P.S. You Should Read This

Google was recently asked to hand over records of video viewership to Viacom by a federal judge. Viacom had earlier filed a 1 billion dollar suit against Google for copyright infringement, due to the number of videos which had been posted illegally on YouTube, the largest video site on the web.

The main objection to the decision was the fact that user information, such as the login name and the IP address, would be handed over to Viacom. The implications: Viacom would be able to tell exactly which users watched which videos, thus exposing the habits of millions of people. Although both Google and Viacom have said that the IP addresses do not allow the exact identification of individuals, IP addresses have been used in the past in combination with other data to identify people.

This in turn raises many questions and concerns. Does Google even have a right to pass over such information, especially as it violates the privacy of the users? Viacom also claims that the viewer information is necessary to analyze the popularity of copyrighted clips, but surely a simple view count of the clips, rather than the IP addresses, would be able to determine that. So why is such information needed? While I may not have the answers to those questions, what I do know is that users in the future will be a lot more careful with the websites they give their personal information to. I’m afraid that the popularity of websites such as YouTube could get hurt by this ongoing saga.

I chanced upon the news last week that Wal-Mart was undergoing a radical change, with the unveiling of a brand new logo. At first, I was baffled by the announcement. Why would they get rid of something which the whole world has gotten used to over the last couple of decades? The logo had been a symbol of the discount giant and everything that it stood for, ranging from low prices to massive stores.

It was then clear to me that the logo also weighed down the multinational corporation in more ways than one. The company had been receiving bad press from all directions, ranging from its poor environmental practices to its treatment of employees and suppliers. The negative connotations associated with the logo far outweighed the positives, and CEO Lee Scott decided that it was time for it to go. After all, what better way to kick start the new campaign to freshen up Wal-Mart’s image than by changing fundamentals such as the logo?

So how does the new logo compare with the old one? Well for starters, the bold capital letters have been replaced with lowercase letters. One interpretation of this could be the company’s desire to portray a warmer, friendlier image. The hyphen/star is now gone, and the company’s name has become a single word. What’s more, a sunburst has been added to end of the name, brightening up the logo with the role of cementing the cleaner feel to it.

Will it be successful? Only time will tell. There have been numerous companies which have changed their logos over the last few years, but that hasn’t necessarily made them more successful. Take Starbucks for example (forgive my harping on the company). The company came up with a new logo, but that hasn’t stopped it from having to shut down stores and shelve expansion plans.

One thing is for certain though. If Wal-mart believes that changing the logo alone, without altering its’ business practices, will remake the company’s image in the public’s eye, then it is deeply mistaken. It will have to continue showing the world its eco-friendly stance on a sustained basis, and avoid as much bad press as possible. The new logo could prove to be a useful stepping stone, but it is nothing more.

Everyone seems to love taking a shot at Starbucks. Its stock price has plummeted over the last couple of years, it has started scaling back expansion plans, and even has a new CEO. What’s more, the company just announced plans to close 600 stores in the U.S. There are also those who complain about the Starbucks service, ranging from breakfast sandwiches which “interfere with the smell of coffee” to their new Piker Place Roast Coffee, which isn’t “boldenough”. Apparently, even McDonald’s serves better coffee. The sign of a crumbling empire?

No way.

Could you possibly imagine the world without Starbucks? I couldn’t. Its about time that people realize that Starbucks isn’t about just coffee, but rather, the experience. It’s a place where people hang out, take a break from life, or even get work done in a great ambiance. You wouldn’t catch me saying: “Hey, want to grab coffee sometime?… We could go to that McDonald’s down the street.” No coffee company is the world has nearly as much brand recognition or as strong a fan base. Sure, Starbucks may not grow as much as it used to, but then again, which company grows for eternity? It also has great prospects internationally, and being a mature company is not necessarily a bad thing.