Americans will get the same ham slabs and bacon slices they have enjoyed for generations, even after Smithfield Foods becomes a Chinese subsidiary, Smithfield CEO Larry Pope told Congress on Wednesday.
"It will be the same old Smithfield, only better," Pope said at a Senate Agriculture Committee hearing.
But several senators weren't buying the bacon-will-be-unbroken story once Hong Kong-based Shuanghui International Holdings owns Smithfield.
I post regularly here at 13.7 about animal cognition, crediting a variety of animals — including some of our daily companions — with the ability to think. So I'd forgive anyone for wondering if my headline today is of the straw-man (or straw-dog) category.
Do dogs think? Of course they do!
Doing a radio interview recently, though, I was reminded that some dog owners are still convinced that dogs don't think, but instead act on instinct and live tethered to the present, in a moment-to-moment way.
That's what my debate partner, Globe and Mail columnist Sarah Hampson, declared when we participated in an episode of the CBC radio program Tooth and Claw. Our primary task was to engage with one question: Do we love some animals too much? Hampson took the "yes" side and I the "no" position.
Along the way, as we delved into animal thinking and emotion, Hampson said this (though it was cut from the segment that aired):
I would take issue with Barbara's point that [dogs] are thinking animals. This is where I sort of agree with Cesar Millan [the Dog Whisperer]. He actually talks about how they are an instinctual animal and what we love about them is their instinctual way of being. In other words they react to things that are right in front of them. And I think we all love that about animals. But I find it worrisome when we start saying that they are "thinking." I just think that they are "being" and that is partly what we love about them. That they don't think as much as we do.
Whether it's a free upgrade on a hotel room or skipping ahead in the check-in line, many businesses give preferential treatment to some customers, hoping to make them more loyal. The practice often works — but a new study suggests that when we get perks we didn't earn, negative feelings can result. And they can make a surprise deal a little less sweet.
That's the gist of a study to be published later this year in the Journal of Consumer Research, with the forthright title "Consumer Reaction to Unearned Preferential Treatment."
"The current research demonstrates that, although receiving unearned preferential treatment does generate positive reactions, it is not always an entirely pleasurable experience," write the study's authors, Lan Jiang, Joandrea Hoegg, and Darren W. Dahl.
The displeasing aspects of a treat tend to peak, they write, when the perks are given in public, in front of other customers who are no different than the recipient of the business's generosity.
"We propose that receiving something that others have just as much right to receive can activate concerns about negative evaluations, reducing the satisfaction with the preferential treatment," write the researchers, who teach marketing at business schools at the University of Oregon and the University of British Columbia, Vancouver.
The study's authors found that "satisfaction with receiving preferential treatment can be restored if the observer who does not receive such treatment reacts positively to the recipient's good fortune or if the observer is of a higher status than the recipient."
That's right. The test subjects enjoyed "the positive experience of 'beating' a superior'" so much, the authors say, that it brought "increased overall satisfaction."
It also helps if nobody's looking. To test that theory, the researchers conducted experiments to test "feelings of social discomfort" and try to determine where they come from. They found that even in the most seemingly fair context — a random drawing — the winner felt best about it if they were alone.
All of the tests placed participants in situations in which one person received a surprise bonus. In one case, a booth that was dispensing free product samples suddenly gave one subject more than the others. That was welcomed — especially if no one else was around.
"It's like they wanted to get out of there," co-author JoAndrea Hoegg tells The Globe and Mail. "It's the fear of negative evaluation. If you're getting something you don't deserve, you're thrilled – as long as no one is watching you."
All of this isn't meant to imply that businesses should stop giving people free perks, the researchers say. The trick is to be sure all customers know the deal — and why they're not getting it. Other options include using scratch-off game tabs and loyalty emails, which can be kept private, to connect with customers.
Such steps, they say, "would minimize the potential for negative emotions."
John Hammergren, the chairman, president, and CEO of drug distributor and health care services company McKesson, may have the largest pension for an individual on record, at a reported $159 million. The Wall Street Journal reported on Hammergren's pension Tuesday, citing company filings made last week.
From The Journal:
"Compensation consultants say it's by far the largest pension on file for a current executive of a public company, and almost certainly the largest ever in corporate America. It's also more than double the value of the 54-year-old Mr. Hammergren's pension six years ago."
The newspaper adds that Hammergren was named a co-CEO in 1999. He is one of the highest-paid chief executives in the U.S. business world, making an average of more than $50 million each year. The recent accounting of his pension tabulated what he would be owed in a lump-sum payment if he had voluntarily left McKesson on March 31.
McKesson currently ranks No. 14 on the Fortune 500 list, in part because of "a key contract with the Department of Veteran Affairs," according to CNN Money.
In March, Hammergren's name was connected to another pension fund: that of New York City. The city's comptroller, John C. Liu, led calls to remove Hammergren and another member of Hewlett-Packard's board of directors, blaming them for the company's disastrous $11 billion acquisition of Autonomy. Despite being re-elected by shareholders, the two board members stepped down from their posts in April.
The Journal notes that Hammergren's tenure has seen McKesson's stock triple, with the company reporting net income of $1.34 billion for the most recent financial year. But its analysis also found that the CEO's pension has been inflated by "several unusual factors," including crediting him "for extra years of service and for pay that he didn't receive."
Citing executive pay tracking firm GMI Ratings, the AP reports that "54 percent of CEOs of companies in the Standard & Poor's 500 index have accumulated pension benefits. The average value of their pensions is just over $7 million, down from $11.5 million a year ago."
The next-highest pension, the AP says, belongs to News Corp. CEO and chairman Rupert Murdoch, who would get $74 million. The AP also says compensation analysts call Hammergren's pension the largest on record.
Hammergren is expected to speak at McKesson's Investor Day event Wednesday, which begins at 9 a.m. ET, according to a company release.