And television execs aren’t too happy about this. The issue seems to have come to a boiling point with Dish Network announcing a new DVR that lets viewers skip commercials altogether. Folks like Fox and NBC are refusing to air the commercials for the device (the irony is palpable).

But I’m here to say you should keep fast forwarding through ads as much as you want. Avoid ads as much as you can.

Those of us that watch TV on Hulu have become painfully aware of how much ad time eats into a show these days anyway. An hour long show is really more like 42 minutes. The average prime time show has about 14 minutes of ads and 10 minutes of product placement.  According to Wikipedia, back in the 1960s a typical hour long program was 51 minutes. It’s no wonder we’re sick of ads.

You just go right on ahead and skips over any ads you don’t want to see. If I were a marketing manager, I’d only want to reach interested customers anyway. So it’s the television execs that are really in a bind. They’ve got a way out but it requires more work than they’d like to put in.

The new era of advertising is much more targeted. Most of the ads you see on my site come from Google which has been analyzing your activity online to try and target relevant ads to you. When I go on my site I see ads for new running shoes. My dog would see Busy Bones and tennis balls.

Television studios have already embraced other forms of advertising like product placement. But the savvy ones are going much deeper.  On American Idol two companies have found ways to imbed advertising within the stars of the show themselves.  Every week Ford shoots a commercial that features their vehicles and the stars enjoying them while singing some kind of Kidz Bop version of a pop song.  The show airs the commercial as if it’s a regular segment and viewers watch it because they want to see their favorite contestant.  Likewise, the resident talent expert Jimmy Iovine pimps Beats By Dre (which he co-owns) everywhere in the show. It’s on his hats, the contestants use Beats mics to practice, and various Beats products are dropped into segments. They also air a Beats commercial with a former American Idol star.

These companies and the show know how to do ads in the 21st century. Some do not. GM just announced they will stop advertising through Facebook because it doesn’t work. Ford said they’re sticking with it and GM just isn’t doing it right. Sounds like GM and the traditional networks would get along.

So please keep skipping over ads. Block mine if you want too. If I can’t effectively reach an appropriate audience I deserve not to make money. Those big guys who can’t adapt will likely go down kicking and screaming trying to defend a 20th century business model. Let em die.

Further reading: What if TV networks embraced ad skipping?

Related posts:

1. Sorry, But When Did Super Bowl Commericals Get This Big?
2. Reader Question: FAUX News & Advertising
3. The Story Behind Prescription Drug Advertisements

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.

One in Five
Let’s start with the claim that 1 in 5 relationships now start in an online dating site. There are a couple of problems with such a claim. First of all, what constitutes an online dating site? Is Facebook and online dating site? Is something like Ashley Madison, a site for those just looking for affairs, a dating site? And no I will not be linking to Ashley Madison. Worse though, is how that information was obtained in the first place. Was it a research project from a university? Did the government commission a survey for some reason? This we do have the answer to.

The research was commissioned by Match.com themselves. You can read the very vague report here. Research paid for by a company that makes that company look good should always be taken with a grain of salt. First of all, the survey only included people that make more than $30k a year, and the population sample was about 2500 people. With no indication of statistical significance we can’t be certain these results are valid. Nor can we be assured they are representative of the population. When the government wants to survey the entire population, they go for 60,000+ people. That being said, this is where the claim comes from. Sadly, there have been no other surveys of “new” relationships so we can’t confirm or deny the stat. We can only look at surveys of all relationships which will give a lower number because it would include people like your parents who didn’t meet online.

Consider this claim a bit biased and not considered to be an approved number by statisticians.

More is Better
“More dates, more relationships, and more marriages than any other site”. That’s quite a claim. This number also seems to come from the survey they commissioned so I want talk about validity. Instead, let’s focus on what they are really saying. It’s all about more, more, more. Of all the dating sites out there, one has to have the most dates and marriages. Which one do you think would have it? The biggest one perhaps? That’s Match. Let’s look at the problem behind “more”.

I’ve got a store where 1 million people come in every day and 10,000 buy something.
You’ve got a store where 1000 people come in and 100 buy something.
I’ve got more customers, so I’m better? While only 1% of my customers buy something, 10% of your customers do. So while I’ve got MORE, you’ve got a better success rate.

Match makes no claim about having a better hit rate. They’ve got the most users so they are going to have more of everything. But your chances of getting a date aren’t better.

But let’s play with “more” some more. If you’re going to claim you have more of these things, let’s look at what we can be reasonably sure you also have more of:

• More STDs: With the most users, Match.com has probably lead to more hookups which leads to more STDs.
• More unwanted children: More hookups also means more slip-ups.
• More breakups: More relationships also means more heartbreak.
• More divorces: Taking the logic further.
• More cheating: Again
• More domestic violence: You think everyone on Match is stable?

Image: www.courtneycarmody.com

Related posts:

1. Take The Weakonomics Survey!!!
2. How Groupon Makes Money
3. 15 Years Late, Receipts You’ll Keep

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.

I would blame the camera, but I don’t think that’s really full situation. Lots of different professional equipment has found its way into the hands of consumers. Just about anyone can start up a record company in their basement but few actually do. That’s because you still have to have some talent to make an album people will listen to.

Ahhh, people have to choose to listen to it. Now we’re getting somewhere.

I see the problem as three-fold. Camera technology has improved dramatically in the last decade. Combine that with software that more or less idiot-proofs your pictures and you have a motive.

Motive begets action. But how do you share your previously undiscovered “talents”? The only way to really force people to look at your pictures is through Facebook. Now we have a medium. All we need now are 10 of your friends who will like anything you take a picture of anyway.

Done!

Now we have a bunch a people out there starting “side businesses” where they take someone decent pictures for people who haven’t bought a camera for themselves yet.

In the business world we see this as a maturing industry running into a growing one. There is a growing demand for professional photos. Even this author is guilty of doing a photo shoot to celebrate his engagement. That’s the growing industry which usually sees lots of new entrants come in and compete with established pros. The maturing industry is the camera itself. Price is now more important than quality and only those with the most disposable income require all the features on a camera they don’t know how to use.

This can’t be stopped. It will take time for most “photographers” to figure out they’re actually not that good, but they will always think they were.

All I ask is that you please stop posting everything the Facebook. The first picture of your kid was enough.

Image: garryknight

Related posts:

1. Weakend: Why My Life Isn’t On Facebook
2. What The Dog Sees
3. Dear Hiring Manager:

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.

What makes them so incredible is the price. Before, if you wanted to video yourself surfing you either had to buy or rent a camera that would cost ten grand. So now with such cheap cameras we get to see all kinds of cool stuff. Gizmodo has a collection of what they call the best GoPro videos to date. I don’t think they necessarily are the best, but you can search YouTube for lots of good ones. Two goods ones they did have are below, and they show a dog’s view of their world. The first includes swimming. The second includes a boxer so I couldn’t help myself.

Related posts:

1. Weakend: I was gonna write about a jewel heist
2. Weakend: Birds Like You’ve Never Seen Them
3. Weakend: Science Links

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.

Natural gas is considered a “bridge fuel” to get us to green. It’s considerably cleaner than coal or oil, and can replace both in many aspects of life. Most of the planned power plants to be built in the next few years are natural gas. And vehicles can run on gas as well. Honda makes a natural gas Civic and some companies are slowly switching to gas powered trucks.

The benefits are three-fold. Natural gas burns much cleaner than oil, it’s made here in America, and it’s super freaking cheap. That last one might actually be becoming a problem actually.

The price of natural gas continues to fall, because supply is extremely outpacing demand. If this is such a wondrous fuel, why aren’t people buying it? This is one of those times where traditional economics doesn’t seem to apply. Supply and demand are completely out of synch; so much so that all the gas being extracted from the ground may soon not even have a place to be stored.

So what’s the problem? The users of gas tomorrow, aren’t ready to use it today. Most of the new power plants aren’t up and running yet. No one buys the Civic GX because there’s no place to fill it up. Some cities have embraced natural gas for buses and dump trucks because they don’t have to drive far to fill up. But it’s more difficult for truckers going cross country. How often do you see a station that offers natural gas? For most people, the answer is never.

The most interesting thing about this problem is the extractors continue to pump gas out of the ground. This despite not having a buyer. Part of the reason is the way the contracts are written for these people to extract the gas. They buy leases that give them the rights to extract gas for a certain number of years. But if they don’t start extracting, then the contract will expire. If they start drilling then the contract keeps going. Everyone in the business bought up these contracts at cheap prices years ago.

So we have too much gas. Too much of a fuel that’s supposed to be a win for everyone (except for some potential issues with extraction). A very interesting economic enigma. In the long term this is a problem that will solve itself. A lot of demand is about to come online. But that is long term. We don’t know when the short term will end.

Read: US Has A Natural Gas Problem: Too Much Of It

Image: Montgomery Cty Division of Solid Waste Services

Related posts:

1. Not Everyone Makes Money In Big Oil
2. Put Your Money Where Your Mouth Is?
3. Yet Another Blogger Talking About Gas Prices, Me!

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.

For some he’s known as the loony old guy behind the “Pickens Plan” commercials that ran a few years ago. The Pickens Plan is a proposal to get Americans off of imported oil and onto green sources of energy as well as using the existing resources available in the US. Namely: natural gas.

That’s all well and good. In principle it’s something most of us could get behind if you exclude the current issues behind natural gas.

Pickens is truly a believer of man-made global warming. He’s also concerned with sending money from the United States to OPEC countries. So his plan is designed to get us off that oil and onto green tech and natural gas.

It’s no surprise then that on CNBC this week Pickens said he would expect to see oil back near $150 a barrel in the summer. Not something most of us want to hear. But given his support for green energy and natural gas he has staked his reputation on this plan and so has an incentive to scare us about oil. Whether he is right or not is almost irrelevant.

Many would say he should put his money where his mouth is. If he wants to make this happen and thinks it will then he should put some money on the table. He has. He’s invested in companies that pull gas out of the ground and even in firms that make natural gas engines for big vehicles like buses and dump trucks. He’s lobbying Congress like crazy for regulations that encourage more use of natural gas. This can happen in the form of tax credits or even regulation of electricity generation. He stands to make a boatload of cash if the US moves to natural gas.

And that’s a catch 22.

Skeptics would tell anyone with a cause to put their money where the mouths are. Think about the Super Bowl. If I think the Giants are going to beat the Patriots someone who thinks otherwise would tell me to make a bet. And I could. But then I not only think something will happen, I have an incentive to make it happen. Perhaps a $100 bet doesn’t make it worth the effort, but a $1 billion might make it worth my time to break Tom Brady’s legs.

Thinking about incentives gives you a cynical view of the world. And it’s something I wrestle with all the time. So is Boone Pickens just a cheerleader for a cause that will make him rich or does he really believe in this and so put his money down as proof?  Can someone put money down on a bet and still seem sincere about the outcome?

Photo: Center for American Progress Action Fund

Related posts:

1. Not Everyone Makes Money In Big Oil
2. How Gas Stations Make Money
3. Weakonomics Weekend Edition: Holy Terrible Week Batman

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.

Daily deals site Groupon has enjoyed a meteoric rise in popularity as one of the most recognizable new media brands and, until recently, was highly praised by consumers and media pundits alike as the single fastest growing company in history.  The tide of public opinion seems to have shifted, however, as the company has come under fire since going public with claims of the company being everything from just another overhyped tech startup to an outright pyramid scheme.

Some of the criticism subsided after Groupon’s IPO, which valued the company at an eye-popping $12 billion dollars, but the substance of the criticism surrounding the company remains:  Groupon, at its core, is a fundamentally flawed business model and just another train wreck in slow motion that merchants and investors should steer clear of.

Groupon’s flaws, in order of importance, start with a strikingly poor, totally unsustainable value proposition for its merchants.  The company has also developed a reputation for a “churn and burn” sales culture that is particularly concerning for longer term investors.  Groupon also suffers from an almost complete lack of innovation, a frighteningly narrow scope of offer applicability for merchants and consumers, low switching costs for consumers and enormous operational challenges, including soaring customer acquisition costs and rapidly declining margins.

Poor Value Proposition for Merchants
While great for consumers looking for “one-off” sales discounts, Groupon’s model is not profitable for most of its merchant partners, and is an awful (some would argue predatory) value proposition for low-margin businesses in particular.  A typical “daily deal” arrangement with Groupon would require a merchant coupon of 50%, providing, for example, $50 of food for just $25.  Groupon’s cut of revenue from these daily “deals” is typically 50%, leaving the restaurant with a 25% cut out from $50 in fully priced revenue.  Question:  How can a restaurant sell food at a 75% discount?  Answer:  It can’t because the math doesn’t work.  Reports of Groupon sales people encouraging merchants to use the product as a promotional tool to first “drum up new customers” which subsequently drives repeat business have also been highly criticized.  An example:

Jewelry company owner, Andres Arango, sold 80 Groupon coupons — $35 of jewelry for $15 — in two days getting only $7.50 in revenue per sale, resulting in a huge loss on the deal.  What about repeat or return customers? “They never came back,” Arango said.  For most merchants, and low margin businesses in particular, Groupon’s daily deal model simply won’t work as a legitimate source of meaningful revenue.

The fact that merchants simply will not be able to continue offering discounts through the company for a sustained period of time may prove to be the seismic jolt that will cause its collapse. Merchants cannot sustain offering effective discounts of 50-75% on their products and services for extended periods.

Offer Applicability, Switching Costs & Deal Fatigue
Another huge weakness of Groupon’s is the very limited applicability of its offerings.  Most of its offerings are targeted mainly at females, offering deals on non-essential, luxury and discretionary purchases such like spa packages, manicures, and travel packages.  These specialty offerings comprise an inordinate share of Groupon’s offerings, which have a lower overall market demand.

Another problem for Groupon is the lack of switching costs for customers and merchants who are free to use competitive services like LivingSocial, Amazon Local, or Travelzoo’s Local Deals.  There is simply no gain or advantage from using Groupon repeatedly for customers, who often subscribe to multiple daily deal email services.  Experts have argued that “the value of the deal and the quality of the merchant drive the transaction–not the company that emails the offer.”
Even more problematic for the industry in general is so-called “deal-fatigue”.  With the low barriers to entry and the plethora of daily deal offerings flooding the marketplace, the avalanche of deals has become a huge distraction for many customers, many of whom have started tuning out the offerings entirely.

Lack of Innovation
One of the biggest red flags in Groupon’s business model is its lack of innovation.  The best arguments that could be made with respect to Groupon’s innovation are Groupon Getaways and Groupon Goods.  Sadly, however, these are merely retreads of product categories that were established more than a decade ago.  While some would argue that Groupon doesn’t need to be a technology innovator, the low barriers to entry and flood of competition from literally dozens of deal sites requires innovation to remain viable.   Tom Peters infamous “innovate or die” quote could never be more applicable in this comet-like industry.

Churn and Burn Sales Culture
In its early days, Groupon was simply looking to help people find interesting things to do in their hometown city of Chicago.  CEO Andrew Mason also pushed the idea of pitching Groupon offers to local businesses as a way to help bolster their cash flow at a time when banks were not lending money.  The company rapidly succumbed to early investors and co-founder Eric Lefkofsky’s desire for rapid growth.  In a leaked internal memo, Lefkofsky pushed hard to rapidly scale the business, no matter what it took. “[Lets] take this thing to the extreme… if we get whacked on the ride down – who gives a $#!+.  The time to get radical is now … we have nothing to lose.”  In its early days, the company became a very lucrative place for young college students and early twenty-something’s to go to work for.  An early employee of the company confirmed reports of entry-level sales people making well into six figure salaries.  “Their [base salary] was thirty something [thousand dollars per year], [but] they were making a ton of money.”  These massive pay days for “entry level” employees angered older executives who resented the windfall compensation.  That would all change in May 2010 when Groupon bought German Groupon clone MyCityDeal, owned by Marc, Oliver and Alexander Samwer, a trio of German born brothers.  The hard charging Samwer brothers brought with them a very shrewd, results-oriented, take-no-prisoners operational style to the Groupon sales force.  Some employees were relieved at what seemed to be a much-needed shift to a more traditional, professional sales organization.  Referring to it as the “The German Way”, other Groupon employees were stunned at the dramatic cultural shift, which seemingly overnight became an incredibly cut-throat, sharp elbowed and ruthless place to work.  Sales people started to be pressed hard to use pushy and underhanded telemarketing sales tactics to close deals. “It’s a total boiler room sales culture [now].  And it’s really hardass.  It’s pretty hardcore.”

Operational Vulnerabilities
Prior to its much-ballyhooed IPO, daily deal industry site Yipit released an in-depth analysis of Groupon’s S-1 filingwhich revealed startling operational cracks in its business model.  Yipit’s analysis showed stunning weaknesses in Groupon’s business that included the following:

1. Top line growth peaked around Q3 2010 but has been deteriorating ever since.
2. Revenue per customer is steadily declining.
3. Customer renewal rates are declining.
4. Soaring customer acquisition costs.  500% increase year over year from 2010 to 2011.
5. Number of Groupons sold per deal rapidly declining.
6. Operating margins declining and face enormous downside pressure from competitive forces.
7. Revenue per Groupon customer is steadily declining

Can someone say dead-man walking?

Accounting Chicanery
To add a cherry to the sundae, Groupon had to remove their very controversial accounting metric called Adjusted Consolidated Segment Operating Income (ASCOI) from its financial statements prior to its public filing because of criticism from the Securities Exchange Commission. The fact is that ACSOI measures profits BEFORE subtracting customer acquisition costs and stock-option compensation.   In Q1 of 2011, Groupon posted a net loss of $113.9 million but reported ASCOI “profits” of $80.1 million.

Say what?!?!?

Groupon’s use of ACSOI was a thinly veiled attempt to put lipstick on a pig prior to its public stock offering.  Bottom line, Groupon has NEVER been profitable and simply used the ACSOI metric to feign profitable respectability, which it clearly doesn’t have.  The SEC tends to frown on make believe accounting terminology that attempts to demonstrate profitability without actually being profitable.

While the SEC never officially dubbed the ASCOI metric as “irregular”, investment professionals like CNBC’s Jim Cramer and the investment community have special consideration for accounting irregularities in particular:  “Accounting irregularities equals sell.”
To paraphrase, if a high profile stock suddenly announces a restatement of earnings due to “accounting irregularities”, you should immediately sell that stock.  Groupon looks about as profitable of an investment as giving away your merchandise for 90% off.
The bottom line is that any time a fledgling company has to invent an accounting metric to prove that it’s profitable, doesn’t that tell you everything you need to know about what the company already knows about itself?

If it walks like a duck and talks like a duck, it’s not a cute puppy.

Bogus Business Model
Groupon’s real problem is that it has yet to discover a practical, viable business model.  The company has not achieved profitability and some analysts predict that profitability won’t happen until late 2013 or early 2014, that’s if it arrives at all.  The company claims that it can reach profitability once it “scales” but there’s no evidence that Groupon actually has the “network effect” that it claims will drive its scalability.

At the end of the day, the poor value proposition for merchants and operational vulnerabilities will be Groupon’s ultimate undoing.  The limited offer applicability and low switching costs will continue to bait new competition into the marketplace putting even more downward pressure on margins as Groupon’s costs continue to soar.  One industry analyst estimates that selling, general, and administrative (SG&A) expenses at the company of more than 50% of projected full-year revenue in 2011.  And while their corporate culture is undoubtedly fixable, a technology company that lacks innovation will accelerate Groupon’s undoing.

The fact that Groupon quickly swelled from a small start-up to a burgeoning multinational enterprise with over 10,000 employees is very worrisome.  History has shown time and again that exponential growth in companies that operate in unproven and non-traditional industries lead to strikingly quick implosions (Pets.com, eToys).  Many industry pundits believe that Groupon is little more than a house of cards that will come tumbling down just as quickly as it was built.

Compounding these worries are the aforementioned internal problems at the company, which has had a very hard time keeping a Chief Operating Officer (COO) on board, and many of the company’s early employees are demanding extravagant pay raises because they feel entitled to share in its incredible but possibly short-lived success. The company’s founder and board members have also been accused of jeopardizing the long-term viability of the company for opting to take a $900 million cash payout that could have been reinvested in the long-term growth of the company. Finally, the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) has been probing the company’s finances, only to find that Groupon’s leaders are reluctant to open their books to external, impartial auditors.

At one point, Google offered $6 billion to take over Groupon and to add to its stable of Internet properties. The company balked at the offer, and when the Initial Public Offering (IPO) of the company’s stock was first announced, Groupon was valued at $25 billion. However, that figure has since been revised to less than half the original valuation.

Consumers continue to use the company’s offerings because, for them, it’s a no-risk proposition offering significant savings. They have everything to gain and nothing to lose. However, the same is not true when it comes to potential investors, who were initially salivating at the prospect of being part of the fastest-growing company in history but are now exercising caution. Due diligence suggests that caution is indeed a wise approach, and that outright avoidance may be even wiser.

Editor’s note: Guest posts are published when ideas are well written and thought provoking. Publishing does not equal endorsement.

Related posts:

1. How Groupon Makes Money
2. Micropayments: The Holy Grail of Online Business
3. Weakonomics Weekend Edition: Tesla Model S Edition

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.

You may not remember, but when the first iPhone came out there was no app store.  The original vision was for companies to make mobile versions of their websites and products and you would launch them in the phone’s browser.

But fans wanted to access the hardware and install software on the phone, so Apple made it happen and took a cut.  No one, not even Apple, realized that an entire new world would emerge with apps.

Apple didn’t invent the app, but they didn’t invent the MP3 player, touchscreen, or tablet either.  Since Apple’s app store came online every smartphone and tablet operating system has embraced the model.  Desktop operating systems and even online platforms like Facebook now have apps too.  And they’ve made a lot of people rich.

Another thing they’ve done is create jobs, lots of them.  Since the financial crisis thousands of developers have flocked to a new industry created around the building of apps.  Everything from Farmville, to weather, to turn-by-turn GPS, and to taking photos has turned into an app.  There are even apps of apps, meta-apps if you will.  The the Facebook app on the iPhone one can launch the Scrabble app and play the same Scrabble match you were playing in the Scrabble app within Facebook through a browser. It’s almost impossible to follow.

A new report says the “App Economy” has created 500,000 jobs and last year raked in $20 billion in revenue.  A very impressive number that’s likely kept a lot of IT workers out of the unemployment line.  It’s an industry that doesn’t get any attention in Washington, and no tax policy or stimulus was going to help it or get in its way.  This economy grew out of innovation.

It’s a perfect example of supply and demand.  But it can’t be replicated in other parts of the economy.  New industries pop up all the time and they’re very difficult to predict.  Everyone knew that someday the future would be in mobile devices, but not many were focused on the software operating those devices.  The only thing the US can do is continue to encourage innovation and no neither the right nor left really even understands what that means.

Whether that 500k jobs number is accurate or not is almost irrelevant.  Apps have helped make a few billionaires, a lot of millionaires, and created tons of jobs and new companies in the last few years.  That’s pretty impressive considering the late Steve Jobs was opposed to apps at first.

Via Mike Mandel via Alphaville

Image: Cristiano Betta

Related posts:

1. Apple CEO Steve Jobs’ Health Sparks Fascinating Debates For Investors
2. In Remembrance
3. Jobs And The Battle Of Quantity And Quality

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.

Please don’t consider me an Apple fanboy. This post is being written on a Samsung/Windows machine using a Google document and by the time you’re reading this I’ll be in a world of Windows XP and Blackberry. A world I prefer. But between The Sheconomist and me, we’ve owned 4 iPods, 4 iPhones, and a Macbook Pro. These are all Apple products and very rarely have we ever had an issue with them.

Which brings me to my issue. The Sheconomist got me a brand new iPod Nano for Christmas, a wondrous and highly desired surprise. This iPod is touted for fitness types with a built in tool for tracking your jogging and is light enough to not be felt. It even has a convenient clip. Ahh the clip.

There is a problem with the clip. It’s not a manufacturing one but one of design. It doesn’t grip things easily. And just barely a month after I received this prized possession, the clip slipped off my shorts during a routine walk and the following happened.

Tragedy!

An accident, some asphalt, and a heartbroken Weakonomist. Knowing how expensive consumer electronics are I’ve always bought protective cases. My original iPod Nano doesn’t have a scratch on it. Because this device was so small and had a clip, I never bothered to acquire a case for it. As a matter of fact, my local Apple store only sold one case that protected it, and the case was an ugly thing with a carabiner attached to it. Apple appeared to be sending the message this device was durable enough for its intended purpose.

This was the cusp of my plea to my local Apple store for help. Apple is smart, they looked up my account and can see all my activity. This essentially allows them to determine if I’m profitable enough to help out. My service history with them has been zilch, other than a replacement iPhone that was defective. My relationship is profitable to them. And so, much to my delight, they replaced my Nano free of charge!

That last sentence alone sets apart Apple from most other companies I’ve ever had a relationship with. Apple does this for two reasons. First, they’re willing to eat some profit on the hope that I will reward them in the future with more business, which I will. Second, they’re able to price their goods in such a way they can build in the cost of such consumer friendly behavior.

What further sets them apart is their empowerment of the workforce on the ground to make these decisions. Surely a tool probably helps them, but the final decision is likely theirs. I didn’t have to ask for a manager, I just presented my case.

Why aren’t more companies operating this way?  Surely Apple isn’t just a diamond in the rough.  In some ways Apple is.  For too long companies have been focused on short term results.  It’s easy to make a chart showing how great margins will be this quarter if we just cut a couple of corners on outstanding customer service.  And when profits start to suffer, going the extra mile for the customer is the first thing to go.

For the last decade or so Apple has been able to avoid short-term thinking.  Many times the pressure to thin short-term comes from Wall Street, and the late Steve Jobs wasn’t a fan of “the analysts”.  Should Jobs’s successor have a similar disdain for the street I would expect such high levels of service to continue.  So thank you Apple.  I am impressed.

Related posts:

1. Weakend: Thank You Apple
2. Weakend: Good Customer Service
3. In Remembrance

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.

I’ve had this mouse for almost nine years now.  I remember exactly when I got it.  At the time, optical mice were just hitting the mainstream and mine was purchased to go with my new laptop.

In all that time this mouse has lived in 7 places in 4 cities.  I’ve bought two wireless mice to replace it twice and they’ve both broken after a year or so.  After the last one broke I got out this guy again and decided to keep using him until he broke.  The button in the middle stopped working a long time ago but all I care about are the clickwheel and the thumb button (and the left and right clickers).

Untold levels of dirt, grime, coffee, and dust have accumulated on it over time but it’s still going strong.  Some things are just built to last.  So to you, Logitech mouse, you have my undying appreciation.  Here’s to another 9 years.

Related posts:

1. Weakend: I Hate WiFi
2. Weakend: Weddings and Computers and Donations Oh My!
3. Weakend: 3D Printing

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.