My Opinion...Abercrombie has the right to make "skinny" clothes

OK - I'm getting ready to jump on the band wagon about Abercrombie and their right to both make statements and clothes that fit only skinny people - because it's called a FREE MARKET for a reason.  Here's the first one...

Reason #1 - All businesses should be focused on their customer - and many of the best businesses will limit their customers (oh the world of niche businesses and markets).  In the case of A&F, they have decided to limit their customer base to a specific range of sizes - and guess what, there are other retailers that do the same thing (but of course they are marketed as BIG & TALL or PLUS sizes) which is just good business.

Reason #2 - All businesses should know who their customers are, and create products and services that fill that need.  A&F caters to a very specific set of customers, with a very specific set of products.  Does that mean people not specifically targeted don't want their products?  No, but that has nothing to do with A&F.

Reason #3 - Everyone is entitled to their opinion, even if it's not popular or "politically correct" - including the CEO of A&F.  I've read what Mike Jeffries said IN A 2006 SALON interview and personally, who cares.  He has every right to say what he wants - and for his company to position their clothes how they want and to attract the customers they want.  Once again, it's a free market, he is free to say and sell what he wants and everyone else is free to buy (or not buy) what they want.

Personally, I believe the US is fat and unhealthy - in fact, I was fat an unhealthy for the majority of my adult life - I decided to change that about a year ago and started exercising and eating better.  Can I do better, sure - but my opinion still stands.  All you have to do is go any mall or Walmart in the US and just become aware of the people around you - and I guarantee you will witness how fat and unhealthy the country has become.  What Mike Jeffries said, pissed some people off - and they took offense to it and even called him a bully.  Well, I don't believe you can say he is a bully just by what he said - and anyone that took offense should look at themselves in mirror and if they are fat, do something about it and if their kids are fat, they should help their kids do something about.  Humans are not meant to be fat - it's not a natural state of being - Mike Jeffries just said some words, those hearing them should just get over it.

End rant.

What he said - from this Huffington Post article...

“In every school there are the cool and popular kids, and then there are the not-so-cool kids,” he says. “Candidly, we go after the cool kids. We go after the attractive all-American kid with a great attitude and a lot of friends. A lot of people don’t belong [in our clothes], and they can’t belong. Are we exclusionary? Absolutely. Those companies that are in trouble are trying to target everybody: young, old, fat, skinny. But then you become totally vanilla. You don’t alienate anybody, but you don’t excite anybody, either.”

Read More

Can you really hide?

Update on the YouTube Lonelygirl15 saga...

Identity found: Lonelygirl15's identity has been found - through some interesting sleuthing by Matt Foremski (owner of the LG15.com site) and posted by his father, Tom Foremski of the Silicon Valley Watcher.

Get the scoop here:
http://www.siliconvalleywatcher.com/mt/archives/2006/09/the_identity_of.php
http://www.siliconvalleywatcher.com/mt/archives/2006/09/the_hunt_for_lo.php
http://www.siliconvalleywatcher.com/mt/archives/2006/09/how_the_secret.php

Another blog post from MediaShift:
http://www.pbs.org/mediashift/2006/09/lonelygirl15_outedmatt_foremsk.html

Now that that's over with, I have a bigger question? Can you really hide (on or from the internet)? Matt was diligent in his efforts and probably a lot smarter than most of us when searching the web, but he did it. He found information that was "deleted" from the original sites but not deleted from "cached" content on the web. In other words, if you use the web to post something (text, video, photos, forum comment, blog comment, chat, etc.) you leave a trail - and in many cases, this trail can be followed by someone. You can cover up your tracks, but you may not be able to completely erase them from existence.

It's interesting to think about - many of the techniques used to investigate the Lonelygirl15 story are available to anyone - either through experience or a little technical know-how. This should be a wake-up call for all of us, don't do or say anything you wouldn't want repeated to your mother - because if you use the internet to "sound off" it could stay there a long, long time.

Read More

YouTube, Lonelygirl15 and future of media...

If you've recently visited YouTube, there's at least some likelihood that you've run across Lonelygirl15 (who is one of the most popular vBloggers on YouTube with over 8 million hits since putting up her first video eariler this year).

Well, there have been some interesting developments over the past week - you have to give it up to the geeks, they do their research (but usually after they have "invested" their geeky heart-n-soul in something). Lonelygirl15 is a fake, a plant, a character dreamed up by some enterprising film makers - those that have invested time in her, and believe they "know" her - are now crying in their keyboards, wondering WHY???

After talking with my wife (check out her blog), she made a great statement "they're upset because they believe they're above being marketed to - they're too savvy for that". She's right!! There are lots of people out there that believe the Internet is different, it's a place where you get to know people, make friends and have fun.

Guess what, the Internet is just another communications medium - so get over it. Enjoy it for what it is, understand that people can be "who they want to be" or companies can "make you believe" things.

I say congrat to those film makers, to the actors on the videos and to YouTube - and welcome to the new face of the media. "You Created Content" is not always YOU created. Now if only I could figure out how to recreate myself.....

Read More

Who creates change?

I was listening to the BBC on XMRadio yesterday and they did a segment on Wilfred Emmanuel Jones, one of the only black farmers in England - and although that is interesting, it's what he said at the end of the interview that caught my attention. Here it is....

"outsiders create change"

I had never really thought about it before, but if you think about it, change within any community (social, policitcal, religious, business, technology, etc.) is usually created (or assisted) by someone from the outside. A person that usually doesn't know any better, or is dissatisfied with the way things are currently.
Then I was thinking about the United States, and one of the things that made this country great was our inclusion of "outsiders". Now I'm not naive enough to think that ALL people like the idea of including outsiders - in fact, for most people there is an internal aversion to change (and therefore we don't like outsiders - anything that is different).
Now, for anyone that has been alive more than two years, change is going to happen. Embrace it and love it - it happens anyway.

Read More

The Mark Cuban Post - Part II

I'm really fascinated by this post - and the comments associated with it. Here's where I'm going with it....

Mark Cuban is thinking about a simple business problem he has -- how do you lower the cost of customer acquisition within the movie business. His problem - spending more to "get" a customer than you receive from sales. Really, this is the age old question of business - if you spend more than you make, you are running your company at a loss, if you make make more money than you spend, you are running your company at a profit - real Business 101 stuff.

Now, his dilemma is that if a movie doesn't do a huge first weekend box office, than it will probably quickly fall off and be in your local video store. But the dynamics of the market are much bigger than just trying to figure out how to create "buzz" and spending advertising money better or focusing on niche audiences, etc. The market is about alternatives and substitutes - something Mark should be aware of, since on of his other ventures would be a "substitute" to going to a theater to see a move.

I believe the movie industry is trying to figure out what it wants to be when it grows up -- or maybe a better way to say this is - the market has changed (no surprise) - 30-25 years ago, going to the movies was one of only a handful of entertainment options - today, there are hundreds of entertainment options. Going to a movie, was an event for most families - and was special. Over the past two decades, with the creation of the Megaplex - going to the movie is a lot like goint to the mall (and in many cases, it's the same place).

Personally, I believe if you want to make movies - you make them because you LOVE making movie - there are people that would make a movie even if no one saw it - they love making movies. I don't know if Mark Cuban love making movies, my personal assumption is that he's in it for other reasons. Because if loved making movies, he would have become a move mogul instead of a technology mogul.

So my suggestion to Mark (no job required) is to get out of the movie making business - I don't really believe you love it and it's just going to drive you crazy.

Read More

Mark Cuban - solve my problem and get hired....

This sucks - I just spent the last 1/2 hour writing a great blog entry that no one will ever see because my damned screen refreshed during spell check and erased the whole thing!!!

FDS!! Well the gist of the entry was really a comment on Mark Cuban's entry about needing someone to solve his movie distribution marketing problem. Stated simply, it's standard practice to spend a bunch of money to get people to come to your movie in the theater. In fact, it's not uncommon to spend more money than you will receive via ticket sales. And if you can solve this problem with a unique and interesting solution - he might just put you to work (i.e. give you a job).

That's an interesting approach to hiring - but what I thought was interesting is that there are almost 700 comments (and who knows how many emails he's received). Guess what folks, whether he gets one "innovative" idea and believes the person who submitted it can pull it off is completely irrelevant - because he is getting a ton of ideas and thoughts on the marketplace. From how he should get out of the movie business, to why movies suck, to why theaters suck, to what people like, to alternatives to going to a theater.

Think about this "give me an idea and I'll give you a job" scenario -- in one post, Mark Cuban has been provided a ton of insight from actual consumers of his product. Personal, direct, involved, passionate response to the question -- How do I get butts in the seats without spending more than I make?

This is perfect example of why the internet (and all the little apps that make it work) is so very cool. 20 years ago, Mark Cuban could not do what he has just done. Basically, he had a brain fart and told a few hundred thousand people - the word spread and now it's a million people. And BTW, it's people around the world. He could get thousands of suggestions on how to market movies more profitably - all because the internet allows that kind of communications. WOW!!

Hey, maybe I'll send him my ideas - or maybe not. I just think it's cool that this technology has that kind of power.

Read More

When companies cut costs, who wins?

I was thinking the other day about companies looking to cut costs - mostly by getting rid of people or "reorganizing" a pension fund, etc. -- and I wondered who really wins? If the company is public, do the stockholders win (they are ones that actually own the company) by laying off thousands of people? Do customers win? Does the company's executive team win? and who is better off, those that get laid off, or those that get the "privilege" of keeping their jobs. My contention is that no on wins.

When a company begins to look for ways to cut costs instead of looking for ways to increase revenue - they are saying "we can't get more revenue, this turnip is bled dry". That should signal something to customers, employees and/or stockholders -- when costs are out of control, don't blame the workers, blame the management for allowing themselves to get into this position. You should look no further than the CEO (and probably the Board) along with his direct reports - they are to blame. Add up their salary and benefits - how many line workers would it take to equal that amount?

Most employees come to work, put in a full day, and believe the company respects them. The harsh reality is that most executives in large, megla-corporations really are doing more to look after their own "salary" and less after the welfare of the organization and it's employees. I've seen it and been involved in it.

Nothing is worse than seeing thousands of your co-workers walking out the front door with a box of personal belongings, wondering what they are going to do tomorrow. It hurts to know that your value to an organization is so small and insignificant. I bet all the good people at Enron, those that woke up in the morning and loved going to work, don't feel a lot of love for the executive team.

And as the telecom mergers start shaking out, I bet there will be a few former AT&T, BellSouth, SBC employees that wonder why they spent 20 years working for those companies, only to be shown the door. Cutting costs is a short term remedy for sometimes a long term problem. And as the thousands walk out the door, the people in the executive suite get handed bonus checks for making the "books" look better and the stock price go up.

Congrats on a job well done. (BTW, that was sarcasm)

Read More

Can Buzz/Word of Mouth be artificially created?

I've got a question, can Buzz/Word of Mouth be artificially created (or forced)? I noticed the other day, during my daily internet surfing, there is whole business around world of mouth marketing (WOMM) and they recently had a convention, because of course, there is actually a Word of Mouth Marketing Association (WOMMA).

Once I saw this, I had to start doing additional research - and my goodness - there's a whole world out there trying to create BUZZ. To my surprise (not), big companies have been trying to create buzz, and in some cases in very unethical ways. But this conference was trying to figure out things like "ethics" (kinda an oxymoron for marketing), WOMM Campaign ROI and sessions on "how to", integrating into full media plan, etc.

There are even several companies that specialize in WOMM and BUZZ - one being BzzAgent - they're interesting because they have over 150K "buzz agents" out in the world, taking free samples of a product (called a gift) and trying to create a "buzz" around it. Interesting concept and probably a lot more cost effective than running ads in the mass media. Also, seeding the market with product is nothing new - in fact, all the "gift baskets" and SWAG actors get for being a presenter is nothing more than getting a high end product in the hands of "influencers".

But can buzz really be manufactured or artificially created? I don't think real buzz can - that is actually created by unknown market influences - it can be manufactured and it can't be tracked - and there is surely no way to determine the return on investment. Companies have tried to create it - I recently found a blog, started reading, thought it was really strange, then figured out it was actually sponsored by General Motors (artificial buzz) - at the point, I quit reading.

BTW, site is called " who is benjamin stove" - don't bother going there, except to be amazed at how companies just don't get it.So, I answer my own question - buzz can not be manufactured or artificial and really be buzz.

Read More

Outside looking in....

I was doing a little blog searching and got caught up in a very different world. I was searching for blog entries for the Long Tail (really trying to figure out if there was any good blog fodder on the subject) and when down the proverbial rabbit hole (btw, that was reference to the white rabbit and alice in wonderland).

But I entered the surreal world of the Movie/TV/Screenwriter biz. Here are a few of the blogs I found (in no particular order)....

- ALLIGATORS IN A HELICOPTER
- Write Here, Write Now
- Living the Romantic Comedy
- The Screenwriting Life
- Borderline Inappropriate
- Assistant/Atlas
- The Big Woo

As I was reading some of the posts (and even made a few comments), I realized that I have no idea about that business. Sure, I watched Project Greenlight, and was amazed at both the stupidity and brilliance of the movie business. I'm also a big fan of ENTOURAGE - which is probably both real (and imagined).

What is really shocking to me, is that there are tons of talented people in the world. Writers, actors, production, marketing, painters, potters, quilters, candle stick makers - whatever. And many of us have some spark of that "artistic" feeling inside us. If the whole thing about having a place to live, food to eat, clothes to wear - oh ya, taking care of the kids. But many of us might have gone in a different direction. Thank goodness, there are people out there that don't listen, or do and then do exactly the opposite.

Read More

Welch vs Anderson -- what does market dominance mean?

Today, there is one article (from Fortune Magazine - link below, don't what to get into any copyright issues here) and one new book released -- that will start a dialogue within the business world (or maybe just in the USA). And it's about how you attain market dominance -- by being BIG or being SPECIALIZED.

And maybe it only comes down to personal preference...do I want to own/be employed by a big company or do I want to own/be employed by a niche company. I can sit here and tell you my experiences with both types, what I believe is important, which provides the most "fun" -- but here are a couple links for you to do your own investigation...

Fortune Magazines Article: Tearing up the Jack Welch playbook
http://money.cnn.com/2006/07/10/magazines/fortune/rules.fortune/index.htm

New Book: The Long Tail by Chris Anderson
http://www.longtail.com

In my opinion, either works (or doesn't work) and either can be enjoyable places to be. It's really more about what "rocks your world" than anything else - because, without fun and excitement, it just plain work (and that's boring). So figure out what rocks your world -- underdog, challenger, champion, big, or small -- and have fun with it.

Read More

One Way Blogging...

I found the following at http://news.com.com/2061-10788_3-6081284.html and thought I'd put something up, since I have not had a new entry in several weeks. It appears my blogging has slowed on because of two factors - first: it just takes a long time to blog (because blogging requires active participation reading other blogs, thus creating traffic) and second: work has heated up with a the fun cycle starting for 2007 business & product planning.

That being said, I kinda have a problem with one-way blogs -- if someone does not allow comments, they are not blogging in my opinion - they are writing articles for their own personal magazine. Nothing wrong with that, but don't call it a blog - it's an ezine, utilizing personal publishing software (such as Blogger or Moveable Type) to create their articles. No comments, no blog - it's that simple. So, here is the original blog from News.com....

---

A firestorm over one-way blogging

June 8, 2006 9:00 AM PDT

Seth Godin has done something that would be unthinkable in much of the blogosphere: He does not allow comments on his blog. And, by doing so, he may have unwittingly inspired far more discussion than would ever have occurred otherwise, on his blog or anywhere else. (Note: Godin may also want to consider turning off his TrackBack feature, which effectively serves the same purpose as comments by surfacing posts by others on his blog.)

The reason for his decision? "First, I feel compelled to clarify or to answer every objection or to point out every flaw in reasoning. Second, it takes way too much of my time to even think about them, never mind curate them," Godin writes. "And finally, and most important for you, it permanently changes the way I write. Instead of writing for everyone, I find myself writing in anticipation of the commenters."

A heretical notion, in a medium that thrives and prides itself on interactivity. But Godin isn't the first to take this step, and he won't be the last. The unfortunate truth is that too many comments are mere insults and rants--far from any grist for productive dialogue--and civility is an increasingly rare commodity. Given this sad state, one can hardly blame some bloggers for wanting simply to chronicle their thoughts and to be left alone.

Blog community response:

"For some, having the ability for people to comment on your postings is that destination. For others, the main goal is to share what's in your brain. Either way, the conversation is still taking place."
--TwistImage

"I can understand why people like Seth Godin and, arguably, the world's first blogger, Dave Winer, have elected for the 'no comment' approach. It does make me feel uncomfortable though. It's a foghorn approach to blogging. A kind of 'I'm OK, You're Not OK' pre-judgement of their readers."
--Teblog

"I believe one of Seth's primary reasons for not enabling comments is so that his 'remarkable' (a Seth term) posts will be spread virally to other blogs, by individuals creating new nodes of discussions and spreading his word."
--Web Strategy by Jeremiah

Posted by Mike Yamamoto

---

BTW, not that anyone will care, but I've read Seth Godin's blog and although he's out there in front (with his ideas, etc.), I'm not a regular reader. I feel his blog is more about him (and his ideas) -- a basic place for self promotion. His statement is valid about comments, but that's the point of interactive media - and in some cases goes completely against what he writes about. In IDEAVIRUS, he talks about interacting with your customer - and the comments on blogs are perfect places to do that. Even if you don't want to respond to every comment, it provides a way to get into the minds of the readers.

Now if I could only get a few comments!!!!

UPDATE: OK, I got a comment and from the guy I mentioned above (Seth Godin) - to be completely honest, it is humbling because I have read many of his books and "get" what he is saying. Now, as I commented back, the above was more of a "writing out loud" exercise - after reading it, I thought "so what if Seth's blog is self promoting, that's the point!!" Most blogs are self promoting, either what I like, my life, my job, my family, my dis-likes, my hobbies, my company - and that is GOOD!! The point of this medium is to "raise and hand and speak in class" - and if (in the case of Seth's blog) I don't what comments - then that's fine too. So Seth, thanks for the comment, thanks for the dialogue and thanks for having a blog for us hear you "write out loud".

Read More

"Google - Oh My" - A Link to the AVC blog...

Check this out: http://avc.blogs.com/a_vc/2006/04/google_oh_my.html

Google IS the market leader - there is no one that can dispute that fact. How do you compete with them -- IMHO, you don't compete (unless you like getting the crap kicked out of you) - you either draft behind and accept their dominance or you look for market white space (areas where Google is either not interested in or do not currently dominate). Google's mission (which does not seem to have changed much - and good for them) is to organize (and present) the world's information. They seem to be accomplishing that mission and making a ton of money doing it.

Read More

Process Patents - maybe I just don't get it...

OK, I'll admit maybe I just don't get this whole thing about patenting a business process. The US Patent Office can issue a Utility Patent to anyone who invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, article of manufacture, compositions of matter, or any new useful improvement thereof.

Utility Patent- Issued for the invention of a new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or a new and useful improvement thereof, it generally permits its owner to exclude others from making, using, or selling the invention for a period of up to twenty years from the date of patent application filing ++, subject to the payment of maintenance fees. Approximately 90% of the patent documents issued by the PTO in recent years have been utility patents, also referred to as "patents for invention."

Now of important to this blog is the patent owned by NetFlix (which I believe is a really cool company) who is in the process of suing Blockbuster (which I think is a sucky company) for patent infringement. The patent abstract is below - but my major point of contention is this - are business process patents good? I don't think so - I believe they could possibly be too vague (although look really impressive) and too broad - allowing the patent holder to sue someone (specifically their competition) and raise the barrier to entry. The next big problem - most other countries don't allow business processes to protected (only the US). Enough - read on and determine it for yourself...

Approach for renting items to customers (Abstract)

United States Patent #7,024,381

According to a computer-implemented approach for renting items to customers, customers specify what items to rent using item selection criteria separate from deciding when to receive the specified items. According to the approach, customers provide item selection criteria to a provider provides the items indicated by the item selection criteria to customer over a delivery channel. The provider may be either centralized or distributed depending upon the requirements of a particular application. A "Max Out" approach allows up to a specified number of items to be rented simultaneously to customers. A "Max Turns" approach allows up to a specified number of item exchanges to occur during a specified period of time. The "Max Out" and "Max Turns" approaches may be used together or separately with a variety of subscription methodologies.

Owner: NetFlix

Read More

Big is Better (part two)

This may have a several parts - but the concept of Big-is-Better is a true "critical assumption" - AT&T has decided that the only way to compete is to be BIGGER than everyone else - that is merely an assumption, not the truth. Here's another assumption - smaller organizations are more nimble and can react quicker to customer/market demands - is it true, or merely an assumption.

It may be easier for AT&T (or any Meglacorp) to try to use their size as an advatage - in fact, if I'm another meglacorp, I may assume that AT&T will understand me better than a smaller company - or if my phone bill is bigger than the company that is trying to supply my telephone service, that may give me pause.

Big is not better than Small or medium or large, or extra large or extra small or micro or any other definition of size. That is a ME putting VALUE on size. And it is my assumption - it is not necesarrily the truth. Enough for right now... more later.

BTW, I love the fact that I can listen to my most favorite radio station KBCO while I'm sitting her blogging -- and the fact that I no longer live in Denver/Boulder area. It is the single best radio station in the entire world - that is not an assumption, it is the truth - and if I was a inclined to do so, I could probably prove it scientifically (or with mathmatics) - but just like my beliefs, I don't have to prove it, to know it's true.

I'll tell you why it's great, right now, I'm listening to Robert Cray (the thrill is gone), but just a few minutes ago, I was listening to the Verve, and before that Elton John. Now, that's great!!

Read More

Big is Better! (really??)

I've been asleep at the wheel for the last couple days and didn't notice that AT&T (the SBC boys) have decided to buy up another company, BellSouth - coming close to recreating the monopoly of pre-1987. Well once I noticed this event, it was really something of a shocker (not from the standpoint of AT&T wanting to grab more telecom real estate, but from a standpoint of "didn't we already settle this issue??)

So, to be fair, I'll include a quote from an industry analyst that is in favor of this move...

Industry analysts, like Tom Watts, say the deal makes sense. "Big is better. Smaller operators, their costs just aren't competitive and they haven't been able to bring prices down as competition has increased."

Now, Tom is probably a very smart guy, been around telecom all his life and understand all the ins-n-outs of the telecom industry. Me, I just another guy with an opinion. But since this is my blog, I get to share it...

First of all, I don't believe "big is better" - that's a value judgment and there are plenty of small telecom companies in the world (check out how many there actually are in rural America sometime) that provide their customers with local, long distance, wireless, internet access and in many cases wireless. They usually do it for about the same amount as the "big" companies - but on the other hand, they also know your name, your kids go to school with their kids, you probably know someone that works for these companies - big is not necessarily better.

You know what big does, it allows the person sitting on the top of pyramid to make decisions that affect thousands (in many cases 10's of thousands) of employees, and hundreds of thousands of customers - with a single decision. This is a crap merger - the reasons for it is that "big is better", that AT&T can't compete against the cable companies -- well boo hoo. If the merger goes through - AT&T will be bigger than the whole cable industry - and I still don't think they will be able to compete.

Telecos are lumbering giants - and they have never gotten out of the monopoly mindset. If the cable companies are the threat, then AT&T needs to buy Comcast or Cox - not BellSouth. They need to be better at what they do, instead of protecting their aging infrastructure. They need to understand that customers have options and they vote with those options. Change or die it's that simple.

Read More