Blog dedicado a la formación en todos sus ámbitos: presencial, online, a distancia
Hola:
Una infografía sobre gestión del tiempo para pymes en 60 segundos.
Un saludo
Gestión del tiempo para pymes en 60 segundos
Hola:
Una infografía sobre el Estado del marketing de contenido para pymes 2014.
Un saludo
Estado del marketing de contenido para pymes 2014
Earlier today, General Motors was hit with a $35 million penalty for its decade-plus delay in recalling millions of vehicles with defective ignition switches that could be inadvertently turned off, leaving the car without power steering and braking and deactivating the air bags. GM has repeatedly stated that these cars are safe to drive because an accidentally turned-off vehicle could still be steered to safety. But is that true?
For an upcoming story on the GM recall, CNBC reporter Phil LeBeau ventured up to not-exactly-top-secret test track run by our colleagues at Consumer Reports to get the hands-on experience of what it would be like to try to control one of these defective cars.
For the above video, LeBeau drove while CR’s Director of Auto Testing Jake Fisher hangs out in the passenger seat of a 2007 Chevy Cobalt, one of the more than 2 million recalled GM cars.
With just a light yank on the keychain, the Cobalt’s engine shuts off but the car continues to move. LeBeau, after some intentional swerving to see how the car handles without its power steering, then attempts to navigate some traffic cones; it doesn’t end well for the little orange guys.
Keep in mind that LeBeau knew his car was going to turn off and was (we hope) mentally prepared for the change in drivability. Most people on the road are working under the assumption that their car won’t crap out unexpectedly because of a tug on the keychain. And most people don’t have the luxury of only having to worry about a few traffic cones on a private test track.
The entire report, Failure to Recall: Investigating GM, will air Sunday night at 10 p.m. ET/PT on CNBC.
Hola:
Una infografía que nos dice que las Redes Sociales se hacen corporativas.
Un saludo
Las Redes Sociales se hacen corporativas
No one would choose “Crap.”
A common consumer complaint about flower deliveries is that the arrangements that show up on our loved ones’ doorsteps isn’t as tall or full as the pictures we saw of the arrangement online. A former florist wrote to Consumerist to explain why this is. The photos from FTD, Teleflora, and other Big Flower companies are staged to look nice for the camera, but real-life is three-dimensional.
A former florist wrote to us to explain how this perspective shift works. “Something you said in your story earlier [this week] really hit the nail on the head, though maybe not in the way you think,” reader S. explains. In our post on Wednesday, reader Jason wrote to us to complain that the flowers he had sent to his mother didn’t measure up, even though he had paid extra for a large arrangement. Here are they are side by side:
S. explains that Jason wasn’t ripped off, at least not in the way that he thought he was. “This arrangement does measure up…if you somehow pointed all 15 blooms at the camera,” she explains. Real life is three-dimensional, and so are real flower arrangements.
S. continues:
That point is exactly why no one should order from Teleflora, FTD, etc – all of those pretty pictures you see on their websites are arranged in a 2-dimensional layout, with all blooms tilted toward the camera.
It’s deceptive – the photo arrangements are done in a way that implies a “round” arrangement (like a ball sitting on top of a vase) – it’s implied that there are additional flowers that you can’t see.
Once your mom’s local florist sits down to make the arrangement out of the book for, say, Teleflora, he or she isn’t going to make the exact same thing that you saw in the website photo. It will have the same amount of the same type of flowers, but they’ll be arranged in a three-dimensional shape. The photos that florists use to guide them in making the arrangements are not the same ones that the customer sees.
“In every case, that menu states an identical number of stems as are visible in the picture, nothing more (and the cost allotted to the florist reflects this),” S. explains. “Florists know that no one in their right mind wants a 2-dimensional arrangement, so they’ll generally create a smaller 3-dimensional arrangement and hope that the recipient didn’t see the Teleflora picture, so they won’t be disappointed.”
Before digital photography and especially before camera phones, the sender would probably never see what flower arrangement a faraway loved one really received. That’s good for keeping florists accountable, but when consumers start with deceptively-arranged photos, we’re holding them accountable to the wrong image.
“When I was working as a florist, we ended up taking a loss on most Teleflora arrangements – we often included more product than Teleflora reimbursed for, just to make things look presentable,” S. explains.
The solution? The ironic thing is that most florists’ sites are based on a template and designs from the big wire services. If you order directly from their site (and not from a fake local florist), the florist gets a bigger share of your money.
Better yet, look for a “Designer’s choice” or “deal of the day” option on the Web ordering form, or call them on the phone. Give them color parameters and the flower types that the recipient likes or doesn’t like, and let the shop work their floral magic.
(afagen)
The agency already laid out why it thinks Tesla should be allowed to sell directly to consumers, but today’s missive outlining the subject of its comments to New Jersey and Missouri lays out exactly how each state’s proposed law would harm consumers.
Staff from the FTC’s Office of Policy Planning, Bureau of Competition, and Bureau of Economics note in the comments that current laws in both jurisdictions “operate as a special protection for [independent motor vehicle dealers] – a protection that is likely harming both competition and consumers.”
It’s not like the FTC wants to pick on N.J. or Missouri, of course — any state law that would mandate a single method of “distributing automobiles to consumers” is one that the staff would oppose.
Specifically in Missouri, the FTC feels that the proposed amendments to current law — which the staff says already dampens innovation in manufacturers’ ability to sell to customers in what could be a more cost-effective and responsive manner — would only serve to “amplify the adverse effects of the current prohibition” and “discourage innovation.”
And while in New Jersey the legislative proposals currently on the table simply provide a strict set of exceptions to the laws banning direct sales and could possibly increase competition, the bills don’t go far enough.
“New Jersey’s consumers would more fully benefit from a complete repeal of the prohibition on direct sales by all manufacturers, rather than any limited, selective set of exceptions,” the staff comment states, noting that “current New Jersey law . . . is very likely anticompetitive and harmful to consumers.”
The FTC notes that of course, all of these proposals bring Tesla’s efforts to mind. But it’s not just about that one company — it’s about the bigger picture of giving consumers more choice about how they spend their money, and who they buy products from.
“FTC staff offer no opinion on whether automobile distribution through independent dealerships is superior or inferior to direct distribution by manufacturers,” the comments note. “Consumers are the ones best situated to choose for themselves both the cars they want to buy and how they want to buy them.”
Here’s how it went down, according to video from WCBD News: Witnesses say three women came into the Burger King and ordered food, and shortly after got into an argument with an employee about her Cinnabon not being fresh.
A manager got involved and the fight escalated, until the three women left the restaurant. A few minutes later, witnesses say one woman came back inside with her hand in her purse and said she was going to “shoot everyone,” and then added “I”m going to shoot down the place.”
Employees called the police and the suspects fled.
The store’s owner didn’t speak on camera but told the station, “I know it’s a good product, but I’m not sure it’s that good.”
And as for the scene inside, one witness didn’t sound like she was too scared either that anything would actually happen because of the subject matter.
“It was all kind of dumb because it was over a cinnamon bun,” she told the news station. “It’s like, it’s Burger King, it’s a fast food place, it’s a cinnamon bun.”
All jokes aside, police are taking the threat seriously, and will likely be leveling charges of aggravated assault if they apprehend the suspect.
Fast food freakout [WCBD News]
The locker landed in a pedestrian plaza in downtown San Francisco yesterday. Its purpose wasn’t clear, though its size provided a clue. Last night, a crew of Nissan promotion peeps added the hashtag and the Nissan logo, and it all made sense.
The contents aren’t all that mysterious. At 6 PM Pacific time today, Nissan will open up the locker and give away its contents. There’s a Nissan Rogue SUV inside. According to Automotive News, the winner will be one of the people who tweets their photo using the hashtag #giantlocker. (It’s not clear whether the winner has to be in San Francisco in the plaza taking a picture in front of the actual locker, or just post a tweet about the locker.)
#Giantlocker http://t.co/OLU3FaCpIc—
Kayla (@kaaytothelaaa) May 16, 2014
That's one big locker! #GiantLocker #Amazon http://t.co/gAjSGA0wRK—
Adam Erhard (@adrockmedia) May 16, 2014
The website for Novartis antibiotic feed-additive Denagard has an entire page dedicated to the drug’s growth-promotion effects.
For those still unfamiliar with the backstory, here’s a short version: About half of the antibiotics sold in the U.S. go to farmers, who then put these drugs in animal feed, primarily because they have the happy side effect of promoting growth. Alas, decades of research shows that this over-use of antibiotics is aiding in the development of drug-resistant pathogens.
The FDA guidance was intended to curb the medically unnecessary use of these drugs by asking the antibiotics makers to only sell the drugs for disease treatment or prevention. However, since most of the drugs marketed for growth promotion are also still approved for medical use, this is really just asking the drug companies to pay lip service to the idea of reducing antibiotics use by simply requiring farmers to change the stated reason for buying the drugs.
But on its website for Denagard, an antibiotic approved for controlling dysentery and treating diseases like pneumonia in pigs, Novartis continues to market the feed additive’s properties as a growth promoter.
The chart on the left from the Denagard website touts the drug’s use in weight gain, while the chart on the right highlights Denagard’s efficiency in putting on that weight.
“Denagard plus CTC-medicated pigs showed significantly higher daily gain and achieved a significantly higher body weight at the end of the trial period than OTC pigs (+3.9 lbs.) and nonmedicated pigs (+5.7 lbs.),” reads a statement on the Denagard site.
Novartis also touts the efficiency of Denagard in putting on weight, touting a 1.89 Feed-to-Gain ratio (meaning that adding the Denagard/CTC mixture to feed resulted in 1 pound of weight gain for every 1.89 pounds of feed).
And finally, there’s this gem: “Denagard plus CTC provided a 4:1 return on investment.”
Granted, we’re not livestock farmers, but none of the above statements sound like they have anything to do with disease prevention or treatment.
So the folks at Keep Antibiotics Working have written to Mike Taylor, FDA Deputy Commissioner for Foods and Veterinary Medicine, to point out just how ineffective the FDA’s guidance has been in reversing the drug companies’ marketing of antibiotics for livestock.
In the wake of the FDA guidance, representatives for both the livestock and drug industries shrugged off the new not-quite-rules, with antibiotics makers stating that they didn’t believe the changes would have any impact on their bottom lines.
“Companies intent on avoiding reductions in sales that are likely to result from the withdrawal of growth promotion claims have several avenues open to them,” reads the letter (Full text below). “The most obvious is to market drugs with approved label claims for disease prevention and control, which FDA is not restricting, as growth promoters. Many of the drugs approved for production uses like growth promotion also have approvals for disease prevention and control and can be administered in essentially the same manner as for growth promotion (i.e. no requirement for diagnosis, herd or flock wide use, and unlimited duration). Companies that persuade animal producers of the production benefits of the use of these drugs can expect more use over longer periods of time in greater numbers of animals — in short, higher sales.”
The letter points to other efforts being taken by drug companies to continue selling antibiotics for non-medical use.
“For example, drug maker Phibro has stated that it is seeking a change in the status of its product virginiamycin so that it is no longer considered medically important and therefore not covered by Guidance #213, and further that it will seek new indications for products that currently only have production claims,” explains KAW in the letter, which calls on the FDA to ask Novartis to stop marketing the growth-promotion aspects of Denagard and send a general notice to all drug manufacturers “that it will not tolerate the claims of production benefits in advertising associated with any medically important animal antibiotics.”
The one hiccup here is that Novartis and other drug makers don’t necessarily need to market the growth-promotion tendencies of their drugs. Livestock farmers are well aware of these side-effects and will continue to use the antibiotics, though they will likely claim the use is solely prophylactic.
Similarly, there is nothing to prevent researchers from “independently” releasing studies showing growth-promotion effects of these drugs. And if a livestock farmer just happens to see such research, then the drug company’s marketing has been done for them.
So until the FDA actually puts stricter limits on the uses of antibiotics in farm animals, the concerns about over-use and drug-resistant pathogens will not go away.
We’ve reached out to Novartis for comment but have yet to receive a response. If we hear anything, we will update this story.
Here is the full text of the letter from KAW to the FDA:
Dear Deputy Commissioner Taylor,
Keep Antibiotics Working is writing to alert FDA to corporate efforts to undermine the public health impact of its animal antibiotic resistance policy.
Keep Antibiotics Working (KAW) is a coalition of health, consumer, agricultural, environmental, humane, and other advocacy groups members dedicated to eliminating a major cause of antibiotic resistance: the inappropriate use of antibiotics in food animals.
Animal drug companies have consistently stated that FDA’s Guidance for Industry #213 and proposed changes to the Veterinary Feed Directive regulations will not significantly reduce animal antibiotics sales and KAW agrees with them.
Companies intent on avoiding reductions in sales that are likely to result from the withdrawal of growth promotion claims have several avenues open to them. The most obvious is to market drugs with approved label claims for disease prevention and control, which FDA is not restricting, as growth promoters. Many of the drugs approved for production uses like growth promotion also have approvals for disease prevention and control and can be administered in essentially the same manner as for growth promotion (i.e. no requirement for diagnosis, herd or flock wide use, and unlimited duration). Companies that persuade animal producers of the production benefits of the use of these drugs can expect more use over longer periods of time in greater numbers of animals — in short, higher sales.
To illustrate this tactic, we have attached promotional materials downloaded from the website of drug maker Novartis. The materials can also be viewed online at this web address:
http://ift.tt/1mASF5x. Novartis’ product, a feed additive containing tiamulin hydrogen fumarate in combination with chlortetracycline hydrochloride, is approved in swine to control dysentery and to treat pneumonia and enteric disease, yet the marketing materials emphasize its benefits for production. The materials tout benefits to performance in terms of daily gain, body weight achieved, feed to gain ration, and return on investment, all indicators of productivity not animal health. This product was never approved for growth promotion, but is included in the list of products affected by Guidance for Industry #213.KAW fears that promotions of this type will become increasingly common as companies withdraw growth promotion claims. Antibiotic use engenders resistance. To the extent that companies succeed in blunting downward pressure on use, they will have rendered ineffective the public health impact of FDA’s policy.
In addition to promoting the production benefits of drugs approved for control and prevention, drug makers are publicly announcing other steps to avoid downward effects on antibiotic sales from the FDA plan. For example, drug maker Phibro has stated that it is seeking a change in the status of its product virginiamycin so that it is no longer considered medically important and therefore not covered by Guidance #213, and further that it will seek new indications for products that currently only have production claims.
We ask that FDA immediately contact Novartis and require the company to stop promoting the production benefits of its tiamulin-chlortetracycline drug approved for disease prevention and control. The Agency should also send a general notice to all drug manufacturers that it will not tolerate the claims of production benefits in advertising associated with any medically important animal antibiotics.
We also ask that FDA either withdraw, or require drug makers to modify, approvals for prevention and control indications that do not meet current safety standards for medically important antimicrobials established under Guidance #152 and #213. Those standards would limit the use of medically important antibiotics to select groups of animals for a defined duration after a veterinarian has determined that the group to receive antimicrobials is at risk for the disease to be controlled.
FDA should require drug makers to make these changes in parallel and under the same timeline as the changes recommended under Guidance #213.
The allowance of routine preventive use of antibiotics in food animals is the major loophole in FDA’s resistance policy. The materials we have enclosed demonstrate that drug companies intend to run circles around FDA through that loophole.Once again, KAW urge the Agency not to let this happen.
Sincerely,
Steven Roach
Food Safety Program Director
Food Animal Concerns Trust
Keep Antibiotics Working Member Organization
(Zollfahndungsamt Frankfurt/Frankfurt customs)
Some of the reptiles found in the man’s suitcase included endangered species, reports the Associated Press.
He was flying from Mexico City to Barcelona when his bag was X-rayed in Frankfurt, where he was changing planes. Upon opening the bag, customs officials found 55 turtles, 30 arboreal alligator lizards, four horned vipers and a five-keeled spiny-tailed iguana.
One of the animals is believed to be worth about $82,000 had already died. So pour one out for that little reptile buddy, no one wants to shuffle off this mortal coil stuck in a crowded suitcase.
Authorities are now investigating the man on suspicion of violating the international Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species and Germany’s animal protection laws.
Man arrested at German airport with suitcase full of animals [Associated Press]
