Music has once again restored my faith in humanity, which happens on occasion. The right recording at the right place at the right time can provide transcendence from the moment, from the ills, from the weights.
Beautiful, heterogeneous, smart, messy, multi-layered, demanding, colorful, complex. I could go on.
These are things that I found a couple afternoons back in an album crafted by a collective of more than a dozen humans.
They’re also things I enjoy and appreciate in my life, in my family and in my friends.
Rightfully, the title of the album is “You Forgot It In People.”
A couple weeks back, one of my Facebook friends posted a story about two class-action proceedings against Yelp. Today, I saw the latest from Inc. – “Yelp’s Legal Troubles Mount” – about a third lawsuit. I was immediately moved to write this.
First: Yelp is an online customer review site. As the trademarked tagline under the logo says: “Real People. Real Reviews.” Dry cleaners. Restaurants. Schools. Whatever. Yelp offers real insights about all kinds of operations in all kinds of towns all across the country (their site says they’re in the UK now, too).
The basic allegations are of extortion and fraud. The charge: Yelp reps threaten to highlight negative reviews, bury positive reviews, manipulate awards, etc. if you refuse their offers of a couple/few hundred dollars a month of advertising services. Yelp threatens to make your business look bad, presumably still in customers’ own words. Allegedly.
These allegations are coming from a couple dozen businesses of different kinds in different cities.
What matters: trust. There’s nothing more important than trust, especially if you’re Yelp.
A quick review and analysis of Yelp’s tagline:
They trademarked it, so they must care about it
The word “Real” constitutes 50% of it
The opposite of “Real” is “Fake”
They obviously want to distinguish their reviews as credible
Credibility in online reviews is often in question
Why would a company that depends on credibility, authenticity and “real” allow business practices to be sufficiently institutionalized in their culture to find themselves in this position? If customers have any sense at all that the reviews are dishonest in any way, their entire purpose for using the service evaporates.
And for what? A little short-term cash? I know times are tough, but why go to heavy-handed sales tactics that are bound to bite back in the end? Whatever they gained through these tactics will likely be devoured five or ten fold by newly incurred legal fees.
Even if Yelp successfully defends against the three class-action lawsuits (and no more pop up), theappearance of impropriety threatens fundamentally everything upon which the brand is built. This is a potentially mortal insult added to the injury of the time and money tied up in legal proceedings. And they brought it upon themselves.
Legal, operational, image and otherwise … Yelp needs help!
In advance of a significant broadband announcement ($25B in new spending) by the Federal Communications Commission, a former FCC Chairman, Reed Hundt, delivered a speech at Columbia Business School that he titled “The End of Broadcasting.”
I read about the speech at TVNewsCheck.com and began to watch it on Columbia’s website. It seems Columbia’s site or server can’t support the traffic, so the speech is basically unwatchable. This post, then, is informed by the first 20 minutes of the speech I endured on first go and Harry A. Jessell‘s analysis of it. I expect to edit this post once I’m able to view the entire speech.
In this speech, Hundt argues that every nation needs a “common medium” with the following characteristics:
Reaches 100% of citizens
Is easy and customary for 100% of citizens to use
Is culturally accessible (in common languages)
Is open to participation
Is good for business
Is full of “news” and is sufficiently “local” in its manifestation
Is owned privately, not publicly
Provides to the government access to the citizens
According to Hundt, the FCC began the policy of favoring the internet over broadcasting as the nation’s one common medium as far back as the period 1994-1997. Interestingly, Hundt described this as a “confession or admission,” from which I infer a heretofore duplicitous stance.
A couple examples of broadcasting being disfavored by Hundt’s FCC:
“This is a little naughty: We delayed the transition to HDTV and fought a big battle against the whole idea” (Ethan: why!? HDTV is gorgeous and beloved)
It was “simply astonishing” to Hundt that the government continued to promote broadcasting by subsidizing converter boxes for consumers in the analog-to-digital transition – “Those people would have been much better off getting a voucher for broadband internet subscriptions” (Ethan: completely ludicrous, more below)
I consider this visionary policy. I don’t know if you were using the internet between 1994 and 1997, but to call the experience “lacking” would be kin to calling water “wet.” For a government agency to recognize the value and benefit of the internet at that point is praiseworthy.
I absolutely accept that the internet has infinitely more potential as a valuable information medium in the long term than broadcasting. Per Hundt’s criteria above, the internet trumps broadcasting in openness to participation, facilitation of commerce and pin-point localism.
What I reject outright is the premisethat a nation needs just one common medium. In Jessell’s words, “what would you rather have, the best broadcasting system in the world or the best broadband system. My answer: both.” Agreed! As I’ll continue to argue, broadcasting and broadband are unique and complementary.
Also, support of one medium(broadband) should not require the suppression of the other(broadcasting). However, Hundt suggests a nation is going to choose just one “because government in any country wants a way to reach everybody. It will encourage it and promote it up to some level.” I’ll ignore the Orwellian overtones and suggest that internet and broadcasting should be understood, appreciated and treated as unique and complementary media. Two recent illustrations and an anecdote:
Much of what’s tweeted, searched and blogged every second was initially published by an “old” media outlet or journalist (magazine, newspaper, television)
I also rejectthat the internet is superior for access and ease of use. Let’s start with Hundt’s converter box line to tear this one down. The FCC mandated that television stations kill off analog broadcasting in favor of digital. The transition was extremely costly for broadcasters, though it cleared real estate in the spectrum that the government auctioned off for nearly 20 billions of dollars and dramatically improved the quality of broadcasters’ signals.
To aid in the transition, our federal government provided $40 vouchers upon citizen request to be used for the purchase of digital converter boxes so an old analog TV would still work in the all-digital broadcasting future (now present). To suggest, as Hundt did, that “those people” (read: older, poorer) would be better off getting “a voucher for broadband internet subscriptions” is completely ludicrous. In my world, $40 buys you ONE MONTH of broadband access. In many cases $40 covered the entire cost of a converter box, which is useful indefinitely.
That’s just access. Now, consider ease of use. As a blog reader, you probably take for granted how easy it is to get online. Have you spoken with someone who’s old or poor about selecting and purchasing a computer or setting up and paying for a broadband subscription? Have you seen the line at your local library to get online? Meanwhile, a television or radio can be cheaply purchased and simply powered on. Whoever does so has immediate access to emergency information.
Let’s just pretend that the government’s need to access 100% of people is based in the dissemination of emergency information. At present, clear protocols and enforceable requirements are in place for broadcasters to support these efforts (Emergency Alert System). Should not the effective use of this system be properly credited and indefinitely employed by the agency which mandated it into being?
I look forward to the day that broadband internet provides 100% reach to American households at an extremely inexpensive price.
Internet and broadcasting are unique and complementary media.
In the near to medium term, broadcasting is less expensive and easier to use for more Americans.
This is an extremely complex set of ideas. Among the related topics that could be explored: mobile TV by way of traditional broadcasting and mainstream media as the foundation for a significant share of searches and social exchanges online.
Because nothing even close to a dollar-for-dollar, online-to-traditional model to support journalism exists, a threat to broadcasting remains a threat to journalism. Call me old-fashioned, but I consider journalism a necessary precursor to some semblance of democracy.
Agencies of our government are busy determining your future. To the degree you’re uninformed or disengaged, they’re doing it without you. If you don’t care about broadcasting and broadband, think about those things that do matter to you.
Worth noting:
We do not pay for television at our house. We use an antenna and a 32″ HDTV to enjoy the cleanest, highest-quality pictures and sound available from several local broadcasters.
We pay $37/month for moderate-quality internet access (Qwest DSL).
Ralph Lauren has outfitted the U.S. Olympic athletes at both the 2008 Summer Games in Beijing and the 2010 Winter Games in Vancouver. They will do the same for the 2012 Summer Games in London.
The Wall Street Journal was told that a 10% royalty was to be paid to the United States Olympic Committee on sale of all Olympic-themed Ralph Lauren merchandise; I would expect that there are further considerations to be given the USOC. Beyond a few facts, then, I know little about the financial details or general depth of their relationship. My knowledge of the situation is limited to how it plays out on television and online to a passive observer.
I simply wanted to take a moment to say: this partnership between the two really seems to work.
Both brands are classic, aspirational and all-American. It’s refreshing and satisfying to see a marketing and branding partnership that fits so naturally.
Though I personally favor outdoor lifestyle brands like Patagonia, Columbia, or REI and though I find the polo horsemen obscenely oversized in their Olympic incarnation, I can’t see our Olympians on parade in anyone else’s gear.
The Opening and Closing Ceremonies – as well as all the other Olympics-related photo opps – are strictly fashion events and no other brand fits. Try to name one that would. Hilfiger? Izod? JCrew? Banana Republic? All laughable.
So, you want customer loyalty. You’d like to enjoy the benefits of positive word-of-mouth, the single most powerful form of advertising. Here’s an idea: strategically organize yourself around customer needs and interests.
On two separate occasions, years apart, and in different states, Bed Bath and Beyond has gone WAY beyond. The most recent experience involved an $80 Cuisinart coffee maker. We’re not sure when we bought it – maybe four or five years ago … who knows? Who cares!? Bed Bath and Beyond sure doesn’t.
One morning, my wife flicked the “brew” switch and was met with no brewing and the smell of burning plastic. Not wanting to throw it out, she offered it up to Bed Bath and Beyond for return to and refurbishment by Cuisinart. With no receipt, no evidence that we purchased it at a Bed Bath and Beyond, and no idea when we’d actually purchased it, the customer service person directed her toward the coffee maker section of the store, had her pull a brand-new version of the same model, and exit the store with it. No paperwork to fill out – just a brand-new coffee maker.
A few years back, we enjoyed an identical experience with a $40 or $50 tea kettle – owned it for several years, traded it in for a brand-new version of the same model when the handle came loose. No questions asked and no paperwork required.
That’s an experience worth talking about. Design a policy that provides that experience to lots of people and you’ve created a word-of-mouth machine. Before writing this, I told the story to at least a dozen people with enthusiasm. You can’t buy that kind of advertising. At worst, it cost them $60 (or whatever their purchase price from Cuisinart is).
2) Nearly no-rules coupons
Bed Bath and Beyond issues lots of coupons (typically 20% off) and lets you use them quite liberally. Just about the only restriction: you can’t combine them for 100% off an item and some brands sold in-store opt out.
Expiration dates? They don’t matter.
Only got one coupon? Take 20% off the highest-price item you’re buying, not the lowest.
Multiple coupons in a single transaction? No problem – it’s encouraged.
When they show up in the mail, hang on to those Bed Bath and Beyond coupons. Next time you need a new set of towels or you want to give a dozen Snuggies as gifts, bring them all in and enjoy 20% off every item you buy, provided you’ve got that many coupons.
Important to note: the prices are reasonable with or without the 20% discounts. In contrast, Kohl’s seems to mark up many items in order to have them constantly “on sale.” Also in contrast, Kohl’s spends a ton of cash on prime-time television. Bed Bath and Beyond gets by and even thrives on direct mailing of coupons.
Other observations
In general, the store is reasonably well organized. It’s got enough solid sections (kitchen tools, cookware, appliances, glassware, bedding, towels, carpeting, etc) to bring you in, each with a reasonable range of brands, styles, and price points. Plus, they’ve got a ton of unexpected items between sections (think: “who-invented-that!?” type gadgets). It’s often a pleasant, entertaining and productive shopping experience.
I’d never have expected to write this kind of a post, but a store that will have me walk in with a years-old, non-functioning product and walk out with a brand-new one without any questions or any paperwork is serious about their customers … and that’s something I appreciate.
A few weeks ago, I was wandering around YouTube and came across a fantastic cover of a fantastic song.
A responsible approach to a cover involves a deconstruction of the song to identify its elements and its essence, to truly understand it. The cover itself is its reconstruction in a new form reflecting the covering artist’s perception of its elements and essence.
In this process, a song can be liberated from the conceptual bounds of the original writing and performance, including its original time and place. New life and style are invested into and hung upon the song-as-framework.
Back to the story: the song is “Ceremony,” written by Joy Division but perhaps more associated with New Order. It’s really the best New Order ever sounded – clean, post-punk, four piece, no keys. Radiohead absolutely pulls out all the strengths of the songs with their extremely respectful treatment.
If you’re not familiar with the relationship between Joy Division and New Order, a quick summary: Joy Division’s 23-year-old front man Ian Curtis commits suicide on the eve of the rising band’s first US tour. All original members, including Curtis, agreed to rename the band if any member ever left, so the three remaining members carry on as “New Order.” More history here.
The Radiohead cover inspired this post, which includes the cover, a live performance from 1981, a Joy Division recording (extremely low vocals), and the song set to film shot on Super 8mm 20 years ago.
First, the cover:
Second, a live performance from the Ukranian National Home in New York City from November 1981 (their 11th US show, a year and a half after Curtis’ suicide):
Third, a Joy Division recording of the song set to historical photos:
Finally, a fine tribute from Super 8mm film – beautiful color and architecture:
In general, I don’t much care about a song’s lyrics. In addition, I find most vocals mixed too far in front on most non-instrumental recordings. Regardless, here are the lyrics written by Ian Curtis:
This is why events unnerve me,
Define it all, a different story,
Notice whom for wheels are turning,
Turn again and turn towards this time,
All she ask’s the strength to hold me,
Then again the same old story,
Word will travel, oh so quickly,
Travel first and lean towards this time.
Oh, I’ll break them down, no mercy shown,
Heaven knows, it’s got to be this time,
What she heard, these things she said,
The times she cried,
Too frail to wake this time.
I break them down, no mercy shown,
Heaven knows, it’s got to be this time,
Avenues all lined with trees,
Picture me and then you start watching,
Watching forever, forever,
Watching love grow, forever,
Letting me know, forever.
Thank you, internet, for connecting me with all this material and allowing me to share it so easily.
