I am probably not the customer Starbucks wants using their rewards program. When I am in a city where there are not a lot of local coffee options, Starbucks is my backup. The blonde roast is drinkable and if it is not being brewed they are happy to make a pour-over of it. All of this to say, a lot of my recent work travel has not been close to local coffee shops, but Starbucks were readily available.
Under the new plan, the “stars” that are stockpiled to earn free drinks and other rewards are awarded at a rate of two stars for every $1 spent. Currently, customers earn one star per visit. But it will take 300 stars to get to the company’s Gold status, up from 30 stars, and it will take 125 stars for a reward, instead of 12.
Stars will now be earned based on spend instead of number of transactions, meaning people who buy the expensive Frappuccinos will earn more stars than someone like me who orders a grande coffee. I am sure this is specifically targeted at a customer like me who earns 12 stars by ordering coffees and then redeems (or has someone else redeem) an expensive drink. Or worse, the person who orders a coffee and a pastry but in separate transactions to earn two stars and then redeems for something expensive.
Are the Starbucks changes aggressive? Yes, but just like in the airline mileage earning and redemption world you have to remember: Pigs get fat and hogs get slaughtered. Starbucks could have probably made some rules changes that simply limited the number of transactions per day to something reasonable (2 per day maybe?) but they decided to go fully revenue based. The revenue based rewards are quickly becoming commonplace across tons of different industries as a way to “reward” someone for their spend rather than their loyalty. The thing to remember is that spending more to earn a reward usually is not beneficial to you mathematically. Well, unless you’re buying the office coffee on a corporate card; Then you’re making out like a bandit.
In the end, this probably will not change my habits when it comes to Starbucks. If there is no local option when I travel, I will visit Starbucks. And that’s probably exactly what Starbucks wants. Spending habits stay the same but the number of rewards will decrease.
In a blog post, they give details on why they are refreshing the brand and a few insights into why they went the direction they did.
“We’ve added 90 new markets in the past five years. As we continue to grow, we are updating the outward expression of our brand so it shows up bolder wherever we fly.”
Essentially, we now fly Boston to San Diego non-stop and want to make our logo simpler for that market. I get it, it is not like they were going to change the name of the airline or anything. The first thing that stands out to me though is how close the new tail livery looks to some of the low cost carriers and how the entire livery looks a little Southwest-ish. The second thing is what I pointed out to Seth yesterday, the multicolored cheat lines look like the engines are spewing out the Northern Lights.
I am no branding or livery expert but I just find the new look to be less Alaska and more Spirit/Southwest/Frontier. Maybe that is what they were going for. There is even a hint of Eurowings in there. There is a pretty great breakdown of the entire brand, livery, and other customer facing materials at Under Consideration. Their impression? Underwhelmed.
Overall, it’s not a highly inspiring redesign and rather than double-down on the quirkiness and ruggedness of the brand equity established they have moved away to safer territory.
Maybe Alaska should have gone to an all retro livery… (to be fair, some of the colors do match up)
— Updated at 12:30pm PST
I should add, if employees like the new look and it motivates them to better serve customers, then I am all for it. From the video of the unveiling of the new brand it does seem like the employees are excited about it and that’s a good thing.
The 911 call features a woman who said she was driving past a home in the 2600 block of East Fifth Street and saw a man who appeared to be drunk and a woman trying to get away from him. The video shows Griffin arriving about 4:45 p.m., and he can be heard trying to verify which home was referenced. Not long after leaving his patrol car, Griffin is heard shouting, “Show me your hands” and then, “Get your dog!” That was followed by Cisco’s bark and a single gunshot.
I can understand why the officer had his gun drawn, he was told there was a disturbance and did not know what he was walking into. However, he was at the wrong address. If I was the Austin Police Department I would want to know why the address was not verified by the officer before he left his car. He can be heard asking which apartment unit the disturbance is at. Clearly there was a breakdown of communication.
As a dog owner, I am well aware that spooked dogs are scary. Though they may not bite, a scared dog looks intimidating. It makes me wonder though, had the officer clearly identified himself while walking up to the house whether or not Paxton would have returned the dog to the back yard. The officer says, “Show me your hands” and then immediately “Get your dog!”. If I have a gun pointed at me and am being told to show my hands, my brain is trying to figure out whether or not I should actually get the dog.
I look forward to hearing what the investigation from the Austin Police Department reveals. I know that restraint is not always an option, but I would think a little restraint in instances like this would not be too difficult. It just sounds like the officer was a little on edge walking into an unknown situation (again, at the wrong address) and that adrenaline lead to the shooting of the dog.
The cover takes a look at the airlines from a chemistry standpoint. Overall, the article is pretty good and gives a look at the merger from a perspective we as consumers aren’t necessarily used to seeing.
When asked about being edgy, here is what the designers said –
It’s funny because I don’t think we are [edgy]. Everyone takes covers, interprets covers in a slightly different way. When you’re privy to the process, it demystifies it a bit. When you’re part of the process it loses the surprise value. So, I don’t see this one as particularly surprising. I think it’s fun. But, yah, it’s nice that everyone thinks that.
I think it’s an edgy cover and pretty much unnecessary.
This speaks volumes to the amount of trust, or lack thereof, that we have of the Pakistani government. Sure, they were supplying us with phone taps and some other intelligence, but they were clearly unwilling to act upon any of it.
There was intelligence in place as far back as 2007 that lead to the whereabouts of Osama bin Laden, most importantly, the real name of a courier that was making trips to the compound.
Lastly, the President ordered a daring raid rather than a bombing mission against the compound
My hat is off to President Obama. Rather than taking a risk of having bin Laden miraculously escape a bombing raid he made the tough decision to put American lives at risk by sending them deep into Pakistan. He certainly could have gone the Clinton route and ordered a cruise missile strike but instead made sure that the job was done right. Good job Mr. President. And good job President Bush.
In closing, I do not think that the death of Osama bin Laden will lead to less of a threat for Americans or westerners in general. The United States and other fighting forces had put the clamp on Obama’s ability to effectively wage war in Afghanistan and I think that’s why we have seen a lot of build-up in places such as Yemen. Bin Laden was a figurehead and while it is good that he is gone, we should not be eager to let our guard down.
Niall Ferguson, Professor of History at Harvard University and columnist for Newsweek, spoke his mind on the foreign policy decisions by the Obama administration and it seems, took the MSNBC hosts off guard. Professor Ferguson is by no means a conservative so my guess is that the MSNBC personalities were looking at the interview as being easy going. His description of the Obama administration’s attempt at foreign policy is spot on:
As far as I can see, President Obama’s strategic concept is “I’m not George W. Bush. Love me.”
If you can’t see the video, you can visit MSNBC and watch it here.
It should be noted that the one host seems a bit disgusted with the whole interview and you can hear her choke a little after Niall so bluntly states his case.
That link has been lighting up the internet today and I couldn’t help but address it. The gist of the article is that a black woman, Kelly Williams-Bolar, was convicted of fraud for claiming to live at a different address so that her children could go to a school in that address’s neighborhood. She was sentenced to 10 days in jail and 3 years of probation in this felony case.
Beyond that, the article goes into a diatribe of how this is an attack on blacks and that no white woman would ever be convicted of such a crime. It also makes the claim that “…it’s not like she stole $30,000 from the district…”. All of this is hyperbole with no factual basis. The woman tampered with court records. End of story. It does not matter if your reasons are noble, a crime was committed.
Since this was a felony conviction Williams-Bolar is no longer eligible to be a teacher, which is what she was in school to become. Some call this harsh and unfair but if a doctor committed a crime that affected one’s health, people would be screaming for his license.
Truth be told, I do believe the sentence was a bit harsh and I wish they had convicted her of a misdemeanor crime (or at least let her plead to one). It is tough to see someone who wants to better themselves dig the hole deeper, but we see it all of the time.
The most worrisome part in all of this is the language used by the writer of the article. It’s harsh, it’s hateful, and it’s vitriolic. The writer takes broad strokes to paint a picture of segregation still prevalent in this country without any negative regard for Williams-Bolar’s actions. Rather than admitting that what the woman did was wrong, Boyce Watkins immediately throws the blame at the courts, the country, and the educational system. The only good thing Mr. Watkins did in his write up is make sure to get his statistical terms correct, using correlation rather than causation.
Saturday’s tragic shooting in Arizona has left me stunned in a number of ways. The most bothersome is the fact that six people are dead and many more injured. Senseless crime is something that always shocks, angers, and stirs heavy emotion but in this case it’s done much more.
The shooter, who’s name I’m leaving out of the post because he doesn’t deserve 15 minutes of fame, had no obvious political ties to either side of the spectrum. All the evidence that is being collected and released to the public points more to instability and possibly mental illness in this man’s life leading to a mental break. Yet, none of this has stopped the calls for a return of the “fairness” doctrine, a blaming of Sarah Palin and her “crosshairs” map, and a move by the more liberal spectrum of Democrats to demand less rhetoric, specifically violent rhetoric. That last point, rhetoric is ironic. What happens when rhetoric demands less rhetoric, does it implode on itself?
On Twitter a number of people are posting “Maybe conservatives should ask Muslims what it’s like to be falsely accused of something”, a lame attempt to cover up the fact that they jumped the gun on blaming people. Maybe taking a bit of their own advice that they gave out after the Fort Hood shootings (which by the way was motivated by religious extremism) of not jumping to conclusions would be useful right now.
Then there’s the idea of blaming this entire thing on mental illness. That’s a cop out. The shooter lived at home, others observed warning signs, yet nothing was done. We cannot blame mental illness simply to get out of our responsibility to one another for safety and security. Tonight’s speech by the President should be interesting. I hope he steers away from politics and focuses on the victims and their families.
In the end, some very normal, average people did the right thing on Saturday and saved as many lives as they could. They proved that there are good people in Tuscon, Arizona, the Southwest, and this entire country. May God bring comfort to those who have suffered loss in this tragedy, healing to those who were hurt, and love to the family of the shooter.