Current Events in April 2013

You may know that health care in the U.S. is making some big changes as the Affordable Care Act goes into effect next January. But where you get your health care may also be changing.

As many as 30 million people who do not have health coverage are about to get it. Private practices already have full patient loads and fewer new doctors are coming on board to replace those who are retiring.

Many patients, especially those who find they have little time to plan doctor appointments around busy work and home schedules, may turn to the same place they buy their prescriptions for routine health care needs.

Walk-in health clinics are springing up everywhere, often inside a drug store. Three of the major players in retail pharmacies – Walmart, CVS and Walgreens – have walk-in health clinics at select stores. Staffed by a nurse practitioner, these clinics usually treat minor ailments and offer preventive care.

Open seven days a week

In Walmart's case, the clinics are independently owned by medical providers who agree to operate under Walmart's terms. The services have to be provided on a walk-in basis, seven days a week. The treatments must be reasonably priced and, unlike your doctor's office, the fees must be clearly posted.

CVS operates MinuteClinic, a walk-in medical service provided at some stores since 2000. According to CVS, it has some 650 locations in 25 states. CVS says its health care providers have carried out more than 15 million patient visits and boasts of a high customer satisfaction rating.

Walgreens operates Take Care Clinics, located inside select Walgreens stores. It, and its competitors, treat coughs and colds, flu and other routine illnesses. But the scope of care at these walk-in clinics appears to be growing.

Walgreens has just announced that it is going to treat chronic conditions at its more than 350 walk-in clinics. In addition to a runny nose, you can be treated for high blood pressure, elevated cholesterol, asthma and even diabetes. It's possible other walk-in clinics will follow suit as the Affordable Care Act takes effect.

Filling the gap?

“The existing gaps in patient care and demands on an already overburdened health care system are all projected to worsen with an influx of new patients under health care reform,” said Heather Helle, divisional vice president, consumer solutions group, Walgreens. “Walgreens is stepping up to be part of the solution.”

While some patients will continue to find comfort in receiving all their health care needs from their family physician, others undoubtedly will be drawn to the idea of walking into a clinic and receiving treatment, without having to make an appointment. The growth of these clinics, a study suggests, could interfere with the existing relationship between a patient and her primary care provider.

In October 2012, Rand Corporation researchers found mixed evidence on the question. They discovered that the consumers who use retail walk-in clinics are less likely to go back to their family doctor, resulting in a disruption in the continuity of their health care. But they didn't find that necessarily to be a bad thing.

Quality of care

While the patients might see a different provider on each visit, and might be less likely to return to their family doctors as often, the researchers said they didn't find evidence that the walk-in clinic patients got worse care than they would have otherwise.

"The interpretation of our findings depends on one's view about the relative importance of different aspects of primary care," said study author Rachel Reid, of the University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine. "Retail clinics are still in their infancy and over time we may or may not observe a more negative impact of retail clinics on preventive care or continuity of medical care."

The researchers also found the number of these retail health clinics is growing. Last October researchers counted more than 1,300 in the U.S. The growth of these clinics will only increase, they predicted, with the expansion of health care to every person in the U.S.

My company, Brand Keys, is pretty much the worlds expert when it comes to the Martha Stewart brand. This isn'’t braggadocio. It’'s true. It all came about back in 1998. 

At the time we weren’'t focused on the Stewart brand, but the Kmart brand. Back then we (along with most market analysts) observed that Kmart was having difficulties establishing any real brand equity and differentiation and profits in the marketplace.

Competitors like Wal-Mart and Target were putting stress on a Kmart brand structure that pretty much wasn’'t up to code in the first place and, the more we looked for something – -- anything --– that Kmart might leverage in the marketplace, what revealed itself was the Martha Stewart brand. And the fact that the Martha Stewart brand was essentially the only thing bolstering the Kmart brand at that time. That’'s when we started tracking the Stewart brand – which was riding very high, seriously and regularly.

In 2002 Ms. Stewart and her brand ran into their own problems that ultimately led to court and then to a prison term for the human brand. By then we had tracked the brand through its highs, lows, very very lows, and its slow return to a reasonable, albeit weaker, brand and financial health. 

Consumers trusted her

Ms. Stewart was always creative and entrepreneurial and consumers trusted her opinions and vision. When her legal problems hit the front pages of every newspaper in the world, Ms. Stewart characterized it as a personal problem, separate and apart from the brand.

But as Ms. Stewart was the brand, consumers had a hard time separating the two. And, when trust in the human brand eroded, so did trust in the products and service that bore her name, and the company ran into financial difficulties of its own. 

But that'’s marketing history. Today, Ms. Stewart and the brand are alive and well.
In fact, we’'d go so far as to say that “Martha Stewart” has, in the most positive sense, become a “default brand.” By that we mean that it is imbued with enough meaning and enough value to provide more than an adequate foundation for virtually any product or service that would avail themselves of the name. 

And with a default brand it'’s easier and more profitable for retailers to rely upon and/or franchise the “Martha Stewart” name than to try and establish a new brand or leverage a store brand for precisely the same products or services. That is, after all the raison d’'etre of brand --– to act as a surrogate for added-value and differentiation, either for the product or the retailer, or both, depending upon the circumstances. All this came to mind as the new lawsuit regarding Ms. Stewart seems to be coming to a head. 

Macy’'s has accused J.C. Penney of entering into an illegal licensing agreement with Stewart'’s company and wants J.C. Penney stopped from selling a line of Stewart-designed home goods like linens and kitchenware and bath products, which have already been manufactured and are wending their way to J.C. Penney shelves as you read this. Now if the case goes against them, J.C. Penney will have to come up with substitutes for those products. And those substitutes would have to be sold under J.C. Penney store private labels. 

Which brings us back to the issue of brands and added-value. Which would you pay more for -- a Martha Stewart set of bedding, or a JCP Home set of bedding? But it'’s also been reported that, trying to circumvent any previous licensing agreements with Macy'’s, J.C. Penney has kept the Stewart name off most of the products and those will be sold under the aegis of JCP Everyday.

So how would you know that it’s actually something from Martha Stewart? Doesn’'t the label count for something? Given two sets of 400-thread count sheets available in a palate of spring colors, would you be able to identify which set had been “designed” by Martha Stewart? And if you couldn'’t, would it matter?

It was Mark Twain who noted, “He goes by the brand, yet imagines he goes by the flavor.” What flavors do you think Martha Stewart comes in?

---

Robert Passikoff is President of Brand Keys, a research consultancy.

“In America, it’s all about work.” That’s what a relative of mine said who had the chance to live in both Central America and the United States.

He was explaining to me the main differences about how people live and work outside of the States. He said when he lived in America, he didn’t even think about taking time off of work, because it was all about finishing a project, creating new ones to make strides in his company and spending a lot of time thinking about bills and upward mobility.

But in Panama, he said, more importance was placed on other things like family, being away from work and enjoying the life that work provides.

Sure, folks still worked hard to reach whatever goals they’d set for themselves, but the balancing act of work and home life were done way better, and he thought that in the States a lot of people either didn’t want balance or they didn't know how to acheive it.

My cousin said he felt guilty when he took off from work when living in the U.S., but in Panama he felt guilty if he worked too much, which was a huge difference. 

Well, recent studies by American Express and the Bureau of Labor Statistics  confirm that huge difference in work styles my cousin was talking about, as Americans only take 12 vacation days out of the year, compared to people in Spain, Denmark, Brazil and France who take 30 vacation days a year.

It's a challenge

Experts point out two main reasons that make work-life balance so challenging for Americans.

First, U.S. companies offer employees are far fewer vacation days compared to some other countries. In Brazil and Denmark workers get 30 days off a year. Employers don't necessarily think they're being generous, they think 30 days off is what's needed so people can stay productive, happy and engaged in their work and personal lives.

Another reason Americans are taking fewer vacation days is that many are struggling with being able to pull themselves away from work. A separate report shows that 56% of working moms said it’s “very” or “somewhat” difficult to balance their work and their personal lives, and as a result one area of life doesn’t get the attention it needs much of the time.

“Stress and work life balance issues are just as challenging for fathers as they are for mothers,” said Kim Parker of the Pew Foundation’s Social and Demographic Trends Project in a published interview. “We found that an equal share of [dads] said they were having a hard time balancing work and family life as moms did.”

Teresa Taylor, who wrote the book “The Balance Myth: Rethinking Work-Life Success," told Forbes that putting your home life over your work life is the best thing you can do to achieve proper balance, and being all the way present, no matter where you are in your day, is essential.

Be there

“Stay in the moment,” she said.

“When you’re at work in a meeting, be there. When you’re at home, be there. If you’re in a business meeting, don’t be wishing to be somewhere else. Be present where you are, and don’t feel guilty.

“If there is something wrong at home, you need to work it out. It will always be nagging at you at the office. At the end of the day, work is work. You might change jobs, companies; you may not even work at all. But your cornerstone is your home life. It’s a grounding point you can always come back to,” said Taylor.

In addition, the American Express report shows that out of the 140 million Americans who took summer vacation in 2012, two thirds chose to stay home during their break, making "staycations" a pretty popular way of taking time off.

The average cost of going on a vacation and remaining in the States is $1,180, according to the report and an average gas price of $3.38 per gallon in 2012 was a significant reason people chose to stay put this year.

And of the people who will actually take a vacation in 2013, 44% said they would reconsider if gas prices go up over the summer, as finances seem to be a big reason why people aren’t traveling.

Staycations

The report finds that over 60% of people will have a "staycation" to save money, 48% said staying at home during a vacation is just “less hassle” and 47% said they don’t travel during vacations, because they’re able to have “more quality time” with their families--which can be true, because we all know certain vacations that include flying, renting cars and a lot of walking can be more of a job than your 9 to 5 is.

But actually taking the necessary time out from work is crucial for reprioritizing all of your responsibilities and if you don’t do that, you’ll always be creating new tasks for yourself, since you’ll always be in work mode, and that happens all the time, says Taylor.

She says people need to do a better job of letting go of certain tasks.

“Some things are not going to happen,” she says. “But there are usually multiple ways to get things done, if you just pause to think about it. Can you do it differently? Can you task it out to someone else? Does this really need to get done at all? Sometimes we create work for ourselves.”

“My biggest pet peeve is people who create reports,” adds Taylor. “I tell people, ‘Try not creating it this week and see if anyone calls you.’”

Those little liquid laundry packets or capsules are really convenient. No measuring -- just toss one into the washing machine and the washer does the rest.

But if you have small children around, you have to be careful.

Kids have swallowed the detergent in the packets with some serious consequences including loss of consciousness, throat swelling, and difficulty breathing. Those who get it in their eyes have suffered severe irritation and temporary loss of vision.

In fact, the hazard is serious enough that both the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission (CSPC) and the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC) are alerting parents to take precautions.

“A product intended to make your clothes clean and bright should not lead to a parent having to call the poison help line because their child is in distress,” said CPSC Chairman Inez Tenenbaum. “CPSC has played a leading role in addressing this emerging hazard. We are conducting an investigation, we are educating consumers, and we are urging that changes be made that will reduce incidents and injuries.”

“Poison call centers across Australia have received more than 85 calls in the last 18 months relating to exposure to these laundry capsules,” said ACCC Deputy Chair Delia Rickard. “The experience in Australia is consistent with an international trend, where most cases have involved a child aged five years or younger.”

You can read more about how both agencies are dealing with the problem on the CPSC website.

There's nothing quite like knocking it out of the park on your first time at bat.  That's what Virgin America Airlines has accomplished, taking first place in the latest national Airline Quality Rating, released today. United was last. 

Although passengers are still grumpy and complaining more than ever, overall airline performance in 2012 was the second highest in the 23 years that researchers from Wichita State and Pursdue have conducted the study. Overall, seven airlines improved and five declined in 2012.

Here's the complete report for 2012, with the previous year's rating showed in parenthesis. 

1. Virgin America (new to the ranking this year)
2. JetBlue (3)
3. AirTran (1)
4. Delta (6)
5. Hawaiian (2)
6. Alaska (5)
7. Frontier (4)
8. Southwest (7)
9. US Airways (8)
10. American (10)
11. American Eagle (15)
12. SkyWest (9)
13. ExpressJet (not rated in 2011)
14. United (12)Business is too good?

Although on-time performance and bag handling improved in 2012, denied boardings and the customer complaint rates were higher for the year. Researchers say that's partly the result of improving business and high passenger loads. Crowded planes, in other words.

"When you look at the past 13 years, you find that the airline industry performs most efficiently when the system isn't stressed by high passenger volume and high number of airplanes in the air. Every time there are more planes in the sky and more people flying, airline performance suffers," said Headley. Dean Headley, associate professor of marketing at the W. Frank Barton School of Business at Wichita State University.

The challenge is whether airline performance quality improvements can be maintained as more people choose to fly. Or does the infrastructure and air traffic control technology limit what the airlines can do?

Hawaiian Airlines had the best on-time performance (93.4 percent) for 2012, and ExpressJet and American had the worst (76.9 percent).

JetBlue had the lowest involuntary denied boardings at 0.01 per 10,000 passengers. SkyWest had the highest involuntary denied boarding rate at 2.32 per 10,000 passengers.

Virgin America had the best baggage handling rate (0.87 mishandled bags per 1,000 passengers) of all airlines, and American Eagle had the worst baggage handling rate (5.80 mishandled bags per 1,000 passengers) of all the airlines.

Southwest again had the lowest consumer complaint rate (0.25 per 100,000 passengers) of all airlines. United had the highest consumer complaint rate (4.24 per 100,000 passengers) of all airlines rated.

The majority of complaints were for flight problems (32.7 percent), reservations, ticketing and boarding (14.6 percent), customer service (14.3 percent) and baggage (12.4 percent).

It's pretty well established that chocolate, especially dark chocolate, has health benefits. The problem is that chocolate is loaded with fat. 

But now British scientists have come up with a way to cut the fat content by adding tiny droplets of apple, orange and cranberry juice, using it to replace about half the fat.

The only potential problem is that it makes the chocolate taste kind of, well, fruity. That might not be a bad thing, depending on your individual tastes, but it might be offputting to some. The researchers are hoping they can use the same technique to substitute water and vitamin C for the fruit juice

The technique was developed by researchers at the University of Warwick and presented at a meeting of the American Chemical Society in New Orleans.

Bon said he and his team are hoping candy companies will use the discovery to start making healthier, lower-fat chocolate. 
"Everyone loves chocolate, but unfortunately we all know that many chocolate bars are high in fat," said lead researcher Dr. Stefan Bon. "However it's the fat that gives chocolate all the indulgent sensations that people crave -- the silky smooth texture and the way it melts in the mouth but still has a 'snap' to it when you break it with your hand."

Currently, a two-ounce serving of dark chocolate may contain up to 13 grams of fat, about 20% of the daily recommended fat intake. There's also a lot of sugar in chocolate but the saving grace for chocolate is that it's rich in healthful plant-based substances known as antioxidants or flavonoids.

Bon's breakthrough is a good start. Now if someone can figure out to get rid of all that sugar ...

You would think that with all the news stories about traffic accidents due to driver cell phone use and texting that people would finally figure out that it's not a particularly good idea. That doesn't seem to be happening.

According to the 2011 National Occupant Protection Use Survey (NOPUS), approximately 660,000 drivers are using cell phones or some kind of electronic device while driving -- about the same as in 2010.

Separate NHTSA data show more than 3,300 people were killed in 2011 and 387,000 were injured in crashes involving a distracted driver.

A recent study published by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) found that most U.S. drivers say they talk on their cell phones and smartphones while driving, even though it isn't very smart. And a third of them also admit to texting while driving.

That's a higher figure than in comparable countries. CDC researchers found that 69 percent of U.S. drivers talked on their cell phone while driving within the 30 days before they were surveyed compared to 21 percent of drivers from the United Kingdom. The study also found that 31 percent of drivers in the United States reported that they had read or sent text messages or emails while driving, compared  to 15 percent of drivers in Spain.

“Distracted driving is a serious and deadly epidemic on America’s roadways,” said U.S. Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood. “There is no way to text and drive safely. Powering down your cell phone when you’re behind the wheel can save lives -- maybe even your own.”

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration website has more on the survey.

With memories of last summer's drought and the economic cost to farmers and consumers still vivid, the U.S Department of Agriculture (USDA) is making millions of dollars available to states that were hit particularly hard.

Issues to be addressed by the $5.3 million in Conservation Innovation Grants include grazing management, warm season forage systems, irrigation strategies and innovative cropping systems.

"USDA is working diligently to help American farmers and ranchers rebound from last year's drought and prepare for future times of climatic extremes," said Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack. "Conservation Innovation Grants are an excellent way to invest in new technology and approaches that will help our farmers, ranchers and rural communities be more resilient in the future."

Just last week, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration said its long-term forecast calls for continued drought in the Great Plains and Southwest, warmer than average temperatures nationwide and a high potential for floods.

The agency’s “U.S. Spring Outlook” is based on “current conditions of snowpack, drought, soil moisture, stream flow, precipitation, Pacific Ocean temperatures and consensus among climate forecast models,” among other things.

The continued drought is bad news not only for farmers but also for consumers, as it is likely to once again drive food prices higher, as happened last summer.

Details of the program are available on the USDA website.

When it comes to the discussion of drug use in the United States, the conversation can go in about a million different ways all at the same time.

First, there are some people in the discussion who tend to put all illegal drugs in the same category, and make the point that the war on drugs doesn’t only need to continue, it needs to be stepped up.

Then you have those in the conversation who see a need for a completely new outlook on certain drugs, specifically marijuana, and according to the Pew Research Center, the majority (52%) of U.S. residents believe marijuana should be legal, which is the highest percentage of people sharing that belief in 40 years.

As has happened recently with gay marriage, public opinion seems to have reached a "tipping point," and, after years of slow change, now appears to be moving rapidly.

Time to catch up?

The research is providing added ammunition to proponents of legalized marijuana.

In fact, it does seem the tide is changing in the favor of those who support legal marijuana use, as there are currently 14 U.S. states that have lowered the penalty for a person carrying small amounts.

In Rhode Island, for example, officials have decriminalized amounts that seem to be for personal use, so someone carrying less than an ounce of marijuana will be subject to a $150 ticket with no jail time.

John G. Edwards, a Rhode Island state representative, feels that decriminalizing small amounts of pot is a move towards a sensible solution to the nation’s drug problem.

“I am very proud that Rhode Island will be able to begin a new chapter in sensible drug policy today,” said Edwards in a press conference.

“As I have said many times before, I firmly believe that people should be able to work, volunteer and live their lives after being caught for a youthful indiscretion or two. What we have been able to do with this law is effectively punish those in possession of small quantities of marijuana while giving people opportunities to redeem themselves by allowing them to be productive members of society.”

Throwing kids in jail

And as far as teen marijuana use is concerned, Sen. Josh Mille of Rhode Island—like other state officials on his side of the argument—says proper education instead of throwing kids in jail may be the right move to get them to stop or at least remove the forbidden fruit aspects of smoking the controversial green stuff.

“It’s clear from what we’ve been able to glean from the Special Senate Commission to study the prohibition of marijuana that education and treatment are better for addressing teen marijuana use than incarceration,” he said.

“We’re also saving money by keeping people out of jail for minor marijuana infractions and putting money where it can best serve our communities: drug education programs for young violators.”

Surf's not up everywhere

However, a bill in Hawaii over the decriminalization of marijuana didn’t go quite the same way. State lawmakers there defeated a bill that would have followed in the footsteps of places like Rhode Island.

Those concerned about decriminalizing pot in the Aloha State, like former Congressman Patrick Kennedy, say lightening marijuana laws will only increase people’s dependence on it.

“Hawaii’s rates of marijuana use are significantly higher than in the rest of the country,” said Kennedy, chairman of SAM (Smart Approaches to Marijuana), an organization that considers itself bipartisan in the marijuana debate.

SAM wants the U.S. to shift towards laws that will neither criminalize low-level users, nor create policies that will increase people’s dependence on marijuana.

“Fewer kids in Hawaii think smoking marijuana is harmful compared to kids in the United States as a whole," added Kennedy. "I have seen firsthand the debilitating effects of marijuana addiction. It’s more than just the addict, it’s the families who suffer too.”

Advocates of legalizing marijuana note that the Pew Research survey does not support Kennedy's position.

Obviously the debate on marijuana use will continue, as more states are tweaking some of their laws, some aren’t changing them at all, and others like New Hampshire are considering legal recreational use, so the conversation is likely to go in a million more places before all is said and done.

In Vermont, Attorney General Bill Sorrel said he’s in favor of the decriminalization of marijuana, and says it’ll lower those crimes that are attached to people seeking out dealers.  Sorrel even said he’s in favor of Vermont residents growing their own marijuana plants for the same reason.

“This might be a surprise to some,” he said in a hearing held by the House Judiciary Committee.

“But the reality is possession of small amounts of marijuana has in effect been decriminalized for quite some time in this state. If you take away the ability to grow your own, you’re pushing someone who wants to possess and use marijuana into the marketplace of having to deal with marijuana dealers. And is that the behavior you essentially want to require and foster?”

It’ll be interesting to see where the nation is on marijuana laws at the close of this year. It’s likely that states as well as public opinion will be split for a long time to come.

First, it was tobacco. Decades ago, the U.S. Surgeon General issued a report documenting the health risks associated with smoking. Slowly but surely, laws were passed and regulations were issued, discouraging and taxing smoking. 

But the tobacco industry fought back. It commissioned its own studies, which not surprisingly found that smoking wasn't all that bad. It worked to present smoking as an individual decision and encouraged smokers to resist government intrusion. It also opened a lobbying and public relations office in Washington, hoping to sway lawmakers, regulators and the press. Years later, most would say it was more successful than anyone had dared hope: Americans still smoke.

The process -- generously funded and meticulously research-driven -- became the blueprint for how an industry under siege should respond. It is hilariously described in Christopher Buckley's novel, "Thank You For Smoking," which was to the Washington communications game what "Mad Men" is to advertising. 

The process has since been adopted by interests as diverse as veal packers and the cell phone industry, as they fight back against allegations ranging from animal cruelty to a possible link between cell phones and cancer.

Now it is sugar's turn.

Everyone from Mayor Bloomberg to such tenacious, science-based health advocates as the Center for Science in the Public Interest have been lambasting sugar as the cause of the nation's epidemic of obesity, diabetes, heart disease and other assorted ills.

Battle plan

Now girding its loins for battle, the National Confectioners Association is reportedly talking with leading Washington, D.C., communications firms, preparing to pick one to devise and implement its strategy.

Advertising Age reports the confectioners have an initial budget of about $2 million. This might sound like a lot of money for some chubby little candy men to put together but these confectioners are not the mom-and-pop bodega on the corner. They are Mars, Nestle, Hershey and Mondelez, global giants whose corporate revenues dwarf the national budget of many countries.

Over at Advertising Age, they seem to think this is a big budget, referring to it as "sizeable for a PR assignment," thus betraying once again the ad business' myopic view that anything that is not advertising doesn't amount to much of anything.

In fact, a fully integrated strategic campaign on a topic this volatile -- and this vital to a huge and well-heeled industry -- needs to include everything from lavishly-funded research to social media campaigns to traditional media outreach and, most important, to a "grass-tops" organizing effort that brings together parents, educators, healthcare professionals and lawmakers to do the industry's bidding and give it a sheen of respectability.

Read the tea leaves

Such an effort, understood by Chris Buckley but seemingly no one else, organizes an industry's enemies and essentially co-opts them. Those who can truly read the tea leaves in Washington know that "Mothers for Sparkling Clean Water" is probably backed by the arsenic industry while "Citizens for Absolutely Ferocious Competition" would probably be backed by AT&T and Verizon. 

Already, the confectioners have a campaign called "Treat Right," which encourages candymakers to put calorie counts on the front of their wrappers, thus allowing them to don the cloak of health advocate. 

Prominent figures will be recruited for the campaign, many of them out-of-work politicians, former ambassadors, retired educators and doctors whose Aspen ski condo is beginning to feel a bit cramped. It's not easy to recruit these people but having a big checkbook helps.

Actual conversation with a "retired" (i.e., defeated) politician from my checkered past:

Politico: "God bless you son, you're doing the Lord's work here and I wish I could help you but I'm completely over-committed already."

Me: "Well, we are in a position to offer an appropriate honorarium."

Politico: "Oh well, let me see here. Maybe I could work it in ..."

Not small change

As becomes quickly evident, this will not be a small or short-term campaign. It will go on for years until, in the immortal words of Bill Clinton, "the last dog dies." Children will be put through high school and college on this campaign. Sailboats and Porsches will be christened and lovingly maintained. McLean homes will be abandoned for finer digs in Great Falls.

While there may be one or more public organizations created as part of the campaign -- Doctors for Healthy Kids, let's say -- the real work will be performed in the skunkworks, offices secreted in marble and teak splendor somewhere along K Street. 

So if, in a year or two, you hear someone prominent suggesting that candy makers really have children's best interests at heart, you will know that Operation Candyman is up and running and doing tricks for its masters.

---

(Disclosure: I labored in the D.C. vineyards for years designing and implementing strategies similar to those described here on behalf of major industry groups. Some would say my work at ConsumerAffairs is my penance. I do not have a sailboat).

Gone are the days when you would call a hotel's toll-free number to make a reservation, or call an airline's reservation center to book a flight. It's still possible to do it, but it's easier to do it online and, truth be told, the airlines and hotels would prefer you do it that way.

And along with online booking, there are more choices. Third-party booking sites promise to get you deep discounts on hotel rooms. Priceline.com lets you bid for unsold airline seats and hotel rooms by “naming your own price.”

But when booking travel online, it's important that you know whether you are dealing directly with the hotel or airline or with a third-party site. Sometimes it is hard to tell, especially if you are using a search engine. You can end up at a third party site while thinking you are booking through the hotel's website.

Fred, of San Diego, Calif., recently alerted us to a problem he found when booking with Priceline. You know what the room will cost but often there are extras. In Fred's case there were a lot of extras.

“They do warn you that the hotel may charge extra for items such as parking and Internet, but because a bidder doesn't know the cost of the extras, the ultimate cost may be no deal at all--just what you might have paid anyway had you gone directly to the hotel and may often be quite a bit more even though your bid seems to be a great deal,” Fred wrote in a ConsumerAffairs post.

Fred says he got a good deal on a hotel in Washington, D.C., but ended up paying $40 a day for parking. The hotel charged $20 a day for Internet. All told, not such a good deal.

Be mindful of security checks

In this era of heightened security, booking online gets closer scrutiny. Don, of Hazel Park, Mich., writes that he purchased an airline ticket for a colleague through Travelocity, using his American Express Card.

“They accepted my purchase and issued an E-Ticket which was sent to my browser, my email and to the colleague's email address,” Don writes.

So far, so good. But Don says 30 hours later, while he was out, the transaction tripped a security red flag, because he had purchased the ticket for someone else. They called his home.

“When I did not answer their call, they cancelled the tickets with no warning, and a terse email explaining that they had cancelled this ticket,” Don writes.

Don was able to rebook the flight in time, but was completely unaware that his innocent act of purchasing the airline ticket for his friend would set off alarm bells.

“Nowhere on any of the previous ticket was there any warning that they would call for confirmation, nor did they warn me that they could still cancel the ticket,” Don writes. “It was to me an obvious poor business practice with my money.”

Take-home lesson

The lesson for consumers is this; you can purchase a ticket for a third party but be available to explain it if the airline, booking agent or credit card company questions it.

Ravi, of Hayward, Calif., booked a room at Budget Inn through Hotels.com but says, when he showed up the hotel manager told him the hotel was sold out.

“How does Hotels.comallow the reservation then?” Ravi asked. “We called Hotels.com to refund our money and they refused!”

There could be more to this story but this isn't the first time we've heard from travelers about a mix-up when they used a third-party travel site. There seems to be a better chance of avoiding these costly snafus when you deal directly with the hotel's website.

Many people use third-party sites in the belief that they'll save money. In many cases they might, but as Fred and Ravi will attest, you don't always.

Major hotels now will usually offer some kind of discount if you pay in advance for a non-refundable room, just as you do with third-party sites. For example, we checked Hilton Indianapolis Hotel & Suites and found the fully changeable and refundable nightly rate was $249. However, the same room costs just $219 if you pay in advance for a non-refundable reservation.

That's what you agree to when you use a third-party site to book your reservation and sometimes the discount may be greater, but not always. Getting a smaller discount might end up being a better deal, and give you more peace of mind if you do your online booking directly with the hotel.

A ruling by the Massachusetts Supreme Court is the latest obstacle to the commonplace practice of retailers asking consumers for their Zip codes at check-out.

In a case against Michaels Stores, the court ruled that Zip codes are personally-identifiable information. Similar rulings in California and elsewhere may soon make retailers think twice about the practice, since this could easily be the first of an endless series of expensive lawsuits filed by consumers.

The court's ruling came in a class action case on behalf of plaintiff Melissa Tyler, who charged that by collecting her Zip code when she paid with a credit card, the crafts store was violating a state law that prohibits merchants from requiring personal information when paying with a credit card.

Consumers and privacy advocates have recently become energized about the widespread practice, which many had previously assumed was part of the credit card authorization process. In fact, it is usually a market research effort.

By getting the consumer's Zip code and combining it with the name, credit card and purchase data from a single transaction, a retailer or database marketer can in many cases find the consumer's address and phone number and, often, a wealth of other information that is already in the massive marketing databases that retailers both subscribe and sell to.

In many cases, the retailers are actually being paid for the data they gather from their customers.

Online merchants, of course, already gather all this information. It's pretty hard to ship a package with having the Zip code, after all.

Attended vs. Unattended

It's no secret that a lot of consumer complaints have to do with the way customers feel they are treated when they call a company to resolve a problem. Often, the problem gets worse and the consumer takes it out on the customer service rep.

When that happens, it almost never ends well for the consumer, who is not only angry and upset, but has not resolved the problem they were calling about in the first place. Erika, of Richmond, Va., complained about Travelocity's customer service agents when she tried to change a flight that had been canceled.

“The first line customer service reps were all rude and either hung up on us or transferred us to someone else before listening to what we had to say,” Erika reports. “I finally reached the supervisor in customer service, and although he was nice, he could not answer my questions and kept reverting back to the script.”

Then there is Amy, of Chesterfield, Mich., frustrated that Ally Bank could not more quickly release the title to her Jeep she had just paid off.

“I called over 16 times and every time, I got a different answer and excuse as to why I can't get a lien release,” Amy wrote in a ConsumerAffairs post. “I was promised a lien release fax to the dealership that bought my Jeep multiple times but it never came through. When I followed up with yet another phone call, I was provided another excuse and then another promise that the fax is on the way. The customer service people don't tell you the truth and every single person you speak to will tell you something different and none of it will be accurate.”

An objective view

These and other consumers are quick to suggest that customer service representatives are both rude and unhelpful but let's step back and view these encounters objectively. It's very possible that consumers are pretty worked up when they call, or get that way after waiting on hold.

It's also very possible that the customer service rep has just gotten off the line with another angry customer, and maybe a few more before that. In fact, that could be what their entire day is like.

The radio in the new car was set for Sirius, and though the two services are owned by one company, the hardware is incompatible. XM radios work for XM, Sirius radio for Sirius – at least that was how it was explained to me.

It looked like I was going to have to buy a new car radio that would receive XM, though I was more than happy to get Sirius, since both services are pretty much the same. I really didn't care. The customer service rep really didn't know how to resolve the issue but at least she was trying.

Help from a furry friend

At about that time our cat wandered in and started crying, her signal that she wanted to go outside. I asked the rep if she would excuse me for a moment while I let the cat out.

“You have a cat?” she asked. “What kind?”

It turned out my customer service rep was a cat lady, having three of them at home. Suddenly I saw my way to her heart. We started talking cats. It was like we were best friends, all of a sudden.

“I know what we can do,” the rep finally said. “We'll put in a cancellation order for your XM account and activate a new Sirius account for you.”

In minutes it was done. This is not to suggest that every customer service encounter can be improved by a discussion of cats, but when a consumer can relate to a customer service rep as a human being their chances of getting the assistance they need probably will improve.

What not to say

Demanding to speak to a supervisor is almost always a bad idea. When you do that you are telling the person most able to help you, if they so choose, that you're done with them.

Like it or not, customer service reps hold your fate in their hands. They can either help you or put the screws to you. In many cases, you attitude can influence which way they'll go.

Instead of griping about the long hold time when the rep picks up, try something like “wow, it must be really crazy there today.” Being pleasant and empathetic will certainly set you apart from the last angry consumer they just hung up on.

As for my Sirius XM customer service rep, I continue to believe her suggested fix was somewhat unique and rare that she came up with for a fellow cat person. That's because the company clearly doesn't understand it. Every few months I get a communication from XM, pleading with me to come back. They seem totally oblivious to the fact that I haven't gone anywhere, but am now subscribing to Sirius.

Among your average circle of guy friends—around the time everyone hits their late-20s, mid-30s—a noticeable divide begins to take place within the group.

A portion of your buddies will remain as you’ve always known them—single, free-spirited and experts at dodging any real commitment in a relationship.

But the other half of your group will start to change, slowly, without you even knowing it, because one day you’re going to their house and you’re greeted with loud music, a messy apartment and utter bachelordom and the next time you visit, the loud music is off, the untidy apartment is cleaned and their single status has evaporated only to be replaced by a new girlfriend.

And it’s a serious girlfriend too. One he’s now living with, which in many cases signifies the beginning of the end for that circle of guy friends, who stayed out late, didn’t have to check in with anyone and navigated their days in more carefree fashion.

I mean, the guy circle may not be totally broken, because you’ll probably still see each other from time to time, but things will never be the same.

Piling on pounds

Another change that happens to some guys in a circle of friends, once they're in a new relationship, is they’ll start to put on weight, which is most times a clear sign of improved living, since many guys go from pizza dinners in front of the Laker game, to having actual meals on an actual tables, with vegetables even. And several times a day at that.

Clearly, there’s something about being in a relationship and living with a woman that adds a higher level of quality to a guy’s life sometimes, since many women tend to master the art of good living far earlier than guys do, which is probably related to the whole women mature earlier than men thing.

And according to a new study released by an assistant professor at Southern Methodist University in Dallas, cohabitation—particularly through marriage—can cause spouses to gain weight and open themselves up to new health risks, which dispels the common belief that married couples are generally healthier than single people.

Andrea L. Meltzer, who led the study, attributed the weight gain and the potential drop in health to happy newlyweds, suggesting that a blissful union often includes blissful meals and many times a person’s level of contentment in a relationship has a lot to do with how comfortable their home life is, and that feeling of comfort is often attached to a lot of good food.

“On average, spouses who were more satisfied with their marriage were less likely to consider leaving their marriage, and they gained more weight over time,” said Meltzer. “In contrast, couples who were less satisfied in their relationship tended to gain less weight over time.”

Physical appearance

In addition, Meltzer says that many times, satisfied married couples aren’t as concerned with their physical appearance—since they’re not looking for anyone else—which leads to not only weight gain but an overall drop in their concern for healthy living and daily exercise.

And although married couples tend to encourage each other to do things like take medications on time and keep up with doctor visits, their personal health choices at home aren’t that great.

Again, Meltzer says this is due to marital satisfaction, which is different from unhappy couples who may ponder leaving a marriage. These types of couples are more likely to stay fit and be more mindful of not gaining weight, just in case they meet somebody else, say researchers.

“So these findings suggest that people perhaps are thinking about their weight in terms of appearance rather than health,” said Meltzer, which can certainly lead to a bunch of problems for both people in the relationship down the marital road.

“We know that weight gain can be associated with a variety of negative health consequences, for example diabetes and cardiovascular disease,” Meltzer noted. “By focusing more on weight in terms of health implications as opposed to appearance implications, satisfied couples may be able to avoid potentially unhealthy weight gain over time in their marriage,” she said.

Meltzer and her team learned of these findings in a four-year study that included 169 happy married couples, all newlyweds and married for the first time.

Extra effort needed

The results of the study suggest that newly-married couples, as well as couples who’ve been married for a long time, should put a little extra effort in trying to stay healthy, because as many of us know, there’s a fine line between marital comfort and inactivity, and that same line exists between relaxing at home with your partner and piling on the food.

And for those people who aren’t married and are merely living together, these findings can certainly apply to you too, because being comfortable in a relationship and not recognizing that you’re gaining weight could easily happen while you’re cohabiting before marriage, especially since more and more people are doing it these days. 

According to the CDC, 48% of women between the years of 2006 and 2010 said they lived with their mate before marriage, compared to 34% who said the same thing in 1995.

Additionally, 40% of those women between 2006 and 2010 said they were married within three years of moving in with their mate, 32% said their relationship remained strong and 27% said their relationships ended.

In addition, 20% of women who said they lived with their partner before marriage became pregnant within the first year, which certainly adds even more change to that circle of guy friends you’ve grown to love, because kids change things up immediately.

And there’s no doubt that women experience that same shift in their group of friends too—probably in more dramatic fashion—but either way most would say moving in with someone, getting married and having a baby are just parts of growing up.

And even if you decide not to do those things, your life is going to change anyway, because late nights, fast-food and fast relationships can only take you so far, and after that, it doesn’t become just a fun period in your 20-something life, it becomes a permanent lifestyle.

We're living longer -- no doubt about that. But it comes with a cost, especially when you consider mental health.

Researchers say the costs of caring for people with dementia in the United States ran as high as $215 billion in 2010 and -- with the increase in the elderly population in the years ahead -- is likely to rise even more.

In comparison, in the same year it cost $102 billion to care for those with heart disease$77 billion for cancer care.

You can find more information at the website of the National Institutes of Health.

The nation's economy added a tepid 88,000 jobs in March, falling well below the expectations of economists. At the same time, the jobless rate inched lower.

Figures released by the Labor Department show job creation plunged from the 268,000 non-farm positions added the month before and missed by a huge margin the forecast of 185,000 new jobs from Briefing.com.

While the jobless rate slipped to 7.7% from the February reading of 7.8%, the government reports the civilian labor force declined by 496,000.

The full unemployment report for March can be seen at the Bureeau of Labor Statistics website. 

Little Mermaid Smoke House is recalling smoked herring and pickled herring fish because the products were found to be uneviscerated, and have the potential to be contaminated with Clostridium botulinum, a bacterium which can cause life-threatening illness or death.

Consumers are warned not to use the product even if it does not look or smell spoiled.

Botulism, a potentially fatal form of food poisoning, can cause the following symptoms: general weakness, dizziness, double-vision and trouble with speaking or swallowing. Difficulty in breathing, weakness of other muscles, abdominal distension and constipation may also be common symptoms.

No illnesses have been reported to date.

The following products are recalled:

• Little Mermaid Smoked Herring fish Sold prior to 04/04/2013
• Little Mermaid Pickled Herring fish Sold prior to 04/04/2013

The recalled products were manufactured by Little Mermaid Smoke House and distributed in California. They are sold as whole fish, packaged in vacuum sealed packaging, and labeled “Little Mermaid Smoke House” which varies in weight and size. There are no codes listed on the products. The recall includes products sold prior to 04/03/2013.

Products were found to be uneviscerated during an inspection by the Food and Drug Administration.

Consumers who have purchased the product should return it to the place of purchase or discard for a full refund.

Consumers with questions may contact the company Little Mermaid Smoke House at (818)764-0005 Monday-Friday 9:00am to 4:00pm, Pacific Time Zone.

Dynacraft BSC of American Canyon, Calif., is recalling about 8,900 Urban Shredder ride-on toys.

The toys can unexpectedly accelerate and cause the rider to lose control, posing a fall hazard. The company has received 17 reports of the Urban Shredder toys accelerating. No injuries have been reported.

This recall involves battery-operated Hot Wheels branded Urban Shredder ride-on toys. The toys were sold in green and black (Model Nos. 8801-05 and 8801-05com) or red and black (Model No. 8801-15) and have Hot Wheels graphics. Recalled models were manufactured on September 15, 2012, October 15, 2012, or December 1, 2012. Model number 8801-15 or 8801-05 or 8801-05com and the date of manufacture, formatted as “YYYY/MM/DD,” are printed on a data label on the underside of the Urban Shredder. The serial number can be found etched or printed on the underside of the Urban Shredder near the data label. Serial numbers included in the recall have:

• letters “CT-EEI” followed by a six-digit number in the range of 000001 through 003075 and 010759 through 011075;
• letters “CT-EEJ” followed by a six digit number in the range of 003076 through 010758;
• letters “CT-CEJ” followed by a six digit number in the range of 003000 through 005000.

The toys, manufactured in China, were sold at Target, Toys R Us and Walmart stores and online at Amazon.com, Target.com, ToysRUs.com and Walmart.com from November 2012 to February 2013 for between $270 and $350.

Consumers should immediately stop using the recalled toy, disconnect the battery and return the shredder to the store where purchased for a refund or store credit.

Consumers may contact Dynacraft at (800) 551-0032 from 7 a.m. to 4 p.m. PT Monday through Friday.

There are many ways a couple can choose to get married. It really all depends on how big or small they want the festivities to be, how many people they would like to attend and how much money they can spend.

Of course a couple can go the city hall route and exchange vows with no one or very few people around or they can go more traditional and plan a big ceremony with friends, families, the spacious church, and everything else that makes a lot of weddings such grandiose occasions.

Destination weddings can be extremely exciting and a nice departure from the customary, whether you have it at an all-inclusive hotel or decide to exchange vows in an exotic setting, like on a moonlit beach or under a hilltop gazebo.

Real world? Who needs it?

Or you can just skip all that real-world stuff and do it on the Internet. As unconventional as that may sound, more and more couples are grabbing their laptops, opening up their web browsers and professing their lifelong commitment through a computer screen.

The online wedding industry has become big business as of late, although you have to be in the right place to make it happen. Only five states -- California, Montana, Texas, Colorado and Alabama -- allow proxy weddings to be performed, meaning that one of the partners must be physically present in one of those states. However, all U.S. states and territories recognize proxy weddings once they have been performed and consummated.

At the moment, the vast majority of proxy weddings involve members of the military, which has been quick to recognize the benefits to its personnel. 

If either the bride or groom is in the military, the couple can immediately start to take advantage of marital military benefits through the DEER system, which is a database that distributes benefits once the proxy wedding is complete.

One of the more established companies to help with online proxy weddings is S&B Inc., which specializes in helping military couples pull off virtual weddings, so they can do things like start living together on the military base right away.

The price to for the entire proxy marriage through S&B is $950 and it only takes three weeks after sending in your paperwork for the actual wedding to take place, so couples can get married pretty quickly if they choose. S&B performs all of its marriages in Colorado, so one person will have to make a quick trip there for the ceremony. You don't have to establish residency, however. 

Through its website marriagebyproxy.com, S&B Inc. also has services for those couples where one person is a foreign resident, and once the online wedding is complete and documents are received, the marriage will “generally” be accepted and legal in the U.S., as long as the marriage is consummated afterwards, the company explains on its site.   

El Salvador now allows what are called "double proxy" weddings -- meaning that neither person has to set foot in the country. Whether such a marriage would be recognized in your state or country is something you'd need to discuss with your attorney.

True intentions

Michigan State University College of Law professor Adam Candeub, told the New York Times that he sees holes in the entire concept of online weddings, because it’s difficult to determine a couple’s true intentions, as some online wedding organizers have said they’ve run into couples where one person truly wants to get married and the other is just looking for a green card.

“Part of the reason for having the two people come and appear before a priest or a judge is to make sure it is a freely chosen thing,” said Candeub. “There are some problems with willy-nilly allowing anyone around the world to marry.”

Many critics of online weddings complain of regulations being currently too loose and say that U.S. laws have not caught up with the technology.

According to findings released by the company David’s Bridal, 49% of women said they’d be willing to get married through Skype, which shows just how online weddings are perceived to be pretty normal these days, due to some couples' circumstances, not to mention the money-saving benefits of doing everything virtually.

Other reasons

There are other reasons a couple may require a proxy wedding as well. In 2011, Helen Oh and Samuel Kim of California got married via Skype, due to Kim being in the hospital with a lung infection.

According to reports, the nuptials went on without a hitch and soon after, a Skype representative weighed in on the virtual wedding, as it’s apparent the online company is pretty much the go-to service for these types of events today.

“While we’d never wish any couple to be apart for their own wedding, we are sure glad that Skype could play such a big role in the wedding of Samuel Kim and Helen Oh from Southern California, who couldn’t be together on their wedding day," said a Skype rep.

According to George Andrews, an operations manager at the company Proxy Marriage Now, his company grows 12% to 15% each year and annually the company facilitates 400 to 500 weddings.

And as technology gets more advanced and future generations continue to tie the knot under a bevy of challenging circumstances, online weddings could be as common as getting married in a courthouse, church or in an exotic location in the coming years.

Really, it's not strange at all. Is it?