The Current System does not work.

If you want to purchase the new Nine Inch Nails CD: "Y34RZ3R0R3M1X3D" online, you have two choices: Piracy or DRM-infected files. I do not advocate Piracy. It is not OK to steal the work of others. But, I also do not advocate DRM. But this is the Current System: we have the IPOD for music and video, and we have Kindle for books. We have subscriptions for online newspapers, and paid access to the content of certain websites (you know what I'm talking about...).

But the system is not working: people are still pirating soft products like graphics, music, video, books and software, and the creators of that content are not getting paid for their work.

Why is the Current System not working? I suggest three reasons. Not surprisingly, they are the same three reasons consumers need to purchase a product of any kind - Want, Cost and Convenience.

I suggest a New System be devised, which takes these things into account, in order to reduce piracy, and increase the potential for artists to be fairly compensated for their soft products.

1) Want - The consumer must want or need the product.

Why would consumers want DRM-infected files? Why should they pay for files that come with a list of restrictions on how they are used? Would you buy a car that came with rules for when and where and under what conditions it can be driven? Or a shirt that came with rules for what days of the week it can be worn, and what accessories need to be worn with it? Of course not.

People use DRM-infected content from I-tunes because they don't know any better, or don't care. People who do know and care pass on the DRM-infected files and opt for the non-DRM ones available through piracy. Neither of these solutions is acceptable.

Also, why should consumers tolerate products like Kindle that will only work with one supplier? I wouldn't buy a CD player that only played CDs from a particular Record Label, but that's exactly how the new Kindle from Amazon works. This is not an acceptable solution either.

The New System will have to let consumers use soft products the same way they can use the hard products: WITHOUT RESTRICTIONS.

2) Cost - Consumers must believe the product is worth the price.

There is an underlying rule which never changes: PRODUCTS ARE WORTH WHAT PEOPLE ARE WILLING TO PAY FOR THEM. Get your mind around that. Accept it. It is an infallible truth: it doesn't really matter how much it cost to make the product; it never did. The consumer ultimately sets the price. You can set your price point anywhere along the bell curve, but the consumers ARE the bell curve.

Hard goods aren't a problem. People are willing to pay $30 for a Jagged Spiral hoodie. They know $30 is 'less expensive' than the effort and materials it would take them to make it themselves. But for soft products like music and books, the internet has created a system where the product is an endlessly renewable and instantly duplicatable resource, available anywhere, at any time. Remember the laws of Supply and Demand? Worldwide, instant availability with negligible distribution cost has created a significant shift in what people are willing to pay. It truly has devalued soft products, and the existing system has not taken this into account.

For example, you can draw a picture of your stupid kid with his tongue stuck to a flagpole in a Minnesota Deep Freeze, and hang it on the wall of the local coffee shop with a $200 price tag. But scan and post that same picture on the internet. How much is that worth?

What is the cost of your picture done in Charcoal on Canvas, versus the cost of your JPG? I already told you: They are worth whatever people are willing to pay for them. The questions you *meant* to ask are: What are people willing to pay for Charcoal on Canvas, and what are people willing to pay for digital bits on the internet? OK, how much would it cost them to exactly duplicate your Charcoal on Canvas? Let's see...Art Supplies, Art Lessons, then the time required to duplicate your every stroke, or possibly contract an artist willing to duplicate your work for a lesser price... OK, now how much would it cost them to exactly duplicate your jpg?

And song downloads from I-Tunes are a dollar each? So a 12-song CD that used to cost $12 is still...$12???? Why should people pay the same price for downloaded, mp3-compressed, DRM-infected files that they pay for the higher quality and unlimited use of the physical CD? Wrong, wrong, wrong. Some people buy the DRM-infected files because they want the song badly enough, but they shouldn't have to. The cost is too high.

The New System will have to take this into account. The more the prices line up with what the consumer is willing to pay, the less attractive the piracy options becomes. That is why bands like Radiohead are jumping onto the model that Jagged Spiral devised: post the media online for free, and let the customer pay what they want. This might be the New System. It might not. But it holds to the rule that the product is worth what the customer is willing to pay. I'm well aware that it could turn out that artists are not able to make a living on this system.

3) Convenience - The customer can't get the product more conveniently anywhere else.

Which do you think is easier; downloading/installing BitTorrent and downloading an album, or opening an account on Amazon with a unique username and memorable but secure password, entering your personal info and shipping address, agreeing to the No-Privacy Statement (without reading it, natch), entering your credit card info, verifying your e-mail address, going through the checkout line with your purchase...

Admittedly, the online purchasing experience has gotten better. It would be better still if someone could devise a system where the consumer's online 'wallet' was usable at all online locations. Consumers should not have to provide any personal information for a downloadable soft product purchase, and they certainly should NOT have to provide their personal info for each-and-every-website they do business at. You don't have to go through all that bullshit when you go to a Burger King you've never been to before! You shouldn't need a username and password to make a purchase at amazon.com, or any website! ID and Credit Card, that's all!

Google, PayPal and Microsoft are working on this, but it just isn't there yet. This is a major holdup to a New System that would reduce piracy, and there is no reason for it, other than businesses that are not willing to cooperate. They want that user info, they want those e-mail addresses. They want it to be difficult for you to purchase from somewhere else.

The New System should let you make your purchase quickly, securely, and conveniently, without setting up an account on the seller's website.

Conclusion
When we look at the Current System from the perspectives of Want, Cost and Convenience, Piracy makes more sense; it offers better product for less, and it's easier to access. I'm not advocating piracy, I'm saying the existing system is fucked up, and here is why, so let's get it fixed so I can buy music online at a fair price and without DRM restrictions.

No System is going to eliminate piracy, there are people who will pirate works simply for the fun of it. But a New System that takes Want, Cost and Convenience into account could significantly reduce piracy by filling consumers needs, and help artists make a living selling their works online.

Art Is Resistance
-Zero

Labels: Business Phenomena, consumerism, DRM Sucks, Music Industry

Unfortunately, the full article on billboard.biz requires subscription, but you can read enough excerpts from the Motley Crue fan club site to get the point:

Gene Simmons is an Idiot with a Capitalist I.

He really thinks that all of this "Free Music" nonsense could have been prevented if the Recording Industry had taken action from the beginning. Quote:

The record industry doesn't have a f*cking clue how to make money. It's only their fault for letting foxes get into the henhouse and then wondering why there's no eggs or chickens. Every little college kid, every freshly-scrubbed little kid's face should have been sued off the face of the earth. They should have taken their houses and cars and nipped it right there in the beginning. Those kids are putting 100,000 to a million people out of work. How can you pick on them? They've got freckles. That's a crook. He may as well be wearing a bandit's mask.

Gene Simmons must be the RIAA's wet dream, so entrenched in "the way we've always done it" that it is simply outside of his understanding that the rules have changed.

Sorry Gene, that the internet has made things complicated for you. Here is something for you to think about (when you can break away from the book you are writing about all the prostitutes you've slept with): I can go online and view the Mona Lisa any time I want. For Free. I can also go to the Louvre and pay to see it for a short time. For slightly more money I can own a print copy. For an ungodly amount of money I could own the real thing.

Now, why on God's Green Earth would people pay to see the Mona Lisa, or pay for a copy of the Mona Lisa, or pay to own the Mona Lisa, when they can see it online for Free? OH MY FUCKING GOD! HOW CAN THE ARTIST MAKE ANY MONEY WHEN YOU CAN ACCESS THE ART ONLINE FOR FREEEEEEeeee..... [insert sound of Gene Simmons screaming as he falls into the abyss of his own stupidity here]

Gene, here is another thing for you to think about when you aren't reducing KISS to a laughable product (because we all need an electric toothbrush that plays "Rock & Roll All Night"): As a musician, I would rather give my music away for free (as a matter of fact, I do give it away for free) than to see a DIME go into the pockets of the Recording Industry. They are irrelevant. They are the middlemen who have leeched the money from the pockets of talented people for DECADES. THEY are the real thieves, and the internet has eliminated their usefulness. You think they still have some value because they helped make you rich? You are a fool. I bet you still listen to terrestrial radio.

It gets better:

Billboard: But some artist like RADIOHEAD and Trent Reznor are trying to find a new business model.

Simmons: That doesn't count. You can't pick on one person as an exception. And that's not a business model that works. I open a store and say "Come on in and pay whatever you want." Are you on f*cking crack? Do you really believe that's a business model that works?

Someone points the way out of Gene Simmons stupidity, and he asks them if they are on drugs. This is where it becomes clear why he is so upset; it isn't about the music with him, its about the *Business* of music. Music is just a vehicle to MAKE MONEY. No wonder he is upset.

You know Gene, as a matter of fact, opening a store with almost negligible overhead, upkeep and distribution costs, with GLOBAL DISTRIBUTION and open 24x7x365 then asking for donations is a fucking phenomenal business model. How do you think wikipedia.org is still in business? How do you think the projects on sourceforge are funded? Are you aware that Radiohead are actually making an average of $6 per download by Giving Away their art and letting people donate what they want? And not a penny goes to the RIAA middleman. $6 average per customer, Gene. Do YOU make that much?

This is all overlooking the fact that the music is more important than the money, but this is also outside Gene Simmon's frame of reference:

Billboard: So what if music just becomes free and artists make their living off of touring and merchandise?

Simmons: Well, therein lies the most stupid mistake anybody can make. The most important part is the music. Without that, why would you care? Even the idea that you're considering giving the music away for free makes it easier to give it away for free. The only reason why gold is expensive is because we all agree that it is. There's no real use for it, except we all agree and abide by the idea that gold costs a certain amount per ounce. As soon as you give people the choice to deviate from it, you have chaos and anarchy. And that's what going on.


Gene, you almost figured this out. Things have Always been worth what people are willing to pay for them. Now, change "CD"s into "Digital Bits on the internet", and stir... Calling this change "chaos and anarchy" is incorrect. It is Change; change from one system to another system, one that you don't like, because you can't see how it will make you money.

Gene, as a young boy, I looked up to you as a Hero, and now you tell the world there is no real use for music unless you sell it to make money.

Blow me, Gene Simmons, you're a fucking idiot.

You worked hard, and made some good music and you made some good money using the system you had available at the time, and it worked out well for you. You got yours. Hooray for you. But the system has changed, and it's time for you to shut the fuck up and let people work with the system they have.

Art Is Resistance
-Zero

Labels: Business Phenomena, consumerism, idiots, Music Industry, Open Letter

Yet another article about the loudness war.

http://spectrum.ieee.org/aug07/5429

For those who don't know, the Loudness War is the music industry's attempt to make their recordings louder than everyone else's, because research has shown that louder songs get noticed more.

No shit. Sadly the research told them nothing about the quality of the recordings.

There is a hint in the article that current overcompressed music fatigues listeners, and that it might account for the decrease in music sales, but of course there is no proof of this.

The article also talks about future technologies like “Replay Gain” which try to nullify the Loudness War by playing back all songs at the same relative volume.

I agree with Bob Katz, recordings that are overcompressed and radio stations like 93X that blatantly abuse volume compression, forsaking all else for loudness are ruining music, and make it tiring to listen to. Hey, compress the shit out of MP3s because they’re meant to be listened to on laptop speakers and I-pod earbuds. But CDs should take advantage of their dynamic range and richness of sound. Let the consumers wreck the music if they want, but if I'm buying the CD, I can turn the volume knob up myself. I'd much rather have a rich recording that breathes.

I MEAN, WHY DON'T WE JUST TYPE ALL OUR BLOG POSTS LIKE THIS? IT MUST BE BETTER BECAUSE IT GOT YOUR ATTENTION, RIGHT?

KTHXBYE,
-CZ

Labels: Business Phenomena, consumerism, Cultural Observation, music, Music Industry, Technology

Dear Coca-Cola Corp.,

With more and more things changing from status as a Product to a Service (software, music, media, etc...) I thought you might like to change your line of beverages from a product to a service as well.

Please arrange with me to have a monthly fee automatically withdrawn from my bank account, and send me a "Coca-Cola Card" good for any of your beverage products, wherever they are sold. I should be able to swipe it through pop machines, use it at restaurants, airports, gas stations, etc. and send me monthly statements of how many gallons of Diet Coke I drink per month.

Oh yes, and if you could run a line to my house, similar to water/gas/electric, that would be great too.

I'm actually surprised your overpaid marketing executives have not figured this out already, but if you are interested in a new marketing CEO, I would be more than happy to take that position, and make sure they don't miss out on blatantly obvious income opportunities like this one. Trust me, I got plenty more where that came from.

KTHXBYE,
-CZ

Labels: consumerism, Million Dollar Idea, Open Letter

It would be an interesting test to see how much marketing and advertising affects product sales:

What would happen to sales of Coca Cola if they completely STOPPED advertising? Continue making the product, continue selling the product, but no more commercials. No more ads. No more endorsements.

If you are a marketing exec, you want to believe deep down in your ...well, the place where normal people have a soul, (but since you are a marketing exec, you don't, so I suppose ...deep down in that place where a soul belongs,) you believe that everyone would stop buying the product.

But would they?

Same for bands - imagine if, at the height of their career, the Beatles hid underground and never let another picture of themselves grace the outside world. No contact with the public. No e-mails. No web presence. No updates except the albums themselves. They could still tour wearing masks or gorilla outfits, or behind a curtain. Would this change their music? Of course not. Would it change their music sales, if all you had was the music and album cover art?

After all, how many of you know what Pablo Picasso looks like? Or Howard Shore? Or James Cameron?

How come music fans and industry alike demand to know who you are, and what you look like, and where you are from? If an old, balding Jewish guy wrote a song that was simply the Hit of the summer, would people Not buy it?

I think they would.

I think they did.

KTHXBYE,
-CZ

Labels: consumerism, Cultural Observation, music, Philosophy

Of all the places to run across a cool book like "Music Legends - A Rewind on the Local Minnesota Music Scene By Martin Keller" I found it at...SuperAmerica. That's right. The Gas Station.

I wasn't looking for a book on Minnesota Music History...well, actually I was, but not at that particular moment in time. It was a bona fide impulse buy. If there was a XXX video there starring Salma Hayek, Aishwarya Rai, and Halle Berry, I would have bought that too, but I certainly wasn't expecting to purchase books or movies at a gas station checkout.

But marketing people [Author's Note: Don't even get me started on Marketing People...wait a minute, I've already started.] have always believed that if you could just get your product in front of every man, woman and child in the Multiverse, that $$$ is sure to follow. They don't really care what the product is, just get it in front of the people. This is the entire philosophy behind television and radio advertisements, roadside billboards (curse them and the soulless bastard who thought them up), advertisements in bathroom stalls, and e-mail SPAM.

Had I been driving 35W North to Tobie's in Hinkley and actually read each and every billboard on the way (A nearly impossible task, since no human being can read that much) and seen an advertisement for a book on Local Minnesota Music History, I would have done that thing people do; pursed my lips and nodded my head slightly, thinking to myself, "Kewl, I'll have to pick that up if I see it." But that's the problem; the majority of advertising requires the potential customer to actively Go Someplace Else to buy the product being advertised. The advertisement plants the "impulse buy" seed in the subconscious, and marketing people hope that the seed takes root and grows into the action of purchase.

But now they have figured out a better way. They realized that the tiny area of real estate near the cash register sees MANY MANY MANY people a day. MANY. But it gets better, because those people are already in a store! They are already in "gathering" mode! There is already a cashier in place to make the transaction, and all the necessary equipment. The customer already has their method of payment out, and is going to MAKE A PURCHASE! Every obstacle between the customer purchasing the product is cut down to the impulse. The customer only needs to reach over, pick up the product, and toss it in the cart with their existing purchase! [Editor's Note: Insert sound effect of entire excited marketing department wetting themselves here.]

Now remember, marketing people don't really care what the product is, just get it in front of the people, right? They don't really care if they are trying to sell a water pump for a 1996 Saturn, if they could just get their product to sit at the counter of Starbucks, IT WOULD SELL. Every single cash register in the world has now become a convenience store. Every website checkout is a potential selling ground for someone to ask, "Do you want fries with that?" or "Since you are buying a book on Equestrian Philosophy, you probably also want a Horse Calendar and a copy of 'The Horse Whisperer' at a reduced rate!!!" Caribou Coffee sells greeting cards. Starbucks sells CDs. McDonalds has the Redbox DVD rental, and SuperAmerica is selling books on Minnesota Music History.

Of course, these are retail chain franchises, so the store managers probably don't have much say in the matter themselves, and probably aren't getting much of the profit, since that is all being done at the corporate level. But for independent business owners, this could be a new form of revenue. A restaurant that carries band merch? That could happen. Hell's Kitchen already carries their own line of clothing. It isn't a stretch to think that they might move some stuff around to make room for some Jagged Spiral hoodies. An Indian restaurant selling lawn care chemicals? Maybe not.

The Million Dollar Idea is for a company to take over the middleman job of selling that space, just the way Clear Channel (Hiss!) sells advertising space on billboards and radio. If a company came along that walked into Magers and Quinn Bookstore and said, "Hey, let me have a one-square meter of space here near the checkout, and I'll find people to lease it for a monthly fee, you just sit back, and I'll send you a check every month..." Well, seems to me there is a business opportunity there for someone more industrious than myself.

Sadly, what this will lead to are checkout counters that look like 35W north, or your inbox, crammed with a bunch of shit you don't want or need, and have nothing to do with the store you are at. During your next visit to the dentist, when you have to stand on tiptoe to see the receptionist over the ostrich waxers, keyboard warmers, and the new Jagged Spiral incense line...well, maybe then you will learn to dislike marketing people as much as I do.

KTHXBYE,
-CZ

Labels: Business Phenomena, consumerism, Million Dollar Idea

Hey, the Recording Industry reads my blog!

Check out this story in the NY Times by Jeff Leeds, about a group just signed by a record label..

...to do Two songs. TWO. Thas'all.

Sound Familiar?

The album distribution model was perfect for hard-copy records, tapes and CDs. So you really liked "Pour Some Sugar On Me" because you heard it on the radio. You ran down to Musicland on 3 August in 1987 and bought Hysteria the day it came out. You paid $11.99

Why did you pay that much for one song? You didn't. You only wanted the 'hit', and you might have actually paid twelve bucks for it, but that truly would be a rip-off, since the single (in cassette tape format, natch) was available for $3.99. That makes 12 songs for twelve bucks sound like a hell of a deal. Those were your options, and they sucked.

But not anymore. On the interweb, you preview each song before you buy it, and you pick and choose the songs you want. Who the hell wants to buy the entire album of Wang Chung's "Points on the Curve"?

You only want this song, and this one. Maybe this one, if you're a true fan.

But this? It's crap. If it was a piece of furniture in your house, you would pay to have it hauled away; you certainly wouldn't want to be caught Dead with it taking up space in your I-Dope Shuffle. The song was tossed into the album so the price could be set higher, a technique called "Value Added", a concept thought up by a marketing person who should have been disemboweled for coming up with the idea.

Yes, the time is up for the album. It's just as well, since few bands use albums to their full potential anyway. The article mentions Tool and Radiohead, but has anyone heard of Jethro Tull's "Thick as a Brick"? The CD has one track on it, about 45 min long. Its not even a concept album. It's a 45 min SONG.

Concept albums? Nobody does that anymore. You'd have to be drunk or stupid to even try that shit nowadays.

But the real proof that the record companies read my blog? I quote:

Another solution being debated in the industry would transform record labels into de facto fan clubs. Companies including the Warner Music Group and the EMI Group have been considering a system in which fans would pay a fee, perhaps monthly, to “subscribe” to their favorite artists and receive a series of recordings, videos and other products spaced over time.

From: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/26/business/media/26music.html?ex=1332561600&en=7a34accc8988c811&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss

I wonder if I will get any credit for coming up with the idea first.

Blog on,
-CZ

Labels: Business Phenomena, consumerism, Cultural Observation, Million Dollar Idea, music, Music Industry

The day of Love. Love of money, that is.

Americans have this uncanny knack for working the money-angle on any concept, even one as noble as a holiday for celebrating love. You hear the commercials as well as I do, they are all but unavoidable, and all of them with their same, sick message; If you love your female (yes Female, but I'll get to that in a min...) partner, then you need to prove it with cash.

How vulgar! How ludicrous! How asinine!

How American.

They took Christmas a long time ago. Halloween is right behind, now being recognized as the second largest retail holiday after Xmas. And now, our dear, sweet, not-so-innocent Day of Saint Valentine's, falls prey to rampant consumerism.

Worse yet, the adverts are blatantly sexist.

"Buy HER the gift SHE's always wanted."
"Make sure SHE knows how much you love HER."

Don't believe me? Listen again. Sexist. Consumerism I can almost stomach because it knows no prejudice, but sexism don't fly.

Of course, Steak and BJ Day is the outcome of this silliness and a half-hearted attempt to return balance to the equation. But it's like handing someone a hundred dollars and then punching them in the face. It might balance out, but it still isn't acceptable.

The current state of Valentine's Day has become as trite and offensive as "Steak and BJ Day"

Don't like it? Good. Then don't accept it. Don't tolerate it. Don't feed it, and it will die.


What makes me more sad is that we need a holiday as a reminder to cherish our loved ones.


Blog on,
-CZ

Labels: americans, anti, consumerism, holidays

Q: What do these things have in common?

• Ninja hand claw


• Gallon of Wolf Urine


• Dead Rabbit (Skinned)


• Cleavage Cupcakes


• Belgian Gas Mask

A: They would all make Terrible Valentines Day Gifts

Blog on,
-CZ

Labels: consumerism, Funny

So one of those ridiculous Guitar Center ads came on the radio last week, proclaiming "Musicians, if you have 39 bucks, or your mom, girlfriend, or life partner has 39 bucks..."

...well, you've heard the commercials. Anyways, they mentioned a sale (this weekend only, of course) Ibanez Bass Guitars were Half Off! This is significant, especially for someone I know who is in the market for an Ibanez Bass Guitar. Me.

So I bopped down to the Guitar Center in Edina. After half an hour of trying to find someone to help me, I asked them about the sale. They had not heard of any sale on Bass Guitars, much less on Ibanez Bass Guitars. "Nope, sorry dude."

So I sahsayed up to Guitar Center in Roseville. They had not heard of the sale either. "Hmm, I don't know, dude. The prices are listed on each guitar..."

Can't find it on their website, so I chatted with a Guitar Center rep online, and explained the situation. His response?

"I haven't heard of it either, sorry."

Wow, that's um, awesome. Thanks for the non-help. By the way, you forgot to call me 'dude'.

I'm not P.O.ed that they hadn't heard of the sale. I'm not P.O.ed that perhaps the radio station played the wrong commercial, or the sale Guitar Center was supposed to have was not communicated to the stores properly, or whatever happened. I'm P.O.ed that the employees didn't expend an ounce of energy beyond mumbling, "Huh, sorry dude..."

So I've decided that I want to work for Guitar Center. Think about it,
-no drug testing
-no background checks
-no experience necessary
-no brains necessary
-no motivation necessary

I honestly wish MARS music had not gone out of business. G.C. needs some competition to keep them on their toes. (And Schmitt Music? Wow, um, yeah, right, ...dude). I would much rather give my business to Mom and Pop music stores, but finding a good one is a challenge.

Blog on,
-CZ

Labels: anti, consumerism, idiots

I can almost hear the Entire Americanized Christmas Industry, as thought it were comprised of thousands of leeches, howling with hunger, and poised to suck the capitol-blood right out of the consumers wallet-veins.

Who ever thought that a non-refundable expiring line of credit good at only one business would make a good gift?

http://www.ihatechristmas.com/ is spammed out with a bunch of (ready for this?) Advertisements for THINGS TO BUY.

the songs... can anyone, someone, please write a new christmas song? This is closer, but still rehashing or mashing the old stuff. Same here.

Ah well, the lights are pretty, and the kids seem to like it.

So let's all take a moment to remember the True Meaning of Christmas - A Christian attempt to displace the pagan ritual of Yule by taking the Biblical god and dressing him (sorry, Him) up in spandex and fishnet, then saying he looks like The Earth Mother...


Flame on,
-CZ

Labels: americans, anti, consumerism, holidays

I don't get too bent about gas prices. I actually think it's kind of funny that people drive their Chevy Grand Suburban GTXLS Warner Bros Edition to work every day, and then get their knickers in a twist when gas prices go up fifty cents. They are the first to jump on the web and hunt down the cheapest gas prices in town. Instead of going to sites like this one *before* they buy a vehicle.

Kind of seems like eating an Octawhopper every day for lunch, and then going to the gym to work it off.

Heh, Americans.

Blog on,
-CZ

Labels: americans, consumerism

Another fine experience with the self-checkout, this time at Home Depot, where they fired all the checkout people and tried to replace them with a finicky machine, and tried to get consumers to interface with the fucking thing.

Seems to me that they could take that person who greets you at the door with applications for Home Depot Credit Cards and move him over to the checkout lanes, but I guess they would rather pay him to stand and look sad if you don't take one. (Actually had one of them tell me he had a quota of those things to give away... Man, is that ever low.)

It surprises me that they don't have vendors selling snacks in the checkout lines, I mean, people get hungry/thirsty after a while, but I guess they do have candy bars and pop near the checkout. Is it OK to open a diet coke and drink it before you have paid for it? What if I ate a couple bananas and kept the peels for the self checkout? Would that be OK?

Anyways, I thought it would be fun to stand at the Exit of businesses using self-checkout, and hand out questionaires to gather consumer opinions. Since I would more likely be shot than applauded for such actions, (by surly customers who just survived the Hell Of Self Checkout) I figured it was safer (and easier, let's be honest) to release the survey form on the interweb, and you can print them out on a day where you aren't quite as crabby as I am, and fill them out in all honesty, and drop them off at the shops that think it is OK to cut back on staff and have you do all the work.

Download and print out this handy form:

Self Checkout Eval Form.pdf

Thanks much to WalMart (and those who shop there) for reducing the cost of goods to the point where businesses have to cut back employees and have the customers fill in for them.

Blog on,
-CZ

Labels: anti, Business Phenomena, consumerism

So my step-grandmother is not doing so well. Cancer, among other things, as if Cancer by itself weren't bad enough. Couple years ago, she moved to New Mexico, where the dry air is better for her aching joints, and I hear the meds are cheaper there. Unfortunately, she lives 80 miles from the nearest hospital. Not sure why.

She is on Medicare, (no health insurance) Her copay is $980 which seems a bit high, compared to my $20, especially since she doesn't have that kind of money. She's been to the hospital four times this year, and now has pretty much given up on things like walking around or even standing. The current guess is that she has about a month left or so...

[Editors Note: I know what you are thinking, "Where is the rant? Where does Conrad HIT THE CEILING AND START TYPING IN ALL CAPS? Be patient, it's coming...]

...she is on a test drug which costs $10,000 per month, but 'may' cure her, or at least, delay the inevitable. Since I am not in that situation, I can't make that decision for her, as to whether $10,000 is worth a shot at a cure.

But, $10,000 would buy one hell of a party.

I could fly to Amsterdam and sit backstage at a Rush concert.

I could fly to L.A. and pretend I was important like everyone else there.

I could meet Chris Carrabba and tell him how much I hate his fucking music.

I could meet Adam Sandler and kick him in the balls for making the same stupid movie over and over.

I could buy 10,000 lottery tickets, 7751 bottles of Diet Coke, over 600 bottles of Captain Morgan Rum, or enough Pop Rocks to fill up a swimming pool.

I could buy every season of Benny Hill on DVD, and rent a dozen female bodyguards to protect me while I watched them in the middle of the Women's Expo Convention.

Ten grand might buy enough explosive to drop on the San Andreas Fault line and sink California into the ocean, and have enough left over to party on the Arizona Coastline.

Yessirree, ten large would definitely get me on the Evening News before I kicked the bucket.

...but that isn't the rant. It's here:

WHY THE FUCK IS THE PHARMACEUTICAL COMPANY CHARGING TERMINALLY ILL PEOPLE FOR TEST DRUGS? [Editors Note: I warned you.]

Why are the test drugs not free? Once the fucking thing works, you can charge ten grand for it, and I would line up like everyone else to get it. Ten grand for something that even works 80 percent of the time, or extends your life for a year is worth it (maybe) but to take advantage of people who are so near to death that they will desperately jump at any chance for a little more time, or a miracle cure?

That is downright evil, even to me, and I'm an authority.

Give the damn drugs away for cryin' out loud! These people are HELPING YOU OUT by being your beta testers, and YOU ARE CHARGING THEM MONEY! It boggles my mind.

And anyone who tells me that 'the engineering and equipment to make those drugs is expensive' will be thrashed so badly, they will be taking those test drugs themselves. You want to work on a cure for cancer? Go right ahead, but charging people on their deathbeds to do your research for you is really, really low.

Blog on,
-CZ

Labels: Business Phenomena, consumerism, rant

The Ice Punk Princess of Darkness tipped me off about this video:"The End Of Ze World"




Note that it is better written and more entertaining than current television programming.

Seriously. I turned on the TeeVee the other day, and suddenly realized why I usually don't. People bickering, blaming, and talking over eachother in frustrated, heated tones? Funny, I just got home from a whole fucking day of that. And I got paid for it. I'm not going to sit at home and listen to that shit for free. If the network wants me to watch Donald Trump and a bunch of high-school rejects work their product-placement into the program because people don't watch the commercials anymore...

...I have very reasonable rates.

Blog on,
-CZ

Labels: consumerism, Funny, Videos