среда, 6 мая 2015 г.

uSears Insists Clothing Brand Breakup With Kardashians Was Mutualr


4 4 4 9
  • Earlier this week, we sort of paid attention to celebrity news when we heard that the famous Kardashian sisters were ending their clothing line partnership with Sears because they didn’t want to be associated with the brand. That’s not so, Sears representatives said today: their split with the reality television stars was mutual.

    Gossip site TMZ’s mysterious “Kardashian sources” told them that the family dumped Sears even though the deal was profitable, since they weren’t sure about the company’s future prospects. This source said that they’ve found another retail partner, so shoppers won’t have to suffer long without a Kollection of clothes that are allegedly Khloe- and Kim-endorsed.

    Sears’ version of the breakup is that the parting is mutual, after $600 million in sales since 2011. Sears plans to concentrate more on its own brands, which will be more responsive to trends and reality-star-free.

    Sears Says Its Split With Kardashians Was Part of Fashion Shift [Bloomberg News]



ribbi
  • by Laura Northrup
  • via Consumerist


uExec Behind Nationwide’s “Dead Boy” Super Bowl Ad Steps Downr


4 4 4 9
  • Not too many ads from the most recent Super Bowl will be remembered years from now, perhaps with the exception of the Nationwide insurance commercial that was instantly dubbed the “dead boy” ad by the Internet, because… well, the star of the spot is an adorable moppet who also happens to be dead. Now the Nationwide exec who signed off the infamous commercial has stepped down from his top-level job at the insurance giant.

    Ad Age reports that Nationwide Chief Marketing Officer Matt Jauchius has left the company to pursue other opportunities, which is definitely not code for something else.

    The 45-second Super Bowl ad features a young boy reciting all the things he won’t be able to do: ride a bike, fly, travel the world in a sailboat with his dog, get cooties from a girl, or get married.

    “I couldn’t grow up,” says the youngster, staring straight into the camera, “because I died from an accident.”

    Then, as if to drive the point home with a mammoth hammer, the ad cuts to shots of the various ways in which the boy might have died — an overflowing tub with toys floating on the water; an under-the-sink cabinet opened so as to display all the toxic chemicals that could be consumed; an unsecured flat screen TV that has fallen forward.

    It’s pretty grim, especially for Super Bowl Sunday.

    And while the ad has done gangbusters numbers online — the official YouTube view counter is nearing 7.1 million — much of the feedback about the ad is either negative or mocking.

    In the wake of the backlash, Jauchius told AdAge that “We weren’t trying to sell insurance with this spot, we were trying to save children’s lives.”

    That’s definitely a worthwhile cause, and it takes chutzpah to use the Super Bowl as your platform to remind people of our fragile, mortal existence. Perhaps if the ad had been run by some non-profit child safety organization with Nationwide sponsoring it, the response wouldn’t have been so dramatic.

    The former CMO had much better days at Nationwide before overseeing the Dead Boy spot. He was behind the popular “Nationwide is on your side” and “Join the Nation” campaigns that didn’t send millions of TV viewers spiraling into depressions.



ribbi
  • by Chris Morran
  • via Consumerist


uRestaurant Owner Apologizes For Asking Breastfeeding Mom To Cover Up Or Mover


4 4 4 9
  • We support many things here at Consumerist. One of them is the right of parents to feed their infants however and wherever they choose, which includes the right to openly breastfeed in business establishments. State law in Illinois also supports this right. We also support proportionate responses when a business wrongs you. After a mother shared her grievance against a local restaurant on Facebook, the owner claims to have received threats of death and property damage.

    It began simply enough: in her original Facebook post, the woman explained that her family was out to dinner to celebrate a milestone. Her six-month-old baby decided that he was hungry too, and she nursed him. Simple enough. A hostess offered a cloth napkin to “cover up,” and told her, “you can’t do that here.” The restaurant owner came over, speaking directly to her husband for some reason, saying that other customers had complained, and that there was an empty dining room where she could go instead.

    At least it wasn’t a bathroom stall or an alley, but she was still upset at being asked for the very first time, after nursing two children, to cover up or leave. ” was made to feel embarrassed and shamed, as if I were doing something wrong,” she wrote on Facebook. “I went quietly and quickly to my van where I cried and nursed.”

    After her Facebook post, the story made local and national news, and supporters came to the family’s defense and planned a nurse-in at the restaurant. Yet the restaurant owner claimed that while the law says he can’t ask a customer to cover up or leave, there’s nothing in the law that keeps him from offering a napkin or an empty dining room.

    Yet where the proportional response comes in has to do with the owner’s claim that people have taken things even further, claiming that human milk supporters have called in or sent threats to kill or hurt him, and threatened to trash his restaurant.

    Ultimately, this has a happy ending, just in time for Mother’s Day: the restaurant’s owner posted a definitive apology for his behavior during and after the incident. “It took a lot of educating (in both constructive and not so constructive forms) from not only those in our community but around the world, and we realize that we not only made poor decisions on Sunday, but my own responses were not well thought out,” he posted on Facebook. the planned nurse-in is happening on Saturday, and the restaurant is giving away branded onesies and “small tokens” to mothers and children who visit.

    Breastfeeding Mom ‘Stunned’ After Being Asked to Cover Up in Suburban Restaurant [CBS Chicago]

    BONUS:
    Comments Bingo: Breastfeeding Edition



ribbi
  • by Laura Northrup
  • via Consumerist


uMcDonald’s Brings Back The Hamburglar And We Aren’t Sure How To Feelr


4 4 4 9
  • Is he telling us to be quiet or the burger?!?

    Is he telling us to be quiet or the burger?!?

    Upon hearing buzz that McDonald’s has brought back that scamp the Hamburglar to network TV after a 13-year hiatus, ostensibly in Burger Thief Jail, the image of the chubby-cheeked, one-toothed masked beef marauder might come to mind. But lo — the scamp is gone, replaced by a suburban dad with a full set of teeth, a five o’clock shadow on his chiseled jaw and a penchant for red leather high tops and trench coats.

    “We felt it was time to debut a new look for the Hamburglar after he’s been out of the public eye all these years,” Joel Yashinsky, McDonald’s’ Vice President of U.S. Marketing said in a statement to Mashable. “He’s had some time to grow up a bit and has been busy raising a family in the suburbs and his look has evolved over time.”

    leathershoes

    Indeed, a teaser video posted today by McDonald’s on Twitter shows a guy expertly flipping burgers on a grill before apparently being unable to resist the lure of a fast food version of the thing he’s already making at home:

    He’ll be showing up in spots for McDonald’s new Sirloin Third Pound Burger and online videos, among other things like live appearances, and is likely part of McDonald’s plan to turn business around in the face of struggling sales by creating “brand excitement.”

    Fresh update to an old favorite or mildly horrifying? We can’t begin to process our feelings on this one.

    Here’s more on Hamburglar’s origin story:



ribbi
  • by Mary Beth Quirk
  • via Consumerist


u“Injected Ads” Are An Annoying Security Risk Affecting Millions Of Internet Usersr


4 4 4 9
  • These Google search results may look normal at first glance, but if you look closely, you'll see that these ads are being "injected" into the page by a third party.

    These Google search results may look normal at first glance, but if you look closely, you’ll see that these ads are being “injected” into the page by a third party.

    Legitimate advertising is an annoyance that most of us tolerate and do our best to ignore. But there are more pernicious forms of advertising that aren’t just a nuisance but actually pose a potential security risk, like the “injected ads” that find your way into your web browser through software and extensions.

    Ad injectors work by replacing the ads that are supposed to be served to your browser or by inserting completely new, unwanted and unapproved ads. Many users affected by these injectors acquire them through free software downloads or extensions for their browsers.

    On Google’s Online Security blog, the company says it has identified more than 50,000 extensions and 34,000 applications that worked as ad injectors.

    And nearly a third of these downloads also acted maliciously against users, stealing account credentials and hijacking search queries.

    The injector-infected pieces of software are distributed through more than 1,000 different networks that pay affiliates each time someone downloads one. The more clicks, the more money for affiliates.

    Injectors pull their ads from “injection libraries” run by companies that source ads, often from legitimate advertising networks. This is how companies like Sears, Walmart, Target, Ebay, and Wayfair end up paying for injected ads they don’t know about.

    Ad injection can make a real mess out of websites like Amazon.com, where unwanted and unapproved ad units are injected everywhere you look by third parties.

    Ad injection can make a real mess out of websites like Amazon.com, where unwanted and unapproved ad units are injected everywhere you look by third parties.

    “Because advertisers are generally only able to measure the final click that drives traffic to their sites, they’re often unaware of many preceding twists and turns,” explains Google, “and don’t know they are receiving traffic via unwanted software and malware.”

    The affiliates who get you to download injectors get paid, the distribution network gets paid, but the websites where you’re seeing these injected ads aren’t getting anything out of it financially.

    Google and researchers from the U.C. Berkeley, and U.C. Santa Barbara have put together a detailed report [PDF] that actually identifies the largest players in the ad injector and injector library sphere.

    The web giant has also 192 Chrome browser extensions from its Chrome Web Store after determining they were “deceptive” for being involved in ad injection.

    “These extensions violated Web Store policies that extensions have a narrow and easy-to-understand purpose,” explains Google. “We’ve also deployed new safeguards in the Chrome Web Store to help protect users from deceptive ad injection extensions.”

    For Chrome users who may already be beset by ad injectors, Google has tools for cleaning up your browser.



ribbi
  • by Chris Morran
  • via Consumerist


uPrivacy Advocates Sue Virginia Police Over Data From Automatic License Plate Scannersr


4 4 4 9
  • By itself, your license plate doesn’t say much except in what state, month, and year you registered your car. But start tracking where and when that license plate goes, and you’ve suddenly got a whole huge pile of personal data about all the comings and goings in someone’s life. We’ve reported before that license plate scanning by public and private entities is both widespread and unregulated. Now, the ACLU is suing police in one state to get them to stop.

    The ACLU of Virginia filed suit this week, on the behalf of one Fairfax County resident, against the Fairfax County Police department for unlawfully storing massive amounts of license plate data collected using automatic license plate readers (ALPRs).

    The resident, the ACLU explains, learned that his license plate had been scanned twice in one year, and that the data had been saved in a database even though neither he nor his car are involved in any kind of police investigation. This, the suit claims, violates Virginia law.

    That law itself has been the subject of much discussion in the commonwealth this year. During their last session, Virginia’s state legislature passed a bill that would have permitted law-enforcement agencies to keep using the optical readers, but with slimitations on how the data could be used, and for how long it could be kept:

    [L]aw-enforcement agencies shall be allowed to collect information from license plate readers, provided such information (i) is held for no more than seven days and (ii) is not subject to any outside inquiries or internal usage, except in the investigation of a crime or missing persons report. After seven days, the information shall be purged from the system unless it is being utilized in an ongoing investigation.

    However, Gov. Terry McAuliffe this month vetoed the bill and so those limitations will now not become law.

    And that’s where this lawsuit comes in. Virginia already has an existing Government Data Collection & Dissemination Practices Act (PDF) — the vetoed bill was an amendment, not the whole. And the ACLU claims that the license plate data scanning, as currently done, is violation of the existing statute.

    The law says, in part, that, “Information shall not be collected unless the need for it has been clearly established in advance,” and that, “Information shall be appropriate and relevant to the purpose for which it has been collected.” Blanket-collecting random citizens’ scanned license plate data, the ACLU posits, is neither.

    ACLU of Virginia legal director Rebecca Glenberg added in a statement that active use — seeking specific tags to correspond with stolen cars, Amber alerts, fleeing suspects, and so on — is just fine by the ACLU. It’s the passive use of the tech, the indiscriminate hoovering up of data, that poses the problem: “We do not object to the real-time use of ALPRs to compare license plate numbers to a current ‘hot list’ of vehicles involved in current investigations,” Glenberg said. “The danger to privacy comes when the government collects tens of thousands of license plate records so it can later find out where people were and when.”

    Referring to data-sharing agreements that the Fairfax County police have with other northern Virginia jurisdictions, as well as with nearby Maryland and the District of Columbia, Glenberg added, “The intrusion is magnified in the Washington, D.C. area, where multiple law enforcement agencies may access each other’s information.”

    Claire Guthrie Gastañaga, the executive director of ACLU of Virginia, specifically called out McAuliffe’s veto as the source of the lawsuit, saying that he “had the opportunity” to clarify the existing law to protect Virginians’ personal information unless it was necessary and relevant, but instead left “no choice but to go to court to ensure that law enforcement follows the Data Act.”

    As the AP points out, back in 2013 the Virginia Attorney General’s office advised the state police that keeping ALPR data unrelated to an investigation was indeed against state law. The state police stopped then, but cities and counties in Virginia, like Fairfax, continue to collect and share the information.



ribbi
  • by Kate Cox
  • via Consumerist


uChase Raising Fees On Some Checking & Savings Accounts In 16 Statesr


4 4 4 9
  • Chase customers in more than a dozen states will be seeing a slight change to some of their account statements next month, as the bank announced it would increase service charges for both checking and savings accounts.

    The Chicago Tribune reports that in order to provide a consistent service charge across all states serviced by the bank, Chase will implement fee increases ranging from $1 to $2 on certain accounts.

    For 16 states, the bank plans to increase the monthly service charge on savings accounts one dollar, from $4 to $5.

    States affected by that increase include Arizona, Colorado, Connecticut, Illinois, Indiana, Kentucky, Louisiana, Michigan, New Jersey, New York, Ohio, Oklahoma, Texas, Utah, Wisconsin and West Virginia.

    The company is also poised to hike its checking account fees by $2 in California, Washington and Oregon – bringing the service charge for those accounts to $12.

    The fee increases are expected to take effect with statement periods beginning after June 17, the Tribune reports.

    Of course, the company will continue to offer customers a few ways to avoid checking and savings account fees altogether.

    Chase savings account customers can avoid the fees by keeping a minimum daily balance of $300 or arranging for an automatic transfer of at least $25 a month into the account from a Chase checking account. Account holders under the age of 18 are exempt from the fees.

    As for checking accounts, customers can avoid monthly service charges by having direct deposits totaling at least $500 during the statement period or carrying a minimum daily balance of at least $1,500.

    The fee increase at Chase comes about seven months after Citibank announced hikes to its checking and savings account products. The company increased fees for the Citi rewards checking account by $5, bringing the monthly cost to $25, while the fees for the company’s basic accounts rose from $10 to $12 per month.

    Chase and Citibank’s fee increases lend credence to a recent report that found free checking accounts are going the way of the dodo bird.

    A February 2014 survey of 2,980 banks and credit unions found that more than 40% of those institutions don’t offer truly free checking to customers.

    Part of the reason there are fewer free account options is that there are simply fewer banks around nowadays.

    But as a WalletHub report pointed out late last year, there are a few alternative – and maybe better – options for consumers, especially if you’re willing to bank online

    At the time, the study found the average monthly fee for an online checking account was $3.91, more than two dollars below the average of $5.96 for an account through a bank branch. Additionally, the average minimum balance required to waive these fees was lower online, $2,367 compared to $3,855.

    When it came to savings accounts, online bank accounts have a higher average interest rate than other type of accounts. According to the report, an online savings account will earn an average of .61% on balances of $1,000. Compare that to the .12% average for branch bank savings accounts.

    Chase raises fees on savings accounts in Illinois [The Chicago Tribune]



ribbi
  • by Ashlee Kieler
  • via Consumerist