ChicagoB2B.net - Chicago's Enterprise Business Portal :

TAKING ON AMAZON
Amazon.com (AMZN) must find a way to make a profit ["The Amazon Question," July 10-17]. If it does, there's no doubt it will remain the leader because it has proven over and over that it can innovate, market and operate the business.

I continue to find it amusing that the basics of business (for example, making a profit) are still discounted in the discussion on the significance of the Internet Economy.

Much to the chagrin of daytraders, venture capitalists and startup CEOs, people are beginning to realize that fundamentally there is no difference between Internet businesses and old, stodgy brick-and-mortar companies. Both must make a profit. They must offer a differentiated product that appeals to their market. In short, Business 101.

All businesses eventually have to make a profit. If they can't, they deserve to die.
Mark Dickens

While Miguel Helft did a fine job representing the opinions of both Amazon.com supporters and detractors in his cover story, I find it surprising he did not dig deeper into some of the "whys" behind this growing debate over Amazon's viability.

As an ex-Procter & Gamble (PG) brand-marketing guy (and one who has never bought a share of Amazon stock), I believe one of Amazon's biggest problems is that it has not created a clear sense of what it is as a brand. This might explain, in part, why it is not seeing the kind of traction required to grow a profitable retailing business. Remember the old selling line from Head & Shoulders shampoo: "You never get a second chance to make a first impression."

Amazon did a wonderful job creating a strong first impression of what it is about: books and CDs. Consumers understood and shopped the brand with real force. The problem is that Amazon.com's attempts to become the "Wal-Mart of the Web" (I'm so tired of hearing that line), has systematically extended the business into multiple categories. Many times it is following the lead of something else (eBay (EBAY) and eToys (ETYS) , to name two examples), effectively diluting the brand's equity and image.

There are innumerable examples of brands that have failed because they wanted to be all things to all people. I understand why Amazon wants to own this position on the Web, but having made such a permanent (and relatively narrow) first impression in consumers' minds, I doubt it will ever be able to establish subsequent product or service categories with the same impact.
David G. Wiser
Managing Partner
Wiser Partners

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

DOT-COMS, STAY HOME
Regarding the article "Dot-com Peace in Portland" ["Growing Pains, July 10-17], try to keep it down about how nice life is in Portland, Ore.

You think we want more Californians or dot-commers moving over here? The home market is already hyperinflated; we don't need more paper millionaires jacking up the prices any further. And the roads are not as congestion-free as Cybersight's Bob Treuber would suggest.
Tim Wood
Product Manager
Intel Online Services

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

LASHING OUT AT THE BACKLASH
I read your article, "There Goes the Neighborhood" [July 10-17], and I was dismayed at the apparent sympathetic slant toward the perpetrators of hate and vandalism. The "backlash" you identify is nothing more or less than housing discrimination and class discrimination.

If it were the "poor downtrodden" being discriminated against rather than the affluent, there would be a public outcry. Discrimination is discrimination, and is not based on whose ox is being gored.

The purveyors of hate and vandalism are just plain criminals. Denying American citizens the right to live and work where they choose is against the law and against human decency.
K. Lever

When I read your article "There Goes the Neighborhood," I couldn't help remembering a unique group of people. Much like the group you mentioned [the Mission Yuppie Eradication Project], it consisted of a few dedicated persons with strong anticapitalist sentiments. Similarly, it ignored a functioning electorate system and took it upon itself to make change by means of intimidation.

The group I have in mind is the Shining Path, a Peruvian Maoist guerrilla organization responsible for the deaths of over 25,500 innocent people.
Manuel Prado
Director, Business Development
Red Gorilla

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

SPEAKER, HEAR THYSELF
I laughed aloud at Newt Gingrich's comments [Posts, June 19] about Bill Gates: "He became a symbol for the ages. ... Then all of a sudden, part two of his assignment was to be sensitive and open to his critics. It's not easy; you don't often get both sides in the same personality."

I am a former Microsoft (MSFT) employee and a lifelong Democrat, so perhaps my comments need to be filtered through those lenses. But should I file this one under "Irony" or "Hypocrisy"?
John Wood
President and CEO
Annapurna

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

WRONG ON RIGHTS
While I was gratified that The Standard covered crucial developments in the online literary-rights marketplace, Steven M. Zeitchik's article "Moving the Big Schmooze Online" [July 10-17] contained several errors.

First of all, literary agent Ira Silverberg, which is named in the lead of the story as an objective user of an online rights-trading system, actually sits on the advisory board of that company.

Second, Mr. Zeitchik reported that Subrights.com lists "only previously published titles," which is incorrect. Subrights.com lists properties that already have a commitment for at least one form of exploitation (such as hardcover book, film production, audio edition) – whether this commitment already has been fulfilled or will be fulfilled in the future.

Zeitchik also claimed that Subrights.com collects a transaction fee of "8 percent to 10 percent," when in fact our transaction fee is 5 percent.
Joel E. Fishman
CEO
Subrights.com

Steven M. Zeitchik responds: Mr. Fishman is right; we should have mentioned Ira Silverberg's board seat. The term "previously published" was used in the broadest sense – both for work that has been bought and slated for use, as well as for material that already has been released. Finally, the article cited figures that were recently modified.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

CAUGHT IN A TRAP
Thanks for the article about work-family conflicts ["The Parent Trap," July 3]. However, you perpetuate a common myth that work-family difficulties are solely a problem of couples with children. That does a disservice to the rest of us who are dealing with equally tough family problems related to working long hours, even though we don't have children.

A spouse who feels neglected, a dog who whines all day out of separation anxiety, an aging parent who pines for a rare visit, a lifelong friend who's drifting away. These concerns are as equally valid and as equally pressing as who picks up Johnny from school.

Companies need to understand that work-family policies should try to ease conflicts for all workers, not just the ones with young children.

Too bad you missed a great opportunity to find examples of how the work-family balance can work for women. You know, it's not necessarily a "luxury" to have a spouse stay at home. We could make that work financially in my family, but I don't believe it is the best example I could set for my kids. I choose to work – I know that gets a gasp – so I've rebudgeted my time to make it work.

I'm an "old timer" with 10 years of software sales experience. When I sought my current job, I screened startups for their flexibility to work-family arrangements. The smart companies will think about how it can work, not just how they've done it in the past.
Cindy Skack
Business Development Manager

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

PRICE-GOUGING
It was quite ironic that Jonathan Weber ends his rant about Microsoft ["The Price of Arrogance," June 19] by saying its antagonists had the law on their side and were able to "seize the moral high ground." Wasn't it recently discovered that Larry Ellison hired private investigators to go through Microsoft's trash?

Where is the consumer cry for the breakup of Microsoft? Competitors be damned! Consumers are what antitrust laws are supposed to be about, not the egos of Justice Department officials and whining competitors.
Richard Becker
Consultant

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

THE TRUTH IS WAY OUT THERE
Congrats on the greatest story I have read to date in your magazine ["The Great Internet Con," July 3]. It looks like David Stanley has gotten away with another trick – a story for a Hollywood blockbuster.

The industry attracted a lot of trash along with genuine talent, all due to unparalleled media hype. It is time to do a "cleanup." Whatever you may say about it, the truth will be obvious pretty soon.
Gene Swarovski
CEO
Brick-and-Mortar.com

"The Great Internet Con" occurred long before David Stanley came upon the scene. Stanley is a piker compared with all those dot-com chief executives who continue to operate in the red.
Avrum Fine
President
FilmAmerica