 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Jim Henderson" <nos### [at] nospam com> wrote in message
news:48a05c0e$1@news.povray.org...
> On Sun, 10 Aug 2008 21:58:45 +0100, St. wrote:
>
>> Heard enough horror stories about them.
>
> Such as?
Ok, re-reading what I said, I'm not sure if we're talking about the same
thing. ;) I thought Sabrina was talking about what we call here 'store
cards' - it's like a major retail store credit card, which in turn have
really high interest rates, (that's the horror story, people have had high
debt using them).
So what's a 'customer benefit' card other than what you've already
explained?
~Steve~
> Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Mon, 11 Aug 2008 17:06:28 +0100, Phil Cook wrote:
> Yet I get vouchers from the supermarket tailored to correspond to items
> I've already purchased from there. I doubt anyone's picking over the
> data individually more a case of X purchases within Y days of product
> type Z all ranked with the top five being assigned corresponding
> vouchers.
But is it a problem to get discounts targeted at the products you buy?
> It's also something to remember that such stores are branching out into
> other areas such as insurance etc. and that some cards can be used in
> many participating stores. In theory if I used a store card everywhere I
> could the company could know what I eat and how often, what type of
> clothes I buy, the books I read, the movies I watch, where and how often
> I buy petrol. Sure it's all automated until someone in the government
> decides they want to know more about a suspicious individual's habits.
Overlap with insurance would be troubling for me; and government
intrusion also would be.
>> I wonder what kind of stories Starbuck's data would give you, for
>> example....
>
> At the very least it could reveal your work hours.
It'd take some pretty good forensics to get that for people who this
would be a problem for, though. I suppose it could be a problem for a
security guard working a solo shift....
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Mon, 11 Aug 2008 17:10:39 +0100, St. wrote:
> "Jim Henderson" <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote in message
> news:48a05c0e$1@news.povray.org...
>> On Sun, 10 Aug 2008 21:58:45 +0100, St. wrote:
>>
>>> Heard enough horror stories about them.
>>
>> Such as?
>
> Ok, re-reading what I said, I'm not sure if we're talking about the
> same
> thing. ;) I thought Sabrina was talking about what we call here 'store
> cards' - it's like a major retail store credit card, which in turn have
> really high interest rates, (that's the horror story, people have had
> high debt using them).
*Oh*, if it's a "store credit card", yes, I hate those things as well,
would never sign up for one myself.
> So what's a 'customer benefit' card other than what you've already
> explained?
So-called "customer loyalty cards". Around here the biggest thing that's
a "problem" with them is that to get the "normal" price, you have to have
one, otherwise you pay a premium. That's pretty common knowledge, though
- that the "discounted" price is a price that gives them a profit
margin. In f&d retail, it's all about volume, so the profit margins are
pretty thin to begin with.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Mon, 11 Aug 2008 12:19:30 -0400, Jim Henderson wrote:
> them a profit margin. In f&d retail, it's all about volume, so the
By which I mean on the food side -the drug side profit model is clearly
different....at least in the US.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
St. wrote:
> So what's a 'customer benefit' card other than what you've already
> explained?
Think of it as "automatic coupons". If you present the card, you get X%
off from various products. Of course, the card is tied to your identity
or at least a pseudo-identity, so they can tell that people who buy Y
also buy Z a lot.
I like the coupons on the back of the receipts better, myself.
--
Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
Ever notice how people in a zombie movie never already know how to
kill zombies? Ask 100 random people in America how to kill someone
who has reanimated from the dead in a secret viral weapons lab,
and how many do you think already know you need a head-shot?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Jim Henderson wrote:
> Understanding customer spending habits allows a store to better stock up
> on the things I need/want.
In a similar vein, I'm not actually bothered by targeted advertising.
After all, I'd much rather watch commercials that appeal to me than ones
aimed at 5yos, or women going through menopause, or basically anyone
who's needs differ from my own.
...Chambers
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Tue, 12 Aug 2008 18:12:44 -0700, Chambers wrote:
> Jim Henderson wrote:
>> Understanding customer spending habits allows a store to better stock
>> up on the things I need/want.
>
> In a similar vein, I'm not actually bothered by targeted advertising.
>
> After all, I'd much rather watch commercials that appeal to me than ones
> aimed at 5yos, or women going through menopause, or basically anyone
> who's needs differ from my own.
True. Of course, given a preference, I'd rather not watch ads at all.
But that's because I think the whole "entertainment as a delivery
mechanism for advertisements" has gotten WAY out of hand, at least here
in the US. Take commercial TV stations, for example. Their primary
function is to serve advertising; entertainment is secondary. The trend
over the past 20+ years has been to increase the advertising time in an
hour of commercial TV programming; it has doubled in that time period.
We've just been watching DVDs of Season 1 of The Muppet Show, which first
aired in 1976 or 1977 - just over 20 years ago. The shows run 25 minutes
long; that's 10 minutes of commercials per hour of programming time.
Today, an hour show runs about 42 minutes per hour of air time.
Companies that make "stuff" have gotten so obsessed lately with making
the brand recognisible that they've forgotten the primary means of
getting people interested in buying their products: making products that
are good, solid, reliable, and that actually work.
I don't buy Coke because I saw Michael Jordan drinking one in a
commercial on TV or in a cinema. I buy Coke because I *like* it. But
given a choice between buying Coke bottled in Atlanta and Coke bottled in
Mexico City, I'll buy the Mexican Coke any time, because it's not made
with high fructose corn syrup; it's made with real honest-to-$DEITY cane
sugar. But even more importantly, *it tastes better*.
Similarly, I'm not going to buy a Ford F150 pickup truck because Mike
Rowe (from Dirty Jobs) advertises for them. In fact, I wouldn't ever buy
a Ford F150 pickup truck because, well first, I don't *need* one.
Second, at 13 MPG and gasoline at > $4 per gallon, I couldn't *afford* it.
As a consumer, billboards, TV commercials, and even print advertising
generally doesn't sway my buying habits. I don't eat at Taco Bell any
more because they couldn't get an order right if I stood there and walked
them through it. No amount of talking chihuahua "cuteness" (barf) on TV
is going to make me want to go back more than a couple times of year (to
see if they've improved on their reading comprehension skills and
listening skills) because in the end, the product sucks (I consider the
delivery of the proper order part of the product). I'm more likely to go
to the Wendy's next door because there's a far better than 50-50 chance
that when I order a spicy chicken sandwich with no tomato, they'll
remember to not put a tomato on it - and only about a 1 in 1000 chance
that they'll screw the order up.
The really disturbing thing I'm starting to see now (starting with Eureka
on SciFi) is *in show* advertising. Not product placement - but actual
advertising of a real-life product *in the show* as if the show was
intended to be an infomercial. I *hope* they knock that off, but even
the fact that the actor who plays Carter is a friend of a friend of my
wife's won't stop us tuning out if they don't knock that crap off right
now. If I want to watch The Truman Show, I have the disc on the bookcase.
All that money that goes into advertising could be much better spent
making a product that I want to buy, improving the service that goes with
the product, or making a good product better.
(sorry, didn't mean to rant - this is one of my major pet peeves just at
the moment).
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Jim Henderson wrote:
> The really disturbing thing I'm starting to see now (starting with Eureka
> on SciFi) is *in show* advertising. Not product placement - but actual
> advertising of a real-life product *in the show* as if the show was
> intended to be an infomercial. I *hope* they knock that off, but even
> the fact that the actor who plays Carter is a friend of a friend of my
> wife's won't stop us tuning out if they don't knock that crap off right
> now. If I want to watch The Truman Show, I have the disc on the bookcase.
>
> All that money that goes into advertising could be much better spent
> making a product that I want to buy, improving the service that goes with
> the product, or making a good product better.
>
> (sorry, didn't mean to rant - this is one of my major pet peeves just at
> the moment).
>
> Jim
It's happened before, it'll happen again. How many old radio shows were
sponsored by certain products, and found creative ways to work those
into the show? It went away for a while, because people pay for cable,
but it's come back because there is money to be made there.
Geez, Eureka, though . . . I should be surprised about it but I'm not.
The adverts for it, over the summer, were funny. Until they switched
from 'buy this product that is actually impossible' to 'buy this actual
product that we claim is impossible.' I just can't imagine how a top
secret government facility can explain having such mundane sponsors who
most likely lack proper clearance.
But, it's SciFi channel. They hate funding good shows, and would
obviously rather throw money away on weekly B movies. As evidence, see
every show they've only ever shown just one season of, showing Eureka
out of order, canning FarScape, canceling SG-1 at the episode 200 wrap
party, and showing last season's Heroes and Lost.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
And lo on Wed, 13 Aug 2008 05:11:43 +0100, Jim Henderson
<nos### [at] nospamcom> did spake, saying:
> But that's because I think the whole "entertainment as a delivery
> mechanism for advertisements" has gotten WAY out of hand, at least her
e
> in the US. Take commercial TV stations, for example. Their primary
> function is to serve advertising; entertainment is secondary. The tre
nd
> over the past 20+ years has been to increase the advertising time in a
n
> hour of commercial TV programming; it has doubled in that time period.
The latest trick on commercial channels here is to run two programmes ba
ck
to back with only a short trailer-type ad separating them and then chuck
in the ad break early. Better yet the first programme overruns slightly
so
the next one starts 1 minute late whereas the BBC seem to be finishing
programmes slightly earlier so the next one starts 1 minute before it's
scheduled.
> The really disturbing thing I'm starting to see now (starting with Eur
eka
> on SciFi) is *in show* advertising. Not product placement - but actua
l
> advertising of a real-life product *in the show* as if the show was
> intended to be an infomercial. I *hope* they knock that off, but even
> the fact that the actor who plays Carter is a friend of a friend of my
> wife's won't stop us tuning out if they don't knock that crap off righ
t
> now. If I want to watch The Truman Show, I have the disc on the
> bookcase.
What's annoying me here is the BBC news programmes slipping in reference
s
to other programmes on later - "We'll return to coverage of World War
Three in a moment. Now is acne a problem for you? A BBC programme being
shown later today states that..."
Then there's the squeeze, which Charlie Brooker delightfully lampooned i
n
his series*. There's now a style guide for programmes about what they
can't do during the end credits because the broadcaster wants to squeeze
the show into the top left-hand corner and list upcoming programmes on t
he
right while having an VO explaining how wonderful they are and why you
should watch them. Damned annoying when you're trying to discover who
played what and the credits are a quarter the proper size.
*http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yrm2dj6bIU0
> All that money that goes into advertising could be much better spent
> making a product that I want to buy, improving the service that goes w
ith
> the product, or making a good product better.
Pfft everyone knows it's marketing that sells products, not having the
best or even just a good product.
> (sorry, didn't mean to rant - this is one of my major pet peeves just
at
> the moment).
So you should be, can't stand ranters me ;-)
--
Phil Cook
--
I once tried to be apathetic, but I just couldn't be bothered
http://flipc.blogspot.com
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Jim Henderson wrote:
> are good, solid, reliable, and that actually work.
I remember seeing a book in the store about ten ways how to make your
brand more popular. The methods were things like "don't let someone sell
both coke *and* pepsi", and "if they sell coke make them sell sprite
also" and "end every ad with a picture of your brand" and such.
I noted with amusement that nowhere on the list was "associate your
brand with a product people like."
--
Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
Ever notice how people in a zombie movie never already know how to
kill zombies? Ask 100 random people in America how to kill someone
who has reanimated from the dead in a secret viral weapons lab,
and how many do you think already know you need a head-shot?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New wrote:
> I noted with amusement that nowhere on the list was "associate your
> brand with a product people like."
Forgive my cynicism, but for products like cars and soft drinks, people
don't "like" what they like. They "like" what they see in commercials.
Actually, it goes well beyond cars and soft drinks. General
electronics, cell phones, certain packaged items.
The book is spot on. Creating a product that actually does the job well
and is pleasurable to use often doesn't compete well with those products
that follow the tips in the book.
Along Jim's thread, I actually refused to go to Hardees for many years
because of *really* obnoxious ads. I figured ads should work both ways.<G>
--
/\ /\ /\ /
/ \/ \ u e e n / \/ a w a z
>>>>>>mue### [at] nawazorg<<<<<<
anl
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Mueen Nawaz wrote:
> Darren New wrote:
>> I noted with amusement that nowhere on the list was "associate your
>> brand with a product people like."
>
> Forgive my cynicism, but for products like cars and soft drinks,
> people don't "like" what they like. They "like" what they see in
> commercials.
OK, I'll grant you that one. :-)
I'd say that for products too complicated (or otherwise hard to
describe, like a soft drink) to actually describe in the ad, this is
probably true.
I think there are any number of products that are simple enough that you
could do a decent job of describing them in an advertisement, tho. Say,
a vacuum cleaner. Not much to say there.
--
Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
Ever notice how people in a zombie movie never already know how to
kill zombies? Ask 100 random people in America how to kill someone
who has reanimated from the dead in a secret viral weapons lab,
and how many do you think already know you need a head-shot?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New wrote:
> I think there are any number of products that are simple enough that you
> could do a decent job of describing them in an advertisement, tho. Say,
> a vacuum cleaner. Not much to say there.
But unless there's something grandtastic about a certain vacuum
cleaner, my guess is that the ones best placed on store shelves will get
bought.
--
"Energize" Picard said, and a pink bunny with a drum materialized.
/\ /\ /\ /
/ \/ \ u e e n / \/ a w a z
>>>>>>mue### [at] nawazorg<<<<<<
anl
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
And lo on Wed, 13 Aug 2008 20:56:53 +0100, Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom>
did spake, saying:
> I think there are any number of products that are simple enough that you
> could do a decent job of describing them in an advertisement, tho. Say,
> a vacuum cleaner. Not much to say there.
"Our vacuum cleaners suck more then the competition's"
--
Phil Cook
--
I once tried to be apathetic, but I just couldn't be bothered
http://flipc.blogspot.com
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Mueen Nawaz wrote:
> cleaner, my guess is that the ones best placed on store shelves will get
> bought.
Likely. Of course, the internet and mail-order mucks everything up, too. :-)
--
Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
Ever notice how people in a zombie movie never already know how to
kill zombies? Ask 100 random people in America how to kill someone
who has reanimated from the dead in a secret viral weapons lab,
and how many do you think already know you need a head-shot?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Phil Cook wrote:
> "Our vacuum cleaners suck more then the competition's"
>
LOL
John
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Wed, 13 Aug 2008 09:54:03 +0100, Phil Cook wrote:
> And lo on Wed, 13 Aug 2008 05:11:43 +0100, Jim Henderson
> <nos### [at] nospamcom> did spake, saying:
>
>> But that's because I think the whole "entertainment as a delivery
>> mechanism for advertisements" has gotten WAY out of hand, at least here
>> in the US. Take commercial TV stations, for example. Their primary
>> function is to serve advertising; entertainment is secondary. The
>> trend over the past 20+ years has been to increase the advertising time
>> in an hour of commercial TV programming; it has doubled in that time
>> period.
>
> The latest trick on commercial channels here is to run two programmes
> back to back with only a short trailer-type ad separating them and then
> chuck in the ad break early. Better yet the first programme overruns
> slightly so the next one starts 1 minute late whereas the BBC seem to be
> finishing programmes slightly earlier so the next one starts 1 minute
> before it's scheduled.
Yeah, I've seen that as well - end up having to adjust the recording
times to start 1 min early and end 1 min late. Which means if I've got
three programmes set to record in a 2 hour period (one ending and two
starting, for example - we've a dual tuner DVR), something's going to get
clipped.
>> The really disturbing thing I'm starting to see now (starting with
>> Eureka on SciFi) is *in show* advertising. Not product placement - but
>> actual advertising of a real-life product *in the show* as if the show
>> was intended to be an infomercial. I *hope* they knock that off, but
>> even the fact that the actor who plays Carter is a friend of a friend
>> of my wife's won't stop us tuning out if they don't knock that crap off
>> right now. If I want to watch The Truman Show, I have the disc on the
>> bookcase.
>
> What's annoying me here is the BBC news programmes slipping in
> references to other programmes on later - "We'll return to coverage of
> World War Three in a moment. Now is acne a problem for you? A BBC
> programme being shown later today states that..."
Yeah, we get some of that as well.
> Then there's the squeeze, which Charlie Brooker delightfully lampooned
> in his series*. There's now a style guide for programmes about what they
> can't do during the end credits because the broadcaster wants to squeeze
> the show into the top left-hand corner and list upcoming programmes on
> the right while having an VO explaining how wonderful they are and why
> you should watch them. Damned annoying when you're trying to discover
> who played what and the credits are a quarter the proper size.
Yeah, I've seen that as well in some of the shows on BBC America (and
stuff I've watched from other sources).
>> All that money that goes into advertising could be much better spent
>> making a product that I want to buy, improving the service that goes
>> with the product, or making a good product better.
>
> Pfft everyone knows it's marketing that sells products, not having the
> best or even just a good product.
Oh, right, I forgot - because they wouldn't do that if it wasn't
effective. Stupid me - it's too bad I'm not willing to be a sheep....
>> (sorry, didn't mean to rant - this is one of my major pet peeves just
>> at the moment).
>
> So you should be, can't stand ranters me ;-)
Eh, too bad. ;-)
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Wed, 13 Aug 2008 09:40:36 -0700, Darren New wrote:
> Jim Henderson wrote:
>> are good, solid, reliable, and that actually work.
>
> I remember seeing a book in the store about ten ways how to make your
> brand more popular. The methods were things like "don't let someone sell
> both coke *and* pepsi", and "if they sell coke make them sell sprite
> also" and "end every ad with a picture of your brand" and such.
Was "make it *better* than the competition" in there anywhere?
> I noted with amusement that nowhere on the list was "associate your
> brand with a product people like."
That is pretty amusing. :-)
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Wed, 13 Aug 2008 14:26:13 -0500, Mueen Nawaz wrote:
> Along Jim's thread, I actually refused to go to Hardees for many
years
> because of *really* obnoxious ads. I figured ads should work both
> ways.<G>
I refuse to go into Hardees for a couple of reasons. First, there aren't
any here in Utah (so it's easy), but second (which actually came first)
was my younger brother worked there once - and he refused to eat the food
there as a result. He said "you don't want to know what goes on in the
kitchen there"....
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Thu, 14 Aug 2008 15:34:21 +0100, Phil Cook wrote:
> And lo on Wed, 13 Aug 2008 20:56:53 +0100, Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom>
> did spake, saying:
>
>> I think there are any number of products that are simple enough that
>> you could do a decent job of describing them in an advertisement, tho.
>> Say, a vacuum cleaner. Not much to say there.
>
> "Our vacuum cleaners suck more then the competition's"
I vaguely recall a similar line actually being used by Hoover - "Hoovers
really suck"....
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Wed, 13 Aug 2008 01:58:52 -0400, Sabrina Kilian wrote:
> It's happened before, it'll happen again. How many old radio shows were
> sponsored by certain products, and found creative ways to work those
> into the show? It went away for a while, because people pay for cable,
> but it's come back because there is money to be made there.
Sure, but that doesn't mean I have to *like* it....or watch shows that do
that, for that matter.
> Geez, Eureka, though . . . I should be surprised about it but I'm not.
> The adverts for it, over the summer, were funny. Until they switched
> from 'buy this product that is actually impossible' to 'buy this actual
> product that we claim is impossible.' I just can't imagine how a top
> secret government facility can explain having such mundane sponsors who
> most likely lack proper clearance.
Actually, they did sorta work it into the story. That bit could be
interesting.
> But, it's SciFi channel. They hate funding good shows, and would
> obviously rather throw money away on weekly B movies. As evidence, see
> every show they've only ever shown just one season of, showing Eureka
> out of order, canning FarScape, canceling SG-1 at the episode 200 wrap
> party, and showing last season's Heroes and Lost.
Well, some of those decisions made some sense; SG-1 was partly writer's
fatigue, partly the cast's fatigue (esp. Michael Shanks, I think), and
they'd done a lot farther beyond it; my wife and I used to say "remember
when this show was about the *STAR* *GATE*?" - never a good sign.
Atlantis isn't bad, but I liked the first seasons of SG-1 best.
Eureka out of order was definitely a problem - I know Colin Ferguson
wasn't happy about it, because he wrote about that.
BSG is the one show there that I think has done *really* well.
But also don't forget that part of the recent problems with the shows in
the US in general was the writer's strike. That's why some things had
earlier seasons shown this year.
One of the writers for Eureka cited the writer's strike as one reason why
they needed corporate sponsorship; they had to cut the number of episodes
down, but still had to pay the cast & crew the contracted wages. They
had to do something, but at least that writer does know - and understands
why - some fans are going to be VERY upset about it. So at least they're
aware of it, and I'm hoping they can keep it pretty light (and poke fun
at themselves for it) and do it just the one season and then get back to
"business as usual" next season.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
And lo on Fri, 15 Aug 2008 00:29:08 +0100, Jim Henderson
<nos### [at] nospamcom> did spake, saying:
> On Wed, 13 Aug 2008 09:54:03 +0100, Phil Cook wrote:
>
>> And lo on Wed, 13 Aug 2008 05:11:43 +0100, Jim Henderson
>> <nos### [at] nospamcom> did spake, saying:
>>
>> The latest trick on commercial channels here is to run two programmes
>> back to back with only a short trailer-type ad separating them and then
>> chuck in the ad break early. Better yet the first programme overruns
>> slightly so the next one starts 1 minute late whereas the BBC seem to be
>> finishing programmes slightly earlier so the next one starts 1 minute
>> before it's scheduled.
>
> Yeah, I've seen that as well - end up having to adjust the recording
> times to start 1 min early and end 1 min late. Which means if I've got
> three programmes set to record in a 2 hour period (one ending and two
> starting, for example - we've a dual tuner DVR), something's going to get
> clipped.
Should have been solved by now. We had PDC back in the VCR days, the
broadcaster would send a signal at the end/start of a broadcast and the
recorder would be looking for this signal at about the time it should be
starting. Failed miserably as some broadcasters didn't use it and some
misused it (you'd get the 60-second news blip instead of the programme).
With EPG's it should all be a done deal, but for the last few weeks it's
been showing Newsnight when Never Mind the Buzzcocks has been broadcast
unless I reset the EPG and one programme I'm regularly recording starts 15
minutes before its scheduled.
>>> All that money that goes into advertising could be much better spent
>>> making a product that I want to buy, improving the service that goes
>>> with the product, or making a good product better.
>>
>> Pfft everyone knows it's marketing that sells products, not having the
>> best or even just a good product.
>
> Oh, right, I forgot - because they wouldn't do that if it wasn't
> effective. Stupid me - it's too bad I'm not willing to be a sheep....
Life is so much easier when you are :-P
--
Phil Cook
--
I once tried to be apathetic, but I just couldn't be bothered
http://flipc.blogspot.com
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
And lo on Fri, 15 Aug 2008 00:29:52 +0100, Jim Henderson
<nos### [at] nospamcom> did spake, saying:
> On Wed, 13 Aug 2008 09:40:36 -0700, Darren New wrote:
>
>> Jim Henderson wrote:
>>> are good, solid, reliable, and that actually work.
>>
>> I remember seeing a book in the store about ten ways how to make your
>> brand more popular. The methods were things like "don't let someone sell
>> both coke *and* pepsi", and "if they sell coke make them sell sprite
>> also" and "end every ad with a picture of your brand" and such.
>
> Was "make it *better* than the competition" in there anywhere?
I guess that's covered by the "don't let someone sell both coke *and*
pepsi". You don't need to make a better product if you don't present the
consumer with a choice.
As an example my mother often complains she can't pick up a certain brand
of sauce at her main shop supermarket and has to go elsewhere; I'm running
an internal bet as to how long it'll be before she either starts doing the
main shop in this other store or ends up buying a different brand.
--
Phil Cook
--
I once tried to be apathetic, but I just couldn't be bothered
http://flipc.blogspot.com
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Sun, 10 Aug 2008 09:48:40 -0700, Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
>Stephen wrote:
>> Here we still fill up with fuel then pay. Some places do have card facilities at
>> the pumps though. "Pre-pay", it is a terrible world :(
>
>Sadly, one pump-and-run can take the profit of an entire week from the
>gas station.
>
Ah! I forgot it's New York, New York so tough they named it twice. In case
someone stole it. Here we take photographs of the car number plate and threaten
to tell their mothers :)
>> My pet peeve is people who pay for "small change" shopping with a card. But then
>> I'm getting old and cantankerous ;)
>
>I get annoyed at people who pay with a personal check for that sort of
>stuff, myself. Altho I understand that's usually not their own fault.
I probably annoy the rest of the queue by getting rid of all my small change in
shops. Well it annoys my wife.
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Fri, 15 Aug 2008 09:08:45 +0100, Phil Cook wrote:
> And lo on Fri, 15 Aug 2008 00:29:52 +0100, Jim Henderson
> <nos### [at] nospamcom> did spake, saying:
>
>> Was "make it *better* than the competition" in there anywhere?
>
> I guess that's covered by the "don't let someone sell both coke *and*
> pepsi". You don't need to make a better product if you don't present the
> consumer with a choice.
Heh, well, I know for many of the fast food chains, they don't have a
choice, because they're actually owned by Pepsico or Coca-Cola. I used
to work for a company that did outsourced benefits management (for both
companies, oddly enough), and seeing the brands that came in with those
agreements was surprising.
> As an example my mother often complains she can't pick up a certain
> brand of sauce at her main shop supermarket and has to go elsewhere; I'm
> running an internal bet as to how long it'll be before she either starts
> doing the main shop in this other store or ends up buying a different
> brand.
That'd be an interesting thing to look at....
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Fri, 15 Aug 2008 09:01:19 +0100, Phil Cook wrote:
> And lo on Fri, 15 Aug 2008 00:29:08 +0100, Jim Henderson
> <nos### [at] nospamcom> did spake, saying:
>> Yeah, I've seen that as well - end up having to adjust the recording
>> times to start 1 min early and end 1 min late. Which means if I've got
>> three programmes set to record in a 2 hour period (one ending and two
>> starting, for example - we've a dual tuner DVR), something's going to
>> get clipped.
>
> Should have been solved by now. We had PDC back in the VCR days, the
> broadcaster would send a signal at the end/start of a broadcast and the
> recorder would be looking for this signal at about the time it should be
> starting. Failed miserably as some broadcasters didn't use it and some
> misused it (you'd get the 60-second news blip instead of the programme).
> With EPG's it should all be a done deal, but for the last few weeks it's
> been showing Newsnight when Never Mind the Buzzcocks has been broadcast
> unless I reset the EPG and one programme I'm regularly recording starts
> 15 minutes before its scheduled.
I wish they'd do that - and a better job of everyone synchronizing their
clocks, too. Shows that say they start at, say, 9:00 on some channels
start as much as 5 minutes later....My DVR used to have a bug (since
fixed, but it was there for a LONG time) where if you adjusted the start/
end times, it would occasionally lock up between 2 and 4 AM. Actual
documented bug in the software. Took almost 2 years for them to fix it.
>>>> All that money that goes into advertising could be much better spent
>>>> making a product that I want to buy, improving the service that goes
>>>> with the product, or making a good product better.
>>>
>>> Pfft everyone knows it's marketing that sells products, not having the
>>> best or even just a good product.
>>
>> Oh, right, I forgot - because they wouldn't do that if it wasn't
>> effective. Stupid me - it's too bad I'm not willing to be a sheep....
>
> Life is so much easier when you are :-P
So I've heard, but I'm just not willing. ;-)
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Jim Henderson wrote:
> I wish they'd do that - and a better job of everyone synchronizing their
> clocks, too.
Nowadays, with feeds being synched between different providers (as in,
local weather stuck into the 45-second slot allocated in the
country-wide news feed) I find TV stations much more on-the-ball about
being on time. Of course, some shows still run over, and sometimes the
schedule changes, but I've found usually not on the order of minutes. At
least around here.
--
Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Fri, 15 Aug 2008 11:11:47 -0700, Darren New wrote:
> Jim Henderson wrote:
>> I wish they'd do that - and a better job of everyone synchronizing
>> their clocks, too.
>
> Nowadays, with feeds being synched between different providers (as in,
> local weather stuck into the 45-second slot allocated in the
> country-wide news feed) I find TV stations much more on-the-ball about
> being on time. Of course, some shows still run over, and sometimes the
> schedule changes, but I've found usually not on the order of minutes. At
> least around here.
Yeah, out here, Comcast just doesn't seem to do a good job of having the
stuff synchronized to the correct time; the cable-only channels are the
worst, I've found. Part of it is that "one-minute overlap" they've
started doing, but part of it is just bad timekeeping.
The local PBS station is also quite bad in that regard.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New wrote:
> St. wrote:
>> So what's a 'customer benefit' card other than what you've already
>> explained?
>
> Think of it as "automatic coupons". If you present the card, you get X%
> off from various products. Of course, the card is tied to your identity
> or at least a pseudo-identity, so they can tell that people who buy Y
> also buy Z a lot.
>
> I like the coupons on the back of the receipts better, myself.
>
Again, I don't mind them, since I like smart product placement :)
...Chambers
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
And lo on Fri, 15 Aug 2008 19:06:25 +0100, Jim Henderson
<nos### [at] nospamcom> did spake, saying:
> On Fri, 15 Aug 2008 09:01:19 +0100, Phil Cook wrote:
>
>> And lo on Fri, 15 Aug 2008 00:29:08 +0100, Jim Henderson
>> <nos### [at] nospamcom> did spake, saying:
>>> Yeah, I've seen that as well - end up having to adjust the recording
>>> times to start 1 min early and end 1 min late. Which means if I've got
>>> three programmes set to record in a 2 hour period (one ending and two
>>> starting, for example - we've a dual tuner DVR), something's going to
>>> get clipped.
>>
>> Should have been solved by now. We had PDC back in the VCR days, the
>> broadcaster would send a signal at the end/start of a broadcast and the
>> recorder would be looking for this signal at about the time it should be
>> starting. Failed miserably as some broadcasters didn't use it and some
>> misused it (you'd get the 60-second news blip instead of the programme).
>> With EPG's it should all be a done deal, but for the last few weeks it's
>> been showing Newsnight when Never Mind the Buzzcocks has been broadcast
>> unless I reset the EPG and one programme I'm regularly recording starts
>> 15 minutes before its scheduled.
>
> I wish they'd do that - and a better job of everyone synchronizing their
> clocks, too.
The default here is BBC time.
> Shows that say they start at, say, 9:00 on some channels
> start as much as 5 minutes later
Groan just had one programme on the EPG actually scheduled to start 10
minutes early then normal. Just for this one week mind then it goes back
to normal.
> ....My DVR used to have a bug (since
> fixed, but it was there for a LONG time) where if you adjusted the start/
> end times, it would occasionally lock up between 2 and 4 AM. Actual
> documented bug in the software. Took almost 2 years for them to fix it.
Apparently one bug on mine meant that using the PiP facilty didn't free
the time shift memory used by it when switched back to one channel. Oh and
if I use the padding on recording it disables the series link so you
either have to remember to
set it manually each time or set up your own repeating slot and disengage
it from the EPG (which is what happened above)
--
Phil Cook
--
I once tried to be apathetic, but I just couldn't be bothered
http://flipc.blogspot.com
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
And lo on Fri, 15 Aug 2008 19:04:16 +0100, Jim Henderson
<nos### [at] nospamcom> did spake, saying:
> On Fri, 15 Aug 2008 09:08:45 +0100, Phil Cook wrote:
>
>> And lo on Fri, 15 Aug 2008 00:29:52 +0100, Jim Henderson
>> <nos### [at] nospamcom> did spake, saying:
>>
>>> Was "make it *better* than the competition" in there anywhere?
>>
>> I guess that's covered by the "don't let someone sell both coke *and*
>> pepsi". You don't need to make a better product if you don't present the
>> consumer with a choice.
>
> Heh, well, I know for many of the fast food chains, they don't have a
> choice, because they're actually owned by Pepsico or Coca-Cola. I used
> to work for a company that did outsourced benefits management (for both
> companies, oddly enough), and seeing the brands that came in with those
> agreements was surprising.
Kind of the current joys with the privatised water companies here where
you can choose to have your water supplied by Company A, Company A or
Company A. But hey at least the fast-food companies are agreeing to this
;-)
>> As an example my mother often complains she can't pick up a certain
>> brand of sauce at her main shop supermarket and has to go elsewhere; I'm
>> running an internal bet as to how long it'll be before she either starts
>> doing the main shop in this other store or ends up buying a different
>> brand.
>
> That'd be an interesting thing to look at....
Indeed something that should have been carried out by the Competition
Commision in their last study if their brief wasn't so restricted. Oh yes
there's plenty of competition between supermarkets provided you do one
third of your shopping in Sainsbury's, one-third in Tesco, and the
remainding third at Asda. Doesn't everyone shop this way?
--
Phil Cook
--
I once tried to be apathetic, but I just couldn't be bothered
http://flipc.blogspot.com
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Mon, 18 Aug 2008 12:27:45 +0100, Phil Cook wrote:
>> Heh, well, I know for many of the fast food chains, they don't have a
>> choice, because they're actually owned by Pepsico or Coca-Cola. I used
>> to work for a company that did outsourced benefits management (for both
>> companies, oddly enough), and seeing the brands that came in with those
>> agreements was surprising.
>
> Kind of the current joys with the privatised water companies here where
> you can choose to have your water supplied by Company A, Company A or
> Company A. But hey at least the fast-food companies are agreeing to this
> ;-)
Yeah, it's a nice "choice" isn't it?
>> That'd be an interesting thing to look at....
>
> Indeed something that should have been carried out by the Competition
> Commision in their last study if their brief wasn't so restricted. Oh
> yes there's plenty of competition between supermarkets provided you do
> one third of your shopping in Sainsbury's, one-third in Tesco, and the
> remainding third at Asda. Doesn't everyone shop this way?
Well, I know we do most of our grocery shopping at CostCo, with specialty
items from specialty shops, and fresh produce from the local supermarket
(buying produce in bulk doesn't make sense, it just tends to go off).
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Mon, 18 Aug 2008 12:22:50 +0100, Phil Cook wrote:
>> I wish they'd do that - and a better job of everyone synchronizing
>> their clocks, too.
>
> The default here is BBC time.
Would that that happened here....
>> Shows that say they start at, say, 9:00 on some channels start as much
>> as 5 minutes later
>
> Groan just had one programme on the EPG actually scheduled to start 10
> minutes early then normal. Just for this one week mind then it goes back
> to normal.
That's nice....
>> ....My DVR used to have a bug (since
>> fixed, but it was there for a LONG time) where if you adjusted the
>> start/ end times, it would occasionally lock up between 2 and 4 AM.
>> Actual documented bug in the software. Took almost 2 years for them to
>> fix it.
>
> Apparently one bug on mine meant that using the PiP facilty didn't free
> the time shift memory used by it when switched back to one channel. Oh
> and if I use the padding on recording it disables the series link so you
> either have to remember to
> set it manually each time or set up your own repeating slot and
> disengage it from the EPG (which is what happened above)
Ouch...
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
And lo on Mon, 18 Aug 2008 18:14:41 +0100, Jim Henderson
<nos### [at] nospamcom> did spake, saying:
> On Mon, 18 Aug 2008 12:22:50 +0100, Phil Cook wrote:
>
>> set up your own repeating slot and
>> disengage it from the EPG (which is what happened above)
>
> Ouch...
It gets better as the recording takes its name from the EPG and can't be
edited, so disengaging it defaults to giving the recording the name of the
channel. Imagine a few of those in a list.
--
Phil Cook
--
I once tried to be apathetic, but I just couldn't be bothered
http://flipc.blogspot.com
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Tue, 19 Aug 2008 08:54:52 +0100, Phil Cook wrote:
> And lo on Mon, 18 Aug 2008 18:14:41 +0100, Jim Henderson
> <nos### [at] nospamcom> did spake, saying:
>
>> On Mon, 18 Aug 2008 12:22:50 +0100, Phil Cook wrote:
>>
>>> set up your own repeating slot and
>>> disengage it from the EPG (which is what happened above)
>>
>> Ouch...
>
> It gets better as the recording takes its name from the EPG and can't be
> edited, so disengaging it defaults to giving the recording the name of
> the channel. Imagine a few of those in a list.
That would make it difficult to distinguish between them, I imagine...
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
