Amazon aims to abolish paid-for reviews

The internet is heralded as a great democratising tool; anyone, anywhere, can propel their thoughts around the world. The customer-review system of online retailer Amazon is one place where this supposedly prevails. Consumers can review products, collectively determining whether a new novel is a five-star modern classic, or a one-star flop. Rather than rely upon stuffy literary reviewers, the wisdom of the online crowd – and aggregation of normal people giving their disinterested views – directs readers towards their next paperback, in theory.

Amazon’s reviews are littered with such fake and paid-for reviews

Amazon is suing a number of websites that offer paid-for reviews. According to Amazon, Techno Buffalo reports, websites such as buyazonreviews.com and buyamazonreviews.com, “encouraged sellers to ship empty boxes to its reviewers to trick Amazon.” The websites then “offered verified five-star reviews for a high price, though some customers apparently opted for four-stars instead.”

Amazon strictly states that anyone with a financial interest in the book is barred from reviewing the product, yet Amazon’s reviews are littered with such fake and paid-for reviews. In 2011 The New York Times reported on such online review factories, telling the story of freelance writer Sandra Parker who was hired to review books on Amazon at $10 a piece.“We were not asked to provide a five-star review, but would be asked to turn down an assignment if we could not give one,” she told The New York Times.

Some authors have even cut out the middle-man, heading online themselves under the seeming anonymity of the internet. The historian Orlando Figes, was caught writing positive reviews of his own works and disparaging those of his colleagues. Under the unassuming username of ‘Orlando-Birkbeck’, the scholar wrote that his own book on Soviet family life was “a fascinating book … [that] leaves the reader awed, humbled, yet uplifted.” Despite the not so subtle user name, the historians that he wrote negative reviews about connected the account to Figes and raised the issue with him. After initially denying the allegations, Figes eventually apologised, admitting that he had written the Amazon reviews of his own books and others.

This is not the only challenge to the ideal behind Amazon reviews. There exists a strange world of pseudo-professional Amazon reviewers. Through the use of the tier system of reviewers on Amazon, the most prolific users gain e-notoriety. One such reviewer is Mandy Payne, a political consultant in Los Angeles, ranked tenth among Amazon reviewers. She has written thousands of product reviews and as a result now receives up to thirty products a day from companies, with the hope that she will review their products, reports the Boston Globe.

While the internet allows for anyone to contribute to book reviews and other public initiatives, the open nature of this lends itself to manipulation by those with financial and personal interests at stake. Wikipedia is supposed to be a public collaborative effort, but is fraught with editing by individuals or institutions who wish to be presented on the Website of Record in a different, usually more positive, light. Cornell University has even developed software called Review Skeptic that can be used to detect fake hotel reviews. While Amazon’s efforts to crack down on paid-for reviews will restore some integrity to its review system, other online review practices still need to be addressed. How this can be achieved without curtailing the open-platform aspect of reviews is unclear.

Why are tech billionaires so generous?

When, in 2000, Bill Gates stepped down as CEO of Microsoft, the computing behemoth he had started 25 years previously, many people expected him to retire to enjoy the spoils of his incredible success. For a company that had perhaps placed financial profit over quality of product, the announcement that its former leader would dedicate the remainder of his life to philanthropy shocked many.

However, that is exactly what Gates did when he launched the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation in 2000, dedicated towards a number of worthy healthcare and poverty alleviation causes – the most high-profile of which has been eradicating malaria. By the end of 2013, the foundation was reportedly valued at $34.6bn. Last November, it reached $42.3bn after Gates gave yet more of his Microsoft stock to the foundation.

The foundation was not the first philanthropic act of Gates, however. In 1994, he had established the William H Gates Foundation, after studying the careers of two of the US’ most successful businessmen and philanthropists, John D Rockefeller and Andrew Carnegie. In an interview with The Telegraph in 2013, Gates spoke of the reasons for giving away his fortune: “Money has no utility to me beyond a certain point. Its utility is entirely in building an organisation and getting the resources out to the poorest in the world.”

$42.3BN

Value of the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, founded in 2000

47%

Of US charitable donations last year came from the technology sector

128

Billionaires have signed the Giving Pledge, set up by Gates and Buffett

Culture of philanthropy
Gates is not the only tech leader to have philanthropic aims. According to a report published in February, the tech industry is the biggest donor to charity in the US, with $9.8bn given to charity during 2014. This amounted to 47 percent of the total figure, and made the industry more charitable than the financial services sector.

According to The Chronicle of Philanthropy, the country’s 50 biggest donors increased their charitable donations by almost a third last year. This included a number of tech entrepreneurs, including WhatsApp founder Jan Koum, who donated more than $500m. Napster co-founder and tech entrepreneur Sean Parker gave $550m to charitable causes, while GoPro founder Nicholas Woodman donated $500m to the Silicon Valley Community Foundation. Google’s Sergey Brin reportedly donated just under $400m to charities as well.

Having amounted a staggering fortune of $33.1bn from his creation of Facebook, Mark Zuckerberg has done a considerable amount of good in the few years since coming to prominence. Especially focused on improving educational opportunities in the US, he established his own Startup:Education foundation in 2010, and in the same year was said to have donated $100m to Newark Public Schools in New Jersey (though some critics suggested he did so to distract from his unsympathetic portrayal in the Oscar-nominated film The Social Network).

Zuckerberg’s Facebook co-founder Chris Hughes has also been praised for his philanthropic actions. Last year, Hughes and Dropbox founder Drew Houston announced their GiveDirectly charity, which enables people to donate money to individual struggling families in Kenya and Uganda. A different approach to the paternalistic style of philanthropy many high-minded wealthy people practice, the idea of making charity easier and more direct is something that might appeal to many people who want greater control over their donations.

While the financial services industry has been home to some of the world’s biggest charitable donors, it is unsurprising considering the high wages and tax breaks that come from being seen to be philanthropic. These days, it seems the industry is no longer one where its leading lights have grand ideals of making the world a better place, but instead want to line their own pockets.

One person who bucks this trend, however, is billionaire investor Warren Buffett. He has given vast amounts of his money to a number of causes over many years, and has encouraged others to do the same too. Alongside Gates, Buffet unveiled the Giving Pledge in 2010, which asked the world’s richest people to commit to donating at least half of their fortunes to charity. So far, it has secured 128 billionaires from across the world to its cause. Buffett himself gave the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation almost all of his $73.8bn fortune.

Not all of tech’s leading lights have been big givers, however. Apple founder Steve Jobs refused to be part of the Giving Pledge. When he returned to Apple in 1997, he scrapped all the company’s philanthropic programmes, with reports that he believed expanding Apple would have a more positive effect on society than merely giving away cash. However, under Jobs, the company did help to popularise the Project Red brand that has helped to fight HIV and AIDS in Africa. The company has since become that charity’s largest contributor.

Warren Buffett (r) stands with Bill and Melinda Gates at a news conference where Buffett spoke about his financial gift to the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation
Warren Buffett (r) stands with Bill and Melinda Gates at a news conference where Buffett spoke about his financial gift to the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation

Fresh thinking
It is encouraging to see some of the world’s most innovative minds being so generous. Many of these figures are dedicating their considerable talents and money towards causes that have been poorly served by governments.

According to Michael Moody, a professor at Grand Valley State University’s Johnson Center for Philanthropy, these young, tech savvy minds are looking to apply fresh thinking to long-term societal problems. “They’re always looking for a better mousetrap. For a lot of them, that’s how they made their significant wealth”, he told Philanthropy.com.

Una Osil, a research director at Indiana University’s Lilly Family School of Philanthropy, told the website: “Younger donors know talent matters. They’ve seen that in their work life, and now they’re applying it to philanthropy. They’re bringing together talent to spur innovation.”

Gates told The Telegraph that he felt he and his wife were well placed to use their experience as innovators for good causes: “My wife and I had a long dialogue about how we were going to take the wealth that we’re lucky enough to have and give it back in a way that’s most impactful to the world. Both of us worked at Microsoft and saw that, if you take innovation and smart people, the ability to measure what’s working, that you can pull together some pretty dramatic things.”

While all these generous donations to good causes are to be praised, some cynics might say they are little more than publicity stunts for already vastly wealthy business people. Perhaps more than any other industry, tech companies rely on charismatic, publicity-seeking leaders epitomised by Jobs. Zuckerberg’s reputation as being a cold and calculating leader was made worse by his portrayal in The Social Network, so any charitable acts might raise suspicions of reputation salvaging. Gates, however, is no longer Microsoft’s CEO, so it would seem unfair to tarnish him with accusations of trying to boost his company’s reputation.

And even if they are publicity stunts, is that such a bad thing? The money is still going towards improving society and helping the needy, while tech leaders are applying fresh thinking to some of the world’s biggest problems.

US surprises world by upping crude oil production

A report released by the US Energy Information Administration states that by 2020, crude oil production will increase to 10.6 million barrels per day, almost 10 percent more than expected last year.

[P]roduction will increase to 10.6 million barrels per day, almost 10 percent more than expected
last year

Production will slow to 9.4 million barrels per day by 2040, which is still over 25 percent more than predicted in 2014.

The global market is still reeling from plummeting profits, following the price of crude oil falling to its lowest levels since 2009. Although the current price dip is not set to endure, the days of rates rising to over $100 per barrel are not expected to make a comeback for some time. The EIA’s outlook predicts that the price of crude oil will remain below $80 per barrel until 2020.

Given the fast growth rate of output, the US is on path to meet domestic demand, which will enable it to cease its reliance on energy imports for the first time since the 1950s. “With continued growth in oil and natural gas production, growth in the use of renewables, and the application of demand-side efficiencies, the projections show the potential to eliminate net US energy imports in the 2020 to 2030 timeframe,” Adam Sieminski, a representative from the EIA, told the FT.

Increasing US output can meet the growing demand of refineries, but also signifies a bigger impact in terms of geopolitics. By no longer depending on other states for energy imports and having to bow to their pricing policies, the US will gain further autonomy and political clout than it currently enjoys. This is a somewhat worrying thought for other big players in the international arena as energy independence could lead to the US to throw its weight around – even more than it does at present.

Nokia and Alcatel-Lucent to combine forces

Nokia has agreed to a €15.6bn all-share takeover deal with French rival Alcatel-Lucent in a bid to create an “innovation leader in next generation technology and services for an IP connected world,” according to a joint company statement. The merger, once approved, will cement Nokia’s status as a major provider of networking equipment; greater even than market leader and Swedish rival Ericsson.

Early signs indicate that the proposed transaction will close in the opening half of 2016

“Together, Alcatel-Lucent and Nokia intend to lead in next-generation network technology and services, with the scope to create seamless connectivity for people and things wherever they are,” said Nokia’s president and CEO Rajeev Suri in a statement. The French firm’s own CEO Michel Combes added: “A combination of Nokia and Alcatel-Lucent will offer a unique opportunity to create a European champion and global leader in ultra-broadband, IP networking and cloud applications.”

Early signs indicate that the proposed transaction will close in the opening half of 2016, subject to shareholder approval, with the new company going under the name of Nokia Corporation. Both Suri and Combes will remain in their respective roles in the new company, and the headquarters remain just outside of Helsinki.

The merger means that both companies will be in fine shape to tackle the Internet of Things and transition to the cloud, and by utilising a strong portfolio and an already sizeable presence in key markets, the two can “lead in every area in which we choose to compete.”

In 2014, the companies together boasted an R&D employee base of some 40,000 and an R&D spend of €4.7bn. Assuming that these commitments continue under the new name, Nokia Corporation will be uniquely positioned to spearhead developments in future technologies, such as 5G, IP and software-defined networking, analytics and the cloud.

Russia to build Nigeria’s nuclear plants

Russia’s state-run nuclear group, Rosatom Corp, has signed a deal with Nigerian authorities to build power plants in the West African nation. Up to four nuclear facilities will be designed and constructed by the Russian corporation at a cost of around $80bn. The agreement aims to add 1,200 megawatts of capacity to Nigeria’s electrical grid by 2020, and a further 4,800 megawatts by 2035.

[E]nergy in Nigeria is notoriously inconsistent and inefficient

The roles of each stakeholder will be assigned contractually; as owners of the majority share, Rosatom will take the lead in terms of operations. A joint committee has been established in order to facilitate the process, with advanced negotiations, financing and planning still underway.

Currently, the provision of energy in Nigeria is notoriously inconsistent and inefficient. Despite recently being crowned as Africa’s biggest economy, a large portion of the population continues to live with energy poverty, which drastically impacts on their standard of living. Fossil fuels dominate the current energy mix in Nigeria, although oil production and supply is frequently disrupted, while a lack of infrastructure hinders the monetisation of natural gas. According to the US Energy Information Administration, having one of the world’s lowest net electricity generation per capita, the country regularly experiences blackouts, load shedding and a heavy reliance on private generators.

This latest news indicates solid plans for energy diversification, which could bring Nigeria’s sector up to par with other economies of its scale. Investment has always been an obstacle in enabling the advancement of the country’s underdeveloped energy industry, but now with Russia’s financial assistance and technical expertise, the groundwork for an alternative energy source has been well and truly set.

IBM and Apple team up to transform healthcare

The digitisation of healthcare is on the verge of becoming big business. With leading tech firms like Apple betting big on health-monitoring consumer devices like the Apple Watch, medical professionals are beginning to gain access to hugely useful data from a much wider spectrum of users.

IBM’s platform will offer secure access to individual health data

Now IBM is looking to get in on the act with the announcement of a series of partnerships with manufacturers like Apple, Johnson & Johnson, and Medtronic. The agreement will see IBM provide an integrated cloud service that devices will use to send data to healthcare professionals, enabling up-to-the-minute monitoring of users and better analysis of certain conditions.

Dubbed the Watson Health Cloud, IBM’s platform will offer secure access to individual health data and offer physicians a more complete picture of the user. Part of the newly created Watson Health unit, it will look to harness the apparent one gigabytes of health-related data a person creates throughout their lifetimes.

Apple’s HealthKit platform was launched last year to enable developers to tap into its devices – like the iPhone and recently released Apple Watch – that have a series of sensors built in. Johnson & Johnson will be aiding IBM in creating coaching systems for both pre- and post-operative patient care. Medtronic will be using the Watson Health Cloud platform to help improve care for diabetes sufferers.

IBM’s senior vice-president John Kelly said in a statement that while the data might seem overwhelming to users at first, it offers an “unprecedented opportunity to transform the ways in which we manage our health.” He added, “We need better ways to tap into and analyze all of this information in real-time to benefit patients and to improve wellness globally. Only IBM has the advanced cognitive capabilities of Watson and can pull together the vast ecosystem of partners, practitioners and researchers needed to drive change, as well as to provide the open, secure and scalable platform needed to make it all possible.”

IBM and Apple have already struck a partnership that has seen a series of exclusive business-focused apps created for iPhones and iPads. However, this new health-focused deal is not exclusive.

Sharing economy shakes up traditional business models

The emergence of peer-to-peer sites such as Airbnb, Lyft and EatWith has been one of the more intriguing web developments of the last few years. These companies are overhauling the traditional concept of business versus consumer by enabling anyone to offer up their apartments, cars or culinary skills in return for cash.

What began as a niche sector, brushed aside by sceptics, has blossomed into a whole industry. There are over 9,000 companies in on the game, according to Mesh, a directory for the sharing economy. With everything from peer-to-peer money lending to lift sharing now available, consumers have a whole new world at their fingertips and it’s sending shock waves across the globe.

PwC estimates five sharing economy sectors alone could generate a whopping $335bn in revenues between them by 2025. And, according to Nielsen, there’s high demand for the collaborative economy – especially in emerging markets, where it’s tipped to accelerate growth by giving consumers access to services they couldn’t traditionally afford.

The sharing economy has created markets out of things that wouldn’t have been considered monetisable assets before

Advocates claim the sharing economy is creating a stronger sense of community while cutting back on waste. Among the supporters is Shervin Pishevar, venture capitalist and peer-to-peer investor: “This is a movement as important as when the web browser came out”, he told Forbes. Time meanwhile ranked the sharing economy among its “10 Ideas that Will Change the World”. The benefits are several, and could spell trouble for traditional businesses and economic models.

Rupturing tradition
The biggest change from traditional structures is the breakdown in the distinction between companies and customers, with peer-to-peer models giving consumers the opportunity to become businesspeople on a part-time, temporary and flexible level; whether by renting a pet-friendly room to a pooch-lover via DogVacay or offering up a neglected driveway via Parking Panda. Knocking down that consumer-producer wall is something social media has already, in part, achieved (with customers playing a more important role in marketing than ever before, for example) and the sharing economy seems a logical culmination of that gradual shift.

But it could mean bad news for traditional businesses that fail to adapt, according to Josh Goldman, Global Leader for Shopping Measurement at Nielsen. “These companies are creating new economic value and disrupting current established industry players”, he says. Lisa Gansky, author of The Mesh: Why the Future of Business is Sharing, agrees: “There is a massive shift occurring and I believe all industries will be or are already being affected.”

The impact of Uber on the traditional taxi industry is already evident: in San Francisco, for example, taxi usage has plummeted by around 65 percent, according to Kate Toran of the city’s Municipal Transportation Agency (Engadget reported), while, in New York, shares in Medallion Financial Corp – which lends money to the famous yellow New York taxi operators – have tumbled almost 30 percent in a year as demand for the traditional taxis has plunged, according to Andrew Murstein.

Cheaper, more efficient markets
The potential impact of peer-to-peer accommodation sites such as Airbnb on the hospitality sector has meanwhile sparked further attention. In a report, researchers at Boston University estimated that every 10 percent rise in Airbnb supply in Texas caused a 0.35 percent drop in monthly hotel revenue – equivalent to a fall in revenue of over 13 percent in Austin. They also found hotels had cut their room rates as a result of pressure from the lower peer-to-peer prices appealing to cash-conscious consumers.

As well as offering more affordable services to consumers, collaborative models are also arguably more resilient. While hotel supply is limited and any increase involves large-scale work, peer-to-peer accommodation is agile, its space limited only by the willingness of people to offer up their empty rooms. As Gansky points out, the world’s largest hotel chain, Intercontinental, offers only 65 percent of Airbnb’s current capacity. It’s clearly working: according to the UK Economic Impact Study, Airbnb generated £502m in economic activity in the space of a year in the UK, and over 30 million people across the world have rented a room through the site.

“People are attracted to this peer-to-peer model for economic, environmental, lifestyle and personal reasons”, says James McClure, General Manager UK & Ireland at Airbnb. “More broadly speaking, the sharing economy has created markets out of things that wouldn’t have been considered monetisable assets before.” That means making efficient use of excess resources and minimising waste, especially relevant as consumers become evermore conscious of its damaging consequences. Goldman certainly agrees: “This model is creating more efficient markets, period”, he says, adding it could help establish a better supply-demand equilibrium.

Hostile opposition
But there are several issues associated with this new model, and they’re sparking widespread controversy. While Uber has provoked protests and bans across the world, peer-to-peer accommodation has kicked off a debate in New York, with public advocate Letitia James arguing: “Airbnb and the illegal hotel operators it enables are contributing to the affordable housing crisis.”

sharing-economy-2
Apps turn services such as car hire into sharing industries

Others have concluded the lax regulation of the sharing model could do more damage than good to economies. Dean Baker, Co-Director of the Centre for Economic and Policy Research, believes peer-to-peer businesses are providing a loophole for “a small number of people… to cheat the system”. He wrote in The Guardian: “Insofar as Airbnb is allowing people to evade taxes and regulations, the company is not a net plus to the economy and society – it is simply facilitating a bunch of rip-offs.” He argued Airbnb apartments should be taxed in the same way as hotels and that they, like Uber, should be made subject to the same safety standards as regular players.

But increased regulation and taxes are likely to mean higher prices for consumers, in part defeating the object of peer-to-peer companies designed to cut costs and move business away from the hands of overbearing authority. It’s perhaps for that reason that a number of sharing economy advocates argue against regulating this new model; among them are senior research fellow Adam Thierer and his colleagues. “The key contribution of the sharing economy is that it has overcome market imperfections without recourse to traditional forms of regulation”, they wrote in a paper. “Continued application of these outmoded regulatory regimes is likely to harm consumers.”

Whether regulating peer-to-peer services is a good idea or not, these disputes need to be overcome if the sharing economy is to grow to the extent to which some have predicted it is capable. If it does – and it would seem a logical progression in a society characterised by constant connectivity – this model could eventually replace the traditional consumer-versus-provider structure. Key players must find a way to adapt effectively if they are to capitalise on its potential benefits.

Google Glass: the post-mortem

For a while, the prospect of Google Glass had techno-geeks going stir-crazy, dribbling with excitement at the thought of Wi-Fi-connected spectacles able to display everything from the weather forecast to a text from mother dearest. The futuristic-looking headset, complete with 5MP camera, was the first properly publicised piece of wearable tech and it was big news.

Then the much-anticipated US launch finally arrived in 2013 and… it flopped. Hope wasn’t immediately surrendered: at the end of 2013, a report by BI Intelligence predicted the device would see sales top 20 million by 2018. But in January, the tech giant announced it was shelving the product, marking the end of the Google ‘Explorer’ programme.

Google seems to be trying to dress up the fact its hotly anticipated consumer product simply didn’t take off quite
as expected

Google claimed its Glass was intended as a prototype to test the waters and that it was now time for it to “graduate” beyond the Google[x] incubator labs. “We began the Glass Explorer Programme as a kind of ‘open beta’ to hear what people had to say”, the company said in a statement. It announced it would shift its focus to Glass at Work, a wearable designed for use in business that’s already in the early stages of development.

But Google seems to be trying to dress up the fact its hotly anticipated consumer product simply didn’t take off quite as expected – and that the tech giant isn’t quite so invincible after all.

Among those a little sceptical was Senior Computing Lecturer at the University of Central Lancashire, Nicky Danino. “It’s patently obvious that Google released this product before it should have”, she told The Telegraph. “In my opinion, Google should have kept this project under wraps for longer and waited to release when it was more reliable, and had other uses.”

All sorts of headaches
The problems associated with Google’s supposedly groundbreaking headset were several-fold. First, it was over-priced, costing a bomb for most ordinary consumers, at $1,500 in the US and £1,000 in the UK. Second, its apps were limited after a host of tech players, most notably Twitter, stopped developing applications for it. Third, it suffered a behind-the-scenes battering last year, with two Google Glass execs quitting, and key developer Babak Parviz departing for the heady lights of Amazon in July.

But the biggest concerns centred on the age-old problems of safety and privacy. Bars in San Francisco banned Google Glass following reported assaults on users, while UK cinemas blacklisted them over piracy fears just a week after they hit the shelves. Others feared the headset could be hacked, given it didn’t require a password, PIN or biometrics. Researchers from mobile security firm Lookout meanwhile claimed hackers could spy on the device’s web paths using malicious QR codes.

Those security risks could be even bigger in the professional sphere – the very place Google is now trying to go – at least according to Sean Newman, strategist at security firm Sourcefire. “There’s a huge question of what the security implications of connecting these kinds of devices to the corporate infrastructure will be”, he told SCMagazineUK.com. “For the IT team that is already defending their organisations… wearable technology is just another attack vector that needs addressing.”

Although it might be the end for Google Glass, sci-fi fans will be pleased to hear it’s not necessarily the end for smart glasses: Sony is already taking pre-orders for its SmartEyeglass. What it does mean is wearable developers need to sharpen up their strategies and identify a more appropriate cost, a more specific market, and a more comprehensive means of overcoming consumer concerns. Only then could wearables break into the mainstream and start to transform the way we live, work and engage.

Companies discover significant oil deposits around Falklands

The quest to turn the UK’s windswept rocks in the South Pacific into a thriving economic outpost has taken an important step forward with the discovery of substantial deposits of oil by three UK firms. Premier Oil, Rockhopper Exploration and Falkland Oil & Gas revealed last week that they had found significant deposits in the seas around the Falkland Islands.

Each of the companies share prices on the London Stock Exchange jumped on the announcement

The drilling in the Zebedee field to the north of the islands is said have uncovered more deposits of oil and gas than previously predicted. 81 feet of oil was found, while 55 feet of gas was also uncovered. The Zebedee field is owned by all three firms – Rockhopper has 24 percent, with Premier and Falkland Oil & Gas owning 36 and 40 percent shares, respectively. Each of the companies share prices on the London Stock Exchange jumped on the announcement.

The news will further fuel the debate in Argentina over ownership of the islands, which it has contested with the UK for decades. Despite overwhelming support of the islands’ tiny population of fewer than three thousand to remain part of the UK, the Argentinian government has consistently laid claim to ownership of them. This is because both countries have long suspected that large deposits of oil and gas lie underneath the surrounding waters of the islands, meaning it could provide a substantial financial windfall.

Both governments released statements setting out there positions after the announcement. Argentina’s minister for the islands, which they call the Malvinas, said that they would arrest the owners of the companies if they were to travel to the islands without prior permission from their government. Citing environmental concerns, Daniel Filmus reportedly said, “The new exploration efforts to try to find hydrocarbons in the area carry a huge environmental risk. We want the owners of the companies to be tried according to Argentine laws and international statutes.”

However, the British Foreign Office replied that Argentina’s claim on the islands was unlawful, and therefore the companies were free to carry out their explorations. “We have always been very clear this is an unlawful assertion of jurisdiction over the Falklands Islands’ continental shelf and we will raise it will the appropriate authorities. We are satisfied that the Islands have the right to develop their hydrocarbons sector as a commercial venture with international oil and gas companies.”

Zynga’s Pincus returns to CEO role on $1 salary

Less than two months on from an earnings release that showed Zynga’s losses for 2014 surpassed the $225m mark, the company’s founder and former chief executive Mark Pincus is set to return in the hope that he might instruct a quick-fire – albeit necessarily quick-fire – turnaround. Best known as the creator of once-popular Facebook games such as Farmville and Words with Friends, the provider of social games services has struggled to replicate its success and get to grips with the mobile market.

[T]he provider of social games services has struggled to replicate its success and get to grips with the mobile market

“Don joined us in a very important time in our evolution. I sincerely thank him for his leadership in better serving our players in a mobile first world and for delivering world class quality and value to our consumers,” said Mark Pincus of Don Mattrick’s time at the company, in a statement. “Now that we are a mobile first company, it’s time to renew our focus on our founding mission to connect the world through games and our vision to make play and social games a mass market activity.”

The company previously stated that its focus in 2015 would fall on driving mobile growth, launching more products and building its social legacy. However, Zynga’s financial results have failed to impress investors, and in a climate where growth in mobile and apps is critical, the San Francisco-based company has struggled to remain relevant.

At his request, Pincus will receive an annual salary of $1. The returning chief executive will be hoping he can pioneer a new line of smash hit titles and, in doing so, boost Zynga’s dwindling share price, which was down 10 percent after hours on the news of his appointment. Pincus’ first spell in the top spot didn’t exactly bowl over investors, though he maintains that his two years away from the role have allowed him to reassess the company’s priorities.

FedEx bids $4.8bn for TNT

Parcel delivery firm FedEx Corp is expanding its presence in Europe through the acquisition of Dutch-owned counterpart TNT Express. The merging of the two companies will enable FedEx to bolster its global standing within the logistics and transportation market. Currently, the industry’s biggest player is DHL, with FedEx coming nowhere close to matching its revenue and TNT trailing even further behind the global rankings.

The acquisition will enable FedEx to utilise TNT’s strong European road platform, particularly in France and the UK in which it currently has a low profile. While TNT stands to benefit significantly from FedEx’s global network, air fleet and freight forwarding services.

The acquisition will enable FedEx to utilise TNT’s strong European road platform

In 2013, UPS attempted the same move with TNT, but was blocked by European regulators for anti-competition reasons. FedEx on the other hand is not large enough a global player to warrant such concerns, with analysts saying that the amalgamation of the two companies will complement one another’s current service offerings.

Since the failed merger with UPS, TNT has undertaken a new business strategy, which includes internal restructuring, cost cuts and investing into its road network in order to retain its European customer base within a difficult period for the industry. Although TNT did not solicit the deal, the merger is seen as welcome news for the group as it entails short-term benefits for both shareholders and customers.

“We believe that this strategic acquisition will add significant value for FedEx shareowners, team members and customers around the globe. This transaction allows us to quickly broaden our portfolio of international transportation solutions to take advantage of market trends – especially the continuing growth of global e-commerce – and positions FedEx for greater long-term profitable growth”, Frederick W. Smith, FedEx Chairman and CEO said in a joint press release.

‘Fast casual’ industry bites into McDonald’s profits

“Give lovin’, get lovin’” ran the strapline for a cuddly McDonald’s ad campaign aired during this year’s Super Bowl, though not before the company unleashed a series of videos to overturn common misconceptions about its food production. In particular, it wanted to put paid to the idea its trademark chicken nuggets were made of ‘pink slime’. “I don’t know where that picture came from, but that’s not used in Chicken McNuggets”, said Amy Steward, Principal Meat Scientist at Tyson Food – though the misapprehension is a damning indictment of how far the fast food giant has fallen in the public’s esteem. Where the Super Bowl ad showed till workers encouraging customers to confess their love for one another, those with a stake in the company will be hoping it gets a look in on some of the affection.

“McDonald’s struggles are indicative of the same issues that are plaguing some of the larger juggernauts in the fast food restaurants industry”, says Andrew Alvarez, restaurant analyst at IBISWorld. Where once the Golden Arches pioneered a foodservice revolution, they are today party to another development, with American consumers fleeing McDonald’s premises in favour of more wholesome brands. Smashburger, Chipotle, Fazoli’s and Freebird’s World Burrito: these are the names striking fear into the hearts of those heading up McDonald’s, as the emerging ‘fast casual’ sector threatens to end the US’s love affair with fast food.

21%

Drop in McDonald’s earnings, Q3-Q4 2014

10%

Of the US workforce is employed by fast food

$51.6BN

Total worth of US fast food wages, 2014

$10.6BN

Profit of the US fast food industry, 2014

“It’s tough to say goodbye to the McFamily, but there is a time and season for everything”, said the outgoing Don Thompson in January, as consistently below-par results left the company with no option but to part ways with its long-time employee and loyal chief executive. Under new management, the world’s number one fast food joint will be looking to reapply the paintwork to its Golden Arches and gain ground with a millennial generation that is less-than-enamoured with its supersize offerings and seeming aversion to change.

Following a string of disappointing results, the company’s fourth quarter topped the lot in 2014, with net earnings down 21 percent on the last. The quarter’s comparable sales in the US were also down 1.7 percent and consumer traffic slid a whopping 4.1 percent, as competition and changing consumer habits hit McDonald’s where it matters most: on home soil. “Meaningful headwinds” were the words chosen by McDonald’s to describe its current predicament.

Changing consumers
The fast food market actually enjoyed a bumper year or two in the aftermath of the financial crisis, as cash-strapped consumers opted not to eat at pricey restaurants and instead park up alongside places such as McDonald’s, KFC and Burger King. The usual suspects were quick to cash in on the trend, with varying degrees of success.

By focusing on its dollar menu and dishing out generous discounts to customers, McDonald’s finished 2008 on its 55th consecutive month of increased same-store sales, and the company’s return on equity was three times the industry average, at close to 30 percent. Burger King, meanwhile, was not as successful at capitalising on the downturn, with stagnant menu choices and disagreements between the company and franchisees.

Nonetheless, consumer habits have changed a huge amount from what they were in the wake of the crisis, and a renewed focus on health and wellbeing means those seen as less-than-responsible corporate citizens have struggled to win over the masses. According to one Deloitte survey, 76 percent of respondents have healthy eating habits, which would suggest consumers are beginning to shy away from calorie-heavy fast food outlets and head instead for healthier alternatives. Of the same sample, more than half said portion sizes at fast food restaurants were too large, and 83 percent believed there should be a greater number of healthy choices on the menu.

This focus on leading a healthy lifestyle has brought a fresh review of the use of GM foods in the US market. Natural health activists have rallied to question the use of a few suspect ingredients in McDonald’s items. Mike Barrett, co-founder and editor of the website Natural Society, found that among the 19 ingredients in the company’s famous fries was dimethylpolysiloxane, also used in silly putty and silicone breast implants. The findings are significant, not necessarily for any harmful effects on the body, but for the light they shed on the supposed authenticity of fast foods, and how little consumers understand about the actual building of any McDonald’s meal.

“Consumers have moved towards health and wellness with greater concern over the ingredients they consume”, says Darren Tristano, Executive Vice President of food and foodservice research at consulting firm Technomic. “Concerns over hormone and antibiotic free proteins, more naturally or organically raised produce, sustainable practices and animal welfare issues that include free-range and humane treatment have led to a great deal of change in the supply chain and the way operators promote their philosophy and their story.”

McDonald’s, for example, is not just a leading industry name but also an important American employer and a major cog in the global supply chain. Choosing to drop any key ingredient would have huge ramifications for the foodstuff’s price and would leave hundreds of thousands of people without a job to go to. Still, the fast food colossus is equally – if not more – accountable to changing consumer preferences, and a focus on philosophy and quality in place of value has loosened the company’s hold on the market.

“This change has created an emotional connection with consumers that builds trust and ultimately loyalty”, says Tristano. “With economic conditions improving, American consumers are increasingly willing to pay more for better foods and have gravitated toward brands such as Chipotle, Panera Bread and Starbucks, which press upon the natural, local and fair trade practices used to be more environment- and community-focused.”

Fast casual
Competitors such as Chipotle, Shake Shack and Five Guys take a lot from the fast food industry in terms of logistics, but the often-superior product and higher price point mean they are bracketed as ‘fast casual’. “The fast casual sector provides challenge through a better experience and higher quality of foods”, says Tristano. “In effect, fast casual operators have raised the bar on quality of food, service, atmosphere, and customisation factors which have forced most fast food operators to rethink their strategy.”

The fast food industry employs some 10 percent of the US workforce, in 2014 paid out $51.6bn in wages, and clocked up a cumulative profit of $10.6bn, according to IBISWorld. However, it’s also an industry that is fast approaching crisis point, as companies struggle for relevance in a post-fast food era. Equipped with a distinct focus on philosophy and an often-unique selling point, fast casual restaurants are challenging fast food in an area they’ve long dominated: price. The difference this time around is companies are no longer racing to the bottom, but battling it out for superior value.

Market share of US fast food leaders

17%

McDonald’s Corporation

10.8%

Yum! Brands

6.7%

Subway

4.4%

Wendy’s Company

“The fast casual segment outcompetes the fast food segment on the basis of quality of ingredients, customised options and customer service”, says Alvarez. “Restaurants typically emphasise high-quality ingredients from local sources, and only focus on a set amount of core menu items. The segment also offers a range of healthy options as well, which has enabled them to tap into this rapidly expanding market. The fast food segment has been slow to respond to these market trends.”

Chipotle is perhaps the success story of the fast casual sector, and years of explosive sales for the Denver-based burrito chain show no sign of letting up. The chain’s fourth quarter profits in 2014 eclipsed its previous year’s profits by a mammoth 52 percent, despite missing analyst expectations. CEO Steve Ells claims the company has “created the new fast food model”, and, from what the chain has achieved so far, the claim is not as overblown as it might first appear.

Aside from the focus on health and wellbeing, leading fast casual names tend to specialise in one core area and add value through greater quality of ingredients, customer service and customisation. True, McDonald’s is currently in the process of testing a new in-store ordering service in 2,000 of its US restaurants (which will bring with it greater customisation options and a fast-casual atmosphere), but it is still lagging some way behind its competitors.

Change to the menu
By remodelling stores, improving their premium products, and incorporating the latest technological advancements in-store and online, those in the traditional fast food market are taking pains to keep pace with the competition. The issue in the main though is not necessarily that the food and service are inferior, but that those in the millennial generation are beginning to turn their noses up at a sector that has long dominated the foodservice marketplace, largely free of competition.

“Fast casual poses a significant challenge in that it has changed the limited-service competitive landscape completely, albeit for a certain segment of relatively high-income consumers”, says Elizabeth Friend, Foodservice Analyst at Euromonitor. “For this group, many of whom aren’t quite as price-conscious as other core fast food customers, they now have a wide range of higher quality options when it comes to quick and (relatively) inexpensive meals. For those consumers who remain very focused on value, McDonald’s and its peers are still very much a viable option, but even competition in this area is fierce. No matter the price point, consumers are now very discriminating when it comes to fast food, because they’ve realised that, even when extreme value is on the table, they can demand more and better in terms of the quality of the food and, even more so, the quality of the dining experience.”

A changed consumer landscape is significant for those in the foodservice industry, but so is the fact traditional fast food outlets no longer corner the market on “cheap and fast”, says Friend, which means they must differentiate themselves by another means. “Not only is McDonald’s a bellwether brand, but they’ve always been very good at navigating difficult environments. They’ve come back from tougher conditions before, but the fact that they’ve been struggling this significantly certainly speaks to challenges that will be trickling down to other fast food competitors as well.”

US Fast Food

It’s too much to say fast food’s day is done. The industry is expected to improve marginally over the coming five years as the global economic recovery gains momentum. However, the opportunities are slim and the best chances of success reserved for those in fast casual. Forecasts show the industry will likely suffer moderate revenue declines. Even more worrying is that companies are condemned to a slow-growth environment, closing in on saturation point. According to IBISWorld findings, it’s the “meaty and greasy fast food industry” that looks set to endure the toughest test in the years ahead, though the industry’s long era of growth is “far from over”.

For decades, the leading lights of the fast food industry have been left largely unopposed, but the fact customers have a little more money in their back pockets, and a greater concern for their health and wellbeing means they must adjust accordingly. Household names such as McDonald’s and Burger King must first come to terms with the fact price cuts and stagnant sales are to be expected, if only so they can maintain foot traffic and prevent sales from slipping too far.

“With overly complicated menu offerings, inferior ingredients when compared with its fast casual competitors, and substandard methods of service, the fast food segment is expected to continue losing market share to the fast casual segment of the industry”, says Alvarez. And only by addressing excessive calorie counts and appeasing health-conscious consumers will the established giants of the industry assure their futures.