Archive for the ‘Living in the World Today’ Category
Back more than thirty years ago when I went to college in Los Angeles and flew back to New York to visit my family, I recall paying (well actually my parents did) $99 each way to fly from L.A. to New York. It was a really good deal then. Translated into today’s dollars that round trip would cost more than $300 each way or a roundtrip fare of over $600. Anyone that has flown recently is aware that a round trip coast to coast fare for less than $600 can be purchased rather easily.
So even with skyrocketing airline fuel costs, the cost of air travel today continues to be less (inflation adjusted) than what would be expected. Is it possible that airline travel is too cheap? Well maybe in terms of the kind of service you receive flying domestically in the USA. However most people I talk to don’t feel airline travel is inexpensive. People seem to wax nostalgically about the halcyon days of air travel with better meal service, more attractive and attentive flight attendants and smaller crowds. Of course it’s easy to forget that until 1988 people could smoke cigarettes on airplanes – I doubt many people wish to return to that particular practice. Here’s a video of those not-so-good old days – http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6_caR1bkOEg
Cheap (or cheaper) airline travel has enabled many people who heretofore could not have traveled by air to afford to fly to see family, friends, do business or take a vacation. Would people today be so willing to fly to Las Vegas (just as an example) from New York if the round-trip fare was $1,000 or more?
While it’s true that the level of service on airlines has dropped overall and yet at the same time air travel is being segmented such that the ‘Elite’ traveler continues to receive something reminiscent of the ‘classier’ airline service of the past, while the ‘proletariat’ (low-fare) traveler is taking what amounts to be an air bus – literally. But then the low-fare traveler would not have been able to do that thirty or more years ago. At that time air travel was still considered to be a bit of a luxury. Today, airline travel, if nothing else is…a commodity. And if you agree that airline travel today is a commodity – is that a bad thing?
Here in 2011 people think nothing of hopping on a plane to do whatever strikes their fancy. They can use a myriad of online services to check out the lowest fare and if that’s the driving force they can get to where they are going – perhaps not directly and maybe even with three or more connections, cheaply and for the most part safely. This is not only true in the U.S. but something I’ve noticed when traveling in China and Asia in general. There is not much ‘class’ in airline travel anymore as it’s become a tool for the masses. I think that’s a positive thing and something people overlook more often than not.
People like to complain (I’m among them) and ignore basic facts such as airline travel is cheaper than it’s ever been and airfare costs are not usually the determining factor on whether to fly somewhere – or not.
So the next time you have to fly somewhere and you go for the lowest cost think about that cost being 3 times what you are quoted and ask yourself would you still be doing it?
It’s difficult for me to understand any argument against universal health care for all Americans. However I can understand that the great concern is how to create such a program without having costs go through the roof. I am going to go out of my way to be apolitical when it comes to universal healthcare. I truly do not believe this is a partisan subject – do you agree or disagree?
As a longtime owner of a small business I know all too well that the costs of benefits like healthcare and retirement plans is a major expense we have to consider on an ongoing basis. When discussing the hiring of new people (since small businesses remain the largest employers this is crucial in terms of improving national employment percentages) the ‘total’ package has to be factored. Many small businesses today are finding that they cannot consider new permanent hires due to the uncertainty of the future costs of healthcare and other benefits like retirement plans. Consequently small business outsourcing of certain job functions has never been more in vogue.
If workers/job seekers (notice I will not call them employees) had access to affordable universal healthcare they would have many more options when it came to finding work. Companies could then decide to either continue to outsource talent on a project basis, or when it made financial sense to hire them full time without the burden of taking on the uncertain costs of rising healthcare.
The United States has the distinction of being the country that brought health insurance into existence going back to World War II when salaries were frozen and non-cash benefits were the only way to incent potential hires. The results look somewhat like an unplanned city – overly complicated, built-in inefficiency and a legacy system that offers patronage and great opportunities for misappropriation of funds.
Whether it was Hillarycare, Obamacare or National Healthcare, the narrative has been for a long time, partisan. I’d like to believe that the basic opposition to universal healthcare is how it could be made to be affordable such that government costs to administer would quickly explode out of sight. That’s a reasonable question to ask and a reasonable topic of discussion. Somehow it has not happened that way.
Is there really any good argument about the concept of universal healthcare for all Americans?
It’s generally accepted that for most people, home and work are the first two places. For retail establishments like Starbucks and McDonalds (to name just two), the battle to become the most popular 3rd place is never-ending.
I’ve expressed my ambivalence toward Starbucks in past posts. The willingness of people to spend US $4.00 for a cappuccino never ceases to amaze me. Over the weekend I stayed at a Courtyard by Marriott and the brand has been refurbished to include a nice café in the lobby anchored by Starbucks. People were queued up much of the day (I came in and out of the hotel multiple times during the day) waiting to buy their beloved Starbucks.
What amazed me is that thirty feet away the hotel offered ‘free’ regular and decaffeinated coffee (it was good coffee too) that people spurned in favor of paid Starbucks. Talk about your brand acolytes – since when did paid beat free when it comes to something like coffee? Starbucks is ingrained deep into the mindsets of not only Americans but people all over the world. In fact whether you are in North America, Europe or Asia the Starbucks brand is omnipresent and consistent. I’ve not been to South America or Australia but am willing to bet it’s no different in those places.
Yesterday I had a meeting at a Starbucks in New York City since it was more convenient for my associates to meet us near Penn Station. We chose Starbucks because it had free Wi-Fi and we knew there would be tables to sit at and show our presentation. Most of the other people there had laptops or iPads or some other tablet and were busy meeting and working. I noticed that this particular Starbucks had covered up all of the electrical outlets so that people could not recharge their computers (or phones for that matter). I don’t remember having noticed that before but it was obviously done with the intent of limiting the amount of time people could both use the Wi-Fi as well as linger in this 3rd place. There was no limit to how long you had access to the Wi-Fi – something I have experienced in other Starbucks where the user is kicked off after a preset time and has to log-back on.
McDonald’s also offers free Wi-fi (as do many establishments today) but the feeling of sitting in a McDonald’s is discernibly different than at Starbucks. There’s a collective energy in Starbucks that is not easy to replicate.
I will never be a huge Starbucks customer or fan but I respect what the brand represents and how – for better or for worse – it has become the world’s 3rd place.
Do you agree or disagree?
I’ve been playing tennis since I was a teenager and have been a fan of the game for longer than that. For many Americans professional tennis in the United States is all about the United States Open and little else. In fact the U.S. Open is the only major tennis tournament not run by the ATP or WTA Tours, it is run by the United States Tennis Association (USTA.org).
Interestingly the U.S. Open in New York City (held yearly in late August through mid-September) is the highest grossing sporting event in the United States on a per diem basis. But as many American tennis fans know there are few young American stars on the rise and attendance at non-U.S. Open tennis events is declining. The lack of rising American tennis stars plays a part in that decline here in the U.S. (as opposed to Europe and Asia where the game is increasingly popular as a spectator sport). But the lack of marketing promotion and support for the game on the part of the ATP and WTA tours is also responsible.
The top ten ranked players in the world both male and female all can speak English even though there’s only one American out of ten on the men’s side (Mardy Fish), and zero American women ranked in the top ten (Serena Williams is currently ranked 11th). With longtime top ten player Andy Roddick nearing the end of his solid pro tennis career and Serena being over 30, American tennis fans will have to root for non-Americans if they want to root for a champion – at least for the foreseeable future.
The cost of tickets for non-U.S. Open tennis tournament in the United States is a still relatively expensive proposition. True it is a day long experience (or a night long experience) so there is value there in that most sporting events are not scheduled for 4 hours or more as are most tennis sessions. The problem is that most people have no idea about the experience of going to a tennis tournament. The action up close is great to watch and a much different experience than watching it on television. In order for tennis to have an opportunity to regain some of its prior prominence the casual tennis fan has to be encouraged (via incentives, promotions, contests, sponsorships) to attend tournaments in their area.
Last night something called ‘Tennis Night in America’ www.tennisnight.com was held at Madison Square Garden in New York City. You probably had no knowledge of it but it was televised on ESPN 2 and will be re-broadcast in a couple of weeks. The evening consisted of two exhibition matches – one between Maria Sharapova and Caroline Wozniacki (both former world #1 players) and the other between Andy Roddick and Roger Federer (yes also both former world #1 players).
I did not watch as exhibition matches hardly constitute ‘Tennis night in America’ as far as I am concerned. By the way Ms. Sharapova defeated Ms. Wozniacki with Rory McIIroy (Wozniacki’s boyfriend and pro golf’s current #1 player) actually getting on the court to play a point with Sharapova (he won the point). Mr. Roddick defeated Mr. Federer bringing his career record against the legend to 2-12.
I think events like this do more to hurt the growth and promotion of professional tennis than to help it. Sure the players receive win or lose guarantees and there are a few laughs but nobody in the stands or on the courts takes it seriously. So how can it be Tennis Night in America?
Professional tennis could use a lot of marketing help here in the U.S.A., and yes we’d like to volunteer for the job. But somehow I don’t think the management of either the ATP or WTA is paying much attention.
Yelp.com had a very successful IPO last week with shares jumping 64% in the first day of trading last Friday – http://usat.ly/zrYhvu. The offering valued Yelp at $900 million. Yelp.com with 66 million monthly users had 2011 revenue of $83.3 million and also had a net loss of $16.7 million for the year. I was impressed that there were 25 million reviews. It was also interesting to me to read that 38% of the reviews on Yelp were five stars, the highest rating possible and just 11% were one star reviews. Who knew the culinary state in the U.S. was so high?
Zynga, which had its own IPO this past December 15th, has seen its share price climb more than 40% since the offering price of $10/share and on March 1st http://bit.ly/wM5A7n announced a new platform that it is counting on bringing new revenues and profits.
I have not yet invested in Yelp or Zynga and am not likely to. While the potential scope of both companies is impressive, Zynga’s foundation is built within Facebook and it remains to be seen if the company can truly ‘go it alone’. Add to that the fact that people will eventually tire of social media gaming, just as MMO (massive multiplayer online game) star World of Warcraft began its slow fade last year.
Yelp is different but still has an imperfect revenue model and kept advertisements and reviews separate. Noble as that is, I wonder how long the equity markets will remain patient now that Yelp has become a publicly traded company. Wall Street investors are hardly known for their patience. Zynga shareholders should be mindful of that same caution.
I don’t play games on Zynga but at least tried it once to see what the buzz was about. I can understand how those games can become addicting which is exactly why I don’t play. I’ve used Yelp – more in other cities than locally, and while the reviews are mildly useful, I primarily pay attention to the location of the restaurants near my location first, then I look at reviews only for general guidance.
How long do you think the Zynga and Yelp furor will last? Do you think they have staying power and if so, why?