Digital books are for real

How many of you thought the Kindle was just a fad?  Electronic books would never take the place of "real" paper books, right?  Maybe hardbacks, but certainly not paperbacks!  It is practically sacrilegious to even consider the thought.

 

As it turns out, in July, 2010 Amazon announced that Kindle's e-books had outsold hardback books 1.4 to 1 (or 143 e-books to 100 hardbacks, to be exact) over the previous three months.

Well, this month, they announced that Kindle's e-books outsold even paperbacks!  115 e-books to every 100 paperbacks.   

Well, I'll be.

Get 'em while they're young

We all know the evils of marketing credit cards to college students (well, some of you may not as you haven't gotten to that part of the semester yet, but you will).  "Come sign up for a MasterCard and get a free pizza!"  Wow - what a deal. Marketing credit cards to the 18-22 year old segment is, while distasteful in many ways, somehow acceptable.  After all, they *do* have things that they might need to buy and learning to manage your credit is a good thing.  However, marketing to the 3-5 year old segment is...something else.

Yes, you read that right.  Get the 4 year olds used to using a Visa card to pay for their french fries in the game of Life and you'll have them.....for life.  Literally.

Good marketing or bad marketing?  Don't forget to put your ethical hat on before you answer that.

The government's own Yelp

We're all familiar with Yelp - that handy web-based service that allows consumers to report on the good, the bad and the ugly aspects of other service businesses.  I use it almost daily.  What's a good plumber? Turns out Courtesy Plumbing is San Diego's premier plumbing business. Where's the best place to let my doggie run?  Grape Street Doggie Park and Coronado Beach tie for tops in sunny San Diego. 

Now the federal government is getting involved in releasing customer reviews.  They have been collecting for them past 38 years but have been keeping them private. Come March 11, it is a different story.  All will be going public on that date.  The difference between regular old Yelp and the CSPC is that these aren't complaints of "I didn't like the way the waitress looked at me," but rather ones that have serious implications of possible injury related to a product.  Another difference is that when someone contacts the CSPC to complain they must leave verifiable contact information (not made public) so it should lessen any fraudulent claims/reports.

I'm interested to see what appears on the site after March 11th.  I think this is a great idea.  What do you think?  Can you think of any downsides?

Continuing the Food Theme

Since we're on the theme of food....there were two interesting pieces in the news today.


How many of you have enjoyed a blueberry bagel?  Blueberry waffle?  Blueberry cereal?  Blueberry muffin?  Would you be disappointed to learn that your blueberries were actually just bits made of " sugar, corn cereal, modified food starch, partially hydrogenated vegetable oil, artificial flavor, cellulose gum, salt and artificial colors like Blue #2, Red #40, Green #3 and Blue #1?" 

Truth - not a bit of blueberry in sight.  Sorry folks.  This might not be a problem were these products not advertised with photos of plump ripe blueberries on the front of the package. 

                     **********************************************************************************

Do any of you indulge in Taco Bell?  Turns out the seasoned beef isn't so much beef as it is other stuff.  64% other stuff to be exact.  Have faith, 36% of the seasoned beef is actually beef.

Is this news worthy of a lawsuit?

The Crime of McDonalds

Is it a crime that McDonald's sells unhealthy food to our kids?  Many people would argue, yes. After all, San Francisco city council recently (November 2010) voted to ban Happy Meals with toys unless McDonald's could bring the nutritional content of the meal within reason ("restaurants may include a toy with a meal if it contains fewer than 600 calories – food and drink combined -- and if less than 35% of the calories come from fat").
 

Perhaps even more interesting is this article by Michele Simon who explains that *any* advertising (not just those that contain toys in fat-laden meals) towards children is a crime.  Read the whole article and then let me know your take.

But I want my burger!!

Here is an article from last week's New York Times regarding fast food restaurants in South Los Angeles. It turns out that South LA is too fat and too poor to have any new fast food restaurants. At least that is what the LA city council says. Uh huh. True story. They voted last week (mid-January) to ban the opening of any new fast food restaurants in South LA.

New Fast Food Ban

A moratorium has been in place since 2008 but now they're completely banned.  

Should we be able to ban new businesses because of the makeup of the neighborhood?  Thoughts?

Pay for Non-Performance?

I came across this a while back and thought it interesting at the time but I didn't have time to investigate it thoroughly. Not sure that I have that time today either, but at least I'm going to write a tiny blurb about it. After all, we're in the season of resolutions and all.

Losing weight (or starting exercising or quitting smoking or writing papers, etc.) is difficult. We all know that. We go through all sorts of psychological (and sometimes physical) acrobatics to trick ourselves into setting a goal and then meeting it. And 9 times out of 10 (yes, I made those stats up....I have no idea what the real stats are, but they're big) we fail.

There are a couple of economists, originally from Yale, who think they have discovered a way to help people meet their goals. They've set up a website that is quite intriguing.

http://www.stickk.com/login.php

They let people set the goal themselves (e.g., lose 10 pounds in 10 weeks) and then they have the people put a price tag on this goal. In other words, how much are you willing to risk, should you not reach your goal? Now...hopefully you reach it. BUT...if you should fail? You pay.

So, let's say that you are willing to risk $200 to lose the 10 pounds in 10 weeks. You pay $200 up front. Then, each week you "weigh in" and if you haven't lost 1 pound, they deduct $20 from your account. If you DO lose the 1 pound required for that week, the money stays in your account. At the end of the 10 weeks, you get back whatever is left in your account. They send whatever you "lost" to a charity of your choosing. These are some of the charities that they are currently sending money to:

• American Red Cross
• CARE
• Doctors without Borders
• Feed the Children
• Freedom from Hunger
• Multiple Sclerosis Society
• UNICEF
• United Way

NOW! An interesting twist! They also have a list of anti-charities that you can choose to have your money sent to (if you fail to meet your sub-goals). This is really quite a brilliant idea. You specify ahead of time some organizations that you are REALLY opposed to and would NEVER willingly support. This, of course, provides extra incentive because some people will damned if they are going to be willing to NOT go work out, knowing that their hard-earned money will be going to the Young Republicans if they are not down a pound at the end of the week!!

Yes, this whole thing either requires honesty/ethics (which seems to be in short supply in our world if I go by some of the things I witness on a daily basis. Ay! ...but that is topic for another day) OR it requires a "referee/partner" who will report for you (to keep you honest).

Truly, the website above does a much better job of describing themselves than I do. Just click it and read. Alternatively, there are articles all over the place regarding this particular site, but I'll provide you with two to get you started reading. http://www.economist.com/finance/displaystory.cfm?story_id=10661442

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dorie-clark/four-new-years-resolution_b_802692.html

Thoughts?