Damn Beggars Wasting Money
Comments(0)
My charity goes to charity organizations. It doesn’t go to beggars on the street. Reason being is that I don’t trust the people on the street. If I give them a dollar, how do I know they’ll use it for their needs (food, shelter, ect…) and not their wants (alcohol, drugs, etc…). With charity organizations, my money (hopefully) goes to people who will use the money in the most beneficial way.
I bring this up because I came across two distinct examples of beggars wasting money today. The first comes from the auto industry who begged Congress today for some of the bailout money that is being handed out. Apparently, the company CEOs flew to Washington in their corporate jet. According to the Consumerist post, a first-class flight would have cost $800 while the private jet for GM alone costed $20,000. The gaul of these CEOs who have messed up the American auto industry to flaunt their wasteful spending is almost comical.
The other example came from my friend Joseph who pointed me to this article. I had heard that the Triborough Bridge in New York City was being renamed to the RFK Bridge after Robert Kennedy. With New York City asking the federal government for financial aid and the rumors about putting tolls on ALL the bridges to reduce the deficit, I would expect Bloomberg (New York’s mayor) to be pretty tight on what the city is spending money on. Renaming the bridge isn’t a big deal. It’s a name. Apparently, it’s more than a name. It’s a $4M cost to change all the signs. Couldn’t we wait to rename this bridge?
Why can’t we sell the name of the bridge? The Google Triborough Bridge. Sounds good, and profitable, to me.
Choose Your Seat Theater Might Be Running a Scam
Comments(6)
I saw the new Bond movie, Quantum of Solace, this past Saturday night. I usually would not attempt to see a movie during the opening weekend fearing the huge crowds and the potential for getting a seat that would make my neck hurt for weeks to come. This Saturday night was going to be different because I bought my seats at the Cinema De Lux in White Plains, NY where I was able to select which seats I sit in, and therefore am guaranteed to have a good seat in the theater. Or so I thought.
Amazingly, the seats were double booked. I say “amazingly” because I’m so amazed that the theater could think that double booking seats would work out to their benefit. The comparison of double booking can be made to the airline industry. With the airline industry, however, you can expect some people to not show up. People miss their flights. It’s expected. And there may very well be seats available in first or business class that you can use to accommodate for the double-bookings. In a theater, when you purchase an actual seat, what are the chances that you’re going to miss a movie? Have you ever heard of someone pre-ordering tickets to a movie and then missing it? It’s not the norm. And there isn’t an upgrade you can offer me to make it all better.
After speaking with the managers there, they told us we can try to find seats together in the 10:30 PM showing that was being let in at the time and we could discuss the situation after the movie is over. We found seats that were fairly close up which were uncomfortable to watch the movie from. We did want to see the movie so we decided to stay.
After the movie was over, we spoke to the new manager (different shift) and he told us that since we saw the movie, there was nothing he could do. We argued our point and after some teeth-pulling (that’s what it felt like) he eventually agreed to give us eight free passes to a future movie (he tried four free passes for a while. Like that makes any sense.). What did he count as eight free passes? A piece of paper with his signature and the number eight. Like that was going to work. And even if it did work, what are the chances that all eight of us would go back to the movies together anytime soon (I mean, all to the same movie and time)? So, we complained and finally got the eight free passes we deserved (actually, we deserved a full refund, but I digress).And now, every person who we told about this great theater where you can reserve your seats is hearing from us again about how this theater is ripping off their customers by making them think they have seats but are actually double booking these seats. It’s a scam and practically theft.
So let’s recap. The City Center 15: Cinema De Lux in White Plains, NY is double-booking seats. And unlike other theaters that oversell theaters, this theater is double booking a specific seat. They don’t apologize when you get screwed (that’s right, no one apologized) and they try to brush you off when you complain. Customer service was just plain bad and now that impression of the theater will be spread throughout my community by me and my friends. This should be a lesson to all companies. Don’t try to screw your customers. We talk to others and will make sure that everyone we know finds out about your shady practices.
Paulson Switches to Stock Injection Plan
Comments(0)Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson announced today that there is going to be a change in the $700 billion bailout plan. In the bailout bill, it was written that the government planned on buying up the bad assets of banks as to wipe them off the books of banks and add them to the government’s books. There was an option, that Paulson is now saying they will exercise, that instead of buying up the bad debt, they will buy shares in the banks, essentially injecting the banks with lots of cash but not alleviating them of the bad debt. For further explanation on all of this, listen to this great This American Life that explains the financial crisis for those of us who aren’t in the field.
While the market is down 300 points in the first couple of hours because of this news (amongst other bad news), I think overall this is a great decision. Let’s be straight. The taxpayer is still getting screwed by the lack of regulation in certain financial markets which allowed banks the freedom to be much riskier with our money than they should have been. But at least in this proposed approach, the taxpayer is not getting the bad debt.
To paraphrase the This American Life episode I mentioned above (you really should listen to it, it’s great), the previous plan of buying up the bad debt is like having someone come in to your house and clean out all the garbage out of your basement and you have no obligation to this person. They come in, they clean, and they leave, free of charge. With this new approach of buying stock in the bank, it’s like having someone move into your basement and start paying rent. It’s your job to keep that place clean, and that tenant can put pressure on you to do what needs to get done to get the basement cleaned up. That tenant can even kick you out if you don’t clean up (analogous to shareholders voting in a new board which would fire the management team). On top of that, the government will be getting preferred stock, which means that if the bank goes under and the assets are sold, the government will get back their money before the common stockholders get any money back.
So, I think this is a good thing. But only time will tell.
Kudos to RIM
I’d like to tip my hat to the people over at RIM, the developers of the Blackberry phone. I’m sure RIM was not thrilled when Apple launched the iPhone two years ago. RIM could have done what many other competitors had done. They could have come out with a copycat device that, while marketed as better than the iPhone, cannot compare in functionality. But they didn’t. Instead RIM worked on innovation. They worked on actually making something unique rather than a copycat device. And they did. The Blackberry Storm that is coming out has a flexible screen so that when you push it, it can give you tactile feedback that you pushed a button. This sounds amazing. While I enjoy the iPhone, it would be nice to have some tactile feedback that I pushed a letter on my keyboard. Kudos to RIM for not taking the easy route. Consumers will show their gratitude with their money.
What’s funny is that what RIM did seems obvious to most. A device comes out that is better than yours. So you innovate to come out with an even better device. Seems simple. And yet, so many companies that I’ve worked with fail to see this. All they think about is the short-term implications. They come out with a product that can be marketed to be equal to the new/better product hoping that their sale numbers won’t go down. But they’re going to go down because the product that they’re introducing is not innovative or better. It’s just a copycat.
And so, my congrats to RIM on creating a truly innvoative product that will hopefully give Apple a scare. I’m looking forward to continued innovations.
America Has Spoken
Tonight is historic. Watching the United States elect the first African-American to the highest office in the land is incredible. I’m excited for the future.
One of the television commentators mentioned how Obama’s victory makes a statement to the world that the actions over the past 8 years of the US and our president might not be reflective of what the US wants. I think it’s a valid point. Our voice is represented by our vote. The landslide victory, the low presidential approval ratings, and the Democrats capturing of the House and Senate, points us towards one conclusion. America wants change (even though that word has gotten SO annoying). And we got it. Personally, I’m excited to see what that change could be.
Our children might ask us one day where we were when Obama was elected. My answer is pretty lame. Either I was in Negotiations (course I’m taking), or I was at home on the couch. Either way, as I watch Obama give his acceptance speech, I keep on thinking that I SO want him to succeed, and yet worry tremendously about his troubles ahead. The Democrats will have the House, Senate, and the presidency. No more complaining. It’s time to do something. Let’s hope their actions can match their rhetoric.
Read This. Watch This.
Many times others say things much better than I can. In cases like this, I’ll post a “Read This. Watch This.” Here is the first of many.
A recession could be a great time for startups if done right.
Read This
Excellent Paul Graham blog post on why this is a great time to start a startup.
Watch This
Kevin Rose’s further insight into this article relating it to when he started Digg.
I’ve got plenty more to say on the subject but it’s going to get spread out over a few posts. I don’t know about you, but I’m ready to start something.
Safari Needs Competition
I just ran into one of my wife’s cousins at the supermarket. He told me he’s running for local state assemblyman this coming election. I asked him whether he thought he had a chance of winning. He told me it’s not so much about winning but about showing the current assemblyman that their is competition out there.
This comment resonated with me this morning as I came home and read about how Apple is not allowing Opera, a web browser, into the iPhone Application Store. Reasons being, it’s a competitor to Safari, Apple’s browser already included on each iPhone.
I can’t blame Apple for this decision…or can I? The iPhone is a locked operating system and anything that might potentially hurt Apple’s bottom line or existing relationships with partners is not allowed into the iPhone. But I think it’s a bad move on their part. The appeal of Android, Google’s mobile operating system, is that Google’s interest closely reflects the consumers. The consumer wants the entire web on their phone. Google wants the same. Apple wants to give you enough internet to make you happy so you’ll buy their product. At least that’s my opinion. And it seems, I’m right.
What should Apple do? They should manage the iPhone OS like they do their desktop OS. Anything that isn’t a virus or malicious program should be let in. No one can compete with the Apple’s UI design. They’re the best at it. But I could see myself, and many others, jumping the iPhone boat in a couple years if Apple doesn’t open up their system. Android will keep on innovating based on the achievements of external programmers. How can Apple keep up if they don’t open the floodgates as well?
UPDATE: It seems that the initial story about Opera in the App store may be incorrect. John Gruber has a more in-depth look at the initial rumors. Thanks for the update Ricki.
Empower the Consumer via Transparency
The role of government intervention into the operations of businesses is always a heavily debated topic. To what right does, and to what extent shoud, the government get involved in the free market capitalistic business environment that we have built?
As someone who claims to be a consumer advocate, I’m not sure of the best approach here. Let’s take an issue that has become very significant over the past few years…enviromentalism. Some may say that the government needs to create laws that require companies to follow a minimum of standards regarding their environmental impact. This would be great for us consumers because we would be assured that the products we buy are meeting a certain quality standard. On the other hand, more government regulation means more expenses for the business (usually) which would trickle down to the consumer in the form of more expensive products. Where is the balance between what improvements I, the consumer, am willing to pay for and what I am not? And is the consumer trustworthy enough to make this decision?
The biggest problem is not the questions I just posed, but the fact that we have no measurement tools to find the answer. The current strategy is to have environmental groups lobby large corporations to change, and through the fear of bad PR, corporations start changing. I think that if this issue, or any issue, is seen as largely important to the people of this country, than the government should get involved. Not to regulate operations, but to regulate transparency. I believe that government’s role in major social issues like this (global warming, obesity, etc…) is not to tell businesses how to act, but to require businesses to be transparent about their operations.
What if the government required that every product made must have a sticker that gives a number of that product’s carbon footprint on a regulated scale of 0 - 100. Companies wouldn’t have to change their operations (other than changing their label). Consumers would then be able to use their money to determine how important this issue is to them. The free market would stay as it is. There would just be another attribute of the product that the consumer would need to evaluate. We should have a slew of scales based on important social issues. In other words, government shouldn’t hinder businesses. They should empower consumers.
Pepsi Rebrands with a Lighter Feel
Pepsi announced that they will be redesigning their logo/brand in the coming months. The new logo can be seen on these new (supposed, didn’t get it off the official Pepsi site) bottles.
I like the new logo. It seems to portray a focus on giving the logo and the brand a lighter feel. I really like how the ‘lightness’ factor is portrayed by the thickness of the white in the logo. I find it odd, though, that soda is not light. It’s sugary. It’s not good for you. I don’t know if a lighter looking logo will help them sell more bottles. It might make the casual soda drinker, who is looking for that sugary substance, look towards a heftier looking brand. So while I like the approach for diet soda, I’m not sure if it’s the best approach for non-diet soda.
On the other hand, I’m sure Pepsi has done lots of market research and maybe they have found that consumers as a whole want to drink something healthier. By changing their logo and brand to look like a healthier drink, they might be keeping/gaining market share so I’m not going to judge them on that. All in all, it seems like a move in the positive direction.
Expertise is Overrated
There was an interesting article in Wired this week about the advancements in materials regarding the sport of bowling. Apparently the surfaces and balls have evolved to such a degree that there is a concern that the sport is getting too easy. The United State Bowling Congress have decided to start setting restrictions on these advancements to keep the challenge of the sport intact.
While I am not a big bowler, I think this story relates to everyone in the working world regarding our expertise. We spend decades refining our expertise in something so that our value to an organization is worthy of our hopefully increasing salary. With the advancement of technology, however, expertise could be replaced by improved programming and shifting industries. For example, I have heard that the role of actuary is being replaced in many instances by computer programs and other professions that can cover the actuarial responsibilities.
I’m quite worried about this. I’m so worried about this that I’ve built my career up to this point on not being an expert in one field, but knowledgeable in many fields and being an expert on overall strategy with that broad base of knowledge (well, I might not be an expert now, but I’d like to think I’m getting there).
Since I’m getting my MBA, I also relate many things to the educational system I currently find myself in. Many of the required courses I have taken are given because they were once relevant. A perfect example is Operations Management class where we learn how to create the most efficient operations process which is mainly used in manufacturing. How many MBA students from New York will be managing manufacturing facilities? The fact is, these classes are here because these professors are experts in a particular antiquated field, and they’re championing these courses to keep their jobs. It’s survival. I think this is happening to some degree in every industry. Eventually we’ll see the required courses change, and these professors will have find some way to stay relevant even if it doesn’t involve their expertise.
What do you think? As time progresses, will there be a need for real experts, or are the generalists more likely to succeed?
