E-cigs vs the FDA
After a lengthy battle to increase oversight and regulation, the Food and Drug Administration has recently granted a three month reprieve of implementation of certain rules that were to affect the e-cigarette and cigar companies.
The temporary halt in enforcement had been sought by representatives from both the e-cigarette and tobacco industry in order to allow “new leadership personnel at the Department of Health and Human Services to more fully consider the issues raised in this case and determine how best to proceed.”
The FDA had originally proposed the rules to provide more oversight to the industry in April of 2014, with them being finalized in 2015, although their attempts at regulation of the e-cigarette marketplace had begun as far back as 2009.
The regulations, in their intended form, would have required the industries to prove that their products meant the public health standards that were found in the Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act (TCA) of 2009, and would have more strictly regulated how these products were marketed to the public, requiring FDA approval.
Unsurprisingly, the FDA found itself embroiled in two separate lawsuits, with both the cigar and the e-cigarette industry, in an attempt to overturn these new requirements.
While the government had been defending itself against the suits, this week agreed to a delay in implementation. As a part of the postponement, manufacturers have more leeway surrounding the labeling of their products as “light,” “low,” or “mild,” and won’t have to disclose the ingredients that are in either e-cigarettes or cigars. Additionally, cigar companies are now temporarily exempt from having to have FDA approval for how their product safety warnings are displayed.
Not a blanket rule
While this temporary reprieve for these parts of the FDA’s rules doesn’t include provisions that took effect prior to May 10th, nor does it address portions of the rules that are scheduled to take effect by the end of this year and in 2018, a pro-business shift in the Trump administration certainly does signal that parts of the FDA’s plan may be open for revision.
Adding to that shift are the close industry ties that many administration officials have to the tobacco industry, including the newly appointed head of the Food and Drug Administration, Dr. Scott Gottlieb, who in his previous tenure as an FDA deputy commissioner had argued for loosening of the regulatory environment at the agency and served as a board member for an e-cigarette company as recently as a year ago.
In addition to challenges from the industry itself, and a possible change in tenor of the agency tasked with regulation of it, further opposition to the proposed rules comes from Congress.
Representative Duncan Hunter(CA) recently introduced the Cigarette Smoking Reduction and Electronic Vapor Alternatives Act of 2017. The bill, if signed into law as currently proposed, would limit FDA oversight of e-cigarette devices to using current manufacturing standards, rather than the more stringent standards applied to them by treating them as tobacco products.
What small business owners can learn from Starbucks’ new D&I strategy
(BUSINESS) Diversity and inclusion have been at the forefront of Starbucks’ mission, but now they’re shifting strategy. What can we learn from it?
Starbucks was one of many companies that promised to focus on diversity and inclusion efforts after the death of George Floyd by Minneapolis police in 2020. What sets Starbucks apart from other companies were its specific goals.
How It Started
They began with hiring targets and have now added goals in corporate and manufacturing roles. Starbucks’ plans and goals revolve around transparency for accountability. They released the annual numbers for 2021 as a way to help hold themselves accountable. The data they’ve released so far show that they’ve met nearly a third of their 2025 goals according to Retail Brew. Because of this information, we can see why they are choosing to move in the direction of manufacturing and corporate jobs. In 2021, POC’s fell to 12.5% of director-level employees from 14.3% in 2020 in manufacturing.
How It’s Going
Per Starbucks’ website stories and news, “[I]t will increase its annual spend with diverse suppliers to $1.5 billion by 2030. As part of this commitment, Starbucks will partner with other organizations to develop and grow supplier diversity excellence globally.” To put that into perspective, they spent nearly $800 million with diverse suppliers in 2021. With these moves, by 2030, it will increase by almost double.
As part of their accountability and progress, they plan to partner up with Arizona State University to give out free toolkits to entrepreneurs on fundamentals for running successful diverse-owned businesses. Another goal they’ve listed is to boost paid media representation by allocating 15 percent of the advertising budget to minority-owned and targeted media companies to reach diverse audiences.
At the heart of all this information on their goals and future plans, data transparency and accountability are what’s forcing them to look at the numbers to make specific goals. They are doing more than just throwing money at the problem, they are analyzing how they can do better and where the money will make a difference. Something that, as entrepreneurs, we should all do.
Peloton is back-pedaling: Reports of price increases, layoffs, and cost cuts
(BUSINESS) After a recording of layoffs leaks, ‘supply chain’ issues cause shipping increases, and they consult for cost-cutting, Peloton is doomed.
Is Peloton in Trouble?
According to many reports, Peloton had success early in the pandemic when gyms shut down. Offering consumers a way to connect with a community for fitness along with varying financing options allowed the company to see growth when many other industries were being shuttered.
After two years, CNBC reports that the company is “being impacted by …supply chain challenges” and rising inflation costs. According to the report, customers will be paying an additional $250 for its bike and $350 for its tread for delivery and setup.
As demand has decreased, Peloton is also considering layoffs in their sales and marketing departments, overheard in a leaked audio call. The recording details executives discussing “Project Fuel” where they plan to cut 41% of the sales and marketing teams, as well as letting go of eCommerce employees and frontline workers at 15 retail stores.
Nasdaq reported that the stock fell 75% last year, after a year where it soared over 400%.
Peloton reviewing its overall structure
According to another report from CNBC, Peloton is working with McKinsey & Company, a management consulting firm, to lower costs as revenue has dropped and the growth of new subscriptions has slowed since the pandemic. Last November, according to NPR, Peloton had “its worst day as a publicly-traded company.” It also anticipates greater losses in 2022 than originally predicted. It makes sense that the company would reexamine their strategy as the economy changes. They aren’t the only one that is raising prices amid supply chain issues.
It will be interesting to watch how Peloton fares
Peloton has a large community that pays a monthly fee for connected fitness. While growth has slowed, the company still has a strong share of consumers. Although it is facing more competition in the home fitness market and more gyms are reopening, as Peloton adjusts to the new normal, it should remain a viable company.
CEO is offering folks thousands to *quit* their jobs, with one catch
(BUSINESS) A CEO out of Arizona is challenging employment norms by offering a sort of “sign-off” bonus upfront, but this method has one fatal flaw.
Chris Ronzio, the CEO of Trainual, a software company in Arizona that aims to systemize and scale your small business, is offering cold hard cash to quit your job in an unconventional ploy to bypass the effects of the Great Resignation.
Before you rush to turn in your notice and make some extra cash, you should know that this offer is dependent on being selected as a hirable candidate and making it through the hiring process for Trainual. This option is also offered to new hires after 2 weeks of employment.
This model of employment gives the employee the ability to fire the company and walk away with a little sum of money. The thought process of the CEO was outlined in an article by the Insider, saying it is a strategic move to retain top talent and maintain a strong company culture. While this is a unique approach…it has a glaring flaw. The offer is only good for the initial two-week period. However, it can take some time to recognize the shortcomings of any company when you begin employment. We can all recognize the long-term financial potential of reoccurring income and while $5,000 is not anything to shake your finger at, it will eventually be gone. I think we can all agree that constructive criticism can be difficult to swallow at times, however, if Trainual was truly invested in this model they would extend the offer at other key times during employment. What if this offer was again available at the 1-year mark? If the offer reappeared at a one-year review, the turnover may increase.
Per the Insider article, Ronzio was quoted as saying, “With today’s market, hiring teams have to move quickly to assess candidates and get them through the process to a competitive offer, so it’s impossible to be right 100% of the time,” Ronzio said. The CEO added, “The offer to quit allows the dust to settle from a speedy process and let the new team member throw a red flag if they’re feeling anything but excited.”
These statements detail another dimension to consider which is the employment hiring process and timeline. If top candidates are in such high demand that the process has to be sped up to secure a workforce, this monetary compensation can help to ensure the hiring decision. Although, when the offer was implemented in May of 2020, the offer was $2500, half of what it is now. Ronzio reasoned that they could stay while they looked for another job so they increased the amount to compensate for those with a higher salary range.
Let me preface this by saying that yes, accountability should exist, but I would be interested to know the turnover rate for the hiring team. The cost to the company from this unique approach adds extra weight for those making the decisions on who to hire. The stress the hiring team faces has to be factored into the candidate decisions. How many times can the hiring team get it wrong before they’re let go? While the pressure to hire the right candidate should always factor in, one has to wonder about the effects of this model.
Business Articles2 weeks ago
100+ inspirational quotes to motivate you to have prosperous new year
Business News1 week ago
80 reasons why you didn’t get the job interview or offer (brutally honest)
Business Marketing1 week ago
10 must-listen-to podcasts for business owners
Opinion Editorials2 weeks ago
Do these 3 things if you TRULY want to be an ally to women in tech
Opinion Editorials5 days ago
Job listings are popping up left and right, so what exactly *is* UX writing?
Opinion Editorials2 weeks ago
Does your creativity dwindle as you get older? Science says its possible
Business Entrepreneur3 days ago
Positive self-talk can improve your performance
Business Finance5 days ago
Get outstanding invoices paid to you by following these 7 steps