Dr. Neil Hair

As anyone with babies will tell you – the process of correctly mixing formula is excruciatingly painful at the best of times – particularly on a few hours sleep. Clumping, correct temperature, AND mess are three aspects I DO NOT miss about my own daughters early months. Enter  Babynes – nespresso for Babies. Now, before you come quickly to the conclusion – only in America – I would encourage you to think about the example it sets as a WONDERFUL way to extend an existing product into a new market (anyone for Ansoff?). Cited as a potential 'game changer' by a recent Reuters article Babynes appears to be pure genius in its conception. Ready made packages that pop out super charged cow juice at the press of a button. One can only imagine other applications as the company moves forward: A few of my own suggestions to follow..

1. Gin'nes (though Guinness may well have a problem with this one) – the perfect way to dispense the perfect drink, without the hassle of ice, measurement, stains of bitters (for the perfect Pink Gin and Tonic – one of my faves), or arm fatigue from lifting heavy blue bottles.

2. Tropical Fish'nes – everyone who owns a former table adornment from a plush wedding will tell you – cleaning water and feeding the little devils takes a great deal of time and energy (and lets face it – youre lazy!). Now you dont have to – one press of the button and youre done. Exit one happy little fish.

3. Meds'nes – taking medication? what a hassle! Pop in your favorite life saving pills and suspend the devils in pure Evian water. What a perfect way to save the day.

With the new range of 'nes'es your life will be simpler, you will smell sweeter, the grass will be greener and you'll have more friends. Just ask George.

Thank you Nestle. We owe you one – and thanks (in all seriousness) for being innovative.

In the UK, recent news that a tabloid hacked the phone records (posthumously) of a young murder victim, and now victims of the 7/7 bombings has evidenced the British publics 'enough is enough' attitude towards highly questionable reporting activities in the motherland. The story in a nutshell – newspaper sanctions the hacking of voice messages left on victims telephone, presumably to get the latest 'scoop', THEN DELETES messages once the mailbox is full to enable further messages to be left. Outcome? Moral outrage, boycotting of the paper by the public, and now a backlash from the papers other main source of income – it's huge advertisers. Ford, T-Mobile, Orange, have all announced 'serious concerns' with the manner in which the company has encouraged / facilitated this crime. Damned by association for those staying with it by the looks of things. It reminds us that consumers have huge power in an often misunderstood and undervalued symbiotic relationship with business partners – especially with social media where we continue to witness a huge public backlash against the paper and its parent company. One anticipates an unhappy ending for a tabloid now in its 169'th year, perhaps its last, but one hopes not before it compensates those affected by its acts.

——–

Update July 13th 2011.

So, very few people could have predicted the outcome or the severity of the backlash witnessed against News International these past few weeks. From closing the paper to backing out of a BSkyB bid – the implications of the hacking saga has caused considerable damage to the image and reputation of the parent company. Evidence? rapid decline of its market value as represented in stock price. Consumers have spoken – what remains to be seen is the level of impact the story will have on the US market (Fox is owned by the same parent company as the now defunct NoW). Perhaps it is time for a Hippocratic oath from journalists. Ive always been somewhat skeptical of organizations or industries that support said oaths. Non legally binding in most cases, totally ignored in others. What it would do though is set the scene for what the profession considers 'acceptable practice.' Hacking private voice mail, deleting voice mail (essentially giving loved ones the false hope that said victims might still be alive – ie deleting their voice messages) – or employing criminals to private secure details seems to me at least to be totally wrong. And you don't need an oath to remind oneself of the fact. The whole sorry affair appears to have struck a chord with the British pubic because it strikes against the culture of 'fair play' which we are readily known for.