I wasn't planning to write about James Taranto's editorial about Mitt Romney in today's W$J, but Steve Bainbridge is writing about it, and I can't resist. For those of us who have been following Romney-talk, Taranto's editorial is mostly old news, but Steve picks up on this observation: "Romney, a devout Mormon, abjures not only tobacco but also alcohol and coffee."

Steve's response: "I don't find Romney's religion disqualifying, but I can't help being skeptical of any politician who would abjure all of my favorite vices."

Taranto failed to mention the vice that most troubles me with regard to Romney: gambling.

By the way, I have met several people who worked with Romney at Bain Capital, and he gets nothing but rave reviews. I suspect that he is going to be an appealing candidate.

Permalink | Politics | Comments (1) | TrackBack (0) | Bookmark

Coke is in trouble on college campuses because of reports that it has been complicit in anti-union activities in Columbia (Coke in Columbia? Are we sure this is the soft drink?) and in environmental degradation in India. NYU implemented a ban earlier this month, and the University of Michigan just decided to join the boycott.

These are not new charges. The United Steelworkers Union and the International Labour Rights Fund sued Coca-Cola Co. in 2001 over the Columbian allegations, and the company was dismissed as a defendant, though its bottlers remain as defendants. Although Coke denies the allegations, the universities are demanding independent investigations. The sticking point is that Coke doesn't want the reports of those investigations to be used against its bottlers.

Maybe it's time to bring back the Olympia Cafe.

Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (2) | Bookmark

That's from a billboard in India. It continues, "Dress up decently, no alcohol, no nonvegetarian foods."

If you an American planning a trip to India, get your shots and be prepared for culture shock. According to the W$J, officials in Pushkar are cracking down:

In recent weeks, they've been reminding tourists as they arrive at hotels that it is inappropriate to hug and kiss, and even issuing penalties to couples that run afoul of those customs. The move marks an escalation of an ethics campaign by the government that aims to address the occasionally jarring clash between local customs and the influx of Western tourists. The potential for these kinds of clashes is greater as travel by Americans to India increases rapidly.

How long will India be able to resist Western norms? Earlier this week, Maxim India released its first issue:

The first edition has Bollywood star Pryianka Chopra on its cover. But this is not the typical coy, sari-clad Bollywood pose, rather a scantily clad woman who looks directly at the camera.

The Indian edition will not be anywhere near as explicit as the UK edition which Mehra says is too "in your face" for Indian readers. He aims to be closer to the less smutty US edition, from which quite a lot of content will be taken. In fact, he says he plans to steer clear of smut and sleaze altogether: no full frontal pictures and not even any nipples.

Seems like a slippery slope ...

Permalink | India | Comments (2) | TrackBack (0) | Bookmark

if he thinks we are going to resolve our dependence on oil through biofuel. But there he is marketing BioWillie with that premise.

All of this started me thinking about the efficacy of celebrity endorsements. Not my field, of course, but an interesting topic nonetheless. As you might expect, marketing professors write a fair amount about celebrity endorsements, and this is interesting stuff. Mucking around in these papers for a few hours, I found studies of which sorts of celebrity endorsements are the most valuable (as you would expect, endorsements that are closely related to a celebrities perceived "expertise" are best), which sorts of products are most likely to garner celebrity endorsements (among other things, products with high margins), and similar issues.

I particularly enjoyed reading a few papers linking celebrity endorsements and stock price. For example, this paper (only the abstract is available without subscription) examines Tiger Woods' performance and the stock prices of his sponsors. When Tiger is playing well, do Titleist, American Express, and Nike do well?

We do not find a relationship between Tiger’ss tournament placement and the excess returns of Fortune Brands (parent of Titleist). This is likely due to Titleist being a very small contributor to the total market value of Fortune Brands. We also fail to find a significant relationship for American Express suggesting the market does not view a golfer endorsing financial services as credible. We do, however, find a positive and significant impact of Tiger’s performance on Nike’s excess returns suggesting that the market values the additional publicity that Nike receives when Tiger is in contention to win.

Not exactly in the realm of celebrity endorsements, I found a recent paper linking official sponsorships and stock performance. Here is the abstract:

This study presents analysis of the impact of “official product” sports sponsorships with the National Football League (NFL), Major League Baseball (MLB), the National Hockey League (NHL), the National Basketball Association (NBA), and the Professional Golfers Association (PGA) on the stock prices of sponsoring firms. The primary finding of the study is that, in the main, announcements were accompanied by increases in shareholder wealth. The 53 sponsors analyzed experienced mean increases in stock valuations of about $257 million. A multiple regression analysis of firm-specific stock price changes and selected corporate and sponsorship attributes indicates that official product sponsorships with the NBA, NHL, and PGA and those with smaller market shares were associated with the largest gains in share prices. Although corporate cash flow (a proxy for agency conflicts) is statistically unrelated to shareholder approval, sponsorships by high-technology companies were associated with stronger stock price reactions than otherwise. Finally, product congruence with the sponsored sport was positively related to changes in stock prices.

By the way, I was surprised to learn that "official sponsorships" can be traced to the 1984 Olympics in Los Angeles.

Permalink | Miscellany | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0) | Bookmark

Law professors are fond of referring to the Supreme Court by the name of the Chief Justice, then attempting to find some distinguishing features by which they can caricature the Court. Here's one early possibility for the Roberts Court: joviality. Following up on the work of Boston University law professor Jay Wexler -- who counted  "[laughter]" notations in transcripts of the Supreme Court's oral arguments -- the New York Times compared laughter in this term with last term:

The mood under Chief Justice Roberts has brightened, the analysis found, with the average number of justice-generated laughs per argument rising to 2.9 from 2.6 the previous term.

In the current term, the Times analysis found, there has also been movement in the funniness-of-individual-justices department. Justice Breyer has taken the lead, at 28 laughs, edging out Justice Scalia, with 25. They also tied in the largest-number-of-jokes-in-a-single-argument category, each squeezing five into a single hour.

Chief Justice Roberts made a strong early showing, coming in third, with 13.

Of course, laughter in the Court probably says more about which justices think they are funny than about how funny they actually are. If a justice makes an attempt at humor, people laugh. It's one of the prerogatives of power.

Permalink | Supreme Court | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0) | Bookmark

One of my first assignments as an attorney was to research IRS materials and opine on whether our firm's client, a document delivery service, could classify its couriers as independent contractors.  If anyone else has done this type of research, you also have read the wondrous letter rulings on all kinds of workers, including chick sexers.  And of course, a year or so later, we all got a crash course in whether nannies, babysitters, and housekeepers are independent contractors or employees, thanks to critics of Zoe Baird and Kimba Wood.

Law.com today reports that this month a California trial judge has ruled that FedEx can no longer categorize its drivers as independent contractors under California employment law.  This ruling directly affects 14,000 FedEx drivers, but it could affect many, many more drivers in the package delivery and courier industries.  The article did not report whether FedEx had categorized the drivers as independent contractors for federal income tax purposes or whether this ruling would have any affect on that categorization.  The cost of that change would be quite large in terms of social security payments, withholding, etc.

Permalink | Taxation | Comments (3) | TrackBack (4) | Bookmark

'Tis the season for me to complete my Texas CLE by the end of my "birth month."  As a full-time law instructor, my 15 hours of required CLE is waived, but my 3 hours of ethics CLE aren't.  (Yeah, OK, let's keep moving.)  So, yesterday I watched two hours of online CLE to earn my ethics credit.  I chose "Gain the Edge! Negotiation Strategies" prepared by the Latz Negotiation Institute.  I am still wondering exactly what ethical training I received from watching this seminar.  I don't believe that there was much of any discussion of ethics.  In fact, I feel slightly less ethical after watching, and not (just) because I was multi-tasking during the presentation.

I will share two of the "strategies" that leave me feeling a little slimy.  I have to say that in my practice, I negotiated either long-term relational contracts where all parties had the same over-arching goal or one-time contracts between repeat players in an industry with reputational constraints, so may view of negotiation may vary from a litigator's perspective.  That being said, I still feel slimy.  (The following strategies are taken from the slides from the CLE course, with direct quotes in bold.)

1.  How to Avoid Answering Questions

Prepare to block certain questions.  Use these blocking techniques.  (a) Change the subject.  (b) Answer a different question.  (c)  Respond with your own question.  (d) Discount the question's relevance, or ask for clarification.  (e) Answer a specific question by focusing on the general (or vice versa).  (f) Refuse to answer due to policy, tradition, lack of authority, etc.  Prepare these in advance.

The speaker told his audience that refusing to answer because of your company's policy is the best way to go because it really frustrates the other side.  An audience member asked the speaker whether these stonewalling tactics create a certain atmosphere, and the speaker said most emphatically that these tactics create a very competitive atmosphere, and this atmosphere lets you get the information that you want.  Maybe Supreme Court nominees should take this course (or maybe they already have.)

OK, I won't go on and on, but I also enjoyed this segment: Counter "Objective Criteria."  These "countermeasures" aren't really unethical, but they're funny.  I think we all use these countermeasures when the Dean tries to tell us that our salaries are what they are because of the "market"!  So, if the other side offers evidence in the form of market data, here's what to do:

1.  Challenge definition of "market value."  2.  Challenge validity of underlying market.  3.  Distinguish your item from the market.  3.  "Circumstances have changed."  4.  Focus on the market of one -- individual leverage (universal).

Permalink | Law Schools/Lawyering | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0) | Bookmark

Awhile back I posted on a case of federal prosecutorial discretion that hit too close to home on many levels.  Scott Wiegand, general counsel for PurchasePro, was indicted for being part of a scheme to inflate revenues that involved PurchasePro and AOL.  Indicted almost a year ago, Scott has endured a Kafka-esque experience that has involved losing his post-PurchasePro job, having all of his assets frozen, borrowing money from his parents for an attorney, and enduring an 11-day trial.  As someone who was not involved in the scheme, Scott faced a horrible decision:  plead guilty to a prison sentence or take his chances at trial.  Scott chose a trial.  Apropos of Larry Ribstein's post yesterday on why risk-averse white-collar criminals plead, choose a bench trial, or take chances with a jury, Scott waived his right to a jury.

Finally, justice prevailed and Scott was acquitted last Wednesday.  His attorney did not even put on witnesses, and the judge acquitted Scott of all charges after the prosecution rested its case.  All's well that ends well?  Maybe, but this case is an example of how an innocent person can see their life ruined by an overreaching prosecution and how tempting it may be for an innocent person with much to lose to plead guilty to a crime that person did not commit.

Permalink | White Collar Crime | Comments (3) | TrackBack (0) | Bookmark

I can't wait to see what kind of traffic we get today, but apparently Hooters of America, Inc. is suing another Florida restaurant chain for violation of its trade dress.  The trade dress in question is the use of female waitresses that wear tight tank tops and short sport shorts.  (Note that the tops/shorts are of different color combinations.)  At some point, I would think that the objectification of young women with physical gifts cannot be described as "trade dress."  But then I'm not sure that tying one's tank top in a knot behind one's back to make it really tight is purely functional, either.

Permalink | Intellectual Property | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0) | Bookmark

The NYT today has a small article extolling the virtues of American Girl dolls.  These 18-inch dolls reflect the innocence of childhood with their childlike bodies and costumes, unlike the too-hip Barbies, Bratz and Groovy Girls dolls.  (Yes, the article slammed Groovy Girls dolls for being too "street" -- they are rag dolls!)  If you really think that buying an American Girl for your child is a virtuous thing to do, then I bet you drank a lot of 240-calorie Snapple because you thought it was good for you, too.

The magic of marketing of the American Girl doll is that the girls' superficial wholesomeness attracts well-meaning parents with too much money.  One doll comes close to being $100.  I bought a Barbie last week for $7.66.  I have bought Groovy Girls dolls for $10.  What's wholesome about paying $100 for a doll?  Yes, the dolls come with a book, but I don't know of any girl who actually reads the books, which are dull and boring. 

Some of the dolls are "period" dolls (courtesy of my grandma, we have "Kit," the perky Depression-era girl and "Josefina," the Mexican-American doll living in 1800s New Mexico), but many are not.  Note that last year AG introduced a hip, "street" doll named Marisol, who takes hip-hop dancing and has been sold out for months.  I say buy the doll if you want, go to the fancy stores in NYC and Chicago if you want, but don't fool yourself that the dolls are health food.

Permalink | Marketing | Comments (18) | TrackBack (0) | Bookmark

Larry Ribstein is wondering whether the advent (ha ha) of eBay has diminished the deadweight loss of gift giving.  On a related note, I have been wondering this week about whether gift cards are as efficientas they seem.  Gift cards have become increasingly popular.  They are much more hip than giving a gift certificate, and one can purchase gift cards to numerous chain stores at the grocery store.  I even have a friend whose extended family brought various gift cards to a Christmas gathering for a creative secret Santa meets musical chairs exchange.  However, I would bet that the giving of gift cards creates a bigger sale for the retailer than would otherwise happen with a straight purchase of goods.

Say I want to get you a book at Barnes & Noble that costs $25.  But, I'm not sure you'll like that book, so I get you a $30 gift card.  When you go to B&N, I would bet you another gift card that you'll spend more than $30.  First, you'll see other things you like.  Even if you don't, you won't want to spend less than the $30 unless you know that you'll get cash back, which you rarely do.  So, to make sure you spend the $30, you'll spend more than $30.  So, B&N gets a little bit more (or a lot more) than with a straight purchase.  Now, that's not a deadweight loss because presumably you are purchasing things you at least want, even if you don't need them, but it's definitely a cost to the recipient.

Ho, ho, ho.

Permalink | Economics | Comments (2) | TrackBack (0) | Bookmark

As the voice says during the game show:  If you're planning on being in the Washington D.C. area next week, and you'd like to meet the Glom guys. . . .  All of our readers are invited to a happy hour on Friday, January 6, 2006 at Murphy's on 24th street north of Calvert.  Vic says that it's around the corner from the AALS conference hotel, so we're going with that!  Hope to see you there.

Permalink | Blogs and Blawgs | Comments (2) | TrackBack (0) | Bookmark

Larry Ribstein is back from his exotic travels, and he is advising the SEC to "get out and see the world." Larry claims that the SEC and the US Congress have been acting like regulatory monopolists, but those days are gone.

Permalink | Securities | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0) | Bookmark

In our holiday jaunt across Texas, we passed through Jack County twice (between Seymour and Dallas).  Both times I was astonished by the sign on the courthouse lawn.  On the Jack County Courthouse lawn, the sign read "Put Christ Back in Christmas."  I'm not an expert on the Lemon Test, but I'm not sure that passes muster.  I found this picture of the courthouse on the web, but I can't zoom in close enough to see if the sign has the same saying on it that was displayed this year.  Interestingly, the sign holder has a Lion's Club logo; so if a private entity pays for the sign on the courthouse lawn, can it say anything?

Note that the Lion's Club sign holder is on the left.  The tall, permanent sign on the right boasts of the 2A football team winning the state championship some 10 or so years in a row.

Permalink | Religion | Comments (2) | TrackBack (0) | Bookmark

OK, I now have an iPod.  After having let the whole Palm, PDA thing completely pass me by, I am taking this opportunity to keep up with at least one technological trend.  After putting most of my CDs and my brother-in-law's on my iPod (including the first two epidsodes of Lost), I feel like there is a lost opportunity here.  I wish there were some way that I could swap my music with others.  Say, like if someone out there were looking for Nanci Griffith, I could let them copy mine.  And, if someone had some Pat Greene out there, then I could copy it.  I wonder if anybody ever thought about that. . . .

Permalink | Technology | Comments (4) | TrackBack (0) | Bookmark