msft

Today was a perfect storm for Twitter, the microblogging application led by Evan Williams (who created Pyra Labs and Blogger, selling it to Google (NASDAQ: GOOG) in 2003 as blogging went bigtime). The company was all over business technology media, making an appearance at the Wall Street Journal with a rather ingenue "User's Guide to Twitter" and in the New York Times with an explanation of why Twitter turned down a merger with Facebook.

Katherine Boehret likes Twitter but takes it to task for many of the things Twitter clients like Twhirl do wonderfully; notify you of @ replies (when someone Tweets you directly using an @ sign before your name, i.e. @sarahgilbert), for instance, and complains of the tinyurl conversion issue which most Twitter old hands work around by using their own url shortening services (many of my friends built their own). She doesn't even approach the question that's on everyone's minds: How will Twitter make money?

Claire Cain Miller does approach the question, but doesn't have much of an answer. Her analysis of why Twitter turned down Facebook is brief -- it wasn't the right time, Twitter has "too much to do" yet -- and needs to learn how to make money. The one hazy concept we all agree on is that Twitter might charge businesses to talk to customers with its service; providing proactive alerts to companies when Twitterers complain about their service, giving them the opportunity to respond (and perhaps charging for consulting on how to best make use of the interaction) might be worth a lot. A few businesses now are very good at that; when I complained about my Comcast internet connectivity on Twitter, for instance, I quickly was pinged by a Comcast technician offering to help.

One particularly brilliant user of Twitter for business purposes is Rael Dornfest (who is a friend of mine, so I suppose I'm biased);

In the continuing FTC battle with Whole Foods (NYSE: WFMI) over the company's merger with Wild Oats Markets (a merger, I might add, that's already complete; all of the stores in my region have been converted to Whole Foods markets for many months), there is a local casualty. This local casualty has not been forced out of business by the strength of the Whole Foods conglomerate, with, now, stores in every quadrant of the city -- no, it's thriving, popular with both customers and the quirky-and-excellent local purveyors of vegetables, cheeses, chickens. But New Seasons Market is facing unwelcome bullying from the organics food giant.

Yesterday in the New Seasons blog, popular CEO Brian Rohter points to the objectionable subpoena he's received from Whole Foods' attorneys, claiming that his company's secrets are party to the FTC/Whole Foods dispute. (A response from Whole Foods indicates that this request went out to 96 companies, stores and vendors, although those aren't detailed.) The subpoena demands a wide variety of documents, including all documents relating to competition with Whole Foods or Wild Oats; financial information, by store; market studies and strategic plans; and all plans for future stores, expansion and renovation. Rohter's attorneys have objected but tell him he could very well lose and be ordered to hand over the documents (at considerable cost to a small local grocery chain).

Rohter argues that, though Whole Foods insists only the attorneys and consultants will see the information "That's like trusting the fox to guard the henhouse – and we don't have any faith it's going to work like that. ... some of the people at Whole Foods have a history of less than stellar behavior when it comes to competing fairly." In a follow-up to a Whole Foods response at Portland Food and Drink, Rohter says, "And those "consultants"...? Once they've looked through our information they're not going to "unlearn" it. The very nature of their job means they carry things they've learned from one job to another. Will they ever work for Whole Foods again?"

Here in the Portland metropolitan area, 28 bike delivery employees will be hired -- by United Parcel Service (NYSE: UPS). It may seem counterintuitive, but here in Portland, Oregon, where we crazy passionate types embrace bicycling so warmly that monthly group bike rides for kids continue even through the winter, the concept of hauling up to 200 pounds in a trailer with a mountain bike sounds like the perfect holiday vacation. UPS bike drivers will be given special training to really practice pulling 200 pounds and learn, for instance, "safe following distance in rain" (I think if you're following anyone too closely with 200 pounds in your bike trailer, you should be training for the 2012 Olympics, not delivering Amazon.com packages for UPS.)

UPS can only deliver 25-50 packages per day by bicycle, compared to up to 150 by truck, but Portland area spokesman Jeff Grant says UPS will save $38,000 in vehicle operation and upkeep costs for every three delivery bicycles used.



After all, UPS started using bicycles to deliver packages 100 years ago in Seattle, and started a pilot program in Atlanta and Seattle last year. Bicycle delivery is ideal for the holiday season as it allows the company to expand its service without having to expand its fleet of expensive delivery vehicles; bikes are about $600 each, and judging by the reaction to popular biking blogs, the company will have no trouble filling the available jobs with bikers eager to prove their mettle. It's not only sensible economics, but fantastic PR for a company that struggles with a rather stodgy image. Expanding the bike delivery program for all the company's busy seasons would be a fiscally responsible plan that could also pay big dividends in customer good will.

The new m.o. at Starbucks Corp. (NASDAQ: SBUX) seems to be: give 'em their dour forecasts, then celebrate if the future is not, after all, entirely decaffeinated. After all, the company's stock is already at a low not seen since November 2001; all of the respectable gains of the past seven years have been wiped away. Starbucks stores may be cheerily decked out in holiday colors and decorations, but its management is nothing but sad, downcast, despondent, glum.

In the company's annual report filed yesterday after market close, management provided a Santa-sized list of all the reasons its sales have been down and its expenses up, as well as providing a dim outlook for a future ravaged by poor discretionary spending, stiff competition from low-priced coffee at its fast-food rivals, nasty landlords who won't go gently into the goodnight of store closings, and to top it all off, financially anxious consumers. To blame for 2008: foreclosures, high food prices, and less generous credit card limits.

At the end of this annual report, you have to wonder if coffee is the right business to be in. After all, the beverage isn't known for being a tonic for the depressed (when have you ever heard of a wronged hero drowning his sorrows in coffee?). Maybe Starbucks should look to add a line of moonshine to its offerings; offer it in Venti and "Jug" sizes and send free gift cards to the investors, who are the only people in America who deserve to be as solemn as Starbucks' annual report.

Just a few weeks ago we were wondering whether falling gas prices meant that Americans would be driving more. The data says: no. (Although the data is, admittedly, nearly two months delayed.) Both gasoline consumption and vehicles miles travelled have fallen every month over the past several months; the miles travelled figure is down 11 months in a row and 4.4% in September.

In the Wall Street Journal, Joseph B. White points out how the cycle is so far following that of the late 1970s and early 80s; gas gets expensive, Americans embrace high-mileage vehicles, less driving, and start thinking about alternative energy sources; demand falls and prices go back down; and then Americans return to their old ways. And complicating this situation is that gas tax revenue goes down when gas consumption goes down; so infrastructure funds dry up. Paradoxically, transportation officials are stuck in the not-so-virtuous cycle: if they encourage behavior that's good for the planet, they'll reduce their income and roads will suffer.

White asks, will we be headed straight back to "trance" state? Will automakers, having embraced development of electric-powered vehicles and other green options, give up in the face of the reality that it's just as cheap to drive a guzzler? Will Americans remember how much they loved their Sunday afternoon drives in the Excursion? Either way, the fallout is complicated.

I really believe that Americans will stay in the shock state. Many of my friends have made significant investment in the low-car lifestyle, buying family bikes and developing new routines around energy conservation. This time, it's not really about the money; I started my car-free lifestyle before prices started rising and the consensus seems to be that we're doing it for the health of the planet and our own health; those values are not to be unpacked for short-term gain. I believe in (some of) the American people. Now our government will have the hard choice of whether to raise gas taxes or find another way to fund the infrastructure shortfall.

Barack Obama is tasking his new economic team with figuring out how to create 2.5 million new jobs in his first two years in office. As Peter Cohan commented, much of this new work will likely involve construction: building (and rebuilding) roads, bridges, schools, and wind farms, among other infrastructure-focused initiatives.

I was struck with how this news coincided with news that prices were dropping in American commodity crops -- wheat, corn and soybeans. As I was mulling this over I was chatting with a friend who's on the board of my city's farmer's market. The vendors reported that what they desperately needed was help: workers who understood their products to help sell them in the many local markets, and most of all, more farmers to grow produce and make dairy products and preserves, more farmers to raise and cure meats. And I thought of Michael Pollan, and his call for the President-Elect to encourage millions more Americans to become farmers.

Why not combine these great ideas?

Farmers whose families have been working the land for generations should be called in to advise new Wall Street traders every year. Because in farm life is the hardscrabble reality of boom-and-bust cycles. When prices went sky-high for wheat, corn and soybeans over the past years, you did not see growers spending their wealth on fast pickup trucks and fancy overalls; no, they kept telling reporters and economists that this wasn't going to last.

They were right. Wheat, which had hovered for years around $4 a bushel, had risen to $10 and is now flattening at $5; less than the current cost in fuel, seed and fertilizer to grow it. Farmers like Jimmy Wayne Kinder, who held back their wheat hoping to sell at the top of the market, are "kicking" themselves, and demonstrating that they, too, have an emotional connection to their holdings and have trouble letting go even in the face of overwhelming evidence that it's time to sell. As the prices fell, farmers waited for a rebound that never came.

Farmland was hot, too, with speculative buyers purchasing Midwest real estate for prices nearing $1,000 an acre, the record set in the 1970s. Now they're back around $500 and farmers are recalling lessons the traders never have time to learn: patience. If automakers, mortgage lenders, and Wall Street firms could learn this lesson; scrimping and saving in the down economies but not behaving like kings in the boom times; perhaps bailouts wouldn't be required.

It's interesting, too, that the article doesn't mention another reality of the farmers' market forces; as demand for conventionally-grown wheat, corn and soy drops, demand for organically- and sustainably-grown meats, produce and grains is rising. I plan to stand in line at 9 a.m. Sunday morning with my three boys for the chance at paying $60 for an heirloom turkey raised by a farmer I know; I've cut out breakfast cereal and alcohol from my budget so I can pay more at the farmer's market. Perhaps the American economy isn't collapsing, but returning back to a more sensible place; where friendly, interdependent, local, sustainable economies thrive and the global economy is a distant memory.

Reasons abound for security protocol surrounding cell phone records at the major carriers. Consumers just don't like hearing about privacy breaches. But as the presidential office moves into the wired age, for the first time a President-elect is a red flag going off in Verizon Communications (NYSE: VZ)'s face.

A personal cell phone account owned by Barack Obama (but that has been inactive for several months) was confirmed to have been accessed by "several" of Verizon's employees -- all of whom have been placed on administrative paid leave pending an internal investigation into which did so for a good reason.

While it's easy to imagine the thrill that might accompany viewing the phone calls of the President-elect (how many minutes to that number in Chappaqua, New York in June?), it's also easy to imagine the potential damage that could arise from such illegal access, both to Obama (or any candidate) and to the trust the public places in its cell phone carriers. Verizon is right to have taken action and made the news public; but the company should have put more preventative measures in place to ensure its sensitive customers' data was secure.

If one is honest with oneself, she will recognize that the most exotic ingredients in her Italian-themed frozen foods are likely the plastic trays they're packaged in. A new recall for Lean Cuisine frozen chicken meals ("approximately" 879,565 pounds of them) offers the addition of one more exotic ingredient: "foreign matter," namely bits of hard plastic of unknown origin that caused at least one injury.

The company which packaged the products, Nestle Prepared Foods Company of Springville, Utah, is voluntarily recalling the products after several consumer complaints and the lone injury. The three meals that are part of the recall are the 10.5-ounce "chicken mediterranean" pictured here; 9.5-ounce "pesto chicken with bow-tie pasta" and 12.5-ounce "chicken tuscan." Further information about specific bar codes and sell-by dates can be found at the USDA Food Safety and Inspection Service.

While this is in no way a serious health risk, the enormous size of the recall and the timing -- coming in an environment in which budget-conscious consumers are beginning to question the true "convenience," nutritional value and safety of packaged food -- will be somewhat harmful for the convenience food industry as a whole. As someone who is taking a more cautious eye toward the food she is feeding her family, I have been asking questions such as, "if pieces of hard plastic weren't even recognized until consumers complained, what invisible ingredients have been slipping through without reparation or admittance?" In food, that what you can't see; and don't recognize for many years; is the most harmful of all.

Who knew that the fate of world beer would one day be in the hands of the beer faithful in Rochester, New York? The tastes of this blue-collar town, along with neighbors Syracuse and Buffalo, are key in the pending acquisition of Anheuser-Busch (NYSE: BUD) by Belgian giant InBev, SA. The three cities make up half of the U.S. consumption of Labatt Blue and Labatt Blue Light. Due to the popularity of Labatt brews and Budweiser brands in upstate New York, the U.S. Justice Department worries that beer prices might rise in Rochester.

So, if the acquisition is to be approved, giving Europeans control over America's iconic beer brands, InBev is being asked to sell the Labatt USA subsidiary. Other major InBev brands, including Stella Artois, Becks, and Bass, are not considered competitive enough in any markets to reduce competition between beers and provide upward pressure on prices.

Nope, it all comes down to Rochester and its surprisingly European tastes. Who would have thought?

My husband lost his phone months ago, and then left the charger for my Blackberry in an Oklahoma City hotel six weeks ago, and as we don't drive, the car charger isn't much use. Other than a few scattered charges while in my sister's or a friend's car, we've been without a cell phone entirely.

Surprisingly, we've barely missed it. With his occasional work in the Army Reserves, and my freelance writing that isn't exactly the stuff of emergency phone calls, no one is asking us for instant availability. We're wondering if we really need our cell phones any more, and I'm hoping to let our contracts expire next fall. We may not be alone.

Nokia today forecast global industry mobile phone sales to be 1.5% less than previously expected. Apple may be reducing its production of iPhones. You have to wonder, in an economy in which free and easy credit is fast disappearing (and, along with it, free and easy disposable "income" to spend on toys) -- and one in which, shortly, consumers may start paying closer attention to monthly bills before they enter blindly into two-year contracts worth thousands for a shiny new toy -- could the cell phone as we know it be over?

Both of my babysitters, my in-laws who barely make a living wage working in restaurants, and most of the unemployed people I know have fancy phones with cameras, bells and whistles. I hardly believe this pace of consumerism is sustainable. There can't possible be untrammeled growth in an industry that forecasts to put new phones in one-fifth of the world's population next year. Seriously?

I predict that Peak Cell Phone has been reached, and in the next five years we'll see a serious decline in new phone sales as consumers realize that there are things more important in life than being able to text your friends. And with a reduction in credit, those things are harder and harder to afford. The cell phone, as we know it, may just be on its way out.

While you might argue that the book's very title is an oxymoron, The Ethical Executive, by Robert Hoyk and Paul Hersey, is instead a fabulous and practical text that may as well have been titled, "How Not to be Kenneth Lay," and its faithful application could have prevented our entire current economical crisis. Having dutifully passed my requirement of Ivy League MBA ethics coursework and been duly unimpressed by its ability to stop unethical behavior (as I learn from this book, even in my own generally honest self), I would recommend that business schools, university political science and marketing programs, and even small business owners and parents adopt this as the primary ethics text.

The problem, as authors describe in the introductory chapters, is that ethics aren't acquired from our education. Discussing a case study in class -- even if it's at Harvard Business School (especially if it is?) -- does not "teach" ethics. No, our parents teach us ethics. And as Hoyk and Hersey write, "what is most lacking in books on ethics is a major emphasis on the root causes of unethical behavior--psychological dynamics." In order for a typical person, with typical familial upbringing and core values, to behave ethically does not call for a strategy for thinking about an ethical problem (the approach taken by traditional ethics textbooks); no, the authors argue, it takes knowledge of the potential "ethical traps" you might encounter. Awareness equals ethical power. Managers (and parents, teachers, whomever) can "use their understanding to objectify what's happening to them."

Hoyk and Hersey lay out 45 ethical traps and give examples of psychological research and real-life ethical foulups, from Enron to Worldcom to Jim Jones. I recognized nearly every one from my life, both in business and in my relationships with my infamously principle-bereft in-laws. What's more, I recognized the traps in the behavior of the key figures in the financial meltdown.

Consumers may be strapped for cash this year with Christmas approaching, but if there's one category which analysts expect to do well despite the downturn, it's smart phones. Analysts have called for Apple, Inc.'s (NASDAQ: AAPL) to reduce its price on the 8GB iPhone to $99 (with a two-year AT&T contract), though reports that the company might scale back production point to somewhat depressed demand.

Will Verizon Communications (NYSE: VZ) finally have its iPhone contender; and just in time for the pre-holiday frenzy? Boy Genius Report has received a leaked presentation from Verizon management that indicates the Research in Motion (NASDAQ: RIMM) Blackberry Storm will be released in a "pre-launch special event" on November 20, the Thursday before Thanksgiving. The document indicates the Storm, Verizon's first chance at an iPhone-like device, would be available for testing and pre-ordering at 123 company stores, which would open an hour early for the extravaganza. Actual launch throughout the U.S. would occur on the 24th and 25th, Monday and Tuesday.

The Storm has no physical keyboard, instead using the touch-screen technology similar to the iPhone, a camera, and visual voicemail. Pricing will be $199.99 with a two-year agreement. With Verizon planning to stock plenty of these devices, the iPhone-style frenzy may not exist, but it should be popular for consumers who have been captive to Verizon for one reason or another -- and those whose loyalty lies with the Blackberry. Will this be the holiday season of the touchscreen smart phone? RIMM and Verizon can only put their nightcaps on and dream.

In industry conferences and festivals of many sorts, there is a saying: "when the economy is down, people buy ___." Fill in the blank depending on your audience; books, liquor, chocolate, coffee. Small, inexpensive pleasures, the idea goes, are a refuge in a depressing time.

While that truth does hold with coffee, it doesn't hold for every retailer. Starbucks Corp. (NASDAQ: SBUX) is one of the victims of the opposing "not so much" theory. That is, yes we need our pleasures, but we're not going to pay that much for them. Yesterday Starbucks announced its rather terrible fiscal fourth quarter 2008 profit, for the period ending September 30, 2008; a penny a share after charges, 11 cents a share excluding charges; a depressing 10 cents lower than the year-earlier quarter.

McDonald's (NYSE: MCD) and Dunkin' Donuts, on the other hand, are smugly celebrating their success with "premium" coffee at a low price (well, lower than Starbucks, the price benchmark in today's economy); at the same time wondering if their low prices are too low. McDonald's is considering upping the price of some dollar menu items to $1.19; the company has high hopes for its own premium coffee offerings, including espresso bars and blended coffee drinks, although analysts wonder if the company's customers even like coffee.

Well, whatever McDonald's is doing, it seems to be working. Same-store sales are up at a much greater percentage for the fast food giant than for Starbucks. The company's stock seems to have avoided Starbucks' low, low, lows -- McDonald's is quite near its all-time high, and is up 116.5% (to $56.29 at today's market close) over the past five years. Compare with Starbucks, whose return-on-investment chart is filled with red for every period of time from one day to five years.

Will Starbucks suffer forever?

Coffee is keeping Procter & Gamble (NYSE: PG) wired, even as it exits the home-brew business, finalizing the sale of Folgers to The J.M. Smucker Co (NYSE: SJM). The company raised its fiscal second-quarter and full-year 2009 forecasts due to better-than-expected proceeds from the sale of America's biggest-selling coffee brand. Previously, Procter & Gamble had expected a gain of 50 cents per share; now the company expects 63 cents per share in profit. The gain is partly due to the unusual method of sale called a "reverse Morris Trust" transaction; P&G will spin off Folgers to its shareholders, then simultaneously Folgers and J.M. Smucker will merge to form a new company.

As a result, earnings per share will be $1.63 for the quarter, the company said, and between $4.28 and $4.38 for fiscal 2009.

The sale of Folgers may have been timely for Procter & Gamble, as consumers who have been pressed financially have not yet returned to brewing coffee at home, instead downgrading from pricey independent coffeeshops and Starbucks (NASDAQ: SBUX) to better values for enormous cups of brewed coffee (with a side of deep-fried pastries) at Dunkin' Donuts and the like. If the economy continues to decline, perhaps Folgers will see a resurgence; for now, P&G is happily focusing on its core brands while Smucker works in a different customer base which values "iconic" comfort food brands.