retail news in context, analysis with attitude

MNB Archive Search

Please Note: Some MNB articles contain special formatting characters, and may cause your search to produce fewer results than expected.

    Published on: December 12, 2013

    This commentary is available as both text and video; enjoy both or either. To see past FaceTime commentaries, go to the MNB Channel on YouTube.by Kevin Coupe

    Hi, I'm Kevin Coupe and this is FaceTime with the Content Guy.

    In the last couple of weeks, since 60 Minutes did what I think we all can agree was a virtual infomercial about Amazon and its founder/CEO Jeff Bezos, the word "drone" has taken on entirely new meaning, as story after story has speculated about the fact that Amazon is investing in drone technology that could be used to deliver packages in select markets in 30 minutes.

    As I've pointed out here before, this idea has its proponents and its naysayers. Both sides have gotten plenty of time in the media to air their views (so to speak).

    But y'know what Bezos was really selling when he unveiled the drone technology?

    The power of a big idea.

    Other companies are trying to figure out free shipping and two-day delivery, he seemed to be saying. But at Amazon, we've already done that … and now we're working on drones.

    That's a huge statement, whether he believes it will happen or not. (I suspect he does, but that's just me. As the Monkees sang, I'm a believer.)

    Take for example, a recent Washington Post story that talked about how most businesses have been unable to "fix the problem that's bedeviled retailers for years: How to get checkout lines moving more quickly — or to eliminate them altogether."

    Sure, there are handheld portable scanners. There's self-checkout. And there are plenty of companies trying to figure out how to deal with this issue. But you'd think that in this day and age, when I can order practically anything from my computer and get it in two days or less for a minimal charge (if any), somebody would have figured out how to get rid of the checkout line, which typically ends the shopping experience in miserable or, at best, mediocre fashion.

    They've figured out how to eliminate lines at toll booths. They've gone a long way toward eliminating - or at least streamlining - lines at airports and movie theaters. Why not at most supermarkets?

    A big idea can capture not just the consumer's imagination, but the customer's business.

    As we like to say here on MNB, in a time of fundamental change, incremental actions rarely suffice.

    Jeff Bezos knows this.

    Do you?

    That's what is on my mind this Thursday morning. As always, I want to hear what is on your mind.

    KC's View:

    Published on: December 12, 2013

    by Kevin Coupe

    Bloomberg has a story saying that online Christmas tree purveyors "are seeing a sales surge this year ... Though online sales make up no more than 3 percent of the$1 billion U.S. holiday tree market, according to the National Christmas Tree Association, more retailers are starting to peddle them on the Web. Home Depot Inc., the biggest seller of Christmas trees in the U.S., began offering them online last year and says it has expanded its lineup for this season, with trees on its website ranging from $69 to $223."

    And here's one interesting twist that online retailers can bring to the Christmas tree business: Several retailers not only will deliver it before Christmas, but will pick it up after the holidays and replant it in a nursery, where it will grow for another year.

    Which strikes me as very, very smart.

    Now, I'm sure that for a lot of families, the experience of shopping for a Christmas tree or actually cutting one down is one that they won't want to lose.

    But I would suggest that traditional retailers should not take this for granted. Because it is when you make that mistake that e-options are able to make headway and start to steal business away from you.

    This means that you have to offer something different.

    Give you an example.

    The day before Thanksgiving this year, when I went to Stew Leonard's to buy filet mignon for the holiday dinner (Mrs. Content Guy and the kids wanted steak, not turkey, and I ate salmon), I was helped by a very nice young man named Israel in the butcher shop. He helped me choose a steak, started to trim and cut it, and when he felt that it was not up to standards, came back around the counter and chose another one for me. (I'm told it was delicious.)

    When we went to Stew Leonard's to buy our Christmas tree last weekend, I was surprised when Israel greeted us; everybody spends time selling trees at Stew's, and not only did he recognize me, but he asked how the steak was. Then, he spent time with us, helped us select a tree, got it wrapped up for us, and send us on our way with a hearty "Happy Holidays!"

    And the tree is one of the prettiest and most fragrant we've ever had.

    Israel - and Stew Leonard's - is now two for two.

    The lesson is this. In any category, if retailers are to compete effectively with online alternatives, you have to have someone like Israel who is a game-changer, who defines the experience in a positive and sustainable way.

    It can be an Eye-Opener.
    KC's View:

    Published on: December 12, 2013

    USA Today reports that as Amazon expands further into groceries with its Amazon Fresh business - which yesterday, as expected, began serving customers in San Francisco in addition to Seattle and Los Angeles - it is putting the priority on convenience rather than low prices, "an approach that could limit how much of this market Amazon can grab from grocery store operators like Safeway and Kroger and other rivals including Wal-Mart Stores, FreshDirect and the start-up Instacart."

    "The thought of Amazon entering a new sector usually strikes fear into the hearts of incumbent companies as they worry profit margins will have to fall to compete with the Internet giant's lower prices," the story says. "But AmazonFresh prices are higher, or similar to most grocery stores, according to a recent analysis by RetailNet Group."

    Indeed, the "$299 subscription for customers in LA and San Francisco" that "makes grocery deliveries free for orders over $35 and … also gives shoppers access to the benefits of Amazon's Prime service" is seen as evidence that Amazon "is targeting the mid-to-premium shopper who usually buys at Costco, Whole Foods, Bristol Farms and other high-end grocery stores."
    KC's View:
    I'm not particularly surprised by this, though I can't say that I'm convinced that losing the low price image won't hurt Amazon in the long run. I've gotten emails from folks who are sort of annoyed about not getting the sharpest prices from Amazon, but Amazon also believes that it has all the right algorithms to make sure it has the sharpest prices when and where it needs to.

    That said, Amazon seemed to be a lot more hands-on when it launched Fresh in Seattle, hiring category experts to make sure that standards were maintained; these days, it seems to be more algorithm-driven, which could make it vulnerable in the Fresh categories.

    However … Keep in mind that it is Amazon's compilation and use of data that really sets it apart, and really allows it to create long-term loyalty. A lot of that can be seen in its Amazon Prime program, which a new study by Consumer Intelligence Research Partners says now has more than 16 million members.

    That's an enormous asset, not to be underestimated.

    Published on: December 12, 2013

    The Seattle Times has a story saying that Costco "is gradually putting more chips overseas as it outgrows the U.S. market," with plans for 14 out of 30 units it will open next year scheduled to be overseas. Two will be in Spain, "the company’s first foray into continental Europe," and the company already is eyeing a location in France for 2015.

    According to the story, "Costco’s plans for fiscal 2014 include four new stores in Australia, three in Canada, one in Mexico, two in Korea and two in Japan. Its U.S. plans include 16 new stores … As of Nov. 26, the company had 461 locations in the U.S. and Puerto Rico and 187 locations in other countries."

    While global markets seem attractive to Costco, the company's management seems less enamored with the concept of same-day home delivery of Internet purchases, an area in which Amazon is making a considerable investment. While the story notes that Costco has "started a partnership with Google to deliver bulk items to homes in the San Francisco Bay Area, but so far it remains experimental."

    However, Costco CFO Richard Galanti describes the Google partnership as "small" and a "test," saying, “We’ll keep looking at it. We have no plans currently to deliver to homes."
    KC's View:
    The Google partnership may be a small test, but I suspect it is not an isolated test … they almost certainly is a lot of paddling going on below the surface as Costco seeks to figure out where it fits in the e-commerce continuum.

    Published on: December 12, 2013

    The Los Angeles Times reports that the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) "is phasing out the non-medical use of antibiotics on farm animals in an effort to combat growing human resistance to the crucial drugs. The plan, announced Wednesday, would push livestock and poultry producers to limit their use of antibiotics to treating sick animals, and to stop using the drugs to promote faster growth."

    The reason for the change in policy, the story says, is that frequent use - some would say over-use - of antibiotics has created antibiotic-resistant superbugs that are responsible for some two million infections and 23,000 deaths every year.

    According to the story, "Health experts say reversing the national trend will require sweeping changes in U.S. farm practices — a shift that could alter the way meat is raised in the U.S. and potentially raise production costs. But experts said the changes are necessary to protect human health."

    The policy shift, which calls for voluntary rather than mandatory participation from industry, has been endorsed by the Animal Health Institute, which represents drug makers, the American Meat Institute, the National Chicken Council and the National Pork Producers Council.
    KC's View:

    Published on: December 12, 2013

    Instacart, the personal shopping service that already operates in San Francisco and Chicago, announced that it now is operating in Boston.

    For the time being, Instacart only will be sourcing product for Boston-area shoppers from Shaw's, though it hopes to add retailers such as Whole Foods and Costco, which it has done in its other markets.

    Unlike other e-grocery services, where the selection and delivery functions are handled by the retailer, Instacart serves as a third-party facilitator, collecting its fees from customers for doing their shopping for them.

    According to the Boston Globe story, "For consumers who request delivery in less than two hours, the company charges a $3.99 fee for orders over $35, and $7.99 for orders under $35. The minimum order is $10. The company says its fastest delivery was made in 19 minutes, but deliveries can also be scheduled for specific times or days when you'll be home. Instacart also offers a service similar to Amazon Prime: for $99 a year, all under two hour deliveries over $35 are free."
    KC's View:
    've not been a big fan of the personal shopper business model, simply because I think it has inherent limitations. But I'm beginning to think that when rolled out to the right markets - like Boston and Cambridge, two of the coolest, most erudite markets out there - there's no reason that Instacart can't succeed.

    Published on: December 12, 2013

    Amazon this morning announced that more than 100 wine sellers representing more than 1,000 labels have opted into a program that offers one-cent shipping on bottles from these vintners.

    The retailer said that it hopes to expand the program to additional wineries in coming days.

    The announcement claims that "the Amazon Wine store offers the largest domestic wine selection online, with delivery available to 22 states and the District of Columbia. Customers can purchase directly from more than 900 wine sellers offering over 7,000 labels available in the Amazon Wine store. Amazon Wine has more than 1,000 international wines, including labels from France, Italy, Australia and other top regions around the world."
    KC's View:
    I'll drink to this.

    Published on: December 12, 2013

    The Wall Street Journal reports that the German postal company Deutsche Post-DHL AG last week "launched a test flight for drone delivery … just about a week after e-commerce giant Amazon.com Inc. stirred a media frenzy by saying it would use drones to bring packages to customers."

    According to the story, the drone had to be launched from the banks of the Rhine in order to meet regulatory restrictions: "The bright yellow drone then crossed the Rhine and delivered the package of medicines to a lawn behind Deutsche Post headquarters. Altogether, five flights were conducted Monday.

    "The test flight used a Quadrocopter, a mini-drone with four rotors. The unmanned flight was steered manually by remote control, and covered 2.5 kilometers round trip … The company will use the internal project to create and collect data on feasibility."
    KC's View:
    So much for the concept being impossible to implement…

    Published on: December 12, 2013

    • The Los Angeles Times reports that Schneider Logistics, a Walmart contractor, "has agreed to pay $4.7 million to settle a lawsuit filed by 568 Southern California warehouse workers who said they were underpaid and denied rest and meal breaks."

    Walmart has not yet commented on the settlement, which was approved by a federal judge.
    KC's View:

    Published on: December 12, 2013

    • The Baltimore Sun reports that union leaders representing 28,000 Giant Food and Safeway workers in the District of Columbia and Maryland "reached a tentative agreement with both supermarket chains on a new labor contract, which will be presented to members Dec. 17 for a vote. A collective bargaining agreement for Local 400 and Local 27 of the United Food & Commercial Workers would take effect immediately if approved, union leaders said. The impact of health reform on workers' health coverage had been the biggest sticking point in negotiations, union leaders have said."
    KC's View:

    Published on: December 12, 2013

    Got the following email regarding the decision by Eataly Chicago to close down on Monday - after a busy week - to "maintain standards."

    Wanted to provide a local scoop on this store, as I work about 1.5 blocks away from it – so, to say nothing about the fact they couldn’t actually get their opening date right in the first place (initial stories months ago suggested October, then it was going to be EITHER November 22 or 29th….not so; finally, they DID open on the 2nd), once they were officially open [to the public] they had decals on the store’s doors that stated hours of operation, which [supposedly] began at 8 am each morning…still not so.  My colleagues and I walked over each and every day last week trying to get coffee from the LaVazza café around 9 am only to find a computer printed sheet of paper taped onto the door saying Eataly would open at 10 am instead (Pay no attention to the official decals permanently stuck to the glass doors!).  So much for stealing the morning coffee business in River North!  Guess the Starbucks down the block can breathe easily for another couple weeks.

    Therefore, my thoughts are probably clear – doesn’t seem to me like Eataly Chicago was ever all that buttoned up about their operation…but, in the end, it probably won’t matter much.  I’m sure they’ll make lots and lots of money, whether they open at 10 am or close on random weekdays.  Is that an eye-opener?  Not sure….


    Another email about Eataly:

    We should contrast Eataly with the current U.S. distribution model to better understand why this store can draw 120,000 people and current grocery retailers are struggling.  It is not the products Eataly sells or how they sell them, but rather how demand is being created for their products.

    Kellogg’s creates demand for Frosted Flakes through extensive marketing.  Then, they sell the product to many distribution channels: dollar stores, convenience stores, small grocery chains, mega grocery chains, big box stores, and mass merchants.  None of these channels owns the final product experience, which occurs at breakfast, in a bowl, with milk added.  No wonder everyone competes on price and delivery.  The most fundamental experience of the product is owned by someone else.

    Eataly’s is creating demand for ITS STORE, and by doing so, ultimately for its products.  Eataly’s approach is for you to trust them with your taste buds, not trust them to have Frosted Flakes in stock.  They find the best products, and you love them for it.   Yes, I understand the whole shopping experience as differentiator, but if they were just another store at which to purchase Frosted Flakes, would this work?  I don’t think so.  They want to own your taste buds.  (That same message is reinforced times 23 with their eateries.)

    This approach should sound familiar because Trader Joe's does the same thing.  They  create demand with exclusive taste profiles and hook your taste buds.   Demand is created for the store and you trust they will populate the store with products you will like.  Would Trader Joe’s positioning improve if you could buy Frosted Flakes at their store?  It would dilute their brand.

    The overall distribution model of the U.S. is dated.  If grocery retailers are going to differentiate themselves, they have to start differentiation with the very products they are selling and move away from being “resellers”.   I see the current strategies followed as low cost provider and best shopping experience.  But by definition, only one company can be the low cost provider.   And as for best shopping experience, how does one succeed with a corporate mission of:  “Be the best reselling agent among the 14 reselling agents who sell Frosted Flakes”?

    Retailers have to start owning taste buds.


    Can we get an "Amen"?




    Responding to our story about a study saying that there is an appalling (my word) lack of women on boards of directors of Fortune 500 companies, one MNB user wrote:

    I agree with you completely Kevin. What would be nice to know in order to properly understand the void, is how does this rate and percentage relate to the percentage of women Vs men in the work force? Make sense?

    My understanding is that women make up more than 46 percent of the workforce. Compare that to less than 17 percent of Fortune 500 company board seats held by women, and 14.6 percent of Fortune 500 company executive officer positions held by women.

    Which makes no sense.




    Regarding Amazon, one MNB user wrote:

    I, like you, am a huge fan of Amazon, am a Prime Member and use Amazon for a lot of purchases.  But I have say, I disagree with your comment about Amazon and price leadership this Christmas season.  I normally default to Amazon for nearly all of my online shopping because they make it so easy and they are generally the price leader or in the ballpark of other outlets.  Not so this year on many kid toys.  I think both Walmart and TRU have done a great job at dropping prices to lead the markets and also of bringing in exclusive items.   Honestly, I’ve been surprised at how much HIGHER Amazon’s prices are on some items vs. these two stores.  And both WM and TRU have offered either free shipping or free pick up at stores which I actually don’t mind because there are some items I need to purchase in store as well and it allows me to have at least ½ my shopping done before I get there.  Looking at how much higher Amazon’s prices are vs. the competition this season has led me to think I need to recheck the prices on nearly everything I am buying from them.  I love the convenience of 2 day shipping but won’t stick with it if I’m paying significantly more than other outlets.  Just wanted to share.

    And from another reader:

    I recently got into a ‘debate’ with Petco as to why their Instinct Raw Boost dog food had increased to $79 in store.  On their website it was $67, but if you sign up for auto replenishment, the price goes up to $71.  Really?    Amazon has been $59 all year, delivered in one day to my doorstep. Petco has a price match policy, but only for other brick and mortar stores. 

    To make it worse, they told me the price difference was due to their suppliers dictating their retails.  That was their first email.  When I challenged them, they wrote back and said it was because the store offers many other services and knowledgeable associates to answer questions.   All in all, 3 emails, 3 excuses and never once an offer to match Amazon.

    You really can’t make this stuff up…





    Finally…we continue to get emails about the ongoing discussion of the Associated Press report that a Colorado administrative law judge has ordered a Denver-area baker to make a wedding cake for a gay couple's wedding, despite the fact that the baker said that making such a cake would force him to go against his Christian faith.

    My position was that discrimination is discrimination. But I think it is safe to say that most of the emails until now have disagreed with me. Like this one:

    How many times have you seen a sign “we reserve the right to not provide service to anyone” in a store’s window? If the storekeeper has put his/her capital into a business and puts it at risk, who are you or the judge to decide who they may serve or not serve? The reason (disagree with a gay wedding, don’t like the color of one’s socks, like another sports team, etc.) doesn’t matter as the storekeeper should have the power to choose. That being said, a savvy entrepreneur will not last very long choosing not to serve many of his potential customers. That’s called free enterprise and customers will choose to buy or not buy from a business based upon their expressed beliefs (e.g. Chick Fil A).

    Because of your emotion in support of gay marriage/rights, I think that you got caught up in the moment.

    Also, I think that you are better than throwing out random biblical citations trying to convey the Bible as irrelevant to today’s society. You may hold that opinion and it’s your blog, but realize that many of your readers do not share your “intolerance” of the Bible and disagree.


    So could those reasons not to serve someone include, say, the color of one's skin? Because if you can refuse to serve someone because of the color of his or her socks, I'm guessing that you can also do so because of the color of one's skin. Except that you can't. And should not be able to.

    And let's be clear … I'm not intolerant of the Bible, nor of anyone who believes in its essential teachings. Far from it.

    But I do think that in many of the specifics, it is a reflection of a very different time, and that maybe to take some elements of it literally in 2013 is a mistake. But that's very different from being intolerant of it.

    From another reader:

    This morning in the reader comments on the gay-couple/wedding-cake controversy, you wrote "...I want the mainstream media to be secular. There clearly is room for a religious media, but the big guys … they should be secular."  Not 100% clear what you mean here.  When you say "secular", are you wanting them simply to be fair-minded & objective, to not "become part of the story themselves", and not to be openly (or tacitly) advocating for or against religion (or not religion)?  Or are you actually wanting the big guys to be clearly "secular", as in "anti-religion"?  Clarification, please?

    I think they should be neither religious nor anti-religion.  Ideally, they shouldn't be conservative or liberal either, but I think that horse has left the barn….

    People who are secular are not (necessarily) anti-religion.  Just as people who are religious are not (necessarily) anti-secular.


    Not everyone disagrees with me, however…

    MNB user Michael Twitty wrote:

    As you no doubt expect, over the years I’ve agreed and disagreed with some of your positions.  Sometimes, however, I wanted to stand up and cheer you for taking a particular stance.  This is one of those times.  Thanks for your clear thinking, clarity of expression and the neutral tonality of your responses.  It made me feel proud of all the times I have recommended your work to others.

    From another:

    I simply cannot find, as hard as I try, a rational argument for society (read that government) to sanction discrimination and by doing so label any group of citizens as worthy of less protection under the law. How otherwise intelligent people can objectify and denigrate an entire “class” of people, rationalizing that prejudice on a personal belief system is beyond my understanding. Bigotry, hate, and intolerance are insidious things. I think it was Edmund Burke who said, "All that is necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing."

    And another:

    What if the same gay couple went into a haberdashery to buy gloves for their outdoor wedding? Would the owners  not to sell them gloves because it went against their religious preferences?  Sound ridiculous but where does it stop?  What do bigotry and a duck have in common?  If it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck and looks like a duck, it must be a duck.  Bigotry is bigotry no matter how you want to disguise it.

    MNB reader Elizabeth Archerd chimed in:

    The reactions to the Great Colorado Cake Suit are stunning.

    The idea that a business only has to serve who it wishes to ignores the fact that every food business has a license from a government authority, has to obey health codes dictated by at least one unit of government and is inspected to assure compliance with the same. My co-op is licensed by the city and has to comply with city health regulations, state agriculture regulations and FDA regulations. We also have to comply with both state and federal employment laws and regulations, IRS regulations, OSHA regulations, workers compensation regulations, regulations regarding how health and retirement benefits are administered, co-op statutes, and non-discrimination statutes.

    By what stretch of the imagination is the bakery a "private" business?


    And, along the same lines, from another MNB user:

    People can hate anybody they like — blacks. Jews, gays, and Muslims are among the currently popular choices among ignorami whose lives are so pathetic that they need someone to feel superior to.

    But if you’re going to run a business— an enterprise which is created, supervised, controlled, and taxed by the government —  you must get licenses under laws which require you to serve everyone regardless of race, color, gender, religion, and so forth. You must also meet the requirements of the public health laws, safety codes, sanitation codes, building codes, food and drug laws, employment discrimination laws, requirements of the disabilities act — and comply with the terms of your license, which may include hours of operation, signage, noise levels, occupancy limits, parking regulations, and so forth.

    In other words, you are not allowed to do what you damned well please and thereby become an irritant to society. You cannot stuff 100 people in a room that the fire chief limits to 50 people. You cannot blast loud music out your front door to attract attention. You cannot serve spoiled food to customers. You cannot chop the fingers off shoplifters, or refuse to serve a blind person because she has a guide dog.

    If you hate a class of people, and refuse to serve them, you cannot have a license, and you cannot run a business. It’s that simple. Nobody cares what your private religious briefs may be, or whether you attend church every week, or whether you’re nice to your grandmother. And nobody cares whether, deep down in your heart, you hate and despise the people you are serving.

    If you want the benefits of owning/operating a business —making money by serving the public in some fashion — then you must, in fact, serve the public.


    And another:

    I agree with your analogy comparing discrimination against African Americans and other racial minorities with today's discrimination against gays. After the Civil Rights Act was passed, private businesses claimed that serving blacks violated their religious beliefs and used Bible passages to validate their opposition. No different than today. 

    People should watch the many sports documentaries, movies, books and interviews depicting refusals to serve black athletes around 50 or even fewer years ago … the movie about Ernie Davis, the movie about the UTEP-Kentucky NCAA 1966 championship game, the recent documentary about Alabama playing USC in 1970, Bob Gibson's and Henry Aaron's recollections. You listen to these and wonder how could people think and act like that back then (of course, too many still think that way now). 

    Twenty or 30 or 40 years from now, most everyone will look back and feel the same way about today's discrimination against gays. Fortunately, today's younger generations will become the critical mass to de-legitimize this discrimination.

    You're right, if you never take a stand, these type of appropriate changes take too long. And why should someone wait decades to not be discriminated against.


    I think you're right. It won;t be long before an entire generation will look at kerfuffles like this and wonder what the debate was all about. In a lot of ways, I think that is what most scares a lot of people.

    We did run yesterday what I thought was an exceptionally enlightened email from a gay person I know who has been in a loving and committed relationship for more than 20 years, and who had a "turn the other cheek" philosophy:

    Here's the thing I don't understand - were we to have a "real" wedding, I don't think I would have any interest in going to a bakery that discriminates. Whether it's because of religion, sexuality, political views....Why even even give these narrow minded folks a platform to preach their hate? And by suing them they get their platform.

    Of course, anytime I hear someone talk about having their Christian values compromised I think of my dad - who I'm fairly certain believes Jesus would bake the cake himself.

    I'm a bit torn on my inability to angry about the bigots.


    I responded:

    To me, this email represents much of what I was thinking when I first saw the story. While I was irritated by the discrimination and what I saw as intolerance, my first thought was that it was a shame that the gay couple did not simply go to another bakery, and that the ACLU got involved … that perhaps they should've just turned the other cheek and moved on … that one should not let acts of bigotry interfere with a marriage, which is an act of love.

    But I'm not always good at turning the other cheek. Sometimes I do want to punch the other guy in the nose.


    Which prompted one MNB reader to write:

    Interesting that in one paragraph you cite your irritation at intolerance and in the next you state that you're not always good at turning the other cheek and sometimes "want to punch the other guy in the nose." Not very tolerant is it? I don't consider tolerance a virtue. There's nothing virtuous about compromising one's values. I think too many use tolerance as a weapon to bludgeon others with who don't share their beliefs. Ask Dan Cathy. Rather than tolerance, I think its more about respect for others and understanding that we can disagree on issues without hating each other.

    I'm not sure I buy that tolerance means compromising one's values.

    As for my admitted intolerance … what can I say? I'm imperfect. A work in progress. (Didn't Nelson Mandela say that "a saint is a sinner who keeps trying"?)

    But I also don't buy the argument that people who preach tolerance need to be tolerant of those who are intolerant. At some point, you have to say, "Enough."

    Now … the world is not a perfect place, and arguments don;t always fit into neat packages. The line is not always stationary.

    Yesterday, an MNB reader forwarded me a 2008 story from the about a New Jersey man named Heath Campbell who named his three children Adolf Hitler Campbell, JoyceLynn Aryan Nation Campbell, and Honszlynn Hinler Jeannie Campbell. (This last one apparently was a reference to Heinrich Himmler … though in addition to being an idiot, he didn't know how to spell.)

    The story was relevant because this clown went to a ShopRite and wanted a cake with the inscription, "Happy Birthday, Adolf Hitler." The store declined, and it made headlines.

    The good news is that this guy eventually lost custody of his children, who had been growing up in a home filled with swastikas and Nazi memorabilia.

    The MNB reader asked the question: Where do you draw the line?

    Good question.

    Though again, I think it is unfair to compare a man who was responsible for the death of six million Jews, not to mention World War II, with the 4-5 percent of Americans who are members of the LGBT community, who are behaving in a legal manner, seen increasingly as part of the mainstream.

    (There was an AP story earlier this week saying that "corporate support for gay and transgender rights is reaching workers in new corners of the country and economy six months after the U.S. Supreme Court struck down the federal Defense of Marriage Act, according to a new report card from the nation's largest LGBT advocacy group. The Human Rights Campaign found that more than two-thirds of Fortune 500 companies and 90 percent of all large employers it surveyed are offering health insurance and other spousal benefits to same-sex domestic partners of their employees … Wal-Mart Stores Inc., Hormel Foods LLC and Wendy's International Inc. are among the corporations extending the benefits for the first time next year.")

    In the Colorado case, it was about baking a cake.

    I love the suggestion that Jesus would have baked the cake himself.

    It makes me think of my father, who loves the following song:

    God is love.
    And he who abides in love, abides in God.
    And God in him.


    BTW…this is a business story, because as our population becomes more diverse and public attitudes shift, companies may find themselves facing these kinds of issues and making these kinds of decisions.

    People and companies have to behave in a way that they believe is consistent with their values, but they should always do so with the knowledge that those decisions can then become part of the public discourse.

    I love discussions like these not because I like to court controversy and annoy people with whom I disagree on these kinds of issues, but because I love open discussions. They're interesting. They're fun. And I'd like to think that they help folks think about these issues in different ways.
    KC's View:

    Published on: December 12, 2013

    Wholesome Sweeteners is not just for holiday desserts; your customers want them year round! Whether it’s Organic Stevia to shave off those added holiday pounds, Organic Honey for their favorite cup of tea or Organic Sugar for their Valentine’s treats, Wholesome Sweeteners’ Organic and Fairtrade items are in demand.
     
    Sweeten your profitability by adding Wholesome Sweeteners to your stores’ shelves!
     
    Natural and Organic products in the Conventional Channel are driving growth in the Sweeteners category. Sales of organic and natural sweeteners in this group are up by $31 million, despite decline in total Conventional sweetener sales. Wholesome Sweeteners product sales are up 21% in this channel. Your customers are trading up!

    Consumers are casting their vote for a sweeter life by purchasing delicious, safe and ethically sourced sweeteners.
     
    Contact us today to learn more about increasing your category revenue by switching to Wholesome Sweeteners: 1-800-680-1896 or CS@OrganicSugars.biz.

    KC's View: