четверг, 10 декабря 2015 г.

uYour Hoverboard Is No Longer Welcome On 3 More Airlinesr


4 4 4 9
  • (frankieleon)
    Hoverboards: they’re self-balancing scooters that are currently a hot toy in the sense that they’re very popular, and a hot toy in the sense that they keep bursting into much-publicized flames, sometimes while in use. Airlines all over the world have asked customers to kindly leave their hoverboards on the ground.

    There’s nothing inherent in a self-balancing scooter without handlebars that’s making airlines ban them. The problem is their lithium ion batteries, and fears that poorly constructed boards could catch fire in transit, endangering everyone on board the plane.

    While governments, including the U.S. Consumer Safety Products Commission and the U.K.’s National Trading Standards Office, are currently testing the boards to determine what could be causing sporadic fires and explosions, airlines are sure that they don’t want the scooters on board.

    So far, Delta, American, and United have announced that they won’t allow the boards on planes, so plan your gift-giving accordingly. British Airways had already banned them, and so have smaller domestic carriers Virgin America, JetBlue, and Alaska Airways.

    Until the airline industry has a unified policy to deal with the devices, individual carriers will set their own. If you’re planning to travel with a new gadget in the coming months, check with the airline ahead of time.

    Airlines are banning ‘hoverboards’ after fires trigger safety concerns [Washington Post]



ribbi
  • by Laura Northrup
  • via Consumerist


uTwitter Starts Showing Ads To Non-Users Just Wandering Byr


4 4 4 9
  • Hello. I'm an ad-blocker. (Cobby17)
    Twitter doesn’t use banner ads, but instead shows users sponsored tweets that are theoretically targeted to them. Yet plenty of visitors to the site aren’t registered users: they’ve followed a link despite not having an account or not being logged in yet. Twitter hadn’t tried selling these visitors’ eyeballs to advertisers until now.

    Yes, logged-in users visit Twitter more often, but there are only around 300 million users of the service. Every month, more than 500 million people wander on to the site through Google searches, other search engines, or links.

    The experiment will start for desktop users in only four countries: the anglophone U.S., U.K., and Australia, and in Japan. Yes, Twitter has very heavy mobile usage, but desktop users are more likely to click on links to Twitter without already being logged in.

    Twitter Extends Ads to Some Logged-Out Visitors, Including Those From Google [AdAge]



ribbi
  • by Laura Northrup
  • via Consumerist


uAmazon Finally Changes ‘Amazon Mom’ To ‘Amazon Family’ In United Statesr


4 4 4 9
  • (Chris Routly)
    You might remember that back in March, male parents started a campaign asking Amazon why its program that provides discounts and free shipping on necessary baby items is called Amazon Mom in the United States, and Amazon Family in every other country where Amazon does business. Why? Now, at the end of the calendar year, Amazon finally admits that dads also know how to click “Add to Cart” on a package of diapers.

    “Keeping the name ‘mom’ was sending out a pretty loud message what Amazon thought about family and gender roles,” one of the leaders told the Chicago Tribune. “We saw it as an opportunity for them to send a strong message about what modern families look like. That’s why it was important.” Shopping and parenting aren’t only done by women, and never were.

    Campaigners made their campaign a little bit louder in March as a tribute to a stay-at-home father and longtime campaigner against the “Amazon Mom” branding who died of cancer at age 42.

    Dads who are full-time caregivers or who just occasionally take care of their own children found the program’s discounts useful, but its marketing e-mails aimed exclusively at “moms” irritating. Amazon quietly changed the program and its branding this week, notifying leaders of the campaign.

    Finally, quietly, Amazon Mom changes its name to Amazon Family [Chicago Tribune]



ribbi
  • by Laura Northrup
  • via Consumerist


uAnheuser-Busch Distributor Incentive Program Raises More Concerns Of A Stifled Craft Beer Marketr


4 4 4 9
  • (jayRaz)

    With its $107 billion merger with SABMiller making waves and federal regulators investigating its purchase of several small distributors, one might think that Anheuser-Busch InBev would lay low when it comes to rocking the distribution boat. But that’s apparently not the case, as the company recently unveiled an incentive program that would provide distributors with a sliding scale of bonuses if most of the beer they sell comes from the brewer.  

    The Wall Street Journal reports that the incentive program, aimed at reversing a decline in sales, could provide as much as $1.5 million in reimbursements to independent distributors if 98% of the beers they sell come from AB InBev.

    If a company’s sales volumes are made of 95% AB InBev brands – like Budweiser, Bud Light and recently acquired craft beers from Golden Road and Goose Island – they would be eligible to have as much as half of their marketing support for the products — promotions and display costs — covered by the beer giant, according to distributors who spoke with the WSJ.

    AB InBev has reportedly already told its network of 500 distributors, and others, that they would qualify for the incentive program as long as craft brewers they carry produce less than 15,000 barrels or sell beer only in one state.

    When AB InBev announced the three-year plan at a meeting last month, the company estimated that participating distributors would receive an average of $200,000 in benefits annually.

    “We are focused on improving our offerings for consumers, and our new voluntary incentive program better equips wholesalers to compete in the future,” Ricardo Melo, Anheuser-Busch vice president of sales strategy and wholesaler development, tells the WSJ in a statement.

    While Melo emphasized that the program is voluntary, and that distributors could sell less than 95% of its products and still be eligible for benefits, some in the beer industry claim the plan would stifle craft brewers’ ability to bring products to market under the current distribution system.

    As it stands, the U.S. has a three-tier distribution system where brewers must sell beer to distributors, who then pass on the goods to retailers, which finally sell to consumers.

    According to the National Beer Wholesalers Association, most of the country’s beer distribution flows through companies with agreements to either sell AB InBev or MillerCoors brands.

    Lagunitas Brewing Co. founder Tony Magee, who recently sold half of his stake in the company to not-entirely-small Heineken, tells the WSJ that the incentive program could persuade distributors to hold back on craft-beer sales, for fear that pushing the products would put them over the edge for reward eligibility.

    Other small brewers expressed the same concerns, noting that the plan could prevent new beers from entering the market entirely.

    The company is “basically saying ‘We would like to shut down a massive pillar of the United State distribution system to craft,” Nikos Ridge, the founder of Ninkasi Brewing Co., tells the WSJ, adding that craft brews from AB InBev’s own brands would still easily make it on the market.

    Oregon-based Deschutes Brewery says it’s already been dropped by one distributor because it “had to make a choice to go with the incentive program or stay with craft.” The distributor in question did not return comment to the WSJ.

    The incentive program comes at a time when AB InBev is already taking heat for its disruption to the distribution market.

    In October, the Justice Department, along with California regulators, announced they were investigating allegations by craft brewers that AB InBev pushes its recently acquired distributors in California, New York and Colorado to sever ties with the smaller beer companies.

    Sources close to the matter say the investigation, which is in early stages, was initiated after smaller brewers raised concerns that AB InBev’s purchase of distributors made it more difficult for them to distribute their brews, leading to stalling sales.

    Since then, the beer behemoth formalized its deal to purchase No. 2 brewer SABMiller, which would bring along its own roster of distributors.

    And while the sheer size of the combined AB InBev-SABMiller company is a point of consternation for anti-trust experts, the distribution list is equally troublesome.

    Diana Moss, president of the American Antitrust Institute, told Consumerist earlier this year that part of the motivation for the mega-merger could be a desire by the companies to control the arm of the beer business that essentially provides consumers with choice.

    “A merged ABI-SABMiller would be a more powerful ‘gatekeeper’ of the critical distribution channels that craft brewers need to get their products onto retail shelves, jeopardizing the choice, variety, and innovation that consumers benefit from,” she said.

    This, of course, isn’t the first time that AB InBev has offered an incentive program – and big bucks – for distributors to favor its products, the WSJ reports.

    In 1997, the Justice Department opened a probe into Anheuser-Busch’s system called “100% Share of Mind” that essentially dissuaded distributors from carrying small brands. That case was closed without legal action.

    Craft Brewers Take Issue With AB InBev Distribution Plan [The Wall Street Journal]



ribbi
  • by Ashlee Kieler
  • via Consumerist


uSettlement Means “Happy Birthday” Song Will Finally Enter Public Domainr


4 4 4 9
  • (twoguns)
    The next time you decide to perform a rousing rendition of “Happy Birthday To You” on TV, or in a movie or on your debut album, you won’t have to worry about paying anyone for the right to do so: after two years of legal wrangling over who owns the copyright to the classic tune, the parties involved have agreed to settle their differences.

    Earlier this year, some filmmakers behind Happy Birthday, a documentary about the song’s history, sued the song’s publisher, Warner Music, to get back the $1,500 they were required to pay for its use in the film, claiming the company never had the rights to the lyrics in the first place (for more on the long, winding history of “Happy Birthday,” click here).

    A federal judge then ruled in September [PDF] that Warner Music didn’t have a valid copyright claim to “Happy Birthday,” which brings in an estimated $2 million a year in royalties. But the future of the song was up for grabs, as well as Warner’s liability as a result, with a trial scheduled to start next week to determine what would happen next.

    The parties in the case said in a filing this week in United States District Court in Los Angeles that they’d agreed to a settlement, which, if approved, will put the case to bed, and allow the song to formally enter the public domain. That means anyone can perform it or use it in a commercial venture — and of course, it’s still legal to sing it to your friends and family upon the occasion of their birth, as it always has been.

    “While we respectfully disagreed with the court’s decision, we are pleased to have now resolved this matter,” Warner said in a statement, while an attorney for the artists said they were pleased with the settlement but declined to provide further details, Reuters reports.



ribbi
  • by Mary Beth Quirk
  • via Consumerist


uFDA’s Voluntary Guidance Failing To Curb Antibiotic Overuse In Farm Animalsr


4 4 4 9
  • (Teresa RS)
    Two years ago, the Food and Drug Administration — after decades of delay — paid lip service to the idea of reducing the use of medically important antibiotics for growth-promotion in farm animals, by asking the drug makers to voluntarily stop selling antibiotics specifically for that purpose. Critics called the FDA actions pointless while the drug and beef industries weren’t bothered in the least. And now, by the FDA’s own numbers, we can see why.

    Today, the FDA released its annual report [PDF] on the sale of antimicrobials for use in farm animals, and the numbers are not a surprise to anyone who could see that merely asking drug companies to be more responsible was not going to cut it.

    According to the FDA, between 2013 — when the voluntary guidance first went into effect — and 2014, sales of antibiotics for use in food-producing animals increased by 4%. Animals were also getting more drugs that are medically important for human health, with year-over-year sales of these antibiotics up 3%, in spite of the FDA’s weak-kneed efforts.

    It’s these latter drugs — those that are vital to human health — that are often the biggest concern. Continuous exposure to low doses of such drugs can encourage the development of so-called “superbugs” that are resistant to the very antibiotics that are being used. These drug-resistant bacteria sicken some 2 million Americans — and kill thousands — every year, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

    Medically important drugs accounted for the large majority (62%) of drugs sold for use in food animals in 2014. Industry-backed critics of antibiotic regulation will likely point out that tetracycline — an older drug that is medically important, but no longer considered critical — represented 70% of these sales.

    However, as researchers from Texas Tech and Texas A&M learned when they began using tetracycline in place of more urgently needed human antibiotics, drug-resistance only became more of a problem.

    “We actually saw that resistance went up, which is not what we hypothesized,” Guy Loneragan from Texas Tech recently explained to Frontline. “Our viewpoint historically has been that, sure tetracyclines aren’t that important for human health so why worry about them in animal agriculture? But they may be more important than we think, not because of their use in human medicine, but because they can expand resistance to critically important drugs.”

    Farmers and drug companies have long known that antibiotics can help promote growth in farm animals, resulting in a higher per-animal meat yield. The 2013 FDA guidance asked drug companies to, among other things, stop selling drugs that were solely used for growth-promotion. However, that had zero effect on sales because almost all drugs approved for growth-promotion use were already approved for therapeutic use. So anyone who had been buying an antibiotic primarily to get fatter pigs, cows, or chickens, just had to switch their reason from “growth-promotion” to “disease-prevention.”

    Thus, per the FDA report, the percentage of therapeutic drugs sold that have known growth-promotion benefits remained flat at 72% in the year after the agency’s guidance was released.

    Additionally, while the FDA has tried to impress upon the need for veterinary oversight on these antibiotics, 97% of all medically important drugs were available in 2014 without a prescription or a veterinary feed directive.

    “The data released today shows us that, despite industry assurances to the contrary, the use of human antibiotics on the farm have continued to rise,” says Susan Vaughn Grooters, an analyst with Keep Antibiotics Working.

    She points to the increased use of cephalosporins (up 12% from 2013 through 2014), an important class of antibiotics on which the FDA placed restrictions in Jan. 2012. In spite of those rules, which ban the “extra label” use of cephalosporins, sales continued to increase.

    “This troubling trend reaffirms that an approach, based largely on voluntary industry reductions, is inadequate faced with the public health crisis of antibiotic resistance,” says Vaughn Grooters. “There is no indication that FDA’s change in policy has yet resulted in any meaningful reductions on antibiotic sales and usage in food animal production. Over the counter sales clearly indicate that veterinary oversight couldn’t come soon enough.”

    Earlier this year, California became the first state to prohibit the use of medically important antimicrobial drugs on livestock — except in situations where they are prescribed by a veterinarian. Additionally, the state outlawed the use of antibiotics solely for the purpose of weight gain. That means it’s not just going to be a regulatory no-no, but an actual crime, in California to use antibiotics strictly for growth-promotion.

    Avinash Kar, of the Natural Resources Defense Council, says this is the kind of regulation that’s needed on a national basis.

    “Dangerous overuse of antibiotics by the agricultural industry has been on the rise at an alarming rate in recent years—putting the effectiveness of our lifesaving drugs in jeopardy for people when they get sick,” says Kar. “We can no longer rely on the meat and pharmaceutical industries to self-police the responsible handling of these precious drugs. FDA must follow the lead of California and outlaw routine use of antibiotics on animals that are not sick in meat production nationwide. If we want to keep our antibiotics working for people when we need them, the agency must take urgent action.”

    Earlier this week, the UK government released a report highlighting the many ways — from manufacturing, through animal and human waste — that overused antibiotics can make their way into the environment, putting everyone at risk for infections that can’t be fought off with the antibiotics we have now.

    The report called for a global plan to reduce antibiotics in agriculture, especially as rising global economies — like Brazil, Russia, India, and China — increase their use of these drugs to meet growing demand from consumers.



ribbi
  • by Chris Morran
  • via Consumerist


uRadioShack Executive Wants You To Know That RadioShack Is No Longer RadioShackr


4 4 4 9
  • (Chris)
    When I mention RadioShack, which I occasionally do for some reason, people often express surprise that the electronics chain still exists. That’s because they either assume it had shut down years ago, or didn’t know that some of the chain’s stores survived its recent bankruptcy. Only that’s what the people running this new RadioShack want us all to know: the new RadioShack isn’t the continuation of the old RadioShack. Maybe they shouldn’t have kept the name after all.

    It’s legally true that the company now operating stores with “RadioShack” signs on them is not the same one that filed for bankruptcy protection back in February. “We are a separate, new company that acquired some assets from the now-defunct estate that was RadioShack. It did not reemerge from bankruptcy,” chief marketing officer Michael Tatelman explained to Dallas Business Journal. While purchasing the RadioShack name and keeping almost two thousand stores might create the impression among shoppers that the company had simply survived bankruptcy, legally it’s a different company. The head marketer wants customers to know that it’s not the same retail chain in practice, either.

    How’s that? The biggest difference is that since the stores are run in partnership with Sprint, you’ll find only that carrier’s phones and Sprint mini-stores available. They do plan to continue carrying cables, parts, and batteries that have always been the thing that customers stop by RadioShack for every few years.

    The CMO’s comparison is to a convenience store for electronics, and that might be a good way to think about what RadioShack wants to be: you’ll stop by the corner store when you really need milk and Saltines: you might pay a little more, and the selection will be smaller, but you’ll be really happy that you didn’t have to go out of your way for Saltines.

    They’re hoping that while you stop in for a new electric adapter for your cordless phone, you notice the nice selection of drones, or a major headphone brand that wasn’t ready for national big-box retailers but that RadioShack was happy to stock.

    Will it work? RadioShack will find out in the coming months and years.

    Year in review: Three things that have changed since RadioShack’s bankruptcy [Dallas Business Review]



ribbi
  • by Laura Northrup
  • via Consumerist