Hey there everybody, I hope you're all doing well.
I apologize in advance for the relatively short length of this post and, quite possibly, for the entire lack of direction for the post. I would go on to explain WHY I think that the post will be directionless, but I might as well just show you. So, let the party begin--
Many nerds all along the watch tower will have heard, by now, of the acquisition of Zappos (an online shoe and accessory store) by Amazon.com. The giant.
If you click on the title to this blog post it will take you to a letter written by Tony Hsieh, CEO of Zappos, to all of his employees to announce to them the sudden, and somewhat sneaky, sale of their wonderful company to the online giant known as Amazon.
The letter is actually fantastic. It's a true testament to Hsieh's character and heartfelt gratitude to his employees. It's the kind of letter that every employee deserves but only a lucky few ever get the opportunity to see. Really good stuff.
But it gets better!
Near the end of the letter, Tony goes into a Q&A session and, near the middle we see this question,
"Q: Can you tell me a bit more about Jeff Bezos (Amazon CEO)? What is he like?"
to which he responds with a short answer, saying "We’d like to show an 8-minute video of Jeff Bezos that will give you some insight into his personality and way of thinking. He shares some of what he’s learned as an entrepreneur, as well as some of the mistakes he’s made."
And the video that follows is really what I wanted to talk about, today. Don't get me wrong--The letter is awesome and I'd love to sit around all day and praise it. But the video is fantastic. I recommend anyone who's interested should click on this blog post's title to go to the site and then watch the video (It's about half way down the page...you'll see it).
The video features Jeff Bezos, the CEO of Amazon.com.
Now, I don't know about anyone else, but I've never been a huge fan of Amazon. I figured that it was the site where my mother goes to find books for book club and, as such, I have no place even looking at the site. But, literally, after watching an 8 minute video of the founder, my entire perception of the website and of Bezos, himself, is completely transformed.
In the video, Bezos comes across as fun, energetic, and down-to-earth. Not some krazy high-powered executive who sits at a huge high-back chair with a big furry cat and slowly mumbles to himself about how the next Oprah Book Club book is the "big cog" that will put his master plan into action and he'll finally rule the world of suburban-mom book clubs.
Not at all. Instead he gave 8 minutes of enjoyable one-way banter, using common language and basically shared the "things he knows" about business. It was his very clever way to spending 8 minutes sharing his business philosophy....I can't even imagine how inspiring it would've been to me, had I been an employee.
What's remarkable, though, is that it was still absurdly influential to me. I have an entirely new view of him, his company, and I feel like he let me in on the ACTUAL answer to Life, the Universe, and Everything. (that was a semi-geeky reference for those of you who think I'm particularly strange for writing it in that way.)
So what was the purpose of him releasing this video? This 8 minute grail of genius?
Long story short? Brilliant marketing.
It was a brilliant opportunity for a super-successful CEO to poke his head out into the public and allow everyone to perceive him as some friendly, approachable, everyday joe. He's no longer a CEO of an evil corporation. He's a cool, business savvy, friend who gave everybody some advice the other day.
It was so influential that I immediately left the article to go onto Amazon.com and check if he'd released any books. I then took the time to find the phone number of the local public libraries and ask them to scour their catalogs to see if they were holding any of the books he'd written or books that were written about him.
Couldn't Tony Hsieh just answered "Well he's a really great dude. I really respect him. He's got business philosophy that matches my own. And we occasionally party hard together."
Gosh...see? I have no direction for this at all...I just wanted to share how absolutely brilliant that video is.
Builds brand loyalty. Hopefully stops millions of Zappos customers from hating Amazon. Keeps Zappos employees comfortable. And adds a very human face to an otherwise very corporate and intimidating company.
Really super stuff. I'm very impressed.
And now, as I sign off, I'll apologize one last time for spending 20 minutes of all of your lives on something that wasn't nearly as inspiring as that Jeff Bezos's video.
Hope everybody is doing well, out there! Take care, ya'll!!
(P.S. THIS would make a good collar-pickin' Christmas present. *wink wink*)
Thursday, July 23, 2009
Tuesday, July 21, 2009
Ziploc "D"evolve
Feel free to click on the title to this blogpost to catch a quick glimpse of the general theme I'm going to be following--
Go ahead...I'll wait....
Ok, so, you may notice that it has nothing to DO with the title "Ziploc 'D'evolve", and you may be wondering why that is. That answer, my faithful followers, is that Ziploc is being dumb and I feel the need to tell you all about it.
You see, yesterday, while I was receiving my daily regimen of Antiques Roadshow, Larry King Live, AC360....., up through NightLine, I saw a commercial repeating over and over and over again that I just couldn't shake. It was for the new Ziploc Evolve bags. And ultralight bag that still keeps things ultra fresh. But what makes the bag really special is that it uses 25% less plastic and was produced with wind energy. That's what the commercial is all about...The graphic design on the commercial is pretty cool, admittedly...But it's also somewhat cliche, by now. Anyways, what Ziploc is trying desperately to do is capture on the whole "Green" movement, but they are making the most rookie mistake that they could make--They're sucking.
Consumers want stuff. Lots of stuff. And we'll pay more for something if it has extra gizmos. It's fairly easy to convince a consumer that something is worth an extra dollar or so. So sure, Ziploc is counting on people wanting to save the environment (a futile cause when you're considering that they're purchasing double-ply sheets of premium never-degrade-polystyrene). But here is the problem--The bags are more expensive and they suck. Nobody wants to pay extra for a "light bag" that holds less stuff!
--It should be noted that there is also an asterisk next to the "wind energy" thing that tells us that it's made with a mixture of wind energy and traditional energy sources. First: duh. Second: get out of my face you useless marketing hag.--
Has it not been proven that going green doesn't have to be a sacrifice?! Has it not been proven that going green will go NOWHERE if it IS a sacrifice!?
One example might be the Green Roofs that people have taken to installing, worldwide. These green roofs (pictured here atop the Chicago city hall) are absurdly expensive. They put excessive strain on the building...Overall they are just crazy. BUT, when you look at these extra expenses, you begin to see that it is not a sacrifice at all. Green roofs can have lifespans of over 200% of normal roofs(that could be 50 years without intensive maintenance!). Green roofs have been known to save from 20-80% on heating and cooling bills because of their insulatory factor. Green roofs are obviously great for the environment (in so many ways that I wont bother to mention here). And there is literally almost no maintenance (watering and green-thumb-hubbub is all taken care of via rain and the water management systems in place!) And here's the best part: That extra couple thousand dollars that one spends on a green roof is recouped in the span of only a very few years. This is a perfect example of something that is an absurdly larger step towards helping the environment than buying Ultra-crap Ziploc bags. And while there is still an increased cost, the cost is for functionality and luxury, as opposed to a cost relegated to "well...it helps the environment..."
Now, I wont say that Ziploc is the first to make this mistake, obviously. In fact, if it were the first, I probably would be more forgiving or, more likely, wouldn't have noticed at all. But, really....who do they think they are?
I'm sure there are a million other examples of green products that are entirely worth the extra cost--Why not share them?
I have this big ol' comments section and nobody leaves me anything. I'm not sure if I'm just not interesting, or nobody is interested. Either way, maybe now I'll at least get a couple...who knows.
Alright, that's it for me, today. Have a good day, everybody!!!
Go ahead...I'll wait....
Ok, so, you may notice that it has nothing to DO with the title "Ziploc 'D'evolve", and you may be wondering why that is. That answer, my faithful followers, is that Ziploc is being dumb and I feel the need to tell you all about it.
You see, yesterday, while I was receiving my daily regimen of Antiques Roadshow, Larry King Live, AC360....., up through NightLine, I saw a commercial repeating over and over and over again that I just couldn't shake. It was for the new Ziploc Evolve bags. And ultralight bag that still keeps things ultra fresh. But what makes the bag really special is that it uses 25% less plastic and was produced with wind energy. That's what the commercial is all about...The graphic design on the commercial is pretty cool, admittedly...But it's also somewhat cliche, by now. Anyways, what Ziploc is trying desperately to do is capture on the whole "Green" movement, but they are making the most rookie mistake that they could make--They're sucking.
Consumers want stuff. Lots of stuff. And we'll pay more for something if it has extra gizmos. It's fairly easy to convince a consumer that something is worth an extra dollar or so. So sure, Ziploc is counting on people wanting to save the environment (a futile cause when you're considering that they're purchasing double-ply sheets of premium never-degrade-polystyrene). But here is the problem--The bags are more expensive and they suck. Nobody wants to pay extra for a "light bag" that holds less stuff!
--It should be noted that there is also an asterisk next to the "wind energy" thing that tells us that it's made with a mixture of wind energy and traditional energy sources. First: duh. Second: get out of my face you useless marketing hag.--
Has it not been proven that going green doesn't have to be a sacrifice?! Has it not been proven that going green will go NOWHERE if it IS a sacrifice!?
One example might be the Green Roofs that people have taken to installing, worldwide. These green roofs (pictured here atop the Chicago city hall) are absurdly expensive. They put excessive strain on the building...Overall they are just crazy. BUT, when you look at these extra expenses, you begin to see that it is not a sacrifice at all. Green roofs can have lifespans of over 200% of normal roofs(that could be 50 years without intensive maintenance!). Green roofs have been known to save from 20-80% on heating and cooling bills because of their insulatory factor. Green roofs are obviously great for the environment (in so many ways that I wont bother to mention here). And there is literally almost no maintenance (watering and green-thumb-hubbub is all taken care of via rain and the water management systems in place!) And here's the best part: That extra couple thousand dollars that one spends on a green roof is recouped in the span of only a very few years. This is a perfect example of something that is an absurdly larger step towards helping the environment than buying Ultra-crap Ziploc bags. And while there is still an increased cost, the cost is for functionality and luxury, as opposed to a cost relegated to "well...it helps the environment..."
Now, I wont say that Ziploc is the first to make this mistake, obviously. In fact, if it were the first, I probably would be more forgiving or, more likely, wouldn't have noticed at all. But, really....who do they think they are?
I'm sure there are a million other examples of green products that are entirely worth the extra cost--Why not share them?
I have this big ol' comments section and nobody leaves me anything. I'm not sure if I'm just not interesting, or nobody is interested. Either way, maybe now I'll at least get a couple...who knows.
Alright, that's it for me, today. Have a good day, everybody!!!
Monday, July 13, 2009
How I twitter
(This is not the post that I told everyone that I was going to be posting...that will be here shortly)
So, I recently read an article by Guy Kawasaki about how he uses twitter and the reasons for his actions (Read it Here!) It is pretty interesting.
Since then I've seen one or two similar posts by people doing the same Q&A type post about how they use twitter and I decided that I needed one, as well...Not quite as prestigious, though, because I dont have a multi-thousand, celebrity-type, following. Here goes!!
Q. You only follow 41 people? How unpopular are you??
A. Relatively unpopular. But that's not the reason that I only follow 41 people and only have 53 followers. You see, despite my being a student of social media and being a particularly tech-savvy dude, I simply dont know many people, personally, who use twitter. But that's not that important. I could, very easily, follow every twitterer I can get my hands on and hit the auto-follow button and, thereby, follow every bot and porn-spammer who decides to follow me. Instead I follow only certain friends and, primarily, the people who are virtual celebrities in the field that I find most interesting. Social media and entrepreneurship. By following only 41 people, I literally see every single post that comes by me. And I read every single article/blog post that people tweet. And, on a decent majority of them, I leave thoughtful responses and often retweet the posts that I feel are most relevant to the people who I know are following me. Let me say it one more time--I read every article that comes through my tweet stream. That means that, of this elite group of super-people in their respective fields, I read every single thing that they think is remotely important or interesting.
Q. Do you ever repeat tweets?
A. Occasionally. I try not to make a habit of it because, quite honestly, the people who are important might never see them, and the few people who follow me that AREN'T that important...well...They dont really need to see me post the same tweet over and over again. Generally, I'll only repeat tweets when they contain a link to an article that I posted a comment on or something. That's my way of saying, First: "hey look at this article" then Second: "Look at my post on this article! Timothy Ferriss responded to me!!"
Q. What twitter applications do you use?
A. Well, my needs are very simple. I use TweetDeck, primarily. I sync it between my office and my computer at home. My cell phone is relatively basic, so I occasionally tweet via SMS, but i dont receive updates from twitter on my phone. That would probably bug the hell out of me as well as run my bill up before I could even think of changing to an unlimited-SMS option.
Q. How long do you spend on Twitter each day?
A. I hate this question because, while I enjoy tweeting, I dont want people to think that I'm so hopelessly addicted to twitter that I cant step away...I spend 8 hours a day with the TweetDeck open on my computer at the office. I then go home and put up the tweetdeck, there. And I'm constantly monitoring that for the rest of the evening. Probably totaling around 15-16 hours per day.
Q. 16 hours a day on Twitter? Do you take breaks?
A. Well, I try to take weekends off, at least. It works out because I tend to be furthest from computers on weekends. But then, of course, I have an entire weekends worth of blogs and articles to read and comment on, Monday morning.
Q. How much self-promotion do you do?
A. None. This will probably be the first blog post that I'll ever have posted an external link to. Absurd, right? Truly, because I keep such a tight group of follow/ers , I dont consider the things I read of much importance. I spend most of my time retweeting the articles and posts of my celebrity-cast and then I post some general tweets to my small group of friends on twitter. I'm not clever enough to find my own sources to share with people. I wait for the pro's to do it.
Q. What about real self-promotion?
A. Yeah...I do that. I look at my twitter account as the best self-marketing tool that I have at my disposal. My twitter stream is populated by the small group of people who I truly feel are the most important and influential in my area of interest. And how do I connect to them? I read their blogs. I post on their blogs. I read the articles the post. I respond to them or retweet them. How would I have ever gotten to talk to Kevin Rose or Andy Beal if I hadn't found them on twitter? (Kevin Rose might've been the first person I ever followed on twitter!) So I hope that, someday, when I'm a world-shaking business-world-titan, I can call on these people and they'll lend me a hand as though I were an "old friend" or something. Eh, here's hoping, right?
Q. So Twitter isn't as lame as people were thinking it might be?
A. Absolutely not. To me, twitter is one of the most influential and powerful tools that I've ever had at my disposal.
Q. Not so fast--We read your blog post where you blasted Twitter for 10 pages!
A. Now now, dont be silly. I said that it wasn't the greatest step in social technology that the world has ever seen. I stand by everything I said in that post. Twitter is important to me for different reasons than were cited in that absurd article that I was ragging on. Besides...It was a TIME magazine article! How could I NOT tear apart it's terrible inadequacies while I had the chance?!
That's it for me. Hope everyone is doing well!
(keep an eye out for that post that I keep meaning to write!
Hint: The working title is "Generation: Y bother? Democrazy and Apathy")
So, I recently read an article by Guy Kawasaki about how he uses twitter and the reasons for his actions (Read it Here!) It is pretty interesting.
Since then I've seen one or two similar posts by people doing the same Q&A type post about how they use twitter and I decided that I needed one, as well...Not quite as prestigious, though, because I dont have a multi-thousand, celebrity-type, following. Here goes!!
Q. You only follow 41 people? How unpopular are you??
A. Relatively unpopular. But that's not the reason that I only follow 41 people and only have 53 followers. You see, despite my being a student of social media and being a particularly tech-savvy dude, I simply dont know many people, personally, who use twitter. But that's not that important. I could, very easily, follow every twitterer I can get my hands on and hit the auto-follow button and, thereby, follow every bot and porn-spammer who decides to follow me. Instead I follow only certain friends and, primarily, the people who are virtual celebrities in the field that I find most interesting. Social media and entrepreneurship. By following only 41 people, I literally see every single post that comes by me. And I read every single article/blog post that people tweet. And, on a decent majority of them, I leave thoughtful responses and often retweet the posts that I feel are most relevant to the people who I know are following me. Let me say it one more time--I read every article that comes through my tweet stream. That means that, of this elite group of super-people in their respective fields, I read every single thing that they think is remotely important or interesting.
Q. Do you ever repeat tweets?
A. Occasionally. I try not to make a habit of it because, quite honestly, the people who are important might never see them, and the few people who follow me that AREN'T that important...well...They dont really need to see me post the same tweet over and over again. Generally, I'll only repeat tweets when they contain a link to an article that I posted a comment on or something. That's my way of saying, First: "hey look at this article" then Second: "Look at my post on this article! Timothy Ferriss responded to me!!"
Q. What twitter applications do you use?
A. Well, my needs are very simple. I use TweetDeck, primarily. I sync it between my office and my computer at home. My cell phone is relatively basic, so I occasionally tweet via SMS, but i dont receive updates from twitter on my phone. That would probably bug the hell out of me as well as run my bill up before I could even think of changing to an unlimited-SMS option.
Q. How long do you spend on Twitter each day?
A. I hate this question because, while I enjoy tweeting, I dont want people to think that I'm so hopelessly addicted to twitter that I cant step away...I spend 8 hours a day with the TweetDeck open on my computer at the office. I then go home and put up the tweetdeck, there. And I'm constantly monitoring that for the rest of the evening. Probably totaling around 15-16 hours per day.
Q. 16 hours a day on Twitter? Do you take breaks?
A. Well, I try to take weekends off, at least. It works out because I tend to be furthest from computers on weekends. But then, of course, I have an entire weekends worth of blogs and articles to read and comment on, Monday morning.
Q. How much self-promotion do you do?
A. None. This will probably be the first blog post that I'll ever have posted an external link to. Absurd, right? Truly, because I keep such a tight group of follow/ers , I dont consider the things I read of much importance. I spend most of my time retweeting the articles and posts of my celebrity-cast and then I post some general tweets to my small group of friends on twitter. I'm not clever enough to find my own sources to share with people. I wait for the pro's to do it.
Q. What about real self-promotion?
A. Yeah...I do that. I look at my twitter account as the best self-marketing tool that I have at my disposal. My twitter stream is populated by the small group of people who I truly feel are the most important and influential in my area of interest. And how do I connect to them? I read their blogs. I post on their blogs. I read the articles the post. I respond to them or retweet them. How would I have ever gotten to talk to Kevin Rose or Andy Beal if I hadn't found them on twitter? (Kevin Rose might've been the first person I ever followed on twitter!) So I hope that, someday, when I'm a world-shaking business-world-titan, I can call on these people and they'll lend me a hand as though I were an "old friend" or something. Eh, here's hoping, right?
Q. So Twitter isn't as lame as people were thinking it might be?
A. Absolutely not. To me, twitter is one of the most influential and powerful tools that I've ever had at my disposal.
Q. Not so fast--We read your blog post where you blasted Twitter for 10 pages!
A. Now now, dont be silly. I said that it wasn't the greatest step in social technology that the world has ever seen. I stand by everything I said in that post. Twitter is important to me for different reasons than were cited in that absurd article that I was ragging on. Besides...It was a TIME magazine article! How could I NOT tear apart it's terrible inadequacies while I had the chance?!
That's it for me. Hope everyone is doing well!
(keep an eye out for that post that I keep meaning to write!
Hint: The working title is "Generation: Y bother? Democrazy and Apathy")
Thursday, July 2, 2009
Self Regulation=No Socialism=Hurray!
Hello everybody!
I know I've been absent for about a week. Suffice to say--things were a tad busy.
Sorry.
But now I would like to bore you all, again, with more industry jargon!
So, if you click the title to this post, it will direct you to an article about how the advertising industry is talking about self-regulating itself so that the government stops looking at it with one of those looks on it's face which basically means "...Do you really want a spanking? You're gonna make me hit you? Seriously?"
So the article is pretty short and fairly interesting and at the end of the article the Author, Frank Reed, asks readers to comment about basically what they think about self-regulation. What policies they think might/should be implemented. Things of that nature. I wrote a lengthy response which is viewable at the bottom of the page, but I'm going to try to re-write it a little cleaner here. It will probably bore everyone...And I'm going to love it!
"The self-regulation of industry has proven to not only be extremely effective but also to act, in many ways, in the better interest of affected parties.
If the advertising industry is trying to resist government intervention, then perhaps they will create their own innovative solutions to problems rather than having a government organization create a ruling which could potentially damage the industry. This method allows advertisers the ability to create regulations and policies that are both effective and, possibly, healthier for business.
Also, from the standpoint of the industry, this action of self-regulation gives them far greater power in the making of the regulations–They will have the greatest amount of say in the creation of the actual policies. Not to mention that, had they been regulated by the government, the policy would seem like something of a reprimand. But if they make they’re own policies, then it’s more like they’re making concessions out of the “goodness of their hearts” and, in truth, are likely to be able to get away with dealing with some issues less harshly than they would be, had the policy been created by a government agency.
Another important point in the argument for self-regulation is that, so far as anyone cares, self-regulated laws are, by and large, followed with far greater discipline. If the government makes a bunch of policies that act as a detriment to the industry, then everyone is going to wheedle their way around them and find sneaky ways to circumvent them. But, as is fairly common knowledge, if they make the rules, they are far more likely to follow them. Especially if their more likely to be judged by “brothers” in the industry, if they act too maliciously against the policies.
[A point that I had been trying to make clear here is that people wont circumvent their own regulations. It's just silly. But if the government makes the regulations into actual 'laws', then they will be non-self imposed and people are going to be more willing to avoid them. For example, I have no problem J-walking. I would have no problem if my kids learn to J-walk. No problem. But if I'm trying to teach my kids to be safer and instill a precedent in them that will keep them safe for the rest of their lives? Then I will never J-walk again! Because it's ME who's making a regulation. Not some omnipotent big brother with a strange proclivity for orderly pedestrian traffic across public roads. Get it?]
The final point is this–Who cares if they self regulate? Especially in this example! If they fail to regulate appropriately, then the government WILL step in and the industry will get a swift kick to the hind-quarters. So why not save the time, money, and frustration and just let them do it themselves. If they fail to dissuade the government’s watchful eye, then they’ll get what’s coming anyways.
For the above reasons, though, no one in the industry should want governmental interference and, therefore, we should expect the policies that they create to be strong, good for business, good for the consumer, and, most importantly, strictly self-enforced.
It’s worked in other media industries.[Like the enforcement of non-obscene and graphic material in certain modes of media.] Why not this one?"
See now? That wasn't too bad at all, eh?
I just have to hope it makes sense.
I think I'm going to pack this one up early. I'll be posting sometime tomorrow with a more mundane look at my life over the past week or so.
Have a good day everybody!
I know I've been absent for about a week. Suffice to say--things were a tad busy.
Sorry.
But now I would like to bore you all, again, with more industry jargon!
So, if you click the title to this post, it will direct you to an article about how the advertising industry is talking about self-regulating itself so that the government stops looking at it with one of those looks on it's face which basically means "...Do you really want a spanking? You're gonna make me hit you? Seriously?"
So the article is pretty short and fairly interesting and at the end of the article the Author, Frank Reed, asks readers to comment about basically what they think about self-regulation. What policies they think might/should be implemented. Things of that nature. I wrote a lengthy response which is viewable at the bottom of the page, but I'm going to try to re-write it a little cleaner here. It will probably bore everyone...And I'm going to love it!
"The self-regulation of industry has proven to not only be extremely effective but also to act, in many ways, in the better interest of affected parties.
If the advertising industry is trying to resist government intervention, then perhaps they will create their own innovative solutions to problems rather than having a government organization create a ruling which could potentially damage the industry. This method allows advertisers the ability to create regulations and policies that are both effective and, possibly, healthier for business.
Also, from the standpoint of the industry, this action of self-regulation gives them far greater power in the making of the regulations–They will have the greatest amount of say in the creation of the actual policies. Not to mention that, had they been regulated by the government, the policy would seem like something of a reprimand. But if they make they’re own policies, then it’s more like they’re making concessions out of the “goodness of their hearts” and, in truth, are likely to be able to get away with dealing with some issues less harshly than they would be, had the policy been created by a government agency.
Another important point in the argument for self-regulation is that, so far as anyone cares, self-regulated laws are, by and large, followed with far greater discipline. If the government makes a bunch of policies that act as a detriment to the industry, then everyone is going to wheedle their way around them and find sneaky ways to circumvent them. But, as is fairly common knowledge, if they make the rules, they are far more likely to follow them. Especially if their more likely to be judged by “brothers” in the industry, if they act too maliciously against the policies.
[A point that I had been trying to make clear here is that people wont circumvent their own regulations. It's just silly. But if the government makes the regulations into actual 'laws', then they will be non-self imposed and people are going to be more willing to avoid them. For example, I have no problem J-walking. I would have no problem if my kids learn to J-walk. No problem. But if I'm trying to teach my kids to be safer and instill a precedent in them that will keep them safe for the rest of their lives? Then I will never J-walk again! Because it's ME who's making a regulation. Not some omnipotent big brother with a strange proclivity for orderly pedestrian traffic across public roads. Get it?]
The final point is this–Who cares if they self regulate? Especially in this example! If they fail to regulate appropriately, then the government WILL step in and the industry will get a swift kick to the hind-quarters. So why not save the time, money, and frustration and just let them do it themselves. If they fail to dissuade the government’s watchful eye, then they’ll get what’s coming anyways.
For the above reasons, though, no one in the industry should want governmental interference and, therefore, we should expect the policies that they create to be strong, good for business, good for the consumer, and, most importantly, strictly self-enforced.
It’s worked in other media industries.[Like the enforcement of non-obscene and graphic material in certain modes of media.] Why not this one?"
See now? That wasn't too bad at all, eh?
I just have to hope it makes sense.
I think I'm going to pack this one up early. I'll be posting sometime tomorrow with a more mundane look at my life over the past week or so.
Have a good day everybody!
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
