Wednesday, November 25, 2009
Because I love you
We will now experiment in posting Youtube links.
If this works, the next series will introduce you to more awesomesauce from my youth.
If this works, the next series will introduce you to more awesomesauce from my youth.
Monday, November 2, 2009
Please keep your angry to yourself
I keep hearing bitchy posts about people who sell hand-crafted items for less than...well, less than almost anything short of the sun, moon, and stars.
Usually, these rants come from people who, in any other situation, would laud a fellow crafter on their accomplishment, popularity of wares, and general skill level. But as soon as one hears that a crafter is selling their wares at thrift-store/big-retail-giant prices, all hell breaks loose and the pack swoops down on the unwary with varying degrees of vulturesque ferocity.
One of these will be a harpy extremist, who will often go so far as to curse at the offender, and begin an unwarranted diatribe about how my low cost is not only undermining whatever talent/effort I may have poured into the item, but also deliberatly devaluing their own work, by perpetuating some stereotype that crafted items are kitschy and not worth enough to make a decent living on. "How dare you" will be thrown into the same screeching hiss-fit as buzzwords like "sweat shop", "small business", "living wage", and "hourly rate".
My question is not the obvious "Why are you so angry at this crafter's low prices?" but "Why do you think anyone understands the cost-of-production well enough to comprehend the astronomical fees you suggest?"
Why do we price things so far below their actual cost, in terms of materials, time, and effort? Because that is the purchasing method we use everyday. I pay about $3 for a gallon of milk. I would not pay more than triple for absolute organic 100% green milk. This is because I am purchasing the milk itself. The end item.
The average consumer does not consider the actual production costs of that milk. Stop a moment, and explore what costs are probably involved in that single grocery item. A baby cow must eat every day up to and throughout it's life until it can produce the milk I desire It also needs shelter, and hay for the stall. It may require vet visits, and medication to overcome some illness or injury. After the milk is available, the costs only continue to escalate. Equpiment and wages to milk the cow, special processing equipment necessary to pasteurize, package, and lable the milk, as well as transportation costs and wages to get the milk to the store. All in all, it must be an incredibly expensive endeavor for this one item to arrive at my grocery shelf!
However, once it has arrived, those things do not matter to me. I would not, in any way, consider that absorbing all of these costs into the price of my jug of milk to be fair to me as a consumer. I would undoubtely enjoy my million-dollar milk just as much as the cheap stuff, but I can only afford one of these options.
Knitwear and handcrafts are no different to the consumer. They are not considering the years of training/practice you went through to achieve your skill. They do not consider that you had to scour the world for that yarn/wood that would perfectly complement the idea you had for your wares. They do not include the cost of paint/needles into their consideration of the item itself, and they do not care whether you spent years or days making the item. Why should they?
To justify the prices that some professional knitters suggest to mom-and-pop crafters, you must fight the very system you currently reside in. You as a retailer are not just competing against other local and skilled artizans, but you are asking customers to suspend all of their understanding of how-to-shop just for yourself and your own wares. I can understand your motivation (to get a living wage by knitting or crafting), but really, stop blaming the non-customer who won't pay your prices, and quit hating on the crafter who is pricing their wares according to their own plans.
If I sell for a dollar, and you sell for twelve, then I'm automatically going to be more popular than you. That's not my fault. It's not yours. However, if you consider salesmanship to be part of the process, then my job is harder. I have to sell 12 of my items to equal the success you could make with one of yours. Don't bitch because some local knitter sells dishcloths for 50 cents. Just work harder to either educate your consumer base on the reasons behind your higher prices (and accept that some people will always vote with their wallet), or find another venue for your higher-priced wares.
Usually, these rants come from people who, in any other situation, would laud a fellow crafter on their accomplishment, popularity of wares, and general skill level. But as soon as one hears that a crafter is selling their wares at thrift-store/big-retail-giant prices, all hell breaks loose and the pack swoops down on the unwary with varying degrees of vulturesque ferocity.
One of these will be a harpy extremist, who will often go so far as to curse at the offender, and begin an unwarranted diatribe about how my low cost is not only undermining whatever talent/effort I may have poured into the item, but also deliberatly devaluing their own work, by perpetuating some stereotype that crafted items are kitschy and not worth enough to make a decent living on. "How dare you" will be thrown into the same screeching hiss-fit as buzzwords like "sweat shop", "small business", "living wage", and "hourly rate".
My question is not the obvious "Why are you so angry at this crafter's low prices?" but "Why do you think anyone understands the cost-of-production well enough to comprehend the astronomical fees you suggest?"
Why do we price things so far below their actual cost, in terms of materials, time, and effort? Because that is the purchasing method we use everyday. I pay about $3 for a gallon of milk. I would not pay more than triple for absolute organic 100% green milk. This is because I am purchasing the milk itself. The end item.
The average consumer does not consider the actual production costs of that milk. Stop a moment, and explore what costs are probably involved in that single grocery item. A baby cow must eat every day up to and throughout it's life until it can produce the milk I desire It also needs shelter, and hay for the stall. It may require vet visits, and medication to overcome some illness or injury. After the milk is available, the costs only continue to escalate. Equpiment and wages to milk the cow, special processing equipment necessary to pasteurize, package, and lable the milk, as well as transportation costs and wages to get the milk to the store. All in all, it must be an incredibly expensive endeavor for this one item to arrive at my grocery shelf!
However, once it has arrived, those things do not matter to me. I would not, in any way, consider that absorbing all of these costs into the price of my jug of milk to be fair to me as a consumer. I would undoubtely enjoy my million-dollar milk just as much as the cheap stuff, but I can only afford one of these options.
Knitwear and handcrafts are no different to the consumer. They are not considering the years of training/practice you went through to achieve your skill. They do not consider that you had to scour the world for that yarn/wood that would perfectly complement the idea you had for your wares. They do not include the cost of paint/needles into their consideration of the item itself, and they do not care whether you spent years or days making the item. Why should they?
To justify the prices that some professional knitters suggest to mom-and-pop crafters, you must fight the very system you currently reside in. You as a retailer are not just competing against other local and skilled artizans, but you are asking customers to suspend all of their understanding of how-to-shop just for yourself and your own wares. I can understand your motivation (to get a living wage by knitting or crafting), but really, stop blaming the non-customer who won't pay your prices, and quit hating on the crafter who is pricing their wares according to their own plans.
If I sell for a dollar, and you sell for twelve, then I'm automatically going to be more popular than you. That's not my fault. It's not yours. However, if you consider salesmanship to be part of the process, then my job is harder. I have to sell 12 of my items to equal the success you could make with one of yours. Don't bitch because some local knitter sells dishcloths for 50 cents. Just work harder to either educate your consumer base on the reasons behind your higher prices (and accept that some people will always vote with their wallet), or find another venue for your higher-priced wares.
Tuesday, October 27, 2009
My soul is burning.
I want a FooPet.
I don't even care what it is. Who knows why they invented this program? It could be the cutest spyware ever, and I just want it to scamper on screen and love me.
They company, aptly named FooMojo, even warns that I should consider my emotional avialability before adopting a FooPet via online account. The thing would need feeding/watering every day, as well as occasaional medication for illnesses. I can not do this. But the Bengal. I loves me. We are MEANT TO BE TOGETHER! However, the approximate lifespan is 10 years. I don't even know what the internet will look like in 10 years!
Maybe G will adopt one with me? The site does recommend sharing account information to ensure the thing gets fed on weekends...
I need this thing, people. Well, no, I don't, but when it's staring at me, I can feel my resistance waning...
I don't even care what it is. Who knows why they invented this program? It could be the cutest spyware ever, and I just want it to scamper on screen and love me.
They company, aptly named FooMojo, even warns that I should consider my emotional avialability before adopting a FooPet via online account. The thing would need feeding/watering every day, as well as occasaional medication for illnesses. I can not do this. But the Bengal. I loves me. We are MEANT TO BE TOGETHER! However, the approximate lifespan is 10 years. I don't even know what the internet will look like in 10 years!
Maybe G will adopt one with me? The site does recommend sharing account information to ensure the thing gets fed on weekends...
I need this thing, people. Well, no, I don't, but when it's staring at me, I can feel my resistance waning...
Friday, October 9, 2009
Please pick a side
If the Bible is your basis for argument, please consider taking an "all or nothing" approach to better illustrate your beliefs to us terrible, uneducated, heathens.
Either homosexuality is bad AND selling your daughter into slavery is fine, incest is fine (and almost common), multiple wives is fine, children are property and acceptable marriage fodder, rape is fine if marriage results and all clothing and hairstyles should have FOUR CORNERS.
Or.
Homosexuality may have been written as bad once, but in light of our modern society, this opinion should be reexamined, much like the biblical stances on women's rights/role in society, red meat on friday, and the above examples. Some things might squick you out for the rest of your life. Sister 2 happens to think that tapioca pudding is gross. That doesn't mean she thinks no one should have it or enjoy it.
Please to educate yourself.
Either homosexuality is bad AND selling your daughter into slavery is fine, incest is fine (and almost common), multiple wives is fine, children are property and acceptable marriage fodder, rape is fine if marriage results and all clothing and hairstyles should have FOUR CORNERS.
Or.
Homosexuality may have been written as bad once, but in light of our modern society, this opinion should be reexamined, much like the biblical stances on women's rights/role in society, red meat on friday, and the above examples. Some things might squick you out for the rest of your life. Sister 2 happens to think that tapioca pudding is gross. That doesn't mean she thinks no one should have it or enjoy it.
Please to educate yourself.
I will go to war for Wil Wheaton.
Who is awesome.
So the story seems to be this: Wil Wheaton*sez'don'tbeadick'* , who is awesome as a person, and didn't like Wesley Crusher so much either, has an audiobook of his awesome memoir "Just a Geek." When he wrote the book and produced the audiobook, he wasn't given some huge green-ink-smelling royalty check to pad his wait for the residual royalties. He was probably given bills, instead, and ate canned cold beans while waiting for this slow-growing cult classic to find its way into the hands and hearts of appreciative readers.
Some people have pirated the audiobook file, (which is what asshats do, besides molest small animals and think dirty thoughts about their grandparents) and someone is probably selling it for less than the actual distributor, without paying any money to either the distributor or Mr. Wheaton *whoisawesome*, or even considering that this is not only illegal, but also morally wrong. (See, I do understand that sometimes those two identifiers do not occur at the same time.)
Enter the internet forums, where douchebags and self-centered opinionists can hash out the morality of this issue. I will attempt to remain calm and lucid, but this is honestly the stupidest argument I'm seeing, very similar to the Roman Polanski nonsense, but closer to my home interests.
Enter the Douchebag/Asshat arguments:
1.)The business model of money for physical item is outdated and outmoded, therefore I will spend my money where I choose in order to achieve the item/file at a speed of my choice.
Actual application: Well-intentioned, but still illegal. The business model may, in fact, be behind the times, but pirating files is still against the law. Reputable companies will someday catch up to your enhanced intellect and needs, but a career in business models and planning might help more than hoping your miniscule non-contribution to the current system will effectively highlight a large enough trend to gain notice by the very company you (hopefully) wish would cater better to your needs.
2.) Screw you, big Pharma (or equivalent). They're overcharging when I deserve it for free.
Actual application: A common misconception is that everyone should have everything they desire for free, in the belief that if life isn't fair, anything that makes it seem fairer is a legitimate excuse for all kinds of asshaberdashery. Life isn't fair. That's not just an axiom, kids. It's a provable fact. Children die before they have a chance to prove their worth to society. Rich jerks get better lawyers and escape punishment for crimes that would have anyone else shivved and raped before bedtime. You may feel like you deserve something, but really, it's very hard to prove that definitively. If by it you think you are "justified" in getting something, that's easy to disprove, if you consider justice = legal system/ruling. If you feel like you merit it, then certainly anyone would be happy to give you free things with their blessing, once you explain the many ways you have benefited them/society/your religion.
In short, this argument is almost circular, and therefore invalid for purposes of proving your opinion to be superior. "I deserve it for free" "Why?" "Because I work hard." "Well please explain that to the provider" "They might not believe me/I am too lazy" "'Lazy' means you aren't working hard, and disbelief couldn't occur if you are truly meritorous of this thing." People who use this argument should cut to the chase of either "you don't know me" or "Because I said so." They may not be more worthwhile, as arguments go, but they're faster and don't offer false indications of willingness to embrace logic.
3.) Screw you, Wil Wheaton. You don't deserve my money. You are stupid.
Actual application: Stupid. Why do you want to read his ideas/thoughts/diary/tea leaves if you feel he has no worth? You are spending your time, which immediately disproves your professed non-interest in him or his life. He made this item. You want this item (for whatever reason). The law says $ = item. If you're spending it, you are still losing it, so you may as well lose it legally. If you're downloading it for free, you are stealing from the very person whose worth you reaffirm by reading/listening to his work. Why would you believe monetarily hurting the object of so much of your time is acceptable?
Keep in mind the best and most reputable speakers for disavowing others always purchase their fodder legitimately. You can't eat from a dumpster and claim the restaurant food is bad. Don't steal the file and expect me to credit your arguments.
4.) Other people do it. (a.k.a. I didn't steal it but my acquaintance/relative did and now it's on my computer so I'll take advantage of it).
Actual application:
Please do one of the following:
Find some way to make this up to the object of interest, either by an anonymous donation of the worth of the item, or by purchasing your own copy and never downloading it.
Please begin emulating other persons who kill themselves. (Effectively, please. We don't need to make your family suffer through your coma and resulting hospital bills.) See how harsh that sounds? Do you see how following "other people" can be considered in many ways? The method that is therefore recommended is: Consider others whom you respect, and how they dealt with a similar situation. Do you think that you, in your current situation, (not in a substitutional "If I were Kanye" scenario), would benefit from a similar solution? Then, consider whether that solution is legal. If these two questions result in a "yes", then the solution can probably be followed to a more acceptable result.
4.) Your opinion of my alleged "theft" doesn't matter.
Actual application: This response is another self-hating cycle. If my opinion doesn't matter, it should not have registered on your "refuting response necessary" meter.
Also, while it may legally be true that my opinion has no legal bearing on the issue, the position of legality should have some bearing in the decision. It is hard to adequately explain that the very document and system that guarantees your right to express your jackassery should be ignored when it comes to issues of theft. Please consider the "all or nothing" Bible approach.
5.) I didn't have the money for it, so I stole it.
Actual application: As a reason for theft, this is one of the most honest and supportable arguments you can make, so long as you are consistent. Don't tell me you spent the money on a purse. If you must steal in order to make your life bearable, please carefully consider your table of priorities to ensure that as many people as possible are left unharmed.
However, DO NOT believe that this makes the theft legally or morally acceptable. Please see "life is not fair." Theft is theft, regardless of income. Theft is when you take something that has value to another without their consent or compensation. It has nothing to do with whether or not: the item/file was made available in your area in it's original format; the item/file was too expensive for you to afford easily; etc.
Recognize that what you did was at least legally, if not (provably) morally wrong. You can argue the morals all you like, but stick to your reasons, rather than the legality.
The reasons may piss me off, but at least you're not lying.
So the story seems to be this: Wil Wheaton*sez'don'tbeadick'* , who is awesome as a person, and didn't like Wesley Crusher so much either, has an audiobook of his awesome memoir "Just a Geek." When he wrote the book and produced the audiobook, he wasn't given some huge green-ink-smelling royalty check to pad his wait for the residual royalties. He was probably given bills, instead, and ate canned cold beans while waiting for this slow-growing cult classic to find its way into the hands and hearts of appreciative readers.
Some people have pirated the audiobook file, (which is what asshats do, besides molest small animals and think dirty thoughts about their grandparents) and someone is probably selling it for less than the actual distributor, without paying any money to either the distributor or Mr. Wheaton *whoisawesome*, or even considering that this is not only illegal, but also morally wrong. (See, I do understand that sometimes those two identifiers do not occur at the same time.)
Enter the internet forums, where douchebags and self-centered opinionists can hash out the morality of this issue. I will attempt to remain calm and lucid, but this is honestly the stupidest argument I'm seeing, very similar to the Roman Polanski nonsense, but closer to my home interests.
Enter the Douchebag/Asshat arguments:
1.)The business model of money for physical item is outdated and outmoded, therefore I will spend my money where I choose in order to achieve the item/file at a speed of my choice.
Actual application: Well-intentioned, but still illegal. The business model may, in fact, be behind the times, but pirating files is still against the law. Reputable companies will someday catch up to your enhanced intellect and needs, but a career in business models and planning might help more than hoping your miniscule non-contribution to the current system will effectively highlight a large enough trend to gain notice by the very company you (hopefully) wish would cater better to your needs.
2.) Screw you, big Pharma (or equivalent). They're overcharging when I deserve it for free.
Actual application: A common misconception is that everyone should have everything they desire for free, in the belief that if life isn't fair, anything that makes it seem fairer is a legitimate excuse for all kinds of asshaberdashery. Life isn't fair. That's not just an axiom, kids. It's a provable fact. Children die before they have a chance to prove their worth to society. Rich jerks get better lawyers and escape punishment for crimes that would have anyone else shivved and raped before bedtime. You may feel like you deserve something, but really, it's very hard to prove that definitively. If by it you think you are "justified" in getting something, that's easy to disprove, if you consider justice = legal system/ruling. If you feel like you merit it, then certainly anyone would be happy to give you free things with their blessing, once you explain the many ways you have benefited them/society/your religion.
In short, this argument is almost circular, and therefore invalid for purposes of proving your opinion to be superior. "I deserve it for free" "Why?" "Because I work hard." "Well please explain that to the provider" "They might not believe me/I am too lazy" "'Lazy' means you aren't working hard, and disbelief couldn't occur if you are truly meritorous of this thing." People who use this argument should cut to the chase of either "you don't know me" or "Because I said so." They may not be more worthwhile, as arguments go, but they're faster and don't offer false indications of willingness to embrace logic.
3.) Screw you, Wil Wheaton. You don't deserve my money. You are stupid.
Actual application: Stupid. Why do you want to read his ideas/thoughts/diary/tea leaves if you feel he has no worth? You are spending your time, which immediately disproves your professed non-interest in him or his life. He made this item. You want this item (for whatever reason). The law says $ = item. If you're spending it, you are still losing it, so you may as well lose it legally. If you're downloading it for free, you are stealing from the very person whose worth you reaffirm by reading/listening to his work. Why would you believe monetarily hurting the object of so much of your time is acceptable?
Keep in mind the best and most reputable speakers for disavowing others always purchase their fodder legitimately. You can't eat from a dumpster and claim the restaurant food is bad. Don't steal the file and expect me to credit your arguments.
4.) Other people do it. (a.k.a. I didn't steal it but my acquaintance/relative did and now it's on my computer so I'll take advantage of it).
Actual application:
Please do one of the following:
Find some way to make this up to the object of interest, either by an anonymous donation of the worth of the item, or by purchasing your own copy and never downloading it.
Please begin emulating other persons who kill themselves. (Effectively, please. We don't need to make your family suffer through your coma and resulting hospital bills.) See how harsh that sounds? Do you see how following "other people" can be considered in many ways? The method that is therefore recommended is: Consider others whom you respect, and how they dealt with a similar situation. Do you think that you, in your current situation, (not in a substitutional "If I were Kanye" scenario), would benefit from a similar solution? Then, consider whether that solution is legal. If these two questions result in a "yes", then the solution can probably be followed to a more acceptable result.
4.) Your opinion of my alleged "theft" doesn't matter.
Actual application: This response is another self-hating cycle. If my opinion doesn't matter, it should not have registered on your "refuting response necessary" meter.
Also, while it may legally be true that my opinion has no legal bearing on the issue, the position of legality should have some bearing in the decision. It is hard to adequately explain that the very document and system that guarantees your right to express your jackassery should be ignored when it comes to issues of theft. Please consider the "all or nothing" Bible approach.
5.) I didn't have the money for it, so I stole it.
Actual application: As a reason for theft, this is one of the most honest and supportable arguments you can make, so long as you are consistent. Don't tell me you spent the money on a purse. If you must steal in order to make your life bearable, please carefully consider your table of priorities to ensure that as many people as possible are left unharmed.
However, DO NOT believe that this makes the theft legally or morally acceptable. Please see "life is not fair." Theft is theft, regardless of income. Theft is when you take something that has value to another without their consent or compensation. It has nothing to do with whether or not: the item/file was made available in your area in it's original format; the item/file was too expensive for you to afford easily; etc.
Recognize that what you did was at least legally, if not (provably) morally wrong. You can argue the morals all you like, but stick to your reasons, rather than the legality.
The reasons may piss me off, but at least you're not lying.
Wednesday, October 7, 2009
UPS, why do you tease me so?
I love UPS. I love their clever commercials. I like their trendily understated marketing slogans. I like that as soon as a horse named Big Brown became famous (during the middle of the "What can Brown do for you?") they went out and sponsored the hell out of him.
What I do not like is how their tracking service seems so touch-and-go. I am overjoyed to live in an age where I can even get a rough approximation of where a package is on a given day, unlike olden times where we had to trust that the mail wagon could be dragged along without something happening to the mammoth in the traces on the way. However, why must the updates be so sporadic, even considering the time differences? Why is my last update at 3:00 am yesterday morning? Why is my package seemingly stalled a single state away? Does this mean my package has already been delivered, and the data wasn't updated? Does this mean it will remain in package limbo until the scheduled delivery date on Friday, despite geographical approachability? Why are there so many listings for Monday, and just the two for Tuesday? Did it party too hard? Is it hungover now?
WHAT DOES IT ALL MEAN?
What I do not like is how their tracking service seems so touch-and-go. I am overjoyed to live in an age where I can even get a rough approximation of where a package is on a given day, unlike olden times where we had to trust that the mail wagon could be dragged along without something happening to the mammoth in the traces on the way. However, why must the updates be so sporadic, even considering the time differences? Why is my last update at 3:00 am yesterday morning? Why is my package seemingly stalled a single state away? Does this mean my package has already been delivered, and the data wasn't updated? Does this mean it will remain in package limbo until the scheduled delivery date on Friday, despite geographical approachability? Why are there so many listings for Monday, and just the two for Tuesday? Did it party too hard? Is it hungover now?
WHAT DOES IT ALL MEAN?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)