Marcia Kilgore, creator of lifestyle and beauty brands, shares her fearless approach to business and life.

At first blush, Marcia Kilgore exudes the whimsy of a doe-eyed waif. Beneath the surface is a buckled-down businesswoman with a demanding yet optimistic nature. It would lead her to a trifecta as a serial entrepreneur, notably selling a majority stake of Bliss Spa to conglomerate LVMH for $30 million just three years after starting up.

As Kilgore sits down for this interview with ‘Trep Talk, her tone is both whimsical and wise. She shares views on why it’s crucial to nip problems in the bud, get everything in writing and think twice before saying you’re too busy.

**To read the rest of the article from the original source, click here.**

Now that Paula Deen has become a pseudo-spokesperson for Type 2 diabetes, she’ll continue to enrage health nuts all the way to the bank

It’s probably safe to say that few of her viewers were surprised when down-home cooking doyenne Paula Deen announced that she had Type 2 diabetes. How could they be? Deen’s recipes were so gruesomely unhealthy, so prodigal in their use of butter and cream and sugar and all the things we are supposed to avoid that her show has, for several years now, had an almost libertine glee to it. Deen damned the torpedos, shrugged off cholesterol and generally embraced her role as the Hunter S. Thompson of the Velveeta set. Now that she has diabetes, her critics are crowing, as she surely knew they would. But Paula Deen may have the last laugh after all.

The Food Network star, who has earned a prodigious income over the past few years both from her show and a whole portfolio of related projects, admits that she has known of her ailment for nearly three years. And now, she says, she’s going to start addressing it — as the paid spokesperson for the manufacturer of a diabetes drug. Many observers don’t know whether to be horrified or high-five the old gal. But that is very much the spirit of her career to date.

After all, it’s Deen’s very doggedness and her absolute inability to bend to contemporary mores, that has made her what she is. Deen knew that, and her enormous success over the course of her 15-year career was based on her personal elan and a freewheeling indifference to health concerns that, in today’s climate, seemed in some weird way heroic. She was the Huey Newton of country cooking. The woman just didn’t care; she was going to deep fry some Twinkies, and that was the end of it. The result, just like our mothers told us, has been predictable. “Paula Deen was going to have some kind of health problem,” says chef Franklin Becker, the author of a well-known cookbook for diabetics. “It might not have been diabetes, but it would have been something. If you cook that way, if you eat that way, you’re going to get issues.” Becker, who has the same ailment as Deen, says he “completely identifies” with the way she likes to cook, as he felt the same before his diagnosis. But not everybody feels so sympathetic towards her right now.

Read more: http://ideas.time.com/2012/01/18/will-paula-deen-have-the-last-laugh/#ixzz1kQ3GgjLE

Hollywood and Silicon Valley are duking it out over Internet regulation – by Michael Crowley

When the online information trove Wikipedia went dark for 24 hours on Jan. 18, the greatest impact was probably on panicked college students facing deadlines. But Wikipedia’s larger message was clear: none of us should take for granted the freedom and openness that have made the Web such a world-changing resource. Why make that point now? Because Wikipedia and several other major Internet companies fear the Internet is facing a serious threat from potential government regulation. Under intense pressure from movie studios and big music and media companies, Congress has been moving to create new legal powers to crack down on websites that offer illegal streaming and downloading of movies, music and other copyrighted content.

Two bills in Congress, the House’s Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA) and the Senate’s Protect Intellectual Property Act, would empower courts to make search engines like Google block alleged copyright violators from their search results and force advertisers to cut off payments to offending sites.  That has unleashed the latest battle in the long-running war between Hollywood and Silicon Valley over how to balance copyright issues with Internet freedom.  The showdown in Congress pits the recording and movie industries’ well-connected lobbyists against the dotcoms’ combined power of popular Internet sentiment and their own equally well-connected lobbyists.  (Among the supports of the legislation is TIME’S corporate parent, Time Warner.)

Read more: http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,2104826,00.html#ixzz1kQ0V4kfc

Why wine and liquor sales beat beer in a flat economy

An hour of investigative drinking made the pattern clear to me. At T-Bar, a semiswank eatery on Manhattan’s Upper East Side, the bartender was serving a steady stream of pricey vodkas like Grey Goose and Ketel One, scotches like Glenlivet, and wine. Only once did a solitary Budweiser get the call.

Perhaps the drinks selection was a geographic anomaly–I was in a martini ZIP code. To investigate further, I hailed a subway downtown to my friend Ronan Downs’ joint, a proper watering hole called Beckett’s. Downs, who’s been in this business for decades, confirmed my hunch. “It’s a very interesting dynamic,” he observed.  ”The Budweisers and Coors are losing out to vodka, Irish whiskey, tequila, bourbon.”  And craft beers.  Downs also co-owns a craft-beer place called Taproom No. 307, where he doesn’t offer Bud or Coors or Heineken.  At his next place, he’s hiring a full-time mixologist to cater to the under-30 set.

It’s not just New York.  Demography, economics and the cocktail culture have combined to help make spirits and wine the preferred alcoholic beverages across the U.S. at the expense of the brand-name premium beers. Throw in superior marketing by the liquor companies and the rise of craft beers and you can distill the reasons the major beer brands are in decline.  By the end of 2010, total beer sales slid below 50% of the beverage-alcohol market.  Sales by volume declined an additional 1.7% in the 52-week period ending November 12, according to Nielsen, while spirits sales increased 4.3%.
Read more: http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,2103744,00.html#ixzz1kPxWhBJY

Social entrepreneurs are often reluctant to relinquish control and create strong leadership teams. Unless they make this important transition, the organizations entrepreneurs worked hard to create are unlikely to scale or have the desired impact.

Suzanne Morris, a successful investment banker working at Lehman Brothers in New York City, decided to make a significant life change by going to work for a small nonprofit that was poised for growth. She accepted a position as chief operating officer (COO) of an organization that helps female entrepreneurs grow their businesses through confidence-building tools and training, a mission that resonated strongly with Morris. She came to the job with a love of problem solving and a penchant for growing and managing teams as well as a deep admiration for the organization’s celebrated CEO.

During her first week on the job, Morris learned that she was the organization’s fourth COO in a year and a half.¹ Morris was told that she would be responsible for human resources (HR), legal, technology, and board management, as well as responsible for managing everyone except the controller, who reported to the CEO (and happened to be the CEO’s sister). Morris felt that if she’d survived the rough-and-tumble world of investment banking, she could certainly tackle this challenge.

Over the next nine months, however, Morris learned that the dynamic CEO whom she had admired resisted processes and systems, asserted tight control over all details, avoided delegation, felt threatened by opposing views, and contributed to a negative staff culture. It seemed that the CEO was not prepared for a strong management team or aware of the opportunity that having a strong team would present. Although Morris felt that she contributed to the organization’s overall development, she decided that her skills could be better used elsewhere and left. By refusing to relinquish control, the CEO missed an opportunity to fully engage Morris and capitalize on her strengths.

Awkward leadership transitions like this one are not uncommon, particularly when an organization is young and growing fast. When this type of transition is handled poorly, it can cause high employee turnover, low morale, inefficient systems, loss of credibility with stakeholders, and decreased impact. When the transition is handled well, it can help vault a small organization into the high-growth phase.

**To check out the rest of the article, click here to visit the original source.**

With the deep inclusion of Google+ into Search, Google is tempting fate. We’ve been over this. A lot. And this story is going to continue for some time to come. It sure looks like Google is almost asking for an inquiry into potentially anti-competitive practices (and it’s coming). Which is insane. So the next logical question is why? Why is Google risking so much to do this?

My colleague Eric had a very interesting theory earlier. Maybe Google’s real motive is to get the government to also look into Facebook’s often-unfair practices with regard to their network ahead of their IPO. If social and not search is indeed the future, call this pre-subversion. And if there’s any shred of truth to this theory, more power to Google — it’s rather genius (though still extremely risky).

But the more likely answer as to why Google is doing Search+ is much simpler. At a high level, they believe social elements are going to be an extremely important part of search going forward. Given that the two biggest players in social, Facebook and Twitter, don’t give them full access to their data (Twitter used to but the relationship ended, Facebook never did), Google is doing the only thing they can in their minds to still get the data they need: bolster Google+.

That makes sense. The problem, again, is how they’re doing it — with Google Search, a property which has a (natural) monopoly.

Google will argue that they have no choice due to the lack of data from Twitter and Facebook. But that’s not good enough.

First of all, they do have enough data to equalize the two most troublesome areas of Search+: the “People and Pages” box (let’s call it the Google+ Juice Box), and the social profiles in Google Search drop-downs.

Second, Facebook and Twitter can likely argue that giving Google access to such data would be a huge detriment to their respective businesses. Again, Twitter used to give access, but then they could not reach an agreement on new terms. It was all about money. Google saying that Twitter “chose” not to renew reads like a public shakedown, in that light.

And this points to something deeper going on behind the scenes here, which is likely the actual crux of this problem. Google believes it’s their right and duty to perfect their search engine at all cost. That’s the only way you can explain some of their actions (not only this, but surfacing some of their other data over competitors as well). But because of their market dominance, Google’s rivals believe the measures the search giant is taking in order to improve their product are unfair.

This makes for a great battle because both sides have a valid point. But ultimately, Google’s point may be rendered invalid. Because Google is so successful, it may actually impede further success that they could otherwise pursue openly.

**Article from TechCrunch.com.  To read the rest from the original source click here.**

Reality asserts itself. Like the nursery rhyme lady who swallows a spider to catch a fly, and has to swallow a bird to catch the spider, and a cat to catch the bird, so must these regulations, which have broad general appeal but are disastrous in their implementation. Each regulation begets a new one, aimed at shoring up its own failures.—Cory Doctorow, “Lockdown“

There’s a war brewing against the Internet, and it’s not just SOPA (the bill in Congress that threatens to break the Internet in the name of fighting overseas content piracy). It is, in the words of Cory Doctorow, a “war on general-purpose computing.” (read his post on BoingBoing, if you haven’t already).

What he means is that in trying to clamp down on a very specific problem on the Internet (the wide availability of pirated movies, music, and other content on foreign servers beyond the reach of U.S. laws such as the DMCA), laws like SOPA start messing around with the inner workings of the Internet such as blocking DNS servers. Applying special-purpose rules to a general purpose technology messes it up for everyone. Doctorow explains the difference between general-purpose and special-purpose technologies with a parable of the wheel:

The important tests of whether or not a regulation is fit for a purpose are first whether it will work, and second whether or not it will, in the course of doing its work, have effects on everything else. If I wanted Congress, Parliament, or the E.U. to regulate a wheel, it’s unlikely I’d succeed. If I turned up, pointed out that bank robbers always make their escape on wheeled vehicles, and asked, “Can’t we do something about this?”, the answer would be “No”. This is because we don’t know how to make a wheel that is still generally useful for legitimate wheel applications, but useless to bad guys. We can all see that the general benefits of wheels are so profound that we’d be foolish to risk changing them in a foolish errand to stop bank robberies. Even if there were an epidemic of bank robberies—even if society were on the verge of collapse thanks to bank robberies—no-one would think that wheels were the right place to start solving our problems.

The same is true of the Internet and computers. The Internet is designed to transmit information to anyone who connects to it. If regulators try to prevent certain types of information from reaching its destination by disabling part of the Internet, all sorts of unintended consequences will arise. First, legitimate parts of the Internet may also be disabled as a result. And second, the information they are trying to block or suppress will find its way to the people who want to find it one way or another because the Internet routes around roadblocks. That is what it was designed to do—find alternate paths for information to get to its destination.

Attacking the general underpinnings of the Internet to prevent a specific problem on the Internet is a recipe for disaster. It is like taking the spokes out of all wheels to stop bank robbers from making getaways.

Photo credit: Snowcat

**Content not originated by CXN or any of our affiliates.  Article from TechCrunch.com.**

Hostess snack cake addicts, the Hostess Twinkie is not in danger of extinction. Despite the fact that Hostess Brands, Inc. announced on January 10, 2012 that they filed for reorganization under Chapter 11 Bankruptcy, you will still be able to buy your favorite sugary snack foods including Twinkies, Hostess cupcakes, HoHo’s, and Drake’s Devil Dogs. And that squishy Wonder Bread that sticks to the roof of your mouth? That’s also part of the Hostess Brands family and you will still be able to buy a loaf to make your daily peanut butter and jelly sandwich.

Much like last year’s rumor that Pepsico would be discontinuing Cap’n Crunch cereal, the buzz on the Web today was all about the disappearing Twinkie. Relax. A reorganization of a major company like Hostess Brands doesn’t mean you will have to stockpile Twinkies in every closet of your house.

With a current debt load of $860 million, the company desperately needs a new business plan. Once the courts approve the Chapter 11 filing, Hostess will use the $75 million in financing it has secured to make the company more competitive.

No need for panic, Twinkies fans. Hostess will continue to conduct business as usual and they state that all of their brands — including Wonder bread, Butternut breads, Drake’s cakes, Twinkies and Hostess cakes — will be readily available at your favorite supermarket, convenience store or Hostess outlet stores.

Wondering what’s in a Twinkie? Check out a video all about this sugary sponge cake here.

Curious as to what Chapter 11 Bankruptcy is?  According to US Courts.gov: “The chapter of the Bankruptcy Code providing (generally) for reorganization, usually involving a corporation or partnership. A chapter 11 debtor usually proposes a plan of reorganization to keep its business alive and pay creditors over time.”

Have you ever wondered how graphic designers created logos before the computer? And how they must’ve drawn them, shipped them, and the company had to replicate a stamp in order to print them?

New technology is part of the reason logos have undergone some dramatic evolutions over the years. But it’s mostly because these companies and their brands have changed over time.

Apple Logo Evolution

The original logo was designed by Steve Jobs and Ronald Wayne and it depicted Isaac Newton sitting under the infamous apple tree. Then, Rob Janoff designed the first rainbow Apple logo with a bite out of it so it wouldn’t be recognized as another fruit.

Microsoft Logo Evolution

The Microsoft employees referred to the “O” in the green logo as “blibbet” and they even had a double cheeseburger in the company cafeteria that was called the “Blibbet Burger”.

Yahoo! Logo Evolution

If you click the “!” in the logo on yahoo.com, it sings, “Yahooo-oo-ooo.”

UPS Logo Evolution

The original logo features an eagle carrying a package with the words, “Safe, Swift, Sure” inscribed on the side.

IBM Logo Evolution

Both the current IBM and the third UPS logo were designed by the same guy, Paul Rand. He also created the logos for Enron, ABC, and Steve Jobs’ NeXT.

Xerox Logo Evolution

Haloid invested in Chester Carlson’s xerography (aka photocopy) invention in 1938 and it became the most successful division of the company so they switched the name and logo.

Kodak Logo Evolution

Kodak was originally called “The Eastman Kodak Company,” hence the “EKC” in the original Kodak logo.

Canon Logo Evolution

Their first camera was named, “Kwanon,” after the Buddhist goddess of mercy. The original logo was a picture of this goddess with 1000 arms and flames.

Nokia Logo Evolution

As the oldest original logo in this list, it depicts an image of a fish because Fredrik Idestam founded the company as a wood pulp mill on the banks of the Tammerkoski Rapids.

BP Logo Evolution

BP’s logo was largely unchanged through its first 80 years until they introduced the Helios symbol in 2000 to represent their commitment to producing energy in all of its many forms.

Shell Logo Evolution

The 1958 BP logo and 1971 Shell logo were designed by the same guy, Raymond Loewy, who also designed the Exxon logo.

Ford Logo Evolution

The 1909 logo was created with Childe Harold Wills’ font that he originally developed for his business card.

Volkswagen Logo Evolution

I know what you’re thinking. Why does the original Volkswagen logo slightly resemble the Nazi symbol? Well, that’s because Hitler had a hand in founding the company. Naturally, Volkswagen phased out that part of the logo and stuck with the center.

Mercedes-Benz Logo Evolution

The three pointed star represents their original intent to make vehicles in land, water, and sky.

Audi Logo Evolution

The four circles represent how Audi started as a merger of the four above companies.

Pepsi Logo Evolution

In 1941, Pepsi adopted the colors red, white, and blue to commemorate the war efforts of the United States.

Mountain Dew Logo Evolution

Mountain Dew was originally invented as moonshine by a couple of Tennessee hillbillies with the tagline, “It’ll tickle yore innards!” This is represented in their original logo.

The Point for Young Entrepreneurs

The evolution of these logos is just one way to show that no company is perfect, but the good ones get started and adapt. Heck, five of the 17 companies changed from their original logo within the first year.

Too many young entrepreneurs wait until the planets are aligned to start their business. Don’t let not having a shiny logo get in the way of what’s actually important… You know, getting started.

Urban slums have unreliable electricity, if they receive any grid power at all. Most slum dwellers rely on dieselgenerators or an inverter—a battery that users charge on the grid. As Chelina Odbert and Benjamin Twigg reported from Nairobi, some entrepreneurs in urban slums have created a black market for electricity, re-routing power to “unconnected” parts of a city.

All of these options are flawed: the generator gives off noxious fumes; the inverter only allows users to charge one product at a time; and the black market is illegal.

In 2007 Stanford MBAs Sam Goldman and Ned Tozun figured out a safer, cleaner way to provide power to low-resource areas. They started D. Light, a company that makes portable, rechargeable, solar-powered lights. D. Light manufactures the lights in China and sells them in over 30 countries. It offers three models, which range in price from $10 to $40, depending on the model and the country where it’s sold. The most high-end product, called the S250, provides up to 12 hours of light per day, and includes a cell phone charger.

D. Light relies on a network of “master distributors” to penetrate remote rural areas and urban slums. In Africa, the gasoline retailer Total sells the S250 in its quick-marts, which are similar to general stores. In most cases, distributors have sales teams that are already on the ground selling soap and other household goods, and add D. Light lights to their offerings. The salespeople get paid on commission.

While D. Light focuses primarily on rural villages, chief executive Donn Tice sees potential in urban areas as well. Because developing countries often leapfrog technologies—like relying on mobile phones rather than build landlines in every community—Tice believes that governments are on the hunt for “renewable, affordable solutions.” “We know that governments aren’t going to invest in grid power in all of these areas,” he says.

The privately-held company, which has raised $12 million in funding, won’t disclose sales. Tice says that companies like General Electric (which today announced plans to build the largest solar power factory in the United States) have approached D. Light about strategic partnerships.

“What we know is that the vast majority of people in the developing world work in some kind of entrepreneurial, cottage industry,” says Tice. “Light allows them to extend their work day. They make more money. Their children have more time to study.”