Let me get this straight. I see some "news" stories this afternoon about Netflix for the coming month of February. What did they announce to the public?
An entire list of movies which will be "leaving" Netflix during the month of February.
Say what?
Do the big department stores publicize items they will stop carrying next month?
This makes no sense. I'm a monthly subscriber. If all I see are movies which are leaving the fold, why should I continue my subscription?
There is nothing in any of the articles I saw to indicate that anything will be added. Services such as HBO and Showtime, which often cost even more than Netflix, know to make a big deal about announcing what is coming each month. The purpose is to hopefully attract new subscribers while letting current subscribers know what each new month brings them.
If Netflix won't be offering as much during February, shouldn't they be lowering their price for the month?
http://www.businessinsider.com/leaving-netflix-in-february-2017-1
Tuesday, January 24, 2017
Wednesday, August 31, 2016
Does Cabela's Really Need To Sell Guns Online?
The news item that Cabela's is now offering in-store pickup for guns purchased online is disturbing for a number of reasons.
First and foremost, this would seem to indicate a big enough demand to take the retailer's time and attention in order to implement.
Next, it will be interesting to see if this retailer suffers any backlash from this decision. On one hand, the recent wave of violence around the world and mass shootings in the U.S. are reasons for some people to desire to purchase a gun. But on the other hand, there is a large number of people who have stronger feelings against guns being available to the extent that they currently are.
This company becomes the largest of the six national retailers (and keep in mind the word "retailers") who now sell guns online.
Although the increased number of consumers who wish to purchase a gun is understandable to some, making them more readily available on the internet, which should be a huge concern.
We shouldn't have to wait until there is an arrest of a gun owner for a murder case followed by the person arrested claiming their online ordering account was hacked for this to be stopped.
In this age when so many retailers and large companies are making it more and more difficult to have actual human contact and feedback via their web sites, we would like to think that making a dangerous weapon available via this avenue would be the least of their concerns.
https://www.internetretailer.com/2016/08/29/cabelas-offers-store-pickup-guns-bought-online
First and foremost, this would seem to indicate a big enough demand to take the retailer's time and attention in order to implement.
Next, it will be interesting to see if this retailer suffers any backlash from this decision. On one hand, the recent wave of violence around the world and mass shootings in the U.S. are reasons for some people to desire to purchase a gun. But on the other hand, there is a large number of people who have stronger feelings against guns being available to the extent that they currently are.
This company becomes the largest of the six national retailers (and keep in mind the word "retailers") who now sell guns online.
Although the increased number of consumers who wish to purchase a gun is understandable to some, making them more readily available on the internet, which should be a huge concern.
We shouldn't have to wait until there is an arrest of a gun owner for a murder case followed by the person arrested claiming their online ordering account was hacked for this to be stopped.
In this age when so many retailers and large companies are making it more and more difficult to have actual human contact and feedback via their web sites, we would like to think that making a dangerous weapon available via this avenue would be the least of their concerns.
https://www.internetretailer.com/2016/08/29/cabelas-offers-store-pickup-guns-bought-online
Thursday, March 10, 2016
Now Staples Begins Limits On Free Shipping
The news this week that Staples has joined many other major online retailers by implementing a minimum or limit on free shipping is still another step by retailers to make things more difficult for consumers.
It is another way that many major retailers are hurting themselves. Many large retailers no longer stock multiple versions of a similar item these days. It has gotten to the point where the "store" as we know it is becoming more of a showroom that hopes to sell us the floor model.
They figure that customers wanting something specific can easily order it online. And now, they are expecting us to pay EXTRA to order it and have it shipped to our door when it is not our choice.
If the retailer does not have the item in its store, they leave us with no choice but to order it online. In that instance, I see no reason why we, as consumers, should have to pay for shipping because they choose not to have it immediately available to us.
When this happens, and it is happening more and more, it is an inconvenience to us to have to wait several days to receive the item we want, regardless of whether it comes to our homes or if we need to return to the store in order to get it.
I'll say this again. If the retailer does not have an item they offer in stock, we as consumers should not be forced to pay extra to receive it days later. Yes, shipping costs money. However, getting items to their customers is a cost of doing business.
http://dealnews.com/features/Staples-Rewards-Members-Just-Lost-a-Major-Perk/1619768.html
It is another way that many major retailers are hurting themselves. Many large retailers no longer stock multiple versions of a similar item these days. It has gotten to the point where the "store" as we know it is becoming more of a showroom that hopes to sell us the floor model.
They figure that customers wanting something specific can easily order it online. And now, they are expecting us to pay EXTRA to order it and have it shipped to our door when it is not our choice.
If the retailer does not have the item in its store, they leave us with no choice but to order it online. In that instance, I see no reason why we, as consumers, should have to pay for shipping because they choose not to have it immediately available to us.
When this happens, and it is happening more and more, it is an inconvenience to us to have to wait several days to receive the item we want, regardless of whether it comes to our homes or if we need to return to the store in order to get it.
I'll say this again. If the retailer does not have an item they offer in stock, we as consumers should not be forced to pay extra to receive it days later. Yes, shipping costs money. However, getting items to their customers is a cost of doing business.
http://dealnews.com/features/Staples-Rewards-Members-Just-Lost-a-Major-Perk/1619768.html
Sunday, February 22, 2015
Online Retailing At The Expense of Stores?
The
American Customer Satisfaction Index, a very reliable source of research and
information, has revealed that their research shows a more than 5% increase in
overall customer satisfaction with online retailers for the year 2014.
While this
is good news for online retailers, I’m finding another aspect of their research
to be a bit disturbing. During the same 2014 time period, this research also
showed that overall satisfaction with “retail” actually declined 1.4% compared
with 2013.
What this
means is that consumers are less satisfied with physical retail locations,
while feeling better about the online experience.
This is
excellent news for the likes of Ebay and Amazon, and other business which are
primarily online. My problem with this is that some of the major retailers,
which achieved their financial status from having numerous large stores, are
reducing their concern about their physical locations while beefing up the
online attack.
Just last
week I saw a story about the increased millions of dollars that WalMart is
spending specific to its e-commerce operations in 2015. If and as the large
physical location retailers push their online inventory to shoppers, they could
very well be reducing the traffic to their actual stores. This would eventually
mean fewer jobs and fewer customers going through their doors. Yet, at the same
time, WalMart, Target, and Meijer appear to have increased a portion of many of
their retail stores which sell grocery items.
It would
appear that the strategy is to give local residents reasons to come in to the
stores at least once per week for grocery shopping and “move” the other items
to online. As more and more grocery and related items come to the shelves, it
means other items are being removed, and likely kept in the warehouses to be
sold online.
The view
from here is that consumers should have a reasonable choice between the
physical location and online. Some enjoy the “touchy feely” ability to be able
to go in and look at a product, compare it with others nearby on the shelves,
and be able to head right home with their purchase. Not everyone wants to deal
with shipping costs and waiting for days before their item arrives.
Too many of
the large retailers don’t see this as a problem. They should. Many of them
still advertise the convenience and availability of their inventory online.
However, it still takes too long for orders to be shipped out. They don’t care,
but consumers should.
If it is
their business to sell anything online, they should have the staff in place to
ship it out within 24 hours at the most. This crap of ordering something on a
Monday and then wait until Wednesday to receive a “Your item has been shipped”
e-mail needs to stop. Consumers should not have to pay extra for expedited
shipping. If they can’t ship it out right away, then don’t have it available
online.
As it is,
the online “people” and the in-store “people” don’t always work together as it
is, even though it is the same company.
Here is an
example. Two weeks ago, we decided to get a new printer for our office. I went
online and found a couple of possibilities, and then discovered that, on that
day, Office Depot had the best price by more than $20.
Using their
“Check availability” feature, it turned out that the most convenient store had
only one of them in stock. Not wanting to take any chances (at that price), I
ordered it online for “same day pickup” at that store.
After
receiving my confirmation e-mail and going in to that store about two hours
later, they store associate “could not find” my order in the store. She then
called her manager who realized that the printer was still on the shelf and was
never processed for pickup. The manager went and took the item from the shelf,
entered the data, and after a roughly ten minute wait, I left the store with my
printer. A ten minute wait with nothing more than a quick apology.
I still
wonder what would have happened had that specific printer been sold during that
time. But that isn’t the point.
The online
service by a lot of retailers needs to improve drastically. However, it should
not be improved at the expense of reductions of store inventories either. We
need for the consumer satisfaction levels to be on the increase at BOTH the
retail and online levels.
Monday, December 29, 2014
Why Have Online Retailer Satisfaction Levels Dropped?
It is hard to believe that many in the industry are
surprised that customer satisfaction ratings for major online retailers are
down again for this year. Maybe the people that analyze the data and/or write
the recaps do not order very much from major online retailers.
What is ironic is that the latest statistics came out within
hours of separate research showing a noteworthy increase in the amount of
mobile shoppers during the 2014 holiday season.
Consumers appear to be more willing than ever before to make
a bigger percentage of their retail purchases online. Yet, retailers appear as
not being ready, willing, or able to catch up to the increased demand.
Solving this problem should be relatively simple for
retailers, whether for an online division of a retail store or a primarily
online entity.
For the retailers with stores across the nation, such as
Target, WalMart, and Best Buy, they all need to make their online wing more of
a priority than it appears to be. They often fail to realize that their
customers expect these web sites to be updated and provide necessary
information at all times.
We the consumer should never again have to experience going
through the steps of logging in and entering information to order a product to
THEN learn it is “out of stock” or “not available”. It is really time to start
complaining to the Federal Trade Commission every time this happens. Retailers
should not be allowed to advertise an item if they can’t provide it immediately.
Or at the very least, tell consumers they can’t get it right away at the
beginning. If they are willing to wait, let it be by choice ahead of time.
There are more reasons why the likes of Amazon and QVC are
also among the online retailers showing a drop in consumer satisfaction. Sorry,
but when selling products online, especially when online only (such as the two
just mentioned), these retailers should always be ready to ship immediately.
When ordering something online, we should EXPECT immediate
shipment. The retailer is supposed to have the item(s) ready for immediate
sale, expect orders, and have arrangements in place to ship within a few hours.
If the order is placed at 3 AM, and the location is closed until 8 AM, the
notice of shipment should come by e-mail no later than 10 AM.
If a retailer is not staffed enough to handle a large amount
of orders, that should only be the case for one day until help is called in. It
isn’t hard to hire people to box and send items these days. If a retailer has
so many sales it can’t keep up with shipping, it means they are generating
enough revenue to hire enough workers to keep up with production.
As The Frustrated Consumer sees it, with more consumers
ordering online, there should be fewer delays in the fulfillment of orders.
I happened to order something via Amazon a couple weeks ago,
and waited more than a week to receive it, when the “Your Item Shipped” e-mail
didn’t arrive until the second business day after it was ordered.
Before I received the package, I received a follow-up “Satisfaction
Survey”. What did it ask? It asked how I liked the packaging.
Great! Amazon was more concerned about the packaging when it
took them more than two days after the order was placed to send it. If only
they were half as concerned about the time it supposedly took to package it.
Now it is “news” that Amazon is among those companies with a
lower customer satisfaction rating.
Hopefully this situation will improve. Of course, we won’t
know for a while. I’m betting it will take them several business days before
any of their decision makers decide to read the research.
For those that missed it, here is one of the stories about this:
Wednesday, February 26, 2014
Pulling Out The Staples
It's one of those seemingly minor things that the majority of people don't give a second thought to, and don't complain about. Not complaining about consumer issues is not a good thing.
For the past few years, Staples has been among office supply sources offering a credit for returning finished printer cartridges to their stores to be recycled. Just a few weeks back, I got a $6.00 credit for bringing in three of my recently used cartridges.
Last week, I was going in to Staples for something unrelated, and, of course, used the opportunity to bring in two finished cartridges. When I handed them over, I was then told that "the program has been changed". The rep said something about how much I need to buy over a period of time, and told that I would not receiving any credit for these. Sure enough, my receipt showed "$0.00" for my returning the cartridges.
It is true that a $4.00 credit isn't worth this time time to deal with. But that isn't the point. Staples had been giving these credits for a few years (that I know of). If they were giving away "too many" of these credits, it really meant that they had a successful promotion to guarantee return business. If they weren't giving away very many of these credits, there shouldn't have been any reason to mess around with this promotion. This was not something they only did on a limited basis.
However, this action hurts them more than it hurts me. I can simply start throwing out my finished printer cartridges, and not have a reason that in the past would get me to go specifically to Staples. For years, I would often go there even though their nearest location to both my home and business is further than a couple of their remaining competitors.
This is nowhere near as strange as when OfficeMax did away with their Perks program a few years ago and took away a huge reason for frequent shopping there. And it wasn't long after that when that company's problems began.
While it's true that these businesses don't have to provide regular customers with additional benefits, taking them away is another story.
For the past few years, Staples has been among office supply sources offering a credit for returning finished printer cartridges to their stores to be recycled. Just a few weeks back, I got a $6.00 credit for bringing in three of my recently used cartridges.
Last week, I was going in to Staples for something unrelated, and, of course, used the opportunity to bring in two finished cartridges. When I handed them over, I was then told that "the program has been changed". The rep said something about how much I need to buy over a period of time, and told that I would not receiving any credit for these. Sure enough, my receipt showed "$0.00" for my returning the cartridges.
It is true that a $4.00 credit isn't worth this time time to deal with. But that isn't the point. Staples had been giving these credits for a few years (that I know of). If they were giving away "too many" of these credits, it really meant that they had a successful promotion to guarantee return business. If they weren't giving away very many of these credits, there shouldn't have been any reason to mess around with this promotion. This was not something they only did on a limited basis.
However, this action hurts them more than it hurts me. I can simply start throwing out my finished printer cartridges, and not have a reason that in the past would get me to go specifically to Staples. For years, I would often go there even though their nearest location to both my home and business is further than a couple of their remaining competitors.
This is nowhere near as strange as when OfficeMax did away with their Perks program a few years ago and took away a huge reason for frequent shopping there. And it wasn't long after that when that company's problems began.
While it's true that these businesses don't have to provide regular customers with additional benefits, taking them away is another story.
Wednesday, January 29, 2014
Think Before You Promote
There is nothing wrong with AMC Theatres sending out special offers to its e-mail list. But there is something wrong with, on January 25th during the coldest winter in years, sending out a promotion for a free ICEE - when you purchase one. Oh my!
Granted, doing this is probably the least costly promotion they could implement, but the idea is to give people reasons to visit their theatres. It's a lot cheaper to stay home and enjoy a hot chocolate.
Granted, doing this is probably the least costly promotion they could implement, but the idea is to give people reasons to visit their theatres. It's a lot cheaper to stay home and enjoy a hot chocolate.
Wednesday, March 28, 2012
Wondering Why...............
We as consumers should spend more time questioning ludicrous charges. I'm taking the wise suggestion of pointing them out as they come up.........
The All-American High School Basketball Game is taking place tonight (3/28) in Chicago at the United Center. For Bulls and Blackhawks games, concerts, and special events held there such as Ice Capades and a circus, attendees are asked to pay in the $25 to $35 range just to park their car in the closest parking lots.
Yet, for this basketball game, the promotional materials point out that it will be "free parking". Of course, we don't want to say or do anything to discourage this. But it raises a very important question.
What is it that was done so that parking for THIS event could be free? Why can't the same thing be done for concerts, sports events, and special events all of the time? Especially when you consider the cost per ticket, plus fees, gas prices, and the cost of traveling to the venue.
Speaking of ticket fees, I see where Aerosmith will be in concert at Milwaukee Summerfest in July. They are promoting $25 tickets, even if it is for the lawn. I suppose that's reasonable. Yet, the TicketMaster site indicates that the "convenience fee" per ticket is $25.50. Well, we know what entity this fee is "convenient" for.
However, TM continues to escape the majority of the lawsuits filed over this. Even though it is not necessarily the fault of the musical act (or team in the case of sports), those ridiculous charges for the Aerosmith show (among others) bring one response. Dream On !!
6BQ53DPMK887
The All-American High School Basketball Game is taking place tonight (3/28) in Chicago at the United Center. For Bulls and Blackhawks games, concerts, and special events held there such as Ice Capades and a circus, attendees are asked to pay in the $25 to $35 range just to park their car in the closest parking lots.
Yet, for this basketball game, the promotional materials point out that it will be "free parking". Of course, we don't want to say or do anything to discourage this. But it raises a very important question.
What is it that was done so that parking for THIS event could be free? Why can't the same thing be done for concerts, sports events, and special events all of the time? Especially when you consider the cost per ticket, plus fees, gas prices, and the cost of traveling to the venue.
Speaking of ticket fees, I see where Aerosmith will be in concert at Milwaukee Summerfest in July. They are promoting $25 tickets, even if it is for the lawn. I suppose that's reasonable. Yet, the TicketMaster site indicates that the "convenience fee" per ticket is $25.50. Well, we know what entity this fee is "convenient" for.
However, TM continues to escape the majority of the lawsuits filed over this. Even though it is not necessarily the fault of the musical act (or team in the case of sports), those ridiculous charges for the Aerosmith show (among others) bring one response. Dream On !!
6BQ53DPMK887
Tuesday, January 31, 2012
The Poor Banking Chase Continues
It is possible to take a break from reading about more of the antics of Bank of America. In doing so, there is this about how attorneys were also involved with the false inflation of debts owed to Chase Bank, and how they are being 'found out':
http://articles.baltimoresun.com/2012-01-19/business/bal-consuming-interests-payments-source-chase-no-longer-suing-to-collect-bad-debts-in-maryland-20120119_1_whistle-blower-lawsuit-whistle-blower-chase
I continue to think that now these large banks should pitch in and bailout the government.
http://articles.baltimoresun.com/2012-01-19/business/bal-consuming-interests-payments-source-chase-no-longer-suing-to-collect-bad-debts-in-maryland-20120119_1_whistle-blower-lawsuit-whistle-blower-chase
I continue to think that now these large banks should pitch in and bailout the government.
Friday, January 27, 2012
Waiting Out The Movies
Now it looks like Warner Bros. is indirectly making it possible for us to pay less to see movies simply by waiting a while longer.
At first, when I saw today's announcement about Warner Bros.' new "deal" with Netflix, I thought it was another way for a large movie company to aggravate consumers who choose to buy or pay-for-view for recent new releases.
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/entertainmentnewsbuzz/2012/01/warner-bros-netflix-deal-includes-delay-in-queues.html
The story basically says that Netflix customers will now have to wait an additional 4 weeks to be able to watch selected movies beyond the on-sale date for the DVD. Clearly, Warner Bros. wants anxious consumers to purchase the DVD, at a higher profit margin for them, than to view the film through Netflix. Until now, consumers could make that choice immediately. Warner Bros. is banking on (literally) the possibility that more consumers will purchase the DVD than otherwise would if given the immediate choice.
After thinking on it for a few minutes, I realize that this actually helps us frugal consumers in the long run. This formula of the theater release, then DVD sale, and THEN via Netflix. Thus, the longer we wait, the less it will cost to see these movies.
I have no problem with waiting to see a movie, and hope others adopt this approach. The fact remains it is the SAME movie no matter when you see it for the first time. It is not like sports, where every game is different and there are specific plays and results every day.
Over the years, I go less and less to movie theaters. Years ago, theaters would have double features plus 'short' features in between. You could easily be in that movie theater for more than 4 hours. It was what you did for the evening for the entire afternoon. And it was affordable. Now, these theaters expect people to pay more than twice the price for less than half of the entertainment they used to offer. And that's without buying anything from the overpriced concession stand. (Of course, that's not necessary, since we are in and out of there so fast these days that there's not enough time to get hungry.)
All things considered, the new formula is taking shape. The same $10 that now gets you only 90 minutes in a theater will get you 2 or 3 movies at home a few weeks later. I, for one, can wait.
At first, when I saw today's announcement about Warner Bros.' new "deal" with Netflix, I thought it was another way for a large movie company to aggravate consumers who choose to buy or pay-for-view for recent new releases.
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/entertainmentnewsbuzz/2012/01/warner-bros-netflix-deal-includes-delay-in-queues.html
The story basically says that Netflix customers will now have to wait an additional 4 weeks to be able to watch selected movies beyond the on-sale date for the DVD. Clearly, Warner Bros. wants anxious consumers to purchase the DVD, at a higher profit margin for them, than to view the film through Netflix. Until now, consumers could make that choice immediately. Warner Bros. is banking on (literally) the possibility that more consumers will purchase the DVD than otherwise would if given the immediate choice.
After thinking on it for a few minutes, I realize that this actually helps us frugal consumers in the long run. This formula of the theater release, then DVD sale, and THEN via Netflix. Thus, the longer we wait, the less it will cost to see these movies.
I have no problem with waiting to see a movie, and hope others adopt this approach. The fact remains it is the SAME movie no matter when you see it for the first time. It is not like sports, where every game is different and there are specific plays and results every day.
Over the years, I go less and less to movie theaters. Years ago, theaters would have double features plus 'short' features in between. You could easily be in that movie theater for more than 4 hours. It was what you did for the evening for the entire afternoon. And it was affordable. Now, these theaters expect people to pay more than twice the price for less than half of the entertainment they used to offer. And that's without buying anything from the overpriced concession stand. (Of course, that's not necessary, since we are in and out of there so fast these days that there's not enough time to get hungry.)
All things considered, the new formula is taking shape. The same $10 that now gets you only 90 minutes in a theater will get you 2 or 3 movies at home a few weeks later. I, for one, can wait.
Thursday, January 26, 2012
A Penney Earned
Great move by J.C. Penney to announce that they are changing to "everyday low prices" and additional savings on all of their merchandise.
Sure, as a consumer this is good news. The more retailers that lower prices, the better it is for us.
If you missed it, here is the story:
http://www.suntimes.com/business/10227577-420/jc-penney-to-revamp-pricing-reformat-stores.html
But this announcement is more than that. This could very well turn this large retailer around, and that's good for their employees and investors in the long term as well.
Few, if any, would have questioned if Penney's had started closing a ton of their stores and began the journey to oblivion that some other regional and national retailers have been faced with over the past couple of years. This move turns a negative into a positive.
Their stores, or at least the ones I have been in over the past few years, became a bit stale. Not quite polished enough to feel like an elite (another word for overpriced for us consumers!) department store. But certainly not discounting anywhere near enough to be considered a discount or "low price" retailer. If the "low price" people and the "elite store" shoppers have what they are looking for down the street, and quite often in the same malls, it is no wonder that Penney's has become less and less busy lately.
Their "captain" is not only staying with the ship, but it seems this is an attempt to steer it in a better direction.
They deserve our consideration as they make these changes. We'll be watching............
Sure, as a consumer this is good news. The more retailers that lower prices, the better it is for us.
If you missed it, here is the story:
http://www.suntimes.com/business/10227577-420/jc-penney-to-revamp-pricing-reformat-stores.html
But this announcement is more than that. This could very well turn this large retailer around, and that's good for their employees and investors in the long term as well.
Few, if any, would have questioned if Penney's had started closing a ton of their stores and began the journey to oblivion that some other regional and national retailers have been faced with over the past couple of years. This move turns a negative into a positive.
Their stores, or at least the ones I have been in over the past few years, became a bit stale. Not quite polished enough to feel like an elite (another word for overpriced for us consumers!) department store. But certainly not discounting anywhere near enough to be considered a discount or "low price" retailer. If the "low price" people and the "elite store" shoppers have what they are looking for down the street, and quite often in the same malls, it is no wonder that Penney's has become less and less busy lately.
Their "captain" is not only staying with the ship, but it seems this is an attempt to steer it in a better direction.
They deserve our consideration as they make these changes. We'll be watching............
Thursday, December 1, 2011
How I-Phones Are Monitored By Outsiders
It looks more and more like cell phone companies are out to destroy what personal privacy we all have left. This story links to several accounts of how I-Phone calls and texts can be monitored by outsiders:
http://thenextweb.com/apple/2011/12/01/references-to-data-logging-software-carrier-iq-have-been-found-on-apples-ios/
Yet, while this is going on we have several large banks encouraging people to "bank by phone" which means entering in private account and personal information, along with checks and debit card transactions. So if "big brother" and most likely advanced hackers are watching and listening to your every move on your advanced cell phone, how long will you have all of your money and your identity?
Personally, I'm still not planning to use my phone for any transactions.
http://thenextweb.com/apple/2011/12/01/references-to-data-logging-software-carrier-iq-have-been-found-on-apples-ios/
Yet, while this is going on we have several large banks encouraging people to "bank by phone" which means entering in private account and personal information, along with checks and debit card transactions. So if "big brother" and most likely advanced hackers are watching and listening to your every move on your advanced cell phone, how long will you have all of your money and your identity?
Personally, I'm still not planning to use my phone for any transactions.
Monday, November 28, 2011
Malls Want To Track Our Whereabouts?
It seems that certain malls are going as far as to track visitors based on the locations of their cell phones within the mall, even though the shoppers were not aware of this.
To make matters worse, this story about the practice quotes one mall official as saying they will make it "easier to opt out" of this feature. Say what?
http://www.chicagotribune.com/business/technology/chi-malls-retreat-on-plans-to-track-shoppers-cell-phones-20111128,0,6644526.story
One "excuse" for doing this, according to a quote in the story, is to "make the playing field level with online shoppers". Yikes.
What gets me is that these malls have the time and money to spend in an effort to track, without authorization, the location of its shoppers, instead of putting their resources to better use.
What happened to simply and easily tracking the number of parking spaces in use within the mall's parking lot(s) on an hourly basis throughout the year? To tracking the amount of revenue brought in by each store or business during that same period? We, as consumers, can't stop them from doing that.
Many of the big malls should be using their resources to improve the experience for shoppers who go there, whether during the busy holiday period or any other time.
In much of the country, this time of the year, when malls draw their biggest crowds of the year, is during cold and wet weather times. Yet, few offer indoor or covered parking, and those that do generally suffer from overcrowding, thus leaving the process of parking to be an unpleasant experience.
The majority of shopping malls, including newer ones, continue to make the mistake of not providing easy access for cars to exit. They force drivers to head toward the stores and entrances, creating additional hazzards for pedestrians carrying packages and for the children with them, when these drivers are looking to exit the mall area.
Sure, the argument for doing this is to draw attention to the stores. However, the malls do not understand that doing this is not like grocery stores putting the milk and most commonly bought products in the back or further reaches of a single store.
Many malls fail to have enough directories, especially near the various entrances. Instead of tracking the cell phone whereabouts of patrons, perhaps helping them find the store(s) they are most interested in would be a better priority.
Worse yet, this story claims that major retailers such as J.C. Penney and Home Depot "have considered" using this technology. Whether for the sake of this story angle or as a matter of fact, each company seemed as if they are not ready to use this yet. The fact that it is a possibility is alarming. Suppose information that you are, at this moment, in the Home Depot by the home security devices, got into the wrong hands.
The Frustrated Consumer has an idea for the short term. Let's all turn off our cell phones just before we walk into a mall. With no data to show for their time and efforts, just maybe the malls and major retailers would consider checking inventory reports to see what sold and when. Not who bought them.
To make matters worse, this story about the practice quotes one mall official as saying they will make it "easier to opt out" of this feature. Say what?
http://www.chicagotribune.com/business/technology/chi-malls-retreat-on-plans-to-track-shoppers-cell-phones-20111128,0,6644526.story
One "excuse" for doing this, according to a quote in the story, is to "make the playing field level with online shoppers". Yikes.
What gets me is that these malls have the time and money to spend in an effort to track, without authorization, the location of its shoppers, instead of putting their resources to better use.
What happened to simply and easily tracking the number of parking spaces in use within the mall's parking lot(s) on an hourly basis throughout the year? To tracking the amount of revenue brought in by each store or business during that same period? We, as consumers, can't stop them from doing that.
Many of the big malls should be using their resources to improve the experience for shoppers who go there, whether during the busy holiday period or any other time.
In much of the country, this time of the year, when malls draw their biggest crowds of the year, is during cold and wet weather times. Yet, few offer indoor or covered parking, and those that do generally suffer from overcrowding, thus leaving the process of parking to be an unpleasant experience.
The majority of shopping malls, including newer ones, continue to make the mistake of not providing easy access for cars to exit. They force drivers to head toward the stores and entrances, creating additional hazzards for pedestrians carrying packages and for the children with them, when these drivers are looking to exit the mall area.
Sure, the argument for doing this is to draw attention to the stores. However, the malls do not understand that doing this is not like grocery stores putting the milk and most commonly bought products in the back or further reaches of a single store.
Many malls fail to have enough directories, especially near the various entrances. Instead of tracking the cell phone whereabouts of patrons, perhaps helping them find the store(s) they are most interested in would be a better priority.
Worse yet, this story claims that major retailers such as J.C. Penney and Home Depot "have considered" using this technology. Whether for the sake of this story angle or as a matter of fact, each company seemed as if they are not ready to use this yet. The fact that it is a possibility is alarming. Suppose information that you are, at this moment, in the Home Depot by the home security devices, got into the wrong hands.
The Frustrated Consumer has an idea for the short term. Let's all turn off our cell phones just before we walk into a mall. With no data to show for their time and efforts, just maybe the malls and major retailers would consider checking inventory reports to see what sold and when. Not who bought them.
Wednesday, October 19, 2011
Wrong Way Information
Shouldn't businesses spend more of their behind-the-scenes time and effort on improving relations with current and potential customers? And less on how they can benefit by sharing our personal information?
Two unrelated incidents this week bring this to mind. Recent researched from Stanford University shows how a lot of major companies are equipped to share our information without us knowing it (until now).
http://cyberlaw.stanford.edu/node/6740
Granted, the report profiled in the link above is very technical. But even the basic parts of the article, such as showing how logging in to the Wall Street Journal web site (without using the true password) sent the user's e-mail address to 7 outside companies, tell us a lot of what is going on these days.
The other incident was having a question for a large company, only to go on to their web site, and not find any way to ask anyone or contact them easily.
This has me starting to check the web sites I use or would use to make a purchase or execute some sort of financial transaction. If I have a question before I purchase, I should be able to easily contact someone from that company, even if by a link to an e-mail, to get an answer.
Maybe I need to have better faith in businesses these days. After reading the above-linked research, I am instead worried that if it were as easy as it should be to contact them online, they would be selling my information to others before responding to my query.
The above-linked article goes on to show how Home Depot, NBC, and other companies are sending our user names and other information to other companies even though their privacy statements show otherwise.
There needs to be a better way for consumers to GET information from these companies instead of giving it.
Two unrelated incidents this week bring this to mind. Recent researched from Stanford University shows how a lot of major companies are equipped to share our information without us knowing it (until now).
http://cyberlaw.stanford.edu/node/6740
Granted, the report profiled in the link above is very technical. But even the basic parts of the article, such as showing how logging in to the Wall Street Journal web site (without using the true password) sent the user's e-mail address to 7 outside companies, tell us a lot of what is going on these days.
The other incident was having a question for a large company, only to go on to their web site, and not find any way to ask anyone or contact them easily.
This has me starting to check the web sites I use or would use to make a purchase or execute some sort of financial transaction. If I have a question before I purchase, I should be able to easily contact someone from that company, even if by a link to an e-mail, to get an answer.
Maybe I need to have better faith in businesses these days. After reading the above-linked research, I am instead worried that if it were as easy as it should be to contact them online, they would be selling my information to others before responding to my query.
The above-linked article goes on to show how Home Depot, NBC, and other companies are sending our user names and other information to other companies even though their privacy statements show otherwise.
There needs to be a better way for consumers to GET information from these companies instead of giving it.
Thursday, August 11, 2011
A Restaurant Round-Up?
Thanks to reporter Darren Rovell, whom I follow on Twitter, we have documentation of this practice by a Denver restaurant:
http://twitpic.com/64cbg8
Of course, I replied to him hoping he "rounded down" when it came to a tip.
But, c'mon with this. This ranks right there with restaurants that add a 15% or higher "service fee" for groups. I have canceled reservations over that bit. Or, on the couple of occasions I have been a part of finding this out when the group bill comes, that amount replaces any tip.
Yet, even replacing the tip can still be a ripoff. Maybe the service wasn't good enough to justify the percentage tacked on.
And, I point out that a professional restaurant should have enough experience and expertise to time 8 meals (or however many) to all be ready at the same time. And how they should be glad that a group of that size could all agree on eating there.
One of the times I pointed that out to a restaurant manager he appeared to be offended. So I pointed out that, if anything, they should DISCOUNT that percentage for large groups who eat there. "And if you consider that to be too hefty of a discount, how do justify sticking all of us with that same cost?"
http://twitpic.com/64cbg8
Of course, I replied to him hoping he "rounded down" when it came to a tip.
But, c'mon with this. This ranks right there with restaurants that add a 15% or higher "service fee" for groups. I have canceled reservations over that bit. Or, on the couple of occasions I have been a part of finding this out when the group bill comes, that amount replaces any tip.
Yet, even replacing the tip can still be a ripoff. Maybe the service wasn't good enough to justify the percentage tacked on.
And, I point out that a professional restaurant should have enough experience and expertise to time 8 meals (or however many) to all be ready at the same time. And how they should be glad that a group of that size could all agree on eating there.
One of the times I pointed that out to a restaurant manager he appeared to be offended. So I pointed out that, if anything, they should DISCOUNT that percentage for large groups who eat there. "And if you consider that to be too hefty of a discount, how do justify sticking all of us with that same cost?"
Wednesday, August 10, 2011
Why We're Really Cutting The Cable
I found today's news story about how cable and satellite subscriptions are dropping to be quite interesting, but mainly for the reasons which are given. It's not all because of the economy.
http://www.chicagotribune.com/business/breaking/chi-record-numbers-cancelling-cable-satellite-tv-service-20110810,0,5039580.story
Maybe, just maybe, this will give the cable and satellite providers and the TV stations and networks the long overdue wake up call that has been needed. After all, canceling seems to be the only way that consumers can be heard on this issue.
I'm here to tell you that it's not just the economy as much as it is the quality, or lack thereof. And there is a lot of blame to go around.
The cable and satellite companies need to realize that they are in business to provide us with a service. That service is to install and/or provide the facilities through which we watch the programming, whether via a dish or installed wiring. Once installed, these facilities need to be maintained and services, and upgraded as needed.
For some reason, the cable and satellite companies were given the right to determine what programming we can get and not get. That flat out stinks. Some of the companies providing these TV facilities also provide phone service. Yet, when I get their phone service, I can call into any area code I so choose with a plan that covers the level of service I seek. There are no restricted area codes and none that cost extra.
Yet, with TV, I am forced to pay for channels I don't want and won't watch. And I don't get all of the stations or networks I would like to watch. Why are there restrictions for TV that aren't there for the same company's phone service?
The cable/satellite companies tell me that the majority of these exhorbitant monthly fees I'm paying go to pay for programming on the channels I am getting, some of which are available on a tiered basis at a higher price option. I could live with that, but under one condition. I should decide which channels I'm paying specifically for each month.
Instead, I'm stuck literally paying for channels broadcasting in languages I don't speak, supporting religions I do not practice, and for programming I would never watch. I'm certainly not suggesting that any channel I'm not interested in should go away. Let them prosper. But let the people who want them support them.
My cable or satellite provider should exist to bring me only those channels I want them to send me. Period.
Those of you who are not sports fans should be outraged that ESPN's channels take the biggest chunk of your cable/satellite bill each month. And you're not watching.
However, the cable/satellite providers are not the only ones to blame. The stations and networks programming these channels could stand some improvement as well. It seems that many channels no longer do what they initially set out to do and consumers are stuck paying for something different.
MTV and VH1 were all about music. Now they have more "original" programming which has nothing to do with music than ever before. That's not what we were initially told, and I should be able to send them a message by dropping them.
TVLand was supposed to be "classic TV all the time". Now, they continue to show "original" shows and movies in prime time and on weekends instead of the reruns of true classic shows. I barely watch it now after constant viewing years ago. I should be able to send them a message by dropping them.
ESPN Classic was implemented to show true classic sporting events. During its first few years, they provided an outstanding lineup heavy on older baseball, football, and basketball games of note, taken from the original telecasts. Have you checked them out lately? It seems to be mostly crap such as poker. I should be able to send them a message by dropping them because they also severely reduced the quality of programming from what it first was.
CNN Headline News provided continuous 30 minute updated newscasts 24 hours a day for years. Now, they show more talk and interview shows, recycling them several times a day, than they spend giving current news headlines. I should be able to send them a message by dropping them because they no longer constantly do what they used to either.
What about the BIO channel? Created because of all the great A & E Biography shows from over the years. Try going through their current schedule for a 24 hour period and see if you find a day with more than 33% of their programming being actual "Biography" shows. That's not what got them started.
I could go on. Chances are you have thought of some other channels which have come to disappoint you and have been taken out of your "favorites" button on the remote.
My point is that many of the TV station and network programmers have let consumers down. They have gone away from what made them, reduced the quality, and become less appealing to viewers.
How dare they force us to pay to continue to receive them? These were supposed to be "advertiser supported" channels. If they want consumers to support them, they need to either listen to what their paying customers really want, or not require us to paying for what we don't want. And if they don't receive enough revenue to support operation, then let them go away. These channels should not be my problem.
Instead, consumers often suffer by not having choices. Within the past year, NFL Network has come to Charter Cable, and MLB Network has come to AT&T U-Verse. Both companies made a big deal about now having these. What a bunch of crap!
We the people should have been able to get these channels, if we want them, via whatever cable or satellite provider we are paying each month.
Now, let's get back to today's news. Record numbers of consumers are getting rid of cable and satellite. Sure, some of it is the economy. But let's tell the stations and networks, and the cable and satellite companies, that we are sending a message.
We want to choose what we watch, and demand the right to do so.
http://www.chicagotribune.com/business/breaking/chi-record-numbers-cancelling-cable-satellite-tv-service-20110810,0,5039580.story
Maybe, just maybe, this will give the cable and satellite providers and the TV stations and networks the long overdue wake up call that has been needed. After all, canceling seems to be the only way that consumers can be heard on this issue.
I'm here to tell you that it's not just the economy as much as it is the quality, or lack thereof. And there is a lot of blame to go around.
The cable and satellite companies need to realize that they are in business to provide us with a service. That service is to install and/or provide the facilities through which we watch the programming, whether via a dish or installed wiring. Once installed, these facilities need to be maintained and services, and upgraded as needed.
For some reason, the cable and satellite companies were given the right to determine what programming we can get and not get. That flat out stinks. Some of the companies providing these TV facilities also provide phone service. Yet, when I get their phone service, I can call into any area code I so choose with a plan that covers the level of service I seek. There are no restricted area codes and none that cost extra.
Yet, with TV, I am forced to pay for channels I don't want and won't watch. And I don't get all of the stations or networks I would like to watch. Why are there restrictions for TV that aren't there for the same company's phone service?
The cable/satellite companies tell me that the majority of these exhorbitant monthly fees I'm paying go to pay for programming on the channels I am getting, some of which are available on a tiered basis at a higher price option. I could live with that, but under one condition. I should decide which channels I'm paying specifically for each month.
Instead, I'm stuck literally paying for channels broadcasting in languages I don't speak, supporting religions I do not practice, and for programming I would never watch. I'm certainly not suggesting that any channel I'm not interested in should go away. Let them prosper. But let the people who want them support them.
My cable or satellite provider should exist to bring me only those channels I want them to send me. Period.
Those of you who are not sports fans should be outraged that ESPN's channels take the biggest chunk of your cable/satellite bill each month. And you're not watching.
However, the cable/satellite providers are not the only ones to blame. The stations and networks programming these channels could stand some improvement as well. It seems that many channels no longer do what they initially set out to do and consumers are stuck paying for something different.
MTV and VH1 were all about music. Now they have more "original" programming which has nothing to do with music than ever before. That's not what we were initially told, and I should be able to send them a message by dropping them.
TVLand was supposed to be "classic TV all the time". Now, they continue to show "original" shows and movies in prime time and on weekends instead of the reruns of true classic shows. I barely watch it now after constant viewing years ago. I should be able to send them a message by dropping them.
ESPN Classic was implemented to show true classic sporting events. During its first few years, they provided an outstanding lineup heavy on older baseball, football, and basketball games of note, taken from the original telecasts. Have you checked them out lately? It seems to be mostly crap such as poker. I should be able to send them a message by dropping them because they also severely reduced the quality of programming from what it first was.
CNN Headline News provided continuous 30 minute updated newscasts 24 hours a day for years. Now, they show more talk and interview shows, recycling them several times a day, than they spend giving current news headlines. I should be able to send them a message by dropping them because they no longer constantly do what they used to either.
What about the BIO channel? Created because of all the great A & E Biography shows from over the years. Try going through their current schedule for a 24 hour period and see if you find a day with more than 33% of their programming being actual "Biography" shows. That's not what got them started.
I could go on. Chances are you have thought of some other channels which have come to disappoint you and have been taken out of your "favorites" button on the remote.
My point is that many of the TV station and network programmers have let consumers down. They have gone away from what made them, reduced the quality, and become less appealing to viewers.
How dare they force us to pay to continue to receive them? These were supposed to be "advertiser supported" channels. If they want consumers to support them, they need to either listen to what their paying customers really want, or not require us to paying for what we don't want. And if they don't receive enough revenue to support operation, then let them go away. These channels should not be my problem.
Instead, consumers often suffer by not having choices. Within the past year, NFL Network has come to Charter Cable, and MLB Network has come to AT&T U-Verse. Both companies made a big deal about now having these. What a bunch of crap!
We the people should have been able to get these channels, if we want them, via whatever cable or satellite provider we are paying each month.
Now, let's get back to today's news. Record numbers of consumers are getting rid of cable and satellite. Sure, some of it is the economy. But let's tell the stations and networks, and the cable and satellite companies, that we are sending a message.
We want to choose what we watch, and demand the right to do so.
Tuesday, July 19, 2011
Looking Beyond Borders - book it !
Now Borders is closing its remaining stores around the country and is about to ride off into the sunset. This should be a, pun intended, textbook example of why some big businesses fail. I’m not buying their “excuse” for leaving the marketplace. Then again, fewer people were buying anything that Borders has been offering lately.
Their closing up shop is more of a result of consumers acceptance of ‘big business policy’ than e readers and the rest of the excuses some PR people have put out there as if to justify this closing. What is unfortunate is that so many very capable employees have and will lose full and part-time positions doing what they love because of goofy policies. Over the years, I always found the Borders employees to be knowledgeable about the books no matter what the topic. That’s the one thing the company did right, across the board, over the years. Employees with knowledge of the product. Management seems to have been a different story, however.
An employee can know and love certain books and talk about them all day with eager customers. But if that employee can’t deliver the product, the consumer still suffers.
There was the time a new DVD came out that I wanted. Out of convenience, I went into a Borders store the morning of the release date. Didn’t find it on the shelves. I asked the Customer Service rep, who knew what I was talking about and looked it up for me. They didn’t have it “yet”. I said something like “thanks anyway, I’ll pick it up down the street later in the day”. The rep looked offended and said that she would order it for me. I said that I would get it somewhere else that same day, which I did, and for a couple dollars less.
A few months ago, I went into 2 different Borders seeking a new release book which wound up on the N Y Times best seller list. One store didn’t have it yet. The other showed it as “in store” on the lookup computer. Couldn’t find it. When I asked, the rep looked it up, then agreed that it’s “in store”, and went to check on this for me. She then came back and said that the book is in the store, but still boxed up in the back and that they wouldn’t have it on display until tomorrow. As if I would come back for it.
Not only are the more incidents like the above, there is also the checkout process. Granted, Borders wasn’t as crazed as Radio Shack in terms of “needing” your information to make a simple purchase, but they came close at times. I shouldn’t have had to give my phone number or e-mail address just to buy a magazine. When they had the most current one in stock.
Over the past couple of years, I found more and more instances of them not having items in stock, but you could order them via Borders.com. However, I, the customer who couldn’t find the item in their store, was asked to pay the shipping charges, which took away any discount.
Forward ahead to the past couple of years and their Borders online “membership” plan. The one where they e-mail you every day with some discount possibilities for which you had jump through hoops and still not always get your buy. You had to keep checking back during the course of the day to see how many people “registered” for their daily specials which would “open” when a certain number of members had done so.
Then, I actually got one of them, which wasn’t easy. Their discount turned out to be, in part, via something called WOW Points which turn into cash. In order to get cash back, Borders wanted my personal checking account information to transfer the funds, failing to leave me any other option to get the money. Ya, right. Like I’m going to give some retailer the information to access my personal checking account?
That one kills me. In this day and age of identity theft and personal information leaks, Borders expects us to blurt out our phone number or e-mail address to make a simple purchase, and to provide them with our personal account information to take advantage of a special discount.
All they needed was some capable management and a sense of what potential customers want in terms of convenience and price. They would still have over 1,000 stores in operation.
Like the little kid who spills his drink and yells “It’s not my fault”, Borders is blaming the e-books and the current marketplace for reading. Heck, a little kid would know to have merchandise ready on the shelf the morning it is released – and easily available at other retailers.
One can only hope that other retailers will see the real reason for the Borders decline and keep in mind what current and potential customers really want.
Their closing up shop is more of a result of consumers acceptance of ‘big business policy’ than e readers and the rest of the excuses some PR people have put out there as if to justify this closing. What is unfortunate is that so many very capable employees have and will lose full and part-time positions doing what they love because of goofy policies. Over the years, I always found the Borders employees to be knowledgeable about the books no matter what the topic. That’s the one thing the company did right, across the board, over the years. Employees with knowledge of the product. Management seems to have been a different story, however.
An employee can know and love certain books and talk about them all day with eager customers. But if that employee can’t deliver the product, the consumer still suffers.
There was the time a new DVD came out that I wanted. Out of convenience, I went into a Borders store the morning of the release date. Didn’t find it on the shelves. I asked the Customer Service rep, who knew what I was talking about and looked it up for me. They didn’t have it “yet”. I said something like “thanks anyway, I’ll pick it up down the street later in the day”. The rep looked offended and said that she would order it for me. I said that I would get it somewhere else that same day, which I did, and for a couple dollars less.
A few months ago, I went into 2 different Borders seeking a new release book which wound up on the N Y Times best seller list. One store didn’t have it yet. The other showed it as “in store” on the lookup computer. Couldn’t find it. When I asked, the rep looked it up, then agreed that it’s “in store”, and went to check on this for me. She then came back and said that the book is in the store, but still boxed up in the back and that they wouldn’t have it on display until tomorrow. As if I would come back for it.
Not only are the more incidents like the above, there is also the checkout process. Granted, Borders wasn’t as crazed as Radio Shack in terms of “needing” your information to make a simple purchase, but they came close at times. I shouldn’t have had to give my phone number or e-mail address just to buy a magazine. When they had the most current one in stock.
Over the past couple of years, I found more and more instances of them not having items in stock, but you could order them via Borders.com. However, I, the customer who couldn’t find the item in their store, was asked to pay the shipping charges, which took away any discount.
Forward ahead to the past couple of years and their Borders online “membership” plan. The one where they e-mail you every day with some discount possibilities for which you had jump through hoops and still not always get your buy. You had to keep checking back during the course of the day to see how many people “registered” for their daily specials which would “open” when a certain number of members had done so.
Then, I actually got one of them, which wasn’t easy. Their discount turned out to be, in part, via something called WOW Points which turn into cash. In order to get cash back, Borders wanted my personal checking account information to transfer the funds, failing to leave me any other option to get the money. Ya, right. Like I’m going to give some retailer the information to access my personal checking account?
That one kills me. In this day and age of identity theft and personal information leaks, Borders expects us to blurt out our phone number or e-mail address to make a simple purchase, and to provide them with our personal account information to take advantage of a special discount.
All they needed was some capable management and a sense of what potential customers want in terms of convenience and price. They would still have over 1,000 stores in operation.
Like the little kid who spills his drink and yells “It’s not my fault”, Borders is blaming the e-books and the current marketplace for reading. Heck, a little kid would know to have merchandise ready on the shelf the morning it is released – and easily available at other retailers.
One can only hope that other retailers will see the real reason for the Borders decline and keep in mind what current and potential customers really want.
Friday, June 10, 2011
Improve The Local Political Focus
In the interest of trying to wake up our local politicians, I offer my personal response up to the general public.
Incredibly, Illinois Congressman Mark Kirk, whose e-mail list I'm on for reasons I don't know, e-mailed me and countless others looking for "input". However, the matter he seeks input on has nothing to do with his local territory.
This time, rather than ignore and delete as usual with political e-mails, I responded. This is the sort of response that should be e-mailed and forwarded to groups of people you know in hopes others will do the same.
First, the primary content I received from Kirk, reprinted without permission:
Dear Friend:
This week marks the 44th anniversary of the 1967 Six Day War. Before the war, Israel's future hung in the balance. After it, Israel began to plan for a more long-term secure future as a pro-western democracy allied to the United States.
Recently, Washington was confronted with a new debate. After backing Israel's security needs for decades, the Administration called on Israel to fall back to its pre-1967 lines "with swaps" with the Palestinian Authority. This happened in the same month that the Palestinian Fatah leaders announced a coalition government with Hamas, a terrorist organization. Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu disagreed and said we should not sacrifice Israel's security in the creation of a new Palestinian state.
I would like to hear from you on this issue.
I strongly believe that we should support the security of our Israeli allies first. You can read more on my views after the jump.
Please feel free to call me at (312) 886-3506 or contact me online at kirk.senate.gov if you have any questions or concerns about issues before the Congress.
It is an honor to serve you and your family in the Senate.
Very Truly Yours,
Mark Kirk
U.S. Senate
Next, my response, which, again, you are welcome to use in response to political e-mails you get stuck with:
Mr. Kirk,
Thanks for the information you provided.
However, I don't see how an international matter with no specific day-to-day impact on us citizens within your service area can be considered anything close to a priority for you at this time. That would explain why you are looking for input about this. It's because those who voted for you are, justifiably, concerned with things you can realistically help to control.
The only international matter you and your colleagues should be focused on is reducing the dependence of foreign oil. The people who voted for you, and who will be asked to do so again, continue to be gouged at the gas pump and now paying more than double what they should for every gallon. The impact is such that local businesses are closing, moving out of state, or forced to raise their prices to us.
Meanwhile, the government you represent wasted millions of our dollars to bail out the banks due to the real estate crisis they created. Just yesterday, three more major banks were reprimanded over their failure to assist shattered homeowners. And I am personally among those, who you will be asking to vote for you, who is stuck owning a house now worth well under the mortgage I'm am still paying on it, with no immediate hope of being able to move or purchase any property.
Now, I see how you and your government colleagues are "looking for input" on a matter that is thousands of miles away.
Unless you expect the people of Israel to help you get re-elected, I'd suggest you focus your efforts close to home.
Dave Kohl
Illinois Voter
Incredibly, Illinois Congressman Mark Kirk, whose e-mail list I'm on for reasons I don't know, e-mailed me and countless others looking for "input". However, the matter he seeks input on has nothing to do with his local territory.
This time, rather than ignore and delete as usual with political e-mails, I responded. This is the sort of response that should be e-mailed and forwarded to groups of people you know in hopes others will do the same.
First, the primary content I received from Kirk, reprinted without permission:
Dear Friend:
This week marks the 44th anniversary of the 1967 Six Day War. Before the war, Israel's future hung in the balance. After it, Israel began to plan for a more long-term secure future as a pro-western democracy allied to the United States.
Recently, Washington was confronted with a new debate. After backing Israel's security needs for decades, the Administration called on Israel to fall back to its pre-1967 lines "with swaps" with the Palestinian Authority. This happened in the same month that the Palestinian Fatah leaders announced a coalition government with Hamas, a terrorist organization. Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu disagreed and said we should not sacrifice Israel's security in the creation of a new Palestinian state.
I would like to hear from you on this issue.
I strongly believe that we should support the security of our Israeli allies first. You can read more on my views after the jump.
Please feel free to call me at (312) 886-3506 or contact me online at kirk.senate.gov if you have any questions or concerns about issues before the Congress.
It is an honor to serve you and your family in the Senate.
Very Truly Yours,
Mark Kirk
U.S. Senate
Next, my response, which, again, you are welcome to use in response to political e-mails you get stuck with:
Mr. Kirk,
Thanks for the information you provided.
However, I don't see how an international matter with no specific day-to-day impact on us citizens within your service area can be considered anything close to a priority for you at this time. That would explain why you are looking for input about this. It's because those who voted for you are, justifiably, concerned with things you can realistically help to control.
The only international matter you and your colleagues should be focused on is reducing the dependence of foreign oil. The people who voted for you, and who will be asked to do so again, continue to be gouged at the gas pump and now paying more than double what they should for every gallon. The impact is such that local businesses are closing, moving out of state, or forced to raise their prices to us.
Meanwhile, the government you represent wasted millions of our dollars to bail out the banks due to the real estate crisis they created. Just yesterday, three more major banks were reprimanded over their failure to assist shattered homeowners. And I am personally among those, who you will be asking to vote for you, who is stuck owning a house now worth well under the mortgage I'm am still paying on it, with no immediate hope of being able to move or purchase any property.
Now, I see how you and your government colleagues are "looking for input" on a matter that is thousands of miles away.
Unless you expect the people of Israel to help you get re-elected, I'd suggest you focus your efforts close to home.
Dave Kohl
Illinois Voter
Monday, May 16, 2011
A Rare Political Rant
Those of you who know me know how little time I spend talking about politics, and that’s not about to change. However, this is one time when a political rant is necessary as I see it.
These politicians have added more to my being a “Frustrated Consumer” than any group of politicians during my lifetime. And it’s not even about saving money by not making any political donations whatsoever.
Frankly, I’m furious at everybody commenting about how glad they are the Donald Trump for President talk is officially over, and how many thought it was a big joke. Please understand that I can understand that many people do not like Trump for whatever reason, and I’m not here to necessarily endorse him no matter what.
Right now, we could use more like Trump entering politics. The number of people making discouraging remarks like this is not helpful to our collective future. Whether you like Trump or not, you can’t deny his overall success in the business world, and his ability to get a deal done much of the time. He is NOT a politician either, and is not afraid to let his opinions and decisions be known to all.
We need him, or someone who also has a track record in the business world, to get the ball rolling and start running for office. The career politicians out there aren’t getting it done.
If you are among those who are glad that Trump is not running for President and ridiculed the recent rumors, I have questions for you:
Why aren’t you ridiculing our current politicians, who have us in an unnecessary war and paying more than double what we should at the gas pump every day? What did Trump do to us that was .1% that bad?
How can you not want someone who doesn’t need “our” money to run his campaign platform? Who won’t have to listen to and do “favors” for potential large donors?
Again, this is not a campaign plug for Donald Trump. If not him, we should be opening the doors wide to encourage people who have a successful track record to come into the political arena and help us get rid of what is in there now.
Don’t ask me for one red cent for anyone’s political campaign. When the e-mails and phone calls and people on the street start asking for political support and donations, my answers will start flying right back at them. I’m going to tell them that until gas prices go down at least 50%, the banks stop screwing up the real estate market (after the government bailout), and the troops are still in the middle east, they aren’t getting one red cent from me. When even one of the politicians, regardless of affiliation, comes through for us, then I’ll THEN consider supporting and/or donating to help him or her in the future. Show me.
Fine, if you don’t want Donald Trump to run for President, I’ll give you that. But to ridicule and trash him worse than any of our current politicians we were all dumb enough to elect, that’s another story. Trump didn’t cause the rise in oil prices, the troops to still be overseas, and the banking crisis. Why not ridicule and embarrass those who did?
These politicians have added more to my being a “Frustrated Consumer” than any group of politicians during my lifetime. And it’s not even about saving money by not making any political donations whatsoever.
Frankly, I’m furious at everybody commenting about how glad they are the Donald Trump for President talk is officially over, and how many thought it was a big joke. Please understand that I can understand that many people do not like Trump for whatever reason, and I’m not here to necessarily endorse him no matter what.
Right now, we could use more like Trump entering politics. The number of people making discouraging remarks like this is not helpful to our collective future. Whether you like Trump or not, you can’t deny his overall success in the business world, and his ability to get a deal done much of the time. He is NOT a politician either, and is not afraid to let his opinions and decisions be known to all.
We need him, or someone who also has a track record in the business world, to get the ball rolling and start running for office. The career politicians out there aren’t getting it done.
If you are among those who are glad that Trump is not running for President and ridiculed the recent rumors, I have questions for you:
Why aren’t you ridiculing our current politicians, who have us in an unnecessary war and paying more than double what we should at the gas pump every day? What did Trump do to us that was .1% that bad?
How can you not want someone who doesn’t need “our” money to run his campaign platform? Who won’t have to listen to and do “favors” for potential large donors?
Again, this is not a campaign plug for Donald Trump. If not him, we should be opening the doors wide to encourage people who have a successful track record to come into the political arena and help us get rid of what is in there now.
Don’t ask me for one red cent for anyone’s political campaign. When the e-mails and phone calls and people on the street start asking for political support and donations, my answers will start flying right back at them. I’m going to tell them that until gas prices go down at least 50%, the banks stop screwing up the real estate market (after the government bailout), and the troops are still in the middle east, they aren’t getting one red cent from me. When even one of the politicians, regardless of affiliation, comes through for us, then I’ll THEN consider supporting and/or donating to help him or her in the future. Show me.
Fine, if you don’t want Donald Trump to run for President, I’ll give you that. But to ridicule and trash him worse than any of our current politicians we were all dumb enough to elect, that’s another story. Trump didn’t cause the rise in oil prices, the troops to still be overseas, and the banking crisis. Why not ridicule and embarrass those who did?
Thursday, April 28, 2011
Not Paying Twice For The Same Service
My line from years ago, “It’s not just the high prices, it’s the people that pay them”, seems to be coming back in style again these days. Thanks to technology. I’d sure like to know why so many people are so willing to pay for the same thing more than once.
People around me as well as millions of people I don’t even know are ruining it for others, right smack in the wallet. Because they are so willing to pay more than once for the same service, sometimes from the same company.
I’ll use what I call “pocket technology” as an example. “Pocket technology” is those devices that I and others carry with me much of the time. I contend it costs me a lot as it is. But it is barely a dent compared with what others are paying double for.
Granted, I carry an older cell phone because I like the features better than what I have found on many newer phones, including the phone I got “free” with my current service. But I don’t have internet on my phone. To my way of thinking, I should. After all, I am already paying a phone company a hefty sum for internet service. However, the company I am paying for my internet is currently only providing it for my home computers. In order to have internet on my phone, my phone provider (and others I have explored) seem to think it is justifiable to charge me a lot of money just for that. My contention is that I am already paying an internet provider, and they should be making it available to every possible device that uses it. I’m supposedly paying for the bandwidth, regardless of how many computers I have at home. Shouldn’t I be able to use my phone for this same purpose?
How dare they expect to charge me much more for the same service just because it is for a different device!
Separately, I carry an MP3 player during the week and at various times I’ll be able to listen to whatever I choose. The unit that I own has the ability to receive wireless internet, which has come in handy when free Wi-fi is available. (Although to me, it’s not really “free”, since I pay an internet provider the hefty monthly fee already.) This unit also holds up to 32 gigs of content.
Needless to say, I currently have more than four full days of music, audio books, radio shows, and the like in my pocket on many days. At times, it is not convenient to carry two separate personal devices with me (the phone and the MP3 player). But finances dictate.
Meanwhile, I already own a digital camera, a separate video recorder, and a pocket AM/FM radio for those rare days when I want to listen to something local, each of which work just fine. I got good price deals on each of those as well by shopping around. That sure beats choosing among a very limited selection from what is supposed to be a phone service provider!
I see no reason to spend literally hundreds of dollars for things I already have, or am entitled to. However, millions of people don’t see it that way.
If I’m already paying for cell phone service, have a MP3 player to hold up to 32 gigs worth of entertainment and information, and am paying for internet access, why should I have to pay again? If I were to “upgrade”, as some call it, I would need to spend upwards of $300+ for a new portable phone/MP3/internet/camera device. Then, I would be asked to pay a lot more in monthly service fees for the phone and internet access. While possibly not having as much storage for my music and other audio.
Why do so many other people have no problem with this? Why isn’t anyone else asking their internet service provider why their plan doesn’t also include the cell phone?
If others want to spend hundreds of dollars per year more for all of this in today’s economy, normally I’d be fine with that. But by doing so, there is no reason for the phone and internet providers to continue to gouge everyone with these duplicate charges for what is often a lower realm of capability.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)