We’re all looking for someone to trust. People and institutions that will do what they say and say what they mean.

There are a few reasons why one might not care what happens in the long run:

You don’t intend to be around
You’re going to make so much money in the short run it doesn’t matter
You figure you won’t get caught
Short-term marketing involves using deception to make a quick sale, or using aggressive promises to get a quick hit. Having a price war counts as well. Linkbait is on that list as well.

Short-term architecture means putting up a cheap building, a local eyesore, something that saves money now instead for building something for the long haul. The guys who put up the Parthenon in Rome weren’t doing short-term anything. Hard to say that about a big box store.

Short-term manufacturing ignores the side effects of pollution, bad design and worker impact because it’s faster money in the short run to merely make the product (and the sale) in the most direct way possible.

Short-term investment banking invests in transactions that are unsustainable and eventually blow up (after commissions are paid).

Short-term sales involve spamming as many people as you can, as fast as you can.

Short-term hiring requires you to hire cheap, train as little as possible and live with turnover.

Bernie Madoff was a short-term capitalist, of course.

Left to their own devices, (particularly during difficult economic times) too many people misunderstand the essence of capitalism, and rationalize a do what it takes mindset that is ultimately self-defeating. The reason we need the SEC, the EPA, transparent operations, a free press that cares about its mission and people willing and able to speak up is that they make it expensive to choose the short-term option.

The short-term capitalist is betting that someone else will clean it up.

One of the worst things you can call a business person, I think, is a short-term capitalist. He selfishly takes for now and fails to contribute in return.

The internet has opened two doors. First, it’s easier than ever to do the short-term thing, anonymously if you choose, with a big splash, internet ads, eBay scams and more. On the other hand, since there’s a revolution going on, it’s also easier than ever to build something that matters, something that lasts.

The thing to remember about the short-term is that we’ll almost certainly be around when the long-term shows up.

New polling out this week shows that Americans are frustrated with the world and pessimistic about the future. They’re losing patience with the economy, with their prospects, with their leaders (of both parties).

What’s actually happening is this: we’re realizing that the industrial revolution is fading. The 80 year long run that brought ever-increasing productivity (and along with it, well-paying jobs for an ever-expanding middle class) is ending.

It’s one thing to read about the changes the internet brought, it’s another to experience them. People who thought they had a valuable skill or degree have discovered that being an anonymous middleman doesn’t guarantee job security. Individuals who were trained to comply and follow instructions have discovered that the deal is over… and it isn’t their fault, because they’ve always done what they were told.

This isn’t fair of course. It’s not fair to train for years, to pay your dues, to invest in a house or a career and then suddenly see it fade.

For a while, politicians and organizations promised that things would get back to normal. Those promises aren’t enough, though, and it’s clear to many that this might be the new normal. In fact, it is the new normal.

I regularly hear from people who say, “enough with this conceptual stuff, tell me how to get my factory moving, my day job replaced, my consistent paycheck restored…” There’s an idea that somehow, if we just do things with more effort or skill, we can go back to the Brady Bunch and mass markets and mediocre products that pay off for years. It’s not an idea, though, it’s a myth.

Some people insist that if we focus on “business fundamentals” and get “back to basics,” all will return. Not so. The promise that you can get paid really well to do precisely what your boss instructs you to do is now a dream, no longer a reality.

It takes a long time for a generation to come around to significant revolutionary change. The newspaper business, the steel business, law firms, the car business, the record business, even computers… one by one, our industries are being turned upside down, and so quickly that it requires us to change faster than we’d like.

It’s unpleasant, it’s not fair, but it’s all we’ve got. The sooner we realize that the world has changed, the sooner we can accept it and make something of what we’ve got. Whining isn’t a scalable solution.

At the same time that our economic engines are faltering, something else is happening. Like all revolutions, it happens in fits and starts, without perfection, but it’s clearly happening.

The mass market is being replaced by multiple micro markets and the long tail of choice.

Google is connecting buyers and sellers over vaster distances, more efficiently and more cheaply than ever before.

Manufacturing is more of a conceptual hurdle than a practical one.

The exchange of information creates ever more value, while commodity products are ever cheaper. It takes fewer employees to generate more value, make more noise and impact more people.

Most of all is this: every individual, self-employed or with a boss, is now more in charge of her destiny than ever before. The notion of a company town or a stagnant industry with little choice is fading fast.

Right before your eyes, a fundamentally different economy, with different players and different ways to add value is being built. What used to be an essential asset (for a person or for a company) is worth far less, while new attributes are both scarce and valuable.

Are there dislocations? There’s no doubt about it. Pain and uncertainty and risk, for sure.

The opportunity, though, is the biggest of our generation (or the last one, for that matter). The opportunity is there for anyone (with or without a job) smart enough to take it–to develop a best in class skill, to tell a story, to spread the word, to be in demand, to satisfy real needs, to run from the mediocre middle and to change everything.

¡Note! Like all revolutions, this is an opportunity, not a solution, not a guarantee. It’s an opportunity to poke and experiment and fail and discover dead ends on the way to making a difference. The old economy offered a guarantee–time plus education plus obedience = stability. The new one, not so much. The new one offers a chance for you to take a chance and make an impact.

¡Note! If you’re looking for ‘how’, if you’re looking for a map, for a way to industrialize the new era, you’ve totally missed the point and you will end up disappointed. The nature of the last era was that repetition and management of results increased profits. The nature of this one is the opposite: if someone can tell you precisely what to do, it’s too late. Art and novelty and innovation cannot be reliably and successfully industrialized.

In 1924, Walt Disney wrote a letter to Ub Iwerks. Walt was already in Hollywood and he wanted his old friend Ubbe to leave Kansas City and come join him to build an animation studio. The last line of the letter said “PS I wouldn’t live in KC now if you gave me the place—yep—you bet—Hooray for Hollywood.” And, just above, in larger letters, he scrawled, “Don’t hesitate—Do it now.”

It’s not 1924, and this isn’t Hollywood, but it is a revolution, and there’s a spot for you (and your boss if you push) if you realize you’re capable of making a difference. Or you could be frustrated. Up to you

Columbia, S.C. (March 14, 2011) –Nelson Mullins Riley & Scarborough LLP attorneys won a landmark legal victory with a jury verdict last week and entry of judgment today in South Carolina federal district court in a first-of-its kind trademark infringement case on behalf of its client, Roger Cleveland Golf Company Inc(“Cleveland Golf/Srixon”). (Roger Cleveland Golf Company, Inc. v. Prince (et al.), March 14, 2011)

Based on the jury’s verdict, Judge Margaret B. Seymour of the United States District Court for South Carolina, entered judgment today against Search Engine Optimization (“SEO”) and web-hosting firm Bright Builders Inc. on counts for contributory trademark infringement and unfair trade practices for assisting with the construction and hosting of the web site www.copycatclubs.com (“Copycat”), an online business that sold counterfeit Cleveland golf clubs. The judgment included an award of $770,750 in statutory damages against Bright Builders and $28, 250 in statutory damages against Christopher Prince who owned the web site.

This represents the first time that an SEO/Web Host or other Internet Intermediary was found liable for contributory infringement without having first received actual notification of the counterfeit sales from a third party. The case was presented and pursued by Cleveland Golf/Srixon based on a theory that Bright Builders knew or should have known of the infringing conduct based on the name of the website, the content of the website, and certain discussions Bright Builders had with Prince regarding his web site. The jury accepted this theory finding Bright Builders was liable for contributory trademark infringement of eleven of Cleveland Golf’s registered trademarks.

“For Internet Intermediaries like SEOs and web hosts, this should be a cautionary warning,” says Christopher Finnerty, a partner at Nelson Mullins Law Firm in Boston who represented Cleveland Golf/Srixon. “The jury found that web hosts and SEO’s cannot rely solely on third parties to police their web sites and provide actual notice of counterfeit sales from the brand owners. Even prior to notification from a third party, Internet Intermediaries must be pro-active to stop infringing sales when they knew or should have known that these illegal sales were occurring through one of the web sites they host.”

The lawsuit was filed after Huntington Beach, CA-based Cleveland Golf/Srixon learned counterfeit golf clubs bearing Cleveland’s Trademarks were being sold online by Copycat and its principals, Christopher Prince, and Prince Distribution LLC (“Prince”). The homepage of copycatclubs.com went so far as to boast, “Your one stop shop for the best copied golf clubs on the Internet.” During discovery, it became apparent that Prince had received assistance in creating the web site from the SEO/Web Host Bright Builders. As a result, the Complaint was amended to include claims against Bright Builders for contributory infringement and unfair trade practices .

Donald Reino, Vice President of Legal Affairs for Cleveland Golf/Srixon, said the manufacturer was compelled to act. “The brazen nature of this website’s sale of counterfeit Cleveland golf clubs as well as the web host’s refusal to take any steps to prevent this type of illegal sale forced us to take immediate action to protect our brand name, our authorized dealers, and our customers.”

This action by Cleveland Golf is part of a broader global effort by Cleveland Golf/Srixon in the ongoing fight against counterfeiting. “While individuals who sell counterfeits are a major problem for the manufacturer, companies like Bright Builders who can amplify the impact and scope of this problem are even more dangerous.” said Stephen Gingrich, Cleveland Golf/Srixon’s Vice President of Global Legal Enforcement and HR. “Counterfeiting has existed for thousands of years but has been a localized issue. The Internet, ease of global shipping and payments, combined with SEO’s and web hosts injecting steroids into the situation has brought the issue into every consumer’s living room.”

Cleveland Golf/Srixon was represented by Nelson Mullins Online Brand Equity and Strategic Distribution Group, with a trial team lead by Jeffrey Patterson, Christopher Finnerty, John McElwaine, and Morgan Nickerson from its Boston and Washington, D.C. offices.

About Nelson Mullins
Established in 1897, Nelson Mullins has more than 400 attorneys and government relations professionals practicing from 12 office locations in the District of Columbia, Florida, Georgia, Massachusetts, North Carolina, South Carolina, and West Virginia. For more information on the Firm, go to www.nelsonmullins.com, or call 803.255.9794.

Contact:
Christopher Finnerty
Nelson Mullins Riley & Scarborough
chris.finnerty@nelsonmullins.com
617.573.4723

Mobile Commerce – Buy.com’s iPhone app lets shoppers speak and scan to find items and compare prices – Internet Retailer.

By Jason Shorrock

Ten years ago, in the very early days of ecommerce, multichannel retailing was almost unheard of. But it has grown and developed within every retail sector – even clothing and fashion, which some cynics said would never work on the web. Today 94% of retailers have transactional websites. For most, their online store is typically their largest individual shop, accounting for about 9% of sales. But many still regard it as a completely separate entity and have done little to integrate it with the rest of the business.

Joined-up customer experience
Customers don’t care about multichannel, integrated multichannel or cross channel. They want the same experience, availability and service from your brand however they shop. Aurora Fashions senior technical development manager Andy Tudor says: “Seamless shopping greatly improves our customers’ experience. BT’s Integrated Store makes shopping more convenient and personalised for Warehouse customers, helping us meet the demands of current trends in fast-moving fashion retailing.” With customers now purchasing across several touch points and expecting things to be joined up, retailers must ensure an integrated and consistent brand experience, with relevant information available across all channels. To do this, many are reinventing their Customer Relationship Management (CRM) systems to better understand how their customers are shopping and make interaction more relevant during each stage of the buying process.

Empowering shoppers
Retailers are also empowering customers by making all products available via every channel, with the catalogue and inventory available to every store. This process could see retailers rearranging stores to hold only their core assortment. We’re already helping a number of well-known brands integrate their store, web and CRM systems. We believe that those who invest in a better understanding of their customers and who comprehend the cross-channel impact of the web will be really successful in the next 10 years. Thomas Pink information, ecommerce and logistics director Peter Mila says: “Thomas Pink will benefit from a single inventory view, even greater customer service opportunities and the sharing of knowledge across multiple channels – including a synchronised ‘single view’ of our customers, products and inventory data throughout our business.”

The road to fulfilment
A 360 degree view of the customer is just one half of the picture. Retailers also need a real-time view of stock to take multichannel to the next level. Selling from a single stock pool, for example, can make the supply chain more efficient – and makes possible selling warehouse stock in-store. Of course to do this, payments need to be joined up too. And taking online orders and managing returns in-store also relies on accurate stock files – not the case for most retailers. According to our research, only 45% of retailers already have a cross-channel order management system – essential for managing stock, taking advantage of economies of scale and providing a click-and collect service.

The future of multichannel
Those leading the pack are integrating their systems and up-skilling their staff to ensure they add value whenever they speak to customers. By providing mobile devices, for example, store assistants can have as much information at their fingertips as the customer. And by combining this with CRM information they can ensure each customer gets a great experience in-store and across all channels. Looking ahead, it may be that retailers operate with just one all-encompassing platform, with different “presentation layers” configured for instore or online, customer-facing use.

Multichannel retail is growing up fast.

Jason Shorrock is business development director at BT Expedite

Congress has taken preliminary steps to adopt legislation that would restore the rule that minimum resale price agreements between manufacturers and retailers, distributors or wholesalers, violate the Sherman Act without requiring proof of their anticompetitive effects.

More than two years ago, the Supreme Court overturned the 96-year-old rule established in a prior Supreme Court decision, Dr. Miles Medical Co. v. John D. Park & Sons Co., 220 U.S. 373 (1911), that made minimum resale price agreements (“RPM agreements,” also called “vertical price-fixing”) per se illegal under the Sherman Act, in Leegin Creative Leather Products, Inc. v. PSKS, Inc., 127 S. Ct. 2705 (2007). In Leegin, the Court held that RPM agreements should be evaluated under the rule of reason, a standard requiring that proof the agreement has unreasonably restrained competition. On January 13, 2010, the House Judiciary Committee met and voted on whether to adopt H.R. 3190, the “Discount Pricing Consumer Protection Act of 2009.” H.R. 3190 would overturn the ruling in Leegin and restore the per se rule of illegality with respect to RPM agreements

To view the complete article click here

New York Attorney General Andrew Cuomo recently brought suit against Tempur-Pedic, the maker of luxury foam mattresses, for conduct that allegedly amounts to vertical price-fixing.  The state’s complaint alleges that Tempur-Pedic secured agreements from its retailers to prohibit any discounting of the mattresses by means of its imposition of a draconian Minimum Advertised Price (“MAP”) policy.  The lawsuit represents the latest effort by state officials to combat practices that are arguably allowed under federal law.

For the complete article click here

Apple reports that on the first day they sold more than $150,000,000 worth of iPads. I can’t think of a product or movie or any other launch that has ever come close to generating that much direct revenue.

Are their tactics are reserved for giant consumer fads? I don’t think so. In fact, they work even better for smaller gigs and more focused markets.

Earn a permission asset. Over 25 years, Apple has earned the privilege of delivering anticipated, personal and relevant messages to their tribe. They can get the word out about a new product without a lot of money because one by one, they’ve signed people up. They didn’t sell 300,000 iPads in one day, they sold them over a few decades.
Don’t try to please everyone. There are countless people who don’t want one, haven’t heard of one or actively hate it. So what? (Please don’t gloss over this one just because it’s short. In fact, it’s the biggest challenge on this list).
Make a product worth talking about. Sounds obvious. If it’s so obvious, then why don’t the other big companies ship stuff like this? Most of them are paralyzed going to meetings where they sand off the rough edges.
Make it easy for people to talk about you. Steve doesn’t have a blog. He doesn’t tweet and you can’t friend him on Facebook. That’s okay. The tribe loves to talk, and the iPad gave them something to talk about.
Build a platform for others to play in. Not just your users, but for people who want to reach your users.
Create a culture of wonder. Microsoft certainly has the engineers, the developers and the money to launch this. So why did they do the Zune instead? Because they never did the hard cultural work of creating the internal expectation that shipping products like this is possible and important.
Be willing to fail. Bold bets succeed–and sometimes they don’t. Is that okay with you? Launching the iPad had to be even more frightening than launching a book…
Give the tribe a badge. The cool thing about marketing the iPad is that it’s a visible symbol, a uniform. If you have one in the office on Monday, you were announcing your membership. And if it says, “sent from my iPad” on the bottom of your emails…
Don’t give up so easy. Apple clearly a faced a technical dip in creating this product… they worked on it for more than a dozen years. Most people would have given up long ago.
Don’t worry so much about conventional wisdom. The iPad is a closed system (not like the web) because so many Apple users like closed systems.
And the one thing I’d caution you about:

Don’t worry so much about having a big launch day. It looks good in the newspaper, but almost every successful brand or product (Nike, JetBlue, Starbucks, IBM…) didn’t start that way.
A few things that will make it work even better going forward:

Create a product that works better when your friends have one too. Some things (like a Costco membership or even email) fit into that category, because if more people join, the prices will go down or access will go up. Others (like the unlisted number to a great hot restaurant) don’t.
Make it cheap enough or powerful enough that organizations buy a lot at a time. To give away. To use as a tool.
Change the home screen so I can see more than twenty apps at a time (sorry, that was just me.)
As promised, the folks at Vook made their deadline and were ready on launch day. It’s early days, but it’s pretty clear to me that the way authors with ideas will share them is going to change pretty radically, just as the iPad demonstrates that the way people interact with the web is going to keep changing as well.