LoopNet Acquires BizQuest, LLC, a Leading Online Business-For-Sale Marketplace
Together with BizBuySell, the acquisition of BizQuest complements and solidifies LoopNet’s leadership in the online business-for-sale marketplace sector.
San Francisco, CA (PRWEB) January 26, 2010 -- LoopNet, Inc. (NASDAQ: LOOP), which operates the largest online commercial real estate marketplace and the largest business for sale marketplace, BizBuySell, announced today that it has acquired the assets of privately-held BizQuest, LLC to complement its leading position in the online business-for-sale marketplace sector.
Founded in 1994 and headquartered in Pasadena, California, BizQuest.com is a leader in aggregating sellers, buyers and brokers in the small business-for-sale market. BizQuest currently offers over 35,000 businesses for sale, an industry-leading franchise directory, as well as other tools and services for aspiring small business buyers and sellers.
We will also begin to address one of the most significant pain points for our broker customers, entering listings on multiple websites. Soon broker customers of both sites will be able to enter and manage a business listing on BizBuySell and have it automatically and seamlessly display on BizQuest as well.
LoopNet's acquisition of BizQuest and the ability to coordinate with and leverage the coverage of BizBuySell will allow us to offer even greater exposure and value to our customers
We expect this will be a major milestone for the business-for-sale industry as the seamless integration and time-saving capabilities resulting from the acquisition will benefit sellers and business brokers alike.
“Together, BizBuySell and BizQuest will offer our customers unparalleled exposure to help facilitate faster transactions and more competitive bids on their businesses for sale,” said Mike Handelsman, LoopNet’s Group General Manager for the small business market. “We will also begin to address one of the most significant pain points for our broker customers, entering listings on multiple websites. Soon broker customers of both sites will be able to enter and manage a business listing on BizBuySell and have it automatically and seamlessly display on BizQuest as well.”
BizQuest, which will operate as a division of LoopNet, likewise anticipates the acquisition will serve to benefit its existing clientele.
"LoopNet's acquisition of BizQuest and the ability to coordinate with and leverage the coverage of BizBuySell will allow us to offer even greater exposure and value to our customers,” said Dylan Garland, CEO of BizQuest, LLC. “We expect this will be a major milestone for the business-for-sale industry as the seamless integration and time-saving capabilities resulting from the acquisition will benefit sellers and business brokers alike.”
LoopNet does not currently expect the acquisition of BizQuest to have a material impact on its 2010 financial results.
BizQuest, available at www.BizQuest.com, covers all business-for-sale categories, including restaurant, retail, service, manufacturing and other small business sectors. BizQuest has more than 35,000 businesses for sale and, with over 300 franchise and business opportunities at www.FindAFranchise.com, one of the largest franchise directories available online.
BizBuySell, available at www.BizBuySell.com, also covers all business-for-sale categories, including restaurant, retail, service, manufacturing and other small business sectors. It has more than 45,000 businesses for sale, and more than 325 franchise and business opportunities in its franchise directory.
.....
To view the entire press release please click HERE.
Tuesday, January 26, 2010
Monday, January 25, 2010
Nation's Restaurant News Article
8 ways to build full-service sales
By Ron Ruggless
WASHINGTON (Jan. 22, 2010) While full-service restaurant sales aren't expected to rebound as quickly as in other industry segments, the National Restaurant Association offers eight ways that table-service operators can weigh the odds of recovery in their favor and build much-needed sales.
In its "2010 Restaurant Industry Forecast" the NRA expects full-service restaurant sales in 2010 to grow at a lesser pace than the industry as a whole, like it has for years as the segment takes big hits from consumers trading down and quick-service competitors increasing quality offerings.
Full-service sales are expected to total $184.2 billion in 2010, a 1.2 percent increase from 2009, while industry sales are expected to total $580.1 billion, a 2.5 percent jump. Even worse, after accounting for inflation, real full-service segment sales are expected to decline 1.5 percent in 2010. That follows on the heels of a 2009 decline of 6.2 percent.
“One of the primary differences in this past recessionary period compared to historical recessionary periods is that the higher-income households — the prime table-service market — reported substantial decreases in net worth as well as confidence,” said Hudson Riehle, the NRA’s senior vice president of research and knowledge.
Indeed, full-service operators, from lower-priced casual-dining chains to high-end independent operators have bore the brunt of this latest recession. Casual-dining chains have posted the largest same-store sales declines throughout the industry, and high-end independent operations have posted the largest numbers of closures.
Here are eight ways the NRA suggests full-service restaurants can build their business in a flat segment of the industry:
1. Offer value. NRA surveys found operators expected a third of fine-dining customers, 46 percent of family-dining patrons and 40 percent of casual-dining guests to be more value conscious in 2010 vs. 2009. Frequent-dining or loyalty programs are likely to be more popular.
2. Use social media. Among operators not using Facebook, an NRA survey found four of every 10 plan to create a presence in 2010. About a fifth of full-service operators planned to use YouTube or similar video-sharing sites. Users of social sites such as Yelp and Twitter are expected to increase this year.
3. Market via e-mail. Already seven of every 10 fine-dining establishments keep in touch with customers via e-mail, but only half of casual-dining operators and a third of family-dining operations do so. An NRA survey found 41 percent of customers say they try a new restaurant because of e-mailed promotions, and 54 percent learn about restaurants on the Internet.
4. Create events. Restaurants can offer private tastings or events. The NRA found 64 percent of adults surveyed would attend chef’s table dinners and private tastings.
5. Boost off-premise offerings. Nearly three in every 10 adults surveyed by the NRA said take-out food is essential to the way they live, so to-go and catering has sales-growth potential.
6. Market green initiatives. About four in 10 consumers said they were likely to pick a restaurant based on its conservation practices, and about seven in 10 were more likely to choose a restaurant if it featured locally produced ingredients.
7. Tap technology. Online ordering offers room for growth and less than 2 percent of full-service restaurants provide a tableside ordering or payment option.
8. Emphasize health. Half of adults surveyed said table-service restaurants provide easy ways for them to choose portion sizes.
By Ron Ruggless
WASHINGTON (Jan. 22, 2010) While full-service restaurant sales aren't expected to rebound as quickly as in other industry segments, the National Restaurant Association offers eight ways that table-service operators can weigh the odds of recovery in their favor and build much-needed sales.
In its "2010 Restaurant Industry Forecast" the NRA expects full-service restaurant sales in 2010 to grow at a lesser pace than the industry as a whole, like it has for years as the segment takes big hits from consumers trading down and quick-service competitors increasing quality offerings.
Full-service sales are expected to total $184.2 billion in 2010, a 1.2 percent increase from 2009, while industry sales are expected to total $580.1 billion, a 2.5 percent jump. Even worse, after accounting for inflation, real full-service segment sales are expected to decline 1.5 percent in 2010. That follows on the heels of a 2009 decline of 6.2 percent.
“One of the primary differences in this past recessionary period compared to historical recessionary periods is that the higher-income households — the prime table-service market — reported substantial decreases in net worth as well as confidence,” said Hudson Riehle, the NRA’s senior vice president of research and knowledge.
Indeed, full-service operators, from lower-priced casual-dining chains to high-end independent operators have bore the brunt of this latest recession. Casual-dining chains have posted the largest same-store sales declines throughout the industry, and high-end independent operations have posted the largest numbers of closures.
Here are eight ways the NRA suggests full-service restaurants can build their business in a flat segment of the industry:
1. Offer value. NRA surveys found operators expected a third of fine-dining customers, 46 percent of family-dining patrons and 40 percent of casual-dining guests to be more value conscious in 2010 vs. 2009. Frequent-dining or loyalty programs are likely to be more popular.
2. Use social media. Among operators not using Facebook, an NRA survey found four of every 10 plan to create a presence in 2010. About a fifth of full-service operators planned to use YouTube or similar video-sharing sites. Users of social sites such as Yelp and Twitter are expected to increase this year.
3. Market via e-mail. Already seven of every 10 fine-dining establishments keep in touch with customers via e-mail, but only half of casual-dining operators and a third of family-dining operations do so. An NRA survey found 41 percent of customers say they try a new restaurant because of e-mailed promotions, and 54 percent learn about restaurants on the Internet.
4. Create events. Restaurants can offer private tastings or events. The NRA found 64 percent of adults surveyed would attend chef’s table dinners and private tastings.
5. Boost off-premise offerings. Nearly three in every 10 adults surveyed by the NRA said take-out food is essential to the way they live, so to-go and catering has sales-growth potential.
6. Market green initiatives. About four in 10 consumers said they were likely to pick a restaurant based on its conservation practices, and about seven in 10 were more likely to choose a restaurant if it featured locally produced ingredients.
7. Tap technology. Online ordering offers room for growth and less than 2 percent of full-service restaurants provide a tableside ordering or payment option.
8. Emphasize health. Half of adults surveyed said table-service restaurants provide easy ways for them to choose portion sizes.
Thursday, January 21, 2010
Entrepreneurship & Employment
It's Time to Elevate Entrepreneurs
By Diana Furchtgott-Roth
WASHINGTON-When President Obama delivers his State of the Union address next Wednesday evening, many Americans will be hoping he will offer help on the employment front. The president could usefully approach job creation by adopting measures to help entrepreneurs, the main drivers of innovation and job creation.
The employment situation is worrisome. Not only are over 15 million Americans unemployed, with the national unemployment rate at 10%, but the ratio of Americans of working age in the labor force - the employed plus those looking for work - is 64.6%, the lowest since 1985. Almost 40% of the unemployed have been out of work for six months or more.
The Labor Department's broadest measure of underused human resources-the unemployed plus the discouraged who have stopped looking for work (and so have dropped out of the labor force) and people working part-time because they cannot find full-time jobs-is 17.2%.
If job creation is the country's paramount economic objective, does it matter if the economy is populated by a few large, regulated firms, or by a broad base of entrepreneurial activity in smaller units? It matters, because entrepreneurship and innovation-the driving elements of economic growth-flourish best in smaller business units.
The key is innovation: introduction of new products and services that displace their predecessors because they yield greater output for any given application of labor and capital. Innovation is vital to sustained economic growth.
Entrepreneurs, determined individuals with new ideas, are most responsible for creating innovations. Not all new ideas are economic successes. Some lead to greater wealth and economic growth, and others fail. The beauty of our economic system is that it separates productive from unproductive ideas, allowing the former to flourish.
On January 19, Carl Schramm, president of the Ewing Marion Kauffman Foundation, which promotes entrepreneurship, gave his annual State of Entrepreneurship Address at Washington's National Press Club. (Full disclosure: the Kauffman Foundation has funded some of my past research.)
Mr. Schramm offered several ideas that President Obama could use to promote entrepreneurship and employment.
Fix our immigration policy. Many entrepreneurs want to hire workers with math, science, and technology skills, but not enough native-born Americans go into these fields. Yet, after we grant college and graduate degrees in these fields to foreigners, we often do not allow them to stay in America. Some education is provided at taxpayer expense, through research grants to universities from the Departments of Energy and Defense.
Hence, we now have the perverse situation where America educates many foreign graduates in math and science and sends them back home to compete against us. Alternatively, Mr. Schramm suggests, "We could start by offering instant citizenship to any of the thousands of bright young people from foreign countries who graduate from our universities."
Let me suggest that the United States could go even further and offer citizenship to foreign graduates who wish to come here from major science universities around the globe, such as China's Tsinghua University and India's Indian Institute of Technology.
Defang Sarbanes-Oxley. Evidence is mounting that the 2002 Sarbanes-Oxley legislation, accounting rules designed to protect shareholders from corporate abuses after the collapse of Enron and Tyco, discourages companies from expanding and going public. Furthermore, some new companies are choosing to locate in London and Tokyo rather than in the United States.
Mr. Schramm proposes that Congress allow shareholders to vote on whether Sarbanes-Oxley applies to their companies. Congress might not buy this, but the accounting requirements would be optional, and companies whose shareholders believed the costs of compliance would be greater than the benefits could choose not to comply. Some firms would be able to operate more nimbly without the SOX regulations.
Develop Commercialization of Academic Research. Mr. Schramm suggests that the government could encourage a free market in the licensing of innovations developed by professors, rather than having these licenses controlled by the university, as occurs now. This would enable the development of a vibrant market to commercialize research. This might require legislation to amend the Bayh-Dole Act, which gave universities ownership of rights to inventions developed through federal funding of research.
Similarly, the government could set up a system of commercialization fellowships to encourage post-doctoral scholars to work on promising ideas.
In addition to Mr. Schramm's proposals, there are drags on entrepreneurship from uncertainty over taxation and regulation.
Remove uncertainty over taxes. Most entrepreneurs file tax returns as individuals. Their highest tax rate is set to rise from 35% now to 40% on January 1, 2011, if Congress does nothing, and their lowest rate is scheduled to rise from 10% to 15%. Small business deductions for equipment would shrink. It's natural that some entrepreneurs will think twice about starting or expanding a business if they don't know what taxes they will face.
More business regulation is clearly on the congressional agenda. Even though Congress's present version of health "reform" may not survive the election of Scott Brown in Massachusetts, environmental and financial regulation are high on the lawmakers' to-do list, adding to uncertainty and to costs of doing business.
We have no way of knowing what auspicious innovations the future holds, and what small businesses will grow from mom-and-pop shops to global powerhouses. But President Obama should know that most innovations and many jobs will be generated by entrepreneurs, and we need more of them, not fewer.
By Diana Furchtgott-Roth
WASHINGTON-When President Obama delivers his State of the Union address next Wednesday evening, many Americans will be hoping he will offer help on the employment front. The president could usefully approach job creation by adopting measures to help entrepreneurs, the main drivers of innovation and job creation.
The employment situation is worrisome. Not only are over 15 million Americans unemployed, with the national unemployment rate at 10%, but the ratio of Americans of working age in the labor force - the employed plus those looking for work - is 64.6%, the lowest since 1985. Almost 40% of the unemployed have been out of work for six months or more.
The Labor Department's broadest measure of underused human resources-the unemployed plus the discouraged who have stopped looking for work (and so have dropped out of the labor force) and people working part-time because they cannot find full-time jobs-is 17.2%.
If job creation is the country's paramount economic objective, does it matter if the economy is populated by a few large, regulated firms, or by a broad base of entrepreneurial activity in smaller units? It matters, because entrepreneurship and innovation-the driving elements of economic growth-flourish best in smaller business units.
The key is innovation: introduction of new products and services that displace their predecessors because they yield greater output for any given application of labor and capital. Innovation is vital to sustained economic growth.
Entrepreneurs, determined individuals with new ideas, are most responsible for creating innovations. Not all new ideas are economic successes. Some lead to greater wealth and economic growth, and others fail. The beauty of our economic system is that it separates productive from unproductive ideas, allowing the former to flourish.
On January 19, Carl Schramm, president of the Ewing Marion Kauffman Foundation, which promotes entrepreneurship, gave his annual State of Entrepreneurship Address at Washington's National Press Club. (Full disclosure: the Kauffman Foundation has funded some of my past research.)
Mr. Schramm offered several ideas that President Obama could use to promote entrepreneurship and employment.
Fix our immigration policy. Many entrepreneurs want to hire workers with math, science, and technology skills, but not enough native-born Americans go into these fields. Yet, after we grant college and graduate degrees in these fields to foreigners, we often do not allow them to stay in America. Some education is provided at taxpayer expense, through research grants to universities from the Departments of Energy and Defense.
Hence, we now have the perverse situation where America educates many foreign graduates in math and science and sends them back home to compete against us. Alternatively, Mr. Schramm suggests, "We could start by offering instant citizenship to any of the thousands of bright young people from foreign countries who graduate from our universities."
Let me suggest that the United States could go even further and offer citizenship to foreign graduates who wish to come here from major science universities around the globe, such as China's Tsinghua University and India's Indian Institute of Technology.
Defang Sarbanes-Oxley. Evidence is mounting that the 2002 Sarbanes-Oxley legislation, accounting rules designed to protect shareholders from corporate abuses after the collapse of Enron and Tyco, discourages companies from expanding and going public. Furthermore, some new companies are choosing to locate in London and Tokyo rather than in the United States.
Mr. Schramm proposes that Congress allow shareholders to vote on whether Sarbanes-Oxley applies to their companies. Congress might not buy this, but the accounting requirements would be optional, and companies whose shareholders believed the costs of compliance would be greater than the benefits could choose not to comply. Some firms would be able to operate more nimbly without the SOX regulations.
Develop Commercialization of Academic Research. Mr. Schramm suggests that the government could encourage a free market in the licensing of innovations developed by professors, rather than having these licenses controlled by the university, as occurs now. This would enable the development of a vibrant market to commercialize research. This might require legislation to amend the Bayh-Dole Act, which gave universities ownership of rights to inventions developed through federal funding of research.
Similarly, the government could set up a system of commercialization fellowships to encourage post-doctoral scholars to work on promising ideas.
In addition to Mr. Schramm's proposals, there are drags on entrepreneurship from uncertainty over taxation and regulation.
Remove uncertainty over taxes. Most entrepreneurs file tax returns as individuals. Their highest tax rate is set to rise from 35% now to 40% on January 1, 2011, if Congress does nothing, and their lowest rate is scheduled to rise from 10% to 15%. Small business deductions for equipment would shrink. It's natural that some entrepreneurs will think twice about starting or expanding a business if they don't know what taxes they will face.
More business regulation is clearly on the congressional agenda. Even though Congress's present version of health "reform" may not survive the election of Scott Brown in Massachusetts, environmental and financial regulation are high on the lawmakers' to-do list, adding to uncertainty and to costs of doing business.
We have no way of knowing what auspicious innovations the future holds, and what small businesses will grow from mom-and-pop shops to global powerhouses. But President Obama should know that most innovations and many jobs will be generated by entrepreneurs, and we need more of them, not fewer.
Wednesday, January 20, 2010
The Hunt for an Autism Drug
Click HERE to view the article online.
BusinessWeek
Armed with fresh medical insights, drug companies are redoubling their efforts to address the disease's complex causes
By Ellen Gibson
The Weakley family lives in Dover, Pa., about 30 miles south of Harrisburg. Their two-story house sits on a mostly treeless tract of land, across the road from a big white barn. Seated at the dining table, Beverly Morgart-Weakley is describing the recent changes she's seen in her 21-year-old daughter Jennifer. Once unable to form words, "she keeps saying 'mama', and she's starting to say the beginnings of other words. You'll hear something that almost sounds like a sentence and you can figure out what she's trying to tell you."
Every parent looks forward to these developmental milestones, but Beverly has been waiting two decades. In the early 1990s, Jennifer was diagnosed with autism, and her early childhood was dominated by doctor's visits. Things got worse in her teens. The girl would sometimes bite her own arms in paroxysms of frustration. Many times she grabbed her mother or her younger sister by the neck and squeezed hard. Even the family's collie was bitten.
Beverly was skeptical of medications, but she needed a way to quell her daughter's increasingly violent outbursts. Doctors tried the antipsychotic drug Risperdal, but Jennifer gained weight and grew sluggish. Then they turned to Zyprexa, a schizophrenia medication, but the symptoms persisted. Over the past year the family has had a modest breakthrough with Namenda, an Alzheimer's drug from Forest Laboratories (FRX). Jen's aggression has subsided and her communication skills have improved. "She is still far from normal," says Beverly, looking on as her daughter repeatedly opens and closes the refrigerator, then settles on the floor in the den and methodically removes every item from a filing cabinet. "But she's made progress, and that in itself is a miracle." ...
Click HERE to view the entire article.
BusinessWeek
Armed with fresh medical insights, drug companies are redoubling their efforts to address the disease's complex causes
By Ellen Gibson
The Weakley family lives in Dover, Pa., about 30 miles south of Harrisburg. Their two-story house sits on a mostly treeless tract of land, across the road from a big white barn. Seated at the dining table, Beverly Morgart-Weakley is describing the recent changes she's seen in her 21-year-old daughter Jennifer. Once unable to form words, "she keeps saying 'mama', and she's starting to say the beginnings of other words. You'll hear something that almost sounds like a sentence and you can figure out what she's trying to tell you."
Every parent looks forward to these developmental milestones, but Beverly has been waiting two decades. In the early 1990s, Jennifer was diagnosed with autism, and her early childhood was dominated by doctor's visits. Things got worse in her teens. The girl would sometimes bite her own arms in paroxysms of frustration. Many times she grabbed her mother or her younger sister by the neck and squeezed hard. Even the family's collie was bitten.
Beverly was skeptical of medications, but she needed a way to quell her daughter's increasingly violent outbursts. Doctors tried the antipsychotic drug Risperdal, but Jennifer gained weight and grew sluggish. Then they turned to Zyprexa, a schizophrenia medication, but the symptoms persisted. Over the past year the family has had a modest breakthrough with Namenda, an Alzheimer's drug from Forest Laboratories (FRX). Jen's aggression has subsided and her communication skills have improved. "She is still far from normal," says Beverly, looking on as her daughter repeatedly opens and closes the refrigerator, then settles on the floor in the den and methodically removes every item from a filing cabinet. "But she's made progress, and that in itself is a miracle." ...
Click HERE to view the entire article.
Tuesday, January 12, 2010
An Era of "Temp"
The Disposable Worker
Pay is falling, benefits are vanishing, and no one's job is secure. How companies are making the era of the temp more than temporary
By Peter Coy, Michelle Conlin and Moira Herbst
On a recent Tuesday morning, single mom Tammy DePew Smith woke up in her tidy Florida townhouse in time to shuttle her oldest daughter, a high school freshman, to the 6:11 a.m. bus. At 6:40 she was at the desk in her bedroom, starting her first shift of the day with LiveOps, a Santa Clara (Calif.) provider of call-center workers for everyone from Eastman Kodak (EK) and Pizza Hut (YUM) to infomercial behemoth Tristar Products. She's paid by the minute—25 cents—but only for the time she's actually on the phone with customers.
By 7:40, Smith had grossed $15. But there wasn't much time to reflect on her early morning productivity; the next child had to be roused from bed, fed, and put onto the school bus. Somehow she managed to squeeze three more shifts into her day, pausing only to homeschool her 7-year-old son, make dinner, and do the bedtime routine. "I tell my kids, unless somebody is bleeding or dying, don't mess with me."
As an independent agent, Smith has no health insurance, no retirement benefits, no sick days, no vacation, no severance, and no access to unemployment insurance. But in recession-ravaged Ormond Beach, she's considered lucky. She has had more or less steady work since she signed on with LiveOps in October 2006. "LiveOps was a lifesaver for me," she says.
You know American workers are in bad shape when a low-paying, no-benefits job is considered a sweet deal. Their situation isn't likely to improve soon; some economists predict it will be years, not months, before employees regain any semblance of bargaining power. That's because this recession's unusual ferocity has accelerated trends—including offshoring, automation, the decline of labor unions' influence, new management techniques, and regulatory changes—that already had been eroding workers' economic standing.
...
...To view the rest of the article click HERE (or on the title)
Pay is falling, benefits are vanishing, and no one's job is secure. How companies are making the era of the temp more than temporary
By Peter Coy, Michelle Conlin and Moira Herbst
On a recent Tuesday morning, single mom Tammy DePew Smith woke up in her tidy Florida townhouse in time to shuttle her oldest daughter, a high school freshman, to the 6:11 a.m. bus. At 6:40 she was at the desk in her bedroom, starting her first shift of the day with LiveOps, a Santa Clara (Calif.) provider of call-center workers for everyone from Eastman Kodak (EK) and Pizza Hut (YUM) to infomercial behemoth Tristar Products. She's paid by the minute—25 cents—but only for the time she's actually on the phone with customers.
By 7:40, Smith had grossed $15. But there wasn't much time to reflect on her early morning productivity; the next child had to be roused from bed, fed, and put onto the school bus. Somehow she managed to squeeze three more shifts into her day, pausing only to homeschool her 7-year-old son, make dinner, and do the bedtime routine. "I tell my kids, unless somebody is bleeding or dying, don't mess with me."
As an independent agent, Smith has no health insurance, no retirement benefits, no sick days, no vacation, no severance, and no access to unemployment insurance. But in recession-ravaged Ormond Beach, she's considered lucky. She has had more or less steady work since she signed on with LiveOps in October 2006. "LiveOps was a lifesaver for me," she says.
You know American workers are in bad shape when a low-paying, no-benefits job is considered a sweet deal. Their situation isn't likely to improve soon; some economists predict it will be years, not months, before employees regain any semblance of bargaining power. That's because this recession's unusual ferocity has accelerated trends—including offshoring, automation, the decline of labor unions' influence, new management techniques, and regulatory changes—that already had been eroding workers' economic standing.
...
...To view the rest of the article click HERE (or on the title)
Monday, January 11, 2010
Tanning Industry News
Is the Tanning Industry About to Be Burned?
By GEOFF WILLIAMS, AOL SMALL BUSINESS
Even if you've been following the health care hubbub in Congress, you may have easily missed the news that a 10% tax on indoor tanning services is being considered.
The idea is that since tanning -- outdoor or in -- can lead to skin cancer, a tax on the tanning industry should be implemented, and the money, about $270 billion over the next 10 years, would help fund health insurance reform. Unless you're a regular indoor tanning customer or someone who works in the industry, the tax was probably an afterthought.
But Karen Brutsche noticed.
Brutsche is the owner of the Suntan Shop, a small chain of indoor tanning salons in Virginia, and after a conversation with her, you suddenly realize how a seemingly hastily added amendment to a government bill can really affect a business owner. Brutsche began her business in 1983 at the age of 28 after several years of managing a retail store.
"My son was a toddler, and it was hard to keep up retail management hours and a family," says Brutsche. "Around the corner from where my sister worked, a T-shirt store had added tanning. She thought it might be a good business for me to start."
That seemed to be the case. Her business flourished over the years -- not as a national household name or anything -- but when politicians praise small business owners, Brutsche seems to be the model. She managed to open not just one store, but create jobs at four locations, and she has partnered with other tanning salons in the area, so she can offer her customers who have memberships 25 places in the region to tan. When the Great Recession hit, Brutsche was hit like everyone else -- losing 30% of her business in 2009 -- but she managed to keep the company going and not lay off any employees.
"I've cut back as much as I can, but I've not let the recession hurt my staff," says Brutsche, acknowledging that she no longer can do an annual goodbye dinner to students leaving her employment for college and had to stop giving employees birthday gifts. Otherwise, "my staff has gotten their raises, I've paid my manager's health insurance, and kicked in for another staffer's health care."
But this tax could level her business in ways that the recession hasn't, says Brutsche. "If people already think your rates are high, then you add 10% ..." She trails off, then adds, "Some people will stay. They love it, and this is a lifestyle for them, but those people on the fence -- they'll be gone."
What really hurt Brutsche was the timing. She had been "sweating bullets" over a lease renewal for a year, but finally had signed with her landlord, having crunched the numbers and decided that signing the new lease would be a smart decision. That was on a Friday over the holidays; two days later, she awoke on a Sunday morning to learn about the possible indoor tanning tax.
"I was floored," says Brutsche. "I spent most of the day in tears."
Of course, you could argue that health care has to be funded, so why not tax a practice believed to be unhealthy? If that puts someone out of business like Brutsche, it's a regrettable part of the equation. But if Brutsche is right, the tax would just put a lot of tanning businesses out of business -- which would remove the funding the tax is supposed to generate. Brutsche predicts, "They will not make $270 billion from us."
She may have a point even if every tanning business managed to stay open after a 10% tax. The Big Money recently ran a story with a headline that said it all: "Projections on tanning-parlor tax appear to be far too high." If the International Smart Tan Network, a Jackson, Mississippi-based industry group, is correct, the tax "overestimates tanning revenues by 40 to 50%."
Regardless of whether the tax is successful, Brutsche is certain that if it's implemented it will be the undoing of many tanning industry owners. "67% of tanning salons are female-owned and most are small, individually owned businesses," says Brutsche, who paints a portrait of tanning bed operators as part of the American fabric: "We live in the neighborhoods, raise our children, give to local charities and events, mentor young adults in how to hold a job, manage money, market, sell, plunge a toilet and change a vacuum cleaner bag -- life skills for college and careers. Regardless of one's knowledge or perspective of indoor tanning, it seems that Congress is voting for big business over small mom and pops."
She is referring to the fact that before the tanning tax was conceived, there was going to be a "botox" tax, a proposed 5% tax on all cosmetic procedures. Lobbyists rallied, however, on the claims that it would have discriminated against women. But, of course, this tanning tax may wind up discriminating against women business owners.
"The money won," says Brutsche. "We are such a small, fragmented industry, most of us didn't even see this coming. We don't have the political power or experience to fight -- we never have. A fragmented industry like ours has no way to fight the dermatologists, plastic surgeons, cosmetic or the drug companies."
Brutsche acknowledges that not everyone is a fan of indoor tanning. "We've been punching bags for a lot of different things," she says, "and some might be legit, and some might not."
In any case, for the critics who decry the tanning industry, the tax may be a godsend: "They've got us," she says, sounding, at least for a moment, like a business owner whose sunniest days are behind her. "This will totally cause us to go under."
By GEOFF WILLIAMS, AOL SMALL BUSINESS
Even if you've been following the health care hubbub in Congress, you may have easily missed the news that a 10% tax on indoor tanning services is being considered.
The idea is that since tanning -- outdoor or in -- can lead to skin cancer, a tax on the tanning industry should be implemented, and the money, about $270 billion over the next 10 years, would help fund health insurance reform. Unless you're a regular indoor tanning customer or someone who works in the industry, the tax was probably an afterthought.
But Karen Brutsche noticed.
Brutsche is the owner of the Suntan Shop, a small chain of indoor tanning salons in Virginia, and after a conversation with her, you suddenly realize how a seemingly hastily added amendment to a government bill can really affect a business owner. Brutsche began her business in 1983 at the age of 28 after several years of managing a retail store.
"My son was a toddler, and it was hard to keep up retail management hours and a family," says Brutsche. "Around the corner from where my sister worked, a T-shirt store had added tanning. She thought it might be a good business for me to start."
That seemed to be the case. Her business flourished over the years -- not as a national household name or anything -- but when politicians praise small business owners, Brutsche seems to be the model. She managed to open not just one store, but create jobs at four locations, and she has partnered with other tanning salons in the area, so she can offer her customers who have memberships 25 places in the region to tan. When the Great Recession hit, Brutsche was hit like everyone else -- losing 30% of her business in 2009 -- but she managed to keep the company going and not lay off any employees.
"I've cut back as much as I can, but I've not let the recession hurt my staff," says Brutsche, acknowledging that she no longer can do an annual goodbye dinner to students leaving her employment for college and had to stop giving employees birthday gifts. Otherwise, "my staff has gotten their raises, I've paid my manager's health insurance, and kicked in for another staffer's health care."
But this tax could level her business in ways that the recession hasn't, says Brutsche. "If people already think your rates are high, then you add 10% ..." She trails off, then adds, "Some people will stay. They love it, and this is a lifestyle for them, but those people on the fence -- they'll be gone."
What really hurt Brutsche was the timing. She had been "sweating bullets" over a lease renewal for a year, but finally had signed with her landlord, having crunched the numbers and decided that signing the new lease would be a smart decision. That was on a Friday over the holidays; two days later, she awoke on a Sunday morning to learn about the possible indoor tanning tax.
"I was floored," says Brutsche. "I spent most of the day in tears."
Of course, you could argue that health care has to be funded, so why not tax a practice believed to be unhealthy? If that puts someone out of business like Brutsche, it's a regrettable part of the equation. But if Brutsche is right, the tax would just put a lot of tanning businesses out of business -- which would remove the funding the tax is supposed to generate. Brutsche predicts, "They will not make $270 billion from us."
She may have a point even if every tanning business managed to stay open after a 10% tax. The Big Money recently ran a story with a headline that said it all: "Projections on tanning-parlor tax appear to be far too high." If the International Smart Tan Network, a Jackson, Mississippi-based industry group, is correct, the tax "overestimates tanning revenues by 40 to 50%."
Regardless of whether the tax is successful, Brutsche is certain that if it's implemented it will be the undoing of many tanning industry owners. "67% of tanning salons are female-owned and most are small, individually owned businesses," says Brutsche, who paints a portrait of tanning bed operators as part of the American fabric: "We live in the neighborhoods, raise our children, give to local charities and events, mentor young adults in how to hold a job, manage money, market, sell, plunge a toilet and change a vacuum cleaner bag -- life skills for college and careers. Regardless of one's knowledge or perspective of indoor tanning, it seems that Congress is voting for big business over small mom and pops."
She is referring to the fact that before the tanning tax was conceived, there was going to be a "botox" tax, a proposed 5% tax on all cosmetic procedures. Lobbyists rallied, however, on the claims that it would have discriminated against women. But, of course, this tanning tax may wind up discriminating against women business owners.
"The money won," says Brutsche. "We are such a small, fragmented industry, most of us didn't even see this coming. We don't have the political power or experience to fight -- we never have. A fragmented industry like ours has no way to fight the dermatologists, plastic surgeons, cosmetic or the drug companies."
Brutsche acknowledges that not everyone is a fan of indoor tanning. "We've been punching bags for a lot of different things," she says, "and some might be legit, and some might not."
In any case, for the critics who decry the tanning industry, the tax may be a godsend: "They've got us," she says, sounding, at least for a moment, like a business owner whose sunniest days are behind her. "This will totally cause us to go under."
Thursday, January 7, 2010
Check Out SuperFreakonomics
SuperFreakonomics, the highly anticipated sequel to the best-selling Freakonomics, was released on October 20, 2009. Steven Levitt, professor of economics at the University of Chicago, and author Stephen Dubner have again teamed together to apply economic reasoning to a wide range of real-world questions. As with the original Freakonomics, SuperFreakonomics is largely based upon the research of Professor Levitt, who has tackled problems inside and outside the field of economics. Click HERE for more information.
Tuesday, January 5, 2010
There's More Than One "Part" to the Elephant
I was reminded the other day about the story of the blind men describing an elephant and in how many ways it perfectly describes the process of buying a business--too many times buyers only concentrate on one "part" of the "elephant" and fail to see the whole entity.
Monday, January 4, 2010
When It's the Time for Plan B
Wall Street Journal, Small Business
WSJ.com, December 19, 2010
By: Accidential Entrepreneur
Two months after launching Brand Thunder, Patrick Murphy sensed that sales were sluggish becuase he was charging too high a fee for his sole product, a customized Web browser.
So he temporarily slashed the price by more than 75% and gave the product new, income-generating features, including ads and a search tool, by forming partnerships with other businesses.
The original fee "was a leap for something that wasn't proven," says Mr. Murphy, who started the Dublin, Ohio company in 2007 in anticipation of a pink slip from a large internet company. "We had to be nimble enough to make that change or this business would not be here today. It was live or die."
To read more... click here.
WSJ.com, December 19, 2010
By: Accidential Entrepreneur
Two months after launching Brand Thunder, Patrick Murphy sensed that sales were sluggish becuase he was charging too high a fee for his sole product, a customized Web browser.
So he temporarily slashed the price by more than 75% and gave the product new, income-generating features, including ads and a search tool, by forming partnerships with other businesses.
The original fee "was a leap for something that wasn't proven," says Mr. Murphy, who started the Dublin, Ohio company in 2007 in anticipation of a pink slip from a large internet company. "We had to be nimble enough to make that change or this business would not be here today. It was live or die."
To read more... click here.
The Other Shoe is Dropping
I sometimes think that business brokers are like the canaries in a coal mine as we are often one of the first to "smell" trouble. It appears that we are now in round 2 of business closings. Many of the marginal businesses closed within months of the downturn in the economy as most did not have the resources to survive any drop off of business. Round 2 appears to be effecting the more stable and substantial businesses who have exhausted their resources to fund operational losses and are electing to go dark rather than continue in business. This trend has been accelerated by the drawback of bank credit and the inability of many to secure "normal" lines of credit. Many pundits have suggested that the banks are "hoarding" money to ride out the potential collapse of the commercial real estate market. It appears that there is a strong element of "self fulfilling prophesy " to this strategy as the banks are contributing to the demise of the very tenants which are the lifeblood of the commercial market. For those with nerve, this may be a real buying opportunity.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Son Isaac on Camel in Tangiers
