http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/25/business/25drink.html?ref=business
"Coca-Cola Is Said to Buy Vitaminwater"--The New York Times
Last night, (Thursday, May 24, 2007) Coca-Cola approved a purchase of Glaceau, which makes Vitaminwater. That's a $4.2 billion trade in cash and stock. Glaceau is also known as the company Energy Brands, which Coke wants to buy to increase it's numbers of noncarbonated beverages since the recent surge of demand for these types of beverages. This coud be pretty big for Coke. Coke currently holds 43% of the soda market in US, while Pepsi holds a measely 31%. Pepsi had introduced a lot of noncarbonated beverages which may have helped, so Coke is on it's way to breaking new markets. Pepsi holds 50% of the noncarbonated beverage industry in the Untied States, while Coke only had 23%, which is why they are looking to buy more of these beverages.
Glaceau makes Fruitwater, an energy drink called Vitaminenergy and Smartwater, with electrolytes. Each bottle of Vitaminwater offers a new gift: Kiwi-Straberry guarantees "focus" and "healthy support for eyes and skin".
This is exciting stuff!!! So coca-cola is way behind in it's noncarbonated beverage market, and now they are vamping their portfolio with a whole slew of flavored water, Vitaminwater. This is great news. This is pretty typical of an oligopoly to buy up competitors, or in this case, to buy up products to compete. Pepsi has a big share of the noncarbonated beverage market in comparison to Coke, so it is great for Coke to buy up new companies to add to their stash of others. I'm sure we can expect to see changes in Vitaminwater's business style: i.e. more advertising, maybe changed labels and a new beginning for this beverage. Coke really is setting up to take over the world.
Friday, May 25, 2007
Sunday, May 20, 2007
Microsoft to Gain More Advertising
I read the article: Microsoft to buy aQuantive for US$6 billion from http://www.arnnet.com.au/index.php/id;1047992339. (It's an austrailian site, so they mention "US$" all the time). Anyway, the article discusses how Microsoft bid for this company called aQuantive, which is a digital marketing services agency. Microsoft is trying to increase the amount of technology and employees that they have available for internet advertising. They are trying to compete with Google, which they actually had a bidding war for a similar company, DoubleClick, about a month ago, but Google won the battle. But, with Microsoft's pending aquirement of aQuantive, it looks like Google may lose the war.
Microsoft intends to use this new company to set up advertising through the different online networks, including Windows Live and Xbox Live. There's also a rumor on the streets that Microsoft might have an interest in buying up Yahoo. This is a pretty importnat deal that Microsoft is making (the biggest one to day, as far as significance, not necessarily monetary value). Microsoft will be able to put display advertising on any site and will enhance the digital advertising aspect for the company.
I found this article very interesting. It basically sums up Microsoft being part of an oligopoly, and is really a good example to represent oligopoly by. In this article alone, we see that there is still sum lenience in entering and exiting market (Yahoo possibly being sold), there is variation in products (google is different than Microsoft), advertising is a main component of the oligopoly world, and oligopoly firms like to try and buy out competitors, (Yahoo), or in this case, additions to their firms (DoubleClick and aQuantive). I think it is interesting that there is som much money being spent on internet advertising, and it's good to observe all the different modes of influence (I forgot all about Microsoft and the affiliation with XBox Live), through technology. It is crucial for thiese companies to invest in programs to enhance their chances. This article evens says that Google and Microsoft had to compete and get firms like this or one of them wouldn't survive. Dog eat dog world out there in the oligopolic world....the saga continues.
Microsoft intends to use this new company to set up advertising through the different online networks, including Windows Live and Xbox Live. There's also a rumor on the streets that Microsoft might have an interest in buying up Yahoo. This is a pretty importnat deal that Microsoft is making (the biggest one to day, as far as significance, not necessarily monetary value). Microsoft will be able to put display advertising on any site and will enhance the digital advertising aspect for the company.
I found this article very interesting. It basically sums up Microsoft being part of an oligopoly, and is really a good example to represent oligopoly by. In this article alone, we see that there is still sum lenience in entering and exiting market (Yahoo possibly being sold), there is variation in products (google is different than Microsoft), advertising is a main component of the oligopoly world, and oligopoly firms like to try and buy out competitors, (Yahoo), or in this case, additions to their firms (DoubleClick and aQuantive). I think it is interesting that there is som much money being spent on internet advertising, and it's good to observe all the different modes of influence (I forgot all about Microsoft and the affiliation with XBox Live), through technology. It is crucial for thiese companies to invest in programs to enhance their chances. This article evens says that Google and Microsoft had to compete and get firms like this or one of them wouldn't survive. Dog eat dog world out there in the oligopolic world....the saga continues.
Friday, May 4, 2007
Don't give benefits to tax evasionists
I read the article, "Bill would bar payments to Medicare providers who owe taxes". http://www.battlecreekenquirer.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070504/OPINION01/705040311/1014/OPINION
US Senator Carl Levin, and senator Norm Coleman are both trying to introduce a bill that will withhold payments to doctors and other health-care providers who treat Medicare patients but who still owe federal taxes. The two looked into an investigation that found that 21,000 health-care providers owe approximately $1.3 billion in taxes, but receive Medicare payments. So these two guys decided that if you don't pay your own taxes, you shouldn't get benefits from taxpayers. The two senators want to require hte Deparment of Health and Human Services' Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services to participate in the Federal Payment Levy Program.
I think this makes sense. Doctors make pretty good money anyway, so they should just use their own darn money and their benefits to get the medical care they need. But I mean, if the local doctor in town wasn't paying his taxes, and then John comes in and needs a lot ofhelp and usually is covered by medicare/caid, then I think that John should save hismoney and get treated for free. Why should doctor get paid by the program he's not contributing to? I don't have anymore to say about this becasue it makes sense. But, I will say this has a lot to do with economics and the different kinds of taxing systems. Plus, Medicare/Medicaid is a mix between a public and common good. You definitly are seeing the free rider problem in this situation, becaue people are benefiting from the programs they don't contribute to.
US Senator Carl Levin, and senator Norm Coleman are both trying to introduce a bill that will withhold payments to doctors and other health-care providers who treat Medicare patients but who still owe federal taxes. The two looked into an investigation that found that 21,000 health-care providers owe approximately $1.3 billion in taxes, but receive Medicare payments. So these two guys decided that if you don't pay your own taxes, you shouldn't get benefits from taxpayers. The two senators want to require hte Deparment of Health and Human Services' Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services to participate in the Federal Payment Levy Program.
I think this makes sense. Doctors make pretty good money anyway, so they should just use their own darn money and their benefits to get the medical care they need. But I mean, if the local doctor in town wasn't paying his taxes, and then John comes in and needs a lot ofhelp and usually is covered by medicare/caid, then I think that John should save hismoney and get treated for free. Why should doctor get paid by the program he's not contributing to? I don't have anymore to say about this becasue it makes sense. But, I will say this has a lot to do with economics and the different kinds of taxing systems. Plus, Medicare/Medicaid is a mix between a public and common good. You definitly are seeing the free rider problem in this situation, becaue people are benefiting from the programs they don't contribute to.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
