Funniest/Most Insightful Comments Of The Week At Techdirt
from the this-story-has-morals dept
Another week done, another bunch of great comments. Topping the insightful list this week was an awesome comment from Richard providing some great historical perspective on how the retail industry learned how making life more convenient for customers -- even if it makes it easier to illegally get things -- actually has helped the bottom line massively. And this is a point that the legacy content players still don't get:Real Physical shops have been moving in the opposite direction. 100 years ago you went into a shop and had to ask for each item from an assistant. It meant you could never shoplift - but it was expensive and time consuming. SO the shops put the stuff on the customer's side of the counter - and you collected it and took it to the assistant before paying. This was quicker - and even though it was now more possible to steal (though not that easy because the assistant could see the whole shop) the shops still felt that it was worth it overall for the increased sales and reduced payroll.Coming in second is a comment from the Infamous Joe, responding to the news that some law enforcement officials had asked Google to remove a video that showed police brutality. Joe suggested a "little known fact"
Next came the supermarket - which streamlined the process even further - though it did make shoplifting easier - but guess what - the shops still found it was better for them and swallowed the losses in return for more sales and lower wage costs.
Finally we progressed to the system in my local Waitrose - where the store lets you do the scanning and only checks up on you once in a blue moon. Now stealing would be even easier - and can even be done accidentally - but the store still thinks it's worthwhile for them.
Moral of the story ?
Trust your customers - just like the MPAA don't.
The most effective way to stop videos of police brutality getting online is for the police to not brutalize people.For editor's choice, we've got two comments responding to the same comment from someone claiming that the "wild west" era of the internet is over. Zachary Knight responded by pointing out his preference:
They should try that first.
I would rather have a wild west of an internet than a soviet America ruled internet any day.While an Anonymous Coward provided an excellent history lesson:
The wild west days of America were about pioneering, establishing society and government. It was the forming of America and a time of great expansion and growth.Over on the funny side, we once again see a bunch of winning comments from anonymous users. No wonder so many other sites ban anonymous commenters. You wouldn't want them being all funny and stuff. The top vote-getter presented his or her theory on government:
It's telling that you refer to the wild west as a bad thing.
Governments are like diapers, then need to be changed periodically, and for the same reason.The second place vote getter, also anonymous, was also responding to silly government decisions -- this time a California politician who tried to ban raves (after attending one for "research purposes") by outlawing people sucking on pacifiers or carrying stuff animals at events on state property (you really have to see the video on that post for her stern "no pacifiers!" exclamation). Our anonymous commenters thought through the unintended consequences:
So will we see babies at state events patted down and their pacifiers confiscated now? Will small children be tazed for carrying around their dangerous stuffed animals and spreading rave culture? This is a perfect example of why politicians need to wait for the drugs from their 'research' to wear off before writing legislation.For editor's choice, I have to admit that fogbugzd's comment explaining how he messes with Apple fanboys who claim that everyone just copies things from Apple, made me laugh -- because it's just subtle enough that some people will miss the joke entirely, which only makes it funnier.
There were a lot of things that other companies have "preemptively copied" from Apple. The most recent example I can think of are drop-down notifications which Android had the audacity to copy from Apple a few years before Apple put them in IOS 5. (I work with a bunch of Apple fan-boys who are always citing things that Windows/Android/RIM have copied from Apple. Sometimes those are things that Apple copied, and I refer to the phenomenon as "preemptively copying from Apple." So far they haven't caught on to what I mean by preemptive copying.)And, finally, yet another anonymous coward explaining to use just why Righthaven seems to keep on losing:
The judge is just attempting to help Righthaven. It is offering them guidance on future legal battles. Please stop with these smear campaigns.I expect we'll see more such guidance in the coming weeks.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
And the extrapolation to the film industry is quite a leap. A bit easier to say, look, I can buy the Blu-Ray for $15 and sit through 5-10 minutes of previews and FBI warnings, or I can download it. Richard's getting at this, I think. The movie studios would most likely increase sales if customer purchases were belonged to the customers.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
These changes are the result of competition. The purpose of competition is not to improve the retailers' bottom lines - rather it is to provide services to the public at the lowest possible price - and I think it is pretty clear that it has succeeded in doing that.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
It isn't a model that exports well to any business that works on wants rather than needs. Food is a need, everyone has to eat, and most people work hard to get the most for their money. But in entertainment, example, there is no need, only want. It's the first thing out the window when there isn't any money left.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
The Great Depression called. It laughed at you.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
But if something for sale can be obtained for free, there isn't really a good reason to plop down money for it, is there? That's essentially charity then.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Shopping for psychological stress relief or stimulation of brain pleasure centers.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Wow, I made a comment in this very thread talking about how businesses think their goods are reason enough to buy and here we have an example of exactly that.
"But if something for sale can be obtained for free, there isn't really a good reason to plop down money for it, is there? That's essentially charity then."
Yeah, nobody buys Evian or Dasani, do they? People just collect rain water and bottle that for free instead. People pay for that because they get the added value (gasp!) of having a bottle of water than can take with them when it's convenient. That's what bottle water sells: convenience. There's plenty of added value that can be attached to digital goods that can provide a reason to buy it. You're just not accustomed to divergent thinking due to having an MBA or a law degree.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Don't know where you live, but I buy them because of the quality of the water. Water is kinda important stuff.
Got another example?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines04/0304-04.htm
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Of course you don't understand the wants and needs of the human mind even though you are owner of one.
Is like not being self aware you are not capable of being aware of why people do the things they do, you don't understand their motivations.
Like yourself you believe that bottled water is something important and you will pay for it when you can get the same water out of any tap in America, but you pay more for tap water from Coca-Cola they truly are masters of marketing, they could sell fridges to an igloo dweller.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I'll sell you the oxygen that you're breathing. Now pay up since you have a reason to buy it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Just because something is for sale doesn't mean it ought to cost money.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Correct, but it's not necessarily sufficient reason to buy. Way to miss the point on that one.
"But if something for sale can be obtained for free, there isn't really a good reason to plop down money for it, is there?"
Of course there is. There are many reasons to pay for something instead of going for the free version. Usually they involve the paid version being better than the free version.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
This is the problem with a lot of business these days. They plan their business models around what they want and assume the goods they sell and the marketing they use will be enough to get them sales, trying to form a monopoly as fast as they can thinking it will make them more money. As a result, quality has been sliding downward drastically. They don't think about what the consumer wants most of the time, just that they secure their own bottom line. Start with what your customers want and build from there. It will restore the customer's sense of value in your goods. Treat them as burglar's trying to crack your vault and you'll only make them distrust you.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Sorry, that just isn't how it works out. The upside of volume is very limited. It almost becomes a bit of a pyramid scheme when you look at it, the numbers quickly expand to "all of the population" as they try to find enough volume to make up for lost income.
There is a sweet spot. It's one of the reasons PPV programs for things like wrestling and UFC are priced as they are. Yes, they could lower the price to get some more viewers, but a 50% price cut doesn't net them even the same amount of income. Net, it's even worse. It's the nature of the game.
It is incredibly simplistic to say "lower the price, make more sales", but you have to look at the totals at the end. 50% pay cut, 50% more sales, still leaves you down by 25% or more gross, and probably closer to 50% net (because the cost per unit remains the same). Low margins and high volumes only work well on repeat business, and a single movie is NOT going to get massive repeat business. They aren't selling coca-cola, they are selling what for most is a one time experience, nothing more.
What the consumer wants now is everything for next to nothing, they want it now, and they want it in every format under the sun, delivered fast, wirelessly, without drm, and without restictions of any sort. They want to give it away to their friends after, they want to make 10 copies, and most importantly, they want it all for a price that is laughable.
If the movie industry did what consumers wanted, they would be out of business in a week.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
"They aren't selling coca-cola"
They sure aren't! Coke has fixed costs for each unit they ship. Movies don't have that problem. You can distribute them online for an almost non-existent cost since the theater is where they typically make back their money on production. The home video release has a very tiny fixed cost and the rest is mostly profit.
"They want to give it away to their friends after, they want to make 10 copies, and most importantly, they want it all for a price that is laughable."
Gee, it sounds like somebody isn't reading the writing on the wall. They can, they will, and they do all of that. They do it because the price is arbitrary and excessive for the video. It's also pretty damn easy to do.
"If the movie industry did what consumers wanted, they would be out of business in a week."
Bullshit, if file sharing was capable of putting them out of business, it would have happened by now. You're just doom-saying the whole thing because you don't want to serve the customers, you want to serve yourself. The movie makers are the entitled people here. They take from the public domain, slap it together into a movie, and claim ownership while trying to sell it for larger profit margins than any other goods out there. They can lower a price some. The volume they get from lower prices will be better than trying to squeeze out all they can from their self-serving business model.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
It's why it is always important to remember what works for the little guy doesn't work for the big guy.
" if file sharing was capable of putting them out of business, it would have happened by now"
Actually, in the case of the music industry, it almost has. Stick around for a few more years, with more and more sharing, and it is likely that there will be nobody left actually buying music. Ding, end of the music industry. The movie industry is just 5-8 years behind, internet speed is rising fast enough to make pirating a "reasonable" alternative.
What does the public want then, that they can do at a price that makes sense and doesn't require 50% of the market to buy?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Who said it was?
"But if you are already selling twenty million plus movie tickets, and retail selling or renting another 1 million times, exactly how much more market are you expecting?"
This is completely false. You're assuming that you've already sold as many tickets as there are customers. That's just wrong. Furthermore, you're making a false comparison. Tickets are proof of sale of a seat. Seats are limited. We're talking about digital goods, something you can't run out of.
"Actually, in the case of the music industry, it almost has."
That's totally false. The music industry is doing fine. It's the publishers that are tanking because they're becoming an obsolete, vestigial service for artists.
"Stick around for a few more years, with more and more sharing, and it is likely that there will be nobody left actually buying music."
Also false and dishonest too. Artists don't need to sell songs to make a living, they sell performances and other limited goods/services. There will always be people buying music, just not in the narrow path your convergent thinking is stuck on.
"What does the public want then, that they can do at a price that makes sense and doesn't require 50% of the market to buy?"
I don't know what you're talking about, but if you're asking what the solution is, it's already here. The recording industry just isn't part of it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
It's called capitalism actually - feel free to suggest an alternative system.
It isn't a model that exports well to any business that works on wants rather than needs.
Look - you either have a capitalist economy or you don't. You can of course nationalise the entertainment industries and fund them out of taxation. Then everything would be free to the consumer. Is that what you are suggesting?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
copyright
I would like to make that into a bumper sticker.
Which AC owns the copyrights?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: copyright
According to a very quick google search. Whoever submitted it probably got it from somewhere
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: copyright
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: copyright
How about a poster or a coffee mug? (http://www.despair.com/changediaper.html)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: copyright
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Nothing new here...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Nothing new here...
You haters are really obsessed about Jobs aren't you?
Like the Think Different ad said
"You can quote them, disagree with them, glorify or vilify them. About the only thing you can�t do is ignore them. Because they change things. They push the human race forward. ..."
Jobs changed how people use computers, how they buy/listen to music, gave control of phones back to the manufacturers, and as a final act revitalized the table category. No wonder reactionary types hate him I guess.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Nothing new here...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Nothing new here...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Nothing new here...
Seriosly?
Before iPhone, the carriers would decide the feature set of phones - bluetooth, camera etc. When Apple was making the iPhone it tried to negotiate with Verizon and told them it wanted complete control - Verizon rejected it. AT&T went along with it but they also wanted some kind of exclusive deal which Apple had to agree too. Once the iPhone was a huge success, Verizon and Sprint came crawling to Google for a deal removing the right to decide the feature set. (Though they still get to add crap software on to the Android phones.)
This has been discussed on various tech news sites for the last 4 years.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I question what it is "illegal", if it is illegal to share music or movies I'm a criminal and will never be redeemed.
It is to easy to label something as bad and start trying to punish it, but nobody seems to be asking the question "It is really illegal or just the wishful thinking of a very small class of people?".
We all know the answer, we all can see it, we all have pirate friends, sons/daughers and family, we all did it and people even do it by accident as some detractors of Mike were quick to point out in the other article about the Hell Angels logo trying to say "It was an accidental thing" it was not copyfraud, but if anybody tried to call it accidental copyright infringement they be labeled lying thieves and those same people would be asking for all the rights of people to be stripped so they could punish them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
The keyword here is "even". The point is that even where the activity (shoplifting) is clearly illegal and causes a real loss to the shop - it is still good sense for the shop to priortize the customer's convenience.
How much more sensible is it to do the same when the loss isn't clear and the legal/moral aspects are also less certain.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]