BN004385 12 de agosto de 2011 10:13 HORALOCAL SÃO PAULO, 12 de agosto de 2011 /PRNewswire/ -- A Companhia de Bebidas das Americas – Ambev [BOVESPA: AMBV4, AMBV3; e NYSE: ABV, ABVc] anuncia os resultados do segundo trimestre de 2011. As informações financeiras e operacionais a seguir são apresentadas no valor nominal em Real, salvo menção em contrário, e preparadas de acordo com as Normas internacionais de informes financeiros (IFRS – Internacional Financial Reporting Standards). Elas devem ser lidas em conjunto com o informe financeiro trimestral dos períodos de três e seis meses encerrados em 30 de junho de 2011 registrado no CVM e enviado para a SEC. Para ver o release completo, acesse: http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/ambev-reports-2011-second-quarter-results-under-ifrs-127503323.html FONTE: Companhia de Bebidas das Américas - Ambev BNED:NV FONTE:NEWSBRIEFS SÃO PAULO-SP CONTATOS:BRASIL-CAMILA CONTE TELS:55-11-2504-5140 E-MAILS: email@example.com PALAVRA-CHAVE:RJ PALAVRA-CHAVE/RAMO DE ATIVIDADE:DIVERSOS PALAVRA-CHAVE/EMPRESA:COMPANHIA DE BEBIDAS DAS AMÉRICAS - AMBEV
sexta-feira, 12 de agosto de 2011
LOUNGE EMPREENDEDOR: PLANEJAMENTO DE MARKETING: "Estou muit feliz com a entrevista (absolutamente completa) publicada na Revista Onix de fevereiro/2011 . Espero que os leitores do Lounge..."
LOUNGE EMPREENDEDOR: MARKETING PESSOAL: "Realizar um bom trabalho, distribuir gentilezas ou esforçar-se nos processos de comunicação institucional seriam um bom caminho para firma..."
LOUNGE EMPREENDEDOR: LIDERANÇA EM DEBATE - ADMINISTRE AS DIFERENÇAS: "Equipes constituídas por pessoas com perfis, gênero, idade e experiências distintas são um excelente fator para a melhoria da competitivida..."
We live in an era of risk and instability. Globalization, new technologies, and greater transparency have combined to upend the business environment and give many CEOs a deep sense of unease. Just look at the numbers. Since 1980 the volatility of business operating margins, largely static since the 1950s, has more than doubled, as has the size of the gap between winners (companies with high operating margins) and losers (those with low ones).
Market leadership is even more precarious. The percentage of companies falling out of the top three rankings in their industry increased from 2% in 1960 to 14% in 2008. What’s more, market leadership is proving to be an increasingly dubious prize: The once strong correlation between profitability and industry share is now almost nonexistent in some sectors. According to our calculation, the probability that the market share leader is also the profitability leader declined from 34% in 1950 to just 7% in 2007. And it has become virtually impossible for some executives even to clearly identify in what industry and with which companies they’re competing.
All this uncertainty poses a tremendous challenge for strategy making. That’s because traditional approaches to strategy—though often seen as the answer to change and uncertainty—actually assume a relatively stable and predictable world.
Think about it. The goal of most strategies is to build an enduring (and implicitly static) competitive advantage by establishing clever market positioning (dominant scale or an attractive niche) or assembling the right capabilities and competencies for making or delivering an offering (doing what the company does well). Companies undertake periodic strategy reviews and set direction and organizational structure on the basis of an analysis of their industry and some forecast of how it will evolve.
But given the new level of uncertainty, many companies are starting to ask:
- How can we apply frameworks that are based on scale or position when we can go from market leader one year to follower the next?
- When it’s unclear where one industry ends and another begins, how do we even measure position?
Recent headlines have focused on the debt ceiling, the recentcredit rating downgrade, unemployment, and the other thorny fiscal challenges facing the United States. But consider this: increasing the country's average growth rate by one percentage point over the next 20 years would not only result in much higher incomes and more jobs for all Americans but would also obviate the need for drastic spending cuts today to reign in the government deficit. With a 2% increase per year, average incomes in the United States, and to a first approximation government tax revenues, would be 49% higher in 20 years than they are today; with a 3% increase per year, they would be 81% higher.
The underlying message? We should not take our eye off the really important ball: economic growth and the innovation process that underpins it.
Though the U.S. economy has tremendous innovative capacity, even in the depths of the current recession, this means neither that policies to encourage high-value innovation are not possible nor that we should ignore the danger of significantly damaging this capacity.
Here are the dangers.
- Patent protection is becoming a more bureaucratic, red-tape-ridden, and uncertain process. A significant part of innovation and almost all of commercialization is driven by profit incentives and relies on a system of protection for the intellectual property rights of innovators and entrepreneurs. Patenting is the bulwark of the system. Patent thickets that companies must navigate, at their peril, and patent trolls awaiting litigation opportunities are making intellectual property hazardous. The ongoing plethora of smartphone cases is just the tip of the iceberg. Thepatent bill that has recently cleared the House and the Senate fails to tackle most of these issues. Increasing litigiousness in matters of intellectual property is a significant threat to the innovative dynamism of the U.S. economy. We need to guard against it.
- The explosion of salaries on Wall Street has attracted many of the talented individuals who otherwise would have gone into research, design, and engineering occupations.This flight of talented students to work in finance harms all of us because it means that we have fewer "positive spillovers" from innovative activities. The beneficiaries from Apple's innovation were not just its shareholders and iPhone users the world over, but also its competitors that are now building smartphones inspired by the iPhone, as well as the millions of consumers who now use Android-based phones. These spillovers from innovation imply that society gains when its best and brightest go into innovative sectors. This is what the U.S. economy has been able to achieve for decades but should not take for granted anymore. Allocating our best talents to finance risks damaging the long-term innovative capacity of our economy.
- Markets will not generate enough innovation. This is one of the main justifications for government subsidies to research and higher education. And during this politically challenging period of cost-cutting and spending caps, politicians may find it tempting to cut funding to innovative activities. Science funding, for instance, is becoming more politicized. The long-term damage resulting from dismantling the premier higher education and research infrastructure of the United States would be dire.
- Innovation also relies on the political infrastructure of society. A stable society with secure property rights and social mobility is essential for generating incentives for innovation and for enabling those with the ability and ambition to reach their full potential. A dysfunctional political system threatens innovation and economic growth. U.S. political institutions have shown great dexterity and flexibility over the last two centuries in withstanding challenges from politicians and robber barons alike. But a downward spiral in these institutions looks possible perhaps for the first time in the last seven decades, and our best weapon against this is political participation by a broad segment of society.
And here are some positive measures for fostering innovation.
- Encourage skilled foreign workers to work and settle in the United States. U.S. innovation relies on the skills and ingenuity of the best and brightest around the world. Despite concerns about brain drain in developing economies, research by Harvard Business School's William Kerrshows that everybody is the winner when the United States attracts talent from abroad. Applications for H1B visas far outstrip the available quotas, and our companies and consumers can greatly benefit from permitting more skilled workers to come to the United States. But the political trends are in the opposite direction. The stimulus package made it harder for many companies to hire foreign workers, and some lawmakers would even go further and restrict H1Bs. Despite extremely high unemployment numbers, our economy and innovative capacity would benefit from a much more liberal policy towards skilled immigration.
- Foster the commercialization of innovation. Much more can be done to facilitate this process. The Bayh-Dole Act of 1980 was only a small step toward encouraging commercialization of academic research. Even as the U.S. government is trying to cut spending, commercialization of new research would be one area deserving of new funding, particularly to ensure that this process does not undermine the greatest virtue of academic research, its openness.
- Focus on green technology, the next area that has the best promise of creating a platform for more innovation. Innovations in information and communication technology starting in the 1960s have had a transformative impact on the world economy by creating a platform upon which myriad other technologies and products could be developed. Green technology has the potential to cut carbon emissions, sure, but we also need to transform the way in which energy is delivered, utilized, and monitored. This necessitates innovation and significant investment not only in power generation but also in the electricity grid, in the transport system, and in homes and factories. The United States is lagging behind other countries in these activities. To regain leadership, we need both more and smarter subsidies to research in green technologies and a carbon tax that naturally encourages the use of cleaner technologies and triggers more research to seek such technologies.
All of this is easier to say than it is to do, but that's no reason not to use these principles to help us climb out of our current hole.
I can't ever remember living through such poisonously polarized times: the left and the right, immigrants and their antagonists, warring religions, and perhaps above all, the haves, who have ever more, and the have nots, who have ever less.
As William Yeats put it, "Things fall apart, the centre cannot hold, mere anarchy is loosed upon the world."
Doesn't it increasingly feel that way?
We each move frequently between at least two realities, unaware we're doing so. The more primitive one, fueled by the lower parts of our brain, is instinctive, reactive, survival-based and selfish.
The higher one, filtered through our pre-frontal cortex, allows us to be intentional, reflective, future-oriented, and generous. In this state, we're capable of shaping our deepest values, delaying gratification, and making sacrifices that serve the greater good, including our own.
Ask virtually anyone to tell you their mostly deeply held values, and they'll invariably describe noble ideals such as kindness, compassion, honesty, fairness, respect for others, courage, and generosity.
The challenge is that our survival instincts so often overwhelm our more virtuous ones. In fear, which so many of us understandably feel in these difficult times, we contract. We become more mistrustful, vigilant, self-protective, and righteous, which only makes the fissures between us grow wider.
So how do we learn to rise to our best selves more often?
The first answer is to acknowledge how often we fall short of the ideals to which we aspire — and how much help we need in living them more fully. We need humility in place of hubris, and even a sense of shame, where it's warranted, as a spur to behave better.
Instead, we too often use our highest intellectual capacities, after the fact, to defend, rationalize, and minimize behaviors that actually violate our professed values. Or to blame others, or circumstances beyond our control.
I see this in myself every day. I value a healthy body, but I succumb to unhealthy foods. I believe deeply in kindness, but I don't always act kindly. I am appalled at the fact that we're profligately burning down our planet's limited resources, but I live in a house that's far bigger than I need.
I'm outraged by the fact that billions of people live in abject poverty, in the midst of plenty, but I continue to live an exceptionally comfortable life, and only allocate a modest percentage of my income to helping others.
And I rationalize. I tell myself I do more than most. That my work is about helping people. Or I try not to think about my contradictions.
The second step — mine, ours — is to actively challenge our infinite capacity for self-deception. In the simplest and most personal terms, that means seeking to hold ourselves more accountable to our deepest values, through our behaviors, every day.
It dawned on me thinking about all this recently that I need to be more literal about accountability, because otherwise the relentless demands of everyday life simply take over.
I decided to start keeping track, in a daily journal, of how I'm doing. If I say my health matters, what did I do to take care of it? What did I eat, and what exercise did I do, and how much did I sleep?
If I say kindness matters, how did my behavior reflect that, or violate it? I've already begun doing more pro bono work, in an effort to better serve the value of service to others.
Each of us is either adding value to the world we live in, or spending it down, by the sum of our actions. That's true no matter how you spend your days.
As Marian Wright Edelman put it, "We must not, in trying to think about how we can make a big difference, ignore the small differences we can make which, over time, add up to the big differences that we often cannot foresee."
Some of those involve taking better care of yourself. Others involve taking better care of others. Living intentionally, and by your deepest values, requires not just awareness and intentionality, but also sacrifice.
We all instinctively and automatically move towards pleasure. It takes no effort to be impulsive or reactive. What's endlessly difficult is to challenge our comfort zone, to transcend our survival instincts, and to reach beyond ourselves.
We need each other for that. It's the next evolutionary leap, from "me" to "we." Who can you recruit to push you, and cheer you on, and hold you accountable to your commitments, while you do the same for them?
We're all in this together. Like it or not, we live in an increasingly interdependent world.
We're all in this together. Like it or not, we live in an increasingly interdependent world.
We're either growing, or we're getting weaker. There's no standing still. Whether you shared his politics or not, Eldridge Cleaver was right. We're either part of the solution, or we're part of the problem.
Editor’s Note: When the members of the class of 2010 entered business school, the economy was strong and their post-graduation ambitions could be limitless. Just a few weeks later, the economy went into a tailspin. They’ve spent the past two years recalibrating their worldview and their definition of success.
The students seem highly aware of how the world has changed (as the sampling of views in this article shows). In the spring, Harvard Business School’s graduating class asked HBS professor Clay Christensen to address them—but not on how to apply his principles and thinking to their post-HBS careers. The students wanted to know how to apply them to their personal lives. He shared with them a set of guidelines that have helped him find meaning in his own life. Though Christensen’s thinking comes from his deep religious faith, we believe that these are strategies anyone can use. And so we asked him to share them with the readers of HBR. To learn more about Christensen’s work, visit his HBR Author Page.
Before I published The Innovator’s Dilemma, I got a call from Andrew Grove, then the chairman of Intel. He had read one of my early papers about disruptive technology, and he asked if I could talk to his direct reports and explain my research and what it implied for Intel. Excited, I flew to Silicon Valley and showed up at the appointed time, only to have Grove say, “Look, stuff has happened. We have only 10 minutes for you. Tell us what your model of disruption means for Intel.” I said that I couldn’t—that I needed a full 30 minutes to explain the model, because only with it as context would any comments about Intel make sense. Ten minutes into my explanation, Grove interrupted: “Look, I’ve got your model. Just tell us what it means for Intel.”
I insisted that I needed 10 more minutes to describe how the process of disruption had worked its way through a very different industry, steel, so that he and his team could understand how disruption worked. I told the story of how Nucor and other steel minimills had begun by attacking the lowest end of the market—steel reinforcing bars, or rebar—and later moved up toward the high end, undercutting the traditional steel mills.
When I finished the minimill story, Grove said, “OK, I get it. What it means for Intel is...,” and then went on to articulate what would become the company’s strategy for going to the bottom of the market to launch the Celeron processor.
I’ve thought about that a million times since. If I had been suckered into telling Andy Grove what he should think about the microprocessor business, I’d have been killed. But instead of telling him what to think, I taught him how to think—and then he reached what I felt was the correct decision on his own.
That experience had a profound influence on me. When people ask what I think they should do, I rarely answer their question directly. Instead, I run the question aloud through one of my models. I’ll describe how the process in the model worked its way through an industry quite different from their own. And then, more often than not, they’ll say, “OK, I get it.” And they’ll answer their own question more insightfully than I could have.
My class at HBS is structured to help my students understand what good management theory is and how it is built. To that backbone I attach different models or theories that help students think about the various dimensions of a general manager’s job in stimulating innovation and growth. In each session we look at one company through the lenses of those theories—using them to explain how the company got into its situation and to examine what managerial actions will yield the needed results.
On the last day of class, I ask my students to turn those theoretical lenses on themselves, to find cogent answers to three questions: First, how can I be sure that I’ll be happy in my career? Second, how can I be sure that my relationships with my spouse and my family become an enduring source of happiness? Third, how can I be sure I’ll stay out of jail? Though the last question sounds lighthearted, it’s not. Two of the 32 people in my Rhodes scholar class spent time in jail. Jeff Skilling of Enron fame was a classmate of mine at HBS. These were good guys—but something in their lives sent them off in the wrong direction.
The Class of 2010
As the students discuss the answers to these questions, I open my own life to them as a case study of sorts, to illustrate how they can use the theories from our course to guide their life decisions.
One of the maxims of being a leader is to make yourself replaceable. I can't remember what business guru said it, likely because they lost their job before becoming famous.
Like a lot of people, working to make myself replaceable is not an easy concept for me. I have spent the majority of my life trying to make myself irreplaceable as an analyst/decision maker since spending all of 2nd grade analyzing the optimal All Star Baseball spin card lineup (hint: leading off George Sisler was the key).
As much as I don't want to admit it, however, the age of the irreplaceable analyst no longer exists, if it ever did. From my vantage point as GM of the Houston Rockets and the co-chair of the MIT Sloan Sports Analytics Conference, I see a world teeming with really good analysts. Fresh analytical faces are minted each year and sports teams are hiring them in larger numbers. If talented analysts are becoming plentiful, however, then it follows that analysts cannot be the key to creating a consistent winner, as a sustainable competitive edge requires that you have something valuable AND irreplaceable. If better analysts won't create an edge, however, what will?
The answer is better data. Yep, that's right. Raw numbers, not the people and programs that attempt to make sense of them. Many organizations have spent the last few years hiring top analysts based on the belief that they create differentiation. Smart companies such as Google believe they need savants to crunch those numbers and find the connections that regular humans could not. But my experience, and what I'm hearing from more organizations (sports and non), shows that real advantage comes from unique data that no one else has.
Here's an example from my world. Many teams in the NBA track data for their own team such as how often a player on defense challenges shots. When tracked for your own team, this information can be useful to add accountability to the important things a coach is trying to emphasize to win games and to improve players on the margin by increasing their effort on challenging shots. The data does not offer significant competitive leverage, however, until you track the data for the entire league. Only with the league-wide data can you tell if your players are creating an advantage relative to others in the league on shot challenges (higher leverage) or even more important, identify players you may want to acquire who challenge shots extremely well (highest leverage).
Without the context of the entire league, it is very hard to use data in any meaningfully competitive way. Tracking data for the whole league across multiple dimensions is a significant task but very worth it. For obvious reasons, I cannot reveal what data the Houston Rockets track but to track the significant data we gather we use a very large set of temporary labor that helps us develop these data sets that we hope will create an advantage over time. To be sure, you need strong analysts (and we have many) to then work with this data, but the leverage comes not from the analysis but from having the data that others do not.
With the Moneyball movie set to open next month, the world will once again be gaga over the power of smart analytics to drive success. While you are watching the movie, however, think about the fact that the high revenue teams, such as the Red Sox, went out and hired smart analysts and quickly eroded any advantage the Oakland A's had. If there had been a proprietary data set that Oakland could have built to better value players than the competition, their edge may have been sustainable.
One non-sports company that has known the importance of data to create an advantage for some time and has continued to outpace growth estimates every year because of it is Amazon. Their ability to use unique customer purchase data to drive customized product sales and pricing decisions across a product line with unprecedented breadth has been its key edge over time vs the intense competition from numerous retailers and e-retailers.
While I may not have convinced everyone that data is the key edge (especially the analysts reading this), people in the workforce everywhere should think about what key data you could gather that no one has or even what new product or service you could start that would give you access to data that no one has. That's the way to create an edge today.
Why Fair Bosses Fall Behind by Batia M. Wiesenfeld, Naomi B. Rothman, Sara L. Wheeler-Smith, and Adam D. Galinsky
In management, fairness is a virtue. Numerous academic studies have shown that the most effective leaders are generally those who give employees a voice, treat them with dignity and consistency, and base decisions on accurate and complete information.
But there’s a hidden cost to this behavior. We’ve found that although fair managers earn respect, they’re seen as less powerful than other managers—less in control of resources, less able to reward and punish—and that may hurt their odds of attaining certain key, contentious leadership roles.
When Can Fair Bosses Get Ahead?
Our research, which included lab studies and responses from hundreds of corporate decision makers and employees, began with the age-old question “Should leaders be loved or feared?” We went a step further, asking, “Can you have respect andpower?” We found that it’s hard to gain both.
Consider Hank McKinnell and Karen Katen, two rising stars at Pfizer during the 1990s. McKinnell, who’d served as CFO and run the company’s overseas businesses, was known for his assertive negotiating style and no-nonsense, occasionally abrasive manner. Katen’s performance had also won her numerous promotions, and she headed Pfizer’s primary operating unit. She treated subordinates and colleagues with respect and was respected in turn.
In 2001, when it came time for a new CEO, the two were among the top candidates. McKinnell was chosen. One analyst told Bloomberg, “[Hank] is the right guy for the job...he’s got a toughness about him.”
We heard this attitude expressed in a range of industries. Decisions about high-level promotions most often center on perceptions of power, not of fairness.
The same bias was exhibited by students in a laboratory setting. Each witnessed a “manager” telling an employee about a compensation decision. Manager A communicated the decision rudely, Manager B with respect. The students were then assigned to work in a group led by the manager they’d observed; afterward they rated their leader’s power. Rude Manager A consistently scored higher than respectful Manager B—even though there was no difference in how they’d treated the participants themselves. Simply having witnessed the rude and respectful behavior was enough to create the bias.
We’ve long wondered why managers don’t always behave fairly, because doing so would clearly benefit their organizations: Studies show that the success of change initiatives depends largely on fair implementation. Our research suggests an answer. Managers see respect and power as two mutually exclusive avenues to influence, and many choose the latter.
Although this appears to be the more rational choice, it’s not always the correct one—and it poses big risks for organizations. At Pfizer, a cohort of promising executives associated with Katen resigned after McKinnell took over. He himself was pushed into retirement by the board in 2006 because of the company’s disappointing performance. Shareholder outrage over his rich retirement package followed.
Companies can benefit from placing more value on fairness when assessing managerial performance. Our early follow-up research suggests that managers whose style is based on respect can gain power. Their path upward may be difficult, but it’s one worth taking, for their company’s sake as well as their own.
Jim, a communications specialist, is sitting opposite me stirring his second coffee. He has declining budgets, repetitive tasks, and an overbearing boss who micromanages his every move. He can't remember the last time he had a great day at work. He's shown me a clipping for a lower-paid job which he thinks he won't get, and now he's trying to find a new way to express what he's been saying for the last half hour — that as much as he dislikes his current job, at least that's the devil he knows.
If any of this sounds familiar, know that a lot of us kid ourselves that we make decisions about our careers. Most of the time we drift along, half-consciously patching together a narrative about "opportunity" which looks a coherent enough career story for interviews. In an upbeat market, jobs come along, new projects emerge, and things just develop under their own momentum.
Working in tough times changes everything. Everything we think about work is dominated by the apparent lack of positions, by stories of layoffs and cutbacks, and the dominant career management strategy has become, "hunker down here and make the best of things." You may even feel you're in a "velvet rut" — your career offers little learning and few challenges, but it's very comfortable, and there is little chance you'll find the energy to break out of it.
In this extended downturn, how often have you heard people say, "It's pretty bad, but it's a place to ride out the storm"? People are staying put, keeping their heads down, and waiting things out. That's not much of a career strategy.
But neither is fantasizing. I'm the kind of person who tunes in to other people's conversations on trains, in airports, in Starbucks, and find it fascinating how many conversations offer just this kind of polarized view. It's a cartoon picture of career choice. Usually people start with the enlivening fantasy about a working day which feels meaningful, or at least interesting, surrounded by energized people. Then (as their body language gives away) they switch to the "realistic." While fantasizing aloud is a staple part of the way we reflect on work, and while, conversely, market pressure may be real, neither of these help us break through career passivity.
Most of us would love every opportunity to be presented on a plate, every career decision to be obvious. Right now it's easy to hear the advice, "this is a bad time to be changing jobs." The reality is that I have heard that phrase, year after year, for two decades.
Go or, stay — but do it for the right reasons.
Moving on should be about finding a role which is a better match for what you have to offer. All work is a compromise, and it's a mistake to trash your side of the bargain. Work out the real career deal breakers for you. Start by thinking about hot buttons like influence, working relationships, values, trust, and your personal learning.
Before you jump ship, stock your lifeboat. Collect and make sense of your evidence, your achievements, and your reasons for making a change. Work out a clear career wish list and stick to it, in networking and in direct applications, so that you hit something close to the center of your target.
Staying should always be a positive choice rather than the default option — telling yourself you should be grateful for job security is never more than a temporary fix. Don't use the downturn as an excuse to put your career on the back burner.
Look at the last three years of work. Have they been three different years, or the same year three times over? What have you learned — where have you been stretched? And (most importantly), how are you going to talk convincingly about this segment of your resume in five years' time when you're sitting in front of a recruiter?
And remember that staying doesn't mean doing nothing. Look at renegotiating some parts of your role. Making vague requests for a more interesting job doesn't help, so offer tangible initiatives as solutions that help you and the organization. Seek short-term changes — pilot schemes, attaching yourself to new teams or projects, temporary transfers, "spare time" initiatives — that are relatively risk-free to your organization but of maximum value to your personal development. Managing upwards marks the beginnings of a properly active career strategy — help others to help you redefine yourself and the way your organization sees you.
What can you persuade your employer to change? Often far more than you imagine. I have clients who started by saying, "I need to be out of here by Friday," and moved to, "I can make something of this," within a matter of days. The light at the end of the tunnel may be yours to switch on.
Escrito por Marisa Adán Gil em 12.08.2011 Categorias: Atendimento
É sempre a mesma coisa: você liga para a sua operadora de TV a cabo (ou celular, ou cartão de crédito) e fica horas com o telefone grudado na orelha, esperando que alguém de carne e osso se digne a atender. Que tal nunca mais ter que passar por isso? E se, em vez de ficar escutando aquela musiquinha irritante, você pudesse simplemente colocar o número desejado no celular, e daí receber um aviso quando já houvesse um atendente do outro lado da linha, pronto para ouvir sua reclamação?
Esse sonho dourado já é possível - pelo menos nos Estados Unidos. A empresa FastCustomer lançou um aplicativo que funciona tanto em iPhones quando em aparelhos que usam o sistema Android. Funciona assim: quando você clica no aplicativo, aparece um cardápio de companhias – no momento são 2.500 em solo americano. Você seleciona uma e o app avisa que vai fazer a chamada telefônica. Quando um funcionário finalmente atende do outro lado da linha, o aplicativo diz a ele: “Por favor, disque 1 para falar com o seu próximo cliente”. No momento em que o atendente disca o número 1, o aplicativo te avisa. Como o serviço é novo, pode acontecer de o funcionário da companhia em questão não entender nada, ou mesmo se recusar a discar o número 1. Sem problemas: se isso acontecer, o aplicativo ligará de novo, até que alguém do outro lado da linha finalmente aperte o botão desejado.
O fundador da FastCustomer, Aaron Dragushan, teve a ideia quanto tentava falar com a Concast, gigante da TV a cablo, telefonia e internet nos EUA. “Depois de 20 minutos esperando, pensei: ‘Estamos na era da tecnologia, não é possível que alguém tenha que esperar tanto tempo!’”. Por enquanto, 20 mil pessoas fizeram o download do programa. Segundo o empresário, a receita do negócio virá de serviços especiais que serão oferecidos aos clientes, e também da venda de dados para as companhias. Será que alguém se habilita a lançar esse serviço aqui no Brasil? Algo me diz que faria muito sucesso…
PARIS, Aug 11 (Reuters) - Morgan Stanley Investment Management has raised its stake in French vouchers and prepaid cards company Edenred to 10.03 percent, the French stock market regulator AMF said on Thursday. Morgan Stanley bought a stake of about 6 percent stake in Edenred last year. Edenred's website says institutional shareholders, such as Morgan Stanley, own 68 percent of its share capital. Edenred shares were little changed at 17.03 euros by 1317 GMT while the main CAC-40 index was up 0.2 percent. (Reporting by Caroline Jacobs; Editing by Dan Lalor) Keywords: EDENRED/ (firstname.lastname@example.org; Reuters Messaging: email@example.com; +33 1 49 49 53 43) COPYRIGHT Copyright Thomson Reuters 2011. All rights reserved.
The copying, republication or redistribution of Reuters News Content, including by framing or similar means, is expressly prohibited without the prior written consent of Thomson Reuters.