Sushi Money

Bail-out this, and bail-out that.  I know it’s serious and the country is facing so many challenges.  But I’ve got to admit I’m tired of hearing about it all.  You would think Congress holds hearings and press conferences simply to amuse themselves.  Either that or they don’t have a clue about what to do at this point and are hoping for some magical consensus as a way out of the mess. 

But when I look into my heart of hearts, beyond my concerns about the wise use of taxpayer dollars and the exponential increase in the national debt, I also have to admit that I really hope we can put together some kind of a bailout package for the big-three U.S. auto makers- Ford, GM and Chrysler. 

It was hard to put those feelings into words exactly, but after watching banks fail and huge bailouts for the big Wall Street institutions, I was shaking my head wondering why we couldn’t put something together for the auto makers- the icons of American industrial greatness through generations.  After all- if these guys go bankrupt, then what about every supplier and finance company that are so deeply tied to them?  What about the untold thousands of employees whose jobs are linked to the auto industry?  What about all the mom and pop businesses that support and rely on those workers and companies?  And who (else?) is going to want to buy American cars, especially if they are worried about warranty’s, maintenance and a car company still being around in a few years?   

I could go on and on, but today I came across Ben Stein’s article, Bail Out Detroit - Now and I just couldn’t say it any better. 

“I get sick when I hear about how this or that professor says we cannot have bailouts in a free market. Really? How about the bailouts the professors get because gifts to colleges are tax free? How about the bailout they get because if they have to teach six hours a week they feel overwhelmed, while the guy on the line in Dearborn works a grueling forty and doesn’t whine about it?”

“Somehow, we can give bailouts to investment banks where the top dogs make hundreds of millions a year for running the company into the ditch and wrecking the whole credit picture in America. Somehow we can have bailouts for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, whose bosses were trading on the credit of the taxpayers to make themselves rich while pumping up a serious housing bubble.”

“Amazingly, we can have whole fleets of C-130’s fly to remote areas of Iraq and Afghanistan with pallets of hundred dollar bills piled from floor to ceiling. Then we can pass them out to warlords who make tea for our soldiers one hour and blow their guts out the next. We can send CIA operatives into Somalia and give millions, maybe hundreds of millions, to warlords to fight other killers.”

“But we cannot find it in our hearts to save our fellow Americans in Ohio and Michigan and Indiana who make the cars and trucks that about half of us buy? We can send billions to Germany and Japan to bail them out after they bombed us and killed our POWs and killed six million Jews. But we cannot help the children and grandchildren of the men and women who fought our war and made us the arsenal of democracy?”

“Something is very wrong here.”

“…And why are we so angry at the car companies’ executives? They get miserable pay by Wall Street standards and have much harder jobs. Why are we so angry at the unions? They negotiated their deals in good faith. It’s not their fault that roller coaster gasoline prices messed up their world. They are our brothers and sisters. They fight our wars. They maintain our middle class lives. Maybe they get paid a lot, but they have been giving back for years. When will it ever be enough? And what about the retirees? They get the benefits they were promised. If those can be taken away, then whose benefits are safe? And do you think it will be cheaper if the government takes on those costs directly?”

“Let’s stop the Depression before it starts. Let’s show some fairness and good faith to our own. Let’s bail out the Big Three, help them slim down, shape up, and keep making great cars and trucks. The Big Three are us and if we cannot help ourselves, who can we help?”

 Bailing out Ford, GM and Chrysler is the right answer, and I hope our legislators get it right- or at least get it started right.  It’s not going to be an easy road, or the final answer.  It will take time and the taxpayers are going to pony up for a lot of it.  But it’s who we are, and in the end- if we let these guys fail altogether, it’s going to cost us a heck of lot more.

When was the last time you reviewed your employee benefit situation?   Most of us fill out tons of paperwork when we start a new job, and then we don’t think much about our overall benefits unless we use them.

But do you know if you’re qualified to receive life insurance?  Have you designated beneficiaries where necessary?  Do you even know who the benefits personnel are with your employer?   And if you do know a lot about your benefits, when was the last time you reviewed them?

Sometimes it’s not what we do that matters, but what our employer does.  Sometimes you can do everything right, and still end up without promised benefits simply because your employer has the law on their side.

Here’s a story from the AP about Spherion Corporation that denied $426,000 of benefits to the spouse of an employee who died simply because he didn’t fulfill one day of employment under a new insurance policy, that he didn’t even know he was required to do. 

“Spherion’s decision to deny benefits to Amschwand-Bellinger turned on an odd set of facts. Spherion, which employs about 300,000 people, switched insurers after Thomas Amschwand was diagnosed with a rare form of heart cancer. The new policy did not take effect until an employee worked one full day. Spherion never informed Amschwand of the requirement.”

“Amschwand asked repeatedly whether there was anything else he needed to do and was told no. He asked that the new policy be sent to him. Spherion never did so.”

“He died without returning to work. His widow said he easily could have worked a day if that was what it took to activate the new policy. Spherion could have waived the one-day-of-work provision, as it did for other employees but not for Amschwand.”

Incredibly, even though his widow sued the company, she lost under current legal guidelines.  

 **Update:  Spherion Corporation has provided some additional information about this case.  For further information, click here to read about the Amschwand case on the Spherion website.  Only the family and Spherion really know the details, but in fairness we wanted to ensure all available information was provided.

Employee benefits issues will certainly become more important in the years ahead, especially with an aging workforce.

Along those lines,  the Supreme Court has come down on the side of employee rights in several workplace discrimination cases recently.  Arguably some employers see this as another expanding threat of increasing costs and bureaucratic mandates.  Yet for older workers, discrimation within the workplace can be a real concern, especially coupled with the dual impact of health care benefit needs and retirement planning needs.  Employers are now on notice to ensure they are not denying benefits or job advancement opportunties to older workers due to discrimination, or basically “firing” an older worker simply because of the potential cost of health or retirement plan benefits.

Most importantly however, it’s up to individual employees - young or old - to make sure they know and are receiving benefit information, and that they’ve signed and completed paperwork or other requirements for the benefits to be valid.

Understanding and implementing benefit programs for employees shouldn’t be this difficult.  For many companies it’s not, and the company works together with employees to help them understand their benefits.  But like much in our financial lives, it pays to be prepared.  

Take another look at your benefit programs and make sure you understand the rights (and responsibilities) you have in making sure you receive the benefits you are entitled to when necessary. 

For more information, see your Human Resources or Benefits Personnel office, or check out a few helpful links at the U.S. Department of Labor:

• Health Care Plan benefit information
• Retirement and Pension Plan information
• Retirement Savings issues
• Consumer Publications available

It’s amazing how high fuel prices have gone this year.  In short, like many Americans, I’ve simply had enough of paying so much for gas.  Honestly, it’s such a total waste of money don’t you think? The quality of the ride we’re getting at $3.50 a gallon for driving doesn’t feel any better than it did at $2.25 a gallon.  For the increased price of fuel there is no additional satisfaction or more importantly, no contribution to a greater good gained from paying more to do the same thing with a gallon of gas.  It’s actually worse, and a waste of money.  And that’s the rub for most of us.

So what am I doing about it?  Personally we’ve already drastically reduced our vehicle use, and are investigating more fuel efficient cars for the future.  But that really doesn’t change much in the face of rising prices, except maintaining the status quo.  And I just don’t think the status quo is good enough anymore. I was looking back over the past 12 months and was surprised that we were paying almost a dollar less per gallon for several months last year.  Then in late summer, prices began a slow climb, spiking after the new year and reaching an average of $3.50 a gallon this week.

So now, with a humble voice from the wilderness, I’m calling for an Energy Summit for Congress, the Administration and leading oil company experts to sit down and begin devising a strategy to take the nation out of the grip of oil dependence.  Not a new theme, but has any legislator or administration official proposed anything constructive in the face of oil price inflation?  Sure oil company executives have been called on the carpet to testify before Congress, but to what end?  Grandstanding by politicians to make us think they’re doing something? Do we realistically think companies that are in business to make a profit should start to not work to make a profit?  Is that going to benefit our economy and those who need the fuel these companies produce?  Does anyone really think that making oil companies the scapegoats will solve America’s oil dependence problems?   More importantly, has the SEC or any governing body investigated the impact of energy sector speculation or the influence that the rise of sovereign wealth funds have had on market dynamics?

As much as I believe that the the U.S. is being driven towards a greater economic crisis due to energy impacts, my frustration is really a personal issue. Which is due to the simple fact that the engine of the U.S. economy is ultimately distilled into the basic economic units of individuals and families as consumers.   We are the spending sparks of economic activity that drives this great machine, and our ability to do so is being damaged with each passing day. 

A few weeks ago I took a short poll asking if high gas prices have affected people’s driving habits.  After a fairly small response, more people indicated that gas prices only affected them “a little”, while the others said “a lot.”  But gas prices really had only been higher for a couple of months.  I’m willing to bet more people would indicate “a lot” today, and over the next few months as fuel prices remain higher.  Have you changed your driving habits?

It’s not just fuel prices though- it’s also the economic costs passed on to consumers because of fuel prices, and higher commodity prices that are causing turmoil across the nation.   So I’m the first to admit that fuel prices and grocery prices affect our family’s choices every single day.  And I feel fortunate, because technically we can afford to drive our cars, commute to work and do what is necessary each day.  So consumers are starting to feel pinched?  I think that’s an understatement.

With higher prices something else is given up to accomplish the same tasks.  We don’t go out and eat or visit new places as often as we used to.  And we won’t be traveling as much this year as last year.  We even cancelled a longer vacation we had already planned for the summer because of fuel costs.  We take fewer trips to the store, and the discretionary funds we normally spent on nice-to-have items or entertainment in the past are being used for basic needs such as food and putting gas in the tank to get to work.

But there are many other families who can barely afford to get to work or put food on the table each day.  I’ve read of some who may not have the money to pay for gas for a trip to the doctor or hospital. Many Americans live in rural areas and must travel extensively to get to work and fulfill basic needs.  High fuel prices hurt those who must travel greater distances especially hard.  This nation is larger than most nations in the world- and driving long distances is something we are accustomed to.  We are not accustomed to enormous prices for gas to be able to get to the doctor or the grocery store.

So is the government doing enough?   Is Congress and the President’s administration taking these issues seriously enough?Perhaps what really bothers me is that maybe they’ve collectively looked at it and simply shrugged, without really putting a plan together to do something about it.  The U.S. says oil prices are too high, but no one seems to have any idea what to do about it.  Instead, we push for biofuel production and increase demand for oil.  Yet biofuel production soaks up oil supplies and is being blamed for increasing hunger across third world nations as it drives up commodity prices, challenging the ability of support organizations and governments to get food supplies to people in need.

So what is going to solve the oil conundrum?   Do we not have the technology and ability to find more oil and ramp up production?  Or do we lack the collective will as a nation to do what’s necessary, simply remaining dependent on other nations for our oil needs and paying whatever the market demands?  Tapping the Strategic Reserve isn’t going to solve anything over the long term either.  I simply think we can do more as a nation to support the American family’s needs at home, that would also serve to strengthen the U.S. economy for the long term.

My hope is that we’ll see Congress and the Administration get together an conduct an Energy Summit to put a plan in place that will  support the nation’s needs.  New energy, alternative energy, new research, and yes- more oil to fulfill the nation’s needs.  One day perhaps we’ll find the holy grail that relieves our dependence on oil.  But the U.S. economy is tied to oil for countless needs right now and we risk being economically crippled for too many years if we don’t start working together more aggressively.

We are better than this dependence, and we need a little more forward thinking by our elected leadership.  We’ve put off the energy debate for so many years it’s now come back to haunt us.  Whether we enter or are in a recession now is beside the point. Consumers are spending more on fuel and food, and less on everything else.  And I think it’s a threat to our nation’s economic viability over the long term. That’s simply got to change. 

For more on The Oil Conundrum see:

• The Oil Conundrum Part II: The Blame Train and
• The Oil Conundrum Part III: Who’s On First?

Sounds like the title of a newspaper with all the recession talk these days. While millions of U.S. airline travelers are stranded across the nation, the rest of us are paying the highest prices we’ve ever seen for a gallon of gas. But Carol Sottili of the Washington Post’s Travel Section shares a discussion about what travelers can do in the face of so many airline cancellations. It’s finally bad enough that some politicians are talking about airline re-regulation again. The cost of cancellations certainly hurts airlines and passengers, but with the price of fuel skyrocketing, maybe a few extra planes on the ground doesn’t hurt their business either.

What chance many of us thought for avoiding a recession here in the U.S. is now all but certain. Many experts believe we’re already in a recession and that company earnings reports are going to get worse before getting better. Others think that understanding the recession dynamics is really pretty simple. I certainly agree that it’s all about people. I also think it’s all about people’s response to economic challenge, and these days the economic challenges have continued to grow. So if the recession is here, what do we do about it? Matt Callow shows us how to profit from the global recession.

Is it really that bad out there? While some economists think the worst of the credit crunch is behind us, some folks think that a Worldwide Depression is a Real Possibility. That sounds alarmist to me, but as Ronald Reagan once said,

“A recession is when a neighbor loses his job. A depression is when you lose yours.”

He was pointing out that it can be a matter of perspective. Are we going to see a depression? I can’t imagine it, but if gas prices don’t start retreating it’s going to get a lot harder for the U.S. economy. Business week shows us that as with much in life, how bad it is out there depends on whom you ask. But it’s a wake-up call for many as recent data shows that Americans recorded the largest-ever plunge in retirement confidence in 18 years of polling.

The markets continue to wander with many investors wondering if it’s time to step back in the pool. But The Big Picture presents some interesting data and says stocks are really not cheap yet.

As to valuations: “Its hard to really say that stocks are cheap here. At best, I believe we can argue that — assuming that historically high earnings do not fade — that stocks are not terribly expensive. But that is very different than saying they are cheap.”

It’s hard to say what’s cheap or not these days while we hang on every snippet of bad news. But for a little perspective, I like Minyanville’s 35 Signs the Market Hasn’t Hit Bottom Yet.

So where might we see excess today? Maybe commodities, or prescious metals? Natural resources and energy? I think every one of those areas are seeing heightened speculation and excess, but that doesn’t mean there’s anything wrong with it, especially if you’re making money. And it may continue for a long time. Or not. At some point it will be time to change and find a new trend. I wish I was better at that, but it’s one thing to look at future change and quite another to time financial decisions with that change to make money.

That’s why for most of us I believe in steady, disciplined investing over 20-30 years or more. You don’t need to worry about market timing over the long term. You do need to think about asset allocation and diversification, especially when nearing retirement. But even while we invest patiently for retirement it doesn’t mean we can’t look at the trends and make some other decisions about where we might invest our time, energy and even money. I set aside a little “investing money” that I use to do just that- invest in trends and ideas.

So what’s going to be “The Next Big Excess?” What’s the next big thing that thousands of consumers are going to plunge into for a few years, hoping to secure their fortune? Will there be one? Will it be another bubble? Is there something that will result in mass change or adoption? I wish I knew!

I think we can look ahead and pick out some themes of change that will affect our lives in the future. See if you feel the same way, or have different ideas:

Here are 10 Themes of Change I see over the next decade and beyond:

1. Boomer Retirement: The Boomer generation has begun retirement, and thousands of people will continue to do so every day for the next 20-30 years. Add another 20-30 years on to that for millions of older Americans that will have money to spend on services and support needs. There are many new business and franchise ventures focusing on services for older adults, and this demographic bonanza will continue for decades.

2. Health care services: Health care is an essential aspect of future services and business growth for the same reason as # 1: Millions of older adults will need health care services and products over the next several decades. Biotech may be struggling right now, but think of the potential for these markets in the years ahead.

3. Education and Job-retraining: With change comes the requirement to adapt and grow. Growth is based on learning, or at least a willingness to learn. There are enormous opportunities for businesses, consultants and industry in education and training, and we’ll continue to see that growth in the future. Older adults are also returning to the classroom and may prove critical to continued economic growth and fulfilling job needs within the community. Community college growth is expanding, and vocational-technical schools are serving an essential role as well.

4. Communication and Navigation: We’re going to know where we are and talk with anyone no matter our location in the years ahead. Oh wait, we pretty much already do that right? But it’s going to be increasingly simpler and more available. With GPS navigation and satellite and cellular technology advances, the world is changing fast. Garmin will have a mobile phone out this year where a friend sends you a pic and you push “Go!” and it tells you how to navigate to where they are. Imagine using Google Earth or Panoramio and picking out a cool tourist photo… then your gps can navigate you to that site.
5. Business coaching and consulting: Providing competent advice and counsel in response to complexity will grow by leaps and bounds. Related to many areas above, but coaching, consulting, advising and teaching emerges in response to the complexity of many aspects of our lives, especially with technology. If you have expertise and can help others improve their lives and function better amidst the complexity we face- then you have a marketable skill that others will pay for.

6. Engineering and technology development: Do we have growth at all if not for highly skilled knowledge workers who develop the hardware, software and networked applications to leverage technological advance? No. IT expertise continues to be in demand and companies reach across international boundaries because they don’t find enough skilled workers here in the U.S. Steve Rubel explains that what we see now as “the web” is not where the web is going. We see a reflection of web services, and service integration will grow by leaps and bounds.

7. Alternative energy services and the Green Movement: Could this be the “next big thing” we see? It’s already huge and growing by leaps and bounds. Several states are leading the way already but we’re going to see an explosion of interest in alternative energy development such as solar. California offers tremendous rebates and assistance with solar development and installation compared to many other states.

• Now that fuel prices have exceeded $3 per gallon of gas nationwide, people really grumble. But what happens when we start paying $4 or $5 a gallon? Gas prices are already changing the way we live. Families are going to be challenged as never before as those costs influence how we drive and consume food and other resources.
• Water use and scarcity may influence many changs in the future. Drought effects of the past two years were severe across the nation, with far reaching changes in water use and regulations. With increased population growth, water needs will continue to rise, and resource depletion may become a real threat over time.

In a society where we spend more money and resources to develop a product (ethanol) that raises the cost of production for other fuel and the food products we need (corn, soybeans, etc), then it’s time to look at a wider array of alternative resources. Solar energy will make an enormous difference as the barriers to entry (cost and physical size) continue to decrease. Many of us would put a solar array on our homes tomorrow if it wasn’t so expensive or difficult. Equally, more people recognize that the human footprint within the enviroment must not tread so heavily. We can focus on stewardship and resource use balanced with human needs. The Green movement continues to make a difference in pulling us in that direction.

8. Frugality and Living Simpler:

• What would the world of personal finance and blogging be without themes of frugality? Many of us are learning that it pays economically to live a more frugal lifestyle. Sure we appreciate good things and fine living, but the meaning, definitions and cost of doing so is changing. Realistically, we are finding that our future economic well-being is in our own hands. We can create the financial future we desire through sound strategies of saving and investing. And being frugal is an important theme for economic cost-beneifit analysis and increasing savings while decreasing spending.
• As we age, many people are choosing a simpler way of life. Downsizing to smaller homes, or homes with caretaking services for landscaping and other needs. Even for those not downsizing per se, there is movement towards the simpler, more carefree aspects in living. Making things simpler for others is a theme that works and, ironically, folks will spend a lot of money to find a simpler lifestyle.

9. Charitable Giving and Micro Finance: As we grow and technology enables choice and opportunity, I think we are becoming more action-oriented towards charitable causes. Whether that be with cash donations or though giving our time volunteering, people want to become involved in helping other people improve their lives. Micro finance lending sites such as Kiva.com are doing just that.

10.Biotech, Nanotech, Robotics, Astrosciences: Well, maybe the promise of the future is a bit early, but the gains being made in bioengineering and nanotechnology are amazing. Of course some people think none of this will really matter anyway because the world’s going to end in 2012. Or if it doesn’t the internet’s going to end in 2038! Who knows… I think we have enough threats already in the world via fanatical extremists and natural resource depletion to keep us occupied for a good many years.

I love thinking about the future, but sometimes it’s easier to stay naively optimistic. There are countless ideas and creative applications out there “whose time has come” but have yet to reach the masses. I hope to capitalize on some of these themes both in terms of investments and personal focus. And maybe we’ll even make decisions that influence our career based on future change. Do you see anything else coming down the road? Any career or technology aspects that will be important to think about?

The news and numbers are pretty negative lately. The economy is struggling, real estate is looking for traction, the markets are bouncing around aimlessly, and Clinton and Obama are one-upping each other with promises while talking about how bad everything is. If I didn’t know better, this feels like it’ll go on forever. But it won’t. It’s just a temporary funk. Mostly an economic funk. We’ve been there before, and we’ll emerge with newfound optimism for something seemingly better.

But what is that something that might be better? What is the next big thing that people will really be excited and hopeful about? Do you ever wonder what it might be that’s going to be a huge focus for people or change on a mass scale? Sometimes it’s generated by the media, or a company product, or just some growing trend or mania that people are interested in.

Whatever it is (and I don’t think we’ll find it on eBay), there always seems to be some new “big thing” around the corner. Why do I care? For the same reason that most businesses, entreprenuers and investors care… because if you can put your finger on the pulse of this change and human interest, then you can focus your energy in that direction, potentially growing your life’s work and/or financial fortunes in leaps and bounds over the next 5, 10 or even 20 years.

Looking back a couple decades, we’ve been through several cycles of boom and bust of course. Yet the “Dot Com Bust” still offered many opportunities to do very well even with the carnage of companies that ceased to exist a few years later. We hear the news of the crash and the fortunes lost. We don’t often hear about the fortunes made, but some people tapped into the right companies and trends and have done very well.

Now it’s real estate and credit derivatives that have crashed, and we’re unraveling the lessons of years of financial excess. A long-term view could see this growth, expansion, bust and consolidation as a natural progression and evolution for economic cycles and human interest. Can it be any other way?

Certainly the technological changes coming in the future will surpass anything we know of today, and I wonder where that may lead us. Bill Gates sees enormous technological advances that will revolutionize our lives:

In a speech to the Northern Virginia Technology Council, Gates speculated that some of the most important advances will come in the ways people interact with computers: speech-recognition technology, tablets that will recognize handwriting and touch-screen surfaces that will integrate a wide variety of information.

“I don’t see anything that will stop the rapid advance,” Gates said, noting that technological change driven by academia and corporate researchers continued even after the Internet stock bubble burst in 2000.” “…The coming years will bring rapid changes in media as television increasingly becomes a targeted medium, where viewers can select niche content for news, sports and entertainment. “…TV will be based on the Internet; it will be an utterly different thing,” he said.

My interest and curiosity is for how people become excited and accept or adopt certain products, and then figuring out what those trends or products might be. How do some companies (e.g. Apple) capitalize on what is “trendy” while other companies don’t?

When I try to understand how we become excited about things, it strikes me that these products or “things” must be developed by visionaries and market leaders. These are people with the imagination and the abililty to create something from an idea, and then shepard it through to adoption. Naturally this creation must not only be useful, it must be also be something that sparks the “Aha!” moment within a consumer for the enjoyment or usefulness it brings.

Not everyone accepts change so easily however. Little more than a decade ago as computer use became mainstream, I remember a stalwart, old associate that walked around the office with a big yellow legal pad and refused to use a computer. He waived that legal pad in everyone’s face, proud of how he still did it the old way. And then he finally realized the old way was gone, and he was becoming increasingly irrelevent and clueless. He finally adapted and adopted, painful as it was.

I know a lot of people who still use letters, stamps and paper checks everyday to pay bills. Not a thing wrong with that- and in fact, it brings a sense of solidity and permanence to things. But I know a lot more people that have given up the checkbook and stamps to pay bills online. It is fast becoming the exception to use stamps and checks for many people, myself included. But if you really want to make an impression, or send a caring note to someone, there is no substitute for writing it by hand.

Of course we’re still reeling from the last “big excess” and the after-effects of the “Housing Bust” and out-of-control mortgage lending. But think about it- not everyone has struggled with real estate. For everyone that bought a home, someone sold that home. Lots of folks made a bundle during the real estate boom, and if they were smart, saved enough of that money to keep it working for them over time.

The housing boom and bust is a story of money made and lost. For some families, financial gain (or loss) changed their lives forever. In a free market economy it can be no other way. Some people win big, some people lose big… most of us muddle along in the middle, looking for ways improve our lives as we adapt to changing conditions.

So there’s always excess… and most of the situations that involved speculative excess were caused by investors and even genuine buyers plunging in head-first to “stake their claim” and make money. The dot-com boom and housing boom were both the modern day version of the gold rush. We’re all trying to make life better for our future. For some it was always a “get rich quick” scheme whether they admitted it or not. “Slow and steady wins the race” is the old rabbit versus tortoise axiom. There’s a lot of truth in those words in terms of focus and comittment. But it’s hard to remember that axiom when the pace of technological change outstrips our ability to adapt and grow with it.

And that’s the crux of the problem for many people… how to adapt to change. Technology evolution challenges our ability to learn and adapt, which opens up a whole new focus for business services and education. That is precisely the reason why education is so important, and why job re-training is booming across the nation.  Where do you fit in?  Is it hard to keep pace with that change?   In the next segment I’ll look at 10 themes of change we’ll face in the years ahead.

Can Sprint reinvent itself and reverse the loss of their customers?  It would seem millions are flocking to other carriers and Sprint is challenged to stem the tide.  Business Week writes about Sprint Nextel’s Last-Ditch Weapon- a new phone, plan and corporate image.  Which may be a bit melodramatic, but it paints a challenging picture for a once high-flying cell phone company.

Is Business Week right and is Sprint really on the ropes?  Their CEO Dan Hesse is making the case that Sprint finally ”gets it” and will give subscribers what they want:

“People want the whole package,” Hesse said during a keynote address at an annual conference held by CTIA-The Wireless Association. “They’re saying, who’s going to give me what I want, when I want, and make it easy to use. They’re all the building blocks of the wireless company of the future.” 

 Sprint now offers an all-in-one plan for $99 that gives you as many minutes, internet, picture and video stuff that you could ever want.  They’ve got a new phone line-up and soon will offer the Instinct, a sheik touch-screen cell phone that has the iphone look to it and all the bells and whistles.

But the biggest problem for Sprint is their customer base, and former customers.  This was the cell-phone company whose customer service execs must have gone to the Trump School of Business… last year they told some customers You’re Fired! presumably because they called customer service too much.

 You know what?  Every time a customer calls for help or assistance, that’s the time to sell the company (and your products) once again. In fact, you have to do that. If you don’t- they’re going to leave.  In Sprint’s case, they’ve been leaving by the millions.    What did You’re Fired! say to all the other Sprint customers?  It told them “Don’t call us because we don’t want to hear it… look what we did to the other guys.”

Realistically that wasn’t really the problem.  The greater problem in the past was Sprint’s customer service was simply not up-to-par compared to other companies.  It was difficult to get a rep on the phone, and they often didn’t know how to help.

Yet personally I think they’re getting a bad rap these days.  I’ve been a Sprint customer for over 5 years, and have been very pleased with the phones, coverage and even customer service.  They even have the best cell tower coverage in the area where we live.  I love the phone and plan I have.  But I’m wary based on other people’s experiences.  And as much as I might consider a new phone, I dread going in and haggling with the customer service rep because the plans were historically so complicated and expensive.  It shouldn’t be that way, and maybe now Sprint “gets it” enough that I’ll choose a new phone and plan.

But I started wondering:  How many companies realize that a bad customer service experience can lose a customer- not only for the short term, but sometimes for life?!  It’s true… make the experience bad enough, or hard enough, and they’ll never come back.  

My own example:  Do you know why I’ll never have a Discover card?  Because when I was younger they sent me this wonderful invitation to get a credit card with them.  I had used credit very little in the past, and was careful with my money and credit history.  So I called to apply because it sounded good. I was a college graduate with steady employment with a government agency and that would have been my first credit card.  Then the customer service rep gave me such a hard time over my lack of credit experience, and then denied my application, that it was humiliating.   I hung up, applied with American Express and received a card the next week.  I’ve appreciated the Amex customer service ever since.  That was two decades ago.   I tear up invitations from Discover almost weekly now.  From what I’ve read, people are not that happy with Discover card these days either.

A corporate reputation takes a long time to build, but like any reputation, it can be destroyed in very short order.   I recently read where Sprint lost an enormous business contract because a rep at the store didn’t give the time of day to an innocent request to fix or replace a phone.  A phone that had insurance on it, you know- the monthly $4 fee?  The individual was accused of dropping the phone in the water and they refused the request.  Good grief… the last thing you need when you need help is for the company you pay to give you a hard time.   That individual had been a subscriber for over 10 years, and left the same day.  All because of one clueless service rep.

It’s like the police officer I was talking with the other day (professionally!).  He said he hardly ever wrote tickets, but when he did- those folks were asking to receive a ticket because they just made things worse for themselves, argued, and gave him a hard time.  Sprint is finding out that poor customer service is like asking your customers to leave. 

Now Sprint is asking customers to come back, or give them another shot.  Given enough time and quality service, they may have enough credibility to rebuild the company.  I’ll stick with them for now based on my overall positive experience, and to their credit they offer a lot more choice and flexibility these days.  They’ve even made contracts simpler and you can try out a plan risk-free for 30 days.   My instincts are telling me to take another look… and when the new Instinct comes out I may do just that.

By now you’ve probably heard about the new rules and fee changes eBay has recently put out for its community of sellers and buyers. We won’t recap them here, but news over the last week indicates eBay’s tweaks and changes are confusing the heck out of everyone. Originally I thought Is eBay Crazy? was a more appropriate title for this post… a little dramatic perhaps but it fits the general storm confusion that we’ve seen in the media in recent days.

Don’t get me wrong, I’m not a disgruntled investor or user. I’ve been long the stock for over a year and have strongly believed in the company’s future. I still believe in their future but where the company is headed over the short term is anyone’s guess.

From an investment viewpoint, the stock price has offered tremendous value recently. Standard & Poors rates the stock as a Strong Buy with five stars and a fair value of $27 per share. Trading at about 17 times earnings, many analysts see the stock having more upside than downside. Even so, several analysts have recently lowered annual estimates based upon eBay’s cautious 2008 guidance after reporting robust fourth quarter earnings. Personally I love a company with $5 Billion in cash on the balance sheet and zero debt. But as much as I like the company for a long-term investment, my concerns of a year ago have remained and I’m still trying to understand their strategy.

eBay is no stranger to controversy over changes to their guidelines and fee increases through the years. Now that CEO Meg Whitman’s exit has finally arrived, eBay chose the opportunity to dramatically change many parameters of the auction experience, primarily targeted to sellers. The changes have brought out incredible emotion from the eBay community and investors.

A positive spin says eBay is Making a Bid to Lure Back Entrepreneurs. That’s one interpretation. From the PR I’ve read it sounded more like eBay was focusing on the buying experience and forcing sellers to adjust. Perhaps the company is listening more closely to the PowerSellers, but at what cost? As BusinessWeek asks, “What about the little guys?” Obviously the company wants it’s sellers to succeed and buyers to keep coming. But why force such dramatic change on a stable community? My guess is that was a core part of the strategy, stirring up the conversation and bringing eBay back into the media focus. But the sellers are left with the bulk of adjustment and that’s a lot to handle for some of them.

Steve Grossberg, President of the Internet Marketing Association, was interviewd by AuctionBytes.com yesterday and provided a candid assessment of the eBay changes. Probably no change has brought on more concern than removing the ability for a seller to leave negative or neutral feedback on a buyer. Buyers can still leave negative feedback on sellers… but all sellers can do now is to leave positive feedback (or no feedback perhaps).

So why would eBay do this? Naturally the company is trying to improve the bottom line financials, and improve the user experience. The company presents their side in their Feedback FAQ page, but much of it is still confusing. Here’s part of eBay’s rationale for stopping allowing sellers from leaving negative or neutral feedback on buyers:

Why can’t sellers leave negative and neutral Feedback for buyers?

- Since buyers take the primary risk in a transaction (sending money to a stranger), the goal of the Feedback system should be to enable them to accurately assess seller performance. This facilitates safe and satisfactory trading.
- When buyers receive negative Feedback, they reduce their activity in the marketplace, which in-turn harms all sellers.
- The threat of receiving retaliatory negative Feedback from sellers, prevents buyers from leaving honest feedback about sellers, undermining the accuracy and value of the Feedback system.

Does that make sense to you? Philosophically, and practically, buyers have no choice but to accept the initial risk of the transaction. There’s no way around it. Because this is an auction, the “stranger factor” is certainly more relevant than a transaction purchase at a large store with a single, understandable policy for refunds, etc. But do buyers really take the primary risk? I’m not so sure. A buyer does take great risk, and needs the tools to properly assess a seller. But because this is an auction and not simply a shopping site, collaborative balance in the transaction may be more important. By collaborative balance I am speaking of the ability for sellers and buyers to influence the transaction beyond the mere exchange of funds.

Security and safety are greater concerns for buyers in an auction format, there’s no question. Personally I’ve been buying on eBay for 10 years and haven’t yet had a problem. But more importantly I think sellers take a great deal of risk through all the effort required to find, research, place and market a product in the auction in the first place. And not all buyers are angels… as Mr. Grossberg mentions, eBay deals with about a 6% rate of non-paying bidders. So a sellers “marketplace financial risk” is just as real. In fact, the risks that sellers face reach far beyond eBay into the sellers’ homes and communities where the business itself originated. And negative feedback for a buyer doesn’t matter nearly as much as negative feedback for a seller. Besides, a buyer can simply create a new eBay profile can’t they?

I have always found that sellers are far more sensitive to negative feedback than buyers- because their livelihood and unique business model depends upon it.

So are eBay’s changes for the better? Time will tell, but many sellers don’t buy into the reasoning yet either. AuctionBytes.com also released an insightful interview with eBay’s CEO-designate John Donahue yesterday where he was asked, but didn’t really answer questions on the feedback issue. He did provide some interesting views on the announced fee changes, but overall sounded quite defensive to Ina Steiner’s questions in my view.

For an excellent firsthand look at the concerns, no one has explained the sellers’ perspective better than A Modern Guy’s Open Letter to eBay (and the comments are very interesting).

I am left wondering if eBay has become too big to really understand the market, or the concerns of their constituents? Admittedly, eBay has to satisfy a larger group of people than most businesses… sellers, buyers and investors, and the dynamics must be very difficult to measure. So I can only offer opinion, which in my view says that eBay is missing the boat. I think the compnay is trying to reshape their business to meet competition such as Amazon.com and other marketplaces, but are losing the unique and dynamic aspects of what their auction business has always been about. Can I quantify that or put it all into words? Maybe not, but in many ways eBay simply isn’t as fun anymore. The enthusiasm isn’t there right now. And the bold changes have stirred up a hornet’s nest. Maybe I’m getting older… and maybe the internet itself is becoming more established so that it’s natural that our enthusiasm has tapered off. And as buyers, aka shoppers, we have more choice than ever before.

With choice we desire simplicity and speed- hence Amazon’s success. Trying to find and/or buy something on eBay is often too much work. From my perspective that is the heart of their challenges right now. And just maybe they’ve now compounded those problems by increasing the complexity of their business model for Sellers, Buyers and anybody else that might look at eBay.

I believe it must be about simplicity. Part of the reason Amazon has performed so well in recent years is because they have simplified the user experience and kept their model consistent. I’ve been shopping at both eBay and Amazon since 1998. When you go to Amazon, you know what to expect. But when I go to eBay these days, I’m not sure what the heck is going on anymore. The feedback system has evolved but I don’t really know how it works in depth. And who has time to rate a seller in great detail when you’re just trying to buy something?

Honestly, I don’t really care that much to take the time to learn- I’m busy enough that I just want to go somewhere, find what I’m looking for, and buy it.

Certainly as a buyer, I guess I feel “better” that some dubious seller can no longer leave me negative feedback. But what does that really mean? In many ways, eBay was always about transparency- an auction site and environment where you could evaluate sellers and buyers and choose carefully with whom you wanted to do business.

But sellers now appear to be at a disadvantage. I agree with eBay in that some sellers were ruining it for the rest by intimidating buyers with negative feedback. But was that really significant? Most sellers would be ruining their own business by giving buyers negatives for minor reasons. The only primary reason most sellers would do so is because of buyers that don’t pay for the item. Now however buyers can leave negative feedback for a host of nuisance reasons and sellers have few options over the near term.

Maybe the new feedback system will work really well. At least one eBay expert and “old-timer” believes so.

“We aren’t just talking about a policy change here. For all of us inside the eBay universe, this is a major cultural change; in fact, the most ground breaking of any change ever made on eBay including the first major change to Feedback in 2000 – Transaction-related only Feedback. “

“Starting in May, as buyers begin to leave more honest Feedback and the spread between Feedback scores opens up over time (yes, many of us with lily-white 100% positive scores will loose them), the trust that buyers have in the entire eBay marketplace will increase as well.” Jim Griffith

So maybe eBay’s success depends more upon how well they can foster an auction experience that buyers really trust. Then again, maybe it won’t even matter.

eBay is apparently working hard to improve the customer experience of buyers- which appears to be the primary focus in terms of shopping “safety” and security. Do they have it right? Do the metrics and financial data really show that they’re on the right track? That’s what the company believes. But I think there’s more to the story. AutctionBytes.com has also outlined A Seller’s Guide to eBay’s January 2008 Announcements. For me eBay has always been about the auction experience, whether I’m buying or selling.

Bottom line? Find what I want quickly and at the least costs as a buyer, or sell something quickly and for the greatest profit as a seller.

With that model I think the auction itself (the company) must be market-neutral. Meaning that both buyers and sellers must be free to navigate the market-place. When one side has the ability to influence the reputation of the other, without the other side being able to respond, then the company is no longer market-neutral. At that point the company stands on the side of the buyers.

Maybe that is eBay’s goal. But I don’t believe it’s going to be the salvation of the auction market-place, and instead will turn eBay into just another storefront shopping site. If that continues to happen, they will lose market share and the whole reason sellers and buyers enjoyed auctions in the first place.

eBay states that they’re listening to sellers and working to improve the selling environment. I’m not so sure. My view is that sellers are eBays most important asset, rather than buyers because the eBay auction is driven first and foremost by sellers who bring products to the marketplace to present to potential buyers.

I’ve often believed that eBay’s most important customers were its sellers. The buyers are the customers of the sellers, and clients to the transaction, but the sellers are key to eBay’s model. Help the sellers succeed, and the buyers will come.

Sellers are the stores and shopkeepers doing all the work… the heavy lifting, presentation, marketing, design and shipping. Sellers are the crucial hinge on which all of eBay’s success depends. Right now eBay appears to be treating their sellers as if they are employees who must simply “suck it up” for the time being while eBay tinkers with the company guidelines.

eBay must certainly recognize that each tiny change they make to eBay influences countless thousands of sellers (and buyers of course) in different ways. Is their business model and transactional demand that inelastic in economic terms that they can make dramatic changes each year without worrying about the short-term cost? Perhaps, but it’s more likely that this is an deep structural change that eBay has chosen to move forward with, regardless of the consequences over the short term. But at what point is eBay risking the viability of the marketplace itself?

I keep going back to complexity and confusion as reasons that prevent users from coming back to eBay. And as a buyer and sometime seller this year on eBay myself, I am losing my enthusiasm based on the cumbersome nature of the experience. Too many rules to follow and confusion over who does what.

If eBay can find ways to return to a simpler, and balanced auction experience for sellers and buyers, I think they’ll continue to succeed in the years ahead. They have engendered some degree of collaboration, but at what cost? It seems they are removing the auction relationship itself, especially for small sellers.

Many sellers believe the changes driven by management heighten confusion and represent a corporate culture with blinders on. If eBay drives out enthusiasm and the auction marketplace that brought so much success over the past decade, then they may be relegated to become another mega-shopping site for the masses.

In my view eBay must find a way to leverage the experience, needs and passions of its community from a macro perspective. The company has excelled at this in the past, but doesn’t appear to be listening quite so well anymore.

Ultimately I see the challenge as whether or not eBay is able to effect a necessary paradigm shift that includes Sellers as Customers and Buyers as clients of a trusted, secure relationship. Both must leveraged as vibrant members of the shared community, and positive agents of financial performance.

The company could be so much more, but they need more reasons to stand out positively and reinvigorate their members. The greatest and most effective online auction center in the universe? Sure. After all, they’re eBay!

* Full Disclosure: Long/own shares of eBay at time of writing.

     Looks like the WSJ Online is going to be free… that is wonderful. I love the site and the depth of analysis and commentary it provides.  News Corp. Chairman Rupert Murdoch understands that they are going to increase readership exponentially over time.

“We are studying that and we expect to make that free, and instead of having 1 million (subscribers), having at least 10-15 million in every corner of the earth.”  Rupert Murdoch

    

***Update #2: 3/10/08*** I never managed to use MyBlogLog more easily, or efficiently. It was a fun tool for a while, but I stopped using it altogether a couple months ago. These days I see more anonymous smiley faces, and the changes they are making to MyBlogLog are only getting more complicated. It’s a shame, but I’m back to my original premise- Yahoo screwed up another company after the acquisition.

*** Update#1 10/20/07 *** After receiving a note from MyBlogLog, apparently I am mistaken about the avatar showing up only when being logged into Yahoo. I certainly apologize for the mistake. Must be my cookie settings then… but I still haven’t figured it out. If it works as seamlessly as before, I may start using it again! We’ll see… Thanks for the heads up guys.

Time for a Monday morning rant… a few thoughts on acquisitions. Someone help me understand why companies that acquire other companies so often screw up the merger? Probably has a lot to do with why they sought a merger in the first place, and a lack of appreciation for other corporate cultures. Sometimes they don’t screw it up, but just want to remove the competition and increase market penetration, aka the Whole Foods and Wild Oats combination. Usually a merger has more to do with Aristotle’s theme of the whole being greater than the sum of the parts. In other words, a synergy that wouldn’t be found otherwise. But I’ve got to wonder why companies screw it up so often!

One merger that always bothered me was the Yahoo acquisition of Geocities back in 1999. I think Yahoo paid something like $3.6 Billion dollars for Geocities… isn’t that amazing! Part of the hype of the dot-com boom, but Geocities is now a forgotten netherland. Why? Because Yahoo screwed it up… I remember Geocities very well. I was a neophyte web page writer looking for tools and ideas for developing web pages. People were crazy for Geocities, almost like the MySpace or Facebook of today. What did Yahoo do in all their brilliance? They tried to rebrand Geocities with the Yahoo brand, and in so doing removed just about every vestige of wonderful, unique buzz and excitement from Geocities itself. In other words, Yahoo tried to cram Geocities into a Yahoo flavored site that totally changed the user experience. Within a week of the changes, I had given up Geocities forever, as did millions of other people over the subsequent years.

This is not to say Yahoo has not succeeded with many of its acquisitions, because it has. But someone tell me why they don’t recognize the inherent beauty and unique culture that a company brings to the table when they are about to acquire them? It’s not about making them your own. It is about providing a capitalized opportunity for them to continue to grow and expand! One of the blog world’s fledgling success stories recently was MyBlogLog. A new kind of social-media branding experience that put a face to bloggers and visitors, and created a synergy that expanded the user experience.

Yahoo recently acquired MyBlogLog, but guess what? They’re doing it again. Last month, without notification, all MyBlogLog users were required to log into the site with their Yahoo ID and password! Bam! It changed that quickly… if you didn’t have a Yahoo user id and password you had to create one. The transition was pretty seamless, but guess what? Now if you want to remain logged in to MyBlogLog and have your neat picture id pop-up on various blogs or web sites, you have to remain logged in to the Yahoo service continuously. (Not according to MyBlogLog- I’ll keep working on it). And I can’t stand that idea! I have a Yahoo id, well now I have two of them. The one I had before, and my new one for the MyBlogLog id because I didn’t want to use my other one. But I don’t want to stay logged in to Yahoo! So what does this result in? I don’t use MyBlogLog anymore. Period. And that is a darn shame, because it had a charm and momentum that was unique to itself. Yahoo has now Geocitied MyBlogLog, and it won’t ever be the same.

I’m not trying to be a stick-in-the-mud about the whole thing, I just think that companies can acquire another company and make it more successfull without trying to mold it into something it’s not. To Yahoo’s credit with MyBlogLog they are not changing the theme and working elements thus far. Except that my picture id was lost in the transition, but that’s not a big deal since I can load a new one… which I haven’t done yet… I wonder how many other people have stopped using MyBlogLog? If I’m ever in a position to acquire another company I swear I’m going to help them “be all they can be” and take my time working with the branding aspect. If you’re going to pay top dollar, or any dollar, it’s important to remember why you liked the company in the first place.

P.S. The MyBlogLog widget I’ve got in the sidebar? After Yahoo’s new id requirement, the visits slowed way down, and are now slowly changing to anonymous faces.

P.S.S. If this thing succeeds wildly in the years ahead, I’ll be the first to say I was wrong!