Bits: Farhad’s and Mike’s Week in Tech: YouTube’s Problematic Advertising

March 25, 2017 Leave a comment


The latest technology news and buzz from around the web.
Google has heard from a growing number of marketers angry that their ads have appeared alongside offensive material on YouTube.
Google has heard from a growing number of marketers angry that their ads have appeared alongside offensive material on YouTube. osh Edelson/Agence France-Presse — Getty Images

Farhad’s and Mike’s Week in Tech: YouTube’s Problematic Advertising

Each Saturday, Farhad Manjoo and Mike Isaac, technology reporters at The New York Times, review the week’s news, offering analysis and maybe a joke or two about the most important developments in the tech industry.
Farhad: Hey Mike, how are you? What a week of news it was. There was lots of serious, deep stuff—terrorism, counterintelligence, a farewell for a genius — but there were some pretty fun moments, too.
At one point, for instance, President Trump got into a big rig and honked its horn a couple of times, really putting all of his effort into it. It looked quite satisfying, to tell the truth. Next time I have a hard day at the office, I’m going to go look for a big truck.
Mike: Remember when you were a little kid in the back seat of your parents’ car, and every time you passed a truck on the highway you did the “pull-the-chain horn honking” hand signal at the driver? This was like that, but with a guy who has control of our nuclear arsenal. Frankly, I feel good about it.
Farhad: Thank you for that reminder. O.K., let’s talk tech.
Let’s start with Washington. The Senate passed a bill this week to overturn Obama-era broadband privacy rules.
Under rules created last October by the Federal Communications Commission, Verizon, Comcast, AT&T and other broadband providers had to ask your permission to track your online behavior to sell for advertising purposes. On a party-line vote, Republicans in the Senate decided that was too onerous. If the measure passes the House and gets President Trump’s signature, broadband companies will be free to track you without your permission.
Mike: Um, this sounds … bad?
Farhad: Why is it a good idea to let broadband oligopolies automatically track people’s browsing behavior? I don’t think consumers want this, and I haven’t heard a single rational reason for removing the rules other than the cult of deregulation. Also, I feel bad for the N.S.A. analyst who has to pore over your web history.
Mike: My guess is that a senator defending this would parrot a talking point from one of the companies advocating for this overturning. So something like, “Look, if we let them track you that means you’ll receive more relevant advertising rather than bad ads. That’s a good thing, right?” That’s usually the message these companies give when you go into your settings and turn on the “do not track” feature.
This whole thing is clearly in no way justifiable in the name of consumer protection. The reason there isn’t more outrage about this, in my opinion, is that it’s far too technical of an issue for normal people to get up in arms about unless translated into plain English and publicized.
Farhad: Speaking of policy directives with no clear purpose, the United States and Britain issued a surprise ban this week on electronics in the air. Under the new rule, passengers on U.S.-bound flights from many Middle Eastern cities are not allowed to carry any devices larger than a cellphone on board. Large electronics — tablets, laptops, e-readers, basically everything you need to keep your sanity on a long flight — must now be checked.
The American government says these rules are meant to counter a security threat and have nothing to do with President Trump’s immigration policies. But given the White House’s track record on banning stuff from other countries, lots of people were skeptical about the aims for this policy. If the government was simply trying to punish Middle Eastern airlines, making their long-haul flights far less comfortable would be a good way to go about it.
Mike: What’s next?
Farhad: Well, several companies, including AT&T and Johnson & Johnson, announced that they’d be pulling down their ads from YouTube because of fears that their brands were appearing next to ISIS videos and other hate speech. It’s not clear that this will amount to a big financial problem for YouTube and Google, its parent company, but these companies’ fears do highlight a larger problem with the online ad business.
More and more ads are being sold “programmatically” — that is, through financial algorithms run by computers rather than by human marketers determining the exact placement of any given spot. But it’s not clear that the big programmatic companies, of which Google is the largest and most powerful, have perfected ways to keep prominent brands off some of the seedier corners of the internet.
Mike: I imagine Taco Bell probably doesn’t want its brand new chalupas brought to viewers alongside alt-right Pepe frogs.
Farhad: I suspect this is a short-term problem. Google is good at search and mining content for meaning; it should be able to come up with a way, soon, to identify the worst parts of its network, and keep its biggest brands far away from that content. So as long as Google acts fast, I see this is a temporary blip. What do you think?
Mike: I have a different take on this. Here’s the thing: This has been a problem ever since programmatic advertising existed in the first place. YouTube is great at taking down copyrighted content; it pioneered a system called “ContentID,” and it’s been a huge savior in dealing with copyright concerns from content owners.
But how do you deal with ads that appear on videos that have racist or xenophobic content in them? Doesn’t that get into the realm of sentiment analysis? Isn’t that difficult to handle in the long term? I feel like that requires the aid of artificial intelligence, a field that C.E.O.s have admitted still needs help understanding very human issues.
The other side of this lies with the folks who have to write up the community guidelines around what constitutes racism and hate speech, an area into which companies like Google and Facebook have increasingly been drawn as reluctant arbiters of speech. That’s the last place they want to be headed, but I think they won’t have much of a choice.
My guess on how this plays out: A bunch of brands will yank ads. YouTube will come out with some rewritten policy on community guidelines that’s somewhat more hardline against certain kinds of speech, but still relatively squishy. Brand advertisers will reinsert their ads on YouTube. The heat will go away. Life will steadily march on.
Speaking of that, I’m going to go enjoy life and find a truck horn to honk. See you.
Farhad: Honk on!
More From The Times
German students took a workshop in January on how to become a “rock star” user on YouTube.

YouTube Advertiser Exodus Highlights Perils of Online Ads


A web giant promises to tighten its safeguards to avoid pairing ads with offensive content, but advertisers are not convinced.

Abu Izzadeen being escorted by Hungarian police officers in 2015. He was falsely accused online of being the assailant in a terrorist attack in London on Wednesday.

Fake Sleuths: Web Gets It Wrong on London Attacker


On the dark side of digital platforms like Facebook, Twitter and Wikipedia, individuals’ misconceptions and outright falsehoods can overrun basic facts.

An Apple store on Fifth Avenue in Manhattan last year.

C.I.A. Developed Tools to Spy on Mac Computers, WikiLeaks Disclosure Shows


Leaked details about the spy agency’s cyberweapons programs suggest the agency had developed spy tools for older Mac software, and had worked on a newer version last year.


How the Depressed Find Solace on Yik Yak, Believe It or Not


A platform associated with the gutter of young humanity had blossomed with tenderness.

Like this email?
Forward it to your friends, and let them know they can sign up here.
Categories: Uncategorized

Foreign Textile and Apparel Factory Visits Find Increase in Violations

March 21, 2017 Leave a comment
U.S. Customs and Border Protection recently provided to the American Apparel and Footwear Association the following information on the results of CBP textile production verification team visits conducted in fiscal year 2016 (Oct. 1, 2015, through Sept. 30, 2016). TPVTs visit textile and apparel exporting countries to review company records and operations to determine if illegal transshipment or improper shipping under trade preference programs or free trade agreements is occurring.

According to the AAFA, the FY 2016 figures show that about twice as many targeted factories reported some sort of illegal transshipment-related problem as in FY 2015. In addition, the FY 2016 figures for trade preference violations were the highest since FY 2007.

CBP states that shipments from closed or high-risk factories (those unable to provide production records to satisfy CBP of the origin of the goods) will be scrutinized and validated by CBP.

Illegal Transshipment Verifications



Factories Visited Closed Evidence of Transshipment High Risk Refused Admission/Docs
Nicaragua – 05/16 17 0 0 0 0
Peru – 05/16 21 3 0 7 0
Ghana – 05/16 6 1 0 0 0
Kenya – 07/16 19 2 0 2 0
Dominican Rep. – 07/16 22 3 0 2 0
El Salvador – 08/16 22 0 0 1 0
Guatemala – 08/16 20 0 0 0 0
Lesotho – 09/16 8 0 0 0 0
Morocco – 09/16 14 6 0 1 0

Verifications under FTAs or Preference Programs



Factories Visited Violating Preference Programs Insufficient Docs to Support Program Claims  


Nicaragua 17 0 0 17
Peru 21 1 14 5
Ghana 6 0 2 4
Kenya 19 0 5 14
Dominican Rep. 22 2 10 10
El Salvador 22 3 2 17
Guatemala 20 2 0 18
Lesotho 8 0 0 8
Morocco 14 2 7 5
Categories: Uncategorized

Building Profitable Domestic Apparel Manufacturing

March 11, 2017 Leave a comment


OK LOYAL Fashiontech Readers: here is the serialized new book I promised you

Please download and read how to do in with Active apparel and dyed and printed Active fabric (defined as Polyester, nylon, Spandex and blends there of.

Virtual Inventory Domestic Manufacturing

Friday, March 10, 2017

Building Domestic Apparel Manufacturing

By Bill Grier

There are hundreds of excuses for why the U.S. has fallen so far behind in the manufacturing of apparel. Regulations like the ‘Clean Air and Clean Water Acts” in the 1970’S and the Demand Manufacturing Apparel Architecture project of the 1990’s that spent over $220 million taxpayer dollars to enhance production control which ultimately facilitated the movement of over 90% of apparel production off shore.

Unsold mass production is killing industry profits

at every level of the supply chain.

Make no mistake, whatever the theory or well-meaning government program we have fallen behind and are not catching up. Excuses range from conspiracy theories about international corporations, money in politics, media bias, international trade agreements and many more. Most manufacturers, brands and retailers site labor costs as the primary cause of the loss of manufacturing. No matter what theory is the current viral thinking, we need to step back and look at the forest instead of our favorite tree. In this case the industries favorite “tree” is cost of goods (COG) while the “forest” is loss of potential profits from discounted and unsold goods.

Fundamentally, we are all dealing with the transition from the mechanical systems of the industrial revolution to an information based digital age. Sometimes these historical macro-evolutions are obscured by scale or the camouflaging details of daily business. One of the most stubborn and widely damaging effects of this evolution is the continued dedication of major world economies to the out dated dependence on mass production. Big finance and big companies, whose very life depends on maintaining the structure of mass production, have dominated this transition with its many ups and downs. They have invested tremendous amounts of capital, personnel, and international agreements into the perpetuation of this outdated manufacturing system.  This protection of the status quo has caused increasing failures at the brand and manufacturers level and now increased more public failures at retail where profit losses and additional costs can no longer be covered buy creating volume through discounts and clearance.

The Fatal Flaw in Cost-Based Manufacturing

The basic premise of this system is that if you manufacture a lot of something efficiently, the cost savings from economy of scale will insure you make a profit. This concept was valid when markets were all in an expansion mode during the industrial revolution and later after the world wars, because no matter how much product you made you could always find a customer looking for it. Mass distribution and the increased reach of international marketing, have made it difficult to find large enough new markets to justify the scale of mass production required to support the level of efficiency required to insure a profit. In fact the argument that new technology produces new expansion markets has lost its credibility because of the ability to reach markets with competitive product at velocities never before possible. In fact every new product introduction becomes a share market almost immediately.  The inability to dominate the market with the new products that are produced with the flawed mass manufacturing concepts that, scale produces cost efficiency, which produces profit, has created a glut of inventory in most product categories and destroyed the concept of supply and demand in its traditional form. The current economic Maxim is no longer “supply and demand”, it’s “supply and discount”.  Product differentiation is too slow under this mass paradigm to keep up with the information age. The risk of mass production inventory has not been mitigated at all by new “time-to-market” digital technology, in fact is has exacerbated the losses by encouraging more pre-production costs and inventory sku’s.  We’ve now have replaced the uniqueness of the product with simply the price of the product. This change in marketing and merchandising is designed to capitalize on the only remaining positive this manufacturing strategy offers. Large brands can flood the market with a volume of product, using discount structures to drown their competition. The scale of mass manufacturing and its requirement to drive profit through cost makes this product difference (price) really only available to mass retailers and marketers who merchandise on the basis of product movement not on the basis of product difference. This large-scale approach creates huge amounts of inventory which in turn equal huge amounts of risk. Risk that can only be minimized by volume merchandising, high-level financing, bulk shipping and international trade agreements which capitalize on low labor costs in developing countries. Collateral costs like environmental protection, worker safety, health insurance and other benefits can destroy the profits in a cost-based system. All the flag-waving, job building and “Buy American” speeches, promotions and promises cannot change this basic strategy of profit based on cost structure. Since these large companies and their financial partners depend on mass manufacturing and self-perpetuating theories of profit-based primarily on driving costs down we cannot expect a change. In fact, we can expect massive failures of iconic brands and retailers as the cost/risk dynamics collapse the current sourcing structure for many players and eventually all but a few high volume discount “box” stores and omnibus online marketers.  Attacking cost with mass production has four logical outcomes: first, massive inventories without guaranteed sales that must be discounted.  Second, securing the lowest labor cost, which usually means bad working conditions.  Third, lowest cost manufacturing technology, which means highest water use and toxic pollution and collateral permanent environment damage and finally, fourth, eventual degradation of quality.

All of these negative outcomes are the impact of one feature of the current sourcing strategy the pseudo belief that large inventories cost less and are the foundation of profits and sustainability. Often, the object or goal of the previous structure turns out to be at the center of the actions required to affect the change. Since the ultimate goal of mass manufacturing is to create an environment with the lowest possible costs of production. Therefore, reducing the unit cost of the available inventory that is offered for sale. The byproduct of this drive for efficiency and lower costs is an increase in the size of the inventory related to cost not sales. This disconnect between the payout of funds for production and incoming funds resulting from sales creates the risk that is unsustainable.

The simplest solutions to this conundrum are either, make less and charge more or make more and sell more for less. In fact this decision about whether to position the selling proposition based on quality or quantity is at the center of the basic inventory decisions, which, drive the manufacturing scheme.  The way in which a company handles inventory risk is the driving decision-maker in every choice from their accounting system to their personnel structure. Inventory drives required capital for start up; inventory drives financing and the level of risk; inventory drives product selection and inventory on hand drives advertising and marketing. When a company decides between holding a limited exclusive inventory at high price or a massive fast moving discounted inventory they place themselves at either end of a decision-making spectrum. Once that decision about inventory management size has been made the rest of the decisions about organization and marketing traditionally have been cast in stone.

 Purchase Activated Manufacturing (PAM)

No Physical Inventory= No Risk

Companies have had success at either end of this simple linear solution, there is however, a third nonlinear answer, which can provide increased profit and jobs and relief from the risk of both of these positions. That solution is simply not to make it until after it has sold!  This manufacturing concept is called Purchase Activated Manufacturing (PAM) and it is characterized by a structure in which, the product is purchased before it is manufactured. This solution attacks discount and overproduction dumping losses while limiting cost to product sold.

The industry should continue to look for efficiency in manufacturing, but until we attack the loss side of the equation we will not enjoy sustainable domestic manufacturing.  The pursuit of demand then supply has been a goal of the forward thinkers in the business for years, but the business climate and the technology have not been in place to accomplish that goal.  Both are in place now, sales, merchandising, coloring, cutting, production and fulfillment technology has been tested and integrated making wholesale demand and even consumer purchase activated inventory goals a reality. Smaller and larger retailers, brands and manufactures who are willing test and embrace this strategy, will be the survivors as market shifts from the industrial age to the information age of integrated business models and efficiency through agility.

Comparison of PAM and Standard Inventory Bulk Purchase

Data Entries: Number of units: 10,000 XS – XXL     Markup from LDP cost: 1.5x   Retail Price $25.00 Standard purchase unit cost (Landed, Duty Paid) LDP: $10.00  PAM FOB cost $13.00

Potential GP $50,000 $75,000 $100,000 $125,000 $150,000 $175,000 $200,000 $225,000
Unit Sell Through % 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90%
COGS Standard LDP $100,000 $100,000 $100,000 $100,000 $100,000 $100,000 $100,000 $100,000
Actual GP Standard ($50,000) ($25,000) $0 $25,000 $50,000 $75,000 $100,000 $125,000
Actual GP PAM $24,000 $36,000 $48,000 $60,000 $72,000 $84,000 $96,000 $108,000

The key features are:

  • Cost of goods is a product of actual purchases not inventory stocking.
  •  Virtual inventory limits or eliminates prefinancing or factoring of manufacturing
  • All sizes sell out no odd sizes or orphans
  •  Never out of stock and never over stock
A working PAM factory capacity up to 1500 individually sized, colored or printed and finished units per day,

Over the last twenty years our team has succeeded, failed, invented and learned most of the elements required to implement this evolution to purchase based manufacturing based on integration, information and virtual unlimited inventory. Although the final structure of the process needs to be tuned for each company’s specific needs there are ten principles that serve as a road map for the decisions along the way.  These principles can be interpreted in different ways but they all must be included in some form to ensure success.  Over the next ten weeks they will be covered in detail, but here is a look ahead to the subjects that will be included.

  1. Follow the Money… All funds ultimately originate from the consumer making consumer demand the fundamental element of success and the first element of building an integrated system. Tracking these funds on the path to your bank account determines the real losses available to recover from inventory bloat at every level.
  2. Efficiency = Manufacturing Agility… Manufacturing agility must match variable demand in speed and scale. Creating a demand Days-of-Supply (DOS) baseline to maintain predictable scheduling while insuring demand response times.
  3. All Marketing Starts with the Individual… Micro Merchandising integrates production throughput with consumer value. Integrating information, merchandising and manufacturing technology to produce consumer value that matches or exceeds full retail price.
  4. Inventory = Turns not Volume… Since the inventory is virtual stocking decisions are based on velocity not space, storage cost or salvage value.
  5. Consumer/Buyer Participation Determines Product Value… Direct integration with the consumer/buyer sales offer creates value through participation in product selection and individualization. Consumers have individualized product and buyers can create/test exclusive apparel without inventory risk.
  6. Manufacturing Capacity is Set by Distribution Path… Manufacturing scale and path is a function of distribution lead time and customer type (wholesale, retail or direct consumer) can determine through-put and line structure.
  7. Income is Based on Cost per Unit Sold NOT Cost per UnitPercentage of sell-through to the consumer is the key determinant of success at every level. Never over stock, Never out of stock is the rule at every level.
  8. “Unit Manufacturing” requires seller and supplier integration… Real time vertical integration of retail sales, manufacturing and fulfillment is critical.
  9. Test Markets are Multi-Platform… Test markets must include platform choices and product variations. Testmarket results can be based on actual purchases and collect kenetic, demographic and decision data.
  10. Total Quality Manufacturing Depends on Team Building… Production errors must be reduced to near zero through integrated data paths, team design and total quality management. Team design and language independent quality control is critical.




Posted by Bill Grier at 3:21 PM

Email ThisBlogThis!Share to TwitterShare to FacebookShare to Pinterest

No comments:

Post a Comment


Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)

About Me

Bill Grier
View my complete profile

Blog Archive

Simple the


Categories: Uncategorized

just-style newsletter

February 25, 2017 Leave a comment


 JC Penney to close 140 stores amid lower sales; Bangladesh government steps in on labour crackdown; US retailers call for halt to one-day port strike;

Categories: Uncategorized

“A Practical Guide for Manufacturing Apparel in the U.S.A. with a Dramatic Increase in Profits”.

February 21, 2017 Leave a comment

We will begin serializing this book on March 1,2017

Politics and patriotism aside we need sustainable profits at every level to return domestic apparel production. “A Practical Guide for Manufacturing Apparel in the U.S.A. with a Dramatic Increase in Profits“. This blog will begin serializing the first detailed “How-To” guide for HIGHLY PROFITABLE selling and manufacturing of domestic made Apparel. It is called Purchase Activated Manufacturing, (PAM), and the guide will feature the details and marketing principles required to build and operate a pollution free, high profit domestic apparel supply chain.  This technology is a must for retail, brand and manufacturers of todays apparel. It’s time to take the risk out of stocking inventory and capture the lost profit from clearance, overproduction and sellouts with no backup product.

The book is authored by Bill Grier, CEO of AM4U inc and founder of Critical Mass Manufacturing Inc. Bill is a recognized executive and pioneer visionary in the digital print industry. As the CEO of AM4U, Inc. and Critical Mass Manufacturing, Inc., Bill is the inventor of and chief scientist responsible for perfecting patented Active Tunnel Coloration (ATC) technology, the engine for PAM.

Bill provides strategic corporate leadership and thirty years of marketing, advertising, merchandising, and technological advances in textile and apparel production. Bill sits on the Industry Advisory Board at Cal Poly Pomona’s Apparel Merchandising & Management School. Bill’s vision of solving the apparel industry’s problems included the AM4U project. Bill also served in the United States Marine Corp. Reserves for 37 years and retired as Colonel.

Categories: Uncategorized


February 14, 2017 Leave a comment
Categories: Uncategorized

Amazon’s Living Lab: Reimagining Retail on Seattle Streets

February 13, 2017 Leave a comment
The New York Times

For the latest updates, go to »

The New York Times
Shoppers and passers-by glimpsed the exterior of the Amazon Go grocery store during the location’s beta launch in Seattle in December.
Shoppers and passers-by glimpsed the exterior of the Amazon Go grocery store during the location’s beta launch in Seattle in December. David Ryder for The New York Times
How do behemoth technology companies test out new concepts? If you are Amazon, you use your hometown as a living lab.
That’s what Nick Wingfield, a tech reporter for The New York Times, found in Seattle, where Amazon was started and has its headquarters. In the past few years, the giant e-commerce company has tried out numerous retail experiments in Seattle, including a drive-up grocery store, a physical bookstore and a roaming delivery truck called the Treasure Truck.
Amazon’s tests have cemented Seattle’s reputation as a hub for retail innovation, which in turn has spurred the creation of jobs and demand for office space in the city. In past years, REI, Costco and Nordstrom all got their start in Seattle. And Starbucks, which is also based in Seattle, has tried its own retail pilots in town, including opening its first high-end coffee bar, Roastery, there.
If Amazon’s retail pilots in Seattle are successful, the company sometimes rolls out the concepts across other places in the United States. So if you want a peek into your retail future, Seattle is a great place to see what may unfold.
Pui-Wing Tam


The Treasure Truck, one of Amazon’s ideas to connect with customers, parked in West Seattle last month.



The company is putting its stamp on the city with an expanding array of unconventional experiments in bricks-and-mortar sales.

Categories: Uncategorized
%d bloggers like this: