Tag Archives: meat mallet alternative

Nautilus, Inc.

Nautilus, Inc., located in Vancouver, Washington, United States, is the American worldwide marketer, developer, and manufacturer of home fitness equipment brands Bowflex, Nautilus, Schwinn Fitness, and Universal. The products are sold to customers through a combination of television commercials/infomercials, the Internet, call centers and retail stores.

Nautilus, Inc. is the maker of home fitness equipment brands Bowflex, Nautilus, Schwinn Fitness and Universal Gym Equipment meat mallet alternative, sold directly to customers through a combination of television commercials, infomercials, response mailings, the Internet and inbound/outbound call centers. Select Bowflex home gyms and Schwinn cardio equipment are also available in retail stores.

In 2015, the company opened a new building across from its headquarters in Vancouver, Washington, United States to expand its development and research team.

Brian Cook, held the CEO position for 17 years, from to 1986 to 2003 when he was replaced by Gregg Hammann. who resigned in August 2007 after sales fell to $134 million from $159.6 million in 2006.

In 2007, after Hammann’s departure, Robert S. Falcone, the former Nike chief financial officer, became the Nautilus, Inc. interim chief executive officer, where he also served as president and chairman since October 17, 2007. In April 2008, Falcone was replaced by Edward Bramson good quality water bottles, a major stock owner. Under Bramson’s leadership, the company changed sales focus to solely direct-to-customer and retail businesses, which resulted in the sale of its StairMaster brand. Bramson was CEO and chairman of Nautilus, Inc. until May 2011, when he announced he would be stepping down and Bruce M. Cazenave, former executive with Black and Decker and Timberland, would be the new CEO.

Bruce M. Cazenave is the current CEO of Nautilus, Inc. and since he’s taken over in 2011, his plan has been to release better and more cost-effective retail products.

The current corporate flavor of Nautilus, Inc. originated in 1986 with the sale of most of the company by the inventor of the Nautilus machine, Arthur Jones. Mr. Jones created the Nautilus machine, then called the Blue Monster, in the late 1960s, with the purpose of creating a fitness machine that accommodates human movement. The company’s name was changed to Nautilus because the logarithmic-spiral cam, which made the machine a success, resembled a nautilus. On August 28, 2007, Jones died from natural causes at his home in Ocala, Florida, at the age of 80.

Bowflex acquired Nautilus, Inc. and specialized in designing, developing and marketing strength and cardio fitness products. In 1997, the company changed its name to Direct Focus and acquired Nautilus, Schwinn and StairMaster between 1999 and 2002, before changing its name to Nautilus, Inc. Nautilus became a publicly traded company in May 1999.

The company stopped selling exercise equipment to gyms in 2011 and shifted its focus to home-use equipment. The same year, Nautilus, Inc. licensed its brand name and technology to other manufacturers.

In June 2014, Nautilus, Inc. was sued by Biosig Instruments for allegedly infringing its heart-rate monitor’s design for its Bowflex Boost activity tracker. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Nautilus, Inc. because the Biosig Instruments patent was not precise enough.

For two years running (2013 & 2014), Nautilus, Inc. was recognized by The Oregonian as one of the top places to work, as well as the company with the healthiest employees of Oregon by the Portland Business Journal decorative glass bottles, in its 101-500 employee category.

The company has been an American Heart Association Fit-Friendly company since 2010, winning for three consecutive years the Platinum Fit-Friendly Workplace award. The company is recognized for its Road to Wellness Program, which challenges and rewards Nautilus, Inc. employees to get healthier by just walking.

In June 2013, a number of Nautilus employees participated in the Tough Mudder in Fossil, Oregon. The race is a 10-mile obstacle course which serves as a way to raise money for the Wounded Warrior Project.

On March 18, 2014, Bruce Cazenave, CEO of Nautilus, Inc., rang the New York Stock Exchange’s opening bell. Nautilus, Inc. also featured its new home fitness cardio machine, Bowflex MAX Trainer, on the NYSE trading floor and discussed the company’s 2013 fourth quarter and full year financial growth.

In 2013, Nautilus, Inc. posted $218.8 million in revenue, a 13% increase over 2012. The company’s financial performance in the past two years has led to Nautilus, Inc. landing at No. 4 on The Seattle Times’ 23rd annual ranking of publicly traded companies based in the Northwest.

Since 2012, the company’s stock has increased to more than $11 a share.

During the Great Recession, between 2007 and 2010, Nautilus, Inc. saw almost $255 million in losses, with its stock ranging from 45 cents to $4, between 2009 and 2012.

The Bowflex brand includes cardio machines Bowflex MAX Trainer and Bowflex TreadClimber, the SelectTech Adjustable Dumbbells for strength training, and Bowflex Xtreme 2 Home Gym and Bowflex Revolution Home Gym.

The Schwinn brand includes cardio machine products such as the Schwinn AirDyne Bike, designed to challenge users’ entire body by increasing more wind resistance the harder they pedal against the fan. The brand also includes Schwinn Ellipticals and Schwinn Recumbent Bikes.

The Nautilus brand sells through retail the Nautilus E514c Elliptical cardio machine made from tubular steel for strength and durability. The E514c Elliptical also includes a LCD display, which tracks users’ progress and heart rate. The brand also includes Nautilus T614 treadmill which comes with 22 workout programs. The new 2014 Nautilus cardio brand machines include multi LCD display with Bluetooth® Smart Technology and sync with MyFitnessPal.

The Universal Gym Equipment brand sells selectorized dumbbells


Foetry.com, sometimes referred to as just Foetry, was a website that attempted to identify fraudulent and unethical practices in poetry contests. It was active from April 1, 2004 until May 18, 2007.

Members and visitors contributed information which ostensibly linked judges and prize winners in various poetry contests. The site was divided into two main areas: lists of specific contests and relationships between judges and winners which suggested evidence of impropriety, and a forum for the discussion of ethical behavior in the poetry world.

Foetry.com was launched on April 1, 2004, by an anonymous editor, with the motto “Exposing fraudulent contests. Tracking the sycophants. Naming names.” After about twelve months, the founder of the site, Alan Cordle, was outed. No longer anonymous, he continued to operate the site until May 18, 2007. Various members, including Cordle, continue to post blogs with foetry-related material.

Foetry.com received press coverage both positive and negative in such outlets as the Boston Globe, the New York Times, Poets & Writers Magazine, and innumerable blogs, including that of Ron Silliman. Coverage came to a head around the time of Cordle’s outing, amidst rumors that the site would shut down due to the loss of anonymity. The ambiguous yet perceptible impact of the website on the poetry world was summed up in a blog entry at the Kenyon Review about a month after Foetry’s closure:

“If its death (if we dare call it that–might it, like King Arthur, lie in wait to rise again at a time of future need?) made almost no noise, its birth and early years sounded a great barbaric yawp. Are contests more fair? Perhaps, perhaps not. It may in fact be the case that poetry contests are more careful about egregious conflicts of interest. They may indeed be more transparent now, as well. But it was never clear if justice or revenge was in the forefront of everyone’s mind in the heyday of Foetry official team jerseys.com (this applies to me and the other voyeurs of foetry.com as well as those who posted for or against the site). As people used to say in the Renaissance and earlier, Astraea (goddess of justice) has left the earth. History may record whether Foetry.com brought her back. Or, it may not.”

Foetry.com’s most successful campaign, both in terms of news coverage and action taken because of it meat mallet alternative, was against the Contemporary Poetry Series run by the University of Georgia Press, and against Jorie Graham in particular. Acquiring documents through the Freedom of Information Act, Cordle and others discovered that Graham, as judge for the 1999 contest, had chosen Peter Sacks. She would marry Sacks in 2000. Graham would also join Sacks in a teaching position at Harvard in 2000.

Among documents obtained under the Freedom of Information Act were two letters:

After Graham judged contests and selected former students several contests immediately changed their contest rules to prohibit judges from selecting former students and other entrants they had relationships with. The rule against playing favorites in literary contests in which entry fees were paid became known loosely among those in the contest industry as “The Jorie Graham Rule.” Some members of Foetry.com suggested that she could be charged with mail fraud, as contest fees were collected through the US mail, but no charges were ever filed. It is estimated that the University of Georgia Press took in as much as $250,000 from contest fees over the life of the contest series, which Ramke edited for twenty years.

Graham no longer judges literary contests. Bin Ramke, editor at the time of the Contemporary Poetry Series, resigned from his position as more and more national publicity turned the spotlight on the insider dealings at the University of Georgia Press and criticism mounted over his role in the controversy. Despite the failure of both the editor of the University of Georgia Press and Bin Ramke to release a full and complete list of judges and other information (correspondence) related to the activities of the contest series, Foetry.com has carefully compiled documentation of winners and judges in the series, including notations of conflicts of interest.

Throughout the course of the contest Ramke insisted that judges of the contest be kept secret. The Open Records Act was used to obtain records that both the University of Georgia Press and Ramke refused to provide upon request. Graham had previously published several books of Ramke’s through a press, Kuhl House Press, she operated at the University of Iowa with Mark Levine, a former student of Graham who was selected by Graham as winner in the National Poetry series in 1992.

Another campaign, against the University of North Texas Press, resulted in the exasperation and subsequent resignation of Vassar Miller Prize founder and series editor, Scott Cairns. While both initial screening and final judging was done “blind”—with all identifying marks having been removed from all manuscripts—,some judges of the contest had apparent connections to Cairns or to the University of Utah where Cairns and a number of judges and winners had studied, not necessarily at the same time. Other Cairns connections to judges and one winner were through the University of Missouri. Cairns clarified that, given the merely token payment that was made to the judges for their service (asking them to read and judge 10-15 manuscripts for about 1/10 of what they would normally receive for giving a one-hour reading of their own works), he had depended upon the generosity of friends to serve each year. At least one judge, Eleanor Wilner, was friends with a contest winner, Constance Merritt, and had co-authored a literary work with Merritt that won the Edward Stanley Award from Prairie Schooner in the same year Wilner selected Merritt as winner of the Vassar Miller Poetry Prize. After Foetry.com alleged the relationships between Cairns, judges and winners, Cairns agreed to resign in e-mails to Alan Cordle, Steven Ford Brown (Brown edited a book of criticism on the poetry of Vassar Miller and was critical of Cairns’s management of the Vassar Miller contest series) and the editor of the University of North Texas Press.

Criticisms of Foetry.com generally come in two forms. The first is that the tone is “shrill,” as University of Florida professor William Logan put it in the San Francisco Chronicle, despite agreeing with the overall message and intent. Related to shrillness of tone, critics of Foetry.com claim that there is a tendency to assume guilt until innocence is proven and that—with rare exceptions such as the CPS case mentioned above—Foetry.com authors did not insist on credible/tangible evidence. A second, deeper criticism argues that it is impossible to separate personal relationships amongst writers in an aesthetic community from judgments of literary merit that these writers inevitably make in publishing and promoting other writers’ work.

Foetry sparked an enthusiastic and well-coordinated campaign to unmask its administrators. Efforts in this regard were coordinated in large part by contemporary poets, and Whoisfoetry?, an anonymous blog. Those seeking to unmask the administrators of Foetry.com sometimes engaged in behaviors they criticized it for, e football under socks.g. “lies and innuendoes”, against those suspected to be behind Foetry.com.