It's completely inadequate. See, for example http://www.ted.com/talks/rory_sutherland_life_lessons_from_a...
(As a side note, it's ironically hard to find out what this guy actually does!)
All of which is too bad, because Marx had a lot of interesting and valuable things to say about the problems of industrial economies (see http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qOP2V_np2c0 for a good introduction), even if the solutions that were tried in his name didn't work out. It just wastes people's time and energy having them spin their wheels re-discovering things he discovered 150 years ago.
> the value of a commodity is only related to the labor
The problem is that "only" word. Saying that labor is essential to create value is different from saying that labor is the only component of value.
And to take it further, the article claims neither of those, it only says that if you want to turn labor into value, you must apply the labor in some activity that creates value. Yep, quite tautological once you remove all the interesting parts.
That said, I agree with the other comments in this thread that linking the blog post to the Labor Theory of Value doesn't really make sense. I don't see anywhere in the post that defines "work" in a way that excludes activities that generated perceived value.
I think an interesting follow up conversation is to consider what "doing" really means. The Rory Sutherland talk you link makes a compelling case that there is an entire class of activities that generate value for a product/service but that you cannot directly measure in terms of material result (at least not right away) e.g. Frederick the Great spending time convincing people that potatoes are good wouldn't have tangible results until much later when demand rose.