I've got a beef.
Recently I noticed that Oprah Winfrey (Queen Midas- everything she touches turns to gold) was doing a sponsorship with Starbucks. I walked into my local Starbucks much like we all do, and there's her name "Oprah" all over everything. It irritated me so much I don't even remember exactly how she tied into Starbucks. I think it's a line of "Oprah" inspired coffee or something? Who knows. So, my beef is this... Why does she need to be doing that? Hasn't she made enough money? The rich get richer and Oprah gets richest. Give someone else a chance to make money off of coffee sponsorship. Maybe grab a little known Coffee expert and plaster their name all over everything making them rich. Spread it around a little !
Mind you, I have nothing against Oprah herself. I think she's fine and dandy and generous and all that. What I do have a problem with is what would appear to be a bottomless pit of greed that she still hasn't got enough. It's not just Oprah, of course. This has been going on for a long time in different genres it's just that Oprah and coffee are the most exaggerated example... What has she to do with coffee? I get Paula Dean and cooking items (but don't show me her face on towels or sheets, please) or female actresses for makeup (but your own line of perfume is going a bit far) or Nascar drivers for motor oil (not aspirin !) These things make sense.... but Coffee and Oprah? Please explain.
Anyway, so I'm going to start a list in this blog as I come across other examples of irritating Celebrity avarice. I'll call it Celebrity Greed., but will add "rolls it's ahead once again". FYI.
Coffee Tasting Champ - That makes sense.
Monday, January 27, 2014
I have had several letters published in the Orlando Sentinel over the last few years. Usually they are political., but the most recent is more business oriented... so, here it is, published on the Opinion page January 23, 2014. The comments are regarding a series of articles talking about Darden (the largest corporation headquartered in Orlando- owner of many different restaurant chains for those who are so inclined to learn such things). The theme is that they are considering "spinning off" Red Lobster and the Olive Garden to become more profitable according to some large new share holding interest. I don't pretend to understand the high finance behind it., but it's annoying nevertheless. Everybody wants to make a fast buck by not really doing anything. It sucks.
"Taking Stock of Darden"
Regarding the investment groups encouraging the spinning off of Red Lobster and Olive Garden for Darden. I have no doubt that the stock price of Darden will go up due to these strategies for the company (whichever maneuver they choose), but I wonder then what will be the purpose of Darden itself? Do they exist to simply make money and become more "valuable" on the NYSE? Many American corporations have declined to the point of operating at the direction of finance wizards with their "leverages", "buyouts", "spinoffs" and they have forgotten why it is they're in business. If I may be so bold as to suggest to Darden; pay attention to what you're serving the public and how you treat your employees and ignore the yammering of financiers. Ultimately the value of your stock will go up even more because you're offer something the public wants. Isn't that what it's all about ?
Charles E. Marshall
So, take that Wall Street.