‘Mind Your Own Business Act’ would empower shareholders against woke corporations

Florida Sen. Marco Rubio has introduced a bill to “enable shareholders to hold woke corporations accountable” by equalizing the playing field in the ways publicly traded companies serve or fail to serve the public that owns it. The “Mind Your Own Business Act” is a bill that would empower shareholders with the ability to successfully sue a corporation if the corporation is behaving in “woke” ways that undermine its “fiduciary duty” to the shareholders. These include advertising campaigns that have nothing to do with a corporations product or service and everything to do with a sociopolitical agenda and corporate boycotts of states and industries for non-financial reasons.

This sort of fighting back against the corporate elites that go against what their shareholders want of them is long overdue, but up until recently, it has been extremely difficult for a middle class shareholder to voice their concerns to corporate management as many don’t even use their shareholder rights to vote to change corporate leadership. As Sen Rubio noted in an op-ed for Fox business:

If you own a stock, invest in a mutual fund, have a company-sponsored 401k, then you are a shareholder and are owed legal duties by the corporations you invest in. The truth is that corporate executives keep you in the dark about your right to hold them accountable for how they spend your money.

Technically it has always been legal for a shareholder to sue over this mismanagement in a company, but the process is nearly impossible to complete or get a ruling because – surprise! – the corporate elites who write the rules have continually added labyrinths that make the process virtually impossible to navigate. As Rubio notes:

Under current law, a shareholder has the right to sue corporate officers when they take actions like these that are motivated by their politics rather than your financial interests. But corporations have stacked the deck to make these lawsuits hopeless. They tweak provisions in their bylaws to protect themselves as they leave America behind.

The solution is simple: these large, publicly traded companies must provide a clear path forward for shareholders when they sue in response to these actions. My bill would put the burden of proof on the company to show that these actions were in shareholders’ best interests, and make corporate officers personally liable if they can’t prove it.

No more legal tricks that shield these corporate executives from accountability. If they really believe that being woke is good for business, they should have to say so—and prove it—under oath in court.

In effect, this is a corporate-America way to achieve the Communist dream of a utopia that at least moves closer to a truly worker-owned economy. Financial firms are supposed to be accountable only to shareholders and exist only for maximizing shareholder value and if you don’t like it then you can become a shareholder and vote for the corporate direction the company should be taking in your estimation, or, if your vote fails, you can sell your shares and not buy from the company. Facilitating this end only helps the system be more of what it is designed to be, so everyone should be in favor of it, right? The problem is that the most powerful groups in the country don’t want the system to be what the system is supposed to be, so “woke capital” has been the way they’ve tried to change it.

American Compass in a piece titled Woking 9 to 5 (heh) shows the results of what people think about wokeness on behalf of corporations in a survey of workers (and for those without a traditional employer they asked about business in general) to determine the publics actual desire for businesses to skew woke.

In their adoption of “progressive” agendas, both unions and corporations have ignored entirely the preferences and interests of workers. (Whether an agenda that abandons workers can rightly be called progressive is a question for another day.) Not What They Bargained For, the American Compass survey of worker attitudes, highlights the ways that the labor movement’s focus on progressive politics has undermined its own popularity and alienated the lower and working classes. Workers similarly disdain “woke” employers.

Specifically they asked: “In recent months American companies have taken public stances and made business decisions that they say advance social justice, on issues such as election reform, racial equity, and LGBTQ+ rights. Thinking about your own employer, which of the following best represents your own view.”

Large majorities want businesses to “focus on business and stay out of social justice issues.” There is one segment of workers who go against the majority and want more wokeness:

There are 4 other charts breaking down the survey data at the American Compass website

Oren Cass summarizes:

As corporations and unions have found common cause advancing social justice—or perhaps, more accurately, as both have fallen under the control of the same set of managerial-class graduates of the same set of universities plying a common social justice dogma—it is both shareholders’ and workers’ interests that get snubbed, and both who would benefit from businesses getting back to business.

A well-functioning capitalist system requires that managers consider many obligations beyond those to shareholders, which a business can fulfill in its operation as a business: treating workers well and offering employment that allows them to support their families; investing in the long-term sustainability of the firm itself and the surrounding community; promoting the nation’s prosperity. Getting co-opted by political activists is not on the list. Asking shareholders to help in policing such behavior may somewhat incidentally accrue to their own benefit, but the benefits to society will be much larger. It is precisely the role of policymakers in a market economy to craft rules that encourage capitalists to advance their own interests in ways that advance the common good as well.

For now, the the legislation’s going nowhere under a Democrat-controlled Congress and White House, but it is good signaling by Rubio who is up for reelection next November and if/when Republicans take back congress in the 2022 midterms, this is a good direction to alert supporters that the party would be going in.

Billionaires go to space. Peasants feel bad about themselves.

After decades of seeing fictional billionaires like Bruce Wayne and Tony Stark put their wealth into awesome efforts to change the world – the year 2021 finally saw a few of them do something more than just open a boring foundation: they actually built rocketships and went in them to go into space.

This was met with a lot of unhappy reaction on the internet because of course, “if someone has enough money to advance privatized space travel then why can’t they just give it to me?” – or some similar response with the same general thesis. Yawn.

In America, a lot of coverage of Amazon founder Jeff Bezos preparing to go into space has been the big item for years, with only minor mentions of how UK billionaire Richard Branson of the Virgin company has also been planning Virgin spacecrafts and to a similar extent, we only see side-mentions of Elon Musk’s effort with SpaceX – but in a surprise move from Branson: Virgin beat Bezos to busting space-sex quicker than SpaceX. (alternate headline?).

Credit and Congratulations to the Daily Beast for making this excellent image in 2017

An added layer of amusing coincidence is that Virgin’s ship is shaped like a plane and Bezos’ ship is shaped like a penis.

The big thing that got people heated about what captains of industry spend their capital on to change this dull world was when Bezos pointed out that this was made possible because the company he started has good employees that helped make it popular enough to be so widely adopted by customers that he could pay for such an endeavor.

The reason they didn’t like this sentiment was because they interpreted it differently. Specifically, Bezos said: “I also want to thank every Amazon employee and every Amazon customer because you guys paid for all of this”; and this was stretched to mean some kind of admission of exploitation along the lines of “you losers who work for me and you suckers who buy shit from my company bankrolled this hobby of mine. Morons”. Which is weird, but less weird when you know that these same people have been demonizing Amazon for only paying workers really-well, and not really-REALLY-well, and … well – on the customer end of it, they have no argument because Amazon undeniably trounces competition in prices so it’s not like Amazon buyers are getting gouged with huge markups. So it’s really just the employee part that is acting as a confirmation-bias where people set up a false premise that if billionaire has billions of dollars then it is immoral for them to pay the lowest-tier job roles in their company at industry competitive rates – they should be gifting them MORE for their work because, shucks – they’re billionaires!

Lame.

But its even more lame that private industry builders are using their money to advance space travel and instead of being happy about it, so many are just using it as another excuse to feel bad about the world and how it differs from what they think it should be. It’s lame and it’s a shame. A lame shame with unwarranted blame.

Walmart Announces Walmart Plus – but it’s no Amazon Prime (yet)

Walmart has announced a subscription service they’re calling Walmart+ for $100 a year that gives members unlimited free shipping from Walmart.com, free same day shipping from Walmart stores, and 5 cents off per gallon on gas at their stations (Sams Club – a Walmart subsidiary – gas stations not yet included but the company says they will be soon). That’s basically it for now. You can also skip lines in Walmart stores and pay with your Walmart+ account and just walk out the door or something. 

The name is boring, adding another Plus branded subscription service to the AppleTV+, Disney+, but – Is it worth it?

You may have noticed by that list that the perks are as generic as the service name. Despite the analyst headlines and overwhelming consensus that this is “Walmarts answer to Amazon Prime”, this is clearly not designed to compete with Amazon Prime like the media hot takes are claiming. More on that in a minute.

The major missing feature is video… Amazon Prime includes movie and tv show streaming in its service along with a bunch of other perks like free cloud storage for photos that most users don’t take advantage of and Walmart isn’t offering anything like that at launch. They could have as the company used to own video streaming streaming service Vudu that offered free and paid streaming rentals and sold it for some reason to Comcast’s Fandango who wanted it for who-knows-why (Fandango already has a streaming service that does the exact same thing Vudu does and its parent company Comcast owns NBCUniversal which already streams its own content on its apps and the newly debuted Peacock streaming service but they wanted one more streamer). Making the lack of video in Walmart+ and Walmarts sale of Vudu even stranger is that at the same time all this is going on, Walmart also wants to co-parent Tik Tok with Microsoft as the phone based short video making/watching app looks for a buyer.

So for whatever reason, Walmart isn’t trying to compete with, er, their biggest competitor, Amazon, who debuted Prime 15 years ago. This is a defensive move to retain customers within their Walmart ecosystem to help dissuade more people from defecting to Amazon for their shopping needs, not an offensive move (at least not yet) to compete with Amazon users who already buy most of their delivered goods through Amazon.

BUT – the one thing that would make Walmart+ worth the hundy a year is the same day free delivery from local stores. That one is a winner because many Walmart stores are also grocery stores so that means unlimited free same day delivery on groceries without having to tip a deliverer (I’m assuming) and without marked up prices like grocery delivery services such as Instacart instates on all the items they make available with their partners. 

Walmart+ launches September 15 so will be looking into it more but at this point I’m thinking it’s a probable buy for that reason.

Why Apple products have limited color options

Apples design choices amount to “we are whatever the other guys aren’t”.

That’s a line I say a little further down in this post but I wanted to do that thing where a pull-quote is used to demonstrate a thesis cuz that’s what real journalism is, or something.

The logo for their September product announcement event appears to be a stack of clear colored plastic shells.

So does this mean they are bringing back color – or, sorry, “flavor” – options to their computers like the early 2000’s iMac and iBook options?

I’m gonna say that will be a solid no because Apples design choices amount to “we are whatever the other guys aren’t”.

So the first Apple computer debut’s as a beige square and later a beige monitor with a beige tower connected to it and their first laptops came in off-white and then off-black (or what Apple today calls “Space Gray”) – but then when every desktop maker offered nothing but a beige tower or black laptop, they come out with “flavors” of computers that include color options that are bright and zesty and intentionally absent of white, off-white, beige/tan/whatever available choices in desktop and black options for laptops taken away.

But then when the other computer makers catch up and start making fun looking colorful desktop and laptop options, Apple says “fkk-you” and makes all their machines in unpainted uniform aluminum.

The same with iPhones: They were black when most cell phones were silver, became silver when most cell phones started copying the black iPhone, and expanded into colorful options only after the industry standard for smart phones were “either silver or black”.

Apple is what the others aren’t – or at least that’s how the company wants people to think of their products. So what they offer is shaped by what the standard is and then Apple will go do the opposite. 

Former eBay and DreamWorks executives start odd new digital tv service

While at a business meeting in Dallas with rich people looking for interesting ways to invest their money, I was asked if I knew Meg Whitman. Not knew of her – but like, knew her personally, because, quote, “she’s big in computers and technology in California” and I should “talk to her about some of the stuff yer doing”. So 1- I’ll have my secretary Rosa schedule a lunch with her right away on a day that I’m free and 2- for as dense as that comment was, it gave way to discovery of a completely and totally bizarre new company that she’s now the CEO of…

Katzenberg & Whitman at the helm…

Background/Catchup: Meg Whitman is the former CEO of eBay from back when eBay was one of the 5 biggest websites that existed on a brand new world wide web. More recently she was the CEO of HP where she was… okay. Not revolutionary or as successful as she was in the booming years of eBay but the general review of her tenure at HP appears to be mostly positive, just not exciting.

Jeffrey Katzenberg is the former head of Disney animation when it too was the king in its field, doing its best work of all time (Little Mermaid, Beauty & the Beast, Aladdin, Lion King) and then founded DreamWorks in 1994 to challenge Disney when he felt disrespected by the company.

Together they are launching a digital/streaming video service.
/End of “who are these people?” catchup section…

Quibi: a bite-sized video network

The new company is called Quibi and I don’t know how to pronounce it any more than you do but I’m assuming it’s “Kwibbi” and if so – they should have just spelled it that way instead. If its “Kibbi” then the phonetic spelling with the “K” is, again, superior. And if its pronounced “Quee-bee” then that’s just ill advised all together.

Update: I’ve been informed that it is short for “quick bite” and pronounced as such.

The branding…

Oh, and also its logo is a weird circle with a tail and the company name uses an ugly generic font that doesn’t at all match the style, but other than that it sounds…like something.

The logo isn’t the worst, but it sure is odd. It’s primary colors are pink and blue that smash together with a diagnal gradient purple belt on a “Q” that is really a perfect machine-cut pineapple ring looking “O” that leaves the crisp circle to make an organic looking curl like a pugs tail, to make it a “Q”.

What is known about Quibi so far…

Strange name, strange logo, and it’s a venture of the strangest of people to partner together on something like this, plus the biggest players in Hollywood, $1.5 Billion in capital behind it, and all servicing what sounds like the dumbest way to do, market and contract something like this that I could imagine…

The “thing that’s different” about the platform is that the videos on it will be made short and for cell phone consumption. Specifically, they’re 10 minute long videos and the service wants to debut with 5,000 of those (so about 833 hours of content – which is a lot to start with when its all-new creations starting brands no one has ever heard of on a platform no one has ever heard of).

What makes sense about it..

This makes sense as a venture because Instagram stories and the lengthier Instagram TV videos are getting huge marketshare of watch-hours and before those two existed, it was SnapChat doing the same thing that was the reason Instagram, which is owned by Facebook, even thought to make that a feature. SnapChat’s Discover page contains not only short, several minute human interest stories, news coverage, and YouTube style talk show/vlog clips from partners but also from SnapChats own production arm that makes mostly news talk related videos from a Left-wing/Democratic point of view on politics and culture.

So, making a platform specifically geared toward this market makes sense when 2 competing tech companies are themselves scrambling to tack on this exact feature to their existing user services the same way Apple is now doing with Hollywood style content in its Apple TV+ service launching later this year.

In other words – like I’ve been telling my business partners for a damn decade and a half: creating a useful service to attract a lot of users is great and all, but the real way to leverage that gathering of humans is to keep them within your ecosystem with entertaining stuff to watch.

What doesn’t make sense about it

Quibi won’t have that benefit of being a service that’s tacked onto something that already exists and is popular with a lot of people, so it’s going to have to attract those people to its content based on the merits of its offerings alone.

The company is getting around this problem by signing on big names and studios to make new shows for it.

The Content

Steven Spielberg, the famous Producer/Director and a longtime friend of Katzenburg’s, is going to write scary stories for Quibi. Can he write 10 minute scripts as good as he Directs 2 hour long movies? We’ll find out.

The major studios, including AT&T’s WarnerMedia and Katzenburgs former boss turned rival turned partner, The Walt Disney Co. and its recently purchased subsidiary, 21st Century Fox, along with smaller Indie studios including Lionsgate will be creating original content for the service.

Quibi’s Business Details

Don’t let the bite-sized video fool you into thinking this is a low-budget venture though. Whitman says they’re not building Quibi to be another YouTube – they want it to be more like another HBO. Their budget backs up the claim as the videos they’re making are expected to cost $100,000 a minute to produce, according to the LA Times, which is about 30x what most producers spend on similarly short length content made to be consumed on smartphones.

The deals Quibi is making with these content creators are the most competitive I’ve seen. Quibi pays for 100% of the cost of the productions, but doesn’t own them afterward – they’re merely sponsoring the content creation just so they can license it exclusively for 7 years. After that, they have no claim to it and the creating studios can do with them what they please on their own streaming services or whatever they want. After two years of the agreement, the deal allows for the creating studios to expand their shows from the 10 minute “bits” to full-length tv-episode 20minute+ durations to shop around for distribution elsewhere like networks or other streaming offerings. 

The funding for all this content is coming out of over what will probably be around $2 Billion raised by big name funding players Goldman Sachs Group Inc., JPMorgan Chase & Co. (the bank), and the Alibaba Group (Alibaba is a huge Chinese e-commerce company that is often described as being “the Amazon.com of China”). They’ve already raised $1Billion for content creation and $500,000 for the technical build the app and service will require.

The Absolutely Terrible / DealBreaker…

It ain’t free… Quibi will be a paid service. Exclusively. No free version.

If you want access to its library of 10 minute videos to watch on your phone, you’ll have to pay $5 a month and still have to watch ads, or pay $8 a month without ads. Maybe there’s a game changer that makes their content so “must see” that it justifies these price points, but at this stage, that doesn’t appear likely despite the investments and participation of such big content making sources on the platform.

Put me on record as noting that this is a bad idea.

What they should have done instead…

1- Absolutely make it a free service. Especially since all of the content offering is going to be made by other billion dollar production corporations who get to keep the distribution rights of what they’re making on Quibi’s dime, the deals with those studios should be more favorable to the Quibi user base who is essentially test-screening show concepts for those studios and paying for the pleasure. They should get it for free, with minimal ads courtesy of those big studios – not regular-amount-of-ads + a subscription fee because of those big studios. Keep the option to upgrade to an ad-free option, but don’t wall the whole thing off as a premium service exclusively. That’s not smart unless you have some really powerful hooks that haven’t been announced yet.

Examples would be bite-sized episodes from intellectual property the public is already familiar with – eg: Disney making a Star Wars animated series similar to their 2003 Clone Wars series that aired on Cartoon Network in small 2 minute long episodes (stitched together and shown below), NBCUniversal doing the same thing with a Minions series and other properties they own like The Secret Life of Pets, Despicable Me, and so on with characters who are much better suited to inhabit 10 minute stories than hour+ long movies.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cpXrz2Sfv8Y

Instead of banking on familiar franchises spawning new short-format spin-offs and supplementing that main push with original entertainment ventures, they’re doing the reverse (if pre-existing franchise IP even comes to the platform at all).

2- Incorporate Influencers & New Talent.

Quibi doesn’t want to be YouTube because no one wants to be YouTube, including YouTube – we get it. Big Studio production is where the money is. They want to be a premium outlet just like everyone else. Fine. But getting people to pay a monthly fee for content they don’t know anything about is risky and unnecessarily so when you could mitigate that risk by adding personalities who already have followings to your platform with enticing deals that encourage them to stay there and maybe even leave YouTube all together some day.

The high-production-value aspect Quibi is going for is fun and fine and good luck to them with it – but it should be supplemented by a tier of millennial up & comers from social media, now boosted with big fat Hollywood budgets to do extensions of what they’ve been doing themselves from their bedrooms and whatnot.

YouTube Red failed because no one wants to see “their favorite YouTube stars in low budget Hollywood style movies” – they want to see their favorite YouTube stars doing more and better versions of what they already know and like those stars for doing. They don’t want to see PewDePie in a romantic comedy – they want to see PewDePie play video games and comment on news or whatever he does. Thus, a PewDePie YouTube Red late night style talk show format where he has a monologue, interview, and variety-show-esque segment could have been a big draw – but YouTube wasn’t interested. YouTube didn’t understand that YouTube fans don’t want to see Logan Paul in a horror movie (which YouTube Red tried to do with “The Thinning”) – they want to see Logan Paul do goofy heightened-reality silly-douche stuff. And so on.

A free version with lots of new stars empowered to do their own thing with minimal constraints on a platform that entices you to upgrade to a premium version without ads and with more content seems so obvious to me as the way to go here that it will be interesting to see what Quibi actually turns out to be and whether it is successful or flops.

Developing…

Apple TV+ Announcement is Apple’s most uninspired ever

The March 2019 Apple event announced 3 things:

Apple Card
a credit card with no fees and the sort of spending tracking that a dozen other apps offer. It’s a partnership with Goldman Sachs and MasterCard.

Apple Arcade
a paid subscription service (price not announced) that gives you an all-you-can-eat style access to a list of premium and paid games on the app store.

Apple News+
a subscription service for digital versions of newspapers and magazines.

and…

The Big Announcement!: An unexciting mainstream version of what is already available to consumers with no advantageous features or innovation

Apple TV+

The main attraction! And what is it?… It’s an app.

It contains Apple Channels which does what Amazon Channels service and Hulu both do. But now its by Apple!

This is like how early DVD’s would try to stretch out their non-existent “Special Features” with checks like “chapter selection” and “dolby digital audio”

In addition to the ability to buy channels through Apple, there will also be original programming at a subscription price that was conspicuously absent from the event… Whatever that price is, will it be worth it? Here’s what we were given to make that determination:

The Original Programming on the debut of Apple TV+ is a snooze-fest

The shows in this announcement are nothing special. That doesn’t mean any of them will be bad – it just means they’re not exciting.

Stephen Spielberg’s Amazing Stories… basically another Twilight Zone style anthology “but with SPIELBERG!”…

The Morning Show… A Comedy(?) or Drama(?) or Both about a Morning Show… Reese Witherspoon & Jennifer Aniston & Steve Carell do a show about a morning talk show. No clues as to what kind of show it is except the painfully unfunny “oh, hey guys, am I late??” bit that ushered in Steve Carell to the presentation stage after Aniston and Witherspoon had said a few words about their involvement in the series. That clue suggests that the show is a comedy but who the hell knows. There was no detail about it. We don’t know if this is going to be a goofy reboot along the lines of Back To You (a show that barely lasted 1 season, literally no one knows about, and I’m only mentioning here because I kindasorta almost got a speaking role on it) or if they are going for more of an Alan Sorkin tone like HBO’s The Newsroom. Probably the latter, but only because that’s a safer route to take and Apples other lineup items look equally bland and pedestrian.

Something about Immigrants… I guess its a docu-series? The Indian fella from HBO’s Silicon Valley (Kumail Nanjiani) introduced it but what exactly his role in the series is wasn’t made clear. I guess he hosts explorations into immigrant-centric human interest tales or something? Whatever it is – this was the peak of his career as his dramatically lighted face recieved equal billing with Spielberg, Anniston/Witherspoon, Big Bird, and frigginOprah, so good for him at least even if the show looks uninteresting.

A Sesame Street Spinoff… This segment was so horrible and so indicative of everything wrong with this event that I had to spin it off into its own post about how awful it was…

A Science Fiction drama about blind people… Jason Mamoa stars in series that is a new spin on the essential concept of “A Quiet Place” in where a tribe of people live in a dystopian future where a handicap is the central driving plot contrivance.

Little Voice… I have no idea what this is but director J.J. Abrams pitched it alongside a singer-songwriter I’m not familiar with named Sara Bareilles. Are you excited yet?

2 Oprah Documentaries… one about sexual harassment, and one about I-already-forgot-cuz-no-one-cares.

Any of these sound like must-see-TV to you?…

The entire Event was among Apple’s most dull ever

Product announcement events for tech companies aren’t expected to be entertainment. Except Apple’s. They decidedly are supposed to be exactly that.

How terribly, painfully, cringe-ily ironic that *this* – an announcement of a video entertainment service – of all Apple’s events, would be it’s most boring.

Chris Evans and Michelle Dockery, who will star in the limited series Defending Jacob, that wasn’t even talked about at the event (or if it was, it was so brief a mention that I didn’t notice), sum up the excitement level of the event perfectly in this GIF:

the face you make when you’re contractually obligated to be someplace that suuuuuuuuuucks...

^That’s at an applause moment, mind you… and they look like they’re at a school assembly having to humor a motivational anti-drugs speaker who is doing zero to change your opinion but you don’t want to make it any more awkward than it already is.

It didn’t need to be like this…

The absolute bone dryness of this event was an unforced error. At Apples 2017 product announcement event, they kicked off with a cold-open presentation of a funny, fast paced, inventive, high-budget comedy sketch depicting how civilization would collapse without any apps. It was legitimately entertaining, fast paced, and took some risks in the places it was willing to go to dredge for comedy in just a short little bit that was exciting and made people want to watch again and show other people who didn’t see it.

That event announced the new/upcoming iPhone X, an Apple Watch with cellular connectivity, and the Apple TV box finally getting 4K capability.

So… if Apple kicked off a presentation of routine hardware upgrades with a such a high-end, high-concept, pizazzy video, you can only imagine what kind of epic excitement stirrer they cooked up for an event that announces their streaming Hollywood style video service… except you can’t imagine it… because you would never in a hundred thousand years guess that this trillion dollar company entering the entertainment video space would ever ever ever make such a bizarrely wooden, nerdy, socially awkward, WTF choice of an opening for such a release…

This Apple event opened with… I kid you not… a slideshow… (which is bad enough, but hold on – it gets so much worse) that led a discussion of CEO Tim Cook lecturing about what a “Service” is… conceptually, and philosophically….

Apple… What. The Motherkking. Fkk. AreYouDoing??

Business Advice: My 3 Point Plan to revamp and save MoviePass…

Theater subscription service MoviePass is losing $20 Million every single month and is on its way to an embarrassing shut down if it doesn’t make some big changes with some fresh ideas to shake up the current wtf-were-they-thinking system. Luckily I have those changes that can save them right here for them to ignore and close-anyway over but don’t say I didn’t tell-ya-so.

Some ways I thought of that I expected the company to try by now and still recommend to them here publicly and free of charge are:

Offer more services than just the theater Subscription thing

Pre-Orders – Compete with services like Fandango and offer users a one-account place to order theater tickets online without a membership and then add some perks to those who DO get the membership and want things like additional tickets for non-MoviePass holders.

Rentals – Compete with the all-but-ignored DVD mailing wing that still exists under Netflix and the once-popular-but-still-available RedBox rental system. Maybe even merge with or acquire RedBox and let any MoviePass members rent from any RedBox kiosk with their MoviePass card at a discount, with special-tier’ed members getting access to unlimited movie rentals (*just one at a time but otherwise “all you can watch”).

Streaming – Get in on this space. Currently there exists Netflix, Hulu, the WalMart owned Vudu as the top paid services. I recommend acquiring or duplicating the model of free/ad supported services like Pluto TV and Tubi, which both stream online and through smart TV apps. MoviePass should make the brand synonymous with movie watching whether its at home or in theaters and then cross market the platforms to each group so that a person watching an older movie on their MoviePass app on TV at home gets a steady feed of trailers and promotions for movies currently in theaters and coming soon.

Offer a Premium Pass Membership

MoviePass never let you see 3D or IMAX movies under any circumstances. This seems like a big waste instead of just offering an up-sell membership tier that would include those formats. Find some other perks you can pack into a package and make this the $40/month plan. It’ll take some mathing out to figure exactly what it would make sense to provide under this plan but in addition to definitely allowing 3D & IMAX showings, I would look into things like waving online pre-order fees, discounting a % on additional tickets, and rolling in some of the other suggestions in this list into coverage under this plan.

Create a “Priceline for Theaters” service and bring back the “dollar theater” model

Offer a basic plan – obviously call it something else – and make it the cheapest but with the most blackouts on locations, days, and showing time restrictions for $6.99/month.

If the service could create relationships with theater chains to gain insight to their slowest days and showtimes and then offer a MoviePass tier to fill those slowest slots, that could be a win-win for everyone that seems eminently doable. Just like how travel services like Priceline work with airlines and hotels to fill their unused seats and rooms at a discount.

Anyone grow up with a “dollar theater” (usually $3 or so) near them? The concept (playing older movies at an extreme discount and less fancy movie house) appears to be in very little practice anywhere anymore but MoviePass could bring it back. With the Basic ButNamedSomethingElse tier Membership, offer users 1 free movie a month on their card and additional movies at “dollar theater” prices for titles that are more than 2 months past their initial release date, or other metrics informed by the inside info you get from theater chain partnerships – ie: use your BasicPass for $3 movies on weekdays and before 5pm on weekends.

Offer a Concessions Perk Addition to the Pass

Work within the established relationship with national chains from my #2 idea and allow the MoviePass card to grant users concession perks like free upgrades on the sizes of their sodas and popcorns, and/or free refills on regular-price purchases, and/or a loyalty punchcard that gives them a freebie of something on their 15th visit or so. To do this you will have to develop a rewards system tech in your app that can apply anywhere and then offer the partnership to any theater anywhere, whether its a national chain, a single-location mom&pop location, a drive-in – whatever. Only AMC, Harkins Theaters, and maybe one other big chain have rewards membership.

Avengers Marketing Wars go to Infinity

I think I tried too hard with that title and it didn’t quite pan out.

But the point here is to cover the interesting extensions of marketing tying into this years super hero blockbuster which is a culmination of 19 previous films leading to this plot convergence that combines almost all of the main characters from all of those other movies. Here is how some major companies are paying big bucks to get consumers to associate their products and services with the empowered feelings associated with super heroes and tying their products to the movie event in various ways, but all with a “be like a hero and buy our stuff” theme:

SODA…

Previous Avengers movies sported Dr. Pepper, (which was recently purchased and merged with the Keurig coffee company) as their official beverage sponsor. “The Avengers and Dr. Pepper… Together we’re one of a kind” with ads tying the soda to being a hero.

This time around, however, competitor Coca Cola outbid Dr Pepper to secure a $40 Million dollar contract with the franchise which includes its global markets.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kw6zAJKsal0

Before Infinity War, Coke ran this Marvel integrated commercial during the 2018 Super Bowl:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iT3KSdUtEb0

CARS…

Action movies and car manufacturers have a history of tie-in marketing.

This tie-in is my favorite one as they partnered with – Infinity. Heh.

The QX50 is also evidently featured in Infinity War, not that I would be able to spot it.

CAR INSURANCE…

Geico, in Geico fashion, runs a campaign that typically has nothing to do with its product but gets the name out there in the public mind via a goofy sketch, their cute mascot, and slogan over the logo at the end.

LOANS…

Quicken Loans jumps in the fray. Makes me wonder why Rocket Mortgage missed out on tying in with Rocket Raccoon on this one.

Here, a hip racially ambiguous millennial female casually strolls through disaster under the smooth crooning lyrics “Its your thing… do what you’re gonna do” – but like the Dr Pepper theme – she is basically a super hero herself because she uses this one product/service. “The mortgage process doesn’t have to be a battle”.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kOi1yJmA-yk

Keurig is buying Dr Pepper Snapple Company

Home coffee pod device maker Keurig Green Mountain has announced it has agreed to buy the soda company Dr Pepper, whose official corporate name is Dr Pepper Snapple Group, in an $18.7 billion deal.

This is of interest to me because I’m a stock holder in DrPepperSnapple and saw my shares jump 20something percent this morning – 42% from when I first bought them.

Only problem is I only own 2 shares… lol. I bought them for that-one-girl-who-fans-know-about-and-everyone-else-doesn’t-need-to cuz it’s her favorite drug so I figured we might as well own a piece of it (for the record, my “don’t get high off your own supply” plan did not work).

Keurig stated today that Dr Pepper Snapple shareholders will receive $103.75 per share in a special cash dividend and keep 13 percent of the combined company. Dr Pepper Snapple shareholders like me still must approve the deal, so maybe I’ll go against it and ruin it for everyone with my 2 votes.

Keurig Dr Pepper will trade publicly after the deal closes, which is expected to happen in the second quarter. A new ticker symbol hasn’t been announced yet, the company said. Keurig will stay in its Waterbury, Vermont, headquarters, and Dr Pepper Snapple will remain in Plano, Texas.

Back when I bought the shares, I didn’t know Dr Pepper was its own company. I’d have guessed it’s a Pepsi property but no.
-It’s big brands besides Dr Pepper and Snapple are Motts, Shweppes, & Bai teas.
-Smaller brands like Squirt, Calamato (ew), Cactus Cooler, RealLemon, & Crush…
-But also big name 2nd tier companies like A&W, Yoo-hoo, Hawaiian Punch.
– and then has weird distribution rights I don’t fully understand where it owns 7Up in the united states (but Pepsi owns it in Europe) and it owns the Canada Dry drinks in North America only and the Coca Cola company owns it in the UK.

This is my 2nd win for my 2 measly shares, as right after I bought them in November 2016, Dr Pepper Snapple announced they would make a cash purchase of Bai Brands for $1.7 billion, sending the stock rising. It had previously purchased a minority stake in the company for $15 million in 2015.

Keurig is owned by a European holding company that owns Krispy Kreme, they just bought Panera bread a few months ago, Peets coffee, and some tea store brand called Mighty Leaf. so they’re gonna synergize their products in each others brand storefronts.

Everyones merging these days because power companies are becoming titans that gobble up so much marketshare, a team-up and then combination is the only way to compete. Hulu for example is owned by “everyone who isn’t Netflix” (21st Century Fox, Disney, Comcast [parent owner of NBC], & TimeWarner) and still has half the subscribers as it. That might change as late last year The Walt Disney Company announced it would buy 21st Century Fox and thus it’s stake in Hulu, making Disney a majority owner of that brand. What it will do with it exactly hasn’t been announced but we do know that Disney is making it’s own Netflix competitor in some form. Disney owns ESPN, so whether there is a Disney streaming service, Hulu, & ESPN stream as 3 separate services or one or 2 is unknown at this time.

Viacom (cable company that owns brands like MTV, Nickelodeon, Comedy Central, Logo) and The CBS Corporation are going to probably merge in response to Disney and Fox’s marriage. The first 2 have always essentially been one company anyway since both corporations are majority owned by billionaire Sumner Redstone.

Merging is the future. Now who’s ready to buy some Dr Pepper single-serve soda pods?

Nootropic startup’s “brain hack” product less effective than a cup of coffee

This start-up raised millions to sell ‘brain hacking’ pills, but its own study found coffee works better

That’s the headline to this CNBC article, and the story that follows doesn’t betray that thesis. Unfortunately, its stories like these that give casual observers the wrong idea about the actual options available to people to be able to improve and maintain a healthy brain.

The report above is about a startup I’m not previously-familiar with called HVMN, which was originally called the much more descriptive Nootrobox, which they should have kept. Nootropics are brain enhancers and a box of those things is essentially what the company is making and selling so why tinker with the name when it succinctly nails your whole business?

Whatever.

Their product, SPRINT is labeled as a “cognitive enhancement” and was put in medical trials against caffeine and, as the headline states – coffee was more effective in those tests than the SPRINT supplement. As I buy and make and think about selling my own Nootropic blends, this perked my interest but I didn’t find anything very interesting under further scrutiny. When looking at the ingredients of SPRINT, I could have saved them the trouble of hiring a study they would later try to have the name of their product removed from by just telling them the result.

I already knew the findings of the study, not because I’m psychic or a good guesser – it’s just right here in the known capabilities of the ingredients. Nothing boosts concentration better than caffeine and nicotine – in other words – “drugs”. Everything else is long term health and improvement in ability over time. its like steroids vs protein and creatine. The former will jack you up (with downsides) while the former(s) will aid, sustain and facilitate your muscle growth.

It’s poor practice to make fanstasical claims on things that are “only” just “really good for you” because then when your magic is debunked, the legitimate goodness gets thrown out in the court of public opinion with it.

Plus, I read that former Yahoo! CEO Melissa Mayer invested in the company and that should have been a tip off because everything she is involved in is overhyped, underperforming, one-dimensional marketing fluff. When I said that in a message to someone, I was sarcastically retorted “you mean i can’t trust the judgment of this woman who sat behind a roped-off throne at the company Christmas party?” – which was a new tidbit for me. That eccentricity makes me like her more cuz I thought she was just a bland social-justice hire failure but she remains a figure lacking in the talent that the narrative built around her begged her to fulfill.

But the difference between healthy things that aid you over time and things that cause immediate measurable improvement are pretty big and providers of all-natural supplements often drink their own kool-aid marketing and go off the deep end on what their products can do.

Looking at the ingredients, Sprint is only “okay” and not a great supplement. It’s tyrosine, theanine, vinpocetine and B-vitamins with caffeine. That combo is the cheap stuff that’s available in any number of brain pills on Amazon plus vinpocetine (the only premium ingredient in that list). no neurotransmitters like GABA or plant stuff like bacopa, or oat straw or mucana pruriens (legume that helps dopamine production).

AlphaBrain has all of those things and more. I only know about most of these things from reverse engineering alpha brain years back and studying which things are study based proven to have an effect and it’s still the best product for brain health and performance I know of. I still take all its stuff separately though for not a whole lot more per alpha-pill at higher dosage.