After months of informal searching for a new laptop to replace my dying desktop, I finally came across a great price on a laptop, courtesy of Office Depot. Spending a few hundred bucks on anything will almost certainly cause sticker shock, but I must say, I'm quite pleased with my HP G60-530US laptop.
But there's another reason I'm quite happy with HP: packaging.
Yes, packaging. When I opened up my laptop from the cardboard box, I expected to find the laptop surrounded by foam packaging. Instead, I was treated to rigid cardboard. Recyclable cardboard. As a "treehugger" at heart, this really made my day!
Typically, when a product needs to be kept secure in a box, foam is, unfortunately, the go-to packaging protection. So seeing cardboard surrounding my new laptop was a pleasant surprise.
Otherwise, there was only a small amount of plastic used to protect the charging cord. Not bad.
Thank you HP, not only for a great laptop but for your determination in using recyclable cardboard for your packaging. This subtle distinction did not go unnoticed by this consumer.
Sunday, November 22, 2009
Sunday, November 15, 2009
Attention College Grads: Ignore the Job Reports!
I remember back when I was in college (give or take, oh, about 10 years ago), I would read reports that projected which occupations would be the fastest growing over the next few years. These reports still pop up regularly today, with predictions and statistics and dialogue about which jobs will be most highly in demand. Problem is, with the nature of a dynamic economy that we have, I can't see how it's possible to predict which jobs will be hot even just a couple of years out.
Take, for instance, this story by the Associated Press that was published in the Philadelphia Inquirer. The gist of the article is that there is now a glut of teachers looking to get jobs in schools across the country, when just a few years ago a shortage of teachers was predicted. Whoops.
In my mind, all of the demographic predictions, economic analyses, and expert opinions can't give a definite answer as to which careers will be in most need in a few years. I think college students and recent grads, heck, even seasoned workers, need to determine what they want to do and go out and do it and do it the best they can, rather than trying to follow these ever-changing predictions and simply trying to ride the next wave of hot jobs.
Think about how many people wanted to be a real estate agent just a few years ago. Now it's one of the most challenging fields to get started in due to the housing crunch. Jobs in "green technology" were pretty much unheard of just a few years ago, now there seems to be a strong growth in these positions. And consider how many law school students are graduating and can't get jobs since law firms are suffering as spending on legal matters has dropped precipitously.
In a nutshell, the folks producing these job-prediction outlooks should get new jobs...
Take, for instance, this story by the Associated Press that was published in the Philadelphia Inquirer. The gist of the article is that there is now a glut of teachers looking to get jobs in schools across the country, when just a few years ago a shortage of teachers was predicted. Whoops.
In my mind, all of the demographic predictions, economic analyses, and expert opinions can't give a definite answer as to which careers will be in most need in a few years. I think college students and recent grads, heck, even seasoned workers, need to determine what they want to do and go out and do it and do it the best they can, rather than trying to follow these ever-changing predictions and simply trying to ride the next wave of hot jobs.
Think about how many people wanted to be a real estate agent just a few years ago. Now it's one of the most challenging fields to get started in due to the housing crunch. Jobs in "green technology" were pretty much unheard of just a few years ago, now there seems to be a strong growth in these positions. And consider how many law school students are graduating and can't get jobs since law firms are suffering as spending on legal matters has dropped precipitously.
In a nutshell, the folks producing these job-prediction outlooks should get new jobs...
Saturday, November 14, 2009
Internet Annoy-vertising on Philly.com
I have been a long time reader of the Philadelphia Inquirer to keep in touch with Philadelphia and Southern New Jersey news. For a couple of years I read the hard copy of the paper, but gradually grew weary of using all of that paper day in and day out. So I have since become a daily peruser of thenewspaper's online portal, Philly.com, which is much more environmentally friendly, and free for anybody to read, which is also nice.
It's a widely known fact that newspapers are bleeding subscribers due to the ease and efficiency of the Internet and its virtually infinite number of news sources. And it's also widely known that newspapers are having a difficult time making a profit in this changing world of news production.
So I empathize with the fact that newspapers are looking for new, creative ways to make money. But two of the Inquirer's latest undertakings on Philly.com, are quite annoying.
First off, when you click on to Philly.com, you don't realize it, but a pop-under ad often sneaks behind your browser. This in and of itself is annoying, though a fairly common practice across the internet, unfortunately. I frequently get ads from Netflix, for example, in this manner, and promptly ignore them. But the more annoying fact about these pop-unders are that they consist of a list of low rate ads, the likes of which you might see on Facebook's platform. Here's an example of one recent ad (out of six) that popped up:
My suggestion: at least provide some ads of value if you're going to sneak them in there. Perhaps post ads for local houses for sale, sporting event tickets, or other specialized deals, rather than ads trying to appeal to the lowest common denominator of internet surfers.
The other flustering thing that Philly.com does revolves around their sports articles. Click on a link to an article about, say, the Philadelphia Eagles' next game, and a video automatically starts playing when the page opens up. Most of these videos start with a commercial and then contain generic clips or photos of recent games. The main business page also does something similar when clicking on that page. I think it's a sensible idea to have videos incorporated into the site, but I would prefer them to start only when I click on them, and also make the commercials less intrusive.
I do hope that the Inquirer and Philly.com are able to find a way to earn a profit off of their news production, I just hope that they can find a more user-friendly way of appealing to loyal readers by avoiding intrusive ads and videos. Just my 2 cents.
It's a widely known fact that newspapers are bleeding subscribers due to the ease and efficiency of the Internet and its virtually infinite number of news sources. And it's also widely known that newspapers are having a difficult time making a profit in this changing world of news production.
So I empathize with the fact that newspapers are looking for new, creative ways to make money. But two of the Inquirer's latest undertakings on Philly.com, are quite annoying.
First off, when you click on to Philly.com, you don't realize it, but a pop-under ad often sneaks behind your browser. This in and of itself is annoying, though a fairly common practice across the internet, unfortunately. I frequently get ads from Netflix, for example, in this manner, and promptly ignore them. But the more annoying fact about these pop-unders are that they consist of a list of low rate ads, the likes of which you might see on Facebook's platform. Here's an example of one recent ad (out of six) that popped up:
'See How a Mom Drops 53Lbs!'
See how a mom of 3 drops 53lbs by obeying this 1 old rule... Learn more [link]
[ad accompanied by a cropped photo of a thin woman's belly exposed between tight white shirt and tight jeans]
My suggestion: at least provide some ads of value if you're going to sneak them in there. Perhaps post ads for local houses for sale, sporting event tickets, or other specialized deals, rather than ads trying to appeal to the lowest common denominator of internet surfers.
The other flustering thing that Philly.com does revolves around their sports articles. Click on a link to an article about, say, the Philadelphia Eagles' next game, and a video automatically starts playing when the page opens up. Most of these videos start with a commercial and then contain generic clips or photos of recent games. The main business page also does something similar when clicking on that page. I think it's a sensible idea to have videos incorporated into the site, but I would prefer them to start only when I click on them, and also make the commercials less intrusive.
I do hope that the Inquirer and Philly.com are able to find a way to earn a profit off of their news production, I just hope that they can find a more user-friendly way of appealing to loyal readers by avoiding intrusive ads and videos. Just my 2 cents.
Sunday, October 25, 2009
What's Missing at Supermarkets?
Supermarkets have become a scientifically formulated masterpiece in the art of getting more people to spend more money.
Aisles are arranged in such a way that you are directed past oodles of products you may never need, just to get a bottle of milk. But perhaps, just perhaps, you see something that you might like, and you decide to buy it, even though that's not what you came to the store for.
Endcaps promote products to seem like they're on sale, even though they may not be; but the sheer appeal of that endcap entices shoppers to at least take a look, and at most buy 10 whatever it is that's being promoted.
Cheaper versions of a particular item are often placed on the bottom shelf where people don't look as frequently, and instead go for the higher priced item in the middle.
And so on and so forth.
But I think that anybody who has ever shopped at a supermarket on a Sunday morning will tell you about how aggravating it is to check out and pay for all this food you've dumped in your cart. There are 10 check out lines that are up and running, but each line has six people in it and each person has a cart full of Doritos, string cheese, and marshmallows that all need to be unloaded, scanned, bagged, and reloaded into the cart. Can't get much more inefficient.
So couldn't there be a way to make this process more efficient and build in a register right in the shopping cart? That way, you grab your box of Count Chocula, scan it, and drop it into your cart. Then, when you're finished, you roll up to the front register, pay your bill, bag your goods, and you're off.
Well, that's my simplistic, unrefined idea. Whether it's doable or not, I don't know. But the fact is that an otherwise satisfactory shopping experience can be totally destroyed by standing in line for 10 minutes just to have the honor of handing over your money to someone else. In other words, it's an aggravating way to end your pleasant morning.
Streamline the check out process, make people happy, make more money. That's my suggestion. Now go enjoy your Twinkies.
Aisles are arranged in such a way that you are directed past oodles of products you may never need, just to get a bottle of milk. But perhaps, just perhaps, you see something that you might like, and you decide to buy it, even though that's not what you came to the store for.
Endcaps promote products to seem like they're on sale, even though they may not be; but the sheer appeal of that endcap entices shoppers to at least take a look, and at most buy 10 whatever it is that's being promoted.
Cheaper versions of a particular item are often placed on the bottom shelf where people don't look as frequently, and instead go for the higher priced item in the middle.
And so on and so forth.
But I think that anybody who has ever shopped at a supermarket on a Sunday morning will tell you about how aggravating it is to check out and pay for all this food you've dumped in your cart. There are 10 check out lines that are up and running, but each line has six people in it and each person has a cart full of Doritos, string cheese, and marshmallows that all need to be unloaded, scanned, bagged, and reloaded into the cart. Can't get much more inefficient.
So couldn't there be a way to make this process more efficient and build in a register right in the shopping cart? That way, you grab your box of Count Chocula, scan it, and drop it into your cart. Then, when you're finished, you roll up to the front register, pay your bill, bag your goods, and you're off.
Well, that's my simplistic, unrefined idea. Whether it's doable or not, I don't know. But the fact is that an otherwise satisfactory shopping experience can be totally destroyed by standing in line for 10 minutes just to have the honor of handing over your money to someone else. In other words, it's an aggravating way to end your pleasant morning.
Streamline the check out process, make people happy, make more money. That's my suggestion. Now go enjoy your Twinkies.
Sunday, October 18, 2009
An Idea for Music at the Gym
So here's a wacky idea I had when I was at the gym today.
The gym I belong to pumps in music over the loud speakers, presumably a satellite feed that also gets fed to its other locations around the nation. Meanwhile, 75% of the people working out at any given time have their earphones pumping out music from their mp3 players. The music being played varies from rock, to 80s, to hip-hop, etc. Generally it's stuff everybody has heard.
My idea involves the following steps:
1. Each gym member selects his or her top 5 musical artists, and then the artists' names are punched in to a computer. Perhaps these names can be updated over time, but that's besides the point for now.
2. When the gym member scans his or her card in, the computer takes note of this and recognizes the member's musical preferences. The computer would also be able to be set on whether or not the member is wearing an mp3 player during his/her workout.
3. If s/he is NOT wearing an mp3 player, the computer would aggregate the music that this member chose, along with the music that all the other non-mp3 wearing members chose, and then play selections from the bands selected, particularly if there happens to be a common theme between the bands or genres preferred.
Essentially, it's a quasi-personalized radio station that is designed to play music that is popular amongst non-mp3ers who are working out at any given time. That way, the members who are not listening to their own choice of music get to at least hear stuff they may like rather than random stuff that doesn't necessarily appeal to anybody or only a few people. It's kind of a version of target marketing.
Pretty complicated concept now that I think about it. But these are the things I think about as I pause between reps at the gym. Mental workout, I suppose.
The gym I belong to pumps in music over the loud speakers, presumably a satellite feed that also gets fed to its other locations around the nation. Meanwhile, 75% of the people working out at any given time have their earphones pumping out music from their mp3 players. The music being played varies from rock, to 80s, to hip-hop, etc. Generally it's stuff everybody has heard.
My idea involves the following steps:
1. Each gym member selects his or her top 5 musical artists, and then the artists' names are punched in to a computer. Perhaps these names can be updated over time, but that's besides the point for now.
2. When the gym member scans his or her card in, the computer takes note of this and recognizes the member's musical preferences. The computer would also be able to be set on whether or not the member is wearing an mp3 player during his/her workout.
3. If s/he is NOT wearing an mp3 player, the computer would aggregate the music that this member chose, along with the music that all the other non-mp3 wearing members chose, and then play selections from the bands selected, particularly if there happens to be a common theme between the bands or genres preferred.
Essentially, it's a quasi-personalized radio station that is designed to play music that is popular amongst non-mp3ers who are working out at any given time. That way, the members who are not listening to their own choice of music get to at least hear stuff they may like rather than random stuff that doesn't necessarily appeal to anybody or only a few people. It's kind of a version of target marketing.
Pretty complicated concept now that I think about it. But these are the things I think about as I pause between reps at the gym. Mental workout, I suppose.
Saturday, October 10, 2009
Dove Soap Dives into Soapy Semantics
On a recent trip to a BJ's mega-jumbo-cavernous Warehouse, I wandered to the toiletries section to pick up a package of soap bars for my wife. She specifically requested Dove soap and I happened upon 4-5 options from Unilever's big brand name.
As I was scanning the packaging on each type of soap, I noticed a peculiar play on words that had me wondering, "Are these marketing people serious? Or perhaps it's just a joke?"
Some of the soaps had: "Moisturizing Cream" emblazoned on the cartons.
Other soaps had: "Hydrating Lotion" depicted on them.
Ummm, okay.
Last time I checked, hydrating is synonymous with moisturing.
Ditto for lotion and cream.
Knowing enough about marketing to be dangerous, my hunch is that this is some sort of A/B split test to see which words sell better. Otherwise, perhaps it's just the Unilever marketers trying to liven things up for us bored consumers. Whatever the case, they might want to clean up their semantics...
As I was scanning the packaging on each type of soap, I noticed a peculiar play on words that had me wondering, "Are these marketing people serious? Or perhaps it's just a joke?"
Some of the soaps had: "Moisturizing Cream" emblazoned on the cartons.
Other soaps had: "Hydrating Lotion" depicted on them.
Ummm, okay.
Last time I checked, hydrating is synonymous with moisturing.
Ditto for lotion and cream.
Knowing enough about marketing to be dangerous, my hunch is that this is some sort of A/B split test to see which words sell better. Otherwise, perhaps it's just the Unilever marketers trying to liven things up for us bored consumers. Whatever the case, they might want to clean up their semantics...
Monday, September 14, 2009
Husband and Wife Die... Let's Count Their Money?
I came across an article in the Philadelphia Inquirer about a couple who apparently killed themselves in a knife fight over the weekend. Pretty sad and gruesome news, and I feel terrible for the kids who have lost both their parents. Definitely not something you want to hear about.
Speaking of things you don't want to hear about, I was really baffled by some of the extraneous details that were included in the article about the deceased, Robert and Sophia DiAndrea. Please feel free to tell me if you think these are really necessary bits of information, and tell me if you've ever even heard a news report talk about these types of things before (these are actual statements from the article):
-Robert was a $44,860-a-year supervisor of water conveyance systems for the Water Department, hired on May 27, 1997, city records show.
Speaking of things you don't want to hear about, I was really baffled by some of the extraneous details that were included in the article about the deceased, Robert and Sophia DiAndrea. Please feel free to tell me if you think these are really necessary bits of information, and tell me if you've ever even heard a news report talk about these types of things before (these are actual statements from the article):
-Robert was a $44,860-a-year supervisor of water conveyance systems for the Water Department, hired on May 27, 1997, city records show.
-Hired by the school district on Oct. 23, 1993, Sophia was a fifth-grade teacher who made $81,617 a year, school records show. She had worked four years at Anne Frank Elementary School, at 2000 Bowler St., an eight-minute ride away.
-The DiAndreas bought their home for $138,000 on Jan. 31, 1997, city records show.
Do those details seem bizarrely out of context when talking about a husband and wife who died? I just don't get it. The rest of the article is well-reported, giving a snapshot into their lives, but the financial data seems to come out of left field. Would the journalist have reported how much they both made if it were not public information? Or what if they were a low-income couple? Maybe it's me, but I don't feel the need to count someone else's money after a vicious ending to their lives.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
