why?

online poker

Friday, December 17, 2010

2010 in Review

The pall of Lehman Brothers' collapse in 2008 is still settling over many Western economies and its citizens. Yet things aren't all dreary. We've tried to take the contradictions of 2010 and show how stories link up, sometimes in unexpected ways

By Josh Tyrangiel

"Dull year for the industry."
There you have it, the most interesting sentence in the American Federation of Labor's roundup of 1910. Even those who fetishize stability would concede that it's a death march of a volume, a 420-page trade-by-trade chronicle of a year in which little seems to have happened. At least the authors of the five-word summary above—members of the AFL's knife-sharpening union—could say they spent 1910 crafting a decent pun.
A century later the idea of a dull work-year is quaint verging on incomprehensible. Global trade connects the fate of every industry and laborer, no matter how small or seemingly self-sufficient, to the decisions of bureaucrats in China, shipbuilders in Korea, and bankers everywhere. It's hard to have a quiet year in the shop when the shop has no borders. Even the structure of a year seems enlarged and more complex. The depth of our interconnectedness, the constancy of media, means that themes and moods tend to hang around past their season. By the admittedly squishy metrics of pessimism and disruption, 2010 feels as if it started a long time ago.
Maybe that's because we're still breathing the fumes of 2008. Lehman Brothers' collapse 27 months ago brought on more than just a teetering economy: It created a cloud that has settled over most Western economies and, in 2010, wrought a kind of seasonal affective disorder on their citizens. In a Bloomberg poll conducted in October, two out of three likely voters in the Nov. 2 midterms said that taxes had gone up, the economy had shrunk, and the billions lent to banks as part of the Troubled Asset Relief Program would never be recovered. A September poll showed that 77 percent of global investors expected the European monetary union would crumble and at least one struggling government would default, all despite a $1 trillion euro zone backstop.
What's revealing about these responses is the chasm between feelings and facts. Congress and the Obama Administration have cut taxes by $240 billion since 2009. Growth continued without interruption in 2010 in the U.S. and most major economies. The Treasury expects to turn a $16 billion profit on the TARP rescue. Greece and Ireland may have stared into the white light of fiscal death, but they were yanked back to earth by their neighbors and are now trying to rehabilitate (with wounded fury, but—so far at least—without default). By the end of the third quarter, U.S. nonfinancial corporations were sitting on a record $436 billion in cash. Through Dec. 14, the Standard & Poor's 500-stock index was up 11 percent for the year. And Wall Street was racking up its fourth-largest profit ever, a projected $19 billion for the year, according to the New York State Comptroller's office.
So if things aren't nearly as bad as they seem, why do they seem so bad? Jobs and houses have a lot to do with it. In the U.S., 17 percent of the workforce either couldn't find employment or was surviving on part-time jobs. Their collective frustration and scrimping are contagious. Despite interest rates so low they would shock previous generations, the housing market has all the bustle of a Pompeii bazaar; there were 202,000 new homes on the market at the end of October, the fewest since June 1968. Mix in an unrelenting foreclosure crisis, in which the centuries-old concept of title was thrown into doubt by faulty record-keeping, and it's easy to understand why so many people feel like they've lost a degree of control over their lives: because they have.


Here's the thing: That America has been gone for years. Cheap labor and plentiful resources combined with ease of travel and communication have given emerging markets more than just a place at the table. In 2010, the U.S. added 937,000 jobs; Foxconn, the Taiwan-based maker of nearly every consumer electronic product you wanted this year, added 300,000. Fueled by gold, copper and coal, the most robust currency of the year against the dollar was the Mongolian tugrik. In India, competition for deals has become so intense that billionaire Ravi Ruia is branching out to Africa—buying coal mines in Mozambique and a Kenyan oil refinery. Competition is one of the pleasures of business and one of the foundations of America. That right hasn't been rescinded—it's been extended to people around the world. In a way, we've won. Now the game starts again.
Capitalism lives off of change. The new challenge is to shake off the trauma of a decade that started with the ultimate loss of control and get to work on winning the new century. There's a lesson to be found in the two most-talked-about companies of the year. On May 26, Apple (AAPL) blew past Microsoft (MSFT) to become the second-most-valuable company in the world (it's currently No. 3) largely by selling beautiful devices that let you control a universe with a swipe. Google (GOOG), which began the decade offering a pathway to infinity, now fights to keep its employees from defecting to Facebook, which chops infinity into an endless series of cul-de-sacs. Apple and Facebook figured out something about the consumer psyche—then they innovated to fill the need with astonishing results.
Our yearend issue takes some inspiration from that approach. We've tried to take all the contradictions and complexity of 2010 and make sense of them. Grouping the year into chapters—Normal, Jobs, Spills, Stuck, Currency, and Gaga—our writers, editors, photographers, art directors, and graphic whizzes collaborated to show all the ways in which diverse stories link up, sometimes in linear fashion, sometimes with unexpected leaps such as the price of gasoline, measured in bacon. We think it's unlike any previous issue of Bloomberg Businessweek. One thing's certain: It ain't dull.



businessweek

Monday, December 13, 2010

What happens when the jobless give up?



By Nina Easton, senior editor-at-large

FORTUNE - What happens to a nation's collective psyche when millions of once-productive people remain out of work for months or even years? What happens when unemployed husbands resign themselves to relying on a wife's income, when unemployed wives feel trapped at home, when twenty- and thirtysomethings calculate that they'd rather live off their parents than face a cut-throat job market, when middle-aged men and women stop searching for jobs after realizing they're hopelessly lost in a haze of rapid-fire technological change?
The pre-holiday bickering over tax cuts and extending unemployment benefits is drowning out a December government number so frightening it should concentrate the minds of every posturing political leader in Washington: 9.8% unemployment. That is staggering, up from when the recession ended 18 months ago, and comes despite signs of recovery in retail, real estate, and corporate profits.
Especially troubling is that long-term unemployment continues to mount. "It is unprecedented in post--World War II U.S. history to have 3% of the labor force unemployed for over a year," Narayana Kocherlakota, president of the Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis, said in a recent speech. "If history is any guide, this year-plus unemployment rate will only revert to pre-recession levels after several years."
Add to that mix this perplexing fact: While there aren't nearly enough jobs, there are more of them -- a lot more. Since the month after the recession ended, the number of available jobs has surged 44%, according to the Labor Department. Job vacancies are nowhere near pre-recession levels (according to the Conference Board, there are still 10.4 million more unemployed workers than advertised vacancies). Still, there are as many as three million jobs going unfilled.
Various economists have posited various reasons for this mismatch:
* Employers, still reeling from all the downsizing they've had to do, are pickier about whom they hire and slower to close the deal.
* Jobless workers, especially those out of work for months and years, don't have the skills to multitask in a fast-paced economy where medical workers need to know electronic record-keeping, machinists need computer skills, and marketing managers can no longer delegate software duties.
* Workers, some of whom feel cushioned by unemployment benefits, are too picky to take lower-paying or less prestigious jobs.
* There is a geographic divide between where the jobless are -- states like Florida, Nevada, and Michigan -- and where the jobs are -- states like Maryland, South Dakota, and Iowa. Relocation is especially hard if your mortgage is under water.
The cost of not working
Whatever the right mix of reasons, the fallout is crippling. Economically, long-term joblessness means fewer dollars for consumption. For deficit control, it means fewer taxpayers contributing to government revenues and tens of billions more spent on unemployment insurance. Then there is the psychological toll on individuals and families -- and on the nation.
Early on in the recession, popular culture seized on the romantic notion of tightening our belts and looking inward to frills-free fun with our friends and families, after a decade of borrowed hyperconsumption. Now we need to ask a less romantic question: What happens when millions of Americans lose the habit of work, a habit that lends balance, structure, dignity -- and, of course, economic support -- to lives?
The longer people are unemployed the less employable they become. Skills become rusty; managers look more suspiciously at someone who has been out of work for years than a candidate already employed. I remember an old conservative saying: Graduate from high school; get a job -- any job; get married -- stay married; and (statistically speaking) your chances of landing in poverty are practically nil.
Even if that was once true, that calculation has lost some relevancy in this far more complex economy. But the concept of getting people back on the ladder, even if it's on a lower rung, is a worthy one.
Hopefully, Congress will pass a tax bill that gives business enough certainty and financial incentive to create more jobs. Hopefully, economic growth will begin to put a dent in that loss of 8 million jobs since the recession hit.
But an even knottier problem facing the nation's political leadership, from the President on down, is how to get the long-term unemployed into jobs as they become available. To avoid becoming chronically unemployed, people need more than platitudes offering sympathy. Career reinvention requires encouragement and guidance. Business leaders have specifics to offer on what jobs will be coming down the pike in expanding sectors like health care, and what skills are needed. They should to be brought into the political dialogue.
President Obama opened the conversation this fall with an industry-led initiative to better match community college graduates with skilled jobs. He followed with a Dec. 6 speech calling for a "Sputnik moment" to restart American innovation to create jobs and compete in the world.
But as he assembles a largely new economic team, the President face a more immediate challenge: the need for a "Manhattan Project" to get the long-term jobless back to work, something that would boost the psyche of both the unemployed and the nation. 


Pfizer headquarters in New York City.


Drug developer Pfizer  (PFE) says it named George A. Lorch as its new chairman of the board of directors.
Lorch, 68, has been an independent director on the board since 2000.
Former Chairman and CEO Jeffery B. Kindler left the company abruptly Dec. 5. Ian Read, 57, is taking the CEO position.
Pfizer had previously said it would name an independent board member as non-executive chairman.
The company also said its board of directors on Monday boosted the quarterly dividend 11%.
The board declared a regular quarterly dividend of 20 cents per share, up from the prior amount of 18 cents.
The dividend is payable March 1 to shareholders of record as of Feb. 4.

USAtoday

Sunday, December 12, 2010

Estimate That 2-Year Dividend Tax Extension Will Save Investors $74.5 Billion

Posted by: Howard Silverblatt on December 8, 2010

The proposed two-year extension for qualified dividends to be taxed at 15% would add an additional US$ 74.5 billion into the hands of individual investors, and bring the ten year tax savings to US$ 348.4 billion (which is $348 not collected by the government). The savings are for dividends paid to individuals in taxable accounts.
In the short run I believe the two-year extension reduces the immediate pressure to pay one-time extra dividends or to move up January payments to December. Longer term, the 15% lower tax rate becomes more attractive to investors, who currently have few alternatives (even at the higher tax rate yields were competitive). Boards which would have been more hesitant to issue and increase fully taxed dividends, and might have pushed for more buybacks, will now have a higher comfort level of the net return to shareholders, and one less reason not to pay dividends. I will be releasing a full dividend report later in the month (editors, compliance and product people, oh my): S&P 500 Dividends: Out Of The Night That Covers Me
Also, if the if the total write-off of equipment purchases passes in Congress, Capital Expenditures for the S&P 500 should increase substantially (Q3 was up 14% but it appeared that the increase was mostly maintenance, not expansion). However, having 'lived' (but not always invested) through several of these, my question is where will the equipment come from, and where might it create jobs - in the U.S. or abroad?
See file for detailsDIV_TAX_2012.doc


businessweek

Build America Bonds’ End Poised to Batter Muni Market

By William Selway and Brendan A. McGrail
(Adds San Francisco sale plans in 13th paragraph.)
Dec. 10 (Bloomberg) -- The looming end of the federally subsidized Build America Bonds program may push up yields in the $2.8 trillion municipal securities market and put more financial pressure on cash-strapped state and cities, investors said.
Senate Democrats backing the subsidy, which have helped finance bridges, roads and other public works, fell short in a bid to get the program added to a bill extending the 2001 and 2003 income-tax cuts. That failure was the latest in efforts to keep the Build America program alive beyond its scheduled end on Dec. 31.
The securities, which carry taxable interest rates similar to corporate debt, have allowed state and local governments to access investors abroad and others who don’t buy traditional tax-exempt bonds. That has eased the supply of tax-exempt bonds and buoyed prices, which move inversely to yields, a trend that may reverse next year if the program is killed.
“It could get pretty ugly,” said Rob Novembre, managing director at Arbor Research & Trading Inc. in New York, who runs the company’s municipal-trading operation. “Whoever owns munis could potentially experience some pain.”
Build Americas were created under President Barack Obama’s stimulus legislation as a means of driving down borrowing costs for localities and funneling money to job-stoking construction projects. More than $179 billion of the securities have been sold since April 2009, funding clean-water projects in Ohio, highways in Kansas, dormitories at Rutgers University in New Jersey and a new bridge spanning the San Francisco Bay.
‘Great Success Story’
“The BABs program has been a great success story,” California Treasurer Bill Lockyer said in a statement today. “If Congress lets it expire, it will damage our economic recovery and inflict a multibillion-dollar injury on taxpayers, not just in California but in every state in the nation.”
California and local issuers in the state have sold about $36 billion of the taxable debt, he said. In an interview today on Bloomberg Television’s “InBusiness With Margaret Brennan,” Lockyer said the Build America program has helped create “tens of thousands of jobs.”
While Obama and Democrats have supported prolonging the program, they have run into opposition from Republicans critical of the stimulus package. Extensions have twice passed the Democratic-controlled House only to stall in the Senate, where the Republican minority has sufficient power to block legislation. The U.S. government pays 35 of the interest costs on Build America bonds.
Republicans Taking Control
With Republicans poised to take control of the House next month, local governments, banks and other advocates have pressed to extend the Build America program during the current so-called lame-duck session of Congress. Analysts including those at JPMorgan Chase & Co. had anticipated that a measure to prolong Bush-era rates would be the vehicle for Congress to extend it.
State and local governments, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and representatives of the construction industry are among the program’s advocates.
The prospect of its end has weighed on the municipal bond market as public officials have rushed to borrow money at subsidized rates. The San Francisco Utility Commission, which plans to issue $350 million in Build America Bonds next week, put the securities to market months ahead of schedule to ensure it would capture the subsidy, said Charles Perl, deputy chief financial officer of the commission.
“We were trying to beat the clock, so we fast-tracked the financing to take advantage,” he said today.
Investor Concerns
Investors have expressed concern that traditional tax- exempt debt issuance might surge next year. That may push up the interest-rates investors demand to hold tax-exempt bonds. It would most heavily hurt long-dated bonds, where issuance of Build America securities was concentrated, investors said.
California’s Lockyer estimates the end of the program may push up tax-exempt yields by as much as a full percentage point, which he said could cost taxpayers nationwide as much as $30 billion in higher borrowing costs.
“This can’t be positive for the long end of the curve,” said Ed Reinoso, who manages $300 million as chief executive officer of Castleton Partners in New York. “It’s going to be a lot more expensive for issuers.”
The tax-exempt market is dominated by individual investors seeking income-tax breaks. Households own more than $1 trillion in municipal bonds directly, while almost $1 trillion more are held in mutual funds where individuals invest, according to the Federal Reserve Board.
Worst Month
Last month, tax-exempt bonds had their worst monthly returns of 2010 as rising U.S. Treasury yields and record state and local debt sales sparked withdrawals from mutual funds.
Tax-free securities lost 2.29 percent in November, the third consecutive monthly drop and the longest slide since 2004, according to the Bank of America Merrill Lynch Municipal Master Index, which accounts for price changes and interest income.
The failure by Congress to extend the Build America program may hurt taxpayers by pushing up the cost of financing local projects at a time when public officials are already wrestling with budget deficits, said Novembre.
“They could be putting their own voters in harm’s way,” he said.
--With assistance from Michael Marois in Sacramento, California, and Ashley Lutz in New York. Editors: Mark Schoifet, Jerry Hart



Tuesday, December 7, 2010

EU to start new bank stress tests in February

Finance ministers agreed new bank stress tests - and the bail-out for the Irish Republic
EU banks will have to face a second, tougher round of stress tests from February next year.


EU Monetary Affairs Commissioner Olli Rehn said the new tests would be "more rigorous and even more comprehensive".
The decision came at a meeting of EU finance ministers and officials, which concluded the eurozone was on its way to economic recovery, but that the financial sector was still troubled.
There was no decision to increase the size of eurozone support.
On Monday, ministers from the 16-country strong eurozone said that the existing safety net of 750bn euros (£635bn, $1tn) was large enough, and praised both Portugal and Spain for the steps they were taking in getting their economies in order.
Some fear that the existing fund would be overstretched if countries such as Spain and Portugal followed Greece and the Irish Republic in asking for help.
On Monday, the head of the International Monetary Fund, Dominique Strauss-Kahn, had called for an increase in the size of funds available for support.
And on Tuesday, he criticised Europe's response to the eurozone debt crisis.
Speaking from Athens, where he was attending a meeting with the Greek prime minister, Mr Strauss-Kahn said: "The eurozone has to provide a comprehensive solution to this problem. The piecemeal approach is not a good one."
Irish budget
Tuesday's meeting of EU ministers also approved an 85bn-euro bail-out package for the Irish Republic that had been informally agreed last month.
The meeting also approved the conditions on which the aid to the Republic has been granted and the extension of the deadline for Dublin to bring its budget deficit below the EU ceiling of 3% of gross domestic product (GDP) to 2015, from 2014.
The Republic is to take further steps to address its economic problems, with more detail on its four-year budget plans being released later.
Eurozone bond Some eurozone members have called for the creation of a eurozone-wide bond, which would seek to address the problem of the spiralling borrowing costs that have affected some countries and made it very difficult for them to access much-needed funds on the open markets.
However, Germany and Austria are opposed to such a bond.
Austria's finance minister, Josef Proell, said: "I'm very critical of the euro bond idea. We have enough instruments in place to stabilise countries. Look at Ireland."
But earlier on Tuesday, Portugal's Treasury Minister, Carlos Pina, said one was needed.
"Lately there has been increasing voices talking about this issue," he said. "This is an absolutely fundamental issue."
But he also said that his country would resolve its problems on its own and should not consider asking for the sort of help asked for by Greece and the Irish Republic.



bbc.co

Sunday, December 5, 2010

Google's Groupon Bid Said Rejected

The daily-deal website turned down $6 billion, including executive performance incentives, and will now consider an initial public offering, says a person close to the talks


(Bloomberg) — Groupon Inc., a Chicago-based Internet-coupon service with more than 35 million users, walked away from an acquisition offer from Google Inc. yesterday, according to a person with knowledge of the matter.
The proposed acquisition fell through amid hesitation by Groupon's founders, said the person, who requested anonymity because the talks are private. The startup will decide next year whether to sell shares in an initial public offering instead, the person said. The discussions could resume if both sides overcome their differences.
Google had offered $6 billion, including incentives that would be paid to the target's managers if performance targets were met, people familiar with the matter had said this week.
Groupon would have helped its new owner expand in the $133 billion U.S. local-ad market and lessen its reliance on Internet-search advertising.
"Clearly Google wants to get into the local space and Groupon was one way," said Aaron Kessler, an analyst at ThinkEquity LLC in San Francisco, who has a "buy" rating on Google and doesn't own it. "I don't think from a Google perspective that if they miss out, that there's not other ways to get into local."
Groupon Chief Executive Officer Andrew Mason had the biggest say in this decision as largest shareholder, according to another person familiar with the talks. He had concerns about the strategic direction the company would take under new management, the person said. Mason also was concerned about what could happen to merchant relationships and his employees, according to the person.

Google's Biggest Deal

Google CEO Eric Schmidt had been willing to pay almost twice the $3.2 billion he spent on DoubleClick Inc., his next- most expensive target, to add features and repel a threat from such rivals as Facebook Inc.
Jill Hazelbaker, a spokeswoman for Google, said the company doesn't comment on rumors or speculation. Julie Mossler, a Groupon spokeswoman, also declined to comment.
Google, which boasts $33.4 billion in cash and marketable securities, had initially offered between $3.5 billion and $4 billion to buy Groupon, a person familiar with the matter has said. The startup, which was also contemplating raising new venture funding, held out, eliciting a sweetened offer from Google, the person said.
Google, based in Mountain View, California, rose $1.18 to $573 yesterday in Nasdaq Stock Market trading. The shares have dropped 7.6 percent this year.
The Chicago Tribune initially reported Groupon's rejection.

Groupon's Growth

Groupon's allure has rubbed off on lookalike coupon sites. Amazon.com Inc. said on Dec. 2 it invested $175 million in LivingSocial.com, another provider of daily online deals.
Founded by Mason in 2008, Groupon has attracted 35 million users in more than 300 global markets by offering steep discounts on such items as pedicures, hotel stays and bike tune-ups. The company makes money by keeping part of the revenue raised by the coupons. Groupon's sales may top $500 million this year, two people familiar with the matter have said.
Groupon had a valuation of about $1.3 billion in April, after Digital Sky Technologies led a group that invested in the company. It has raised $170 million from investors, including Facebook backer Accel Partners and New Enterprise Associates.
Google could have used Groupon to gather data on consumers as they interact around the time of a purchase, and then use that information to hone other products, including ads, said Ben Schachter, an analyst at Macquarie Securities Group.

Local Focus

"Locally focused e-commerce transaction data tied to one's Google account could be used to improve personalization of other Google features as well as improve ad targeting," Schachter, who rates the stock an "outperform," wrote in a research note.
Google could also have incorporated Groupon coupons into the location-based services of its Android mobile operating system, said Yun Kim, an analyst at Gleacher & Co. in New York, who rates the stock "neutral" and doesn't own it. For example, as an Android user passes by a mall, Google could deliver coupons for nearby stores.
Still, Groupon was an unusual acquisition target for Google, which tends to buy companies that boast a technological advantage, such as online video, as was the case with YouTube.
To distinguish itself from lookalikes, Groupon plans to test new features that let businesses easily create deals through an online service called Groupon Stores. The company also is testing a feature called Deal Feed that lets users track favorite businesses as they might on blogging site Twitter Inc.
Regulators would probably have scrutinized the planned acquisition of Groupon to ensure it doesn't harm consumers.
"People are going to be concerned about what happens when you link Groupon's daily-deal services to Google search," said Dan Wall, an antitrust lawyer and partner at Latham & Watkins in San Francisco. "It is very easy to imagine that competitors to Groupon will find it very difficult to get oxygen if there's a link between Groupon and Google."

'win-win'

US South Korea deal a 'win-win'

President Obama said the deal was "essential" in boosting US exports
Both the US and South Korea have hailed their long-awaited free trade agreement negotiated this weekend as a "win-win" deal.







However, the final pact, which was originally signed in 2007 but never ratified, has been heavily criticised by South Korean opposition parties.
They branded the compromises made by Seoul "humiliating and treacherous".
The deal needs parliamentary approval in both countries before it can be finally ratified.
President Barack Obama said on Saturday the agreement "includes several important improvements and achieves what I believe trade deals must do. It's a win-win for both our countries".
South Korean Trade Minister Kim Jong-Hoon also described the deal as a "win-win".
Negotiations on the free trade deal broke down in the run-up to last month's G20 meeting of leading economies in Seoul.
Car tariffs A key sticking point to the 2007 deal were tariffs imposed by South Korea on US car imports.
But a compromise was agreed - the US will lift its 2.5% tariff on South Korean cars after four years, while South Korea will halve its 8% tariff with immediate effect, before lifting it in four years.
South Korea also agreed to allow the US to export up to 25,000 cars a year that do not meet its more stringent safety requirements.
In return, the US agreed that South Korea could extend its tariffs on US pork imports for another two years.
The deal does not address US concerns about tariffs on its beef exports.
'Cheated' The deal has proved deeply unpopular among opposition politicians in South Korea.
"We have been hit by the North with cannons and now we we're being hit by the US with the economy," said Park Jie-Won of the Democratic Party, referring to North Korea's recent shelling of a border island.
The Liberty Forward Party said the public had been "cheated by the deal".
"The concession garnered in the livestock products was not significant, so it was a deal that failed to meet national interests," said the party's Kwon Sun-Taik.
Boosting exports President Obama hailed the deal on Saturday as "essential" for boosting US exports.
"The agreement will contribute significantly to achieving my goal of doubling US exports over the next five years.
"In fact, it's estimated that today's deal will increase American economic output my more than our last nine trade agreements combined," he said.
Domestic consumption currently accounts for more than two-thirds of the US economy, and Mr Obama is keen to re-balance the economy by increasing exports.
This is also a key strategy in securing a sustainable recovery from the downturn.
The US recovery remains fragile, with disappointing unemployment figures released on Friday contributing to concerns that the world's largest economy is struggling to shake off the recession.


bbc.co

Friday, December 3, 2010

stop levying import duties on Chinese screws...

European duties on Chinese screws break trade laws, according to the WTO

WTO calls for end to EU duties on Chinese screws

The European Union (EU) has been told to stop levying import duties on Chinese screws, nuts and bolts.



The ruling by the World Trade Organization (WTO) marks the first time the trade body has ruled against the EU in favour of China.

The panel of WTO experts said the EU's import duties broke trade rules and said they must be revised.
According to the organisation's rules, both sides now have 60 days to appeal the ruling.
The EU imposes duties on imports from countries such as China, Vietnam or Cuba, which it considers not to be market economies.
WTO rules allow for extra duties where imports are sold at less than they would cost in the country of origin, a process known as "dumping".
The Chinese claim stated that the EU had wrongly calculated the threshold, a complaint the WTO upheld.
"The... rulings make it clear that the EU's anti-dumping legislation and practice are discriminatory and inconsistent with WTO rules," China said in a statement.
However, the WTO did not uphold all the Chinese complaints.
China and the EU have been involved in an escalating trade dispute with China imposing its own tariffs on European products.

Thursday, December 2, 2010

Qantas begins legal action against Rolls-Royce

The engine explosion on one of the A380s sparked a global safety review

Qantas has begun legal action against the engine supplier Rolls-Royce following the explosion of an engine on one of the airline's Airbus A380s.

It said the legal action was back-up in case a settlement could not be reached.
Earlier, Australian air safety authorities said they had identified a serious manufacturing fault with some of Rolls-Royce's Trent 900 engines.
Rolls-Royce said the Australian findings were "consistent with what we have said before".
Qantas has resumed flying some of its A380 planes after grounding the fleet for safety checks following the incident on 4 November.
The carrier said its legal action allowed it "to keep all options available to the company to recover losses, as a result of the grounding of the A380 fleet and the operational constraints currently imposed on A380 services".
'Fatigue crack'
Air safety investigators in Australia said they had identified a serious manufacturing fault with some engines fitted to Airbus A380 passenger jets.
A misaligned component of the Rolls-Royce Trent 900 engine used on a Qantas A380 which exploded last month thinned the wall of an oil pipe.
This caused "fatigue cracking", which prompted leakage and ultimately a fire.
Rolls-Royce said in a statement: "We have instituted a regime of inspection, maintenance and removal which has assured safe operation.
"This programme has been agreed in collaboration with Airbus, our airline customers and the regulators."
The investigation into the engine explosion was carried out by the Australian Transport Safety Bureau (ATSB).
It said: "This condition could lead to an elevated risk of fatigue crack initiation and growth, oil leakage and potential catastrophic engine failure from a resulting oil fire."
The ATSB added that the problem was "understood to be related to the manufacturing process".
And it urged Rolls-Royce to "address the safety issue and take actions necessary to ensure the safety of flight operations in transport aircraft equipped with Rolls-Royce Trent 900 series engines".
'No risk'
Qantas said it would now conduct further engine investigations as a precautionary measure, but stressed that there was "no immediate risk".
"Qantas currently has two A380 aircraft in operational service, following the grounding of the fleet on 4 November. Both A380 aircraft will be inspected at the Qantas Jet Base in Sydney," the airline said.
The pilots of the November flight made a successful emergency landing in Singapore after one of the engines exploded in mid-air.
Singapore Airlines, which also uses A380s with the Rolls-Royce engine, says it is already checking its fleet "on a daily basis".
"The new checks advised by the ATSB will be carried out as quickly as possible," the airline said in a statement.
Qantas flight QF32 experienced an engine failure over western Indonesia, before safely returning to Changi airport. It was carrying 440 passengers and 26 crew.
Qantas chief executive Alan Joyce said at the time of the emergency landing that it appeared the blowout was "an engine issue" and not one of maintenance on the two-year-old plane.
It was the most serious incident involving the twin-deck A380 superjumbo passenger plane in its three years of service.
Not all A380s use Rolls-Royce Trent 900 engines. They are used on 20 aircraft owned by Qantas, Lufthansa and Singapore Airlines.
The other A380 aircraft - with Air France and Emirates - use a different engine.
The double-decker A380 is the world's largest passenger airliner, and can carry up to 800 people. The six Qantas A380s each carry about 475 passengers.


bbc.co

Privacy Talk Facebook...

Facebook Seeks Friends in Washington Amid Privacy Talk




By Sara Forden
(Adds Facebook funding for privacy group in next to last paragraph.)
Dec. 2 (Bloomberg) -- Facebook Inc. is expanding its Washington office and consulting with privacy advocates as lawmakers question how well the world’s largest social- networking site protects the personal information of users.
The company is looking for a public-policy expert and a deputy press spokesman, following the June hiring of Marne Levine to head its Washington office. Levine is a former top aide to Larry Summers, director of President Barack Obama’s National Economic Council. The new hires would bring Facebook’s Washington team to eight, up from zero three years ago.
Tighter privacy rules being discussed in Washington might limit the ability of companies such as Facebook and Google Inc. to tailor ads to users of their sites and curb sales growth. Google reported a 23 percent increase in sales to $20.9 billion, almost all from advertising, for the first three quarters of this year. Facebook revenue may double to $1.4 billion this year, two people familiar with the matter told Bloomberg News in August.
“A lot of people think Facebook could become bigger than Google, but privacy could be the real Achilles heel for this company,” said Sunil Gupta, a professor at Harvard Business School whose research areas include new media. “Privacy will be a huge issue, both in Washington and overseas.”
Congress, the Federal Trade Commission, and the Commerce Department are considering how to impose additional privacy safeguards on Internet companies that amass user data, and the White House in October established a task force of more than a dozen federal offices to address privacy concerns.
Do Not Track
The FTC yesterday called for a “do-not-track” option for Internet users to allow them to block monitoring of their online movements, used to compile profiles for marketers.
“Some consumers are troubled” by the tracking, the agency’s staff said in a report. “Others have no idea that any of this information collection and sharing is taking place.”
Privately owned Facebook, based in Palo Alto, California, says it has more than 500 million users worldwide, including more than 150 million in the United States. It channels communication among subscribers who approve access by people considered “friends,” and helps advertisers target consumers based on user demographics and interests.
The company says it gives users the ability to determine how much information they share, and that Facebook policies prohibit revealing details that identify individuals to third parties.
“When we talk with policy makers about Facebook, it’s about how users have control over information,” Levine said in an interview.
‘Privacy Time Bomb’
Facebook triggered an outcry in April after it added a feature that automatically connected users to three outside websites unless they specifically opted out of the service. The sites -- Yelp.com, Pandora and Docs.com -- tailor visits from Facebook members based on their user information. After complaints from privacy groups and lawmakers, Facebook in May introduced simpler privacy settings and said it was reducing the amount of publicly available user information.
In October, Facebook said some third-party software applications on its platform had transferred user ID numbers in violation of company policy. The company said it suspended some application developers for six months, and that it was taking steps to prevent user information from being passed to outside companies.
“Facebook is a ticking privacy time bomb, no matter how much they spend in lobbying,” said Jeffrey Chester, executive director of the Center for Digital Democracy in Washington, which has urged the FTC to address privacy issues at Facebook and other online marketers.
Facebook Everywhere
Even as lawmakers consider clamping down on Facebook, many of them are users. The company started to woo members of Congress in 2007, when its first Washington employee, Adam Conner, then a 23-year-old congressional staffer, was hired to teach elected officials and their staffs how to use the site.
This year, almost every candidate for the House and Senate used Facebook to reach voters, according to Washington-based spokesman Andrew Noyes.
“Facebook is everywhere on Capitol Hill, in the personal and professional lives of members and staff,” said Seamus Kraft, director of new media and press secretary for the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform. That familiarity hasn’t translated into a consensus on how to protect privacy rights, he said.
The co-chairmen of the House Privacy Caucus, Texas Republican Joe Barton and Massachusetts Democrat Edward Markey, sent a letter to Facebook Chief Executive Officer Mark Zuckerberg on Oct. 18 questioning the company’s privacy safeguards. Facebook’s response, a 13-page letter dated Oct. 29, explained that the sharing of user IDs is part of the way Internet browsers work and that it is developing technical solutions to further protect its users.
Data Breaches
The response didn’t satisfy Barton, who is seeking to become chairman of the Energy and Commerce Committee in the new Republican-controlled House.
“It seems like not a month goes by without the discovery of a data breach of one kind or another,” Barton said in an e- mail. “My committee and its subcommittees are going to take a hard look at the reliability of Internet privacy policies.”
Senate Commerce Committee Chairman Jay Rockefeller, a Democrat from West Virginia, has said he intends to draft Internet privacy legislation and in October fired off questions to Facebook and News Corp.’s MySpace. He pressed Facebook to explain how it enforces its privacy policy and what penalties it levies on violators.
So far, privacy concerns haven’t stopped Facebook’s growth. Founded by Zuckerberg in 2004 when he was a sophomore at Harvard University, Facebook surpassed MySpace as the world’s biggest social network two years ago and last year pushed aside AOL Inc. as the fourth most-visited site in the U.S., according to researcher ComScore Inc.
Lessons Learned
Facebook executives say they have learned from the experiences of companies like Google, Microsoft Corp. and Apple Inc., which have been caught up in regulatory and legislative issues.
“We were in Washington comparatively earlier in our growth cycle,” said Tim Sparapani, a former privacy expert for the American Civil Liberties Union who became Facebook’s Washington lobbyist in March 2009. “We have the benefit of having seen those companies and their experiences in Washington and learning from them.”
In addition to Sparapani, Conner and Levine, Washington staffers include Noyes, a former technology reporter for the National Journal, and Corey Owens, formerly of the Constitution Project, a Washington-based privacy group. The company also has former FTC commissioner Mozelle Thompson as an adviser on a range of issues including privacy, Noyes said.
Moving Quickly
“Relative to the history of some other tech companies, Facebook is now moving fairly quickly,” said Ed Black, president and chief executive officer of the Computer and Communications Industry Association, which lists Facebook as a member.
Aside from privacy, the Washington team is seeking to spend time on issues such as net-neutrality rules, which it favors for landline and wireless networks, as part of the Open Internet Coalition.
Facebook’s Washington contingent is still dwarfed by Google, which has about 40 people in its Washington office, including 10 registered lobbyists.
Facebook spent $221,390 on lobbying activities in the first nine months of this year compared with $169,700 in the same period last year, according to federal disclosure reports. Google reported spending $3.92 million in the first nine months of this year. Facebook hasn’t registered a political action committee, while Google’s PAC gave $208,000 to federal candidates in the past two years.
Justin Brookman, senior resident fellow of the Center for Democracy and Technology, who has met with Facebook officials on privacy matters, says the company is learning from its missteps. After previewing a new ‘Places’ feature, which allows users to reveal their locations, with groups including CDT, the company received “as good a review as Facebook has gotten from the privacy community,” Brookman said.
He said that CDT receives a “small amount” of funding from Facebook -- $35,000 out of a total budget of $4 million -- which doesn’t prevent it from criticizing the company when it has privacy problems. He cited the instance when CDT faulted Facebook for its Beacon feature tracking users elsewhere on the Web without their explicit permission, which Facebook ended in 2009 after two years.
Talking to privacy groups helps companies like Facebook identify concerns ahead of time, said Berin Szoka, a privacy advocate who is setting up a Washington organization focused on the issue. “Google has really pioneered this kind of engagement, but Facebook has caught up fast.”
--With assistance from Brian Womack in San Francisco and Kristin Jensen in Washington. Editors: Terry Atlas, Joe Winski
#<734998.1632168.2.1.46.17993.96># -0- Dec/02/2010 15:32 GMT
-0- Dec/02/2010 15:52 GMT
-0- Dec/02/2010 16:05 GMT
-0- Dec/02/2010 16:08 GMT
-0- Dec/02/2010 16:12 GMT

Monday, November 29, 2010

Euro falls after Irish Republic 85bn euro bail-out

The euro has been falling against the dollar

The euro has fallen against the dollar as markets opened a day after European ministers agreed a bail-out for the Irish Republic.
On Sunday, ministers reached agreement over a bail-out worth about 85bn euros ($113bn; £72bn).
On Monday, the euro fell 0.8% to $1.3136, its lowest since 21 September.

And Irish, Spanish and Portuguese bond yields remained stubbornly high, indicating the market is not convinced European debt problems have gone away.
Meanwhile, major European markets were also lower in midday trade.
Greek debt Irish Prime Minister Brian Cowen had called the 85bn euros package the "best available deal for Ireland", but opposition politicians had their doubts.
"This is a hugely disappointing result for the country. It's hard to imagine how this deal could have been much worse," said Fine Gael finance spokesman Michael Noonan.
"People are right to feel frightened, and worried about the future, when our own government has sold out the country on such lousy terms."
Also on Monday, the European Commission said the Irish Republic, which will have the biggest budget gap in the EU of 32% this year because of the cost of supporting its banking sector, will reduce the shortfall to 10.3% next year and cut it further to 9.1% in 2012.
However, for 2011 it has kept its forecast unchanged at 1.5%, down from 1.7% for 2010.
At the same time, eurozone finance ministers have opened the way to a six-year extension to 2021 in the repayment period for a European Union and International Monetary Fund loan to Greece.
It would mean an increase in the interest rate charged to Greece, but the rate would not exceed the 5.8% rate the Republic of Ireland is paying for its bail-out.
Bank shares up At midday in London, European stocks were down slightly in the wake of the deal, with London's FTSE down 0.28% at 5,652, Frankfurt's Dax down by 0.4% at 6,818 and Paris's Cac 40 down by 0.6% to 3,705.

Euro v US Dollar

Last Updated at 29 Nov 2010, 15:40 GMT *Chart shows local time EUR:USD intraday chart
                €1                        buys                         change %
                      1.3098   -0.01 -1.08
But Irish bank shares rose, with Allied Irish Banks up 7.58% and Bank of Ireland up 18.35%.
The high rates of return on the government bonds means some market doubt may remain about the bail-out.
"Bond prices have not reacted to the news, so this is not in any way a 'in one leap they were free' type of deal," said the BBC's business editor Robert Peston.
And the cost of insuring Portuguese and Spanish debt against default rose to a record high on Monday.
But Germany's finance minister Wolfgang Schaeuble attacked market speculation over the financial woes of Portugal as "irrational".
At the same time he praised the rescue deal for the Irish Republic.
"The speculation on the international financial markets can barely be explained rationally," he told German radio station Deutschlandfunk.
Countries are put under pressure, leading to "fear effects," he said, adding "the markets can make a lot of money in this way."
And French Finance Minister Christine Lagarde said the bail-out was "sufficient" and that "irrational" markets were not correctly pricing the sovereign debt situation in Europe.
"The amount [of the bail-out] is sufficient because that will keep Ireland afloat for three years," she told RTL radio.
'Best available deal' France and Germany have also said the Republic of Ireland bail-out should draw a line under its debt crisis.
And they have expressed confidence in Portugal's ability to correct its finances and avoid needing outside help.
An average interest rate of 5.8% will be payable on the loans, above the 5.2% currently paid by Greece for its bail-out.
Irish Prime Minister Brian Cowen said it was the "best available deal for Ireland".
It provides "vital time and space to successfully and conclusively address the problems we've been dealing with since the financial crisis began", he said.
He also said the country would take 10bn euros immediately to boost the capital reserves of its state-backed banks.
Another 25bn would remain in reserve, earmarked for the banks.
The Irish government has also said that interest payments on all state debt will account for more than 20% of tax revenues in 2014.
The deal does not require the Republic to change its low 12.5% corporation tax.
'Appalling' But as part of the bail-out, the Irish government will have to make an unexpected contribution of 17.5bn euros towards the 85bn euros total.
Dublin is poised to use its national pension fund and other cash reserves to achieve this.
Opposition parties Fine Gael, Labour and Sinn Fein have attacked this, and other elements, of the bail-out.
Main opposition party Fine Gael called the agreement "appalling", saying the 5.8% annual interest rate on the loan was unaffordable.




bbc.co

Saturday, November 27, 2010

What's in Amazon's Box?

What's in Amazon's Box? Instant Gratification

 

Customers love Prime, Amazon's two-day shipping program. Now rivals such as Wal-Mart, Target, Best Buy, and J.C. Penney are copying it


Ruth Tinsley made two momentous changes to her life in the last year. In December she had identical twin girls. A few weeks later she signed up for Amazon.com's free shipping service, Amazon Prime, which guarantees delivery of products within two days for an annual fee of $79. The combination of those two events turned the graphic designer from Birmingham, Ala., into an Amazon loyalist who now buys software, jewelry, and birthday gifts on the site. Her 2010 Amazon total heading into the holidays: 150 individual items, up from 82 in all of 2009. "Now if I see or hear about a product somewhere else, I'll always check first to see if Amazon has it," Tinsley says.
Amazon Prime may be the most ingenious and effective customer loyalty program in all of e-commerce, if not retail in general. It converts casual shoppers like Tinsley, who gorge on the gratification of having purchases reliably appear two days after they order, into Amazon addicts. Analysts describe Prime as one of the main factors driving Amazon's stock price—up 296 percent in the last two years—and the main reason Amazon's sales grew 30 percent during the recession while other retailers flailed. At the same time, Prime has proven exceedingly difficult for rivals to copy: It allows Amazon to exploit its wide selection, low prices, network of third-party merchants, and finely tuned distribution system, while also keying off that faintly irrational human need to maximize the benefits of a club you have already paid to join.
Now six years after the program's creation, rivals, both online and off, have sensed the increasing threat posed by Prime and are rushing to try to respond. Wal-Mart Stores (WMT), Best Buy (BBY), Target (TGT), and J.C. Penney (JCP) have recently unveiled free shipping promotions for the holidays, turning the fall shopping season into a race to see who can go furthest in lowering shipping costs. In August, eBay announced its first rewards program, eBay Bucks, which gives shoppers 2 percent back on items purchased on the auction site using PayPal. Last month a consortium of more than 20 retailers, including Barnes & Noble, Sports Authority, and Toys 'R' Us, banded together with their own copycat $79, two-day shipping program, ShopRunner, which applies to products across their Web sites. "As Amazon added more merchandising categories to Prime, retailers started feeling the pain," says Fiona Dias, executive vice-president at GSI Commerce (GSIC), which administers the ShopRunner service. "They have finally come to understand that Amazon is an existential threat and that Prime is the fuel of the engine."
Amazon relentlessly promotes Prime in press releases and on its home page, and this year started offering free Prime trials to students and parents. The company declines to disclose specifics about the program, though analysts estimate it has more than 4 million members in the U.S., a small slice of Amazon's 121 million active buyers worldwide. Analysts say Prime members increase their purchases on the site by about 150 percent after they join and may be responsible for as much as 20 percent of Amazon's overall sales in the U.S. The company's executives acknowledge only that the program gets people to buy more—and more kinds of items—on the site. "In all my years here, I don't remember anything that has been as successful at getting customers to shop in new product lines," says Robbie Schwietzer, vice-president of Amazon Prime and an eight-year veteran of the company.
Prime came to life in late 2004, the result of a years-long search at Amazon for the right loyalty program. An Amazon software engineer named Charlie Ward first suggested the idea of a free shipping service via a suggestion box feature on Amazon's internal Web site, according to Ward's colleagues at the time. Bing Gordon, an Amazon board member and venture capitalist, says he came up with the "Prime" name, while other executives, including Chief Executive Jeffrey P. Bezos himself, devised the free two-day shipping offer, which exploited Amazon's ability to accelerate the handling of individual items in its distribution centers.
According to several former employees who participated in the program's creation, Bezos commissioned Prime in December 2004 at an unusual Saturday meeting in the boathouse behind his home in Medina, Wash. At the meeting, he told the small team of employees they could commandeer other company engineers and resources, and instructed them to ready Prime for a rollout in time for the company's fourth-quarter earnings report in January, less than two months away. The program is a "big idea," Bezos told the group that day in the boathouse, according to people who were there, and one that would help the company further capture the devotion of its best customers.
Bezos met with the group three times a week during that span. When the team members said they could not make the deadline, Bezos, eager to take advantage of the free publicity from earnings announcements, delayed the report by a week. One challenge was selecting the annual fee for the service; there were no clear financial models because no one knew how many customers would join or how it would affect their purchasing habits. The team ultimately went with $79 mainly because it's a prime number. "It was never about the $79 dollars. It was really about changing people's mentality so they wouldn't shop anywhere else," says Vijay Ravindran, who worked on the Prime team and is now chief digital officer for The Washington Post. After the launch, Prime broke even in just three months, not the two years the team had originally forecast. The results "blew us away," says Jeff Holden, who led the team and now runs Pelago, a startup that makes a mobile phone game called Whrll.
Amazon now offers Prime in the continental U.S, Britain, Germany, France, and Japan, and Schwietzer says the company is moving toward guaranteeing Prime shipments within a day instead of two days. Analysts are divided on whether the free shipping offers from Wal-Mart and others will affect Prime. Some point to the fact that these offers will expire after Christmas and do not guarantee two-day delivery, and say consumers will find Prime the better deal. Others, like Gene Munster at Piper Jaffray (PJC), think shoppers will think twice about paying that $79, at least for now. "Free shipping does undermine Prime," Munster says. "Wal-Mart made every person in America a Prime user overnight."
Another debate among Amazon analysts and customers is whether Prime is actually worth the money. Many members swear by the service and evangelize about it—Ruth Tinsley says she has gotten several friends to join. Others question whether Prime is really a good deal, since Amazon usually offers free shipping when customers buy more than $25 worth of items at a single time. The company now reliably ships to certain parts of the country such as New York and San Francisco within a few days and at no extra charge.
"I don't think it's a bargain at all," says Kit Yarrow, a professor of psychology and marketing at Golden Gate University who recently got a free Prime trial and cancelled it after a month. "Really what people are paying for is immediate gratification."

Don Draper's Revenge

Illustration by Joe Magee

Everyone is waiting for Omnicom, Interpublic, WPP, and Publicis to fade away. But these lumbering advertising behemoths have advantages over smaller, cutting-edge firms.

John Seifert, the chairman of Ogilvy & Mather North America, shakes his head. It drives him crazy, he explains, when people portray contemporary New York admen as sushi-munching, Scotch-slurping dinosaurs, far removed from the concerns of digitally connected consumers and out of touch with a changing industry. It happens a lot.
It's the second day of Advertising Week, the industry's bender of panels, parties, and awards shows, held every fall in Manhattan. Seifert is sitting on a short stage, in a dim room with low ceilings at TimesCenter's The Hall, not far from Times Square. Rows of conventioneers in foldout chairs are watching the event, entitled "Inside a Big Dumb Agency."
Joining Seifert on stage are two colleagues from Ogilvy & Mather—a full-service global agency that is owned by the WPP Group (WPPGY), the behemoth holding company, which has some 100,000 employees in a constellation of agencies around the world. The Ogilvy executives are taking turns calmly responding to belittling inquiries from critics—"How many Twitter followers do each of you have?" one asks pointedly—questioning the relevance of a large, traditional agency in an age when low-to-the-ground, hand-to-hand grappling with consumers, tweet by tweet, is all the rage.
Isn't it amusing, one critic asks, that Big Dumb Agency managers, while enjoying "working dinners" at the swank Japanese restaurant Nobu, brainstorm how to sell cornflakes to single moms in Mississippi?
"I don't know how many of us are sitting at Nobu anymore drinking really expensive wine and talking to clients about things that we know nothing about," says Seifert.
At Seifert's feet rests a copy of Confessions of an Advertising Man, the seminal 1963 book by David Ogilvy, the firm's charismatic founder and one of the giants of Madison Avenue's heyday. Ogilvy drove a Rolls Royce. He wore a cape. He entertained clients at his château in France. He did not follow mouse clicks. By comparison, today's New York admen look more henpecked than cocksure.
From the stage, Lars Bastholm, Ogilvy's chief creative officer for New York, says that growing up in Copenhagen, he always dreamed of someday partaking in the Madison Avenue decadence. "This is wildly disappointing," he says. "I was looking forward to those dinners at Nobu."
"If any dumb agency is sitting here thinking life is wonderful," says Seifert, a few minutes later, "I'd be shocked."

The global recession roiled ad agencies of all sizes, but the current climate seems particularly fraught—emotionally and psychically—for the Madison Avenue giants. New York ad executives find themselves navigating a lean world where the flat 15 percent commission (and all the indulgences that came with it) has long since disappeared. Penny-pinching procurement officers now tightly monitor client expenditures, driving down fees; tiny startup interactive agencies moonwalk through award shows, egged on by an adoring press; and California-based search engines and social media newcomers are gobbling up large chunks of market share, selling ads one by one.
Again and again, the executives on stage assure the members of the audience that they get it. The Internet is important. Digital matters. And so they are carefully, painfully reconfiguring their workforces to take advantage of the changing landscape.
The crowd seems skeptical. A young man stands up and reports that he recently saw a list of top agencies around the world, including Ogilvy, that don't have their websites available on mobile devices, including the iPad and the iPhone. "So with the growing importance of those devices," he asks, "why aren't you guys practicing what you preach?"
Bastholm says that he too saw the gotcha list. But the problem highlighted therein, he says, turned out to pertain to a tiny slice of Ogilvy's website. It was easily fixed. "That list was done with a little bit of malice," says Bastholm. "Those lists are always done with a little bit of making a point in mind, rather than actually being entirely true."
Nearby rests a discarded copy of a glossy trade publication, featuring a front-page image of Don Draper, the protagonist of AMC's scripted drama Mad Men, which is set in the world of Madison Avenue in the 1960s. "Advertising Week," reads the pull quote, "the second-best recruitment tool for the industry behind Don Draper."
In Mad Men, Draper is a lusty, brilliant, troubled creative director conquering Madison Avenue thanks to his emotional insights into the subconscious motivations of consumers. Along the way, the archetypal Ideas Man seduces everything in his path: department-store heiresses. Bra manufacturers. Kodak (EK) executives. Secretaries. He is an unapologetic hustler. When a belittling beatnik asks him how he sleeps at night, Draper responds: "On a bed made of money."
Mad Men landed in American living rooms at a time of rising anxiety for creative types in New York advertising, with the balance of power in the industry feeling like it might be forever shifting to Silicon Valley. In 2007, the year of the series' debut, Google (GOOG) generated more than $16.5 billion in revenue, largely from advertising created entirely without creative directors. It brought in $23.6 billion in 2009. The Mad Men fantasy offered a counterpoint to a connected world where analytics and mathematical marketing promised at long last to erase the mystery from advertising, and a lot of the profits.
Nick Law, the chief creative officer in North America for the interactive ad agency R/GA, is standing on stage at another Advertising Week event, delivering a lecture entitled "Designing an Agency for the Digital Age." Law, dressed in a snug, black V-neck T-shirt, clicks a button and an image appears on the screen behind him. He tells the audience that the hieroglyphics in the picture represent the old model of advertising: A chess piece + a lightbulb x a TV-shaped box = an exclamation point. Law translates the simple equation: "Strategy + creativity x mass media = ambiguous results," he says.
The dig at the traditional agency model scores a chuckle from the crowd. Law clicks the button again. A new formula appears on the screen. This one, he says, represents the new model of advertising in the Digital Age. It has a bunch more variables and looks like the precocious love child of the quadratic equation and the Rosetta Stone.
"It's basically something like: Collaboration + data + strategy plus creativity x media neutrality times efficient production = measurable results," says Law. "Of course it's purposely complicated because we want to pretend like it's a lot more difficult than it actually is," he says. In one clever illustration, he has managed both to send up the bewildering pretension of the forward-looking digital agencies and to embody them perfectly.
Law goes on to explain that the old model of advertising is no longer working. The modern digital world has seen a multiplication of contexts, he says, from e-mail to search engines to blogs to social media networks and on and on. Companies can no longer simply wait for a potential consumer to sit down in front of the TV and then interrupt them with a message. The upshot for clients, he says, is that mass marketing no longer reliably delivers increased sales. That means that old-style agencies have little to offer.
Furthermore, if mass marketing no longer works, then micromarketing to niche behaviors and interests must be the answer. That is what has led to the proliferation in recent years of little ad shops, instantly recognizable by their professed disdain for traditional—and profitable—mass marketing, and their penchant for wacky names: LeapFrog (LF), GeniusRocket, Big Spaceship, glue isobar, Blue Barracuda.

The key, according to the new paradigm, is to create interactive brand experiences that recognize and enhance consumers' online behavior. If hard-core joggers are using the Internet to log the mileage of their daily runs with their iPods, agencies should build a sponsored home for them online where they can track their data, visualize their progress, and plunk down serious coin for premium running shoes. That was the basic idea behind R/GA's interactive campaign on behalf of Nike (NKE) +.
All of this will be undertaken by "digital natives" with the Web in their DNA. Only the small, nimble shops will be able to navigate this fractal universe of endlessly proliferating media. The big guys with their lumbering overseers at the holding companies are not only dumb, they are also as good as dead.
It all sounds great, at least to the technorati. The only problem is, it's not remotely true.
"All these little companies with fun names," says David Lubars, "we've kicked their butts." Lubars is chairman and chief creative officer of Omnicom's (OMC) BBDO North America, an 82-year-old Madison Avenue agency with more than 17,000 employees. On a recent Friday afternoon, Lubars was sitting in his Midtown Manhattan office. He gestured at BBDO's 2010 Webby award for best ad agency of the year, which was resting a few feet away from his electric guitar, tuned to imitate Keith Richards' ringing sound.
"Americans like a story of the big guys getting taken down," says Lubars. "But that doesn't mean that's what is actually happening."
After a couple of years of slumping fortunes, the Big Four advertising agency holding companies—Omnicom, the WPP Group, Interpublic (IPG), and Publicis—are bouncing back. In October they reported their quarterly earnings. Across the board, revenues were up. Omnicom brought in $2.9 billion, an increase of 5.5 percent over 2009, including a jump of 8.4 percent in North America. Revenues are once again approaching the lofty levels of 2007. Looking at trends over, say, a decade-long period reveals little evidence of secular decline. The layoffs of the past two years are over. All of the Big Four are hiring, prompting columnist Jim Edwards to write a recent post on BNET with the headline: "Help Wanted: Madison Avenue Is Hiring Like Crazy and Bonuses Are on the Rise."
Last year, according to a study by PricewaterhouseCoopers, Internet advertising revenues amounted to $22.7 billion, of which 35 percent was spent on display advertising. In the third quarter of 2010, according to the Interactive Advertising Bureau, online ads reached a record $6.4 billion, up 17 percent from a year earlier. The market is expected to continue to grow.
That's a lot, but it's still a long way from the amount spent on traditional advertising. Based on the revenue opportunities available, agencies would be negligent to devote all of their time to digital platforms. To wit: During 2009, the Big Four combined brought in $16.71 billion in revenue in the U.S., according to Advertising Age, more than double the $8 billion spent on digital display advertising in U.S. in the same year, across all companies.
Lubars, dressed in jeans and a black long-sleeve shirt, pops a highlight reel into his office DVD player. For the next 15 minutes he shows off some of the agency's recent work: an AT&T (T) banner ad in which World Cup fans could use their Web cameras to play a soccer game on screen; a 30-second Snickers TV spot starring Betty White and Abe Vigoda; and a multimedia campaign for HBO that included the strategic installation of outdoor multiscreen storytelling cubes in New York and Philadelphia.
"We're doing leading-edge technological breakthrough things," says Lubars. "At the same time, we're winning the best spot for the Super Bowl."
Prior to joining BBDO, Lubars was president of Fallon Worldwide, a Minneapolis-based agency owned by Publicis. He spent the first two decades of his career working in traditional media. In 2001, while trying to figure out how to get potential BMW customers to spend more time on the company's website, Lubars came up with the idea for The Hire—a series of eight short films directed by the likes of Ang Lee and Tony Scott, starring Clive Owen. The campaign grew into a monster hit and won Lubars seemingly every major award in the industry. As a result, he has little patience for the idea that veterans of TV and print campaigns are genetically incapable of making a dent in new media.
Not that old agencies sometimes aren't a tad sclerotic. When Lubars joined BBDO five years ago he found a traditional agency curiously eyeing the changes sweeping through the business."Forget about new kinds of media," says Lubars. "They didn't do old types of media. They didn't do print. It was essentially a film production house. They made these shiny, expensive films—which was a great thing to do in that era."
In the intervening years, Lubars has overseen a high-profile transformation of the agency. "It used to be a company with a big fat middle," he says. "Now it's a skinny middle with a lot of young people and just a few managers. We're trying new things. And we're bringing in people who come from different backgrounds—technologists, designers, artists—who come together and create this new, interesting gumbo."
"The last 24 months have been unbelievably painful in our industry," says Ogilvy & Mather's Seifert. "The fact is, what you don't read about in the blogs, is that we let 391 people go. But we also hired 270 new people. We transferred another 300 people between different parts of the company. All of that was designed to meet the changing requirements of our business."
Seifert says that in addition to reconfiguring their workforce, Ogilvy is happy to learn from the small digital shops—and hire away their top talent. "We have more shared ventures going on with young startup agencies right now than we've ever had," he says.
And over time, many of those nimble startup shops end up in the same position as their supposedly ham-fisted forefathers, becoming a part of the big companies they are pretending to outfox. The global holding companies continue to tinker with the mix of services in their portfolios and aren't shy about using their resources to acquire little artist colonies to plug holes in their offerings. In November, Omnicom (OMC) bought the British design and communications agency The Core. In May, WPP purchased Brazilian interactive agencies Midia Digital and i-Cherry. The same month, Interpublic bought Cubocc, a Brazilian digital shop, its indie cred codified for posterity by a neon office sign: "Cubocc, the Monster Whatever Hotshop."
Lubars is also gobbling up talent. In addition to stockpiling search engine optimizers, social media strategists, and Web developers, he continues to add creative digital talent. Right now, the Swedes are the hottest thing in the industry. In February, Lubars hired Mathias Appelblad, a former interactive creative director at the Swedish agency Forsman & Bodenfors, to become BBDO's director of innovation.
"He has dominated the digital world in creativity," says Lubars. "Now he's here. We're not going to rest on our laurels. We're going to jack it up that much more. We're adding guys that come from some of these small background places. They come here to paint on a bigger canvas—where it's actually part of the culture, rather than some side dribble."
Lubars doesn't want to defend all the big agencies, just the good ones. He says he'd be happy to watch some of the mediocre giants someday disappear. But writing off the whole lot of them, he says, is naive—like dismissing an entire genre of music. "Oh, you don't like pop music?" he says. "What does that mean? You don't like ABBA? Or you don't like the Beatles? Some of it is great. Some of it is disposable."
The little hot shops, says Lubars, who are thumping their chests and declaring the end of mass marketing and the death of the Big Dumb Agencies, do so as a business posture, an attitude for journalists, and a sales pitch to clients. "They don't believe a word of it," he says.
What he sees instead is an evolution, firms heading to the same place from different directions. Technologically able marketers are trying to scale up into full-service agencies; and full-service agencies are mastering the new channels and a world with 6 billion individual markets. "They're racing to figure out what an idea is," says Lubars. "We're racing towards technology. It's easier to pick up the technology. That's why we got there first....They are desperate to take down the agencies that are doing it now."
At the same time, the big agencies are busy integrating their technologists into all aspects of their operations, and hungrily circling the interactive market, plotting to swallow more share in the years to come.
"A lot of the people who are working in smaller shops and kind of lobbing stones at large agencies like this miscategorize us as being people who are in love with doing the TV commercial," says Matt Donovan, managing partner of McCann Erickson, New York. "We're not. We're in love with creativity that moves that big business problem into the positive results column. More and more companies are finding that the big agencies have retooled and do understand this change. We are paid by businesses to outsmart others. That's what we're here to do."
Prior to joining McCann Erickson, Donovan worked at Euro RSCG 4D, an interactive agency. "Back in '97 and '98 when I started in digital," he says, "all the talk was that agencies were going to die. I had a wise CEO who had been in the ad business before television, and he said, 'That's exactly what we thought when television came along.' What you really have to do is engage with this stuff, learn it, and you'll be in fine shape. That's part of the belief of this company. It's been around for a hundred years."
"We are learning from some of the smaller digital shops that are out there," he adds. "I think what they're worried about is when a big agency like this one acts on this and gets it right."
All of the big agencies are working on multiple fronts to integrate their technology teams more deeply into every aspect of the creative process. The days of digital silos inside agencies are long gone. In October, McCann Erickson moved Mark Fallows from London to New York to serve as the agency's director of creative technology. "The mistake that a lot of traditional agencies made in the past was that they just hired some digital people, put them in the corner, and said, 'When we have the ideas we'll come to you and you can build some digital,' " says Fallows. "That's not how it works anymore."
In the darkest moments of 2009, with ad budgets withering away amid the global recession, the age-old despair of the creatives was at fever pitch and the din of the futurists at a near-deafening roar. But as the global ad market continues to thaw, the descendants of Madison Avenue not only are alive but are looking as well positioned as anybody to capitalize on the digital market moving forward.
"We're getting calls all the time now from clients and new business prospects who have gone and worked with alternative, New Age agencies that are now saying we want to come back and talk to you," says Ogilvy's Seifert. "If you believe our critics and the pundits, you'd say, 'Well, these big dumb agencies are built on hubris; they're in Madison Avenue towers; they lack the nimbleness to thrive,' " says Thom Gruhler, president of McCann Erickson, New York. "It's the most ridiculous notion you've ever heard in your life."
Lubars says that rather than filling seasoned admen with dread, the technological explosion has rejuvenated their interest in the game. "I got to be honest—at my age, now, if it were still just TV, and print, and radio, I'd probably be really bored," says the 52-year-old Lubars. "I've done this for 25 years, and what? I just keep doing it? Now every day there are not just new ideas, but new technologies to distribute. It's fun for us. There are all these new things you can do now that you couldn't do last year."
"It's gray and messy right now," he says. "I find that chaos and lack of definition liberating. I think any really good creative person would."


businessweek