Woolworths steals Frankie's ideas

[adrianh]

@gac - There was never such a time. Humans have always screwed one another over and if they were exposed they and may not have been despised and isolated. I think that you remember an ideal fictional world that never existed, or maybe you read about such a place.

I don't think it is a matter of being desensited, it is a matter of common business practice. The word "moral" is problematic as it varies from culture to culture. "Moral" is only so in the eye of the cultural beholder. It is perfectly moral for a Moslem man to have 3 wifes and to stone one to death if she sleeps with the neighbour. It was perfectly moral for a white South African some years ago not to allow a black man into hs church. It is perfectly moral for our president to have 6 wives.

No my friend, don't speak of morals, morals are transient and evolve.

To get back to the fisrts line: When was this time? where? As far as I am aware there are many stories in the bible of so called immoral behaviour, remember Joseph....Nee ou broer, you live in a dream world.

agreed that some may defend themselves by claiming a different understanding of right and wrong, however there cannot be more than 1 acceptable understanding.

I beg to differ on this point too. This is like saying like can only be a particle or a wave. Life simply doesn't work this way. Ok, so, is it right to break the speed limit if you are at work and your child is having an asthma attack at home, is it right to kill a burglar who lunges at you with a knife (remember the Thou shalt no kill bit), is it right to stone a woman to death for adultery if you live in the midle of Afganistan. Is it wrong to help somebody die if the two of you are in the middle of nowhere and that person is squashed, trapped under a car, bleeding out a screaming in pain.

NOTHING IN LIFE IS BLACK OR WHITE

In the end truth prevails.

This is another good one. Define truth, who'se truth, through who's eyes. Is it true that Lee Harvey Oswald killed Kennedy, is it true that Osama Bin Laden caused 9/11, is it true that Jacob Zuma took a bribe. The answer to all questions are: Well maybe, depends on who you believe. Then one could say: "It is true if it can be proved in a court of law" - Well ok, so we take it that OJ Simpson didn't kill his wife - she must have murdered herself or, when Julius Malema says "Kill the boer" he actually means..uh, kiss that friendly white face that provides food and labour.

The dream world that you speak of never existed and never will, humans are competitive by nature and will always try to get one step ahead of the next.

[Justloadit]

On many occasions as small business, we copy other business products or marketing methods, that is the way of the world. When we do it, then it is OK, but when someone else copies us, then we cry foul.

Competition is derived by copying someone else and improving on it. Live with it, or go out of business, you choose. In this case there may have been a decision made by Woolies, that this is a smart idea, but after having done some due diligence, they could have decided, that Frankies can not handle the orders, and secondly the consistent quality is not there. Now as a well known store, could they take the risk on supplying an inferior product? It may have occurred that to improve the quality would require a huge sum of money to be invested into a manufacturer, which does not belong to the group, so a decision was made to make their own, at least the investment would belong to Woolies, not a supplier who could break off at any time and sell on Woolies marketing.

At the end of the day, having looked at the information given, once can not categorically state that it is an exact copy, after all there are a number of different manufacturers of washing powder, so who copied who? What about search engines, Google, Yahoo, Bing, etc.......

I think that we need to improve our products, marketing and move on, dwelling on the spillt milk is not going to pay the bills.

[tec0]

Here is the thing; Frankie’s could have paper work emplace to protect their idea. That said Woolworths say they do a lot for South Africans and how keen they are to promote South African products and so on. So because of this public image Frankie’s might have thought that Woolworths would help them in promoting selling thus they will have a higher turnover and offer better quality product in return.

So Woolworths didn’t help them, they saw potential in the market and despite their public imagine they took the idea and made it their own. The fact is Woolworths communicate that the public must trust them and their products. And this is how they repay the public? By showing that they will abuse the trust they advocate?

Look they stole the idea by the book... The law will probably be on their side... That said why must the public still trust them?

[adrianh]

I agree with Justloadit & tec0 to some degree. Woolworths simply took the idea and made it their own. We all do it on a daily basis; but, do we do it blatantly and get caught, or do we evolve the idea? The issue is not so much that they made the idea their own it is that they did it blatantly. I think it is the difference between Samsung selling a "Samsung Ipad II" and a "Samsung Galaxy Tab". The former is just a tad too blatant.

[Justloadit]

Well is "Fiery Gingerbeer" a word conjured up by Frankies?
I think not - check out "Idris Fiery Gingerbeer"

[tec0]

Let’s look at this the other way around, you go to America saw something that will do well in the South African market. One studies the product and realise that it can be fabricated locally. More research shows that there is no patent on the product in South Africa.

Now you invest your money and with good lawyers and some luck you get the rights and there you go. Now you go to a BIG company with the running reputation to represent South African products. You introduce your product and they say no thank you.

8 months on you see your product defaced to appear to be something else but basically it is still the same thing. Yet the company got around the technicalities with some fancy lawyers of their own.
Now who is in the wrong?

The person that copied the idea from America?

The company that claims people and business can trust them?

It is all the same really but I wouldn’t do business with someone that claiming to honest and then turns around and sink a small business just because they can...

[gac]

adrianh - I respect your views on the matter. Many, many of the older generation today (70 plus) tell of times when one could trust another on a handshake, when an Agreement was often 2 paragraphs on a piece of paper, employment was concluded on a verbal acceptance and handshake and there was hardly a need to sue someone else on a broken agreement. I have a few clients right now that place verbal orders up to R10k in value, which takes us up to 8 weeks to manufacture, that I dont ask to sign orders and there are no formal/legal agrements in place. Unfortunately we have been caught on occassions over the last 10 years and now only offer this arrangement to long standing clients who have a track record with us. This basis of trading used to be a norm rather than an exception but it is these days an exception rather than a norm.

I agree that cultural differences blur morals and I am obviously talking from my cultural point of view. Also cant refute the examples you provide but my comments were written in the context of the Frankies incident. Many cultures however possess a strong set of core morals/principles and many are common across cultures. And yes there are many examples of broken morals going back to Biblical times. I am not claiming that a perfect world ever existed but rather that the incidence and nature of immoral/unprincipled behaviour is spinning out of control....almost a "world gone made" scenario. Because of the common occurences our children stuggle to see the bad in much of what is happening around us and we even start to become desensitised.

Many situations in life are quite simple but somehow we complicate them in trying to satisfy ourselves that wrong is actually alright.
No lets always call a spade a spade, regardless of its colour, material, size or shape if you know what I mean.

The truth in this case is whether Woolies did steal from Frankies or didnt steal from Frankies and I'm not talking about the legalities. Again for me I choose to take a simple view rather than a complicated one that others may choose to do.

[tec0]

Right and wrong is no longer our decision to make. There is a biblical difference between morality and the law. Laws is driven by human innuendo, if you take the kings of old they use to kill people based on how they felt. If they said something it was indisputable regardless of right and wrong.

This sadly is still true today; laws don’t protect people because laws became unaffordable to the public in general. Morality however is still ours... Then came human conditioning and destroyed that part by only allowing people with a higher education to speak.

Education now rules our basic concept of understanding but in reality much of what we accepted as true is and always was someone’s opinion that went out to proof her/his point with some credible study and or experiment. Then someone else comes along and says no and gets all the credibility he/she needs and there you go a new truth.

Woolworths did what they did because the law permits it. Morality is meaningless...

[Blurock]

Well it all comes down to what you one believes to be right and what one believes to be wrong. Someone may think they are doing right and yet in the eyes of another it may be wrong.

Morality is meaningless...

No, I can not agree with that statement. Morality is your conscience that tells you what is right or wrong. It is that conscience that keeps you awake and forces you to admit when you have done wrong. Basic moral principles are the same in most cultures and religions. Yes, there are grey areas and cultural differences. That is because we are only human.

There are also callous people who do not have a conscience and who feel nothing for their follow man. There are people who steal and people who kill for a living. That does not mean that morality is wrong or that morality does not have a place in modern society. It only means that something has gone wrong.

As humans we have a duty to uphold moral values - not to show that we are better than other people, but to make the world a better place to live in. The alternative is total moral decay and anarchy.

I have always believed that it is the duty of the strong to protect the weak. That is why we can not allow the strong (whether it be government, business or individuals) to get away with abuse.

[gac]

Very well put Blurock. I'm on your page 100% and hope most people are.

[adrianh]

I still think that you are living in a dream world. That world where people did deals on a handshake is a dream; yes maybe some did, but they were few. The world is not black or white and just as you are duped into buying certain products by means of marketing, so are you duped into believing certain; lets call them, morals, values etc by society. That society may move along certain lines due to religion or politics but a lot of it is simply social engineering.

Morality is your conscience that tells you what is right or wrong. It is that conscience that keeps you awake and forces you to admit when you have done wrong. Basic moral principles are the same in most cultures and religions. Yes, there are grey areas and cultural differences. That is because we are only human.

This statement is circular. You say that it is your conscience that keeps you awake at night because you know what you did is wrong but there are cultural differences. Ok, so if the morality of one culture is the polar opposite of another what then. What happens if you are born into both cultures, are things then right and wrong simultaniously?

There are also callous people who do not have a conscience and who feel nothing for their follow man.

What about the man who is born a sociopath with an effective born in lobotomy. What about the man who has an accident and is lobotomized though the accident....

There are people who steal and people who kill for a living.

Ok, so what about full time soldiers...What about those Isreali soldiers that have been shooting the crap out of the Palistinians, or the American soldiers who invade another country and shoot the crap out of anything that moves (And all the other groups that went into Iraq and Afganistan) They and their families tkink that they are heroes. ---This goes to prove that morality is a social standard of the time - nothing more.

That does not mean that morality is wrong or that morality does not have a place in modern society. It only means that something has gone wrong.

No, nothing has changed, people have always been fighting with one another, religions, cultures, countries, neighbours - it is the way of the world. (I'm sure you remember the Crusaders, were they right to run amok and kill all the Moslems, or the KKK, they killed in the name or religion)

As humans we have a duty to uphold moral values - not to show that we are better than other people, but to make the world a better place to live in. The alternative is total moral decay and anarchy.

Which moral values, Christian, Moslem, Buddhist, ok, so if we uphold the one then does it stand to reason that the others lead to total moral decay and anarchy? Further, what do you do if your leaders and your churches have different moral values - what is right and what is wrong. Is it right to have 6 wives? is it right to marry a man....tough problems when society changes but dogma can't keep up.

I have always believed that it is the duty of the strong to protect the weak. That is why we can not allow the strong (whether it be government, business or individuals) to get away with abuse.

This statement also has its problems in that the shear volume of weak may well pull the entire ship under and everybody will drown together.

The point that I am trying to make is that though the world is simply black or white through your eyes, it sure as hell is not through mine. You will never ever convince me that looking at the world through the narrow eyeglass of dogma (who ever's version it might be) is a (in your words "right way") to slice the world up into pieces that exclude others because of their own odd dogmatic ways....

Look, I am not against morality and values etc, what I am saying is that one needs to take a far more pragmatic and tolerant view and understand that their is no single or simple answer. If one's own dogmatic views are unable to answer simple questions then how can one expect others to believe that views and the only "right" views.


Disclaimer: This is an academic discussion simply tossing my own views around not meant to offend anybody.

[adrianh]

Ok, I will admit to one thing that has changed: High speed mass communication. We are now able to see how people scew one another over much faster than before.

A lot like getting a telescope - You can either believe that the number of stars and planets quadrupled overnight or you realize that you have a wider view on the universe!

[Justloadit]

Something that has not been discussed here.

I deal a lot with clients looking to put an idea into the market. Over 99% of the times, the particular idea the person wants o produce has been developed/supplied in another different package. Remember that we are all exposed to the same information/problems etc, simply because of the speed and volume of information available today.

What if Woollies, was thinking of putting a product like this on the shelves, before Frankies contacted them, and that they were quite far into the development of the product, and due to this reason, simply ignored Frankies presentation.

Now putting up a bottling plant, no matter how much money you have, will not happen in less than 6 to 8 months. Just getting the tooling for the bottle can take up to 6 months to produce, then you have the printing and the bottling process. Machines are not held in stock for this type of production, and generally get built up and assembled, and can take easily 6 months to complete. Then you require premises to house the plant, and getting this ready will also take 6 to 8 months to complete. The premises must then get licensed and cleared for the production of food and beverages.

So looking at the time frames, in all probability, Woolies was already in the process of the product in question, and that this whole story is a storm in a tea cup.

We are always very fast to criticize successful companies, because we are jealous that we have not made it. Think about it, most peole/companies you hate, are successful in their business. Look at how we hate the opposition players in sports teams, it s because they are excellent players, and the only way we can deal with it is to hate them.

[adrianh]

@JustLoadit - Read a book called BrandWashed - it will affect your thinking for the rest of your life. (It doesn't say anything about the topic at hand but it sure says a lot about brands, marketinging and the gullible we really are)

Another book by the same author is Buy-ology, I've been unable to find a copy yet but I'll keep trolling the mobi sites.

[Justloadit]

Adrian,

Just read the reviews on this book, frightening stuff I tell you.

Use the forward button and see 16 examples.