So, I promised all's y'all more survey madness. I think I'll expand on that a little though.
These days, when companies are swamped with applicants, including massively overqualified applicants even for under or unpaid entry level work, they've been hard at work devising ways to make things difficult for would-be employees. One of those ways is making them take a personality test before even looking at their material. Now, I could go through personality tests and say "see, dumb." They are at least far more well organized than market research surveys and redundant questions actually aren't redundant since people may change their answer depending on the wording.
I will say this about the process though- it's retarded. C'mon employers, if you want to know so bad, I'll tell you. I'm an INTJ- Introspective, Intuitive, Thinking Judging. That and INFJ are your classic nerd types. Don't make me go through this whole rigamarole repeatedly. Besides, how is this a useful criteria. As an example, I applied for a lowly mailroom supervisor job. Man's gotta eat and right now, publishing is not putting food on my table. I have two years experience running a mailroom, a job I did well from a temp to hire situation after a long string of people the company hated. It's safe to say I'm as qualified as any applicant and more than most. Ah, but then comes the INTJ personality type. If you were an employer, this is what you'd see "So, he has experience, he's smart and highly educated. Clearly he's too good for this job. He won't be happy, so he'll leave. Let's not bother." On the other hand, if you were a sheep they'd say "how can we put a person like this in charge of anything?" Basically, the personality test is a catch-22 especially for something low level and generic like administrative/clerical work, and I've taken several nearly identical personality surveys for such positions. It's a waste of time, and if employers don't know it, they should.
While I'm on the subject of strange things employers sometimes do, here's a few things to look out for if you, like me, are in the market for something better (or something at all).
1. "Direct Marketing" is a codeword for sales. Marketing sounds less pushy and conniving than sales, but the work is essentially identical. Some employers will call it that in their listing, or say "sales/marketing" but many will also list a marketing assistant position which is a bait and switch for "direct marketing." Be wary of marketing jobs without good descriptions of the work.
2. Withholding the salary. Almost all job listings these days withhold the salary information so they can low ball you later, which they absolutely do (see, for instance, they tendency to ask you to name your own salary. If it's too high, you're gone. If it's low, you can't effectively renegotiate later). But there's a particular kind of witholding which isn't crazy like a fox, but regular crazy. And that's when the HR department calls you up and says "your resume looks pretty good" you get excited and they follow it up with "and just to let you know, the salary is 28K a year." For those who don't know, in or near New York City, your rent on a small apartment is going to be between 1,200-3,500 dollars A MONTH depending on where you are. So 28K a year is essentially below the poverty line. This is a crazy thing to do because HR has already screened the applicants. All you're doing is scaring off half the people you've already selected. And if you, as an applicant say yes? All it means is that you're one of thirty people whose information makes it to the hiring manager. Out of the 1,000 people who applied.
3. Watching the same position be listed again and again and again and again. Either every time they post it they end up not hiring anyone, or they have insane staff turnover. Either way, be wary since it means they probably have insane expectations that severely limit who they're willing to hire, or which cause most people to leave in a heartbeat.
4. Unpaid internships are the norm these days and have been for a long while. It's pretty disgusting, actually, especially with employers demanding five years previous experience in the precise job they're hiring for, thus forcing twenty-somethings to work for years at a time for no money at all. But now I'm starting to see internship positions listed that require 2+ years experience. Look, if you're going to make interns do the work of assistants, assistants the jobs of supervisors, supervisors the jobs of managers, managers the jobs of directors and so on in order to save money, you could at least make some attempt to hide this fact.
5. A note not about questionable listings, but for your own reference next time you walk into a company lobby. Look for the TV. There's virtually always an HDTV in offices that aren't being run out of an apartment. What's playing on it? If it's not on, you know that not many people come into the office. If it's playing ESPN, it's a pretty laid back office, probably small, and probably with a lot of time for many of its employees spent "in the field" (for instance: "direct marketing" firms). If they're playing CNN, then they're a "serious" business. If they're playing business news, they're *extremely* serious. There are many articles reminding you to be pleasant to the receptionist (assuming there is one) but I've yet to see anyone else pick up on the need to discern the mood of the office, or how the TV is a useful tool in doing so.
Well, join me next time for "Another Friday Song" OR "It's Only a Questionnaire."
Wednesday, April 11, 2012
Monday, April 9, 2012
Research This
So, some of you, my imaginary readers, may have noticed my less than positive assessment of Google's idea of replacing paywalls with market research questionnaires. You may also be wondering "do you hate market research?" No, of course not. That said, of course, market research presents itself almost as a science which it most assuredly is not, but it's the execution of it that annoys me, not the concept.
Years ago, I was "invited" by Gamestop, the video game retailer to join some group or another that organized market research surveys, and being the curious sort I am, I decided to check it out. Apart from logistical complaints against Google's idea that I've already voiced such as having a relevant survey, not repeating surveys, identification information (do they store it? Who stores it? Or are they going to ask your age, gender, ethnicity, location and income every damn time?) and how little these things are worth (it took me four years to get a fifty dollar iTunes gift card, so if I weren't doing it on the perverse belief that one day I might be able to use the experience as an excuse to hop back up on the soap box, I wouldn't have bothered) there are problems I have with the way these surveys are put together.
So here are a few of my favorite examples of things they do which is guaranteed to give them erroneous information, which they needed more of because absolutely everyone takes these things seriously.
1) Asking me about my spouse/spouse's job/spouse's income/spouse's decision making power in the house hold before you have ascertained whether I have a spouse or not.
2) Asking me about my spouse/spouse's job/spouse's income/spouse's decision making power in the house hold after you have already ascertained that I HAVEN'T GOT ONE.
3) Compensation is more if you "qualify and complete" market research surveys. On no small number of occasions have I clearly taken the entire survey and then been told I don't qualify. Not what I'd call a better business practice.
4) Questions in which you cannot answer "I don't know" or "Not Applicable" thus forcing you to select an erroneous answer.
5) Questions in which you must select one answer in each column despite the answers being mutually exclusive and thus resulting in inherently conflicting data.
6) Asking detailed questions about your perception of something random, such as the moral fiber of a fertilizer company just because you've *heard* of them.
7) Not so subtle leading in favor of new product/ frequently obvious who the survey is being conducted on behalf of even in cases when it should not be.
8) Redundant questions.
9) If a user doesn't like one bad idea, following it up with one that's even worse and then asking them how the first rates in comparison. Solid garbage may be more desirable than soggy garbage, but I wouldn't say I actually desire it, you follow me?
10) Asking me where I live, then asking me how often I travel to that location for fun and asking me to rate it as a tourist spot. Gee, I dunno. See, 'cuz I've never been a tourist in my own bloody town.
11) Asking me age inappropriate questions.
12) Asking me for personal data more than once. Like I don't know whether I'm white or Asian without double checking. Or is this your attempt to catch on to people who are clearly just giving you whatever answer they feel like? Because if you can see how easy it is to give the wrong answer, maybe you shouldn't even bother with it...except it's cheaper to run than traditional market research, so nuts to me.
And so many more complaints, but that's all the room we have today. On Wednesday, a different kind of survey bashing. Join me then for "Extraneous Criteria" OR "Flawed Methodology."
Years ago, I was "invited" by Gamestop, the video game retailer to join some group or another that organized market research surveys, and being the curious sort I am, I decided to check it out. Apart from logistical complaints against Google's idea that I've already voiced such as having a relevant survey, not repeating surveys, identification information (do they store it? Who stores it? Or are they going to ask your age, gender, ethnicity, location and income every damn time?) and how little these things are worth (it took me four years to get a fifty dollar iTunes gift card, so if I weren't doing it on the perverse belief that one day I might be able to use the experience as an excuse to hop back up on the soap box, I wouldn't have bothered) there are problems I have with the way these surveys are put together.
So here are a few of my favorite examples of things they do which is guaranteed to give them erroneous information, which they needed more of because absolutely everyone takes these things seriously.
1) Asking me about my spouse/spouse's job/spouse's income/spouse's decision making power in the house hold before you have ascertained whether I have a spouse or not.
2) Asking me about my spouse/spouse's job/spouse's income/spouse's decision making power in the house hold after you have already ascertained that I HAVEN'T GOT ONE.
3) Compensation is more if you "qualify and complete" market research surveys. On no small number of occasions have I clearly taken the entire survey and then been told I don't qualify. Not what I'd call a better business practice.
4) Questions in which you cannot answer "I don't know" or "Not Applicable" thus forcing you to select an erroneous answer.
5) Questions in which you must select one answer in each column despite the answers being mutually exclusive and thus resulting in inherently conflicting data.
6) Asking detailed questions about your perception of something random, such as the moral fiber of a fertilizer company just because you've *heard* of them.
7) Not so subtle leading in favor of new product/ frequently obvious who the survey is being conducted on behalf of even in cases when it should not be.
8) Redundant questions.
9) If a user doesn't like one bad idea, following it up with one that's even worse and then asking them how the first rates in comparison. Solid garbage may be more desirable than soggy garbage, but I wouldn't say I actually desire it, you follow me?
10) Asking me where I live, then asking me how often I travel to that location for fun and asking me to rate it as a tourist spot. Gee, I dunno. See, 'cuz I've never been a tourist in my own bloody town.
11) Asking me age inappropriate questions.
12) Asking me for personal data more than once. Like I don't know whether I'm white or Asian without double checking. Or is this your attempt to catch on to people who are clearly just giving you whatever answer they feel like? Because if you can see how easy it is to give the wrong answer, maybe you shouldn't even bother with it...except it's cheaper to run than traditional market research, so nuts to me.
And so many more complaints, but that's all the room we have today. On Wednesday, a different kind of survey bashing. Join me then for "Extraneous Criteria" OR "Flawed Methodology."
Friday, April 6, 2012
The Friday Song
When I was a kid, one of the local radio stations had this recurring gag. Every Friday it would play the "friday song." I don't actually remember anything about the Friday song itself, only that they always paired it with Happy Boy by the Beat Farmers. As a result however, Fridays have always been music day for me. Coincidentally, today is also my brother's birthday. That calls for a song. Something upbeat, something triumphal, something that speaks to our generation, something other than Zoom, he who lives on the moon.
Aw hell, I'ma just throw out the first song that comes to mind.
Happy Birthday, butthead.
Aw hell, I'ma just throw out the first song that comes to mind.
Happy Birthday, butthead.
Wednesday, April 4, 2012
Fifty Ways to Lose Your Customer- Part II
So, at last, it's time to talk about DRM, digital right's management. And yet I find I've lost interest in doing so by this point. Ah well.
The most common example of DRM clasically would be "anti-pirating" features in software. You can understand how a publisher of any kind of goods would be quick to include measures that make it difficult to use the product without having purchased it. That way, if you want to use the product, "buy it you damn hippies!" unfortunately for businesses who are perhaps overeager to protect sales figures, they naturally run into a number of problems. Example: giving a hard limit on the number of installs creates trouble even for a single user. What happens when their hard drive fries? When they format their machine after a trojan or virus? When they buy a new computer? Should they not be allowed to use the product they legitimately purchased? Companies have a tendency to say "they'll just have to buy it again." Assuming of course that it's still available.
It should be no surprise that many people end up pirating the products largely because of anti-piracy measures since they're used to being able to lend things to friends. Not to mention that in those cases, licensing DRM is likely to add to the final cost of the product. Not to mention the extra problems it entails. Some years back the computer game industry was in a bit of a cold war with hackers, with people who legitimately purchased copies of overpriced games with insane DRM included being caught in the middle. At some point, exemplified perhaps most obviously by EA's SecuROM system, but others as well, DRM effectively meant installing spyware on people's computers as a precondition of using a program they've already paid to use. At which point, potential customers either A) Boycott or B) crack the DRM anyway just to prove a point. So the battle continues, and mostly it's only those in the middle, harmed by the aforementioned cold war who give it any thought. Meanwhile, prices rise and restrictions tighten threatening to push more legitimate customers into the piracy camp. It's hard to say "Bully for you, you stinkin' thieves" but it's also hard not to believe that DRM is one of those classic "slippery slopes" and the "light at the end of the tunnel is that of an oncoming train."
Ah, but we're all book people here, right? So who cares about the PC software market? Doubly so for games? Because books are obviously the only acceptable medium for *anything* according to many bibliophiles. DRM affects your e-books just as much as it did PC software.
Think back a couple of years: We couldn't lend e-books at all. That changed, but being able to lend it a small, preset number of times and only for brief periods of time, and only for those who have the same brand reader is massively less convenient than with a real book, which you can lend as long as the book hasn't fallen apart, to whoever, and for however long. Publishers see it as a way of cutting out an undesirable reality. Even more obviously, the retailers think so. But it's a terrible idea. Especially for something like books. Ask any Managing Editor, Sales Manager, Marketing Manager, Publicity Manager or any other sale/distribution position in Publishing and they'll all freely admit that word of mouth and libraries are two of their greatest assets. Word of mouth takes a hit if you can't lend copies, or are extremely limited in doing so. Libraries meanwhile have been hit with prices that are often far higher for e-books than for their print counterparts.
Which isn't surprising. So have you. Publishing is still a print centric business. Nevermind that a digital focus would save anywhere from about 1-4 dollars on physically producing the book, remove shipping and warehousing costs, and eliminate cost of returns, which is a *very* big deal in publishing, and never mind that the 30% cut that digital retailers take is a lot less than the 50-70% discount the publisher would sell physical copies to a retailer for, Publishing is, even now, pretty stuck with the old model. Often if you go to the digital teams (and I have, on ocassion) they'll say they hate it. They hate windowing the release, the practice of releasing the e-book only months after the fact. Well, after years of arguing, they've largely one that one, but how about the prices? Especially in the early days, but even now, e-book prices are often inflated. How is that a DRM issue and not just an attempt to forestall a shift towards digital?
Mostly because every retailer of e-books has their own devices, proprietary file formats and DRM schemes. Again, it makes leding hard. Again, it tracks you and your usage. And perhaps worst: it gives an astonishing amount of power to the retailer. As a digital proponent one of the most attractive things about digital platforms would be bucking the traditional retail model. And that hasn't happened. Kind of the reverse, really. Because you have to chose from the second you walk in the door which retailer you will buy from exclusively.
Of course, these battles are fought too and progress is made. Kindle app for iPhones and whatnot. But it takes months or years to get where it should logically have been in the first place. In the meantime, we all suffer. As examples, when Macmillan had a fallout with Amazon over pricing a couple of years ago, all their titles suddenly vanished- even disappearing off people's own Kindle's after they'd already paid for them. Whoopsie! Or there's the deal Apple forced on Publishers, whose eyes, misting over from the glorious site of the iPad instantly believed it to be their great savior without needing any sort of rational explanation for why. "It's Apple" seemed to have been enough. It's kind of funny when you know what I know about the inner workings of publishers, because most people's train of thought (light at the end of the tunnel!) went something like
Young people like technology I don't understand. Therefore, young people like Apple. Apple is "cool." I'd like to be cool. If I associate myself with Apple, I will be cool in the eyes of young, tech savvy customers with disposable income.
It seems rational...to a point, but it's also easy to see how people who don't really understand the technology or the market would under, or in Apple's case, Overvalue some company, product or service. In any event, Apple's deal essentially prevented books from the big publishers from being sold for less anywhere else. So forget sales or price drops at *any* retailer unless Apple okays it for their own. This has the effect of artificially keeping prices high, risking loss of sales and exposure. Even if it sold tremendously well, you still run into the problem that retailers have such incredible power over issues like pricing and who is allowed to read copies of your product.
Bottom line? DRM theoretically ensures more money per sale by reducing the number of copies pirated or even loaned. At the same time, it losses sales to people who are inent on figting the principle of the thing, sometimes killing the profits entirely, doubly so for small publishers or authors who use e formats as their primary or only method of distribution. It also reinforces the positions of of the retailers, who were too strong already, which is good for neither producer nor consumer.
So what's the answer to this vexxing conundrum?
Hell if I know.
The most common example of DRM clasically would be "anti-pirating" features in software. You can understand how a publisher of any kind of goods would be quick to include measures that make it difficult to use the product without having purchased it. That way, if you want to use the product, "buy it you damn hippies!" unfortunately for businesses who are perhaps overeager to protect sales figures, they naturally run into a number of problems. Example: giving a hard limit on the number of installs creates trouble even for a single user. What happens when their hard drive fries? When they format their machine after a trojan or virus? When they buy a new computer? Should they not be allowed to use the product they legitimately purchased? Companies have a tendency to say "they'll just have to buy it again." Assuming of course that it's still available.
It should be no surprise that many people end up pirating the products largely because of anti-piracy measures since they're used to being able to lend things to friends. Not to mention that in those cases, licensing DRM is likely to add to the final cost of the product. Not to mention the extra problems it entails. Some years back the computer game industry was in a bit of a cold war with hackers, with people who legitimately purchased copies of overpriced games with insane DRM included being caught in the middle. At some point, exemplified perhaps most obviously by EA's SecuROM system, but others as well, DRM effectively meant installing spyware on people's computers as a precondition of using a program they've already paid to use. At which point, potential customers either A) Boycott or B) crack the DRM anyway just to prove a point. So the battle continues, and mostly it's only those in the middle, harmed by the aforementioned cold war who give it any thought. Meanwhile, prices rise and restrictions tighten threatening to push more legitimate customers into the piracy camp. It's hard to say "Bully for you, you stinkin' thieves" but it's also hard not to believe that DRM is one of those classic "slippery slopes" and the "light at the end of the tunnel is that of an oncoming train."
Ah, but we're all book people here, right? So who cares about the PC software market? Doubly so for games? Because books are obviously the only acceptable medium for *anything* according to many bibliophiles. DRM affects your e-books just as much as it did PC software.
Think back a couple of years: We couldn't lend e-books at all. That changed, but being able to lend it a small, preset number of times and only for brief periods of time, and only for those who have the same brand reader is massively less convenient than with a real book, which you can lend as long as the book hasn't fallen apart, to whoever, and for however long. Publishers see it as a way of cutting out an undesirable reality. Even more obviously, the retailers think so. But it's a terrible idea. Especially for something like books. Ask any Managing Editor, Sales Manager, Marketing Manager, Publicity Manager or any other sale/distribution position in Publishing and they'll all freely admit that word of mouth and libraries are two of their greatest assets. Word of mouth takes a hit if you can't lend copies, or are extremely limited in doing so. Libraries meanwhile have been hit with prices that are often far higher for e-books than for their print counterparts.
Which isn't surprising. So have you. Publishing is still a print centric business. Nevermind that a digital focus would save anywhere from about 1-4 dollars on physically producing the book, remove shipping and warehousing costs, and eliminate cost of returns, which is a *very* big deal in publishing, and never mind that the 30% cut that digital retailers take is a lot less than the 50-70% discount the publisher would sell physical copies to a retailer for, Publishing is, even now, pretty stuck with the old model. Often if you go to the digital teams (and I have, on ocassion) they'll say they hate it. They hate windowing the release, the practice of releasing the e-book only months after the fact. Well, after years of arguing, they've largely one that one, but how about the prices? Especially in the early days, but even now, e-book prices are often inflated. How is that a DRM issue and not just an attempt to forestall a shift towards digital?
Mostly because every retailer of e-books has their own devices, proprietary file formats and DRM schemes. Again, it makes leding hard. Again, it tracks you and your usage. And perhaps worst: it gives an astonishing amount of power to the retailer. As a digital proponent one of the most attractive things about digital platforms would be bucking the traditional retail model. And that hasn't happened. Kind of the reverse, really. Because you have to chose from the second you walk in the door which retailer you will buy from exclusively.
Of course, these battles are fought too and progress is made. Kindle app for iPhones and whatnot. But it takes months or years to get where it should logically have been in the first place. In the meantime, we all suffer. As examples, when Macmillan had a fallout with Amazon over pricing a couple of years ago, all their titles suddenly vanished- even disappearing off people's own Kindle's after they'd already paid for them. Whoopsie! Or there's the deal Apple forced on Publishers, whose eyes, misting over from the glorious site of the iPad instantly believed it to be their great savior without needing any sort of rational explanation for why. "It's Apple" seemed to have been enough. It's kind of funny when you know what I know about the inner workings of publishers, because most people's train of thought (light at the end of the tunnel!) went something like
Young people like technology I don't understand. Therefore, young people like Apple. Apple is "cool." I'd like to be cool. If I associate myself with Apple, I will be cool in the eyes of young, tech savvy customers with disposable income.
It seems rational...to a point, but it's also easy to see how people who don't really understand the technology or the market would under, or in Apple's case, Overvalue some company, product or service. In any event, Apple's deal essentially prevented books from the big publishers from being sold for less anywhere else. So forget sales or price drops at *any* retailer unless Apple okays it for their own. This has the effect of artificially keeping prices high, risking loss of sales and exposure. Even if it sold tremendously well, you still run into the problem that retailers have such incredible power over issues like pricing and who is allowed to read copies of your product.
Bottom line? DRM theoretically ensures more money per sale by reducing the number of copies pirated or even loaned. At the same time, it losses sales to people who are inent on figting the principle of the thing, sometimes killing the profits entirely, doubly so for small publishers or authors who use e formats as their primary or only method of distribution. It also reinforces the positions of of the retailers, who were too strong already, which is good for neither producer nor consumer.
So what's the answer to this vexxing conundrum?
Hell if I know.
Monday, April 2, 2012
Fifty Ways to Lose Your Customer- Part I
So on Friday, I mentioned that there were two things I wanted to talk about today- the pros and cons of DRM and another article about google's latest idea. Now I'm wondering if I have space for both in a single post. I'm also distracted by someone paying any attention to my award winning polls. Yes, mystery guest, you know your Yellow Submarine quite well. Jeremy, Hillary, Boob and Ph.D are all aliases the Nowhere Man uses to cover his tracks as he viciously causes roses to grow from noses.
So, Google's new idea. You can read about it here. Let me explain...no, there is too much. Let me sum up. Miniature market research surveys which can be used to replace paywalls. Okay, part of me says "score! High quality online newspapers will be free forever!" A tiny part wonders if any site behind a paywall other newspapers would care. Hard to see some freaky hardcore porn site hitting you with questions about your preferences in lube. But mostly I just think "this is a terrible idea."
Which is odd, because Google has many terrible ideas, but usually they're smart enough to make a joke out of it. Hell, they have a whole series of commercials for dumb, fake products and services on Youtube. Here's a good one-
See, here's a few problems I have with it. First, how do you conceivably make it relevant to whatever the viewer was doing? Second, market researchers don't pay much for this stuff. Feel free to look around. There are plenty of places you can take surveys online and get "paid" for it, but that amounts to like, fifty cents for a twenty minute survey. What's one question worth? Here's another problem, how do you control the flow of data? If it's actually done through google so you don't take the same survey a thousand times, doesn't that raise issues of privacy? On the other hand, if you're just trying to read the NY Times and they ask you repeatedly whether or not you like Jelly Beans, whether you've had any in the last month, and whether you've ever considered buying a 135 dollar Ronald Reagen themed Jelly Bean box set* they're going to run into the same people answering the question many times, throwing accuracy way the hell off. Assuming it wasn't way the hell off in the first place because let's be honest. You were just trying to read the news and halfway through the article, in the middle of a quote no less, suddenly you're talking about Jelly Beans or you won't be able to see how it ends.
Or how about the extremely likely "okay, we'll try that out, but we're still going to have both paywalls and advertising." The ads alone are pretty damn intrusive, but they're also a necessary evil for big sites which will naturally have high hosting costs. And if you really need a paywall, I understand that too though it sucks for me, since I'm poor and still like reading the news. But it seems to me that if you offer another way to make money, they may well just add it to the mix. And the potential profit for them is, I think, not that staggering but the inconvenience to readers would be. Which would also risk a migration of readers to sites less likely to ask them what they're wearing right now in the creepiest text they can muster with a few *huff* *pant* *wheeze* noises thrown in just for good measure.
So basically, I'm saying "That's stupid, Google. Don't do that. Just because you host my e-mail and my blog, and fought SOPA and can use your sattelites to spy on me at this very moment doesn't mean that I'm honor bound to agree with stupid things. And this is a stupid thing.
Also, this took longer than I wanted but less time than I expected. Even so...scrollupscrollupscrollup amend-amend-amend. Okay. This article is now officially "Fifty Ways to Lose Your Customer- Part I." DRM talk on Wednesday.
*Totally a real thing. And of all presidents, why Ronald Reagan? I never understood his popularity. Probably because I know too much (to live?) in regards to, say, hostage crises in the Middle East, homelessness, poverty, crime, AIDs, Iran-Contra, education budgets and Reagen's other myriad failings to back the "let's add him to Mt. Rushmore" lobby. Honk if you hate Reagan! If you don't, go, I don't know. Read some non-fiction. Like a newspaper, say.
So, Google's new idea. You can read about it here. Let me explain...no, there is too much. Let me sum up. Miniature market research surveys which can be used to replace paywalls. Okay, part of me says "score! High quality online newspapers will be free forever!" A tiny part wonders if any site behind a paywall other newspapers would care. Hard to see some freaky hardcore porn site hitting you with questions about your preferences in lube. But mostly I just think "this is a terrible idea."
Which is odd, because Google has many terrible ideas, but usually they're smart enough to make a joke out of it. Hell, they have a whole series of commercials for dumb, fake products and services on Youtube. Here's a good one-
See, here's a few problems I have with it. First, how do you conceivably make it relevant to whatever the viewer was doing? Second, market researchers don't pay much for this stuff. Feel free to look around. There are plenty of places you can take surveys online and get "paid" for it, but that amounts to like, fifty cents for a twenty minute survey. What's one question worth? Here's another problem, how do you control the flow of data? If it's actually done through google so you don't take the same survey a thousand times, doesn't that raise issues of privacy? On the other hand, if you're just trying to read the NY Times and they ask you repeatedly whether or not you like Jelly Beans, whether you've had any in the last month, and whether you've ever considered buying a 135 dollar Ronald Reagen themed Jelly Bean box set* they're going to run into the same people answering the question many times, throwing accuracy way the hell off. Assuming it wasn't way the hell off in the first place because let's be honest. You were just trying to read the news and halfway through the article, in the middle of a quote no less, suddenly you're talking about Jelly Beans or you won't be able to see how it ends.
Or how about the extremely likely "okay, we'll try that out, but we're still going to have both paywalls and advertising." The ads alone are pretty damn intrusive, but they're also a necessary evil for big sites which will naturally have high hosting costs. And if you really need a paywall, I understand that too though it sucks for me, since I'm poor and still like reading the news. But it seems to me that if you offer another way to make money, they may well just add it to the mix. And the potential profit for them is, I think, not that staggering but the inconvenience to readers would be. Which would also risk a migration of readers to sites less likely to ask them what they're wearing right now in the creepiest text they can muster with a few *huff* *pant* *wheeze* noises thrown in just for good measure.
So basically, I'm saying "That's stupid, Google. Don't do that. Just because you host my e-mail and my blog, and fought SOPA and can use your sattelites to spy on me at this very moment doesn't mean that I'm honor bound to agree with stupid things. And this is a stupid thing.
Also, this took longer than I wanted but less time than I expected. Even so...scrollupscrollupscrollup amend-amend-amend. Okay. This article is now officially "Fifty Ways to Lose Your Customer- Part I." DRM talk on Wednesday.
*Totally a real thing. And of all presidents, why Ronald Reagan? I never understood his popularity. Probably because I know too much (to live?) in regards to, say, hostage crises in the Middle East, homelessness, poverty, crime, AIDs, Iran-Contra, education budgets and Reagen's other myriad failings to back the "let's add him to Mt. Rushmore" lobby. Honk if you hate Reagan! If you don't, go, I don't know. Read some non-fiction. Like a newspaper, say.
Friday, March 30, 2012
Dating Upwardly
Few good articles the last day or two I wanted to share with all's y'all if you haven't seen 'em.
First, this little gem about J.K. Rowling. Gotta love that Huffpo. "Associated Press Writer Hillel Italie contributed to this report." In any event, the article breaks down to something very simple. Not only has Rowling decided to finally start selling Harry Potter books in digital form, she's doing it through her own store, which means she's probably using PDFs or plain ePUBs that haven't gone through any particular company's conversion from ePUB into a proprietary format. It's not like Rowling is the first author or company to do that. The 30%+ chunk Amazon, B&N, Apple etc. take of every sale for simply hosting a file makes it worth even a small publisher's time to develop their own site and sell it themselves. I think the differences here are essentially two fold. One, J.K. Rowling is not merely a best seller as some authors who have pushed digital publishing hard, to the point of opening their own publishers or creating other online ventures to work in conjunction with their regular "day job." Rowling is a MEGA best seller. The other major difference is that it sounds like she's decided to sell them *exclusively* through a site she runs.
I'm going to be honest. I have very mixed feelings about Rowling and her work. Are they interesting books? Sure. They're also over hyped and in dire need of editing. If you have copies handy, check it out. Compare the first to the fourth to the final. You'll notice the margins shrunk, the text shrunk, the leading shrunk, the paper is thinner and it's still so thick it can barely be printed at a commercial publisher. I know the managing editor from the first few books and the whole thing was a nightmare for her. Trying to figure out how it could possibly be produced and overseeing security at the same time. There is also the usual jealousy. I mean, I'm in publishing (kind of) and I like to write. Why aren't *I* J.K. Rowling? Or why didn't I get to sign her or whatever? I'd like to have been all up in that. But even if I am going to be murdered in my sleep for suggesting that eight hundred pages at ten point type is too much for a single middle grade novel, I do respect Rowling's abilities, especially her ability to make things happen her way. Granted, it's not always good for the publisher...or even for her own products. Those books were too long because (so I hear) she refused to allow them to do any serious editing. But I think this is a great move on her part and I wish she'd done it a year ago.
Even though publishers and authors are finally warming, and in some cases, pushing digital forms, this is the first time I've heard of that someone with a lot of market power has chosen to cut Amazon out entirely. Hopefully it will bring them down a peg or two and reduce the fee that Amazon, B&N, Apple etc. charge for e-books from 30% (far too much for simply hosting a file- in fact, Amazon has new pricing that's 30% plus something like 15 cents per Megabyte of the file, which is their *actual* hosting cost) to something more reasonable, like 10%. Publishers big and small, and especially the smaller ones who haven't got the clout are afraid that, just like in the retail era you had to bow to the whims of Barnes and Noble because if they didn't carry your book, you'd never get wide enough distribution to make that particular project profitable. If Rowling is successful, at the very least it might embolden them to re-open negotiations or increase efforts at promoting their own online stores.
And yet the article was all about DRM. The DRM battle has been going on for freaking ever and will for a long time and there's merit to both sides. In the meantime, this represents something way bigger. I'm going to guess that the "Associated Press Writer Hillel Italie" who was credited with having "contributed to this report" is more keen on tech than on publishing.
Phew, that took me longer than I expected to analyze, so I'll save the other article + a brief rundown of the pros and cons of DRM for monday. Join me then in "Dr. DRM" OR "Fifty Ways to Lose Your Customer."
First, this little gem about J.K. Rowling. Gotta love that Huffpo. "Associated Press Writer Hillel Italie contributed to this report." In any event, the article breaks down to something very simple. Not only has Rowling decided to finally start selling Harry Potter books in digital form, she's doing it through her own store, which means she's probably using PDFs or plain ePUBs that haven't gone through any particular company's conversion from ePUB into a proprietary format. It's not like Rowling is the first author or company to do that. The 30%+ chunk Amazon, B&N, Apple etc. take of every sale for simply hosting a file makes it worth even a small publisher's time to develop their own site and sell it themselves. I think the differences here are essentially two fold. One, J.K. Rowling is not merely a best seller as some authors who have pushed digital publishing hard, to the point of opening their own publishers or creating other online ventures to work in conjunction with their regular "day job." Rowling is a MEGA best seller. The other major difference is that it sounds like she's decided to sell them *exclusively* through a site she runs.
I'm going to be honest. I have very mixed feelings about Rowling and her work. Are they interesting books? Sure. They're also over hyped and in dire need of editing. If you have copies handy, check it out. Compare the first to the fourth to the final. You'll notice the margins shrunk, the text shrunk, the leading shrunk, the paper is thinner and it's still so thick it can barely be printed at a commercial publisher. I know the managing editor from the first few books and the whole thing was a nightmare for her. Trying to figure out how it could possibly be produced and overseeing security at the same time. There is also the usual jealousy. I mean, I'm in publishing (kind of) and I like to write. Why aren't *I* J.K. Rowling? Or why didn't I get to sign her or whatever? I'd like to have been all up in that. But even if I am going to be murdered in my sleep for suggesting that eight hundred pages at ten point type is too much for a single middle grade novel, I do respect Rowling's abilities, especially her ability to make things happen her way. Granted, it's not always good for the publisher...or even for her own products. Those books were too long because (so I hear) she refused to allow them to do any serious editing. But I think this is a great move on her part and I wish she'd done it a year ago.
Even though publishers and authors are finally warming, and in some cases, pushing digital forms, this is the first time I've heard of that someone with a lot of market power has chosen to cut Amazon out entirely. Hopefully it will bring them down a peg or two and reduce the fee that Amazon, B&N, Apple etc. charge for e-books from 30% (far too much for simply hosting a file- in fact, Amazon has new pricing that's 30% plus something like 15 cents per Megabyte of the file, which is their *actual* hosting cost) to something more reasonable, like 10%. Publishers big and small, and especially the smaller ones who haven't got the clout are afraid that, just like in the retail era you had to bow to the whims of Barnes and Noble because if they didn't carry your book, you'd never get wide enough distribution to make that particular project profitable. If Rowling is successful, at the very least it might embolden them to re-open negotiations or increase efforts at promoting their own online stores.
And yet the article was all about DRM. The DRM battle has been going on for freaking ever and will for a long time and there's merit to both sides. In the meantime, this represents something way bigger. I'm going to guess that the "Associated Press Writer Hillel Italie" who was credited with having "contributed to this report" is more keen on tech than on publishing.
Phew, that took me longer than I expected to analyze, so I'll save the other article + a brief rundown of the pros and cons of DRM for monday. Join me then in "Dr. DRM" OR "Fifty Ways to Lose Your Customer."
Wednesday, March 28, 2012
Headache
All this silence is giving me a wicked headache. To be fair, what could I expect? That all my former readers would notice and care about my return immediately? That they would unreservedly welcome me back after I abandoned them? Especially with my refusal to self-promote (I'm not for sale. Why should I promote?) which is a guaranteeed way of flying beneath the radar?
Obviously I'm being a bit fecetious on both sides there, but like I said, this is part of an experiment for me. So for now, I'm just going to shoot my messages into the void as it was in the beggining and we'll see what happens. People notice and care, I'll keep going. If they don't notice or don't care, I guess I'll stop. It's a sort of sociological experiment, polluted by my contradictory desires to remain "somewhere out there" where I can be objective and an "authority" and my desire to be right in the middle, known to everybody and making a difference. The middle ground? Writing, especially blogging, where you could (theoretically) be a celebrity and yet your most devoted readers wouldn't know who you were. I'm not much for obfuscation, so I mean, my name is right there, but I think you see what I'm saying. I'm interested in whether or not you guys have noticed my return, and prepared to go either way if you have. In the meantime, expect me to pick up the old M-W-F update schedule for the time being.
If anyone *has* found their way back, are there any subjects you wish me to viciously savage, secure as I am aloft my high horse, riding about the indoor polo field I had installed within my gleaming ivory tower? Or shall I just babble about whatever comes to mind in a typically cynical, nerdy way as per usual? The ball is in your court, my (largely imaginary) gentle readers.
Obviously I'm being a bit fecetious on both sides there, but like I said, this is part of an experiment for me. So for now, I'm just going to shoot my messages into the void as it was in the beggining and we'll see what happens. People notice and care, I'll keep going. If they don't notice or don't care, I guess I'll stop. It's a sort of sociological experiment, polluted by my contradictory desires to remain "somewhere out there" where I can be objective and an "authority" and my desire to be right in the middle, known to everybody and making a difference. The middle ground? Writing, especially blogging, where you could (theoretically) be a celebrity and yet your most devoted readers wouldn't know who you were. I'm not much for obfuscation, so I mean, my name is right there, but I think you see what I'm saying. I'm interested in whether or not you guys have noticed my return, and prepared to go either way if you have. In the meantime, expect me to pick up the old M-W-F update schedule for the time being.
If anyone *has* found their way back, are there any subjects you wish me to viciously savage, secure as I am aloft my high horse, riding about the indoor polo field I had installed within my gleaming ivory tower? Or shall I just babble about whatever comes to mind in a typically cynical, nerdy way as per usual? The ball is in your court, my (largely imaginary) gentle readers.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)