It had to happen one day with people realizing the harmful effects of carbonated drinks and the health drinks slowly taking over the cola market. One of the Cola Kings takes a plunge into the natural product market. The supermarket aisles are now going to be filled up with Pepsi Raw, a new carbonated drink from Pepsi, supposedly “natural.”

Pepsi says that it has replaced corn syrup with cane sugar, thus reducing the calorie content from 120 calories to 90 calories. Pepsi advertises it as a “natural” drink that contains no artificial preservatives, flavorings, colors or sweeteners.

The regular Pepsi contains sugar, artificial colorings, caffeine, phosphoric acid, citric acid, fructose corn syrup and natural flavors. The new Pepsi Raw is said to contain apple extract, coffee leaf, plain caramel coloring, tartaric acid from grapes, cane sugar, gum Arabic from acacia trees and sparkling water. It is pale in color and does not have as much fizz as the other cola brands.

Nobody expected Pepsi’s 100-year-old arch rival, Coke, to sit around appreciating Pepsi’s “innovative ideas.” Coco-Cola’s answer is the launch of a world-wide marketing campaign recently, promoting its “natural-ness.” Coca-Cola, which has always tried to create an aura of mystery around its formula, now revealed a little of its secret by saying the drink has never contained anything artificial and remained the same for more than 122 years.

The reason Coca-Cola is stressing on this is because it had to face a bad situation in the 1980s when it tried to tinker with the formula, and now the public perception of the drink is that it is unnatural and unhealthy.

Coke’s marketing director says, “When we talked to consumers about Coke, we realized they didn’t know that it has no added preservatives or artificial flavors. We felt it was important to reassure Coke drinkers of this fact.”

To make sure consumers know their drink is safe, Coca-Cola Great Britain will add a printed line that reads, “no added preservatives or artificial flavors,” on all the cans and bottles that are sold in Britain. Coke has also created a new website, letsgettogether.co.uk, where all consumer questions are answered. Although, they say that they answer all questions related to their formula too, when a consumer asked them about the ingredients, the response was that all the ingredients are listed on the can or bottle. So, that’s how much of the formula is actually given away.

The list of ingredients mentioned on Coca-Cola is carbonated water, sugar, caffeine, phosphoric acid, caramel for color and “natural flavorings.” This website is part of their “Pemberton” campaign, which is meant to let consumers know that Coca-Cola does not contain and has never in the past contained any added preservatives or artificial flavors.

The popularity of soft drinks has decreased in the recent times and more and more people, even the once Pepsi and Coke addicts, are shifting towards healthier alternatives, such as herbal teas and pure water. Health specialists insist that people reduce consumption of carbonated drinks as they are bad for health. But this attitude brings the soft drink companies under a lot of pressure and they go all out to woo their customers back in every possible way.

Many people feel that these campaigns do not make any difference, including the Pemberton campaign by Coca-Cola. Where soft drinks are concerned, the general feeling is that nobody goes around looking for a soft drink with no additives. They either have a soft drink or do not. It is as simple as that.

The intention of Pepsi and Coke manufacturers, after all, is to seduce consumers into buying their products. They are at each other’s throats at all times, and with Pepsi Raw, Pepsi hopes to knock its rival Coca-Cola off its perch and compete for a greater share of the cola market and at the same time capitalize on the increasing consumer demand for anything natural. Experts say that in the process, these companies will do anything to make consumers feel they are safe, even if it means making “tall” claims. For the consumer, can anything be better than the freshness of sparkling water or freshly squeezed juice?

The faltering economy and tight credit have forced many U.S. companies to lay off staff. Families furiously job hunt and it does not take long to see consequences pile up, leading to a situation where any extra money is more than welcome.

Cornered without a job and young kids to look after, many women are turning to unorthodox means of overcoming their economic problems. Donating their eggs to fertility clinics!

An egg (ova) is the beginning of life and women donate these eggs to fertility clinics where they are used for purposes of assisted reproduction, which involves in vitro fertilization.

Says 29-year-old Susan, “I have no other go right now, with one small kid, rent to pay and rising gas prices, what I’m earning is not enough. I need more money just to survive.”

This survival instinct makes women look for alternative income streams, even extreme ones such as egg donation.

Susan is just one among thousands of women earning money this way. Fertility clinics report an enormous increase in egg donations. They are receiving an increased number of calls inquiring about egg donation when compared to last year.

According to a doctor at a fertility clinic, “I know why they call us, for that financial remuneration. They don’t like to openly admit that, but some people are saying that.”

The monetary compensation for an egg donor is good; although, not every fertility clinic pays well. A donor can earn anywhere from $5,000 to $10,000 and in rare cases, a few donors even reported to have earned up to $20,000.

Yes, there are women who donate to help other women but the financial lure is getting more obvious with the slump in the US economy.

Screening tests will be done including a basic physical exam. Most fertility clinics also require a visit with a counselor, because donating the eggs can also prove to be traumatic and needs counseling. A genetic questionnaire will have to be filled up and if everything is found to be okay, the next step is to produce fertile and healthy eggs for donation. The donor will have to undergo a powerful hormonal therapy to stimulate the ovaries and produce multiple eggs. Over a period of a few weeks, the doctor will continue to monitor the ovaries with vaginal ultrasounds and blood tests. Finally, the eggs will be removed through a non-surgical procedure.

Experts say that women who donate eggs for monetary gains are sacrificing a whole lot more than just their eggs. Egg donation carries a great deal of risk, in the form of bleeding from the egg or ova recovery procedure, bloating, abdominal pain, weight gain, and reaction to the hormones. The most dangerous problems are liver failure and ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome, where ovaries become enlarged and this is a life-threatening condition.

Although, the long-term effects of egg donation are not very clear to doctors, they say there is some evidence of early menopause and increased risk of ovarian cancer.

If you think it is only the fertility clinics who buy eggs, there is the controversial plan of buying eggs for research. These eggs are used to bolster the limited supplies by fertility clinics to scientists who use these eggs to create cloned embryos for stem cells harvesting.

This proposal has outraged many groups of people who say that these hormonal treatments are very risky for women. They believe that medical ethics are being questioned and that the risks involved in egg donation are too many to be allowed for the sake of research.

Research also shows that many women, when asked the reasons for selling their eggs, have reported of doing so to pay off credit card bills.

It is pitiable that women have to subject themselves to such risks for some extra income. It shows the burden they are faced with, bringing up their children and supporting their families. Their safety takes a back seat.

With U.S. economy getting tight, it pushes these women to put themselves last. But can any amount of monetary compensation justify the risk and probability of life-long suffering? There are several debates on payments for such donations, with some states considering non-payment as a way of restricting women from taking these risks for monetary compensation.

There has been and continues to be a lot of debate over outsourcing and while supporters say that it is good for the US economy, detractors argue otherwise.

Proponents insist that outsourcing will save money for companies, will open up opportunities and will lead to more Americans holding jobs at a higher level. They feel this practice offers substantial gains to the US economy with cheaper imports and stronger exports.

Opponents who are against outsourcing argue that hiring people from foreign countries effects the US economy in a negative way and strips hundreds to thousands of Americans of jobs, especially the skilled and semi-skilled workers. They argue that the loss of competitive advantage to other countries is permanent and the American worker and economy lose forever.

All the points seem valid in their place. It has to be agreed that outsourcing does lead to loss of jobs in the US, especially those that have minimal qualifications. On the other hand, the loss of jobs is not only limited to people with minimal skills, but also jobs of skilled labor that are being outsourced to other countries.

Americans who are in poverty and willing to do minimally skilled jobs find it harder to find jobs, and poverty does nothing for the US economy, other than reduce consumer spending and tax revenues.

There is also data that provides evidence that jobs are lost and lost forever, especially for those who belong to the low end of the food chain. A suitable example would be the manufacturing job losses examined by the University of California-Santa Cruz. In their study, they found that in a period of 20 years, in the labor intensive industries such as leather, textiles, footwear and clothing, about one-third displaced workers could not find reemployment within a three-year period, and even those people who did, about half of them experienced a substantial cutting in their wages by at least 15 percent.

The middle class American is not far behind as even his job is being outsourced. This level of outsourcing involves the computer and technology industry.

How does this affect the economy?

Outsourcing in these areas does not leave enough jobs for the Americans. A jobless person cannot purchase homes and cannot spend money. When people do not buy, people that produce things do not make money too.

Another harmful effect of outsourcing is loss of income by local, state and federal governments. There are lesser payroll tax receipts and lesser contributions to Social Security and Medicare. Then there are the outgoing payments for unemployment benefits. Sales and other tax revenue suffers too.

Outsourcing is nothing new. In the early 19th century, Britain imported cotton from the United States, then spun the cotton and weaved the fabric in England and then exported the finished textiles abroad, mostly to India, then its colony. UK kept about 80 percent of the monetary gains from these exports, adding to its national wealth. After some time, the mill owners came up with what a “so-called” smart idea – that they could grow the cotton in India and shift the textile machines there too, which will enable them to save money on wages and shipping expenses. This felt like a great idea, but then the monetary gains being repatriated to England was only 15 to 20 percent of the total value of the textiles in the form of profit.

Now 80 percent of the created monetary gains remained in India, which was a great loss to the British economy that resulted in unemployment as well as social unrest.

United States also faces similar problems. By outsourcing, not only skilled labor is lost but monetary gains too. What must be understood is that service jobs do not pay as much as manufacturing jobs do nor do they create national wealth. On the other hand, they absorb wealth. Manufacturing jobs have by far the greatest impact on national economy, in terms of losing skills and the time taken to retrain such a force. Another thing is the loss of industrial infrastructure with the closing down of U.S. factories and then exporting of capital abroad. This money is then not available for U.S. economic expansion.

Service jobs on the other hand do not need so much training and very little capital investment. U.S. companies derive savings in wages and more importantly in health benefit payments by outsourcing these jobs. Of course there is no doubt there is loss of national wealth by sending money abroad to pay their wages and salaries.

An argument pro outsourcing can say that short-term job losses brought on by outsourcing are mitigated in the long run by gains to American workers from consumption growth and free trade in low-wage countries.

Certain professional roles like retail, personal care, catering cannot be outsourced because of inherent personal interactions between the consumer and the deliverer. Because the service sector encompasses about 70 to 80 percent of the U.S. economy, outsourcing can impact only a sliver of U.S. employment.

According to research data, more than 400,000 U.S. jobs had moved abroad and the total is estimated to hit 3.3 million by 2015. That’s just above 200,000 jobs lost every year to global outsourcing, a trivial problem in the context of the normal churn of the U.S. economy, where about 7 million jobs were gained and lost in each of the previous four quarters.

Many government agencies outsource a part of their work in order to save millions of dollars, which helps US economy and helps federal spending. The theory here is that paying people less for work means that these companies have the ability to produce things cheaper and will be able to transfer these savings to their consumers back in the U.S. Cheaper rates means more consumers buying the products. One example is that of the early 90s, when the price of personal computers dipped because the U.S. chip manufacturers outsourced this offshore and thus reduced chip prices anywhere between 10 to 30 percent.

So who actually benefits from outsourcing?

U.S. investors, shareholders and American consumers derive the benefits of outsourcing, although sometimes at the expense of American wage earners.

Another supportive argument is that outsourcing jobs to other less developed countries helps those countries economically and helps increase trade for US products. It also gives those countries the ability to pay back their debts to the U.S.

Experts believe that the greatest saving potential comes from outsourcing simple assembly work or services. Since there is not much capital involved, except for training people in other countries and payments for displaced U.S. workers, there is no other major investment.

Outsourcing is a difficult issue to tackle and everyone, the supporters and detractors agree on one thing – that outsourcing cannot be eliminated completely. Some people feel companies that outsource should be taxed for outsourcing and those that do not should be rewarded.

Winning the talent war is what it is all about for companies. Coming up with different strategies is what the master-brains behind organizations are working on at all times. To advertise and promote products, hoardings are put up in the busy areas of a city. Would companies be able to do the same when it comes to hiring key talent?

Certainly not!

Or do they? Certain top companies are being innovative in their hiring strategies and there have even been recent instances of hoardings being put up in order to catch the attention of passersby. This alters the medium of hiring and is just one example of how companies are working on innovative ideas with the ultimate goal of attracting the best minds.

This talent crisis is not restricted just to hiring; training and retention also pose big challenges. Due to the demand supply gap in the market, firms come up with several strategies to beat competition. These strategies include campus recruitments, employee-referrals, placement consultants, job fairs, advertising in newspapers, internet job postings and lately, the trend is also moving towards leveraging the immense benefits of social networking sites.

Companies have faced increasing talent crunch in the past decade and the hiring scenario has witnessed dramatic changes. This is because employees have now begun to call the shots and a transition from the employers’ market to an employees’ is very evident, with employers willing to give everything to appease the employee, in terms of several types of benefit packages.

People in recruiting try and demonstrate to candidates, how their organization is great and the excitement that is to be found within the organization. Most people rely on “words” in websites, brochures and paid advertising; but words are so outdated that they may fail to make the required impact.

It is very obvious that the number of people reading books and newspapers is rapidly declining and most people look for information from other forms of media, which includes TV, videos and films. The reason is because videos get across a powerful message and are convenient to watch. The once powerful tools, “words” have now become weak and do not transmit messages with the same passion as they did earlier. Pictures are better than words, but even they are proving to be limiting.

The saying that a picture is worth a thousand words, gives way to the saying, a video is priceless. Videos help potential candidates see and hear the organization. Videos allow people to get a better feel of the organization and are aimed at exciting the potential candidates and are aimed at showing the compelling features of a firm and their jobs. With the traditional strategies for hiring, such as brochures, pictures posted on websites and many others, losing their engaging power, videos are becoming powerful recruiting tools. Many organizations are beginning to woo potential candidates with online videos placed on career websites, popular video sharing sites such as YouTube, or even by providing them as podcasts that can be downloaded, for mobile media devices.

Some companies are applying a unique employee referral program, where the current employees are encouraged to recruit the right talent.

There has also been a significant shift to online recruiting, with the emergence of job portals. While job portals are still considered important for the recruitment process, it is the next generation of web that is taking over; Web 2.0. The social networking websites like Orkut, Facebook, and Linkedin etc. are being seen as a great cost-effective method of recruiting.

With job portals; although, employers were successful to an extent in finding people looking for jobs, they still had a problem of finding the right kind of people. The reason is that people who are in good jobs and are satisfied with the companies they are working for would not put up their resumes on these job sites.

Web 2.0 hiring changes that scenario. It is all about using the power of the social web to reach the right candidates, interact with them and hire them. The social networking sites have seen immense growth in a very short time. There are several business-oriented social networking sites that give instant credibility to a professional’s profile, along with the recommendations and referrals of the candidate, thus helping employers in captivating this talent.

Experts say that the best part about Web 2.0 recruiting is the fact that it gives people looking for jobs a chance to scan the firms and vice versa. Most companies highlight on their websites the kind or work environment and benefits they provide. For new startups, social networking sites provide the perfect virgin ground for recruitment and more and more organizations are taking this route.

Human resource specialists say that the hiring scenario is going to further change dramatically over the next few years and innovation helps corporate as well as employees make the correct choices and avoid making errors while hiring.

Taking insurance seems so easy and life insurance is the easiest of all, because the claim is only made after the person is dead and there are no two ways about it – a death is a death and no insurance company can dispute that.

Other types of insurances may seem just as simple, but are they? Long-term-care insurance is one such insurance that is meant to protect people when they are no longer able to take care of themselves and may need nursing care or help at home. Without insurance, with the cost of health care and nursing rising every day, these costs could easily eat up all the savings of a lifetime. With the ways things are now, they could very well increase further in the coming years. Wise are those that ensure they have their old age health-care requirements covered with some sort of insurance.

The sad fact is that when the time comes, in spite of having insurance, many seniors find that they are not covered. Can anything be more shocking than that? A lifetime of paying for insurance, taking money out of one’s hard earned money, assuming that is the wisest thing they have ever done to keep themselves safe and secure in their old age, so that they do not have to look for any mercy from their children or from anyone for that matter – only to find that it just does not work that way.

Thousands of dollars need to be paid towards annual premiums and that too for decades, even during retirement. If for some reason, the premiums are not paid, the individual may stand to lose the total coverage as well as each and every dollar that has been paid.

This is not to say that all long-term care insurance is bad. It is wonderful and will certainly work, but one has to be armed with enough knowledge and understand the pitfalls, before taking a policy. Long-term care insurance requires the person to have the ability to look into their future and imagine the kind of care they may need and the cost, which sounds ridiculous but true.

There have been several policy holders that had to face heavy rate increases in the past few years and the rate can increase as much as 40 percent or more at times. Many people even complain of delayed payments and even denials of payment, when the time comes for the insurance company to pay.

A policy pays a fixed daily rate for a stay in the nursing home or some other care. The premiums increase based on the daily rate that one selects. The worst thing is that, after paying up thousands of dollars in premiums, many people realize that by the time they end up in the nursing home years later, the daily rate would have increased and the insurance company will only pay the rate that was fixed earlier, and the rest of the amount will have to be borne by the individuals themselves. There are some policies that will raise the rate with inflation, but not everybody has this policy. This varies with the policies taken.

The policy will also pay based on the coverage chosen. It can be for a lifetime or for a fixed number of years, based on individual capacity to continue paying premiums.

Eventually, to be able to qualify for coverage, the person should either be unable to perform certain number of ADLs or be cognitively impaired. Some policies cover only home health care and others cover nursing home stay, assisted living or adult day care. Some policies also waive premiums while the individual is in care, and others continue to charge a premium.

Anyone planning to take a long-term care insurance policy, should know that the greater the age, the higher the premium. Premiums are also based on health issues. Some people may not qualify for insurance because of their high-risk health problems. Experts point out that it is better to take a policy when still young to avoid the risk of paying higher premiums or being disqualified. However, many people have had to face increase in rates later, despite taking all precautions like taking the policy early on in life.

Entering into long-term care insurance is based on the hope that the insurance company pays up when needed in the future. Many seniors in the United States have complained of problems in collecting claims.

With all these risks that need to be weighed carefully, every policy has to be carefully scrutinized, keeping not only the premium in mind, but also all future repercussions and eventualities that one may face.

A vision of the future seems more important when taking a long-term care insurance policy than with anything else in life.

It might be surprising to note that it was as early as 1895 that a Russian scientist was so impressed with the Eiffel Tower in Paris, that he allowed his imagination to run beyond the normal, about a structure that would start on the ground and reach all the way up into space.

Although, that proved unrealistic because of lack of proper material to build such a structure, there were several scientists in the recent past that had come up with various other more feasible ideas, such as skyhooks, space lifts etc. A very interesting read with this line of thought is a Novel by Arthur C. Clarke, “The Fountains of Paradise,” where a space elevator is constructed on the top of a mountain peak.

It was later in the year 1990, that NASA engineers realized the potential of high strength materials in creating an orbital skyhook and even held workshops where several scientists were invited to discuss the different concepts that could turn such an ethereal dream into reality.

How can a contest held by NASA for something like this be normal? It’s a $2 million win for anyone that succeeds in achieving this lofty feat. Surprisingly, there are many challengers, who have lived with this idea for years now and are keen to take up this opportunity, which they simply look at as creating an elevator that climbs a cable up to a space station.

Several Seattle based businesses that are competing for the prize money are said to have started working on this idea. NASA has contributed this prize money to the Space Elevator Games that are expected to take place in the fall, in the Arizona desert. This money will be awarded to those that succeed in creating stronger cables that can carry loads into space and those that create better energy beams.

This all sounds like science fiction even to proponents of this idea, such as Physicist and local businessman, Bradley Edwards. He voices his view that advanced technologies such as extremely strong nanotube fibers and laser beamed energy systems bring this whole idea closer to reality.

A nanotube is a material that is made from carbon molecules that are arranged in a cylinder. They are 50000 times thinner than human hair and have extremely important properties and a bonding structure that rivals any other forms of carbon or diamonds, making them extraordinarily strong. These properties of immense strength and flexibility have long excited space elevator scientists and give them hope.

However, the problem is working with them and nobody knows how to attach this carbon nanotube material and make it into a cable that can support a space elevator that can move into space and comes back to earth. There is no known reliable way of arranging the tubes, because too many of them have been found to result in a mess that is said to resemble a bowl of spaghetti. This is where the real challenge lies and this is what all those contestants wish to succeed in.

According to NASA scientists, there is another issue that could pose a danger. With thousands of satellites in orbit and most of them dead, they estimate that there are hundreds of thousands of space debris floating around in space, some of them are said to be the size of basketballs and several others that are tiny but bullet-fast. This debris can easily rip apart any sort of cable that holds the space elevator. The real challenge they say lies in creating a cable that can avoid all these dangers as well as has the ability to self-repair instantly.

Founder of the Spaceward foundation and Space Elevator Games coordinator, Ben Shelef says that they do understand this is going to take time, but they are happy with the number of organizations that are entering the competition and bringing with them, several new and creative ideas for a space elevator.

Looking from afar at this amazing earth-space connection, it can only be dreamt that one day, going into space is as simple as walking into a space lift and pressing a button.

SOFA stands for “Status of Forces Agreement” which is drawn between a country and a foreign nation that has military forces stationed in that country. This agreement is intended to clarify the terms of operation of the foreign military.

U.S. SOFAs govern the treatment of U.S. personnel abroad. The U.S. courts will have power over any crime committed by a service member against another member or by a service member on military duty. They describe the legal status of the U.S. troops and their property in a host nation. They clearly point out the rights as well as the responsibilities of the United States and the host nation, on matters such as civil and criminal jurisdiction, carrying arms, wearing uniform, tax and customs relief, damage claims as well as looks into the entry and exit of the troops and property.

With so many U.S. troops scattered throughout the world and fighting for the nation, U.S. has always considered it imperative to have these critically important agreements, which in many cases grant immunity from prosecution of the troops.

The United States has about 90 SOFA’s in force as of now and the government wants to add Iraq to this list, in order to help with the long-term U.S. security presence there.

According to reports, Washington is demanding a whole lot more that just immunity from prosecution, from the Iraqi leaders. It is asking for rights to more than 50 U.S. military bases, to provide Americans the right to detain terror suspects without getting Iraqi approval first, to gain control of Iraqi airspace and to extend legal immunity to the civilian contractors. According to the Pentagon, these things are essential for the safety and security of the Iraqis as well as the U.S. personnel.

However, Iraqi leaders say that this deal is unrealistic and “deeply affects Iraqi sovereignty, and this we can never accept.” They say that they cannot give U.S. forces the right to jail Iraqis or fight against terrorism all by themselves.

Reports from Iraq are also said to reveal that U.S. troops would no longer be given immunity from Iraqi prosecution and that Iraq would not mind a memorandum of understanding in place of a SOFA, that too only if it gives a specific date for a complete withdrawal of the foreign troops in Iraq.

Granting immunity is not a new trend. Immunity grants go as far back as the 16th century and have always proved to be controversial with an undesired history in the Middle East, where they had earlier generated serious crises in Egypt, Turkey and Iran.

In the earlier days, in order to gain European good will and promote trade, Ottoman Sultans began granting foreign merchants immunity from Turkish laws. But this was not taken well by the locals. In 1905, Sultan Abdul Hamid was targeted in a bomb attack where 27 people were killed but the Sultan escaped. A Belgian, Edward Joris was arrested and sentenced to death by a Turkish court. However, Brussels demanded his release and Joris was a free man, two years later. This irked the Turkish reformers and they demanded abolition of these extraterritorial rights, which was achieved in 1923.

Experts say that, although, the Pentagon may not realize it; Iraq suffered a SOFA-like arrangement during its decades as a British protectorate and incited similar fury from the locals. It is agreed by experts that some sort of an agreement is required to govern the status of U.S. troops in Iraq, since these troops are likely to remain in Iraq for a prolonged length of time; however, it has to have a limited scope. This limited agreement will also put to rest the widespread impression that the United States government wants permanent bases in Iraq for an indefinite occupation.

It is believed that the ongoing negotiations between the United States and Iraq over the SOFA could prove to be a sort of leverage test for two foes who always enjoyed being at odds.

All the gas production in South Asia is currently used to meet the domestic needs. Natural gas is used to supply the new power plants, in an attempt to diversify from expensive oil imports. The result is an increase in the natural gas usage over the last decade.

Iran on the other hand has abundant gas resources, especially with the natural gas reserves that have been discovered in Iran’s South Pars fields in 1988. Ever since then, the Iranian government has been trying to increase its gas exports abroad. Iran understands the potential of high profits from gas-hungry countries in South Asia, such as India and Pakistan.

More than a decade ago, in 1995, Iran and Pakistan have signed an agreement for constructing a natural gas pipeline from Iran’s South Pars gas fields to Karachi, which is Pakistan’s main industrial port. Later, Iran came up with the proposal of extending the pipeline to India. However, the Indian government was not keen on entering into an agreement with Pakistan, owing to the tense relationship between the two countries. India came up with an alternative plan, suggesting the creation of a deep sea pipeline, to avoid any threat to security of resources. All that was in the past.

The potential for developmental and economic gain from natural gas ultimately forced Iran, Pakistan and India to reassess the situation. With relations between India and Pakistan improving and compromise on the pricing structure by Iran, this pipedream is turning into reality.

This project can prove to be vital for all three countries. It will give Iran a chance to gain entry into one of the biggest markets for energy resources, while India and Pakistan, with their fast growing economies will have sufficient long-term supplies to meet the increasing domestic demands.

Iran, Pakistan and India are expected to sign a deal soon, for building a 1,724 mile long natural gas pipeline that would carry 2120 million cubic feet of gas per day initially. The pipeline will run from Iran to Pakistan and then to India. Although, initially the project was estimated to cost $4.5 billion, the cost has been revised and finalized at $7.5 billion.

This is called the IPI pipeline or the “peace pipeline,” based on the perceived impact on it could have on reducing tensions between India and Pakistan.

This pipeline would begin in Iran’s South Pars gas fields and run through Baluchistan (Pakistan,) into India.

Although, everything else has been finalized, the only issue that is still being discussed is the delivery point. While Iran wanted to deliver it on the Iran Pakistan border, India wants it on the border of India and Pakistan. These issues are currently being sorted out and continuous talks are on between the officials of all three countries, and the formal agreement is expected to be signed towards the end of the month.

This agreement thwarts U.S. plans to isolate Iran from the world. U.S. allies, Pakistan and India are both under pressure from the United States not to get into any kind of agreement with Iran. In a statement made by Condoleeza Rice, she says “The United States has made very clear to India that we have concerns about their relationship with Iran.” These concerns are said to include the proposed gas pipeline.

Although, India was noncommittal initially, which was felt to be due to American pressure, the rising prices of gas and the immediate need for energy seems to have overcome all other concerns. Another factor that could have jostled India was the China threat, when China showed interest into entering the deal in place of India.

Experts say that it is only now that Pakistan and India are beginning to understand the dynamics of global energy politics. Now, with China also entering into the energy game, the energy resources of Central Asia would keep reducing with every pipeline that is built away from them. Unlike oil, which can easily be transported in any direction in containers, gas has to be transported only through pipeline routes. Only consumers on that route can be served and there is nothing that can be done to change this. These two countries now realize that continuing to hesitate would be detrimental to their countries’ health, with the West and the Orient ready to take most of the natural gas.

When children in the family help or do something right, they are always appreciated by either a gesture or a gift to show that what they have done means a lot. This encourages and motivates the kid to keep doing things right. Great marketers look after their employees in a similar way.

Successful marketers are now realizing that the “Get it done right away, or else” approach to managing their staff is not effective any longer. Slavery is no longer acceptable in the marketing world or in any form of business for that matter. The manager of today is the partner with the employees and not above them.

Recognition in the form of letting workers know that their efforts are appreciated is crucial to the success of a business and encourages higher performance levels, by promoting sales and encouraging customer confidence.

Most employers do have yearly performance evaluations and salary increases; however, the workplace today is motivated by the thinking, “What do I get from this?” Immediate gratification is also expected in certain types of work, such as marketing, upon reaching or going beyond the targets expected of them. Therefore, waiting for the whole year to pass by, before rewarding a person’s efforts is not really enough to recognize performance.

Employee recognition does not have to be an expensive proposition and can be in any form but has to be sensible. If the reward is perceived by the employees as silly, it will totally dilute the motivation factor. Management has to provide some sort of value in their recognition.

There are several ways of rewarding top sales performances. Cash still seems to be the most obvious choice as it can help the employee in many ways; however, some studies revealed that recipients forget about the award after spending the money. A recognition gift such as a plaque or something else, other than cash provides the benefit of reminding the employee of their achievements.

Many surveys reveal that many a time, employees feel neglected, which is the attitude prevalent in a large percentage of the workforce. It is common to hear employees complaining that they do not get any positive reinforcement for good performance.

Companies with reputation for good customer service always put a lot of stress on recognizing good performance at every level. A totally customer driven company not only ensures that these people are rewarded but also makes sure this recognition is publicized, not only to the people in the company but also to the community. Top executives have programs to honor individuals for their performances and when it is done in public, this serves as an advertisement letting people get a glimpse of the company’s ability to keep their employees motivated.

Another intelligent thing that is done by many marketing management people is to display the “best customer service” or some such award that has been given to an employee, to the public, with the view that this will increase confidence levels in the services as well as the products of the company. They encourage their employees who receive the awards to display the award either on their desk or in some other prominent spot.

Recognition awards do the job of communicating a strong message to the customers that the company, the products, the employees and their services are the best. This is the reason a recognition award not just boosts the employee’s performance but also has the potential to boost sales by promoting new business leads and generating more sales.

Management experts say that employee attitude has a great deal of influence on customer retention. This is the reason many companies provide recognition awards and incentives to sales employees in the frontline. Evidence reveals that these incentives encourage the sales personnel to provide better service to the customers and improves their performance levels.

Recognition with goal alignment is the first and foremost thing for an organization, whether it is to improve working conditions, to increase retention or to improve customer service. Employers need to recognize these top employees by having effective recognition programs in place.
According to management pundits, employee recognition serves as the best marketing tool than anything else ever can. Putting it to best use is the only way of taking the organization to greater heights.

Renault is a French vehicle manufacturing company that produces cars, buses, vans, trucks and tractors. The company is well known for several revolutionary designs as well as motor racing.

The Renault-Nissan alliance was the first of its kind that involves a French and a Japanese company, each of them having their own brand identity. Renault has a stake of 44.4 percent in Nissan, the Japanese company; and Nissan has 15 percent stake in Renault. Carlos Ghosn, who was the CEO of Nissan, also became the CEO of Renault in 2005.

Today, the petulant shareholders confront the CEO of Nissan-Renault as they are perturbed with the share prices going down more than 30% this year. The wonderful impact the CEO had on Nissan when he turned around the floundering Japanese company almost a decade ago when he took over, is no longer seen.

Analysts say that the sales at Renault have flattened out, with profits sliding down 7.6% last year and they do not seem to be doing any better in 2008 either. Nissan is facing a similar situation, with the stock going down by 32% from the twelve-month high on flat profits in 2007 and with poor prospects for 2008.

The shareholders and analysts attribute it to one boss trying to do too many things at the same time; the CEO has a schedule that ordinary mortals cannot survive.

Carlos Ghosn, CEO of both Renault and Nissan Motors, responds to these allegations saying, “if you look at car-company tie-ups, such as Daimler-Benz buying Chrysler or Ford Motor buying Jaguar and Land Rover, there is only one global alliance that has added value, and that is Nissan and Renault.” He also points out that the two are earning billions even in a year of recession and slow-down.

He feels that his dual role as CEO is in keeping with the changing time, when automakers must be able to move fast to adapt to the changing tastes of people and tough regulations.

There were two major joint ventures in 2007, involving Nissan and Renault: two electric car projects in Denmark and Israel, a combined factory in Morocco and a project to design and build a $2500-$3000 car in India.

There is also a joint venture in Russia with AutoVAZ, to supply small cars to Chrylser, outsourcing Nissan’s pickup-truck manufacturing in the U.S., and agreeing to build small pickups for Suzuki Motor.

Renault-Nissan has plans of launching a whole range of electric vehicles by 2012 in all the large markets. It says these vehicles will be less expensive that the petrol models. Everything, except the batteries are said to be ready. They are currently looking into the charging cycles of the batteries and to use fast-charge systems that ensure quick recharges and increasing the mileage.

CEO of Nissan feels that although Nissan has to stay strong in the U.S., this market may not be great again, since it is saturated, as America has about 800 vehicles per 1,000 people when compared to less than 30 in India and china.

Nissan faces the challenge of standing the ground in the huge U.S. market place while racing to win the hearts of first-time car buyers in Brazil, China, Russia and other places.

Experts believe that lowering the costs of technology and production is crucial to making both companies more profitable. Nissan has currently tied up with Bajaj Auto for a car, tentatively called the ULC and to be sold at a wholesale price of $2500, in the Indian markets. This new facility will be built in Chakan, Maharashtra, India with 400,000 units per year in the first phase, and is expected to go on sale in early 2011 in India and later in other export countries. They say that U.S. may not be one of the export countries, but part of Europe will most probably see the ULC.

The CEO of Renault-Nissan wants to infuse his companies with the innovative and low cost Indian design thinking. He feels that India understands frugal engineering better than Europe or Japan.

In spite of certain setbacks experienced in the past few years, these are reasons enough for the hyper-driven Nissan-Renault to keep moving and pick up pace in the future.