Tag Archives: Business and Economy

Opaque Oil

It’s Foodie Friday and I’ve got olive oil on my brain. If you cook, you use olive oil at some point. You might even pay the premium for extra virgin, especially if you’re using it in a dressing. That’s where the fun begins today.

Oil tasting, BAIA October 2006 Wine Tasting, C...

 (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

I read a book a couple of years ago called Extra Virginity. It’s written by Tom Mueller, who continues to write about the Italian olive oil business, which is rife with fraud. That’s right: you may be paying for a product that is not what you think it is. As reported in the Guardian:

Top Italian olive oil producers are under investigation for allegedly passing off lower-quality products as “extra virgin”, raising fresh concerns about allegations of consumer fraud in the industry. Turin police are examining whether seven companies – Carapelli, Bertolli, Santa Sabina, Coricelli, Sasso, Primadonna, and Antica Badia – have been selling virgin olive oil as 100% extra virgin. According to allegations in Italian press reports, an analysis of samples from all seven brands found that they did not meet EU labelling rules for extra virgin olive oil.

It’s not just the olive oil guys. There is a significant risk of fraud with fish, honey, milk, select spices (saffron, black pepper, chili powder), fruit juices, meat, grains and organic foods. This topic is way too long for a daily screed, but there are two business points which are applicable to any of us in business. The first, and most obvious, is that when consumers can no longer trust your brand, they will move on. Look at what has happened to Volkswagen after they rigged the results of their auto emission tests. You might think that your brand is strong enough to come back after that sort of loss of trust, but you’re delusional. We’ve spent a fair amount of time on honesty and transparency this week, so you know my point of view.

Second, and less obvious.  Chances are that the consumer won’t realize that they’ve been deceived.  They will probably think their dish is just not great or that they did something “wrong” when the fraudulent product doesn’t perform well.  Even if they don’t lose faith in the brand, they might just stop being a consumer of that category altogether.  I am unaware of any industry that wants to shrink its user base, and while people won’t stop cooking, they might switch to another kind of oil that has the same characteristics or to another type of car than a diesel.

I realize that fraud in the food world – or any other business – isn’t new.  There are reports of doctored products going back centuries.  The difference now is that detection and reporting happen more rapidly and that reporting can be widespread instantly.  The damage never goes away because the reports turn up in searches forever.  The solution?  Don’t do it!

Leave a comment

Filed under food, Huh?

A Snap Of A Dilemma

Are you on Snapchat? I am, although I don’t pretend to understand it as well as some of my younger friends. What I do understand about it, however, is that they are facing the sort of dilemma that torments a lot of businesses. I don’t have any real answers today but maybe you do. Let’s see. 

Snapchat began as a way for users to send disappearing content – photos, videos – to other users. Of course, as with everything on the internet, the content never really disappears (screengrabs, anyone?), but let’s put that aside. The app became very successful and now has over 100 million daily active users. That’s the sort of scale that becomes incredibly appealing to marketers, and it also makes other revenue options such as commerce and data mining more viable.

Now the dilemma. Snapchat’s business has been built to a great extent on the premise of privacy. If you’ve ever tried to locate someone on the platform, good luck. If you don’t have the email address they’re using or their exact Snapchat name, it’s very hard. That may be great if you’re a user trying to avoid stalkers, but if you’re a brand trying to get users it means you need to do a lot of external marketing of your Snapchat presence.  This quote from a recent Digiday piece says it nicely:

One of Snapchat’s main selling points with users entails its combination of anonymous users and disappearing messages. The company has been strident about not building profiles on users to creepily advertise to them. As the reality sinks in about the need for a viable business, more targeting and data capabilities follow. Technology partners are able to bring their own data to an API — email lists and other customer information — to serve ads against.

Therein lies the dilemma.  Until now, Snapchat has tried to make money by selling “lenses”, overlays that will let you alter your snaps so that, say, you can be vomiting rainbows (and who doesn’t want to do that!).  While $300,000 a month in lens sales is nothing to sneeze at, it’s not nearly the kind of monetization that a platform with this kind of user base can command. They also tried to sell ads embedded in some of the “stories” that are a part of the service (they’re a series of snaps linked together around a theme).  Apparently they don’t have enough user data or metrics about engagement to satisfy big spending.  So what do they do?  What is the business?

The balance between staying true to the reasons customers engaged with you in the first place and making money is tricky.  Better metrics and targeting might mean less privacy.  More ads in content mean less user enjoyment (no one likes being interrupted). Less enjoyment and decreased privacy might mean a decline in the user base.  But it is a business, and investors want to see a return.

So what’s the answer?

Leave a comment

Filed under digital media, Thinking Aloud

Crap Merchants

Maybe John Lennon had the Internet in mind when he wrote “Strawberry Fields/Nothing is real”.  OK, I realize the place in the song came long before the Web was invented, but they both have a decided lack of reality.  Since dishonesty or a lack of transparency seem to be this week’s theme, let me throw out another thought that’s prompted by the interwebs which might be helpful in business.  

There is a column in the Washington Post called What’s Fake On The Internet This Week.  It’s ending, unfortunately.  Like a car wreck, there is tragedy in every column but you can’t turn away.  What’s tragic is that people believe the things highlighted.  You’ve probably seen some of the amazing crap that goes viral.  Burger King refusing to sell Diet Coke to anyone ordering a 2,000 calorie Double Whopper or new flavors of Oreos.  Those are relatively benign.  It’s the junk about race or religion that is treated as Gospel that’s tragic.

How does this stuff get started?  It’s not an accident.  There are fake news sites that spend all day making this stuff up.  I realize that’s not new – the supermarket tabloids have been doing it for decades.  The difference is social media.  People don’t clip and send a National Enquirer article to hundreds of people but they certainly post things on Facebook.  One guy admitted he that tries to invent stories that will provoke strong reactions in middle-aged conservatives. They share a lot on Facebook, he explained; they’re the ideal audience.  Why do they do this?  Traffic equals eyeballs; lots of eyeballs equals revenue.

That really isn’t the business point.  This quote is:

Walter Quattrociocchi, the head of the Laboratory of Computational Social Science at IMT Lucca in Italy, has spent several years studying how conspiracy theories and misinformation spread online, and he confirmed some of my fears: Essentially, he explained, institutional distrust is so high right now, and cognitive bias so strong always, that the people who fall for hoax news stories are frequently only interested in consuming information that conforms with their views — even when it’s demonstrably fake.

We laugh at the fools who believe that Martians live among us and yet we’re all too willing to circulate information in business which confirms our own view of how the business is functioning.  That’s dangerous.  While a reality distortion field might work for a Steve Jobs, it probably won’t for you.  We need to find out the truth and not confirm out own cognitive bias. Laughing about the crap merchants who push this drivel is one thing.  Being one yourself is quite another, even if you’re less public than the folks who publish it on the Web. Besides, who wants to put their hand in the air and admit they fell for something so blatantly fake? You?

Leave a comment

Filed under digital media, Huh?, Reality checks