Updated Introduction:
This Addendum was needed to include communication to the effect that it was made known through a Subsidiary of Berkshire Hathaway, that my root cause material was misused by their parent organization; yet in spite of such awareness measures, that Organization kept and has maintained its silence in this matter for TEN (10) plus years ignoring such just because that entity could and chose instead to use the cover of those of the "free loaders cause" to provide itself with the semblance of taking the "high" road by attempting to assign my work to others by use of the highly questionable "nameform" variations in an attempt to provide those of the "free loaders cause" with fleeting "legitimacy" as documented generally in the post THE "FREE LOADERS CAUSE" "CREDIBILITY", THIS STORY IS NOW TOLD - UPDATED and specifically the issue described and listed under item # 14. These types would not only be indebted but also be "grateful" to be provided with this fleeting "legitimacy" at the expense of others, that they would then be obligated to support the related businesses of this entity in its expansion drives that have no set goals, bounds or clear direction as previously documented in the description entitled "Argument for International Funding" included in the post HOW ARE MEMBERS OF THE "VIRTUAL" SOCIETY ABLE TO FILE TAXES LEGALLY - UPDATED?. This is just another example of the "powerful" and "awesome" crushing the small and insignificant, (at least in their opinion, just because such an Organization can, or so they thought).
Introduction:
This Addendum was needed to include communication to the effect that it was made known through a Subsidiary of Berkshire Hathaway, that my root cause material was misused by their parent organization; yet in spite of such awareness measures, that Organization kept and has maintained its silence in this matter for TEN (10) plus years ignoring such just because that entity could and chose instead to use the cover of those of the "free loaders cause" to provide itself with the semblance of taking the "high" road by attempting to assign my work to others by use of the highly questionable "nameform" variations in an attempt to provide those of the "free loaders cause" with fleeting "legitimacy" as documented generally in the post THE "FREE LOADERS CAUSE" "CREDIBILITY", THIS STORY IS NOW TOLD - UPDATED and specifically the issue described and listed under item # 14. These types would not only be indebted but also be "grateful" to be provided with this fleeting "legitimacy" at the expense of others, that they would then be obligated to support the related businesses of this entity in its expansion drives that have no set goals, bounds or clear direction as previously documented in the description entitled "Argument for International Funding" included in the post HOW ARE MEMBERS OF THE "VIRTUAL" SOCIETY ABLE TO FILE TAXES LEGALLY - UPDATED?. This is just another example of the "powerful" and "awesome" crushing the small and insignificant, (at least in their opinion, just because such an Organization can, or so they thought).
Introduction:
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. 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 and others developed at the same time to determine the best example to use in a general manner as documented in the post THE ONE THAT WAS OVERLOOKED OR WAS IT, THE SUPPLEMENT?). See the below email photo inserts for the example of where I informed a Subsidiary of Berkshire Hathaway of the misuse of my root cause material, and hide behind others to assign the work carried out by the skilled and "give" it to the unskilled whose types are either unsure or by design ignore credible instances when it's appropriate to carry out a root cause even when procedural violations are blatantly obvious as documented in the events associated with the work depicted in the FOOTNOTE of the post A BADLY SCRIPTED DRAMA (UPDATED). Such types show their lack of credibility by holding themselves up as the owners of another's work, who then shirked from carrying out the same type of activity when It was clearly needed in an actual working instance where the procedural violation had the potential to impact the health and safety of the public. How can anyone of any standards credit those who are unaware when a concept being claimed to be owned by such types were EITHER UNAWARE WHEN SUCH WAS NEEDED IN AN ACTUAL ENVIRONMENT OR CHOSE NOT TO REQUIRE SUCH FOR EXPEDIENCY OR FACE-SAVING PURPOSES?
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, this has now reached $2,025,000.00
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
James F. Brazant
Proprietor
Conservery
February 15, 2014
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 ethical business practices and worth settling to avoid the on-going saga that this has become that shows an example of how the mighty "crushes" and drags things out to avoid paying and in the process are using every trick in the book (up to and including networking everywhere and making deals with those who can be bought of, which they are plenty as well as identity games) to give the small individual the shaft and its clear to anyone that some are just jumping in with "tailor-made" answers for everything and are attempting to steal from the small individual who was "overlooked by all" because they think can (in their opinion do so, and get away with it as documented in the post) HOW TO GO FROM BEING A SMALL TOWN COUNTRY STORE TO BECOMING THE BIGGEST CORPORATION OF ITS TYPE IN THE WORLD - UPDATED?. However, this specific debt should not be dragged any further into this eleventh year (2014). Furthermore, this update has been further updated by the details in the post THE TIME FOR THE "OVERLOOKED" PAYMENT IS FINALLY HERE MR. BUFFETT - EDITED.
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 and others developed at the same time to determine the best example to use in a general manner as documented in the post THE ONE THAT WAS OVERLOOKED OR WAS IT, THE SUPPLEMENT?). See the below email photo inserts for the example of where I informed a Subsidiary of Berkshire Hathaway of the misuse of my root cause material, and hide behind others to assign the work carried out by the skilled and "give" it to the unskilled whose types are either unsure or by design ignore credible instances when it's appropriate to carry out a root cause even when procedural violations are blatantly obvious as documented in the events associated with the work depicted in the FOOTNOTE of the post A BADLY SCRIPTED DRAMA (UPDATED). Such types show their lack of credibility by holding themselves up as the owners of another's work, who then shirked from carrying out the same type of activity when It was clearly needed in an actual working instance where the procedural violation had the potential to impact the health and safety of the public. How can anyone of any standards credit those who are unaware when a concept being claimed to be owned by such types were EITHER UNAWARE WHEN SUCH WAS NEEDED IN AN ACTUAL ENVIRONMENT OR CHOSE NOT TO REQUIRE SUCH FOR EXPEDIENCY OR FACE-SAVING PURPOSES?
In addition, the below BREAKDOWN OF FEES OWED THE PROPRIETORSHIP FOR USE OF ITS MATERIAL WITHOUT PERMISSION) is PERMISSION) is 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 from my Proprietorship as included in my tax returns and submittals as appropriate until it was closed at the end of 2011 as shown 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, which is symbolically known as the three to one concept for cost savings (as shown below). 5) In 2005, this Publication Selectors omitted this “genuine”
 |
The Conservery root cause principal known as "THE THREE TO ONE CONCEPT FOR COSTS SAVINGS" revealed that the causal factors for the unclear lines of responsibility was the overlapping decision-making assigned to various departments over the years and recommended the elimination of this redundancy (namely, multiple departments with the same responsibility), in order to speed decision-making and eliminate excessive costs as the Coke plan three-to-one plan copied (in my opinion) and stated by the soft drink giant (in the referenced article) was intended to do. If there wasn't unauthorized use here, there would be no need to OVERLOOK ADVERTISING as a bona fide area for making significant strides and be included among the years top ten (10) as documented in the list of KNOWN FACTS identified specifically as nos. 5 - 7 in the post THE ONE THAT WAS OVERLOOKED, OR WAS IT (EDITED AND UPDATED)?
|
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!
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 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).
|
BREAKDOWN OF COMPENSATION OWED CONSERVERY FOR USE OF ITS ROOT CAUSE MATERIAL BY COKE WITHOUT PERMISSION
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, this has now reached $2,025,000.00
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
James F. Brazant
Proprietor
Conservery
February 15, 2014
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 ethical business practices and worth settling to avoid the on-going saga that this has become that shows an example of how the mighty "crushes" and drags things out to avoid paying and in the process are using every trick in the book (up to and including networking everywhere and making deals with those who can be bought of, which they are plenty as well as identity games) to give the small individual the shaft and its clear to anyone that some are just jumping in with "tailor-made" answers for everything and are attempting to steal from the small individual who was "overlooked by all" because they think can (in their opinion do so, and get away with it as documented in the post) HOW TO GO FROM BEING A SMALL TOWN COUNTRY STORE TO BECOMING THE BIGGEST CORPORATION OF ITS TYPE IN THE WORLD - UPDATED?. However, this specific debt should not be dragged any further into this eleventh year (2014). Furthermore, this update has been further updated by the details in the post THE TIME FOR THE "OVERLOOKED" PAYMENT IS FINALLY HERE MR. BUFFETT - EDITED.
No comments:
Post a Comment