Recent information was leaked on the companies under the NSA’s payroll  (for access to “81% of all international phone calls into the US”). AT&T, Sprint and Verizon are said to charge hundreds of millions of dollars a year to let the NSA tap their customers’ mobile phones and keep them under surveillance.

The amounts paid to these companies (around 300 million USD) however only represent a small part of their revenues. Is their consumers’ trust worth that little? These companies are now in risk of making great losses due to an expected drop in sales – as customers no longer want them to be their providers now that information how consumer information is being sold to an agency.

Although businesses today are now much more respected and preferred when they prove to be responsible. Being a socially responsible business, trusted by consumers doesn’t only create an image, but might just save you from a scandal like this one, which will most likely lead to a much bigger (compared to the NSA’s money for information) loss of revenue.

Sources:

–       http://www.forbes.com/sites/robertlenzner/2013/09/23/attverizonsprint-are-paid-cash-by-nsa-for-your-private-communications/

With increasing regulations on all sorts of drinks, from energized to any kind of sweetened beverage – drink companies might just have to change their strategy. Mainly in the United States, the sale of sweetened drinks is being regulated.

The main concern behind recent awareness campaigns, regulations and even banning from certain places like schools all across the country, is the amount of sugar and/or caffeine in these, which is bad for anyone health-wise.

However, governments have addressed this issue directly to the sizes of the drinks sold, rather than demanding healthier products or taxing these un-healthy products directly. This might just become an opportunity for both distributors and drink companies.

(county of Los Angeles awareness campaign)

As products do not have to change, consumers will still be happy with the product itself, only they will have to adapt to new sizes. As the sizes decrease, the amount of products sold will most likely increase (in order to fulfil the consumers thirst).

For the right price, both the companies making the drinks and the businesses distributing them might make of this ‘obstacle’ an opportunity to increase their sales.

Sources:

–   http://thinkprogress.org/health/2013/03/11/1700421/bloomberg-soda-ban-right-direction/

–   http://changelabsolutions.org/childhood-obesity/SSB-regulation

–   http://www.food.gov.uk/policy-advice/additivesbranch/energydrinks#.UlPoimTwKnY

Many U.S companies have had to make some adjustments to their employees’ health plans, due to ‘Obama-care’. Some of the country’s biggest employers have had to cut down costs and in some cases, employees are not entirely happy.

Although implementing mandatory health insurance for companies with 50 or more employees is a good thing, employees from some companies have lost benefits they used to have before. UPS (4^th biggest employer) had to ‘stop providing insurance for spouses of non-union workers’. IBM will no longer provide health care for around 110,000 retirees.

Howard Schultz (CEO of Starbucks) believes ‘Obama-care’ is a “good thing for the country”, yet refuses to rely on it by itself. Starbucks employees will keep enjoying great health insurance and face no changes, as – although costs will rise, the company refuses to cut down expenses that will affect their employees.

However, this extra ‘cost’ could potentially be good for their brand. Not only does it give a good image of the company, but it might just motivate their employees to provide a better service, therefore keeping customers happy – and eventually maybe even an increase in the company’s revenue.

Sources:

-http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/09/16/starbucks-obamacare_n_3935999.html

-http://money.cnn.com/2013/08/27/news/companies/starbucks-obamacare-schultz/index.html