пятница, 25 сентября 2015 г.

uHasbro Goes After Bronies With High-Priced Line Of “My Little Pony” Toys Marketed To Adultsr


4 4 4 9
  • mylittlebronyEven if you’re not aware of a group of folks called “Bronies” — mostly male* adult fans who really love My Little Pony — Hasbro is totally clued into the potentially lucrative market. As such, it’s releasing a new line of My Little Pony toys designed specifically to appeal to Bronies, with a price to match.

    Hasbro collaborated with Integrity Toys Inc. for a “high end collectible” series dubbed <3 My Little Pony, aimed at adult fans of the TV series, My Little Pony: Friendship Is Magic, reports Forbes.

    “There’s a tremendous adult market,” Integrity Toys spokesperson Carol Roth told Forbes, stating something anyone who’s ever been on the Internet probably knows. “Bronies have inspired entire pop culture phenomenon. The reality is most My Little Pony collectors are in their 20s to 60s and possibly even older than that.”

    My Little Pony toys for children go for about $5 and $20, but the new line will sell for upwards of $100, Roth says.

    “The entire look and feel of the packaging makes it clear this is not a child’s toy,” she said. “From the quality of the fabrics, to the type of closure used, to the crafting style, they’re designed the same way high fashion is designed with really strong attention of detail.”

    Just try to explain that to your kid when they accidentally open that tempting, brand-new My Little Pony figurine stashed in the closet that they thought was their Christmas present but really was being saved to maintain its value on the collectibles market.

    *Female fans are known as ladybronies or pegasisters.

    Hasbro Cashes In On Bronies With $100-Plus ‘My Little Pony’ Toy Line [Forbes]



ribbi
  • by Mary Beth Quirk
  • via Consumerist


uFlorida Man Accused Of Stealing More Than 4 Million Pounds Of Citrusr


4 4 4 9
  • (tjean314)
    Sure, we’ve heard of crop theft in the past (tangerines, pumpkins, corn, onions) but when it comes to sheer volume of pilfered produce, a new report out of Florida takes the cake (if the cake is made out of oranges and grapefruit): authorities there have arrested a man accused of illegally obtaining more than four million pounds of citrus fruit — worth more than $500,000 — from five different people and companies.

    An investigation by the Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services announced by Commissioner of Agriculture Adam Putnam in a press release Friday says the man allegedly started working his citrus scheme in March 2014, when he signed contracts with a local company allowing him to harvest citrus from three of its groves a few groves.

    Authorities allege that in the months that follow, the suspect — who isn’t a licensed citrus dealer — harvested oranges and grapefruit from the groves, hauling off about 50,000 boxes full of fruit valued at $533,000, and, he admits, didn’t pay the company a cent, according to the press release.

    He didn’t stop there, allegedly: officials say he snuck into a Bartow grove owned by an individual and took away 180 boxes of citrus. When he was busted, he wrote a check for only half of what the citrus was worth, the commissioner’s office said, and never paid the rest.

    He also entered into a written agreement with a fifth grove, allegedly harvesting $6,000 worth of citrus that he didn’t pay for.

    Police have arrested the suspect and charged him with fresh-squeezed organized scheme to defraud, one count of first-degree grand theft, two counts of third-degree grand theft and two counts of dealing in citrus without a license.



ribbi
  • by Mary Beth Quirk
  • via Consumerist


uWhy Does Farmer John Sell Different Sausages At Regular And Discount Grocery Stores?r


4 4 4 9
  • You can’t blame Charles for thinking that the products that he bought at two different grocery stores were the same thing. They’re both Farmer John maple sausages. Both packages contain 8 sausages, and weigh 8 ounces uncooked. Yet they have different nutritional profiles. He thinks this is because one comes from a discount grocery store. Is that the case?

    Here’s the front of the packages of each sausage, since he happened to have both on hand. The fresh product comes from SaveMart, which is a standard grocery store. The frozen package comes from Food4Less, a Kroger-affiliated discount grocery chain.

    farmerjohn_packet

    Here’s the nutritional information, which differs between the sausage types.

    farmerjohn_nutrtion

    “Farmer John is basically producing two different packages of sausage,” Charles writes, “and the one they sell at Food4Less has higher calories, higher carbs and more fat than the sausages sold in the SaveMart purchased package.” He points out that it’s more difficult to make an immediate comparison between the packages, because one has a serving size of two sausages and the other has a serving size of three. You can’t compare the two at a glance if you happen to shop at both stores: you’d need to do the arduous math of dividing by two or three.

    Charles called up Farmer John, who is a Hormel brand and not a kindly neighborhood hog farmer. A customer service representative explained to him that if the two products have different bar codes, that means they’re separate products, even if they appear to be the same sausage. Yet Charles didn’t find this answer acceptable: why did the discount grocer’s sausage have a slightly worse nutritional profile?

    We contacted Hormel to try to find out more, and they told us pretty much the same thing as Charles: never mind the standard/discount grocery store divide; these are different products.

    A Hormel representative explained:

    These products are two unique recipe formulations with different
    attributes, however the flavor profile is the same. Freezing meat
    products at below 10 degrees Fahrenheit, helps reduce the rate of
    spoilage or bacteria outgrowth. As such, this is the reason frozen
    items have a longer shelf life.

    Yet the product with a longer shelf life isn’t the one that’s at the discount grocery: those were the fresh sausages. Maybe the discount version simply has slightly worse cuts of meat and slightly more carb-laden fillers, which leads to the different nutritional profile and, of course, lower price. That’s what Hormel seems to imply her without saying, “Yep, those are the cheap sausages.”



ribbi
  • by Laura Northrup
  • via Consumerist


uWe Should All Be So Lucky To Have A Friend Who’ll Buy You A Coffee From Thousands Of Miles Awayr


4 4 4 9
  • (emilybean)
    Times used to be, if you wanted to let a friend living thousands of miles away know you were thinking about them, you’d have to write a letter, give it to a guy on a pony who’d race away with it into the sunset and then wait for days or weeks for the mailman to bring their response. At least I think that’s how mail used to work. But now, you can just order up a coffee for your buddy and let them know they’ve got a free pick-me-up waiting for them to pick it up.

    Consumerist reader Ann says she read our post about Starbucks’ mobile ordering app rolling out nationwide this week, and noticed that her friend had posed the question on Facebook of whether or not the tool could be used to order from any Starbucks, anywhere in the U.S.

    “My work-spouse (everyone has one of those, right?) moved across the country a few months ago, and yesterday afternoon he wondered via Facebook if someone could us this new feature … across the country,” she writes.

    So she tried it — without telling him until the order was complete. Not only did the app allow her to order the coffee, it had her back, asking her if she was really sure she’d be able to pick up a coffee in nine minutes from 2,000 miles away.

    “It was such a sweet and fun experience to surprise him with his afternoon coffee break paid for and waiting on him from a few hours and a few thousand miles away,” Ann writes, adding that it’s probably not what Starbucks had in mind with the app, but that it was a really cool way to stay somewhat connected to her friend — “and maybe the closest I will get to tele-porting and time travel,” she added.

    Of course, it’d be good to make sure your friend or loved one will actually be near the Starbucks you’re ordering from before you set it up. Or heck — what about other mobile ordering apps? Why not give the gift of extra guacamole on that burrito for a friend who loves Chipotle for lunch, or an unexpected free Panera bread bowl to warm the soul? Stealth and sneakery may be in order to pinpoint a location and lock down your friend’s schedule from afar without arousing suspicion, but it sounds like the reward is worth it.



ribbi
  • by Mary Beth Quirk
  • via Consumerist


uCourt Okays $50M Comcast Settlement But Some Customers Won’t Even Get The $15 Bill Creditr


4 4 4 9
  • (Steven Depolo)
    Eleven months after Comcast reached a $50 million deal that would close the books on a class-action lawsuit originally filed back in 2003, the settlement has been approved by a federal court. However, because the window for filing a claim has already closed, a number of the affected 800,000 customers won’t get a bill credit; just two free months of The Movie Channel.

    The lawsuit alleged that cable subscribers in the Philadelphia area had been the victims of Comcast’s anti-competitive actions in the region.

    Comcast, which is headquartered here in Philly, came to dominate the market by acquiring smaller pay-TV providers in the area. The company would also swap franchises with other providers to consolidate its footprint.

    The plaintiffs alleged that this sort of action allowed Comcast to “to acquire or maintain monopoly power, raise prices, engage in anticompetitive conduct, and limit choice for cable consumers to effectively the only game in town.”

    The large class of plaintiffs — which had effectively been anyone who’d been a pay-TV subscriber in the region during this time — sought hundreds of millions in damages from Comcast.

    Any hope of such a large settlement was shattered in 2013, when Comcast convinced the U.S. Supreme Court that this plaintiff class should not have been certified because its members were coming from different parts of the area that had been previously been served by various smaller cable companies. Comcast claimed this resulted in a group of plaintiffs whose potential damages varied too much to be considered a single class of plaintiff.

    The lawsuit was allowed to move forward following the gutting by SCOTUS, but with a significantly narrower definition on the plaintiff class than it had previously. It was with this more focused collection of plaintiffs — which includes cable TV customers in Philadelphia and four surrounding counties who currently subscribe to Comcast or subscribed between January 1, 2003 and December 31, 2008 — that Comcast made the $50 million deal in 2014.

    Of that total, around $33 million is slated to go to current customers, who had a choice between a $15 bill credit, six free pay-per-view movies, four months of faster broadband, or two months of The Movie Channel.

    Problem is, even though the settlement has just been approved now, the window for filing a claim closed in July. Current customers who didn’t file a claim will get the default offer of two months of The Movie Channel.

    The settlement puts a price tag of $43.90 on those two months of the Showtime-operated, second-tier premium cable channel. But many pay-TV providers only charge around $12-15/month for TMC, and some will just throw it in with a Showtime subscription.

    We’ve asked both Comcast and the plaintiffs’ attorneys why this is deemed an acceptable substitute for bill credit.

    We’ve also asked the attorneys if their firms would be willing to receive their compensation (estimated at around $15 million) in the form of free movie channels. If we hear anything back from either Comcast or the lawyers, we will update.



ribbi
  • by Chris Morran
  • via Consumerist


uSanderson Farms Recalls 554,090 Pounds Of Chicken That May Be Contaminated With Metal Fragmentsr


4 4 4 9
  • (Chris Goldberg)
    Sanderson Farms is recalling more than 554,090 pounds of chicken products because they may have been contaminated with metal shavings, due to a malfunction with an ice-making machine somewhere along the line.

    A processing facility that encountered bits of metal complained to Sanderson Farms, alerting it to the issue, says the U.S. Food Safety & Inspection Service.

    The chicken items were produced on Sept. 17-18, 2015, and include four kinds of products [click here for the labels]:

    70-lb. cases containing “YOUNG CHICKEN PARTS JUMBO BONELESS SKINLESS BREAST FILLETS WITH RIB MEAT” with case code 45017.
    70-lb. cases containing “YOUNG CHICKEN PARTS JUMBO CLIPPED TENDERLOINS” with case code 45092.
    70-lb. cases containing “YOUNG CHICKEN PARTS JUMBO BONELESS SKINLESS BREAST BUTTERFLIES WITH RIB MEAT” with case code 45015.
    70-lb. cases and 1800-lb. combos containing “FRESH YOUNG CHICKEN PARTS BREAST FRAMES” with case code 45969.

    The products bear the establishment number “EST. P-247” inside the USDA mark of inspection, and were shipped to processing facilities in Georgia and Louisiana.

    The company says none of the products included in the recall were shipped to grocery stores or packed directly for consumers, however.

    “The product included ice packed chicken products sold to three customers who use the products for additional processing into further processed chicken products,” Sanderson Farms said in a press release. “The Company has identified all of the products and notified its customers to place the products on hold, return them to the Company and further execute the recall of these products.”

    Thus far there haven’t been any confirmed reports of injury from the chicken products, but the FSIS says that if you have do wind up with any of the recalled items, don’t eat them — return them to place of purchase or throw them away.



ribbi
  • by Mary Beth Quirk
  • via Consumerist


uWest Coast Grocery Chain Haggen To Close Most Stores After Expansion Gone Wrongr


4 4 4 9
  • (Patrick)
    The purchase of nearly 150 grocery store locations in the Northwest meant to provide consumers with more options in the face of a mega-merger between chains Albertsons and Safeway has come to a rather disastrous end: Haggen Inc. plans to close most of those locations after its quick expansion turned sour and the company filed for bankruptcy.

    Haggen, which operates primarily in the Pacific Northwest, announced Thursday that it will close all but 37 stores in Washington and Oregon less than a month after filing a $1 million lawsuit against Albertsons, claiming the larger brand was working to eliminate the competition, the Los Angeles Times reports.

    The closures include at least 100 stores in Arizona, Nevada and California.

    “Although this has been a difficult process and experience, we will remain concentrated in the Pacific Northwest where we began,” Chief Executive John Clougher tells the L.A. Times.

    Troubles began for Haggen when the relatively small chain agreed late last year to acquire 146 Albertsons and Safeway stores in Arizona, California, Nevada, Oregon and Washington.

    The company claimed in a lawsuit against Albertsons earlier this month that the rapid expansion from 18 stores to more than 150 put a strain on its operations, leading Haggen to close 26 stores.

    Shortly after filing the lawsuit, Haggen filed for bankruptcy. The L.A. Times reports that the company plans to liquidate merchandise and furnishings, but that it has secured financing to keep some stores running.

    Analysts tell the L.A. Times that the downfall of Haggen was to be expected, as the company relied too heavily on information from competitors.

    “Nobody thought they could pull this off,” David J. Livingston, founder of supermarket research firm DJL Research, said. “This isn’t just David and Goliath. This is David and Goliath and Goliath is handing David a faulty slingshot.”

    Grocery chain Haggen is leaving California, Nevada and Arizona [Los Angeles Times]



ribbi
  • by Ashlee Kieler
  • via Consumerist