I noted another story on the Detroit Free Press website wailing and gnashing about the CEO of General Motors asking for permission to offer larger compensation packages – mainly bonus and raise increases – to the management personnel at GM at the same time that he announced that hourly personnel will not be getting raises this year. Granted that this is the Free Press, and they’ve been running a bit left of center for as long as I’ve been paying attention to them; also granted that there’s a huge backlash against over-paid executives on any company that has ever received bailout money going on right now, and this is an easy way to gain readership and sell newspapers (both real and electronic). My first thought upon actually reading the story was that it’s really too bad that people will only look at the headline and not read this story – because the issue they’re describing isn’t nearly as simple as it looks…
First of all, it’s important to realize that until GM pays back its bailout money the CEO can’t increase the bonuses or raises being paid to anybody; the executives or the managers or the janitorial staff. Whether the executives at GM are really worth hanging onto, given that they managed to run what used to be the largest industrial firm in the world into bankruptcy, is debatable; however, the CEO believes that they’re actually better than anybody he could get to replace them, and it’s possible that he’s right. But right or wrong, without the approval of acting special master for executive compensation Pat Geoghegan, GM can’t act on the CEO’s wishes. The public statement that he would like to increase those incentive programs just gives the CEO an alibi for whatever happens as a result; if his executives do flee the company for higher wages elsewhere and this does turn out to have a negative effect on performance, he can point to this statement as proof that the resulting fiasco isn’t his fault…
In fact, if you bother to actually read the article, you’ll find a statement from a Treasury department spokesman to the effect that such requests are routine under the bailout program, and this one is not considered to be anything special. As for the hourly employees not getting an increase in base salary, this sounds very disturbing until you realize that all of the workers in question are unionized under the UAW, and their base salaries, raises and bonuses are collectively bargained for and established years in advance. If the UAW doesn’t feel its people are receiving appropriate salaries it can demand higher ones when its contract with GM expires next summer, or go out on strike to demand more, but there was never any realistic chance of any CEO randomly offering (or even requesting permission to offer) higher hourly wages just on a whim. The fact that the hourly personnel will not receive pay raises unless the union successfully negotiates one is a total non-story, and its inclusion here is entirely inflammatory…
So while this story sounds like a case of a greedy CEO planning to offer huge amounts of money to wealthy senior executives at the expense of hard-working blue-collar folks (whose labor actually makes the company possible), the truth is that this is just a case of one well-heeled hired gun covering his backside in the event of trouble, and none of it really means anything. It’s actually much more significant that the same article claims GM is well positioned relative to the global competition and may be able to become profitable again in a relatively short time. This would enable the company to pay back its Federal bail-out money, negotiate a mutually advantageous contract with the union, attract new stockholders, improve its credit rating, and go back to offering its executives the obscenely large bonuses they’ve come to expect…
It’s an outcome that would be good for the economy, the employees, the stockholders, and ultimately everyone who makes money by making, selling or financing cars. But I have to admit, it won’t do a thing for the Free Press or anybody else who makes a living selling newspapers…
Wednesday, December 15, 2010
Tuesday, December 14, 2010
Paying for the Non-Privilege
Some years ago I recall being very surprised to discover that Sears had cancelled my charge card just as I was about to use it. At the time I was underemployed and living in a small apartment, and thus could not afford to purchase much of anything, let alone indulge in regular shopping sprees, but I went to Sears once or twice a year to purchase basics like cheap clothing, cheap towels, and occasionally cheap gifts. I’d acquired one of their in-house charge cards because it had a lower interest rate than any of my credit cards, and because I’ve always believed that having a little extra credit available is a good thing, but I didn’t really need to float any of my Sears purchases, and generally paid off the card as soon as I got the bill. The combination of infrequent use and timely pay-off meant that the company wasn’t making any lucrative interest fees off of me, and since my account cost the same as any other to administrate, they cancelled me. I was mildly annoyed, but not enough to stop shopping there – when it was convenient for me, of course…
Over the years since, Sears and a number of other companies have spun off their credit divisions, or sold them outright to raise money – since these are frequently the most profitable division of any retail outfit, and occasionally the only division that nets any money, there’s always someone who wants to buy them. I’ve never bothered to acquire a Sears MasterCard or Visa, because these accounts don’t offer any advantage over the cards I’ve already got – as previously noted, I don’t shop at Sears enough for the supposed special advantages of their own Card to matter to me – and because they cost too much to be worth having for their own sake. I don’t have any other store credit cards, either, and if the new wrinkle that is being introduced in the UK becomes common in this country, you may not want to keep yours, either…
A story off the Daily Mail (London) website indicates that the bank which provides the in-store credit cards for a number of British retailers has started charging a ten-pound fee (about $15.75 USD at the moment) to any customer who fails to make a purchase using his or her card for six months. This is, of course, entirely separate from the annual fees, finance charges, late fees or interest that you will accrue if you actually use the thing, and rather defeats the purpose of saving money on in-store purchases (you’d have to receive a 1% discount on $3,150 in purchases, or a 5% discount on over $600 in purchases to make up for 12 months of non-usage fees), even assuming that you get in-store purchase savings in the first place. But a much more disturbing possibility, at least to me, is that other types of business might attempt a similar business model…
Consider, for example, airlines that sell food for purchase during the flights. This model won’t work well if no one buys the food, so these carriers might start adding a “spoilage fee” to your ticket, which can be refunded if you actually purchase enough to eat, or a “corkage” fee (such as restaurants charge for bringing in your own wine) for eating your own food while on board. You could also imagine them charging people who pay for their baggage and then don’t bring any, or asking a premium for very large people, very heavy people, or anyone travelling with a child small enough to annoy other passengers. And if those fees catch on, it could only be a matter of time before businesses of all sorts start charging “convenience” fees or “annoyance” fees or “we don’t feel that our bottom line is quite attractive enough, so we’re going to charge you more” fees…
I kid, of course; all of these non-usage fees (and related charges) are clearly stated in the fine print of the card agreements, and if you can’t be bothered to read contracts before you sign them it’s only a matter of time before you accidentally sign away your vital organs (or something equally silly) anyway. I’m just saying that this trend of making all of the additional money you can off of the careless, the credulous and the stupid is disturbing, and I really hope it doesn’t get carried to its logical conclusion. I am not hopeful of this, however…
Over the years since, Sears and a number of other companies have spun off their credit divisions, or sold them outright to raise money – since these are frequently the most profitable division of any retail outfit, and occasionally the only division that nets any money, there’s always someone who wants to buy them. I’ve never bothered to acquire a Sears MasterCard or Visa, because these accounts don’t offer any advantage over the cards I’ve already got – as previously noted, I don’t shop at Sears enough for the supposed special advantages of their own Card to matter to me – and because they cost too much to be worth having for their own sake. I don’t have any other store credit cards, either, and if the new wrinkle that is being introduced in the UK becomes common in this country, you may not want to keep yours, either…
A story off the Daily Mail (London) website indicates that the bank which provides the in-store credit cards for a number of British retailers has started charging a ten-pound fee (about $15.75 USD at the moment) to any customer who fails to make a purchase using his or her card for six months. This is, of course, entirely separate from the annual fees, finance charges, late fees or interest that you will accrue if you actually use the thing, and rather defeats the purpose of saving money on in-store purchases (you’d have to receive a 1% discount on $3,150 in purchases, or a 5% discount on over $600 in purchases to make up for 12 months of non-usage fees), even assuming that you get in-store purchase savings in the first place. But a much more disturbing possibility, at least to me, is that other types of business might attempt a similar business model…
Consider, for example, airlines that sell food for purchase during the flights. This model won’t work well if no one buys the food, so these carriers might start adding a “spoilage fee” to your ticket, which can be refunded if you actually purchase enough to eat, or a “corkage” fee (such as restaurants charge for bringing in your own wine) for eating your own food while on board. You could also imagine them charging people who pay for their baggage and then don’t bring any, or asking a premium for very large people, very heavy people, or anyone travelling with a child small enough to annoy other passengers. And if those fees catch on, it could only be a matter of time before businesses of all sorts start charging “convenience” fees or “annoyance” fees or “we don’t feel that our bottom line is quite attractive enough, so we’re going to charge you more” fees…
I kid, of course; all of these non-usage fees (and related charges) are clearly stated in the fine print of the card agreements, and if you can’t be bothered to read contracts before you sign them it’s only a matter of time before you accidentally sign away your vital organs (or something equally silly) anyway. I’m just saying that this trend of making all of the additional money you can off of the careless, the credulous and the stupid is disturbing, and I really hope it doesn’t get carried to its logical conclusion. I am not hopeful of this, however…
Sunday, December 12, 2010
The Ethics of Gift Cards
In several earlier posts in this space I have written against the use of gift cards for both high-priority occasions and high-priority people, both because of the inherent business issues with such purchases (such as the company you bought the card from going out of business before the gift can be redeemed), and because of the high level of convenience involved. I’m not saying there’s anything wrong with sending your third cousin’s son (whom you haven’t seen in three years) a gift card for his birthday, or with getting your friend the knitter a gift card for a large supply of yarn (since you don’t know what colors she needs or anticipates needing for her next project); I’m just saying that getting your wife a gift card from the supermarket around the corner for your Anniversary is unwise unless you like sleeping on the couch. If it’s really the thought that counts, a gift that says “I spent less than fifteen seconds picking out your gift!” is going to be inherently problematic. Unless it’s a gift card for a very large amount of junk food, in which case we’ve got a whole other level of grey area on our hands…
A story that turned up in the Sunday Mail of Queensland documents several strenuous objections to the KFC $500 gift card available in Australia and various other parts of the world as being health hazards. The argument is that since $500 is enough for 14 buckets of chicken or at least 50 to 70 individual meals at current prices, such a gift card would enable the recipient to enjoy KFC meals once a week for a year, or possibly even more often, instead of the once per month or once per calendar quarter that nutritionists would prefer. While there’s no explanation given as to why this would be worse than gifts of bio-toxins (alcohols) or refined sugars (any form of candy), you could actually argue that giving someone a present that is actively bad for their health – or at least enables them to do things that are actively bad for their health – is not a good choice. The question that struck me is, does this actually involve an ethical dilemma, either for the consumer or for the company?
Fast-food companies have for years pointed out that no one is forcing their customers to purchase or consume the company’s wares, and that if you don’t limit yourself exclusively to foods with high fat, carbohydrate or cholesterol contents, their meals are not going to do you any real harm. In the case of high-dollar gift cards, companies like KFC will generally point out that such a gift would enable a large family to eat out once each month, or permit a single individual to enjoy a hot meal once each week, and that if all of your other meals are relatively healthful, this will not harm anyone. KFC in particular will point out that they do offer food that, if not exactly healthy, is certainly no worse for you than any other dining-out experience would be, so blaming them for your poor eating habits (or those of your recipient) is hardly just. But the real question is, if these gift cards have the potential for actual harmful misuse, should they be offered or advertised as gifts?
A similar point could be raised with the consumer. If you are giving a KFC gift card to someone who can not afford to eat out very often, and who will only order the relatively healthy items off the menu (and enjoy them in moderation) are you really doing any harm? More to the point, perhaps, if you give such a gift card to someone who you know will use it just to purchase deep-fried items in bulk, are you responsible for their poor eating habits and/or lack of self-control? Or, to put it another way, do companies have any ethical responsibility to only market gift items that are part of a healthy lifestyle? Do private citizens have any ethical responsibility to only give gifts that are actively good for the person getting them? Or should companies market what people want to buy, and let people make their own decisions about what to consume, even if those decisions will ultimately kill them?
It’s worth thinking about…
A story that turned up in the Sunday Mail of Queensland documents several strenuous objections to the KFC $500 gift card available in Australia and various other parts of the world as being health hazards. The argument is that since $500 is enough for 14 buckets of chicken or at least 50 to 70 individual meals at current prices, such a gift card would enable the recipient to enjoy KFC meals once a week for a year, or possibly even more often, instead of the once per month or once per calendar quarter that nutritionists would prefer. While there’s no explanation given as to why this would be worse than gifts of bio-toxins (alcohols) or refined sugars (any form of candy), you could actually argue that giving someone a present that is actively bad for their health – or at least enables them to do things that are actively bad for their health – is not a good choice. The question that struck me is, does this actually involve an ethical dilemma, either for the consumer or for the company?
Fast-food companies have for years pointed out that no one is forcing their customers to purchase or consume the company’s wares, and that if you don’t limit yourself exclusively to foods with high fat, carbohydrate or cholesterol contents, their meals are not going to do you any real harm. In the case of high-dollar gift cards, companies like KFC will generally point out that such a gift would enable a large family to eat out once each month, or permit a single individual to enjoy a hot meal once each week, and that if all of your other meals are relatively healthful, this will not harm anyone. KFC in particular will point out that they do offer food that, if not exactly healthy, is certainly no worse for you than any other dining-out experience would be, so blaming them for your poor eating habits (or those of your recipient) is hardly just. But the real question is, if these gift cards have the potential for actual harmful misuse, should they be offered or advertised as gifts?
A similar point could be raised with the consumer. If you are giving a KFC gift card to someone who can not afford to eat out very often, and who will only order the relatively healthy items off the menu (and enjoy them in moderation) are you really doing any harm? More to the point, perhaps, if you give such a gift card to someone who you know will use it just to purchase deep-fried items in bulk, are you responsible for their poor eating habits and/or lack of self-control? Or, to put it another way, do companies have any ethical responsibility to only market gift items that are part of a healthy lifestyle? Do private citizens have any ethical responsibility to only give gifts that are actively good for the person getting them? Or should companies market what people want to buy, and let people make their own decisions about what to consume, even if those decisions will ultimately kill them?
It’s worth thinking about…
Saturday, December 11, 2010
Why Management is Important
There's a common belief in popular culture these days that management in general - and managers in particular - are obsolete, or even redundant. There's actually a theory of "non-management" that suggests that if you hire, train and empower the right people, you don't even need anyone to supervise them; just tell them what you want done, and get out of their way. It's a comforting idea, really; it suggests that all of us who have spent years learning about management science and practicing the profession of management don't actually know more than random armchair pundits can just make up on the fly. You don't even need to hang onto people who have managed not to get fired for two years and call them supervisors, just drop all of those high management salaries down to the bottom line and declare a higher dividend. And there's even some evidence to suggest that it might really work that way. But on the other hand, stories keep popping up that suggest that having someone who knows what he or she is doing running things might just be worth the money...
Consider the case of Capital One and a former customer named Perry. When Capital One sent the customer to their collections department she had the temerity to hire a lawyer and direct all future communications from the company to her attorney. Capital One took offense at this, and refused to go through the customer's legal counsel, persisting in calling the customer and members of her family at home, at work, and at all hours of the night.They also began ratcheting up the amount the customer supposedly owed them, ultimately demanding payment in excess of $286 million. Now, a competent manager, or at least one who had a passing understanding of strategy, public relations, or law, could probably have figured out why escalating from a $4,000 debt to something over $286 million was a bad idea. Somebody who had actually spent a few minutes in a business law class might have been able to explain why failing to appear in court is a bad idea, too. But apparently, nobody at Capital One had figured out why doing both of these things in the same case is a bad idea...
In the case linked above, the former customer is counter-suing for the same amount Capital One sued her for, claiming that the $286 million can't simply be a computer error, but must in fact be the product of a deliberate attempt to harass and intimidate her. The company could probably have raised some other argument, except they failed to show up for the court hearing and are now in very real danger of being found liable for the full amount. It doesn't help their case any that under the laws of the state where this action is happening, the company was legally required to communicate through the attorney, not start arbitrarily raising the amount of the case, and other minor civilities that were completely ignored in this case. In fact, even if they can get off the hook for the $286 million, Capitol One may still be hit with civil sanctions and even criminal charges because of their misconduct in this case...
Now, I'm not saying that there isn't a management team currently running Capital One, or that the management personnel running the collections department at Capital One are incompetents who have gotten so arrogant at being about to flout Federal law and sneer in the faces of consumers that they've made a mistake that could end up costing the company nine figures worth of money; I'm not even saying that if the case ultimately goes south on them that they won't just scam up money from a Federal bail-out program to make good their loss. I'm just saying that a real management professional would have understood the potential for ridicule, legal exposure, and (worst of all) lost profits that could result from allowing this sort of fiasco to continue, and thought of a better way to recover debts and intimidate uppity customers...
But if you still think there's no purpose in having somebody running the company who actually knows what he or she is doing, please feel free to eliminate the management positions in your company. I'm going to see if I've got any money invested in Capital One - and if I do, I'm going to transfer it into some company that still has managers working for them...
Consider the case of Capital One and a former customer named Perry. When Capital One sent the customer to their collections department she had the temerity to hire a lawyer and direct all future communications from the company to her attorney. Capital One took offense at this, and refused to go through the customer's legal counsel, persisting in calling the customer and members of her family at home, at work, and at all hours of the night.They also began ratcheting up the amount the customer supposedly owed them, ultimately demanding payment in excess of $286 million. Now, a competent manager, or at least one who had a passing understanding of strategy, public relations, or law, could probably have figured out why escalating from a $4,000 debt to something over $286 million was a bad idea. Somebody who had actually spent a few minutes in a business law class might have been able to explain why failing to appear in court is a bad idea, too. But apparently, nobody at Capital One had figured out why doing both of these things in the same case is a bad idea...
In the case linked above, the former customer is counter-suing for the same amount Capital One sued her for, claiming that the $286 million can't simply be a computer error, but must in fact be the product of a deliberate attempt to harass and intimidate her. The company could probably have raised some other argument, except they failed to show up for the court hearing and are now in very real danger of being found liable for the full amount. It doesn't help their case any that under the laws of the state where this action is happening, the company was legally required to communicate through the attorney, not start arbitrarily raising the amount of the case, and other minor civilities that were completely ignored in this case. In fact, even if they can get off the hook for the $286 million, Capitol One may still be hit with civil sanctions and even criminal charges because of their misconduct in this case...
Now, I'm not saying that there isn't a management team currently running Capital One, or that the management personnel running the collections department at Capital One are incompetents who have gotten so arrogant at being about to flout Federal law and sneer in the faces of consumers that they've made a mistake that could end up costing the company nine figures worth of money; I'm not even saying that if the case ultimately goes south on them that they won't just scam up money from a Federal bail-out program to make good their loss. I'm just saying that a real management professional would have understood the potential for ridicule, legal exposure, and (worst of all) lost profits that could result from allowing this sort of fiasco to continue, and thought of a better way to recover debts and intimidate uppity customers...
But if you still think there's no purpose in having somebody running the company who actually knows what he or she is doing, please feel free to eliminate the management positions in your company. I'm going to see if I've got any money invested in Capital One - and if I do, I'm going to transfer it into some company that still has managers working for them...
Friday, December 10, 2010
Counting the Hits
Some of you may have noticed the counter that popped up at the bottom of the page today; it's a relatively new feature of Blogspot, along with a user statistics function available from the dashboard. The upshot of all of this new software is that, for the first time in nearly four years, I have an idea of how many people are reading this blog, and where they are coming from. It's been a rather strange, if eye-opening experience...
To begin with, the stats function (and the counters) only go back to last summer, or less than six months total, and probably the least productive six months in the entire history of this blog as well. Despite this low spot in my productivity, I still seem to be getting somewhere around 500 to 600 discrete visits each month, or somewhere around 20 per day. Unsurprisingly, most of the individual page views seem to cluster around things that would be common search terms in their own right - almost 10% of the views were the result of my post about the ethics of Amazon, which probably means people were searching for web sites that mention "Amazon" and "ethics" and found my post about them. Still, it's a lot of interest for a little business blog written by a guy nobody ever heard of...
Even more peculiar, at least from my point of view, is the huge range of countries our readers seem to come from. Only a little over half of the hits are from the U.S.; almost one-sixth of them are from the Netherlands, and nearly 10% are from Germany, neither of which makes much sense. I also seem to have a number of readers in Brazil, or at least one who comes here often. The rest seem to be scattered across Asia, including Russia and the Far East. Some of my students have been from those parts of the world, but if any of them found the blog by searching under my name those hits would be coming from here, not from overseas...
Oddest of all, I think, is that a significant number of those hits came from people searching for my name on various search engines. Why people from other countries would be searching for me by name passes understanding; perhaps some of my students have told other members of their families about me, and people are combing the Web looking for leverage. In any case, it does give you an idea about the economics of blogging - and why so few of us can make a living this way...
If I average 500 visitors a month (which is at least 490 more than I thought we were getting), and 2% of them were to click through on an ad to a sponsoring website (which is more than most blogs-based ads get) and if I got a penny for each one (which is higher than usual) that would still only be 10 cents a month; not even enough to make a phone call. I'd need 500 times as many visitors just to cover my DSL bill; 50,000 times this number to generate a good living. And frankly, there aren't too many blogs that get 2.5 million visits a month...
I'm not sure how much different my blog is going to be now that I know how many people are reading it, but I don't suppose it will change much. I'm still reaching a tiny, and mostly random audience, and still writing mostly because I want to, and still declining to monetize, commercialize or civilize this space.
But I'll keep you posted...
To begin with, the stats function (and the counters) only go back to last summer, or less than six months total, and probably the least productive six months in the entire history of this blog as well. Despite this low spot in my productivity, I still seem to be getting somewhere around 500 to 600 discrete visits each month, or somewhere around 20 per day. Unsurprisingly, most of the individual page views seem to cluster around things that would be common search terms in their own right - almost 10% of the views were the result of my post about the ethics of Amazon, which probably means people were searching for web sites that mention "Amazon" and "ethics" and found my post about them. Still, it's a lot of interest for a little business blog written by a guy nobody ever heard of...
Even more peculiar, at least from my point of view, is the huge range of countries our readers seem to come from. Only a little over half of the hits are from the U.S.; almost one-sixth of them are from the Netherlands, and nearly 10% are from Germany, neither of which makes much sense. I also seem to have a number of readers in Brazil, or at least one who comes here often. The rest seem to be scattered across Asia, including Russia and the Far East. Some of my students have been from those parts of the world, but if any of them found the blog by searching under my name those hits would be coming from here, not from overseas...
Oddest of all, I think, is that a significant number of those hits came from people searching for my name on various search engines. Why people from other countries would be searching for me by name passes understanding; perhaps some of my students have told other members of their families about me, and people are combing the Web looking for leverage. In any case, it does give you an idea about the economics of blogging - and why so few of us can make a living this way...
If I average 500 visitors a month (which is at least 490 more than I thought we were getting), and 2% of them were to click through on an ad to a sponsoring website (which is more than most blogs-based ads get) and if I got a penny for each one (which is higher than usual) that would still only be 10 cents a month; not even enough to make a phone call. I'd need 500 times as many visitors just to cover my DSL bill; 50,000 times this number to generate a good living. And frankly, there aren't too many blogs that get 2.5 million visits a month...
I'm not sure how much different my blog is going to be now that I know how many people are reading it, but I don't suppose it will change much. I'm still reaching a tiny, and mostly random audience, and still writing mostly because I want to, and still declining to monetize, commercialize or civilize this space.
But I'll keep you posted...
Thursday, December 9, 2010
Go Smurf Yourself
A long time ago, a major concern that parents had to worry about was having children who were too young to know any better calling those “976” pay-per-minute telephone services and running up huge telephone bills. Some of it was that these services had “adult” material, but mostly it was just that a three-year-old could call the recorded “Message from Santa” number six hundred times in a day (kids that age do not get bored as easily as you might think), and a few weeks later the parents might be faced with a thousand dollars in phone charges. Even otherwise intelligent people who were old enough to know better would occasionally make this mistake; using a phone service to get updates about their soap operas every weekday for a month until their parents started yelling at them about a $700 phone charge (at $4.95 per minute, it adds up quickly). Of course, that all seems so quaint now…
The phone-service menace had faded, if not quite vanished, when websites that charge for content became the new electronic threat. Most of these required a credit card in order to use, but those aren’t that hard for an enterprising young tyke to get hold of, especially when their parents use the same credit card number on the same computer to buy their own online content; in some cases the computer’s own auto-complete software will fill in those fields for them. For at least ten years now, we’ve been bombarded with stories of children as young as 2 years old placing orders for everything from pornographic movies to large construction equipment using their parents’ computers, and this along with the threat of online predators has convinced most reasonably sane people that you’d have to be an idiot to let small children surf the ‘Net unsupervised…
Now it would appear that Apple has pushed back this frontier, as they have so many others, with iPhone and iPad technology. A story from the Associated Press by way of the Yahoo News tech page presents the curious case of the “Smurf’s Village” video game, which is available for Apple gadgets as part of the run-up marketing for the upcoming Smurfs movie. Like a lot of the current generation of online games, the Smurf’s Village gives the user the option of simply buying resources (using real money) instead of working for them through game play. What’s special about this case is that the game is intended primarily for small children – and the usual failsafe of requiring the user’s iTunes password in order to purchase things within the application apparently doesn’t always work…
Now, the Apple leadership and the game publishers have correctly pointed out that parents can restrict all in-application purchases with a simple settings adjustment; it also seems reasonable to ask about kids and unsupervised online gaming in the first place. Any child who is too young to understand about money (and credit cards) is probably too young to be using web-enabled electronic devices without supervision, and letting your child do so isn’t functionally any different from letting them have access to X-rated cable channels, adult websites, or chat services, all of which are already on the list of socially unacceptable parent behaviors (and will probably end up in the legal definition of child endangerment soon if they aren’t already). A much more troubling point is how easy these applications are to abuse – and how blatantly the programmers are trying to get the user to do so…
Consider the case of the Smurf’s Village game, for example. Like most such applications, it has a wealth of challenges that can take days or weeks of constant play to overcome – or you can complete them instantly with the application of a few real-world dollars. Even adults who should know better can fall prey to this type of programming; expecting small children not to is unrealistic. And while children might consider the idea that purchasing a sword or a biological-warfare grenade launcher in order to slaughter other players might be bad, it’s hard to picture them applying the same logic to purchasing “Smurfberries” in order to build their village faster…
Even worse, in my opinion, is the attitude that some of the parents quoted in this article seem to be taking; that none of this is their fault and everything should go back to the way it was when they were children. Like it or not, in-app purchases are here to stay, just the way online communities and cyber-stalkers are. Letting your children play with a web-enabled computer/communications device that is connected to your credit cards is every bit as stupid as letting them play in traffic would be – and these electronic hazards are no more likely to go away than automobile traffic is…
The phone-service menace had faded, if not quite vanished, when websites that charge for content became the new electronic threat. Most of these required a credit card in order to use, but those aren’t that hard for an enterprising young tyke to get hold of, especially when their parents use the same credit card number on the same computer to buy their own online content; in some cases the computer’s own auto-complete software will fill in those fields for them. For at least ten years now, we’ve been bombarded with stories of children as young as 2 years old placing orders for everything from pornographic movies to large construction equipment using their parents’ computers, and this along with the threat of online predators has convinced most reasonably sane people that you’d have to be an idiot to let small children surf the ‘Net unsupervised…
Now it would appear that Apple has pushed back this frontier, as they have so many others, with iPhone and iPad technology. A story from the Associated Press by way of the Yahoo News tech page presents the curious case of the “Smurf’s Village” video game, which is available for Apple gadgets as part of the run-up marketing for the upcoming Smurfs movie. Like a lot of the current generation of online games, the Smurf’s Village gives the user the option of simply buying resources (using real money) instead of working for them through game play. What’s special about this case is that the game is intended primarily for small children – and the usual failsafe of requiring the user’s iTunes password in order to purchase things within the application apparently doesn’t always work…
Now, the Apple leadership and the game publishers have correctly pointed out that parents can restrict all in-application purchases with a simple settings adjustment; it also seems reasonable to ask about kids and unsupervised online gaming in the first place. Any child who is too young to understand about money (and credit cards) is probably too young to be using web-enabled electronic devices without supervision, and letting your child do so isn’t functionally any different from letting them have access to X-rated cable channels, adult websites, or chat services, all of which are already on the list of socially unacceptable parent behaviors (and will probably end up in the legal definition of child endangerment soon if they aren’t already). A much more troubling point is how easy these applications are to abuse – and how blatantly the programmers are trying to get the user to do so…
Consider the case of the Smurf’s Village game, for example. Like most such applications, it has a wealth of challenges that can take days or weeks of constant play to overcome – or you can complete them instantly with the application of a few real-world dollars. Even adults who should know better can fall prey to this type of programming; expecting small children not to is unrealistic. And while children might consider the idea that purchasing a sword or a biological-warfare grenade launcher in order to slaughter other players might be bad, it’s hard to picture them applying the same logic to purchasing “Smurfberries” in order to build their village faster…
Even worse, in my opinion, is the attitude that some of the parents quoted in this article seem to be taking; that none of this is their fault and everything should go back to the way it was when they were children. Like it or not, in-app purchases are here to stay, just the way online communities and cyber-stalkers are. Letting your children play with a web-enabled computer/communications device that is connected to your credit cards is every bit as stupid as letting them play in traffic would be – and these electronic hazards are no more likely to go away than automobile traffic is…
Wednesday, December 1, 2010
On the Slope Again
Here’s a question I saw posed about an online news story this week: Suppose a businessman buys the contents of a storage locker that are being sold at auction, which happens every month in America when people stop paying their locker rental fees and ignore notices to do so or to clean out their belongings. In this case, let’s suppose that the seizure and auction were legally conducted; no one was swindled into giving up their possessions, the storage company gave the owners all of the time required by contract and law to pay up, and even notified the owners of the auction so they could attend and buy everything back. Does the man who acquired the items at auction have any responsibility to return them to the original owners, or does he have the right to sell his legally-obtained property as he sees fit?
Before you answer that question you might want to consider this case from the Chicago Sun-Times website. According to this report, a man who routinely buys abandoned storage locker contents was doing just that in 2006 when he came upon a lot that included the funeral flag, dog tags, medals, gold star banner, photographs and other memorabilia of the first U.S. servicewoman killed in Afghanistan. At this point the story gets a little murky; the purchaser says he attempted to make contact with the family about returning the items and they never replied; the family does not dispute this, but a non-profit group established in the late Marine’s name says they want the memorabilia and the purchaser has declined their offers for it. Meanwhile, the purchaser (who has violated no laws whatsoever) is being excoriated in the media and flamed everywhere online that this story appears…
Now, granted that the articles obtained in this particular auction have a high emotional meaning to the family, facts of the case do appear to be that these items were left in a storage locker for several years (from 2002 to 2006) and then abandoned after several billing notices, a seizure notice, an auction notice an so on; it’s also clear that the purchaser isn’t refusing to return them to the family, just to do as a third-party group is asking him to do. What makes this case interesting (at least to me) is the issue of where do we draw the line? A lot of what ends up being auctioned off from storage lockers probably has sentimental value to someone, but self-storage companies aren’t charities, and expecting them to continue providing a service you’re not paying for is ridiculous. For that matter, so is asking someone who purchased goods through such an auction to simply give you items they bought and paid for. At the same time, it’s hard to imagine anyone who wouldn’t want to return a dead servicewoman’s burial flag and decorations to her family…
So where do we draw that line? At what point is something so important, holy or sacred that possession of it should supersede the laws of property ownership and liability, and who gets to make that decision? It’s another one of those questions I’m really grateful I don’t have to answer personally; I’m just going to be a weasel here and suggest that anything that is of huge sentimental value to you and can be stored in a single file box is probably something you should not put in self-storage in the first place…
And if you do, make sure you pay the rent on time!
Before you answer that question you might want to consider this case from the Chicago Sun-Times website. According to this report, a man who routinely buys abandoned storage locker contents was doing just that in 2006 when he came upon a lot that included the funeral flag, dog tags, medals, gold star banner, photographs and other memorabilia of the first U.S. servicewoman killed in Afghanistan. At this point the story gets a little murky; the purchaser says he attempted to make contact with the family about returning the items and they never replied; the family does not dispute this, but a non-profit group established in the late Marine’s name says they want the memorabilia and the purchaser has declined their offers for it. Meanwhile, the purchaser (who has violated no laws whatsoever) is being excoriated in the media and flamed everywhere online that this story appears…
Now, granted that the articles obtained in this particular auction have a high emotional meaning to the family, facts of the case do appear to be that these items were left in a storage locker for several years (from 2002 to 2006) and then abandoned after several billing notices, a seizure notice, an auction notice an so on; it’s also clear that the purchaser isn’t refusing to return them to the family, just to do as a third-party group is asking him to do. What makes this case interesting (at least to me) is the issue of where do we draw the line? A lot of what ends up being auctioned off from storage lockers probably has sentimental value to someone, but self-storage companies aren’t charities, and expecting them to continue providing a service you’re not paying for is ridiculous. For that matter, so is asking someone who purchased goods through such an auction to simply give you items they bought and paid for. At the same time, it’s hard to imagine anyone who wouldn’t want to return a dead servicewoman’s burial flag and decorations to her family…
So where do we draw that line? At what point is something so important, holy or sacred that possession of it should supersede the laws of property ownership and liability, and who gets to make that decision? It’s another one of those questions I’m really grateful I don’t have to answer personally; I’m just going to be a weasel here and suggest that anything that is of huge sentimental value to you and can be stored in a single file box is probably something you should not put in self-storage in the first place…
And if you do, make sure you pay the rent on time!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
