Blog

Nowadays it seems as though it’s impossible to avoid celebrities launching all sorts of companies. Whilst some seem ridiculous (obviously not naming anything to keep it professional however, definitely Goop), others such as Fenty Beauty by Rihanna have been massive successes. In this week’s blog I am tackling the ones which I think are the worst of the worst. Companies with such a poor business plan that not even an A-list name could save them. 

Firstly, we have the infamous Donald Trump. As both a business man and a celebrity, it looked as though the stars should have aligned perfectly for his new (at the time) venture into “Trump Airlines”. Whilst it was dubbed an airline, a more effective phrase to describe their services would probably be “shuttle”. Based in the North-East of America, they did local and national flights which at the time were highly profitable. Trump took over the business form Eastern Airlines for a negotiated $365 million (more than what it would cost to start the business yourself, however this way you were guaranteed market share). Eastern airlines then went out of business, giving Trump the opportunity to not only negotiated a cheaper deal but also get more aircrafts. The deal was approved by the bankruptcy court, and by 1989 Trump had a profitable airline that he intended to turn into a luxury service (by painting his name on the side and improving the interiors). Unfortunately, due to conflict in the Middle-East, jet fuel prices doubled, which meant that the massive increase in price for the company had to be reflected in the prices for the customers. Many corporate travel budgets were tightened due to the recession, meaning less money spent on fancy shuttle services. By 1991 Trump had to sell the company in order to avoid $135 million in debt that he was personally accountable for.

Secondly, we have a director turned restaurateur. Steven Spielberg dove (you will later discover this is a pun) head first into starting his very own restaurant. He started a nautical themed eatery named “Dive!”. This concept originally grew out of his fascination for underwater exploration (not a passion for the food or service industry). They predicted immense success, claiming there would be over 60 locations in the coming years. The concept was simple, every 45 minutes, make the diners feel like they were in a submarine going underwater whilst serving them sandwiches. However, this concept makes it difficult to get returning customers, and it quickly became a habit for people to not even eat and just buy the merchandise. The loud noises became tiresome and the food was boring, with no repeat customers and tourists choosing to just buy the keychains, all branches closed by 2000. 

Our final celeb is famed rapper Jay-Z. When you think American rap culture, you probably associate it with clothing, rap music and maybe some specific foods and drinks (Patron tequila comes to mind). You probably don’t think about luxury hotels, or at least, not luxury hotels owned by the people who rap about how they used to sell drugs. His plan was to open a series of hotels dubbed “J Hotels” starting with an extremely expensive location in the centre of New York. Unfortunately for him, his partners all defaulted on their $52 million loan, which then prompted a legal debate over who would manage the lion share of the interest repayments. Jay-Z then filed a lawsuit against some of his investors, they filed a counter-claim and by December 15^th 2010 it was all settled out of court and the J Hotels dream was dead.

Those are my personal favourite out of all the celebrity business fails. We asked our Viewsbankers if they would purchase a product if it were endorsed by a celebrity they liked and an overwhelming 65.4%of Viewsbankers said no. Some of our favourite comments were:

• “Depends on the product, if it's a good product it doesn't need a 'celeb' to endorse it, the quality will sell itself. A celeb’s name being attached to a product or service is irrelevant.”
• “Celebrity endorsement is the last thing I would take into consideration when buying a product.”

What do you think about celebrities who go off-brand to start new business ventures? Do you think there are better celebrity business fails out there? Let us know in the comments! 

Our friends across the pond have seemed to hop on the trend of legalising one of the world’s least harmful drugs. The UK has often debated whether or not the legalisation of marijuana would be useful in society. Whilst many think that the fact it isn’t already is ridiculous, others seem to take the opinion that once “the devil’s lettuce” is legalized this country is bound to head into a downwards spiral. In today’s blog I’m showcasing the arguments which I think best explain the two opposing positions.

One of the strongest arguments for the legalisation of marijuana is because of the fact that it’s the most widely used illegal drug in the UK, selling it is a huge market solely controlled by gangs and gang culture. It’s impossible to tell exactly how much money they are making because obviously they aren’t paying tax on it and registering it. However, the most conservative estimate that I could find for how much money legalisation would raise in taxes was £1bn (not to mention the jobs it would create, and save the tax payer money on police resources as well as taxes spent on the judicial system and prisons). Another strong argument for the legalisation of "weed" is the fact that in many circles it is considered less harmful than alcohol. For example, you can die within five minutes of binge drinking, however no one has ever died from a marijuana overdose. Although some do experience anxiety and panic attacks, it’s impossible to die from marijuana alone. Alcohol can interact with medication that’s already in your body, which may cause an accidental overdose or slow down the drug’s effectiveness, "weed" doesn’t have this problem. Excessive alcohol use can lead to liver cancer as well as many other health problems, and thus far the only suggested impact of marijuana (not yet proven) could be issues with reproduction. There are no known medical benefits for alcohol consumption, however there are many known medicinal uses for marijuana. Compounds found it directly treat cancer, multiple sclerosis, glaucoma and many other diseases. 

However, there are other arguments that suggest its legalisation could be a detriment to society. It’s a fact of life that anyone can become addicted to anything, and it’s suggested that 10% of regular cannabis users become addicted and can even experience withdrawal symptoms when they try to stop using the drug. In a society where there are already so many issues with alcohol and tobacco addiction do we really need to add another vice into the mix? By legalising we are only encouraging it’s use and the rate at which people are getting addicted. Furthermore, unlike alcohol, it is incredibly hard to verify whether or not someone is “over the limit” or “too stoned” to drive. One case in Massachusetts (a state in the US where recreational use is legal) proves this. A driver was pulled over for having his tail lights off, and when the police officer approached the vehicle he said he could smell marijuana and could see it in the car. Whilst the driver was able to count backwards from 72 to 65 and recite the alphabet from D to Q, he was unable to stand on one leg for long and do 9 steps and turn. Because of this he was charged with driving under the influence of marijuana, which his lawyer has been fighting for months. There’s no clear scientific consensus for driving under the influence of marijuana because the problem is so modern, and even though the amount of crashes that happen under the influence of cannabis is incredibly slight (akin to driving in the dark compared to driving in the light), if someone could get away with a crime and it was convenient for them, they’d probably be more likely to commit it. We already have a problem with drunk drivers, should we be adding "stoners" to the road?

I’m sure the debate will continue for years to come, and with the younger generations generally pushing for its legalisation I don’t think it’s crazy to say that we could be looking at legalisation within the next decade. When asked whether or not marijuana should be available recreationally 33.4% of Viewsbankers said yes, 20.8% said no and 37.7% said it should only be available medicinally. 

Some of our favourite comments were:

• “Yes, it should be allowed in the UK, this will stop crimes and also help people who has who actually need it for medical reasons”
• “I would rather be a stoner than an alcoholic, that's for sure. Alcohol destroys you, but marijuana relaxes you. The CBD helps relax muscular functions and the THC helps you mentally feel relaxed and helps calm you and bring you back during depression.”
• “I believe in a society that helps each other to become better in every way, using anything that detracts from that is, for me, a hinderance, not a help.”
• “The "each to their own" comment is pretty much how I feel about it too... I am quite happy for people to impair themselves in any way they see fit, as long as it doesn't impinge on other people.”

What do you think? Let us know in the comments! 

Belief in aliens differs from person to person. Without any sort of verifiable proof to some it seems illogical and to others a matter of fact. A minority even go as far as to believe that a reptilian race are secretly controlling the world, (in fact 12 million Americans and 7.2% of Viewsbankers agree). People who agree with David Icke for example, may accept alien life form as an absolute truth and believe the moon is simply a hollow space ship from which we are all being deceived via radio waves which disrupt our normal brain waves, so that shape shifting paedophile aliens can enslave the human race. Others think there might be primitive species and bacteria which we’ve just yet to discover. Either which way, we should know the answer before 2035. 

            One of the most compelling forms of evidence for life on other planets is the fact that one of the moons of Saturn (Enceladus) has all the necessary requirements needed for life as we know it. We can tell this because large organic modules have been blasted into space from the deep-sea vents from the moon, which NASA were able to briefly monitor before the space craft plunged to its death in Saturn’s atmosphere. Whilst this is not exactly evidence for life on the moon, it is proof of complex organic chemistry suggesting that life is possible.

            The most popular “evidence” for alien life forms is the famous “Wow!” signal discovered in 1977, in the Big Ear Radio Conservatory by Jerry Ehman. The name of the discovery comes from how striking it was in nature when it occurred. It was a 72 second radio signal much louder than any background noise they had registered in space previously. It had an incredibly narrow bandwidth making it extremely unique in nature, it had a similar bandwidth to the radiation produced by hydrogen gas in space. This “Wow!” signal went 40 years before it was doubted as a sign of alien life forms. It was only recently that a scientist at St. Petersburg University said that the radio signal was likely a bi product of two comets that had passed by at the time that had only recently been registered. This seemed enough to disprove the legitimacy of the radio signal to most, however, the scientist that discovered it fired back arguing that comets do not produce radio signals and therefore it couldn’t have been that causing the interference. 

            Whilst the debate over whether or not intelligent alien lifeforms rages on we can be satisfied in the knowledge that we should have an answer before 2035. Whilst originally the “SETI Radio” was planning to achieve this goal, China now have a radio which is three times as sensitive and more capable of searching space and tracking objects for up to six hours. They’re so dedicated to search through space that they’re relocating 9,000 locals so that they only have to deal with minimal human interference. Foreign researchers from all over the world will be allowed to use this radio in a combined effort to search the galaxies for any signs of extra-terrestrial intelligence and we can now go deeper into the universe than ever before. If they don’t find any evidence over the next 16 years using this highly sensitive radio, then there is a chance that it doesn’t exist altogether. 

We asked our Viewsbankers whether or not they believed there are aliens, and here's what they had to say:

• "It would be arrogant to think we were the only life form out there."
• "No signs of evidence so I don’t think so"
• "Yes maybe anything is possible."
• "If you see a blue police box give me a shout, been waiting for it for years!"

Do you think we are alone in the universe? Let us know in the comments! 

Elon Musk is quickly becoming a controversial figure with his outlandish claims and reprimandable behaviour. To some he is a philosopher who is pioneering the technology that will lead us into the future, to others he is childish and delusional. This week we are looking at the behaviour that has put Elon Musk at the centre of attention.

The first headline which made people think twice about the lovable tech wizard was the fact that his factory had an unusually high injury rate for car manufacturing. The initial response from Elon Musk upon hearing this was a promise to his entire company to visit each individual who had filed an injury, discuss exactly what happened and then perform their job himself in an effort to assess the risk. The press and general public seemed initially pleased with his response, until it had been revealed that none of the efforts had actually been made. Apparently one of the main causes of injury is the fact that there is very minimal hazard tape (traditionally bright yellow) because Elon doesn’t like the colour. It was also reported that Tesla wasn’t filing all the diagnosed injuries caused at the factory, even if they caused people to not be able to work. Whilst Elon shouldn’t have promised the world if he couldn’t deliver, it’s possible that he had the best intentions that his schedule just couldn’t keep up with.

On the subject of good intentions, Elon Musk was also involved in the Thai cave rescue. He designed and shipped over a child sized submarine in the hopes that it would aid the rescue of the children from the caves. The divers decided that it wouldn’t be necessary for the rescue and continued on without it. One of the divers named Vernon Unsworth criticised Elon musk, claiming that it was nothing more than a PR stunt. Elon then responded by calling him a “pedo guy” over Twitter, before then deleting the tweets a few hours afterwards and sending out a seemingly half-hearted apology. 

A more recent point of criticism for Elon is the fact that he was joking about the recent massive stock crash for Tesla over Twitter. Whilst some found it endearing that he could joke (meaning he wasn’t stressed enough over the crash to actually be worried about it, signalling this is a temporary problem), others didn’t appreciate the fact that he was joking about the fact his investors were losing money and Tesla wasn’t meeting all the promises they had made as a company. Personally, I don’t actually think this is a point of criticism. Everyone reacts to bad news differently and considering the incredibly fast rate the company has grown at it was bound to take a hit eventually. Considering 10 years ago electric cars were kind of a joke and are now the pinnacle of fashion in a lot of circles I think it’s fair to say that company is probably ten steps ahead of everyone. We asked Viewsbankers if they would ever consider an electric car and 56.5% of them said that they either had one or wanted one. 

Here’s what they had to say:

• “Tesla S 100D (the 4wd one with 'ludicrous plus' mode) is the one I have driven and been driven by. It's outstanding, in every possible way.”
• “Batteries don't last forever and are very expensive at the present.  I believe it would cost me as much to rent a battery pack as I currently spend on diesel.  Will buy when batteries come down in cost.”
• “I’m too scared.”

What do you think? Let us know in the comments down below!

Also, whilst we have you, we are recruiting for international research projects in Switzerland, USA, France and Spain.The project concerns banking and exchange rates. If you would like to get involved or know someone who would please email Jennifer.Raynolds@consumerintelligence.com.

Why Love Island is basically the Stanford prison experiment

I’m sure most of you are familiar with Love Island (I have personally found it inescapable), however not all of you may be aware of the Stanford prison experiment. In 1971 the psychologist Philip Zimbardo rounded up Stanford University students and randomly allocated them to either take on a guard or prisoner role within his fake prison. The idea was to test how the dynamic would change their behaviours, and whether or not they would adapt to their roles. Their behaviour took such a drastic change that they had to finish the experiment early for everyone’s safety. Believe it or not, this experiment has alarming parallels to the nation’s favourite reality TV show.

The first similarity that jumps out is the layout of the villa and the prison are designed to encourage certain behaviours. The fact that the contestants are only allowed to sleep in double beds incites a reaction which they want because it makes good television. It’s almost like testing a hypothesis even though you know the end result because it’s always the same (they’ve literally tested it themselves through seasons of television). We know exactly what happens when you force young, single and attractive people to sleep in the same bed as each other, the same way that Philip Zimbardo was familiar with the concept of a “power trip”. Whether you are forcing someone to share a bed with someone or live behind bars you know for a fact that you’re inciting a response. 

They also both have big brother style monitoring, non-intrusive cameras that are designed to be forgotten. Everyone goes in knowing the rules, but once you get there no one is monitoring them. At its core it’s forcing people to behave a certain way, filming their reaction for gain (either knowledge of the human condition or essential viewing for reality fans) and having them lose touch of social norms and their usual behaviour. The only thing that becomes important is the game that they are playing, instead of the way that they are presenting themselves to the world, whether that be taking on the role of the guard a little too seriously or doing everything in their power to couple up with someone that they would never normally like. There was money to be made through success in both instances which acts as a massive motivator even though some people may not admit it. I’m fully aware that Jess and Dom stayed together and had their big TV wedding in swimwear (I think we can all safely assume that was definitely for love with zero ulterior motives). 

Obviously, there are massive differences between the two, one reduced people to their primitive forms and the other was a psychology experiment. The Stanford prison experiment was cancelled after six days and Love Island never seems to go away. 

Do you watch Love Island and agree with what was said in this blog, or just have any opinions? Let us know in the comments down below! 

When it comes to money saving online, it feels as though it is easy to get flooded with irrelevant information. According to a recent poll, 36% of you could spend up to 20 minutes looking for deals online, with 24% saying you could look for up to a whole hour and only 8% saying that you never look for deals. 

Most of us like a bargain, but with the lack of time available in our busy schedules, it can be hard to discover those amazing deals that are definitely out there.

With the help of our members and research of our own, we’ve come up with 3 top tips to help you save more money online.  

1)    Use cashback websites

Cashback websites are free to join and, according to our most recent poll, the most popular amongst our users is TopCashback.co.uk, with 22% saying that they use this website exclusively. Essentially, how it works is that you use their website to browse thousands of retailers and whatever purchases you make they earn commission on. This is then added as cashback to you so that you can make earnings on your shopping. One of our users said, “Anything I'm going to buy from an online shop, I check if they are on a Cashback site before purchasing and then you get the same deal plus a little bonus. No brainer I think.”. Another popular site amongst our Viewsbank members is Quidco.

2)   Plan holidays using money saving websites

Whilst planning a holiday it’s easy to get enticed by the first flights we see, especially if we’re excited to just get away! It’s important to be aware that the first deal you see isn’t always the best.  There are lots of websites out there that will do all the digging for you. Companies like Skyscanner and Expedia will compare everything for you, with one of our users saying, “£480 return to Cambodia. Skyscanner did me proud!”. 

Be sure to go through the listings as sometimes websites can be paid to place certain brands at the top of their listings, even though it may not necessarily be the best deal. 

3)   Price comparison sites

I’m sure we’re all very familiar with a certain meerkat, however, we had our Viewsbank members tell us exactly which ones they found the most useful when it came to actual savings. 14.6% of users told us that Comparethemarket.com was the only website they used when it came to finding bargains, and a close second was MySupermarket.co.uk with 12.7%. If you’re not like the 27.2% of users who will scour the internet until they’re sure they have the best deal, then our recommendation is to at least check those two. 

Here is what some of our members had to say:

“When I find a good price for an item online it gives me a little triumph”

“I’m an online shop addict”

“Love those meerkats!”          

How else do you save money? Let us know in the comments below.