Advertising encourages under age drinking

(PRWEB) February 18, 2005 -- A new study of more than 3,000 teens reports that underage persons who saw frequent ads for alcoholic beverages in stores and magazines were more likely to start drinking than those who did not. The study was conducted by Rand Health in South Dakota and was sponsored by the National Institute of Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism. The report also indicated that teens who had already tried alcohol were more likely to increase their consumption when viewing ads in magazines or concessions at music and sporting events.“The more we can combat the pro-alcohol and drug information in our society the less likely we’re going to have to treat individuals down the road for substance abuse,” comments Gary Smith, Executive Director of Narconon Arrowhead, “Prevention is the key.”

As one of the nation’s largest and most successful drug rehabilitation and education programs, Narconon Arrowhead reaches millions of people across the nation each year with aggressive anti-drug and alcohol campaigns through radio, television, websites, newsprint and live prevention presentations to students in schools.

Their application of L. Ron Hubbard’s drug rehabilitation and education methodology has proven to be effective for decades.The media attention of college binge drinking deaths on campuses last year also sparked the University of Florida to take action. Officials at the University instructed a country band that was scheduled to perform on campus to drop all promotions for their alcoholic beverage sponsor out of concern for student binge drinking, despite costing them more than $12,000 per night in revenue according to the Independent Florida Alligator newspaper.

The American Medical Association also released an article this month admonishing NASCAR for allowing hard liquor sponsorships, which place ads prominently on cars viewed by millions of teens. They also conducted a survey and found that 63% of Americans feel that marketing liquor on race cars sends the wrong message to young people regarding drinking and driving. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration reports that there were over 2,300 alcohol-related fatalities in the year 2000 involving young people between the ages of 15 and 20. This accounted for more than one third of the total number for that year.While the Rand study of teenagers in South Dakota didn’t find conclusive evidence of the effect of alcohol advertising on television, a report issued last year by the Center on Alcohol Marketing and Youth stated there was an increase of 90,000 alcohol ads on television compared to just two years prior. The study also indicated that 23 percent of the ads were more likely to be seen by youth than adults.

While more than 10 million youth between the ages of 12 and 20 have reported drinking alcohol in the past month, there are some youth joining the fight against substance abuse. The Kansas City InfoZine online reported last month that area young people part of Youth with Vision filmed three public service announcements for the Missouri Division of Alcohol and Drug Abuse. The prevention ads are part of the “Alcohol…Is It Worth It?” campaign that is airing this month. For more information on alcohol and its effect on society visit www.alcohol-addiction.org. To get help for a loved on in need or to inquire about scheduling a drug and alcohol prevention presentation in your area contact Narconon Arrowhead today at 1-800-468-6933 or log on to www.stopaddiction.com.

Dancing robots

People have growing concerns and questions regarding the recent wave of new robotic advances. Do robots have thoughts and feelings? Do they dream? More importantly, do they leave the seat up when going to the restroom? Robots appear to be making fresh new inroads into the lives of people everywhere. Once relegated to research projects or to narrow vertical industries such as manufacturing, they have reached the tipping point and are now set to invade our very homes. As usual, the entertainment industry proves to be the messenger of a fresh new perspective on robots.According to Robert Oschler, webmaster for the popular RobotsRule web site at http://www.robotsrule.com/, which provides information and video on the latest robot news, there is a building need for public information regarding our new robot counterparts. "The technologically inclined long have had web sites and instructional videos to help explain the inner workings of a robot's servos, gears, and electronics. It is now time to address the average citizen's questions regarding robots."In a breakthrough of miniscule proportions, two of our new small electronic citizens have decided to make their feelings known in a two-minute rap, dance, and exercise video. The staggering implications of this video are about to be felt in the health, fitness, and hip-hop industries. Chrome and Dome, two Robosapien robots with a need to be heard, have released the first episode of their new show. Speaking for the digital duo, Dome, had this to say, "The Chrome and Dome Show(tm) is our way of letting the public know that we are just like them; one foot high, made of plastic, and looking desperately to spend some quiet quality time with a toaster."For more information and to view the video, please visit http://www.robotsrule.com/html/robot.php.

A more focussed foreign policy

By: Paul L. Hollis

With the beginning of a new year, and with a bitter campaign season behind us, let's hope politicians and others who shape government policy finally start to focus on those issues that are truly important and relevant to the economic well-being of our country.
During the long and bruising 2004 election, we heard truckloads of rhetoric from candidates in both parties, most of it having to do with terrorism and cultural issues. Terrorism, without a doubt, should be an important issue to each and every one of us. Preventing another terrorist attack certainly is key to insuring a healthy U.S. economy.

The cultural issues, however, are another matter. The pollsters say that a large number of Americans based their vote in 2004 on moral issues or values. That's all very noble, but you might have a difficult time explaining how a particular stand on moral or cultural issues translates into sound economic policy. One thing is for certain. The United States faces very serious and complex economic problems, and they'll be the inheritance of our children and grandchildren if they aren't addressed. One such problem is our consistent trade deficit, as examined in a recent paper from Auburn University Agricultural Economist James Novak and his colleague from Oklahoma State University, Larry Sanders.

The trade deficit, say the economists, means that we're taking our dollars and sending them to China, Mexico, Japan and even Canada. Our consistent trade deficit means that we're not getting those dollars back. "A simple way of explaining trade deficits is that we, as a nation, are cashing in and spending our wealth in other countries," they say. "It would be similar to you cashing in your IRA's, taking a second mortgage on the house, and spending that money on a Swiss vacation." A nation's resources, along with its security, stability and strength of economy determine how wealthy a nation becomes, states the paper, and the United States has been blessed with all of these, resulting in a wealthy nation. "However, since 1976, we've been spending that wealth like there's no tomorrow," say the economists.

This "splurge," say Novak and Sanders, has finally reached a point where there's real concern about what's going to be left for our children. Since 1991, we've seen a steady climb in the balance of imports versus exports. In other words, we're buying more foreign goods than we're selling to foreign countries."In 1991, we owed foreign countries a little over $31 billion. By 2001, that was close to $363 billion. By 2003, it was $496.5 billion. The good news is that the run-up in deficit trade decreased from August to September. The bad news is that the deficit is still about $50 billion per month," say the economists. More bad news, they continue, is the report from USDA that agricultural commodities ran a trade deficit in June and August, the first time since 1986 this has occurred. "We imported more food than we exported. The question is, how can we afford to keep on giving $50 billion per month to foreign countries?"

The answer, of course, is that we can't - we cannot continue along this path and maintain our stability and safety. "Foreigners and citizens alike have been buying U.S. debt, propping up our currency and national accounts. Our penchant for innovation and being a safe and stable economy for investment have made that a pretty safe bet. Stability and safety, however, are dependent on a strong domestic economy," contend Novak and Sanders.
If the current situation is to be reversed, then we need to "stop buying foreign goods, start selling U.S. goods and saving. Domestic goods might cost a few cents more but will help keep people employed in this country and add to the stability and strength of the U.S. economy," states the paper.

It has long been suggested, state the economists, that we need to take a longer view, say 40 to 50 years, of where we're going. "Sustainability measures are available to examine the long-term impacts of our programs and policies. Policies must be examined and coordinated to make sure they do not work at cross-purposes. The current emphasis on special interest legislation must be tempered by the longer term realities facing a majority of the people of our country."
In short, the current situation simply is not sustainable. Let's hope our political leaders recognize this before it's too late.

e-mail: phollis@primediabusiness.com

The rich get richer? Wrong

The rich are traditionally portrayed as a stingy, mean spirited bunch. While this may be true of some it is not necessarily true of all. But to a certain degree, all wealthy people have to keep a close eye on their accounts. Many people believe in the truism that “the rich get richer and the poor get poorer”, but a recent study by the international bank JP Morgan, shows that with every generation, the super rich lose a great deal of their wealth due to inflation, taxation, poor management and overspending. In fact, roughly one in five of the world’s top 400 are able to keep their place in the list for more than a couple of decades. Over three quarters of the original Forbes 400 – including Esteé Lauder, much of the Rockefeller family, and the fabled Sultan of Brunei – have lost their wealth through poor investment and “inheritance dispersion”.

The big mistake many of them seem to make is relying too heavily on the volatile stock market, and by not diversifying at the right time, put all their eggs in one basket. Diversifying assets is an extremely important way to remain wealthy but many are not willing to take the risk and try to rely on the same old cash cows for ever. According to JP Morgan, many of the original super rich could have kept their positions had their investments grown at the same rate as the stock market, something which their lack of investment diversity prevented. Furthermore, the stock market is not naturally a safe place for money as, unlike real estate and jewellery, stocks have no store of value and are subject to the vicissitudes of the City. Even the Queen of Britain is not exempt from this risk; in the last four years, the Queen has seen the value of her stocks fall by nearly a quarter as a result of a plummeting stock market.

Inefficient fortunes will waste away as a result of Inflation and taxes. Crippling death duties during the 60s sounded the death knell of Britain’s aristocracy, some of whom have only just finished paying them off. When a matriarch or patriarch finally dies, their fortune suffers the double blow of dispersal among family, in addition to death duties. While tax evasion is a crime, tax avoidance is essential if fortunes are to last longer than a life time. Like many of her predecessors, Queen Elizabeth spent much of her reign so far not paying any taxes, including income and death taxes. Most people however do no have that option.

Overspending has been identified as another reason why large fortunes are eroded by the third generation. Analysts suggest that wealthy families should not spend more than 4% of their total wealth every year. Often, lump sum purchases such as planes, yachts and extravagant homes, and credit overstretch are causes for bankruptcy and wealth erosion among the super rich. Donald Trump learnt this lesson the hard way during the 90s when he was forced to file for bankruptcy as a result of over borrowing. Currently he is in danger of making the same mistake twice. Spending away money faster than it can be replaced is effectively killing the goose that lays the golden egg. In less than a decade, the Sultan of Brunei’s fabulously extravagant family has spent enough money to knock of hundred of millions from his estimated worth. Even multi millionaires have to save. Queen Victoria had a reputation for excessive thrift, and was said to use old newspapers rather than waste money on toilet paper! Many of the world’s wealthy can appreciate that too many small holes can sink a great ship.

“Old money”, particularly landed gentry like the aristocrats of Europe, seems to survive the test of time better than many of the new rich who made their fortunes in the last decade or two. The reason being, wealthy Britons tend to invest in property and art, which rarely if ever lose all value. Prime property in London is actually increasing in value despite a general meltdown in London property prices. As a rule, landed gentry don’t ever sell their land. In the end, it is probably the most valuable store of value that money can own. Paper money, stocks, bonds and shares have no inherent value. Their value is based on speculation and probability.

Britain and the Euro: Part 1

In British public debate, there are few questions that are as divisive as Britain’s role in the European Union, and more so, whether or not Britain should join the Euro zone. As with so many aspects of public opinion, most views about the Euro are formed through the media, and are therefore an adoption of other people’s ideas. Depending on which newspaper you read most often, the majority of people will either opine that joining the Euro is a secession of Britain’s sovereignty, a break with America and the end of our individuality; or on the other side, that joining the Euro zone will mean more jobs, better living conditions and greater wealth. The truth – as so often is the case – lies somewhere between the optimistic and pessimistic extremes. Unfortunately, too many people who hold one opinion or the other are ill informed due to the biased media and the esoteric jargon that so often accompanies any articles on the issue.


The arguments for:

International trade
Foreign trade has been the backbone of Britain’s economy for the last 200 years and today is still one of the largest contributors to her wealth. Today trade is worth 27% of our economy, and our total exports are equivalent to £4500 for every British citizen. Only 17% of Britain’s total trade is with the US while 49% of our total trade is with the Eurozone. British exporters are at a disadvantage because of currency costs. On average, Eurozone countries have seen a trade increase of 3% of GDP while Britain’s continental Eurozone trade has declined from. The message seems clear; our continental competitors have a distinct advantage when it comes to trade. The explanation for this is that Euro zone countries have a much larger domestic market than Britain. A firm in France does not incur exchange costs when doing business with a German company. The treasury concluded in 2003, that joining the euro could boost Britain’s trade by up to 50% - a boom worth £1700 for every British citizen.

Foreign investment
Britain’s ability to attract foreign investors would be greatly increased by adopting the euro. A great many foreign investors come to Britain with the intention of using it as a platform from which they can access the European market. However, Britain’s decision to stay out of the euro is acting against her in that respect. In 1998, Britain attracted roughly 28% of all foreign investment into the European union. By 2002 this figure had gone down to 6.7%. The incentive of using Britain as a springboard into Europe no longer exists due to the expense of currency exchange and exchange rate fluctuation. Just to put the importance of foreign investment into context: foreign investment provides1.4 million jobs including a quarter of all manufacturing jobs. Foreign investors also provide 40% of manufacturing investment. Furthermore, they bring in technology and skills which benefit the whole economy. The treasury acknowledged that since the launch of the euro, there has been a decrease in the total foreign investment coinciding with a corresponding increase in the eurozone’s share. International companies such as Bosch, Sony, Ford and Fujitsu have all expressed their reluctance to continue committed investment in Britain if she does not join the euro. Those international companies that are already in Britain, remain here on the assumption that at some stage Britain will join. In short, the risks of currency fluctuation and exchange rate uncertainty, reduces the level of investment and has a systematic effect on the G7 countries reducing investment in all countries. A single regional currency makes planning for the future much easier, and therefore foreign investors will be more attracted to single currency blocs.

Productivity
Price transparency increases competitive pressures. The euro is forcing companies to be more efficient and increase their productivity. A single capital market will drive industrial rationalisation and restructuring. Germany, Netherlands, Ireland, France and Belgium all have higher productivity than the US, and Ireland, Finland, Austria, Greece and Belgium all have performed better than the US average labour productivity growth of 1.9% a year. Meanwhile, British productivity has fallen behind France’s since 1998.

Price stability
The confidence of a single regional currency gives companies the confidence to plan long term, and allows them to obtain supplies from the cheapest source without worrying about currency moves. Furthermore, the euro makes companies unable to take advantage of exchange rates to charge higher prices in other countries. In Britain, the over valued pound caused imbalances to develop in the economy in which over spending by consumers making up for a lagging export sector. Despite difficult periods, over the last five years a single currency has ensured that there were no destabilising currency movements in the region.

Cost of living
On way in which the euro question affects all of us is in the possible ways it could raise our standard of living and reduce the costs. A large common market creates economies of scale for companies in the region, and the money saved is passed down to the consumer. In 2003 the Treasury, estimated that by joining the euro, Britain’s GDP would increase by over 9% in 30 years.

While there are still many convincing arguments not to join the euro, it now seems an inevitable development. Britain’s long term economic hegemony and even survival may depend on it. It is not a matter of if, but more a question of when. The sooner Britain starts to take the necessary measures to put her economy in sync with her continental neighbours, the less painful the transition will be. The nay-sayers may continue their prophecies of doom, but those with foresight will soon have to bow to the inevitable.

Capitalism and Ecology: An unlikely relationship

What is the value of the Earth? With the recent events in Asia, the world has been reminded of the sheer, destructive potential of nature. The enormous damage to life and property has perhaps put into perspective the relative value of things, and reminded us that what we hold dear in this material world may so easily cease to exist. In an age where the environment is valued as merely a means of production, where the media incessantly warns and reminds us of the finite nature of our resources, perhaps it is worthwhile to just put the value of the earth into perspective.

Obviously putting a price tag on the earth would be extremely difficult for several reasons. How do you value it? What do you value it against? In economics it is very difficult to give monetary value to something that is too valuable, scarce or unique to trade actively in markets, so a primary assumption could be that the earth is essentially priceless. There are however a few interesting methods that one might use to put the value of our planet into perspective.

The first and possibly most obvious way would be to determine the value of life for every living thing on the planet – natural capital. Natural capital refers to the natural resources of the earth’s biosphere when viewed as a means of production of essential commodities such as oxygen and water. The term is often associated with Paul Hawken, author of a book by that name and originator of the Natural Capitalism economic model. This would require a continent-by-continent valuation of natural capital in order to see if there is systematic inflation of the price of life on some compared to others. The relative value of commodities in a given environment would make this difficult as errors of over valuation and under-valuation would inevitably occur. “natural capital” as a concept, suggests that the savings rate of an economy is a poor measure of how much the country is actually saving, as it measures only investment in man made capital. In the end, the ecosystem itself provides the basis of valuation for much of our man made capital; valuation of land, availability and cost of energy, fertility of land, and value of real estate. Land is after all a necessary ingredient in the production of even man made capital. Yet would our natural resources still be as valuable if an earth-like planet existed close enough for human beings to travel to it or be in competition with it? If such a planet existed, we would have to include transport costs in deciding the value of our own planet’s resources.

Another method of determining the value of the earth would be to estimate the cost of replacing the earth itself. This could be estimated in one of two ways:
Identifying the costs of Terraforming, or estimating the cost of insuring against a worst-case scenario, global natural disaster. Terraforming – literally “earth shaping” is an incredibly complex operation and in theory could be done on a planetary scale or more realistically a smaller scale of reproducing a given ecosystem. Such a thing was attempted in the Biosphere 2 project. The aim of this ambitious and costly project was to recreate an environment that could support eight human beings for two years. The ultimate failure of the project demonstrates the extreme difficulty (and at $240 million, the significant expense) of terraforming. Yet by multiplying the cost of the project by the ratio between the earth’s population and that of the smaller Biosphere habitat, economists may be able to derive a very rough minimum value of terraformation on a grander scale. That cost is roughly $200 million billion (that is “200” with15 zeros after). Of course this is a crude estimate and based only on today’s technology, and due to the failure of Biosphere 2, we can assume it would cost a great deal more to actually make it work.

The replacement by insurance method is a little less accurate as a means by which to value the earth because this would have to take into account not only natural capital (difficult enough to value) but would also have to consider capital in the form of property and it seems inaccurate to consider such artificial wealth in valuing natural resources. Basically, the averted insurance payments can be thought of as a yield, and we can use the total cost of insurance as a way of measuring the value of the earth’s productivity for as long as these averted failures do not occur.

A final way of determining the planet’s value is rather more subjective than the others. In the end we must consider how much we would be willing to pay in order to avert the destruction of our planet or to ensure our survival as individuals. The best way to decide this is to imagine a case in which our resources have become so depleted that the supply is too low and the demand too high and thus the expenses of securing them become astronomical. If in such a case Humans were forced to resort to conflict in order to secure and protect what little is left, we would need to consider the additional costs we would be willing to pay for national and personal security.

Of course all these attempts to value the earth are largely theoretical and speculative. If we were to put an estimate on the value of the earth –whatever method we use to arrive at it – it would be at least hundreds of quadrillions of US dollars. With all the money in the world (literally, in this case) it is doubtful that we could find the expertise and knowledge required to replace the earth. It is certainly worth keeping in mind that preserving the ecosystem works to our advantage – economically and in terms of our quality of life. Most money is made by manipulating natural resources and the environment for some advantageous purpose, whether directly through rent and exploitation of resources, or indirectly by utilising the resources thereof for profit. A healthy environment and sustainability are essential to the success of Capitalism as an economic model. Let us hope that it should never come to it that we are forced to actually measure the value of our planet, by the exponential scarcity of resources.

How a Pharmaceutical Company Can Sell a Drug Before it is Approved

How can a start-up, cash hungry, biotech company generate much needed revenues? Dr. Gene Emmer President of Med Services Europe B.V. (www.MedServicesEurope.com) advises them to consider if a European "named patient program" might be an option. A named-patient program allows physicians and their patients access to drugs which have not yet received approval for marketing by national health authorities. "European Named Patient Programs, like US compassionate use programs, offer physicians access to pharmaceuticals which have not yet been licensed" explained Dr. Emmer, "However, there is one important difference: in Europe an unlicensed drug is often purchased by National Health Systems." This presents drug-makers with an opportunity to generate revenues while development is still in-progress.

Significant Revenues Are Possible The additional revenues can be considerable. For example, a source at Pharmion, a US based company focusing on Oncology and Hematology reported dramatic increases in its Thalidomide sales from $1.9 million in 2Q ‘03 to $15.3 million in 2Q ‘04, primarily due to named patient sales in Europe for Multiple Myeloma. Thalidomide sales accounted for approximately 75% of Pharmion’s total revenues for the first half of 2004, according to company sources, and were generated while the product awaits marketing approval for this indication. Before receiving European Marketing Approval, Shire’s Argylin® for essential thrombocythaemia generated about 5% of its total sales from its European named patient program.Other Benefits of Named Patient ProgramsA named patient program can speed uptake after official launch. Physicians, who have had experience before launch, via clinical trials or named patient programs, often become early adopters and references for other physicians once the drug is freely circulating. Named patient programs, like US compassionate use programs, can increase good-will toward the company because they simplify the process of gaining access for patients in critical need. Smaller companies often can not afford the administrative time and costs of shipping drugs around the world before launch. This can lead to frustration and resentment towards a company that many physicians will remember long after a drug is officially on the market. Creating a formal channel eliminates the unfortunate need of denying requests and risking ill-will later.A named patient program should be considered an important part of a pre-launch program. It increases awareness to a pharmaceutical’s existence, creates excitement, generates good-will and speeds penetration of the product after launch.Frequent Communication is NecessaryIf one of the objectives is to generate revenues, setting up a named patient program is just the beginning. In order to achieve success, physicians need to be aware of the product and what they need to do to get it.

Typical methods of informing physicians, such as sales rep visits and ads, may not be appropriate because a license is necessary to market a drug. While physicians are used to simply writing a prescription and being done with it, named patient programs require paper-work that some find tedious. Therefore the company needs to create an appropriate communication plan and work closely with the targeted medical community to keep them informed and simplify the process.Issues to ConsiderYou have decided to make a named patient program part of your pre-marketing plan, what now?If you do not have an experienced European marketing group, an organization that is familiar in sales and marketing of pharmaceuticals in Europe can help you to maximize participation in the named patient program. A communication plan, if properly developed and implemented can increase product awareness, but communication concerning an unlicensed product must be done appropriately. This plan should ensure that your entire target group:
• Is fully aware of the product AND the program
• Knows what needs to be done to take advantage of the program
• Has an advocate available to guide them through the process

This Article was written by Dr Gene Emmer of MedServices Europe.

Big Brother is protecting you

Just how many people out there know who you are? I don’t mean friends, family, employers and employees; I mean absolute strangers. It is disconcerting to think that there might be people out there who know all about you, and yet have possibly never even met you. In an age of I.D cards, Internet cookies, CCTV and increased credit card security, this Dystopian ‘nightmare’ is becoming real. At the touch of a button, strangers – authorised and possibly unauthorised – are able to find out a great deal about us. Just a quick search on the Internet can reveal at the least, one’s address and telephone number. A few more minutes and you can find out a whole lot more. Yet this may not necessarily mean we are on the dawn of a 1984, big brother-type scenario. Rather than watching us, perhaps big brother is protecting us.

People make too big a deal of “privacy”. It does not exist and never has. For some reason it is assumed that in an age of technology, we some how have less freedom from prying than in bygone ages. Consider that two centuries ago, catching the criminals who endanger our property and our lives would have been far more difficult task. Modern surveillance technology and techniques allow us to pre-empt crimes and terrorist attacks before they can materialise. The simple fact is that it is necessary to sacrifice some of our privacy to ensure our safety. If there were no way of investigating private records then there would be nothing to stop convicted paedophiles teaching your kids, or drug abusers treating you in hospital. The fact that you wouldn’t mind having access to this information about others reveals a double standard in the whole debate; a hypocrisy that assumes that excluding ourselves, everyone else everyone else is a criminal.

Sharing information also has economic advantages. Information sharing allows companies to anticipate consumer demand, and thus waste less by producing only what people want. Furthermore credit companies are better able to give preferential rates to people with good records. Ironically, with all this information around it has become harder, not easier to commit financial fraud. Technology employed by banks today enables them to recognise irregular spending habits and expired cards or inconsistent information before fraudsters can cause much damage. The internet – such an integral part of our lives – works because we allow websites to collect information about surfers and use it to improve your surfing experience based on the information thus collected.

Without information sharing and government/corporate “prying” criminals would get away with it, credit would be more expensive, library systems wouldn’t work and things would be more expensive. Of course it is still entirely necessary to preserve our rights and freedoms. For instance, there is no reason why health records and certain personal information should be made public property. But perhaps we need to appreciate that for the large part, the Big Brother is on our side. In an interconnected world, the ripple effect of our actions is more acute than before. Societies have the right to monitor their members in order to ultimately protect them.