apple should immediately fire gray powell from his job

gray powell, the apple engineer who lost the iPhone 4th generation prototype should be fired from his job at apple.

he was totally irresponsible for losing that prototype. he has exposed apple’s trade secrets and the key components of their marketing strategies to competitors before the product was launched.

this is not just a cute media scoop where apple, a most secretive company, was exposed in media not on its own doing and not in its own terms but by “accident”, one committed by one of its engineers.

the effect is that it allowed apple’s competitors the best view ever in a product that apple is still about to be launched. the reason product design templates and concepts are being kept secret is to ensure your competitors do not know these so that they cannot pre-empt your efforts.

gray powell (source: http://gizmodo.com/5520438/how-apple-lost-the-next-iphone)

one of the most important and most successful strategies in marketing is to be the first in offering something to consumers.  not only do you want to be first, you want to be first to offer the feature or design for as long as you can. competition may eventually catch up or copy the new feature in some way, but getting ahead of them captures core users and puts you ahead of everyone else.

that intent is also one of the reasons why you patent your designs and get copyright on stuff that you make. you do not  want others having the same thing you have labored for.

that is called competitive advantage. apple is famous for competitive advantage and its previous successes  were  largely founded on it. in fact, a lot of it is founded on superior competitive advantage.  apple products succeed not only because they are superior, but equally important they are unique in the market place. there is great value in being the best and being first, a marketing 101.

just look at the app store and itunes. they are mostly unique and it enjoys until now a superior competitive advantage. just imagine  how different it would be for  apple if the itunes and app store ideas were leaked to the press and apples competitors before they were launched.

because apple had competitive advantage and was the first on those two, these have propped apple, its ipod and iphone businesses to success, translating to huge revenues and even bigger profits.

look no further, the iphone, exactly the prototype that powell lost in that california bar is probably the best example of what secrecy and competitive advantage gives a brand.

a big part of the magic of the iphone to consumers was it’s uniqueness in the market place. that uniqueness was founded on the fact that apple’s competitors did not have a product quite like it.

apple products are known for their superior design and ability to satisfy consumer needs and wants with both almost always being the first to do so in a most effective way. getting the prototype out enabled it’s competitors to remove the advantage.

one of the unique features of the iphone 4G that we now know is a second camera at the face of  the handset. no other mobile handset has that feature. with apple’s competitors knowing this now, how many of them are now designing new models with the same feature? would they have thought of it if we did not know about it when powell misplaced the prototype handset? or of they already had plans for it, knowing that apple will have it soon is good reason for them to speed up their own plans on having the same feature in their upcoming new handsets.

the prototype was lost on march 28 but we read about the loss only recently. that is a very long time for a prototype to be studied and figured out by engineers. there must be in someone’s computer a list of new design elements and new features of the yet to be released iphone 4G.

there are 2 key components in any electronic product – its  physical components and software. the physical components gives you more than half of the features of the electronic gear. it can tell you capabilities, features and performance.  gizmodo did take the prototype apart. they now know everything that the iphone 4G can do.

the loss of the iphone prototype and the subsequent release of its features to its competitors has a very direct impact on the business of apple. apple should respond accordingly by firing  powell from his job for risking the iphone business, a core business for the company.

can powell ever be trusted again in apple? we do not think so. his peers and supervisors at apple would not be able to trust him again. it will also be foolish for apple to trust him again with anything.

powell put at risk 40% of apple’s total revenues as the iphone now accounts for that much based on apple’s 2nd quarter financial release announced recently. in other words, powell had in his hand a substantial slice of the business of the company that paid powell’s salary. he had in his hands at least 40% of apple’s future business whose trade secrets may now very well be in the hands of apple’s competitors.

we think it is the duty of apple to it’s stockholders and employees to fire powell from his job. in fact we think powell should be held criminally liable for the potential loss of business for apple.

anyone who owns an AAPL stock should complain to apple and demand that they fire powell from his job. powell put investments on AAPL at high risk.

(disclosure: we are a long term holder of AAPL stocks)

~~~~~~~~~

new developments :

april 27, 2010:

• Police poised to expand iPhone prototype probe
• Police seize blogger’s computers over iPhone prototype

~~wawam~~

~~~~~~~~~

lufthansa offers gray powell a free vacation to germany – what luck! a brilliant marketing move!

we can’t say enough good things about this excellent PR move of lufthansa – offering gray powell, the guy who lost the iPhone 4G prototype in a german bar in california a trip to germany, on business class to taste german beer in germany itself!

they also did the brilliant move of doing this on twitter, the world’s largest social networking phenom in the internet. that guarantees a worldwide audience of staggering numbers almost immediately.

it’s interesting that this dumb-fantastic  incident has taken a turn for fun and light hearted.  come on, let’s be honest here – it’s pretty dumb for an employee to lose the prototype phone of one of the most popular cell phone handsets in a bar.

first of all, why in the world would you take out top secret prototype product out of  your office? things like these you know you cannot take out of the lab.

granted that apple allows its engineers to take them out of the lab, wouldn’t you the employee be so paranoid about losing it in a bar? you as an engineer know what you have in your possession. this is a top secret product with your company’s top secret technologies in it – you will NOT let it get out of your sight.

it’s fantastic because because all of a sudden the tech world and the real world have exploded on news of the iPhone 4G. that is simply media mileage to the max. apple should be happy about that.

what apple might be sad about is – their latest technology secrets are out in the open.

this move by lifthansa gives the whole event a nice twist to it. it now becomes something that gives you a smile. it gives an air of good vibes. and lufthansa gains a hell lot of goowill with this effort. lufthansa is a big winner here!

brilliant move!

posted at twitter

source: http://twitpic.com/1hjhmv

why did gray powell lose the iPhone 4th generation prototype?

questions to ask yourself before buying an apple iPad

show outrage: maguindanao massacre victims and families used as toys in political ping-pong

we  think the press conference conducted by andal amaptuan jr., the principal suspect in the maguindanao massacre is an affront to filipino’s sense of dignity and a complete disrespect to the victims and families of the victims of the maguindanao massacre.

it was obviously a staged media stunt and the government allowed it to happen. in fact we think it could have only happened with the expressed complicity if not stage managed by the government itself and those who are in power who are against the candidacy of noynoy aquino.

there is no logical, no plausible and not even any commonsensical reason why the government allowed the press conference to be held. the topic of the press confernce :

• had nothing to do with the maguindanao massacre
• did not serve any positive purpose for the case
• did not seek to clarify or correct anything negative  about the case
• has nothing to do with the judicial system
• did not address or put forward any wrong doing or mistreatment of the suspects
• had nothing to do with the case

what it was  –  the primary suspect thanked the DOJ chief agra and more importantly an announcement by the primary suspect of the massacre that their family supports the candidacy of noynoy aquino.

does the government routinely allow primary suspects of crimes to hold press conferences inside their jails? will we now witness a series of press conferences where suspects of crimes and criminals in jail will announce their support for the presidenitables and other candidates?

the government allowed or staged managed a media event that made use of the the death of the victims of the maguinadanao massacre and their families in a game of political ping pong.

37 lives were inhumanely cut, none of them and certainly none of the families of the victims and most specially the rest of the filipino people are interested to know who is the presidentiable the primary suspect is endorsing. knowing who the primary suspect is endorsing will not make our lives better nor will it make us feel justice has been served. and we are simply NOT interested.

ampatuan was given by the government a stage to say he is hopeful that aquino who is the front runner in this election if elected will give him and his family justice. those who allowed ampatuan to hold the press conference  and say such things were all immune and did not care about those who were murdered in the maguindanao massacre, all of whom died for no reason and in a most horrific and undignified way.

with the press conference, the government gave the murder suspects a stage to play politics while the families of the victims of the maguindanao massacre continued to suffer and the memories of victims remain to be horrific, still embedded in their minds on how inhumane they all were murdered.

the government, the justice system and the jail wardens exist for the purpose of upholding the constitution and the  laws of the country as they are duty bound to protect it’s citizens from harm. for this one – they catered to the whims and satisfied  the primary suspect while the families of the victims were all left out in the cold, clutching nothing but pain, hurt and injustice.

for the government, those who staged managed and conceptualized the media stunt and the jail wardens:

• what good did it do?
• what positive benefit did we get?
• are we closer to giving justice?
• are we better informed about the case?
• are we more inspired to trust and believe in the justice system?
• are we  better as a people?

what kind of people are those who conceptualized and staged managed the event? what kind of people are those who allowed this to happen?

The 2010 Presidentiables Blog quotes at Entrepreneur Philippines Magazine

quotations from The 2010 Presidentiables Blog are featured at the april 2010 of the Entrepreneur Philippines Magazine. check out the article entitled “Meet The Candidates” by jimbo owen b. gulle on pages 62 to 68.

the article picks out quotes on our views on the tv advertising aired by the presidentiables. next at The 2010 Presidentiables are our add ons to the quotes used in the magazine.

click to view The 2010 Presidentiales Blog here : http://2010presidentiables.wordpress.com/

globe telecom’s loyalty and rewards program that creates disloyalty

marketing 101 says loyalty and rewards programs are very effective tools in keeping subscribers happy with your service and more importantly to stay loyal. that means loyalty and rewards programs are meant to prevent existing subscribers from cutting off their subscription with the company and switch to a competitor.

it is also much more cost effective to keep customers loyal than to look for new subscribers. marketing and acquisition costs for new customers is much higher and much more difficult for companies.

what makes all of these critical is that the mobile phone service industry is probably the most competitive mass consumer market  in the country.  we know this with the unending and heavy advertising and promotions launched by the top three competing companies – sun, globe and smart.

the three competing companies offer unique plans and a full range of options for the consumers to choose from. many of these are value packed, offering very low cash outlay and monthly fees. when the market already competes on price, you know that the market is reaching maturity and is already near saturation point.

the market is also reaching near-saturation point where a large part of the demographics, in practically all segments already own a cell phone and already subscribe to a mobile service provider.

what this tells you is that a mobile phone service provider’s way to market share and revenue growth is to (1st) keep your current customers loyal; (2nd) increase usage of loyal customers through more value added services and (3rd) gain new users.

what is the point then that globe has kept it’s loyalty and rewards program secret from it’s subscribers?

we have been getting some feedback from a yahoogroup we are a member of.  members are saying the loyalty/rewards program of globe has been there for a long time, it’s just that they don’t tell their subscribers about it. you only get to know about it by accident – from friends or when you call their hotline number and accidentally ask about it.

apparently, smart is less secretive about their loyalty/rewards program. smart puts it in fine print on your cell phone bill to let you know about it. it is in fine print but at least you are told about it. globe does not put it anywhere in your bill and  they don’t tell you about it when you call them. you get to know about it only when you ask them about it.

for me, keeping the loyalty/rewards program a secret from subscribers indicates insincerity. why would you develop a rewards/loyalty program when you don’t intend to let your customers know about it? keeping it a secret from subscribers is very much equivalent to not having one.

we are familiar with rewards/loyalty programs  – the SM group has one, mercury drugstore and national bookstore as well. these stores publicize it with posters and their cashiers ask you if you have one. if you don’t , they will ask you if you want to get one. to these stores, it’s not a secret they actively recruit members to it.

the most obvious negative effect of keeping it a secret from subscribers is that the program is not being used as a tool the way it is intended to be used. not having a lot of subscribers using it also says the program is not achieving it’s objectives.

there is a feedback given in the yahoogroup we are a member of  –  this subscriber has been with globe for a long time, since year 1 of globe operations in 1996. she accidentally found out about globe’s loyalty/reward program from a friend. she calls the hotline number  to inquire about it and globe did not even apologize for not letting her know about its existence. disappointed, she closed her globe account and switched to smart. since she moved over to smart, she has gotten 2 new cell phones as her reward and is very happy with smart.

in that incident, the loyalty/reward program that was kept a secret actually caused disloyalty from a subscriber. it achieved the exact opposite of what it is supposed to achieve.

we know that smart telecoms monitors their churn numbers on a daily basis. churn is the result of subtracting the number of subscribers dropping the service versus the number of new subscribers joining the service.  having a positive churn means the total number of subscribers is increasing while a negative churn means the number of subscribers is shrinking. a positive churn means increasing market share of number of users while a negative churn is a decrease in market share.

to smart telecoms, it’s important that they continue to grow in market share. a negative churn turns them into a panic and will immediately launch new programs to entice new users or keep existing ones.

that is the kind of marketing that smart does and it shows as smart continue to be the dominant mobile service provider in the country.

smart has an interesting history. smart actually built their market through very aggressive marketing.

smart was not the market leader when they started in the market. piltel which was still owned by pldt and separate from smart was the market leader. globe entered the market and took leadership away from piltel. through aggressive marketing, smart over took both piltel and globe and since that time, smart has not only sustained it’s leadership, it has achieved dominance.

in case globe is wondering why they are unable to get switchers from smart subscribers, perhaps the answer can be deduced from this incident – smart does not keep their loyalty/rewards program secret from their subscribers, they tell them about it. smart users  are loyal subscribers because they are hooked by their loyalty/rewards program.

on the other side, in case globe is wondering why  they keep losing their post-paid clients to smart – it is probably because they have kept their loyalty/rewards program a secret from their subscribers.

the globe handyphone experience – when customer relations hot line service is not hot and a disservice

there was a time not long ago getting some customer service  was very difficult. if something goes wrong with the telephone service you subscribe to, it was not easy to get it resolved. first you might not know what number to call. if you get connected to someone, that might not be the person who can help you. if you talk to somebody, it will take a long time to get it resolved.

a silver bullet called customer relations service was invented. companies have set up these with the thinking it is  best from a  business standpoint  to satisfy an existing customer and prevent that customer from dropping your service or product and move to competition.  studies show that it is much more costly and much more difficult for a company to get new users or customers than keeping an existing one. the thinking is that you do your best to prevent your customers from dropping your service to move to other companies. this is much easier to services like a mobile service  than products like toothpaste or shampoo. service companies have the luxury of talking directly to their customers, making customer retention an easier task.

modern marketing is also a very competitive one. two to three competing companies are fighting for the same customer. when a current customer is already using your product/service, it will be much easier to convince that customer to stay on since he/she already has experience with your product/service. converting a new customer puts you on stage 1 of the product preference cycle not to mention your competitors are most likely also going after the same customer.

pair the idea of customer relations with another emerging trend called the call center makes it even more potent. with call centers, dispensing customer relations will be much more efficient, makes it standard and more importantly very quick. this pair builds more loyal customers.

or at least so goes the theory.

that is the theory part because in practice, in this case with globe handyphone in particular, that might not be true at all and has the effect of the exact opposite.

we have been experiencing globe handyphone’s customer service hotline in the past weeks and this is where we are:

• the first call we made to globe handyphone’s hotline service was on march 20. it has been unresolved as of this writing – now  30 days.
• since march 20, to follow-up, we have made a call to the hotline number at least 14 days out of  the 30 days for an average of 1 call every other day.  since april 1, this was more frequent with calls almost on a daily basis. the average will go much higher if you subtract 4 days from the total because of the holy week period when there  was no work.
• we have accumulated a total of 6 reference numbers on the same topic and complaint
• we have on file the names of at least 16 call center agents and 4 supervisors  (with their corresponding ID numbers),  in total at least 20 who we have talked to on the phone
• we have talked to 3 supervisors who promised me they will call me back within the day to tell me when someone will call me but he/she never did

obviously, the globe handyphone customer service hot line is a failure in my case.  i have been calling them for the same problem for 30 days now and it continue to be unresolved. some observations:

• i don’t understand why they need to give me a separate reference number every time i call when it is exactly the same topic.  towards the end, i refused to accept a new reference number as having a new one gives it a more recent time stamp and just delays the call back time aside from the fact that it is just confusing.
• every time i called them, they will tell me someone will call me within 3 to 5 working days.
• first, i don’t understand why it will take them 3 to 5 working days. taking a full work  week i think is just too long.  that is extremely slow service specially when it is to resolove a problem. it will take half a day to stop subscription and move to another mobile company.
• saying each time someone will call you in 3 to 5 working days just extends the period. they actually never called back. it has been 12 working days since april 1 and no one has called me back yet. it has been 11 working days since april 2 and no one has called me back either.  the list goes on.
• the call center agents keep asking me for my number where they can call me back. this question kills me and is most irritating.  i am a subscriber to their cell phone service why will they not know how to call me? is my cell phone number not in their record? i have also given them my landline number a long time ago, they did not keep that on file?
• that is the same problem with my email address. one of the agents asked for my email address. i gave it to them but 5 days after, talking to another call center agent, she asks me again for my email address. that means the first person who asked me the info did not file it in their system.
• what is the point of asking a customers for their contact numbers and email address when they don’t bother to save it in their system?
• they also have this habit of asking for the past history of the calls when these are supposed to be recorded in their system.  we would be asked when and with whom we  have talked to during previous calla.
• instead of answering, we asked  them – do you have my file open on your monitor? a few would say yes. most will ask for 30 seconds to open my record on their computer. i don’t understand this – why would they not open my record at  the start of the call?
• then i ask another question –  can you not see the history of my calls on your computer screen? the answer is yes sir, it’s here. so we ask – why are you asking that question when you will know the answer just by looking at your computer screen? no reply. then change topic.

customer relations dispensed through call centers is supposed to make customer servicing much more efficient and quicker. my experience so far with globe handyphone is it is mostly inefficient and very much slow. the whole system simply does not work nor is it giving globe the speed and efficiency they were supposed to get in investing in computer systems and hiring or outsourcing call center services.

neither are their customers happier and more satisfied with their service. if at all this customer is angrier and more disappointed at the kind of service they were giving us. we have been a globe handyphone customer for the past 11 years and never missed paying a single monthly bill. this is my first major call to them that is service related. we have made  no more than 4 calls within that 11 year period. globe is making a lot of money out of my subscription to their service – monthly bills paid on time for 11 years and with only 5 calls made to their call center. we are not a bother to them and we pay them good money.

the systems they have put in place, the customer service and call center facility is meant to make things easier and faster for customers, our experience with them so far is anything but fats and efficient.

the above customer service experience is just on the first level in resolving the issue we have brought to them. apparently there is another department who is in charge of resolving the issue. unfortunately it is this other department that has been very unresponsive.

all the call center agents and supervisors we have talked to have said they have sent urgent requests to have my issue resolved by that other department.  it is also the other department who is supposed to call me about my problem.  it looks like the continuing problems i have been encountering with them is being caused by that other department.

the name of the department — the Loyalty Group or the Customer Relations Management.

we think it is the ultimate irony that the department who has been unresponsive to a customer relations complaint is the one in charge of “loyalty” and “customer relations”.

the experience so far, for the past 30 days is one that does not inspire loyalty to globe handyphone on our side nor do we think their non-action and unresponsiveness is good “customer relations”.  for sure the mission of the department is to “build loyalty” among current customers and  to “ensure good customer relations” among subscribers.

with this performance and the way they have set up their system – what then is the point of putting up a “loyalty group” and a “customer relations group”?

tomorrow will be 31 days of unresolved loyalty and customer relations for us.

manny pangilinan once again does the right thing – quits ateneo for good

part of PDI’s news article:

“Circumstances have continued to the point where [this issue] is creating division within the university,” the Ateneo statement quoted Pangilinan as saying in a letter to the school’s president, Fr. Bienvenido Nebres, S.J.

“I have no desire to see this happen, or be an accessory to it,” he went on. “In that light and all things considered, it is best that I stand firm in my decision to retire, and reiterate this wish in my earlier note to you on 3rd April 2010.”

read in full: http://newsinfo.inquirer.net/inquirerheadlines/nation/view/20100417-264734/Manny-Pangilinan-quits-Ateneo-board-for-good

manny pangilinan’s speechgate has taken another bizarre turn – he now says his resignation from the ateneo is irrevocable.

pangilinan delivered a plagiarized speech in the 2010 commencement exercise at the ateneo. this was exposed on the internet where a side by side comparison was made identifying important parts of his speech  plagiarized from graduation speeches delivered by barack obama, oprah winfrey, j. k. rawling and conan o’brien in the US. in some parts, the speech copied them word for word.

as a reaction the  exposed plagiarism, pangilinan apologized for his error and resigned his post at the ateneo.

fr. ben nebres, ateneo president responded to pangilinan saying he should not yet resign and would like to talk it over with him and  the ateneo’s board of trustees. after a few days, the board of trustees of the ateneo released a statement saying they are rejecting pangilinan’s resignation.

now, pangilinan is once again doing the right thing – by rejecting ateneo’s rejection of his resignation.

this  shows pangilinan to be a man of honor where he relentlessly upholds principles, keeps on doing the right thing even though the ateneo keeps on giving him an open door to excuses.

the ateneo, on the other hand has lost it’s principles and integrity in first honoring plagiarism at the university, gives the sinner an excuse for his sin and even rejects his resignation. pangilinan’s irrevocable resignation puts ateneo once again in a bad light and much worst than how this whole thing began.

the last episode proves once again ateneo has no principles and has lost it’s integirty. one wonders, has ateneo lost the way?

what is “the ateneo way” now?

american idol season 9 : ho-hum season

zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz! that is probably the best way to describe the current season of american idol.

ateneo professors disagree with official ateneo action on manny pangilinan speechgate

we are publishing here verbatim what we got through email.

THIS is the Ateneo Way!  we will give our response to this next.

——————

Response to the Statement of the
Ateneo de Manila University’s Board of Trustees
Regarding the Issues Arising from
the Commencement Address of Manuel V. Pangilinan

We, the undersigned faculty, administrators and staff of the Loyola
Schools of the Ateneo de Manila University, strongly disagree with the
decision of our Board of Trustees to reject Mr. Manuel V. Pangilinan’s
offer to retire from his official duties most notably in his role as
Chairman of the Board.

As an academic institution, the Ateneo de Manila University should
take cases of plagiarism very seriously as these are violations of
intellectual integrity. In this instance, the act of plagiarism in the
speech delivered by Mr. Pangilinan at the graduation ceremonies of the
John Gokongwei School of Management and the School of Science and
Engineering on March 26, 2010 and the speech delivered by Mr.
Pangilinan at the graduation ceremonies of the School of Humanities
and the School of Social Sciences is beyond dispute.

While it was suggested by Mr. Pangilinan himself that he had some help
with the speeches, he also accepted ‘full and sole responsibility’ for
the plagiarism. Having taken full and sole responsibility, Mr.
Pangilinan bore the sole burden of accountability. As a University, we
should have applied the standards we usually apply to cases of
plagiarism, the same standards we use in handling acts of intellectual
dishonesty among our students, staff, professionals and faculty. We
teach the members of our community to accept responsibility for their
actions and to accept the consequences for such actions.  But in this
case, there is a claim of responsibility without accountability.

In fact, a higher standard must apply in this instance because Mr.
Pangilinan is the Chairman of our Board and as such, he is the co-head
of the University along with our President. In many respects, he
represents the University. As a symbol of his representation of the
University, the Chairman of the Board of the University has a seat on
stage at commencement exercises and academic convocations, two of the
most sacred rites of the academe. It would present an awfully awkward
situation and a tremendous distraction to have memories of a
plagiarized speech overshadowing these ceremonies because of the
presence (or absence) of Mr. Pangilinan.

Accepting Mr. Pangilinan’s offer to retire would have allowed him and
the University to move on from this unfortunate incident. Mr.
Pangilinan’s offer to retire was an honorable act. Not accepting Mr.
Pangilinan’s offer to retire dishonors that action.

Accepting Mr. Pangilinan’s offer to retire does not diminish our
regard for his person and for his contributions to society and to the
University. Not accepting his offer to retire, on the other hand,
seriously undermines the academic integrity of the Ateneo de Manila
University.

Signed:

Leland Joseph R. Dela Cruz (Development Studies Program),
Joy G. Aceron (Department of Political Science),
Fernando T. Aldaba (Department of Economics),
Clark Lim Alejandrino (Chinese Studies Program),
Rowena Anthea Azada-Palacios (Department of Philosophy),
Edsel L. Beja Jr. (Department of Economics),
Rica Bolipata Santos (Department of English),
Louis Catalan S.J. (Department of Philosophy),
Antonio F. B de Castro S.J. (Department of History),
Aleta C. Domdom (Department of Economics),
Ma. Celeste T. Gonzalez (Department of Education),
Marita Castro Guevara (Department of Interdisciplinary Studies
Development Studies Program),
Roberto O. Guevara (Department of Theology),
Estelle Marie M. Ladrido (Department of Communication),
Albert M. Lagliva (Department of Philosophy),
Joseph Anthony Y. Lim (Department of Economics),
Ma. Emma Concepcion D. Liwag (Department of Psychology),
Gabriel Maria J. Lopez (Department of Leadership and Strategy),
Ada Javellana Loredo (Department of English),
Pamela Joy M. Mariano (Department of Philosophy),
Isabel Pefianco Martin (Department of English),
Lara Katrina Tajonera Mendoza (Department of English),
Ruben C. Mendoza (Department of Theology),
Jovino G. Miroy (Department of Philosophy and Fine Arts Program),
Luisa O. Moldera (School of Social Sciences),
Ambeth R. Ocampo (Department of History),
Glenda C. Oris (Kagawaran ng Filipino),
Emma E. Porio (Department of Sociology-Anthropology),
Mary Racelis (Department of Sociology-Anthropology),
Danton R. Remoto (Department of English),
Fructuoso T. Sabug  Jr. (Department of Leadership and Strategy),
Sairry R. Sandoval (Department of Economics),
Elizabeth S. Tan (Chinese Studies Program),
Maria L. Tendero (School of Social Sciences),
Philip Arnold P. Tuano (Department of Economics),
Fernando N. Zialcita (Department of Sociology-Anthropology),

Signatories as of 6.04 p.m., Wednesday, 14 April 2010.

the winning formula for gilbert teodoro

we think teodoro suffering in the polls is the result of arroyo’s kiss of death on teodoro.  the kiss stuck on teodoro and so did his ratings in the polls. with just a few days to go till election, it is all lost  for teodoro.

the latest SWS poll on the performance rating of gloria macapagal arroyo is not helping teodoro at all. arroyo reached a new all time low in performance rating.

with arroyo on his side as his supporter, who needs to have opponents? read more about it here: gloria macapagal arroyo is gilbert teodoro’s deadliest opponent

ateneo response to manny pangilinan’s plagiarism re-defines ateneo

we are posting here reader reactions on  manny pangilinan’s speechgate.  this is the official response of the ateneo: ateneo honors plagiarism, rejects manny pangilinan’s honorable act of resignation

Rey Angeles :

MVP gives a speech with plagiarism.

MVP is caught. MVP weighs his options. MVP is greatly embarrassed. MVP apologizes.

MVP resigns from the board.

MVP says he will continue his support of Ateneo sports. MVP will not reveal if he knew the speech contained plagiarism before he gave the speech.

What else do we want MVP to do? What else can MVP truly do aside from killing himself?

BUT what the Ateneo’s Board decides to do is another thing. MVP is not Ateneo and the Board is not MVP.

Ateneo has a tradition and name to protect. These tradition and name are rooted in 150 years. They may go another 150 years from now.

Ateneo has spawned heroes. Ateneo has grown leaders of corruption as well. Ateneo has influenced the Philippines for good and for evil. Which tilts the balance? That is good for Ateneo to know.

How will Ateneo define itself now? Its action on the MVP apology and resignation will define itself.

Ateneo is now put to a test.

Is its slogan, Man For Others, just a silly slogan or can it really stand the winds of the times?

Careful, Ateneo Board, you are weighed not just for yourself but for what Ateneo stands for.

As for me, it is good to put to the test what we stand for and to discover who we really are. Only then, we can make changes for the better.

REY ANGELES
AB Economics 1970
Ateneo de Manila

PV Ferrer :

A sad, sad day has come to the Ateneo where the decision and actions by its board of trustees in this case of plagiarism has spoken louder than the words they have crafted on their justifications.

To their young students in the Ateneo, it simply says that the high standards they once held for integrity and truth no longer exists. Plagiarism and other forms of violations of integrity and intellectual property are now permissible acts in the Ateneo blessed from the very top guardians of its moral standards.

It is really sad to see what the Ateneo has now become and for what is now stands for. This was a very poor example to its grade school and high school students from whom they pretend to demand excellence and integrity.

ateneo honors plagiarism, rejects manny pangilinan’s honorable act of resignation

Response of the Board of Trustees on the issues arising from the Commencement Address of MVP

date posted: 2010-04-12 14:59:56

SPECIAL BOARD OF TRUSTEES MEETING
11 April 2010

The Board of Trustees met on April 11, 2010 to deliberate on the issues arising from the commencement addresses of its Chairman, Mr. Manuel V. Pangilinan, on March 26 & 27, 2010. The Board reviewed the history of the case, from the writing of the speeches to the posting of the blogs, from the response of Mr. Pangilinan to the reply of Fr. Nebres issued on April 3, 2010. It kept in mind as well the concerned statements from faculty, students, staff, administrators and the public at large.

The Board came to the following conclusions:

1. The Board considers the matter of plagiarism very serious, particularly for an academic institution. It recognizes that Mr. Pangilinan considered this a very serious matter that has caused him deep embarrassment and pain. With him, the Ateneo community has struggled with the issue and engaged in a deep reflection on its own values of honesty and integrity.

2. In its discussion, the Board kept in mind the Catholic moral tradition which for culpability considers not just the seriousness of the matter but also whether there is full awareness and consent. It recognizes that the matter is serious, but that the plagiarism happened without full awareness on the part of Mr. Pangilinan.

3. At the same time, the Board acknowledges with deep respect Mr. Pangilinan’s immediate and full acceptance of responsibility and apology for this mistake. This is particularly admirable, because in acting in this manner, he spared others from this responsibility. This is a rare example of humility, selflessness, and leadership in our midst.

4. The Board accepts Mr. Pangilinan’s apology as the appropriate response to this unfortunate incident.

5. However, the unanimous decision of the Board is not to accept Mr. Pangilinan’s resignation. It expresses full confidence in his leadership as Chairman.

6. On the matter of the honorary degree conferred on Mr. Pangilinan, the reasons for the conferment are articulated in the citation. These are his visionary leadership, his love of country and service and commitment to our people, his generous self-giving to our country, the Ateneo de Manila and many other institutions. These remain unchanged.

In conclusion, the Board of Trustees asks Mr. Pangilinan to please reconsider his resignation from the Ateneo Board of Trustees. There is so much to be done, not just for the Ateneo, but for our country and people. His leadership is needed today more than ever.

ateneo batch 2010 response to manny pangilinan’s plagiarism – calls who disagree with it as “vultures”

Batch 2010’s Official Response to Manuel V. Pangilinan

Dear Mr. Pangilinan,

Graduation is an event marked by people overflowing with triumph and euphoria, with some hint of sadness. It is a time of hanging on to the fond memories of friendship and lessons learned; letting go of the bad things which hinder one’s own and others’ growth; looking forward to the future as the graduates face a brand new chapter in their lives in entering the “real” world; and going with love because it is true that the world would die without it.

Just a day after that momentous event, the Graduation of SOH and SOSS Sesquicentennial Batch 2010, however, I and the rest of my batchmates still in the dark were greeted with the news of other people comparing parts of your commencement address with other previously given addresses by (as far as I know) J. K. Rowling, Barack Obama, Conan O’ Brien and Oprah Winfrey. People were voicing out views, comments and reactions all over the place, specifically on the social networking site Facebook. They ranged from the most negative and severe, the impartial and reflective, to the most supportive and optimistic on your behalf. The enormity with which the incident blew out of proportion, significantly because of media coverage and the internet, seemed astounding in the days that followed. This was then followed with the immediate release of your public apology and you owning up (and taking full and sole responsibility at that) to the mistake many of your detractors have maliciously chosen to point out, highlight, and emphasize. For that alone, you already have our full respect and admiration. Father Ben replied consequently, and asked that you reconsider your decision, after he accepted your apology with much care and understanding.

In view of all these and upon consultation, Batch 2010 would like you to know that like Father Ben, we understand that this incident has caused much personal embarrassment and pain on your part. And also with Father Ben, the Batch accepts your earnest apology wholeheartedly, and also utterly respects the fact that you do take full responsibility, even though the whole thing was not entirely of your doing.

Also like Father Ben, the Batch would have to disagree with your decision of retiring from your duties in the Ateneo, especially for the Ateneo community. The Batch recognizes that your response to what has become a sort of fiasco for waiting vultures was apt for a man such as you, and we can only imagine your distress throughout this whole unfortunate event – enough that you would claim that “wala na akong mukhang maihaharap.” Speaking in behalf of the alumni and undergraduates of the university, we indeed recognize that you are very much valued by the Ateneo community; so much so that it is believed we are fully equipped in moving on, learning, and going forward from this whole regrettable occurrence. And enumerating everything you have contributed to the Ateneo would be futile and overwhelming, to say the least; hence, I will refrain from doing so here.

As you must have felt that the events which unfolded were out of your hands, we too believe that your decision in the end is also beyond our grasp – it is between you, Father Ben, and the Board of Trustees. It has always been an honor that a man such as your magnanimity, innovation, dedication, and ardent spirit chose to be prominently of service to and for the Ateneo; and we sincerely hope you continue gracing us with that honor despite whatever ultimate decision you make. You, together with other Ateneo visionaries, were given the gift of having the capacity to change lives – lives which work and thrive from being inspired and motivated by you – through your life right now and beyond. Now, more than ever, we need someone who can show us how to deal with challenges, the way you have handled this situation with courage and utmost humility.

Sincerely yours,

Gregorio Ramon A. Tingson
President
Sanggunian ng mga Mag-aaral ng mga Paaralang Loyola
Pamantasang Ateneo de Manila
Academic Year 2009-2010
Ateneo de Manila University Batch 2010

date posted: 2010-04-12 15:03:36

the manny pangilinan speechgate – should pangilinan return the degree of Doctor of Humanities, honoris causa given by ateneo?

let us know what you think on this issue, please post a comment.

actually the other question here is – shouldn’t ateneo take back the degree of honoris causa that it gave to pangilinan?

reader reactions:

Konoswa :

To MVP: Return the degree of HONORIS CAUSA, and file IRREVOCABLE resignation of board position. These must be done to make a complete atonement of the cheating offense committed.

To Fr. Nebres: You should call it a spade; regardless of color dealt. You say MISTAKE? Should lightning strike twice, can an Ateneo student, on the dock for PLAGIARISM, quote you on this? Your use of the term MISTAKE, was a mistake along the standard of Fr. Cantalamessa’s mistake (comparing Holocaust with cleric pederasty).

Remember what Fr. Dela Costa wrote about split-level Christianity. Ethical principles also demand consistency—in the classroom, or boardroom.

The 3rd paragraph falls flat in the face, it was ruffling feathers not yet ruffled!

Your reply hints at compassion and empathy for MVP, but you are prolonging the guy’s agony by going to huddle still with cohorts, then back to MVP with the results. Your slip is showing symptoms of Peter principle.

If you must grieve for MVP, then do so by his side.

Your saving grace, at least, was not calling it a mere faux pax!

Plagiarism is what it is, and the apology of MVP suffices under these circumstances. But were this a case of paper chase for grades, I shudder to think the failing mark the hapless student receives after thorough rinsing and wringing by the professor, Dean Wanbol, and dear parents. Worse, being kicked in the butt with a disHONORable DISMISSAL to boot!

To 2 Ateneo writers: admit to your participation, and henceforth refrain from writing, whether of the spooky or nom de plum kind, except when hired by anyone from the GREEN side of town. Seriously.

Lucky Manzano :

Resigning from Ateneo is not enough. The most honorable thing for MVP to do is to return the honorary degree(s) accorded to him by Ateneo. I’ve read somewhere that he has a doctorate (honoris causa) from Ateneo.

And he should also divulge the identities of his speech writers, especially when Ateneo officials have denied reports that those speech writers were from Ateneo, at least to remove the cloud of doubt and shame from the university.

It is also not enough for that Ateneo official to just say those writers were not Ateneans or else it would just be a case of covering up your own mistakes. Identities should be revealed to completely erase the shame this has brought the school. It’s okay for those culprits to be revealed since that will be their punishment.

toyota CEO talks about toyota problems at david letterman show

psych document on noynoy aquino is bogus

read about it here: http://en.wordpress.com/tag/fake-psych-document/

what manny pangilinan and manny villar have in common and it’s not just the nickname

at The 2010 Presidentiables Blog, a post on manny villar has been getting a lot of attention. the topic is the possibility of the manny villar campaign plagiarising a tv ad from argentina. it’s quite a coincidence.

click to read: did the manny villar campaign plagiarize a Cannes Lions award winning argentina tv ad?

——

this one posted at The 2010 Presidentiables Blog (click to view: http://2010presidentiables.wordpress.com/)

the post we have on this blog on the possibility of the manny villar campaign plagiarizing the tv ad of an award winning argentina tv ad is getting a lot of read. (click to read here: did the manny villar campaign plagiarize a Cannes Lions award winning argentina tv ad?)

it’s quite a coincidence that our other blog, WAWAM! after hours (click to view here: https://wawam.wordpress.com/) a very similar topic is also getting a lot of read.

there are two common denominators: (1) it involves two people with the same nickname, “manny” – manny villar in this blog and manny pangilinan in the other blog.; and (2) it

manny villar

 involves plagiarism.

many pangilinan in the other blog delivered at the the ateneo de manila university during it’s graduation commencement exercise for 2010 graduates a speech that was found out to have major parts of it plagiarized from other graduation speeches delivered by barack obama, oprah winfrey, conan o’brian and j. k. rowling.

manny pangilianan

manny, as in manny pangilinan, was outed at a facebook account for ateneans (Overheard At The Ateneo) where side by side comparison was made that showed what parts were plagiarized. in many instances the plagiarism was severe with the exact words copied.

pangilinan has offered to resign from his post at the ateneo because of the incident. but fr. nebres, president of the ateneo wants to think about it first.

is this a coincidence or what? manny and manny on the same plagiarism sin.

—-

click to read : transcript of manny pangilinan’s speech at ateneo graduation rites and the plagiarized parts and links to original speeches

click to read all posts on the topic here: https://wawam.wordpress.com/category/manny-pangilinan/

manny pangilinan speechgate – how it all started at facebook’s “Overheard At The Ateneo”

the manny pangilinan speechgate all started at facebook, at the “Overheard At The Ateneo De Manila University”. (click here: http://www.facebook.com/group.php?v=wall&gid=275733258561)

 news reports said someone posted the side by side comparison of pangilinan’s speech and the plagiarized parts which pangilinan read and convinced him a large part of his speech was plagiarized. however, the original post has been taken down.

we would very much be interested to find out who posted it first at the facebook account. this person did a great job discovering these things.

how did the person go about finding out pangilinan’s speech was plagiarized?

there were multiple plagiarism from different sources, that must have taken some work.
 

manny pangilinan’s letter to fr. nebres:
I had taken a look at the side-by-side comparison @ Facebook, and must admit to this mistake.

manny pangilinan letter to fr. nebres:
I am told further that comments posted on Facebook have started to spill beyond graduation, and are now alluding to my misconduct with respect to Meralco, with former President Erap, and so forth.  Under the circumstances, it is best for the Ateneo and myself to shorten the life of this controversy and prevent it from spinning out of control.

let’s see if we get more information on this one. please post a comment.