In the Boston Globe this morning is a short article on the struggles at Staples to meet it's revenue goals. While still profitable, Staples - the company that invented office supply superstores - is closing unprofitable outlets and will be cutting costs via management layoffs.
The piece reminded me of my recent (disappointing) experience with Staples. It was last month, when Mass was having a "tax free" weekend. I decided that it was time to buy the new Google Nexus 7 tablet that I had been thinking about. Truth be told, I first went to the Google website, where they offered free shipping. But when I went to check-out, they wanted to charge me the normal sales tax. There was no recognition of my state's "no tax" holiday and no option to avoid paying tax, so I cancelled the transaction and went to my normal go-to store for electronics - Staples.
The online site Staples.com did have a message that assured me that they recognized tax fee holiday, so I could order the product tax-free and go to my local store to pick it up to avoid delivery charges. OK, I thought, let's book it. But, then I was leery because the Staples product description for the Nexus did not specifically say that it was the NEW version that had been released in July. I spent another 15 minutes trying to compare the Google specs to the Staples specs. Finally, confident that my online shopping cart the right product, I went to check out. .....Hmmn, for some reason the Staples rewards number they showed on the website for me was different than the number I have on the card in my wallet. When I tried to check to see if any of my many previous purchases were getting rewards points, I was unable to get a simple report of purchase history. In effect, the message was: we do not have any history for you. Which means: None of your purchases have been counted. Frankly, I was pretty annoyed to think that I had been showing them my rewards card at the cash register for years, and the data was going into an effing black hole. Annoyed as hell, I decided to cancel the transaction.
Now, I was perplexed. My two first choices for Online shopping were a huge disappointment.
For giggles, I decided to see what old-line Sears.com had to offer. I was surprised to find myself rapidly taken to the correct product description and the same price as offered by Google and Staples. They had a banner indication that this would be a tax free purchase. They had a nice little summary of my reward points. I was impressed that the website of this ancient company was easier to navigate than the Internet 2.0 companies. I decided to buy the product for pick-up at the local Sears to save delivery charges. Bink Bink, easy peasy. A few days later, I got an e-mail confirming that my order was being shipped to the local store, and I would be notified when to pick it up in a following e-mail. Then, the next night I got a call form an automated robot telling me that "the computer you ordered is no longer stocked." And then some gobbledigook that I could call the store and get something different. They had cancelled my order!
It was a perfectly awful bit of customer service: a garbled hodgepodge of a message, The offered no valid reason - they did not even give me a number to call. Goodbye.
After all this, I started wondering why I needed a Nexus 7 anyhow. In the end, I decided I really didn't need one after all. So the bottom line is: No one got any money from me. Worse for them, I am so annoyed at these three companies that I will not shop online with any of them again. (I may still go to the local brick and o mortar Staples for their loss-leader paper rebate deals.)
If my experience is typical, the future of e-commerce is in trouble. It is clear that even in 2013, corporate management is clueless about the importance of accurate, integrated and up-to-date data to support the whiz-bang technology.
Google didn't know about states' tax free programs. Staples had fuzzy product descriptions and they can't seem to integrate the rewards program to the sales operations. And, Sears has wasted a lot of money building a web-site that works like butter, then sending me a confirmation of shipment and then cancelling my order and annoying me with a crap automated customer service voice messaging system that must have been a leftover prototype from 1977.
None of these companies followed-up, despite the fact that I filled-out opinion surveys and feedback emails to each of these stores. I was never responded to - in any way, not even a canned apology letter. This is why I think they must be clueless. Rule 1, Try not to piss-off the customer.
The VP's of these outfits probably need to try to use their own online websites. They might be in for an annoying experience.
Showing posts with label google. Show all posts
Showing posts with label google. Show all posts
9/26/2013
2/20/2012
Thud!
I have been writing on Blogger since 2003, and it has always mystified me that Blogger/Google has provided storage space free to any moron who can figure out how to post text. The service does not require the author to make the blog public or to include advertising. So why do they do it?
For years, I've been wondering when the next shoe would drop. Yesterday, I got a message that Blogger "no longer supports [my] browser," which happens to be Microsoft's Internet Explorer. Hmm.
Somewhere, I heard the thud of a size 12 brogan hitting the floor.
The message suggested that I start using the Google (Blogger's parent) Chrome browser. And sure enough, I had problems accessing the editing features for blogger posts until I caved-in and downloaded Chrome.
I fear we will be seeing more of this sort of extortion in the future, as the competition between Google and Microsoft becomes more intense and forces users to "choose a side." This competition may keep the act of blogging to remain free for a while longer, but eventually someone has to pay....
I recall the early years, when Cable providers assured the public that "Pay TV" would be commercial free. How's that working-out? Most cable and "free" TV today is unwatchable - unless you have a DVR and can skip through the commercial breaks. Even "commercial-free" PBS is loaded with sponsored blurbs - which thankfully are run between shows and not in the middle of them.
I find it unsettling that most futuristic visions from Hollywood and in print literature portray a tomorrow that is either post-apocalyptic ( e.g., "The Road", "Book of Eli") or a society dominated by commercial advertising ( e.g. "Idiocracy", "I Robot").
Don't forget to click on the ad that appears just below this post. I make money when people click on my ads.
Daddy always said: If you can't beat 'em, join 'em!
For years, I've been wondering when the next shoe would drop. Yesterday, I got a message that Blogger "no longer supports [my] browser," which happens to be Microsoft's Internet Explorer. Hmm.
Somewhere, I heard the thud of a size 12 brogan hitting the floor.
The message suggested that I start using the Google (Blogger's parent) Chrome browser. And sure enough, I had problems accessing the editing features for blogger posts until I caved-in and downloaded Chrome.
I fear we will be seeing more of this sort of extortion in the future, as the competition between Google and Microsoft becomes more intense and forces users to "choose a side." This competition may keep the act of blogging to remain free for a while longer, but eventually someone has to pay....
I recall the early years, when Cable providers assured the public that "Pay TV" would be commercial free. How's that working-out? Most cable and "free" TV today is unwatchable - unless you have a DVR and can skip through the commercial breaks. Even "commercial-free" PBS is loaded with sponsored blurbs - which thankfully are run between shows and not in the middle of them.
I find it unsettling that most futuristic visions from Hollywood and in print literature portray a tomorrow that is either post-apocalyptic ( e.g., "The Road", "Book of Eli") or a society dominated by commercial advertising ( e.g. "Idiocracy", "I Robot").
Don't forget to click on the ad that appears just below this post. I make money when people click on my ads.
Daddy always said: If you can't beat 'em, join 'em!
1/18/2012
No Blackout Here
If you click on a Wikipedia link today you will get a split-second view of your desired search page and then a black out overlay with the query "Imagine a World Without Free Knowledge..."
They are going dark for 24 hours to "raise awareness" that the U.S. Congress "is considering legislation that could fatally damage the free and open Internet."
As an unabashed opponent of strikes and other stoppages as a means of getting public attention, I am on the side of the so-called capitalists on this issue. I think it is just silly to stage such a mock protest. That's like saying, "Hey everyone. I am going on a 24 hour hunger strike to stop the madness!"
Stopping Piracy is a worthy aim.
I do not know if the current SOPA and PIPA proposals will kill the free Internet - that would require more research than I am in the mood for. But, as an occasional producer of revenue-producing intellectual content, I claim solidarity with my brother/sister artists who have been getting ripped-off by illegal piracy.
On the mostly free Internet, no one seems to be in charge. (This is not universal, some countries closely monitor local access) In general censorship does not exist. You can watch dirty pictures, say virtually anything you want about anyone with impunity. You can learn how to make bomb components just as easily as accessing a Kayak fishing video.
But, some people think it is dangerous to publish certain kinds of information. Ben Franklin is alleged to have said that "citizens who are willing to give up a little liberty in exchange for a little safety deserve neither". Poppycock, I say. Sometimes you need to constrain freedom of speech. We do it all the time, and it makes for a healthier, less course and safer society.
Free = Worthless
Most people tend to have more regard for experiences that have a cost associated with them. Studies have shown that people who wait in long lines for tickets value the performance more than those who got the tickets for free. Kids are notoriously careless with stuff that doting parents have lavished upon them. One parent in my neighborhood recently complained that his son was on his 3rd iPad in twelve months. My generation was raised without the expectation of entitlement. I had to earn the money to buy my first car.
Summary
If you have read this far, you have ascertained that I am - as usual - all over the lot on this topic. I think people ought to be paid for worthwhile expression of their art*, yet I am like you annoyed to have to pay for stuff that used to be free. And is free content covered by free speech?
Blogging is the ultimate free arena. There is zero cost of entry and maintenance. I have often wondered why Google offers the Blogger.com platform for free to anyone regardless of writing skill. Who is paying for all the space and access? And why? As a reader, you pay nothing, and you probably use the Internet more for entertainment than for information. You correctly disregard the brandished wisdom of pedantic bloggers, thinking If you're so smart why aren't you rich?
*Note - I think the setting of a fixed price for entertainment needs to be abolished. I am developing a new paradigm, where tickets are paid-for after the performance. The price is set by the perceived value as determined by the purchaser. (If Meatloaf shows-up sober, remembers the lyrics and gives a good show, he makes a lot more money than if everyone was disappointed. If the Patriots suck and lose the playoff game, they are docked and the price of a ticket is reduced accordingly.) This concept might work for Wall Street too!
They are going dark for 24 hours to "raise awareness" that the U.S. Congress "is considering legislation that could fatally damage the free and open Internet."
 |
| Attention Getting Gimmick? |
Stopping Piracy is a worthy aim.
I do not know if the current SOPA and PIPA proposals will kill the free Internet - that would require more research than I am in the mood for. But, as an occasional producer of revenue-producing intellectual content, I claim solidarity with my brother/sister artists who have been getting ripped-off by illegal piracy.
On the mostly free Internet, no one seems to be in charge. (This is not universal, some countries closely monitor local access) In general censorship does not exist. You can watch dirty pictures, say virtually anything you want about anyone with impunity. You can learn how to make bomb components just as easily as accessing a Kayak fishing video.
But, some people think it is dangerous to publish certain kinds of information. Ben Franklin is alleged to have said that "citizens who are willing to give up a little liberty in exchange for a little safety deserve neither". Poppycock, I say. Sometimes you need to constrain freedom of speech. We do it all the time, and it makes for a healthier, less course and safer society.
Free = Worthless
Most people tend to have more regard for experiences that have a cost associated with them. Studies have shown that people who wait in long lines for tickets value the performance more than those who got the tickets for free. Kids are notoriously careless with stuff that doting parents have lavished upon them. One parent in my neighborhood recently complained that his son was on his 3rd iPad in twelve months. My generation was raised without the expectation of entitlement. I had to earn the money to buy my first car.
Summary
If you have read this far, you have ascertained that I am - as usual - all over the lot on this topic. I think people ought to be paid for worthwhile expression of their art*, yet I am like you annoyed to have to pay for stuff that used to be free. And is free content covered by free speech?
Blogging is the ultimate free arena. There is zero cost of entry and maintenance. I have often wondered why Google offers the Blogger.com platform for free to anyone regardless of writing skill. Who is paying for all the space and access? And why? As a reader, you pay nothing, and you probably use the Internet more for entertainment than for information. You correctly disregard the brandished wisdom of pedantic bloggers, thinking If you're so smart why aren't you rich?
*Note - I think the setting of a fixed price for entertainment needs to be abolished. I am developing a new paradigm, where tickets are paid-for after the performance. The price is set by the perceived value as determined by the purchaser. (If Meatloaf shows-up sober, remembers the lyrics and gives a good show, he makes a lot more money than if everyone was disappointed. If the Patriots suck and lose the playoff game, they are docked and the price of a ticket is reduced accordingly.) This concept might work for Wall Street too!
9/26/2009
Facts Are Stubborn Things
If you do an Internet search on the phrase "Facts are stubborn things" you will find that the cyberworld is full of conflicting information. You get about 60,000 hits. Within the first dozen citations, the quote is attributed to John Adams, Mark Twain, Ronald Regan, Lawrence Peters, and several unknown French guys. So much for stubborn facts, eh?
This, in a nutshell, is the problem for seekers of Truth ever since Al Gore invented the Internets. There is too much conflicting data, misinformation and outright malicious fabrication. As Lincoln observed, "It is easy to fool most of the people most of the time. "
Guys like Rush Limbaugh and John Stewart make their living maliciously distorting the words and deeds of anyone of the other side of their political ideology. They may think they are doing it for entertainment, but too many of their fans miss the humor and believe anything they hear from the lips of their guru.
We do not know who we can trust to tell the truth. The stubborn facts are buried deep in the mine and we do not have time to go in and dig them out ourselves. Google and other search engines are constantly gamed by special interests and clever marketers to make their interest-friendly results appear near the top of the list of returned hits.
Like me, most seekers-of-truth are in a hurry for enlightenment. So, we usually abandon our online research after viewing a few pages of search results. We click on the one or two that seem to agree with our preconceived notions. If the writing is intelligible, and it supports our point-of-view, we hyper-link it to verify our source. We shamelessly ignore contradictory data.
The problem remains:
“Facts are ventriloquists dummies. Sitting on a wise man's knee they may be made to utter words of wisdom; elsewhere, they say nothing, or talk nonsense, or indulge in sheer diabolism.” Aldous Huxley. At least, I think he was the one who said it.
This, in a nutshell, is the problem for seekers of Truth ever since Al Gore invented the Internets. There is too much conflicting data, misinformation and outright malicious fabrication. As Lincoln observed, "It is easy to fool most of the people most of the time. "
Guys like Rush Limbaugh and John Stewart make their living maliciously distorting the words and deeds of anyone of the other side of their political ideology. They may think they are doing it for entertainment, but too many of their fans miss the humor and believe anything they hear from the lips of their guru.
We do not know who we can trust to tell the truth. The stubborn facts are buried deep in the mine and we do not have time to go in and dig them out ourselves. Google and other search engines are constantly gamed by special interests and clever marketers to make their interest-friendly results appear near the top of the list of returned hits.
Like me, most seekers-of-truth are in a hurry for enlightenment. So, we usually abandon our online research after viewing a few pages of search results. We click on the one or two that seem to agree with our preconceived notions. If the writing is intelligible, and it supports our point-of-view, we hyper-link it to verify our source. We shamelessly ignore contradictory data.
The problem remains:
“Facts are ventriloquists dummies. Sitting on a wise man's knee they may be made to utter words of wisdom; elsewhere, they say nothing, or talk nonsense, or indulge in sheer diabolism.” Aldous Huxley. At least, I think he was the one who said it.
5/04/2008
No Country Redux
You probably think that you are one of the two or three people who read this blog. But I have news for you bucko: there are at least four people who read it, not counting me.
I know this because I have received anecdotal evidence from one of the "regulars" that he was talking with a female friend who read my "No Country for Old Men " post of last week.
She thinks I should stick to writing about work issues and leave politics to the pundati. As I understand it, she is a supporter of John McCain's creaking campaign, and she wishes that I would just STFU about how old McCain is.
It makes me happy to imagine that someone would read my musings and actually be annoyed because they are worried that my pearls of wisdom and insight might actually change someones mind - or vote.
Someone should tell her that this wisdom is lost to most surfers, so she needen't become distressed that wandering bubbas might find truth via the Google search engine. I think Google tends to "find" Internet postings that have a lot of commercial appeal. This is a problem for me, since, like John McCain, I do not believe in pandering to special interests. I do not "sell" ad space to gain revenue. I know what you are thinking: No one would advertise on a site that only gets four clicks a week. Maybe so.
Exploring the Internets can be harrowing. We writers frequently attempt to back-up our opinions with actual facts. In the old days, I suppose writers actually went to the library and looked stuff up. Hah, what a waste of time! Nowadays, professional opinionators need go no further than their handy desk top search engine. All Truth is out there on the Internets. If there isn't a Wikipedia entry on something, it probably isn't worth knowing - or believing.
The other day, I tried to see if Google would find one of the blogs that I posted with "tags" I searched "McCain, No Country for Old Men" and when I did not find my blog in the top 200 listings, I lost interest. Instead, I found this obvious ripoff of my previous entry which, remember, was dated two days earlier:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robert-scheer/no-country-for-old-men_b_99342.html
I would consider a plagiarism lawsuit against this Robert-sheer fellow, but that would involve talking to a lawyer. My daddy always said " Boy, don't never have no truck wit no lawyers. You gots to make you own justice." Well, sometimes justice is trumped by a desire to keep things simple. Besides, as my mother used to say, imitation is the highest form of compliment.
I know what you are thinking: The Sheer piece is so much better, well written and researched. Well, I think my mother would have said mine was better. Nah nah.
Speaking of Mothers, my wife tricked me into making breakfast this morning, suggesting that it was Mothers day. Hey, since I became an orphan, I don't pay any attention to the Hallmark Holidays. By the time I realized that it (Mothers Day) was actually next Sunday, my wily coyote bride of 40 years had already consumed the Land O Lakes Omega3 eggs, Banquet brown-and-serve sausages and buttered Arnold Oat Bran toast, and was sitting like a princess on the Sun-Shield screen porch quaffing her Starbucks Verona with that Mona Lisa smile on her face. (Maybe that will get me some Google hits).
editorial note: After pithy commentary on grammer and pronoun agreement by yet another faithful reader/commenter, I have re-written the earlier version. The comments have been removed to avoid confusion.
I know this because I have received anecdotal evidence from one of the "regulars" that he was talking with a female friend who read my "No Country for Old Men " post of last week.
She thinks I should stick to writing about work issues and leave politics to the pundati. As I understand it, she is a supporter of John McCain's creaking campaign, and she wishes that I would just STFU about how old McCain is.
It makes me happy to imagine that someone would read my musings and actually be annoyed because they are worried that my pearls of wisdom and insight might actually change someones mind - or vote.
Someone should tell her that this wisdom is lost to most surfers, so she needen't become distressed that wandering bubbas might find truth via the Google search engine. I think Google tends to "find" Internet postings that have a lot of commercial appeal. This is a problem for me, since, like John McCain, I do not believe in pandering to special interests. I do not "sell" ad space to gain revenue. I know what you are thinking: No one would advertise on a site that only gets four clicks a week. Maybe so.
Exploring the Internets can be harrowing. We writers frequently attempt to back-up our opinions with actual facts. In the old days, I suppose writers actually went to the library and looked stuff up. Hah, what a waste of time! Nowadays, professional opinionators need go no further than their handy desk top search engine. All Truth is out there on the Internets. If there isn't a Wikipedia entry on something, it probably isn't worth knowing - or believing.
The other day, I tried to see if Google would find one of the blogs that I posted with "tags" I searched "McCain, No Country for Old Men" and when I did not find my blog in the top 200 listings, I lost interest. Instead, I found this obvious ripoff of my previous entry which, remember, was dated two days earlier:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robert-scheer/no-country-for-old-men_b_99342.html
I would consider a plagiarism lawsuit against this Robert-sheer fellow, but that would involve talking to a lawyer. My daddy always said " Boy, don't never have no truck wit no lawyers. You gots to make you own justice." Well, sometimes justice is trumped by a desire to keep things simple. Besides, as my mother used to say, imitation is the highest form of compliment.
I know what you are thinking: The Sheer piece is so much better, well written and researched. Well, I think my mother would have said mine was better. Nah nah.
Speaking of Mothers, my wife tricked me into making breakfast this morning, suggesting that it was Mothers day. Hey, since I became an orphan, I don't pay any attention to the Hallmark Holidays. By the time I realized that it (Mothers Day) was actually next Sunday, my wily coyote bride of 40 years had already consumed the Land O Lakes Omega3 eggs, Banquet brown-and-serve sausages and buttered Arnold Oat Bran toast, and was sitting like a princess on the Sun-Shield screen porch quaffing her Starbucks Verona with that Mona Lisa smile on her face. (Maybe that will get me some Google hits).
editorial note: After pithy commentary on grammer and pronoun agreement by yet another faithful reader/commenter, I have re-written the earlier version. The comments have been removed to avoid confusion.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)