A mentor of mine once said to me, "Remember, you'll never win a pissing match with a client."
He was speaking of the service industry in which we both work, but the same applies to customers. Arguing that they're beholden to buy something from you just because they set foot in your store is a fight you won't win. It's THEIR money. You have to give them a reason to spend it with you.
No, what Amazon is telling them to do is be smart shoppers. That's called competition. Smart retailers will play to their strengths; offering an inviting environment, the personal touch, etc. Stupid ones will pull stunts like covering up barcodes, which is the equivalent of saying, "F*** you, customers."
I'm really fond of John Stich's comment in the article:
"When we see shoppers taking pictures with their phones or using the app, we won't go so far as to be rude or ask them to leave, but sometimes we'll be sarcastic about it, and ask them, 'Hey, what's that app? How cool!'"
Because being sarcastic to customers is an awesome way to win them over.
Glad I'm not the only one who had this reaction. Yes the TSA agent is being professional, and yes she's just doing her job, but so what? It's an invasion none of us, much less a six year-old, should be subjected to. Had that been my daughter -- well, had that been my daughter the agent never would have gotten close to doing what she did -- but, had it come to that, I would have punched a woman for the first time in my life.
Glad I'm not the only one who had this reaction. Yes the TSA agent is being professional, and yes she's just doing her job, but so what? It's an invasion none of us, much less a six year-old, should be subjected to. Had that been my daughter -- well, had that been my daughter the agent never would have gotten close to doing what she did -- but, had it come to that, I would have punched a woman for the first time in my life.
Edmunds' ability to source information is predicated on their ability to attract readers. Going behind a paywall would drastically diminish the number of readers, and the useful information would then migrate to wherever those readers happen to be.
That's the fatal flaw in most paywall scenarios. The paywall believers seem to think information providers can somehow corner the market on their sources, when most sources want to expose their information to as many people as possible.
Methinks you fail to understand the basic tenets of supply and demand.
Let me lay this out for you. Suppose I love Jalopnik (and I do, really). Right now Jalopnik is free. I get entertaining automotive-themed content along with a smattering of relevant-to-me ads. Jalopnik gets my eyeballs.
Let's say they decide to put up a paywall. Now, were Jalopnik the only source around for snark-filled automotive new, I'd have to nut up and pay. But they're NOT. And even if they were, others would quickly fill the void with their own free websites -- the barriers to entry are simply too low for that not to happen.
This is why paywalls will never, ever work for companies that just charge for what used to be free. Those that find the scarce good and add value will succeed, yeah, but that's not what the Times are doing.
It's interesting how the Obama administration claims to want more transparency, when they're ultimately just asking for more control. I suspect if they got the control they seek, "transparency" would would go out the window, at least as far as us common folk are concerned.
My point wasn't that choice is bad, but that in this case a rush to flood the market with titles led to a more rapid decline in the genre. It simply wasn't a strategic move on the publishers part.
Given the track record of Gearbox, the developer handed the task of picking up the pieces of DNF, I have high hopes. If anyone can clean up that mess, it's them.
Re: Re: Re:
He was speaking of the service industry in which we both work, but the same applies to customers. Arguing that they're beholden to buy something from you just because they set foot in your store is a fight you won't win. It's THEIR money. You have to give them a reason to spend it with you.
Re: Why don't restaurants allow you to bring your own food and eat at their tables?
(untitled comment)
"When we see shoppers taking pictures with their phones or using the app, we won't go so far as to be rude or ask them to leave, but sometimes we'll be sarcastic about it, and ask them, 'Hey, what's that app? How cool!'"
Because being sarcastic to customers is an awesome way to win them over.
(untitled comment)
(untitled comment)
Re:
Re:
Re: Re: Re:
Edmunds' ability to source information is predicated on their ability to attract readers. Going behind a paywall would drastically diminish the number of readers, and the useful information would then migrate to wherever those readers happen to be.
That's the fatal flaw in most paywall scenarios. The paywall believers seem to think information providers can somehow corner the market on their sources, when most sources want to expose their information to as many people as possible.
Re:
Let me lay this out for you. Suppose I love Jalopnik (and I do, really). Right now Jalopnik is free. I get entertaining automotive-themed content along with a smattering of relevant-to-me ads. Jalopnik gets my eyeballs.
Let's say they decide to put up a paywall. Now, were Jalopnik the only source around for snark-filled automotive new, I'd have to nut up and pay. But they're NOT. And even if they were, others would quickly fill the void with their own free websites -- the barriers to entry are simply too low for that not to happen.
This is why paywalls will never, ever work for companies that just charge for what used to be free. Those that find the scarce good and add value will succeed, yeah, but that's not what the Times are doing.
(untitled comment)
Beyond that, it may also be an effort to limit the use of camera phones and low price locator apps.
(untitled comment)
Re:
(untitled comment)
Re: Re: choice
(untitled comment)
Re: Re: from the humane society website
(untitled comment)
Be sure to tip your waitress.
Thank you, I'll be here all week.
Re:
Re: a business man...
More comments from LumpyDog >>
Techdirt has not posted any stories submitted by LumpyDog.
Submit a story now.
Tools & Services
TwitterFacebook
RSS
Podcast
Research & Reports
Company
About UsAdvertising Policies
Privacy
Contact
Help & FeedbackMedia Kit
Sponsor/Advertise
Submit a Story
More
Copia InstituteInsider Shop
Support Techdirt