Introduction:
This subject material is being updated to supplement the existing post with an appropriate conclusion in light of the close proximity of the ten-year payment period deadline included only to emphasize the duration that this matter went unaddressed. The ten-year (10) year period involving this "Breakdown" as the duration of interest is shown below.
In developing those industries selected for being considered among the top ten (10) as described in this Blog’s post on this subject entitled “THEN AND NOW!” the Selectors for some reason did not include Advertising, (a more fitting "selectee", in the opinion of this Blogger). This was and still is a very interesting and curious development since, less than three (3) months later an article was carried in that same Daily/Weekend Business Street Publication in its April 21, 2005 edition (B1/4) dealing with the adaptation of digital technology in the Advertising industry. This industry that is very critical to product manufacturers, retailers, wholesalers, conglomerates, those of ill-repute and even “shadow” society types alike because it’s the medium that determines how to “capture” the public’s attention and it was embarking on the notable use of digital technology (obviously known to those at this Publication and yet the Industry was not included among the honorees). This description examines the potential reasons why a bona fide contender was NOT included in the selected industries [for Top Ten (10) Billing].
Here are the Background Details:
This referenced article cited groundbreaking digital technology adaptation for application in the Ad industry to be applied at this fourth to be considered among the standard broadcast networks (SBNs); in a move that was slated to revolutionize the “time-honored” 30-second television ad. This process involved “tweakable” ads, which would enable marketers the option to alter certain elements relevant to particular viewers, scripts, graphic elements or other images. For example, an advertiser could make an ad appeal to teens in one instant and seniors in another.
Ad tailoring of commercials was being considered as the wave of the future in the industry due to increasing viewer fragmentation. While cable TV was already using the technology to target audiences even by zip code, such a feature had not been yet attempted by the SBNs because of inherent limitations. However, with this technology then being considered by this fourth to be classified as an SBN, which could allow advertisers to modify a sales pitch in various ways, just minutes before it aired, would be a significant modification over the practice of creating different spots for each area targeted (the practice up to that point). It was indeed a “game-changer” and the then question to be considered was, would it be embraced by advertisers en masse, with that Network’s reportedly imminent decision to team up with VWI of New York to move ahead with this new methodology, (especially in the fierce battle for advertising revenue in an era of increasing audience erosion but ever increasing network ad rates? One factor driving this shift was cable TVs ability to target ads to various demographic groups, and while the process that was being considered by this Network could not target by household, it could change its message for different shows, time slots or even day of the week and avoid the same ads day in and day out, no matter, which program was selected by viewers. This was where the industry (Ad) was headed and “it’s kind of archaic to think that one message is going to hit our entire target,” the article reported as being the industry’s outlook for the future.
The Implications and Considerations Involved:
Since such revolutionary uses of digital technology was being considered for an industry via a medium that either directly or indirectly impacts all households, yet why was it not considered among the Top Ten (10) by the Selectors? Why was it not considered as industry #3 for example (to choose a random number)? Why was the Video Game Industry given such a high ranking even though it only had and still has a very “narrow” product audience? As it turned out, nothing predicted about this Industry even remotely materialized as noted in the previously referenced post. Furthermore, if a “legitimate” industry is either not considered or omitted for “unknown” reasons, when making such selections, how much validity do such predictions even have? Maybe there was an “unknown” bias against this Industry among the Selectors, or maybe there was a dispute over whether or not to attribute the innovation to the Ad or television industries but this is only an after-the-fact examination to determine as far as possible the basis for excluding Advertising among the Top Ten (10) industries. Was there some quid pro quo arrangement involved in this Industries exclusion from receiving a fair consideration?
These are the known facts:
1) Advertising was an area chosen for inclusion in my Proprietorship’s Root Cause as a randomly selected and typical area in its accompanying Flowchart by example.
2) The Chart was made available to selected Individuals/Entities for marketing and to demonstrate one of the types of services offered by the Proprietorship as a purely business decision ONLY, as I had no reason to provide any material to any other business entity as a give away type gesture and nothing in the communication reflected that it could be used without permission.
3) Shortly after it was provided to a certain Mogul via facsimile in 9/2003, an article about the method depicted in the Flowchart was carried in the same Business Street Publication (only days after), showing its application in an identical manner to that applied in the Flowchart at a business in, which this Mogul is known to hold significant interest and at the time of the incident was a member of its Board of Directors.
4) The fact that the methodology followed by the Entity in question (that was the focus in Publication’s article), turned out to be identical to the example used in my Flowchart was made known by me (see QUESTIONABLE USE OF CONSERVERY'S ROOT CAUSE?, below photo inserts and BREAKDOWN OF FEES OWED THE PROPRIETORSHIP FOR USE OF ITS MATERIAL WITHOUT PERMISSION) are intended to show that: a) the material was indeed sent to the Mogul via facsimile, b) it was the same business I had initially submitted tax returns on in my filings for the year 2000, c) the article was consistent with the business details transmitted and included in my tax returns and submittals as appropriate, (which never included my oldest daughter who suffered a brain injury accident in 2012, (referenced below) as a dependent after she turned 18) up until its closure as documented in the post CONSERVERY FINAL STATUS UPDATE REGARDING STATE CRITERION - UPDATED (& EDITED) and d) the article was identical and consistent with the methodology used in the Conservery Flowchart example. 5) In 2005, this Publication Selectors omitted this “genuine” industry’s consideration from among those considered for their Top Ten (10) ranking and even if there was a dispute over industry classification it would have revolutionize the Ad industry as it was then being implemented.
6) Shortly after the Top Ten’s (10’s) Publication, an article depicting ground breaking use of digital technology in the Advertising industry being considered for use at the Nation’s 4th Network was published.
7) The parent Company of the Network (involved in considering the use of ground breaking digital technology in advertising) eventually purchased that Daily/Weekend Business Street Publication for approximately $5 billion.
Was there a quid pro quo agreement involved here, only those involved knew for certain? However, the facts “speak” for themselves and the apparently "deliberate" exclusion from consideration of certain industries, suggests that the Publication as an entity was "factually" aware that the material in question was from a questionable source, otherwise it's due consideration would be given whenever its inclusion was warranted as appropriate, (but it was not), and that is highly questionable on the part of a "storied" Publication. Furthermore, it’s highly unprofessional, dishonest, unethical and blatantly unfair to use another’s ideas and NOT reimburse that individual from whom the material was obtained while then pretending that other “shadow” society types are the “credible” rightful owners of the identity, history, accomplishments and qualifications from whom, the material was obtained regardless of how such cooperation was obtained, wittingly or unwittingly because the outcome is the same (as previously discussed on the Pages of this Blog in the post WHEN TOO MUCH OF A "GOOD" THING IS BAD!) These conditions only help to underscore the type of treatment meted out to those whose "rights" are considered worthless (see the post FREEDOM FOR ALL! for an example of such types) by the Supporters and Backers of their "shadowy virtual society" types (who don’t have to be legally reimbursed because of their lack of meaningful skills); all in a “free” society!
The “Overlooked” Conclusion:
It’s clear to me that the entity known by the name that sounds like Koka Kola today is most definitely not the same institution as that built-up and established by legendary CEO Robert Woodruff. He believed in the relentless pursuit of quality (or standards) and was not afraid to make tough but ethical decisions as warranted to produce the best possible product from his viewpoint. One notable example attributed to him was his decision as noted in the November 12, 2001 edition of Investors Business Daily (IDB) was to call in all his salesmen and dismiss all of them on an occasion in 1926. He reportedly pointed out to them that the Company was creating a brand new position and those who were interested could attend a meeting the following day. All the salesmen nervously showed up and were informed that the “salesman” titles were being abolished and were being replaced with the title “serviceman” and their job was to ensure that the product needed was delivered to the established soda fountains in the network of 115,000 locations and associated bottling plants in the towns in, which they were placed.
He had been elevated to the position of CEO in 1923 and held it for thirty-one (31) years until he retired in 1954 and he, a former truck salesman was responsible for taking the former pharmacy-born elixir (that was the product’s origin) and with no background in the beverage industry and turning it into the $7 billion sales product it had achieved by the time of his retirement. How was he able to achieve this feat? Certainly, not by stealing ideas from any individual and refusing to acknowledge that what he had done was improper and unethical but instead by taking the “winning” product he knew he had and relentlessly working to improve the quality (or standards) of his Cola. He standardized everything he possibly could, from training schools to train the servicemen on the proper serving temperature, which was 34 degrees F. and even the (manner/bell-shaped) containers in, which to serve it for enhanced taste with their slogan “it’s gotta be cold if it’s gonna be sold”, to the high levels of hygiene established for all the bottling plants, even to the accounting methods as well as the delivery trucks and the associated uniforms for the delivery drivers. Woodruff, knew that marketing alone was not enough to produce the household brand he was seeking and that is why he established the soda fountain network and bottling plants in as many towns as he possibly could with an emphasis on quality.
Woodruff, certainly did not embrace such convoluted methods as: 1) attempting to alter history, 2) playing “god” in the process by attempting to establish ancestral identities of his choosing and 3) relying on a network of those with “whatever works” as their operating slogan. His former Company has fallen into this mindset and is obviously “marching to the beat of a different drum” in my opinion. To regain its footing and the type of success associated with its visionary patriarch, a return to their roots is required, which can be initiated by doing what’s right in all matters, including the long-standing debt owed my Proprietorship, now four thousand, six hundred and sixty six plus (4666) days. Once expedient decisions are practiced in any part of an organization’s business, cutting corners and expediency will be the mindset in all areas of its operations, regardless of the glossy annual financial reports produced for the cameras. Return to your roots and honor the legacy of “old Woodruff” by taking care of this debt in the proper manner as he would have, by setting the type of standards others should follow instead of following others to little or no standards in your operations, because if expediency is chosen in one area, it can be concluded that unsound decisions are being practiced elsewhere in organizations that resort to such tactics.
BREAKDOWN OF COMPENSATION OWED CONSERVERY FOR USE OF ITS ROOT CAUSE MATERIAL BY COKE WITHOUT PERMISSION
IT MUST BE NOTED THAT THE AMOUNTS NOTED BELOW ARE NO LONGER BEING UPDATED IN VARIOUS POSTS INCLUDING THIS, FOR MORE RECENT DETAILS ON THE AMOUNT OWED, SEE THE POST THE TIME FOR THE OVERLOOKED PAYMENT IS FINALLY HERE, MR. BUFFETT - EDITED AND AMENDED.
The amount owed is based on a percentage of the savings realized, or 15% of what was saved as a result of going from three (3) agencies to one (1) agency.
In addition, the news article indicated that Coke was on track to spend approximately $275,000,000.00 on advertising for the year 2003.
Therefore, if Coke ad costs dropped from $275,000,000.00 to approximately $230,000,000.00, realizing a total of $45,000,000.00 the savings, (which can be verified), Conservery is owed $45,000,000.00 x 15%
Or approximately $6,750,000.00.
In addition, since payment has been owed since 2003 a duration of 10 years, approximately, a 3% annual interest fee is being applied.
As a result, this totals $6,750,000.00 x 3%,
Or approximately $202,500.00 and over the course of the 10 years,
Furthermore, since this debt has not been paid since now for a total of 3, 937 days (or 167 days past the ten year mark as of 2/15/2014 for, which this penalty was calculated, this 3% penalty over this duration of approximately 0.458 years past the 10 year period shown above amounts to:
$2,117,745 for a grand total of:
$6,750,000.00 + $2,117,745
= $8,867,745
This in my updated estimation is a fair approximation of what is owed me as this debt is now in its 11th year, based on my conclusions drawn, however this is a matter of fairness to settle the on-going saga as this should not be dragged any further into this eleventh year (2014).
James F. Brazant
Founder/Owner
Conservery
February 15, 2014
This subject material is being updated to supplement the existing post with an appropriate conclusion in light of the close proximity of the ten-year payment period deadline included only to emphasize the duration that this matter went unaddressed. The ten-year (10) year period involving this "Breakdown" as the duration of interest is shown below.
In developing those industries selected for being considered among the top ten (10) as described in this Blog’s post on this subject entitled “THEN AND NOW!” the Selectors for some reason did not include Advertising, (a more fitting "selectee", in the opinion of this Blogger). This was and still is a very interesting and curious development since, less than three (3) months later an article was carried in that same Daily/Weekend Business Street Publication in its April 21, 2005 edition (B1/4) dealing with the adaptation of digital technology in the Advertising industry. This industry that is very critical to product manufacturers, retailers, wholesalers, conglomerates, those of ill-repute and even “shadow” society types alike because it’s the medium that determines how to “capture” the public’s attention and it was embarking on the notable use of digital technology (obviously known to those at this Publication and yet the Industry was not included among the honorees). This description examines the potential reasons why a bona fide contender was NOT included in the selected industries [for Top Ten (10) Billing].
Here are the Background Details:
This referenced article cited groundbreaking digital technology adaptation for application in the Ad industry to be applied at this fourth to be considered among the standard broadcast networks (SBNs); in a move that was slated to revolutionize the “time-honored” 30-second television ad. This process involved “tweakable” ads, which would enable marketers the option to alter certain elements relevant to particular viewers, scripts, graphic elements or other images. For example, an advertiser could make an ad appeal to teens in one instant and seniors in another.
Ad tailoring of commercials was being considered as the wave of the future in the industry due to increasing viewer fragmentation. While cable TV was already using the technology to target audiences even by zip code, such a feature had not been yet attempted by the SBNs because of inherent limitations. However, with this technology then being considered by this fourth to be classified as an SBN, which could allow advertisers to modify a sales pitch in various ways, just minutes before it aired, would be a significant modification over the practice of creating different spots for each area targeted (the practice up to that point). It was indeed a “game-changer” and the then question to be considered was, would it be embraced by advertisers en masse, with that Network’s reportedly imminent decision to team up with VWI of New York to move ahead with this new methodology, (especially in the fierce battle for advertising revenue in an era of increasing audience erosion but ever increasing network ad rates? One factor driving this shift was cable TVs ability to target ads to various demographic groups, and while the process that was being considered by this Network could not target by household, it could change its message for different shows, time slots or even day of the week and avoid the same ads day in and day out, no matter, which program was selected by viewers. This was where the industry (Ad) was headed and “it’s kind of archaic to think that one message is going to hit our entire target,” the article reported as being the industry’s outlook for the future.
The Implications and Considerations Involved:
Since such revolutionary uses of digital technology was being considered for an industry via a medium that either directly or indirectly impacts all households, yet why was it not considered among the Top Ten (10) by the Selectors? Why was it not considered as industry #3 for example (to choose a random number)? Why was the Video Game Industry given such a high ranking even though it only had and still has a very “narrow” product audience? As it turned out, nothing predicted about this Industry even remotely materialized as noted in the previously referenced post. Furthermore, if a “legitimate” industry is either not considered or omitted for “unknown” reasons, when making such selections, how much validity do such predictions even have? Maybe there was an “unknown” bias against this Industry among the Selectors, or maybe there was a dispute over whether or not to attribute the innovation to the Ad or television industries but this is only an after-the-fact examination to determine as far as possible the basis for excluding Advertising among the Top Ten (10) industries. Was there some quid pro quo arrangement involved in this Industries exclusion from receiving a fair consideration?
These are the known facts:
1) Advertising was an area chosen for inclusion in my Proprietorship’s Root Cause as a randomly selected and typical area in its accompanying Flowchart by example.
2) The Chart was made available to selected Individuals/Entities for marketing and to demonstrate one of the types of services offered by the Proprietorship as a purely business decision ONLY, as I had no reason to provide any material to any other business entity as a give away type gesture and nothing in the communication reflected that it could be used without permission.
3) Shortly after it was provided to a certain Mogul via facsimile in 9/2003, an article about the method depicted in the Flowchart was carried in the same Business Street Publication (only days after), showing its application in an identical manner to that applied in the Flowchart at a business in, which this Mogul is known to hold significant interest and at the time of the incident was a member of its Board of Directors.
4) The fact that the methodology followed by the Entity in question (that was the focus in Publication’s article), turned out to be identical to the example used in my Flowchart was made known by me (see QUESTIONABLE USE OF CONSERVERY'S ROOT CAUSE?, below photo inserts and BREAKDOWN OF FEES OWED THE PROPRIETORSHIP FOR USE OF ITS MATERIAL WITHOUT PERMISSION) are intended to show that: a) the material was indeed sent to the Mogul via facsimile, b) it was the same business I had initially submitted tax returns on in my filings for the year 2000, c) the article was consistent with the business details transmitted and included in my tax returns and submittals as appropriate, (which never included my oldest daughter who suffered a brain injury accident in 2012, (referenced below) as a dependent after she turned 18) up until its closure as documented in the post CONSERVERY FINAL STATUS UPDATE REGARDING STATE CRITERION - UPDATED (& EDITED) and d) the article was identical and consistent with the methodology used in the Conservery Flowchart example. 5) In 2005, this Publication Selectors omitted this “genuine” industry’s consideration from among those considered for their Top Ten (10) ranking and even if there was a dispute over industry classification it would have revolutionize the Ad industry as it was then being implemented.
6) Shortly after the Top Ten’s (10’s) Publication, an article depicting ground breaking use of digital technology in the Advertising industry being considered for use at the Nation’s 4th Network was published.
7) The parent Company of the Network (involved in considering the use of ground breaking digital technology in advertising) eventually purchased that Daily/Weekend Business Street Publication for approximately $5 billion.
Was there a quid pro quo agreement involved here, only those involved knew for certain? However, the facts “speak” for themselves and the apparently "deliberate" exclusion from consideration of certain industries, suggests that the Publication as an entity was "factually" aware that the material in question was from a questionable source, otherwise it's due consideration would be given whenever its inclusion was warranted as appropriate, (but it was not), and that is highly questionable on the part of a "storied" Publication. Furthermore, it’s highly unprofessional, dishonest, unethical and blatantly unfair to use another’s ideas and NOT reimburse that individual from whom the material was obtained while then pretending that other “shadow” society types are the “credible” rightful owners of the identity, history, accomplishments and qualifications from whom, the material was obtained regardless of how such cooperation was obtained, wittingly or unwittingly because the outcome is the same (as previously discussed on the Pages of this Blog in the post WHEN TOO MUCH OF A "GOOD" THING IS BAD!) These conditions only help to underscore the type of treatment meted out to those whose "rights" are considered worthless (see the post FREEDOM FOR ALL! for an example of such types) by the Supporters and Backers of their "shadowy virtual society" types (who don’t have to be legally reimbursed because of their lack of meaningful skills); all in a “free” society!
The “Overlooked” Conclusion:
It’s clear to me that the entity known by the name that sounds like Koka Kola today is most definitely not the same institution as that built-up and established by legendary CEO Robert Woodruff. He believed in the relentless pursuit of quality (or standards) and was not afraid to make tough but ethical decisions as warranted to produce the best possible product from his viewpoint. One notable example attributed to him was his decision as noted in the November 12, 2001 edition of Investors Business Daily (IDB) was to call in all his salesmen and dismiss all of them on an occasion in 1926. He reportedly pointed out to them that the Company was creating a brand new position and those who were interested could attend a meeting the following day. All the salesmen nervously showed up and were informed that the “salesman” titles were being abolished and were being replaced with the title “serviceman” and their job was to ensure that the product needed was delivered to the established soda fountains in the network of 115,000 locations and associated bottling plants in the towns in, which they were placed.
He had been elevated to the position of CEO in 1923 and held it for thirty-one (31) years until he retired in 1954 and he, a former truck salesman was responsible for taking the former pharmacy-born elixir (that was the product’s origin) and with no background in the beverage industry and turning it into the $7 billion sales product it had achieved by the time of his retirement. How was he able to achieve this feat? Certainly, not by stealing ideas from any individual and refusing to acknowledge that what he had done was improper and unethical but instead by taking the “winning” product he knew he had and relentlessly working to improve the quality (or standards) of his Cola. He standardized everything he possibly could, from training schools to train the servicemen on the proper serving temperature, which was 34 degrees F. and even the (manner/bell-shaped) containers in, which to serve it for enhanced taste with their slogan “it’s gotta be cold if it’s gonna be sold”, to the high levels of hygiene established for all the bottling plants, even to the accounting methods as well as the delivery trucks and the associated uniforms for the delivery drivers. Woodruff, knew that marketing alone was not enough to produce the household brand he was seeking and that is why he established the soda fountain network and bottling plants in as many towns as he possibly could with an emphasis on quality.
Woodruff, certainly did not embrace such convoluted methods as: 1) attempting to alter history, 2) playing “god” in the process by attempting to establish ancestral identities of his choosing and 3) relying on a network of those with “whatever works” as their operating slogan. His former Company has fallen into this mindset and is obviously “marching to the beat of a different drum” in my opinion. To regain its footing and the type of success associated with its visionary patriarch, a return to their roots is required, which can be initiated by doing what’s right in all matters, including the long-standing debt owed my Proprietorship, now four thousand, six hundred and sixty six plus (4666) days. Once expedient decisions are practiced in any part of an organization’s business, cutting corners and expediency will be the mindset in all areas of its operations, regardless of the glossy annual financial reports produced for the cameras. Return to your roots and honor the legacy of “old Woodruff” by taking care of this debt in the proper manner as he would have, by setting the type of standards others should follow instead of following others to little or no standards in your operations, because if expediency is chosen in one area, it can be concluded that unsound decisions are being practiced elsewhere in organizations that resort to such tactics.
The Above is a Representation of the Questionable (Mis)use of Conservery's Root Cause Material? In addition, the word "could" is missing from the final line as shown, "...who could afford...practices!" and an approximate breakdown of what is owed Conservery is depicted below as confirmed in this linked material (see QUESTIONABLE USE OF CONSERVERY'S ROOT CAUSE?):
|
 |
| Schedule C Submitted as Part of Tax Filings for Tax Year 2000 the Start of the Proprietorship |
 |
Call received from Police Officer in charge of competing
Danielle's "accident" investigation, while here at 8263
140th Ave Olin, IA on the date and time in question,
inquiring about her status, (just as all others such
calls were received and made, including data
transmissions).
|
IT MUST BE NOTED THAT THE AMOUNTS NOTED BELOW ARE NO LONGER BEING UPDATED IN VARIOUS POSTS INCLUDING THIS, FOR MORE RECENT DETAILS ON THE AMOUNT OWED, SEE THE POST THE TIME FOR THE OVERLOOKED PAYMENT IS FINALLY HERE, MR. BUFFETT - EDITED AND AMENDED.
The amount owed is based on a percentage of the savings realized, or 15% of what was saved as a result of going from three (3) agencies to one (1) agency.
In addition, the news article indicated that Coke was on track to spend approximately $275,000,000.00 on advertising for the year 2003.
Therefore, if Coke ad costs dropped from $275,000,000.00 to approximately $230,000,000.00, realizing a total of $45,000,000.00 the savings, (which can be verified), Conservery is owed $45,000,000.00 x 15%
Or approximately $6,750,000.00.
In addition, since payment has been owed since 2003 a duration of 10 years, approximately, a 3% annual interest fee is being applied.
As a result, this totals $6,750,000.00 x 3%,
Or approximately $202,500.00 and over the course of the 10 years,
Furthermore, since this debt has not been paid since now for a total of 3, 937 days (or 167 days past the ten year mark as of 2/15/2014 for, which this penalty was calculated, this 3% penalty over this duration of approximately 0.458 years past the 10 year period shown above amounts to:
$2,117,745 for a grand total of:
$6,750,000.00 + $2,117,745
= $8,867,745
This in my updated estimation is a fair approximation of what is owed me as this debt is now in its 11th year, based on my conclusions drawn, however this is a matter of fairness to settle the on-going saga as this should not be dragged any further into this eleventh year (2014).
James F. Brazant
Founder/Owner
Conservery
February 15, 2014
No comments:
Post a Comment