Thanks to BuzzFeed.
Thanks to BuzzFeed.
Jamba Juice‘s response to McDonald’s getting into their core smoothie business is clever but ultimately futile.
Problem with succeeding at 1. and 2.:
The erosion of franchisee-pioneers’ sales are no laughing matter for Jamba Juice or all the other smoothie-dependent investors.
Equity in business: Who wants to buy you out of your death-struggle with a nearly-unassailable, cultural icon with an almost perfect record of supply management brilliance ?
Barfblog is funny. I think, anyway.
Banks are not required to report fraud occurrences publicly.
Watch the video
News item: January 20, 2010, Maccas EFTPOS scam
An international crime gang is targeting fast food stores in Queensland, stealing EFTPOS terminals and cleaning out accounts.
Quote from a cop:
Happy days for the crook and sad days for the victim.
Other Austrialian news reports:
A McDonald’s spokeswoman remained tight-lipped about how many of its EFTPOS machines had been compromised.
“We can’t discuss any details of the investigation,” she said yesterday.
A security upgrade of McDonald’s EFTPOS terminals across the country had been completed the week before Christmas, she said.
The upgrade followed attacks on McDonald’s outlets in Perth last year.
2. EFTPOS scam reports ‘disturbing': Rudd, Prime Minister Kevin Rudd has described reports of a nationwide credit card skimming scam as “highly disturbing”.
NSW Police say every Australian capital city and some regional centres have been hit by the scam, which has netted more than $50 million in NSW alone.
Six people have been arrested in NSW in relation to the scam, which police say involves criminals committing armed robberies to get hold of EFTPOS machines.
Fraud squad investigators say the criminals have ripped off Australian cardholders for at least $50 million.
NSW Police Strike Force Wigg told the Daily Telegraph that 50 members of an Asian-based criminal gang had been identified as “persons of interest”.
Detectives say the skimmers were mostly operating in all capital cities and in major rural centres.
Andy Dick joins in in this PETA campaign.
I must say.
FranchiseFool broke into North America this story, earlier today: McDonald’s: Lovin’ the Profits while Targetin’ the Poor.
Leaked confidential papers (confirmed by an anonymous franchisee) indicates that McDonald’s will increase their food prices, disproportionally in lower-income communities.
It seems their research shows that the poorer someone is, the less likely they’ll complain or switch to other quick service restaurants.
ABC News reports in Inspectors to watch McDonalds pricing that at least one state government does not appreciate the use of so-called demand-based pricing by the multinational:
The South Australian Government has fast food chain McDonald’s in its sights over news of a new pricing structure.
It says the food chain must reveal whether it plans to raise prices at selected restaurants, especially those in some lower-income areas.
In the accompanying audio clip, SA Consumers Minister Gail Gago is quoted as saying, if the reports are true, McDonald’s is behaving in an “incredibly appalling and disappointing” manner and she suggests consumers may want to communicate directly with McDonald’s on this matter.
In another article, McDonald’s CEO, Catriona Noble seems to be saying that income levels relate to restaurants and not to citizens and that somehow increasing prices, increases consumer choice:
…prices were not based on socio-economic factors but rather on a restaurant-by-restaurant basis, with customer price sensitivity measured at different outlets.
“We really let the customer speak,” she said. “And that’s exactly what customers have the right to do. (They can say) ‘hey, that price increase is too much for me to handle and I’m going to come to you less often.”
I know of no other metric other than mean household income for price sensitivity.
Ms. Noble could have cleared this confusion up by simply stating that household income is not used for marketing purposes by this corporation. But that may have created a certain legal vulnerability.