the lawsuit was filed in June, includes a quote from the Yahoo site in which Mr. Mackey said "the writing is on the wall" for Wild Oats. An FTC footnote said, "As here, Mr. Mackey often posted to Internet sites pseudonymously, often using the name Rahodeb."

Whole Foods didn't authenticate each and every one of Rahodeb's postings as being from Mr. Mackey, who declined to be interviewed. However, the company said in a statement that among millions of documents the company gave the FTC were postings Mr. Mackey made from 1999 to 2006 "under an alias to avoid having his comments associated with the Company and to avoid others placing too much emphasis on his remarks." The statement said, "Many of the opinions expressed in these postings now have far less relevance than when they were written." A spokeswoman for Wild Oats declined to comment.

Mr. Mackey, a 53-year-old vegan, co-founded Whole Foods in 1980. He built the Austin, Texas, company into the world's largest organic and natural-foods grocer, in part by acquiring many smaller chains. Like Whole Foods itself, Mr. Mackey is unconventional. He slashed his annual salary to $1 starting last January, explaining later that "this is what my heart is telling me is the appropriate thing to do right now." Outspoken and opinionated, he writes his own blog on the company's Web site. (Read the blog.)

READ RAHODEB'S COMMENTS

• Rahodeb's farewell comment to the Yahoo message board for Whole Foods stock in August 2006:
http://tinyurl.com/24vtow

• In the following entry, Rahodeb says the fundamentals of Wild Oats shares haven't improved and that its stock price had risen merely because of speculation of a buyout:
http://tinyurl.com/267oc7

• In the following dispatch, Rahodeb lambastes a Yahoo user who claimed Wild Oats had been a takeover target at $14 to $16 a share:
http://tinyurl.com/23el99

• In this entry, Rahodeb predicts that Whole Foods shares will one day trade at more than $800:
http://tinyurl.com/2bz3ow

• In the following, Rahodeb claims Whole Foods shares are undervalued and Wild Oats is overvalued:
http://tinyurl.com/2hrrkt

Note: Whole Foods didn't authenticate each and every one of Rahodeb's postings as being from Mr. Mackey. But the company and Mr. Mackey confirmed that he made numerous postings under the name Rahodeb from 1999 to 2006.

MORE

• Whole Foods confirms that John Mackey used an alias in making comments about the company's stock on Yahoo's Web site:
http://www.wholefoodsmarket.com/ftchearingupdates/faq.html

• A link to John Mackey's blog:
http://www.wholefoodsmarket.com/blogs/jm/

• Read the full text of the FTC complaint and the FTC document released July 10.

• Whole Foods CEO Has Heated Words for FTC
06/27/2007

• CEO's Words May Cook Whole Foods
06/20/2007

Whole Foods agreed in February to acquire Wild Oats, of Boulder, Colo., for $18.50 a share. The FTC sued to block the deal on antitrust grounds in U.S. District Court in Washington, D.C., saying the combination would reduce competition and raise prices for consumers.

To buttress its case, the FTC is trying to use Mr. Mackey's words against him. In its lawsuit, it quoted Mr. Mackey informing other Whole Foods board members that buying Wild Oats would enable the company to "avoid nasty price wars" in several markets and reduce the chance that a big conventional grocer like Kroger Co. would create a competing national natural-foods retailer.

When that part of the FTC's suit became public, Mr. Mackey fired back at the agency with a 14,000-word treatise on his blog. He accused the government of "bullying tactics," failing to do its homework, and taking out of context "macho posturing" by executives that is common to competitive organizations.

Rahodeb began posting messages about Whole Foods shares on Yahoo.com in the late 1990s. He quickly gained a reputation as being one of the stock's biggest cheerleaders, and gamely defended himself when other posters chastised him for being too rosy. "I've never pretended to be anything but enthusiastic about WFMI," he wrote in 2000, using Whole Foods' stock symbol. "I admit to my bias -- I love the company and I'm in for the long haul. I shop at Whole Foods. I own a great deal of its stock. I'm aligned with the mission and values of the company... Is there something wrong with this?"

Rahodeb often expressed pride in the work of Mr. Mackey. "While I'm not a 'Mackey groupie,' " he wrote in 2000, "I do admire what the man has accomplished -- building a $1.6 billion business from scratch is quite an achievement." He then asked another user, "whtmewrry 99," what he or she had accomplished by comparison. (The poster doesn't appear to have replied.)

By 2005, Whole Foods had grown to more than 160 stores and its annual sales were $4 billion, making it the leading player in the natural and organic foods sector. In a message in January of that year, Rahodeb predicted great things for Whole Foods' stock. "13 years from now Whole Foods will be a $800+ stock before splits," he wrote. "Whole Foods is a tremendous growth stock." At the time, the shares traded at about $94. Whole Foods' shares closed yesterday at $39.50, up $1.03, or 2.68%.

Rahodeb often sparred with other users, deploying a rigorous analysis of financial statements. "Your quarterly cash flow variance isn't statistically meaningful because the time period is too short," he complained to another user who had criticized Whole Foods in March 2006. He then pasted a summary of the previous six years of Whole Foods' operating cash flow. "Over the past 5 years operating cash flow has increased 330%," Rahodeb noted.

When it came to Wild Oats, Whole Foods' main rival, Rahodeb didn't pull punches. He often criticized Perry Odak, Wild Oats' former CEO, who resigned last year. "While Odak was trying to figure out the business and conducting expensive 'research studies,' to help him figure things out, Whole Foods was signing and opening large stores in OATS territories," Rahodeb wrote in 2005. "Odak drove off most of the long-term OATS natural foods managers" and brought in executives who "didn't know too much about the natural/organics industry or their customers."

Mr. Odak, in a telephone interview, said he was aware of critical postings, but had no idea Mr. Mackey might have been behind them. "It doesn't surprise me," he added.

When on occasion Rahodeb went without posting for several weeks, some users expressed concern about his whereabouts. On at least one occasion, he reassured them that he'd been away but was keeping abreast of the chat.

Last August, Rahodeb filed his last dispatch on the Whole Foods message board. He said he'd lost a bet with "hubris12000" about Whole Foods' stock performance; the terms of the bet required that he stop posting. He blamed the whims of the stock market for a 40% decline in the company's shares.

"Whole Foods itself has a very bright future, and I will continue to hold my stock for a very long time," he wrote. "I've enjoyed my 8 years on this Board, but all things must come to an end. I wish everyone the very best. Hog152-keep the faith. Liberfar-good luck with your market-timing game. Hubris12000-take your profits while you can."

When in Toulouse Do as the Toulousians Do...

My high number of blog postings today can be attributed to lots of time in air ports and not wanting to sleep. I got into Toulouse late tonight and saw ads for EADS (the parent company of Airbus) all over the airport. I'd been thinking about Airbus a lot lately both because my Econ Prof (smart guy, check out his website) loves to make fun of them (my favorite comment being when he said that France wanted to be a "real" country so they started to subsidize EADS to help them compete with Boeing) and because they've been in the news a lot. There' s actually a big article in The Wall Street Journal on a spat they're having w/ GE and about supplying engines for the A350 here (if you have a subscription or steal it from someone).

The article reminded me just how badly Boeing's 787 is beating the pants off of the A350. To date Boeing has 677 firm orders to the A350's 154! I believe the technical term for that is an ass whuppin' (but I'll have to double check). I think it's interesting because this is one of the few industries where you really get to watch companies make strategic decisions and see how they play out over time. I remember when both companies unveiled their respective designs there was a lot of back-and-forth about which company had the right approach (since they chose such divergent paths). The A350 is a gargantuan plane aimed at highly traveled long-haul routes whereas the 787 is an extremely fuel-efficient plane that isn't as large, but can be configured for different route lengths depending on what airlines want. Today I don't think there's much of a debate. Airbus has been saddled by delays and major order cancellations (even Fred Smith canceled FedEx's order and he LOVES buying airplanes). Incidentally, how many more times will Europe need to go through this before they stop throwing subsidies at commercial airplanes? The A350 is an engineering marvel (just like the Concorde was), but if no one buys it what good is it?

It's also interesting to see how this drags other companies into the mix. In the WSJ article Airbus is complaining about Boeing's apparent unwillingness to design an engine for them (I'm sure the lack of orders and massive production delays has nothing to do with it). My favorite quote:

"The problem we have with GE is they go to [Boeing in] Seattle and say, 'What kind of engine should we design for your airframe?' " said John Leahy, Airbus's chief operating officer for customers and its top salesman. "Then they come to [Airbus in] Toulouse and say, 'Here is the kind of airframe you need to build to fit our engine.' "

Airbus/EADS reminds me a lot of the Uncle Leo character on Seinfeld (hey, I haven't worked a Seinfeld thread into a post in a while). Uncle Leo thinks everyone is anti-semitic (I have some relatives like that actually). There's a great episode where he breaks up with his JEWISH girlfriend for laughing at a Jewish jokes. Of course he accuses her of being anti-semitic too. Throughout this whole A350 debacle Airbus blames everyone else but themselves. I'm sure if they have any problems they just drag the WTO or the EU in and accuse Boeing of being unfair.

They Forgot the Eight Wonder

Well, it's official, the "new" Seven Wonders of the World were announced yesterday. I'm not going to even bother asking why anyone spent time on this. Everyone knows that technology is really for one reason: making lists/rankings. That what humans like to do. We like to rank things. Absolute scales be damned. We just like to know that we're better than the person sitting next to us. Imagine if College Football did have a playoff -- what would the millions of College Football fans have to do every year? The AFI just re-released their top 100 films list. Somehow since the last list came out critics decided that "Godfather" was more deserving of the #2 spot than "Casablanca" and "Raging Bull" shot up all the way to #4. Never mind that none of these movies have changed AT ALL since their release. But I digress...

The first real controversy with the whole Seven Wonders deal came about when Egypt was offended that the Pyramids had to "re-qualify" for the honor. As the only surviving member of the original Seven they felt they deserved a special distinction. It's a good thing the Egyptian government has resolved all of the issues that the Egyptian people face that they can spend time arguing this point. I honestly agree with them (and I've seen the Pyramids, they're honestly incredible), but I would hope that they have bigger things to worry about. Last I checked Egypt's citizens aren't exactly in great shape. Egypt is a pretty poor country. Maybe the government could try doing something useful for a change?

Looking over the list of the "new" Seven Wonders (new is in quotes since a lot of these are REALLY old) most of them make sense to me. Great Wall of China, Taj Mahal, Chichén Itzá (where my brother's glasses were stolen by a spider monkey -- biggest regret of my life that I didn't see that in person), Machu Picchu, Petra (in Jordan. You know, the scene from India Jones and the Last Crusade) and The Roman Colloseum are all pretty strong. But the 7th "wonder" Christ the Redeemer in Rio? Come on. It's a tall statue on top of a hill. It was built in 1931. It's a nice landmark, but is it really comparable to The Great Wall of China? When I was a little kid I used to watch "Sesame Street". I remember a little skit they did with a song where they sang, "Which of these kids is doing his own this? Come on can you tell which one? Which of these kids is doing his own thing his own thing? Can you tell before this song is done...". Wow, can't believe I remember that. Anyways, Christ the Redeemer just doesn't belong at all. To me to be worthy of the term "wonder" here you'd have to be willing to travel to that country JUST to see that attraction. I'd to China to see the Great Wall. I'd go to India for the Taj Mahal. I would love to go to Rio, but I don't think I'd care if I saw the statue. If they were going to pick a modern wonder I think the Eiffel Tower is more impressive technically (for the time) and has effectively become the symbol of a nation (am I complimenting France?). Alternatively I'd probably pick the Acropolis or Angkor in Cambodia, both of which are infinitely more impressive than a statue on a hill.

I'm sure this oversight can be rectified when the "New Seven Wonders 10th Anniversary Edition" comes out in 2017...

Intelligent Design?

Well, I just landed in London which means it's time for me to list my grievances with air travel on this continent. First though I have a non-complaint. In fact, I think I think it's actually a compliment (hush). I LOVE this no-smoking deal in the UK. Heathrow is soooooo much nicer w/out cigarette smoke.

That being said though I continue to be mystified by how complicated it is to make flight connections in Europe's two largest airports (Heathrow and Frankfurt). I'm reasonably sure millions of people land in these two airports and then fly somewhere else. Yet every time I make a connection I'm stunned by the seemingly random nature of the process.

Let me describe what I had to do to get to my Air France gate so I could sit and wait for hours (I mean catch my flight to Paris). I landed in Terminal 3 which is where all the Transatlantic flights arrive. I then follow signs to Terminals 1 & 2 and after meandering about for 5 minutes I get to a bus that drives me around the Heathrow until I get to some terminal. Then I'm about to go through a security line to get to my gate when I'm informed that I need to go someplace else because I have two pieces of luggage (apparently you can only have 1 carry-on in Europe now). I have to go through immigration and when I exit I find myself @ Terminal arrivals with a swarm of people looking for their family. I know Heathrow reasonably well, so I found the underground tunnels that run between terminals. Walked another half mile back to Terminal 2 and found the Air France check-in counter. Apparently Terminal 2 was built when the average height of humans was 5' tall. I've never seen ceilings so long in a "real" room before. They were about 6'8" which made me feel like the ceiling was about to fall on me. Anyways Air France, in their infinite wisdom decided to staff all three desks with trainees AT THE SAME TIME and left one manager to make sure they didn't make any mistakes. My trainee was very friendly, but had I not been paying attention my luggage to Toulouse (yes, I don't have a direct flight from London to Toulouse, to save $100 I'm flying all day...) would have been sent BACK to Charles De Gaulle (after landing in Toulouse of course). After finally getting my ticket I was able to make my way to my gate. I think they could make this process slightly simpler. I can't imagine how people who don't fly through here often manage. If I hadn't been to Heathrow before I would have had no idea what to do.

Oh, a side complaint about Air France: they don't let you stand-by for flights! There was space on an earlier flight to Paris but I'd have to purchase a new ticket, despite the fact that there's space on the plane. And to purchase a new ticket you have to go to a different counter and then come back and wait in line with the three trainees. No thank you...

Fast Cars, Small Penises and Australian Men

Normally I have to really think about a post. I'll spend time thinking of how to spin the story into something amusing for you the loyal readers. Once-in-a-while though the stories are perfect just the way they are. This is certainly one such instance. While reading MSNBC yesterday I came across the headline "Fast Cars, Small Penises and Australian Men". I knew I had a free blog post. I've pasted the full text below. Here's a link to the actual ad (fantastic). The only commentary I'll offer here is that if this campaign is successful imagine the possibilities: smoking, drug use, staying in school. This will become the future of ALL campaigns aimed at men (at least those in the under 25 demographic). I may have to do a follow-up on this due to the complete and total genius of this campaign. Enjoy...

Hitting Below the Belt

To discourage speeders, Australian authorities have chosen a novel approach: challenge their manhood.

By Kendall Hill

Newsweek

Updated: 9:51 a.m. PT July 3, 2007

July 3, 2007 - When you first read the slogan, SPEEDING: NO ONE THINKS BIG OF YOU, you might think it was a reminder that people think poorly of those who break the law. Think again. This new road-safety campaign, launched in Australia last week, is aimed a bit more below the belt—by suggesting those men who speed have small penises. In the television and cinema advertisements, young "hoons"—Aussie-speak for speeding or reckless drivers—are mocked by unimpressed women who wave their little fingers at the drivers in a parody of their manhood.

The wagging finger is a commonly used insult in Australia, often leveled at drivers of monster SUVs or expensive sports cars to suggest their vehicles are compensating for a deficiency elsewhere. Still, bruising male egos is not often used as a way of preventing road accidents. But in the land Down Under, authorities have decided the most effective way to change men is to challenge their masculinity. Instead of employing the traditional shock tactics that bombard viewers with gruesome images of dead and maimed, authorities are using shame as their latest weapon in the battle against road deaths. The campaign was produced by the Road Transport Authority (RTA) of New South Wales, Australia’s most populous state, where death and injury rates from speeding are highest among young men. "More and more young people are not responding to the shock-horror kind of advertising," said RTA Director John Whelan. "We are doing something different to get the message through. What we are saying with these ads is that speeding doesn’t impress anybody."

While Whelan conceded the campaign message might prove offensive to some viewers, "what’s more offensive is the number of people being killed on our roads from speeding." The RTA estimates 1,000 people will die in New South Wales from speeding-related injuries in the next five years. Last year, some 500 people died on the state’s roads. While this was the lowest annual toll since World War II, 40 percent of those fatalities were speeding-related, and 94 deaths involved young, probationary drivers. "That’s a tragically disproportionate representation," Whelan said.

Between 2002 and 2006, more than a third of those killed in speeding-related crashes were aged 17-25, and 85 percent of those killed were men. A further 4,000 people were injured in speeding-related accidents.

The pinkie-wagging campaign theme is the result of a six-month research process involving a test audience of drivers aged 17-50, a third of whom had recent speeding convictions. Researchers discovered that young drivers had become inured to the horrific images often used in road-safety education campaigns. The test group’s response to the new ads was "overwhelmingly positive," says Whelan, and the pinkie campaign was the only one that resonated with the majority of those surveyed.

As one young male driver commented: "This [ad] is something that is relevant to our situation … we respond to emotion in that particular way … we don’t respond to fear tactics."

The Army and Sports -- Blogs From Two of the Best People on This Planet

I want to take the time to highlight the blogs of two very good friends of mine (actually the two people I've been friends with the longest -- since freshman year in high school. Well, unless you count Doobie, but he didn't got to my Bar Mitzvah).

First, I need to post a link to Andrew's Exnicios' blog. For all the joking around I do on this blog I'll do none of it here. Andrew has been called back in the Army to serve out the rest of his time after thinking that he was out for good. He was married a few weeks ago to wonderful girl (Lauren) who is moving back to my home state of Virginia. I only hope she is as good to you Lauren as she's been to me. Andrew, you once pointed me to a George Orwell quote that I think about all the time:

"People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf. "

I and everyone who reads this blog (and everyone we know and care about) all bask in the freedom that you and people like you provide for us. I will sleep peacefully in my bed tonight because of you. I owe you a debt that I can never repay. Come back safe and at least let me start to make it up to you. My thoughts are with you all the time...

Second is Clarence's blog. If anyone actually reads the comments on my posts you'll notice that Clarence dutifully has been commenting on almost all of my posts. I think he got jealous and decided to make a blog of his own. Clarence named his site off of one of the greatest teams ever, the 1991 Redskins. Who can forget that season? If only I had Mark Rypien as a fantasy QB (anyone remember the game where he torched Atlanta for six, count 'em SIX TD passes!). Personally, I don't think C will have the staying power to stick with his blog. He'll start to do some cost-benefit analysis and realize that he makes like $400/hr for his law firm and nothing for his blog. His only incentive will be proving me wrong. I just trapped you C. Advantage Dauber...

You - You Got A Nasty Reputation...

Well, I've been out of school for some time, and apparently some protocols have changed. After going to school for some 18 odd-years and another 3 and-a-half years of college (of brutal torture at the hands of my engineering professors) I came to believe that it was common practice to (as Bon Jovi teaches us) "raise your hand...from New Jersey to Tokyo." Well, apparently everyone didn't get that memo. I'm enrolled in a part-time bschool program in San Francisco and I've noticed that there are a couple of people who haven't caught on to the whole "raise your hand if you have a question or a comment" concept. They opt instead to just start talking.

It may seem petty of me to complain about this, but it completely disrupts the group dynamic. There are lots of rules in society that only work if everyone follows them (like agreeing to only use toilets and not sinks to urinate in. No that's a bad example...). As soon as a few people stop they cease to work because they force everyone else to follow-suit. If one individual keeps cutting other people off because they don't raise their hand pretty soon everyone starts to do the same thing because otherwise they don't get to ask their question/make their comment. Add in the fact that there's a class participation grade in many classes and people start to get nasty.

Truth be told I've seen this before. When I was in college we actually had a kid in one of my classes that did the on a regular basis. The situation was resolved when my old-roommate would imitate him when he cut people off and tried to ask a question (this typically meant that he interrupted the interruptor and that got his point across eventually). Are there less coercive ways to get the message across? Is it possible that the offenders don't really realize what it is that they're doing?

This is exactly the type of thing that would somehow appear in an episode of "Curb Your Enthusiasm". Larry David would decide he doesn't like this social norm and refuse to follow it and something would happen as a result (and Cheryl/Wanda would yell at him). As an aside, the new season starts this September and I think it's going to be very very funny (well that's what my sources tell me).

Anyways, I've decided to be vigilant and confront this problem head-on. I'll confront the offender and politely (all of you who know me and are laughing right now please stop, it's rude) ask them to start raising their hands in class. We'll see how that goes...