As most of you know, in a few short weeks I will be moving from Chicago to St. Louis. This is mine and Casye's very first apartment and we're very excited to start on this new journey together. When I told my friends, their responses were almost always "I am so jealous." Many of my friends have since decided to either move out or start considering moving out in the near future. To those friends, I say: you can't just get an apartment, and certainly not a first apartment.
When you say "You're paying $360 a month for rent? I can totally afford that on my meager salary! I should move out!" I feel like you don't understand just how expensive a first apartment is. I want you to think about all the things you use every single day at home. Your bed, blankets, pillows. Your toothbrush and toothpaste. Your clothes, your dresser. Your food, your table, your chairs, etc. Now think about paying for all of those at the same time. On top of your first month's rent. This is your first apartment and I don't care how messy your room is, you do not have all the things you need yet. Your first apartment may be small and you won't need everything at first, but I don't feel like you understand just how many things you need. Now, in my situation, I was lucky because Casye and I have both been buying things and other people have been giving us things as well. That really helps. But even so, I've already spent some $620. And I'm not done yet. And these are just the things I feel like I need when I first move in, there are other things I'm going to get further down the road.
And don't forget, you'll also be paying for utilities. When re-watching an episode of Parks and Recreation today, Andy was talking about his newly acquired house and saying things like "you can use all the free electricity you want." Sometimes when I talk to my friends, I feel like they're saying the same things as Andy. You may not have had to pay for electricity before when you lived with your parents or when you lived in a dorm at school*, but you'll have to pay for it now. And water. And gas. I'm sorry, you wanted air conditioning in the summer? You have to pay for it. You may even have to pay for garbage. And get this, you have to pay for sewage, too. Yeah, you literally have to pay to use the bathroom in your own place. That shit ain't free.
You'll also have to pay for food. No more going to the fridge and grabbing whatever you want and no more texting mom to pick up some more ice cream bars. You probably don't realize how much you eat or how much it will cost you. When I first had this discussion, some of you thought you could eat on less than $100 a month. Please excuse me while I laugh at you, this will only take a moment. One really good resource I've found is the USDA's website, which calculates average costs for groceries, depending on your food style and how many people are in the household. And the thing is, for the first month, you'll have to buy a whole lot of stock items to start off your kitchen, like flour, sugar, and hot chocolate mix. There are things you are going to want on hand at all times, and then you buy your groceries on top of that.
If you really, truly want to get out on your own and move into your first apartment, I implore you to first create a cost analysis and projected budget. You need to know how much your rent & utilities are, how much you spend on groceries, and how much you spend on your other expenses, such as your cell phone, cable, internet, and very likely your student loans. Add all those together and subtract it from how much you make every month. Then you need to look at your savings and figure out if you have enough money to pay for all the things you'll need just to start, like plates and furniture. Once you've done all that, you can decide when you are financially capable of moving out. (Physically & mentally able are two entirely different matters, though)
Once you've taken all this into account, then you can start really looking at places. If you need any help, let me know.
*side note: stop telling me how dorm living is exactly the same as apartment living. It's not.
Showing posts with label money. Show all posts
Showing posts with label money. Show all posts
Sunday, January 29, 2012
Wednesday, March 31, 2010
Free Twilight Book: Generous Giveaway or Masterful Marketing?
Yesterday it was announced that Stephenie Meyer is going to release a fifth Twilight book, but it's not what you'd expect. Let's get the facts first: this is not Midnight Sun, it is a completely different book, a novella actually*, about Bree Tanner. Don't know who Bree is? You're not alone, I didn't remember her at first either**. Cut for spoilers: She is one of the (spoilers!) newborn vampires created by Victoria in the 4th book, the only one to escape the Cullens, and was later killed by the Volturi.
What I find particularly interesting about this book, though, is the way it's being marketed & distributed. First, starting on June 7th, the entire book will be available free online. Sounds generous, right? Well, it is—but only for a month. After that it will be printed in book form, $1 of which is going to be donated to the Red Cross. Still pretty generous, but it's also very clever.
The first clever marketing tactic here is offering the book free online, for a limited time only. Putting a book online gains readers you might not get otherwise, makes the book easily accessible, and the more people who read it, the more people who like it, the more people who are likely to purchase it later. The New York Times recently printed an article on this, about how offering an ebook for free can not only gain readers, but put your book on the bestseller's list, something that attracts even more attention.
So you tell all your friends to hurry up and read it online, creating a sense of immediate need, but what if you don't get it on time? What if you don't finish reading before it goes offline? How will you keep up with your fellow Twilight obsessed friends? No worries, you can buy the book in print! And a true fan will likely buy the book anyway, regardless of reading it online, so they can own it and reread it whenever they want***. The added bonus here is that you're doing a good thing, because $1 of your purchase goes to helping people through the Red Cross! Why is this important? It has to do with embedded giving, which I won't pretend to be the expert on, but here's the bottom line: By tacking on that donation, you are more likely to buy the book. You feel good about yourself, because you helped people, but you don't need to go out of your way to do it. You get to support change by doing something you were going to do already! When I think about this (thanks to one of my professors), I think about Product RED. You were going to buy that shirt or that laptop or that book anyway, but now you get the added bonus of feeling good about the purchase. It takes away some of the hesitation we might have for spending the money. What I'm saying here is that by putting that sticker on there that proceeds will go to the Red Cross, readers are more likely to pick it up. It's not as deceptive as this argument may first suggest, but it is clever.
An argument that's been raised over the past two days regarding this (largely by anti-Twilight people) is that Meyer is only printing a fifth book as a way to milk more money out of her fans. I don't think that's true. Surely she'll be making more money, but she's not making any thing off the free copies and honestly, I think she's sincere in saying that she wants to do something for her fans. True Twilight fans have been begging for a 5th book since the 4th one come out. If JK Rowling put out an 8th book, wouldn't you want to read it? Didn't you want to check out The Tales of Beedle the Bard when it came out? It's the same thing. There is a demand by the fans for more to read in the Twilight world, and Meyer's fulfilling those wishes. If she only wanted to milk the fans, she would have released Midnight Sun despite the leak.
Will I be reading the book? Probably not, but I'm not the biggest fan of the books. For the people who are, I can understand their excitement at having something more to read, I would feel the same way. And I really do think that Little, Brown is being rather clever here with the way they're marketing it.
*Although 197 pgs hardly sounds like a novella.
**actually, still don't, but I am trusting some of my friends who are die hard fans.
***This reminds me very much of another post I need to make, on the ethics & arguments behind downloading ebooks. I will get to that soon, I hope.
What I find particularly interesting about this book, though, is the way it's being marketed & distributed. First, starting on June 7th, the entire book will be available free online. Sounds generous, right? Well, it is—but only for a month. After that it will be printed in book form, $1 of which is going to be donated to the Red Cross. Still pretty generous, but it's also very clever.
The first clever marketing tactic here is offering the book free online, for a limited time only. Putting a book online gains readers you might not get otherwise, makes the book easily accessible, and the more people who read it, the more people who like it, the more people who are likely to purchase it later. The New York Times recently printed an article on this, about how offering an ebook for free can not only gain readers, but put your book on the bestseller's list, something that attracts even more attention.
So you tell all your friends to hurry up and read it online, creating a sense of immediate need, but what if you don't get it on time? What if you don't finish reading before it goes offline? How will you keep up with your fellow Twilight obsessed friends? No worries, you can buy the book in print! And a true fan will likely buy the book anyway, regardless of reading it online, so they can own it and reread it whenever they want***. The added bonus here is that you're doing a good thing, because $1 of your purchase goes to helping people through the Red Cross! Why is this important? It has to do with embedded giving, which I won't pretend to be the expert on, but here's the bottom line: By tacking on that donation, you are more likely to buy the book. You feel good about yourself, because you helped people, but you don't need to go out of your way to do it. You get to support change by doing something you were going to do already! When I think about this (thanks to one of my professors), I think about Product RED. You were going to buy that shirt or that laptop or that book anyway, but now you get the added bonus of feeling good about the purchase. It takes away some of the hesitation we might have for spending the money. What I'm saying here is that by putting that sticker on there that proceeds will go to the Red Cross, readers are more likely to pick it up. It's not as deceptive as this argument may first suggest, but it is clever.
An argument that's been raised over the past two days regarding this (largely by anti-Twilight people) is that Meyer is only printing a fifth book as a way to milk more money out of her fans. I don't think that's true. Surely she'll be making more money, but she's not making any thing off the free copies and honestly, I think she's sincere in saying that she wants to do something for her fans. True Twilight fans have been begging for a 5th book since the 4th one come out. If JK Rowling put out an 8th book, wouldn't you want to read it? Didn't you want to check out The Tales of Beedle the Bard when it came out? It's the same thing. There is a demand by the fans for more to read in the Twilight world, and Meyer's fulfilling those wishes. If she only wanted to milk the fans, she would have released Midnight Sun despite the leak.
Will I be reading the book? Probably not, but I'm not the biggest fan of the books. For the people who are, I can understand their excitement at having something more to read, I would feel the same way. And I really do think that Little, Brown is being rather clever here with the way they're marketing it.
*Although 197 pgs hardly sounds like a novella.
**actually, still don't, but I am trusting some of my friends who are die hard fans.
***This reminds me very much of another post I need to make, on the ethics & arguments behind downloading ebooks. I will get to that soon, I hope.
Wednesday, March 10, 2010
Amazon Release Dates & the Battle Against New Mediums
First, yes, I finished my first draft and met my deadline a day ahead of schedule, and that is why I am posting again. Sorry to not have told you sooner! Edits are pushed off just a bit, but I am reworking an old idea now, so no worries, I am writing still!
About a year ago, Garth Nix released the sixth book in his Keys to the Kingdom series, which ended in a dreaded cliffhanger, the lives of most characters hanging over the edge, their fates as unknown as the void of nothing. And that was the end of the book, with no conclusions and no certainty. It has driven me crazy for a year, let me tell you. But now, in March of 2010, the seventh and final book in the series, Lord Sunday is out, or coming out, depending on who you ask.
I, like most online consumers, consult amazon.com first when looking for quick facts, like publishing dates. Amazon lists Lord Sunday to come out next Tuesday, but borders.com shows it as having come out on the 1st of March, not the 16th. This means that Borders released the book more than two weeks before the shopping giant Amazon. What's more, Amazon shows the audio book being released a week before the book, which brings about another issue. Not only are sellers releasing items on different dates, making book birthdays hazy and confusing anxious buyers, but the audio books are available, adding to the shift we've already begun to see where consumers are favouring audio books and ebooks to hard copies.
Audio & ebooks already have advantages over real books, in that they are more compact, easier to carry and store, and easily distributed. They also tend to be cheaper, by and large. But with these new medias, you lose a part of what is so wonderful about books. You lose that sense of holding something real in your hands, the ability to imagine a character's voice for yourself, the eternal battery power of a book, and that new book smell. Books capture memories between their pages, little pieces of you, and other forms blend in with the rest of the medias we absorb every day. A page in an ebook has less effect, read between the hundreds of internet pages viewed every day; a chapter in an audiobook drowned out by mp3s and radio broadcasts. Still, the market is shifting, and if a reader is desperate enough for the book, they may be moved to buy an ebook or audiobook simply because it releases a week before the corporeal copy. This also loses publishers money, so I'm forced to wonder why sites like amazon would set up the dates as such.
I am reminded, of course, of the recent troubles with amazon and publishers such as MacMillian, where it becomes apparent that Amazon simply doesn't care about the publisher's rights, but even so, wouldn't they make more on an item with a higher price?
All of this said, I am buying my book from Borders, like I originally intended, and I will be buying a physical copy. I'm a little miffed that I was misled by Amazon's dates, as I could have been reading the climactic conclusion already, and all this anxious waiting over the past week could have been avoided. Unfortunately, I cannot wait for shipping, but I am forced to wait for a new in-store coupon to arrive in my email. We'll see if I'm able to hold out until then.
Coming Soon: reviews of Scarlett Fever by Maureen Johnson & Diary of a Wimpy Kid: Dog Days by Jeff Kinney, a post on biographies prefacing novels, & the writer's journey as seen in Harold and the Purple Crayon.
About a year ago, Garth Nix released the sixth book in his Keys to the Kingdom series, which ended in a dreaded cliffhanger, the lives of most characters hanging over the edge, their fates as unknown as the void of nothing. And that was the end of the book, with no conclusions and no certainty. It has driven me crazy for a year, let me tell you. But now, in March of 2010, the seventh and final book in the series, Lord Sunday is out, or coming out, depending on who you ask.
I, like most online consumers, consult amazon.com first when looking for quick facts, like publishing dates. Amazon lists Lord Sunday to come out next Tuesday, but borders.com shows it as having come out on the 1st of March, not the 16th. This means that Borders released the book more than two weeks before the shopping giant Amazon. What's more, Amazon shows the audio book being released a week before the book, which brings about another issue. Not only are sellers releasing items on different dates, making book birthdays hazy and confusing anxious buyers, but the audio books are available, adding to the shift we've already begun to see where consumers are favouring audio books and ebooks to hard copies.
Audio & ebooks already have advantages over real books, in that they are more compact, easier to carry and store, and easily distributed. They also tend to be cheaper, by and large. But with these new medias, you lose a part of what is so wonderful about books. You lose that sense of holding something real in your hands, the ability to imagine a character's voice for yourself, the eternal battery power of a book, and that new book smell. Books capture memories between their pages, little pieces of you, and other forms blend in with the rest of the medias we absorb every day. A page in an ebook has less effect, read between the hundreds of internet pages viewed every day; a chapter in an audiobook drowned out by mp3s and radio broadcasts. Still, the market is shifting, and if a reader is desperate enough for the book, they may be moved to buy an ebook or audiobook simply because it releases a week before the corporeal copy. This also loses publishers money, so I'm forced to wonder why sites like amazon would set up the dates as such.
I am reminded, of course, of the recent troubles with amazon and publishers such as MacMillian, where it becomes apparent that Amazon simply doesn't care about the publisher's rights, but even so, wouldn't they make more on an item with a higher price?
All of this said, I am buying my book from Borders, like I originally intended, and I will be buying a physical copy. I'm a little miffed that I was misled by Amazon's dates, as I could have been reading the climactic conclusion already, and all this anxious waiting over the past week could have been avoided. Unfortunately, I cannot wait for shipping, but I am forced to wait for a new in-store coupon to arrive in my email. We'll see if I'm able to hold out until then.
Coming Soon: reviews of Scarlett Fever by Maureen Johnson & Diary of a Wimpy Kid: Dog Days by Jeff Kinney, a post on biographies prefacing novels, & the writer's journey as seen in Harold and the Purple Crayon.
Tuesday, March 09, 2010
Just a Note on Donating to a Good Cause
For the last few years, I've been learning. I've been learning from life, from all the hard lessons it has to teach me. The majority of those lessons come from being below the poverty line, and always just a few short stumbles away from being a charity case, literally. So, when I get the chance to give back to those like me and those worse off than me, I take it. Tonight I went through my closet, cleared out the clutter, and now I am donating two full trash bags of clothes. And chances are, the dresses that I got as hand-me-downs are also going to be donated, to a separate cause, that helps out girls in tight situations who can't afford prom dresses. And I don't need those dresses, I will never have a chance to wear them. I have one, that's enough.
If you have clothes you're not going to wear, or toys you don't play with, or things you need to get rid of to make space as you grow up, please consider donating them. My favourite charity is Juvenile Diabetes, but there is also Goodwill (which, for the record, is a great place to shop as well), and numerous other places that take donations. Just look into it. You're going to throw them out anyway, so why not? You don't have to do anything but drop them off--and even Salvation Army will come to your house for bigger things! Think about charity.
If you have clothes you're not going to wear, or toys you don't play with, or things you need to get rid of to make space as you grow up, please consider donating them. My favourite charity is Juvenile Diabetes, but there is also Goodwill (which, for the record, is a great place to shop as well), and numerous other places that take donations. Just look into it. You're going to throw them out anyway, so why not? You don't have to do anything but drop them off--and even Salvation Army will come to your house for bigger things! Think about charity.
Friday, March 05, 2010
Things I Love About The Princess and the Frog
Spoilers ahead!
First, this movie is a great twist on the old fairy tale of the Frog Prince. Instead of a kiss from a princess turning a frog into a prince, the princess is turned into a frog. I love it. More than that, it sets up the story with a bigger adventure, of turning both Prince Naveen and Tiana back into humans.
The art style and the storyline (even the scary bits) are just like old school Disney. The voodoo man, Doctor Facillier, and his dark magic reminds me of the Queen in Snow White and Maleficent in Sleeping Beauty. The shadow creatures, too, remind me of these. Without his magic, Facillier could be a human version of Scar, almost. Possessed by his greed for power, eventually brought down by the people he thought to be on his side, and is not afraid to kill to get what he wants. And when he does it will absolutely break. your. heart.
I love Tiana, she's a breath of fresh air after years of princesses wanting nothing more than a prince. This is a smart, responsible girl who works towards her dreams. This girl is not satisfied to sit around and wait for the "someday" when her prince will come. She's got bigger plans. And the family angle, just wanting to live up to the goal that she and her dad set for themselves, is also really interesting. Of course, there's the obvious point of her race, which I think is fantastic. It's about time we got some diversity, Disney! (Although that's not to say we haven't before, remember Jasmine & Mulan!) Now this is a princess that little girls can aspire to be: reasonable, intelligent, determined, talented (I wish I could cook like her!), and still get the prince.
Prince Naveen is fantastic as well. Something I love about this movie that we don't see very often is that the guy falls in love first, and I think that is best done in this movie than in previous Disney ones. Yes, it has happened before, think of Aladdin or Sleeping Beauty. The difference between them, though, is that in The Princess and the Frog, Naveen & Tiana don't have a "love at first sight" situation. Nope, they don't like each other like that at the beginning, and then slowly Naveen starts to realize that money and women are great, but that he really loves Tiana, and that just warms my heart. Even better, Tiana doesn't immediately realize that she loves him back, because she's too distracted by her dreams. She has to "dig a little deeper" to find out what she needs. Eventually, they both realize that what they once wanted--money, success, to be human--isn't what they need, that love is more important. Now that's true Disney.
Continuing with the fantastic cast of characters here, let's not forget the secondary ones, for they really steal the show at some point! First we are introduced to Charlotte "Lottie" Lebouff, who is that little girl fed fairytales and spoiled all her life. Like a great foil should be, she is the dreamer to Tiana's hard worker. What I love about Lottie is her constant excitement, and that she could be the stereotypical spoiled rich girl, but instead she gives up her chance at marrying a prince, for her friend Tiana. She could have been a secondary villain, but instead she's a caring friend, and that's wonderful. Also, her interactions with her dad crack me up. The "What just happened?" line makes me laugh every time.
Next up we have Louis, the alligator who wants to be a jazz star. This movie is filled with dreamers, and Louis is no exception. He's also good for comic relief, paired up with the ever-amusing Ray, a firefly from the bayou. I like Louis, but I think Ray is the more important character in this plot, as he leads Naveen & Tiana to Mama Odee, but also he shows them true love, by speaking of his Evangeline, the night star. And even when he's killed, trying to save his friends, he still gets what he deserves, by being united in the night sky with Evangeline. That's also very Disney, and cheesy, but in a good way.
While the characters are the best part of this film, it would be horrible of me not to mention the music. The great Randy Newman lives up to his legacy by providing us with a great soundtrack that mirrors the Jazz Age in which this movie is set. The lyrics are also fantastic and the music will make you want to get up out of your chair and dance along. It's fantastic. Also, setting the story in the Jazz Age was really interesting, and works with the "dream" theme we see throughout the rest of the film, and also brings some beautiful designs for the clothing. I simply love Tiana's yellow uniform for work, with her cute little hat.
So, yeah, I am in love with this movie, if you couldn't tell. And upon watching it again, I felt the need to write up a post about it. That is how much I liked it. My cousin teases me about it, because when we saw it for the first time on Christmas and the lights came up in the theatre, I was sitting there with a grin plastered across my face, giggling and swinging my feet like the five-year-old I really am. This movie was one I could really relate to, and I highly recommend seeing it.
First, this movie is a great twist on the old fairy tale of the Frog Prince. Instead of a kiss from a princess turning a frog into a prince, the princess is turned into a frog. I love it. More than that, it sets up the story with a bigger adventure, of turning both Prince Naveen and Tiana back into humans.
The art style and the storyline (even the scary bits) are just like old school Disney. The voodoo man, Doctor Facillier, and his dark magic reminds me of the Queen in Snow White and Maleficent in Sleeping Beauty. The shadow creatures, too, remind me of these. Without his magic, Facillier could be a human version of Scar, almost. Possessed by his greed for power, eventually brought down by the people he thought to be on his side, and is not afraid to kill to get what he wants. And when he does it will absolutely break. your. heart.
I love Tiana, she's a breath of fresh air after years of princesses wanting nothing more than a prince. This is a smart, responsible girl who works towards her dreams. This girl is not satisfied to sit around and wait for the "someday" when her prince will come. She's got bigger plans. And the family angle, just wanting to live up to the goal that she and her dad set for themselves, is also really interesting. Of course, there's the obvious point of her race, which I think is fantastic. It's about time we got some diversity, Disney! (Although that's not to say we haven't before, remember Jasmine & Mulan!) Now this is a princess that little girls can aspire to be: reasonable, intelligent, determined, talented (I wish I could cook like her!), and still get the prince.
Prince Naveen is fantastic as well. Something I love about this movie that we don't see very often is that the guy falls in love first, and I think that is best done in this movie than in previous Disney ones. Yes, it has happened before, think of Aladdin or Sleeping Beauty. The difference between them, though, is that in The Princess and the Frog, Naveen & Tiana don't have a "love at first sight" situation. Nope, they don't like each other like that at the beginning, and then slowly Naveen starts to realize that money and women are great, but that he really loves Tiana, and that just warms my heart. Even better, Tiana doesn't immediately realize that she loves him back, because she's too distracted by her dreams. She has to "dig a little deeper" to find out what she needs. Eventually, they both realize that what they once wanted--money, success, to be human--isn't what they need, that love is more important. Now that's true Disney.
Continuing with the fantastic cast of characters here, let's not forget the secondary ones, for they really steal the show at some point! First we are introduced to Charlotte "Lottie" Lebouff, who is that little girl fed fairytales and spoiled all her life. Like a great foil should be, she is the dreamer to Tiana's hard worker. What I love about Lottie is her constant excitement, and that she could be the stereotypical spoiled rich girl, but instead she gives up her chance at marrying a prince, for her friend Tiana. She could have been a secondary villain, but instead she's a caring friend, and that's wonderful. Also, her interactions with her dad crack me up. The "What just happened?" line makes me laugh every time.
Next up we have Louis, the alligator who wants to be a jazz star. This movie is filled with dreamers, and Louis is no exception. He's also good for comic relief, paired up with the ever-amusing Ray, a firefly from the bayou. I like Louis, but I think Ray is the more important character in this plot, as he leads Naveen & Tiana to Mama Odee, but also he shows them true love, by speaking of his Evangeline, the night star. And even when he's killed, trying to save his friends, he still gets what he deserves, by being united in the night sky with Evangeline. That's also very Disney, and cheesy, but in a good way.
While the characters are the best part of this film, it would be horrible of me not to mention the music. The great Randy Newman lives up to his legacy by providing us with a great soundtrack that mirrors the Jazz Age in which this movie is set. The lyrics are also fantastic and the music will make you want to get up out of your chair and dance along. It's fantastic. Also, setting the story in the Jazz Age was really interesting, and works with the "dream" theme we see throughout the rest of the film, and also brings some beautiful designs for the clothing. I simply love Tiana's yellow uniform for work, with her cute little hat.
So, yeah, I am in love with this movie, if you couldn't tell. And upon watching it again, I felt the need to write up a post about it. That is how much I liked it. My cousin teases me about it, because when we saw it for the first time on Christmas and the lights came up in the theatre, I was sitting there with a grin plastered across my face, giggling and swinging my feet like the five-year-old I really am. This movie was one I could really relate to, and I highly recommend seeing it.
Wednesday, January 27, 2010
The Apple iPad: Communications & Publication
Okay, this is not a technology blog, but I am going to talk about the new Apple iPad. Why? Because we live in a technologically advanced society where each new toy--shiny as they may be--affects the way we live, and even the way we read. This is not a technology blog, but it is a blog that looks at literature, publishing, and communications, and the iPad, and Steve Job's unveiling of it, encompasses all of those.
Communications - Audience, Rhetoric & Presentation
What I like about Steve Jobs is that he is not the corporate CEO archetype. When Jobs showed up on stage earlier this morning to present the new Apple gadget, he was wearing jeans and tennis shoes. Not exactly what you would expect from the head of a leading technology company on the day of its big presentation. In doing this he presents himself to the people as one of the people, as someone just like them. Now, this is a great strategy for gathering attention, reaching out to those who are not the technology-following geeks, and essentially it helps them identify with Jobs. What they see is an average man sitting on his couch using the new iPad. Jobs is showing the community at large that they too can easily use and apply this new technology to their everyday lives, they don't need to be technology wizzes in order to understand it. In fact, for many people who already have the iPhone or the iPod Touch, the technology may not be that much different. That's two (or arguably three) audiences that Jobs is already appealing to in his presentation, without having to say anything yet, and then you add in the technophiles of all sorts and you have a ready-made fanbase. And, he's also adding one more audience: those who have trouble viewing small screens. Now, I'm not saying that the elderly are going to pick up the new iPad or anything like that, but they might. Why? Because the larger screen, with the ability to magnify and resize text easily, would be appealing to them, especially in conjunction with the new iBooks app. They would be able to use an eReader on a larger scale that would be backlit and easy to read. The same applies to any webpage, now that the older generation are also becoming a part of the new technological world. The topic of iBooks & the iPad as an eReader is something I'll come back to in a moment, but first I want to look at the rhetoric and presentation of this new device, from a communications standpoint.
I don't want to spend too much time on this, but I believe that it is important to examine the syntax that Jobs uses. Sure he may have overused hyperboles* like "magical" and "awesome," but they work well for him. Through his use of hyperbole Jobs has built up this product in the consumer's mind--which could help or hurt him in the future, only the sales will show. Will some consumers look into getting an iPad based on the colourful and ambitious dialogue? Maybe. Will some others criticize Apple for not living up to it? Probably, in fact, I would argue, definitely. How this plays out in sales though, remains to be seen.
Another effective strategy for the Apple team is the way they have used communication and social medias as a business tool. What's the best way to get the word out quickly these days? Social medias like twitter, where rumours of the new Apple "tablet**" have been circulating for weeks. There have been talk about the new features the iPad might employ, as well as what it will look like, and what the cost will be. What I find brilliant, when looking at this strategy from a marketing standpoint, is that Apple "accidentally slipped" a few price ranges that one should expect from the new toy, generally centering around $1000 a pop. Why does this matter? Because everyone went in expecting that sort of price, and were then shocked to find that it was only going to cost $499 (with additional data packages at $14.99 & $29.99 a month). This may seem expensive, but in comparison to the $1k we were expecting? It's a steal. Now, I will admit that this may have also hurt them in a way. By releasing a higher price, they made the public expect a larger product, like a tablet computer, which is not what this is. So now the public's attention might be shifted (as my friend Mike pointed out again just now) more towards what the iPad isn't, based on rumours and early projections, and less on what it actually is. But make no mistake, it's still a great way to market and make the product seem as if it has more value. Not to mention that the web has been craving for any solid data for months, creating all sort of buzz. By keeping most things under wraps, this works in the same way that GoogleWave did in that people want to know more, simply to be in the know. We're a very nosy society that way, and Apple is great at using that in their favour. They keep it a secret and therefore we want to know. And as soon as any hard data gets out, it's everywhere. Even now, hours later, 7 out of the top 10 topics trending worldwide on twitter are related to Apple, the iPad, and the release this morning (also how it will compare/compete with Amazon's kindle). Social media is a great thing for this, creating all sorts of hype.
Possible Effects for Publishing & the eReader Market
This new device is probably going to be used primarily as a multimedia device, and I don't see anyone writing anything long form such as novels on it, at least not without the aid of the keyboard dock***, but I do see people using it to watch movies and listen to music. The new larger screen even makes it somewhat superior over the iPhone in that it allows high definition videos to play on YouTube. More and more I am finding that I--as well as many others--cannot view a video on YouTube in regular dimensions because it has been recorded to be viewed in high def. And really, if you have the option, high def is the way to go, so it's great to see that in a device such as this (I'm still unsure of what to describe it as). But one thing I think the iPad is going to be great for is that it can be used as an eReader with the new application, iBooks. What is iBooks? Think kindle, only Apple. In the presentation today Apple even said that they would be using the same kind of idea--as well as interface--as Amazon's highly-acclaimed Kindle. And with the ebook market growing so rapidly****, it's no shock that Apple would want to get in on the action. Like I mentioned previously, this ebook is something that others are not: it's big. That may sound silly and obvious, but it's true, and that's going to appeal to a lot of readers out there. It is all the convenience of an eReader, on a bigger format, and one you can easily maneuver thanks to the touchscreen technology. Something else that you can do with the new iPad is you can buy books right from the iTunes store without having to connect with a computer to do so. Plus, there are already so many free ebooks online free that you can read! But the great thing? A lot of large publishing houses have teamed up with Apple to make iBooks work. Some may even be releasing books earlier on iBooks than they will for the Kindle, Sony, & Nooks--spelling trouble for companies who previously held the market and now may have bigger competition than they expected.
So what will this do to publishing? Well, I predict that we will see an increase in ebook sales, or rather, a continuation of a trend that is already in place. Though this might also speed that up. Another thing is that prices may go down as these companies compete with each other, and that could be a huge problem for hard copy books, a market that is already taking a hit from ebooks. Who wants to spend $20 or more on a hardcover book, or even $10 on a paperback, if soon you will be able to buy many books online for far less--or even free? How this, and also other digital readers like the Kindle, will affect the publishing market remains to be seen, but you can be sure that the market is there for an eReader and that it's not about to go away. Another thing this may do for publishing is, again, an extension of a trend that is already there, but some publishers may choose to release a book only in ebook format, possibly only on iBooks. This could be good or bad for marketing, but it saves on publishing costs (especially those of overprinting a book, which could also be disastrous for a novelist), and it creates a kind of exclusivity for that book, making readers value a digital reader, and possibly one eReader over another.
These are all very early predictions for something that was just released today, but certainly things to think about. I would be very interested in what others have to say, so please, let's get a discussion going in the comments. Again, this is not a technology blog and I am focusing on this new iPad from a communicative, rhetorical, and publishing standpoint, so I am looking for things primarily related to those subjects.
And thank you for reading this far, that was a lot to take in, I know.
*Is an overuse of hyperbole redundant in and of itself?
**I would argue now that this is not a tablet computer, nor is it the new version of the iPhone rumoured to come out sometime this quarter, but it is somewhere in between and therefore we cannot truly call it a tablet any longer.
***Which, I must say, looks really shiny. And is a great idea, because it then makes the iPad into a touchscreen desktop computer. I think that's a huge selling point, at least for me. I don't mention this because again, this is not a blog to look at the technological aspects, you can find those anywhere else.
****I refer you to this very interesting article on ebooks & advertising that features Maureen Johnson!
Communications - Audience, Rhetoric & Presentation
What I like about Steve Jobs is that he is not the corporate CEO archetype. When Jobs showed up on stage earlier this morning to present the new Apple gadget, he was wearing jeans and tennis shoes. Not exactly what you would expect from the head of a leading technology company on the day of its big presentation. In doing this he presents himself to the people as one of the people, as someone just like them. Now, this is a great strategy for gathering attention, reaching out to those who are not the technology-following geeks, and essentially it helps them identify with Jobs. What they see is an average man sitting on his couch using the new iPad. Jobs is showing the community at large that they too can easily use and apply this new technology to their everyday lives, they don't need to be technology wizzes in order to understand it. In fact, for many people who already have the iPhone or the iPod Touch, the technology may not be that much different. That's two (or arguably three) audiences that Jobs is already appealing to in his presentation, without having to say anything yet, and then you add in the technophiles of all sorts and you have a ready-made fanbase. And, he's also adding one more audience: those who have trouble viewing small screens. Now, I'm not saying that the elderly are going to pick up the new iPad or anything like that, but they might. Why? Because the larger screen, with the ability to magnify and resize text easily, would be appealing to them, especially in conjunction with the new iBooks app. They would be able to use an eReader on a larger scale that would be backlit and easy to read. The same applies to any webpage, now that the older generation are also becoming a part of the new technological world. The topic of iBooks & the iPad as an eReader is something I'll come back to in a moment, but first I want to look at the rhetoric and presentation of this new device, from a communications standpoint.
I don't want to spend too much time on this, but I believe that it is important to examine the syntax that Jobs uses. Sure he may have overused hyperboles* like "magical" and "awesome," but they work well for him. Through his use of hyperbole Jobs has built up this product in the consumer's mind--which could help or hurt him in the future, only the sales will show. Will some consumers look into getting an iPad based on the colourful and ambitious dialogue? Maybe. Will some others criticize Apple for not living up to it? Probably, in fact, I would argue, definitely. How this plays out in sales though, remains to be seen.
Another effective strategy for the Apple team is the way they have used communication and social medias as a business tool. What's the best way to get the word out quickly these days? Social medias like twitter, where rumours of the new Apple "tablet**" have been circulating for weeks. There have been talk about the new features the iPad might employ, as well as what it will look like, and what the cost will be. What I find brilliant, when looking at this strategy from a marketing standpoint, is that Apple "accidentally slipped" a few price ranges that one should expect from the new toy, generally centering around $1000 a pop. Why does this matter? Because everyone went in expecting that sort of price, and were then shocked to find that it was only going to cost $499 (with additional data packages at $14.99 & $29.99 a month). This may seem expensive, but in comparison to the $1k we were expecting? It's a steal. Now, I will admit that this may have also hurt them in a way. By releasing a higher price, they made the public expect a larger product, like a tablet computer, which is not what this is. So now the public's attention might be shifted (as my friend Mike pointed out again just now) more towards what the iPad isn't, based on rumours and early projections, and less on what it actually is. But make no mistake, it's still a great way to market and make the product seem as if it has more value. Not to mention that the web has been craving for any solid data for months, creating all sort of buzz. By keeping most things under wraps, this works in the same way that GoogleWave did in that people want to know more, simply to be in the know. We're a very nosy society that way, and Apple is great at using that in their favour. They keep it a secret and therefore we want to know. And as soon as any hard data gets out, it's everywhere. Even now, hours later, 7 out of the top 10 topics trending worldwide on twitter are related to Apple, the iPad, and the release this morning (also how it will compare/compete with Amazon's kindle). Social media is a great thing for this, creating all sorts of hype.
Possible Effects for Publishing & the eReader Market
This new device is probably going to be used primarily as a multimedia device, and I don't see anyone writing anything long form such as novels on it, at least not without the aid of the keyboard dock***, but I do see people using it to watch movies and listen to music. The new larger screen even makes it somewhat superior over the iPhone in that it allows high definition videos to play on YouTube. More and more I am finding that I--as well as many others--cannot view a video on YouTube in regular dimensions because it has been recorded to be viewed in high def. And really, if you have the option, high def is the way to go, so it's great to see that in a device such as this (I'm still unsure of what to describe it as). But one thing I think the iPad is going to be great for is that it can be used as an eReader with the new application, iBooks. What is iBooks? Think kindle, only Apple. In the presentation today Apple even said that they would be using the same kind of idea--as well as interface--as Amazon's highly-acclaimed Kindle. And with the ebook market growing so rapidly****, it's no shock that Apple would want to get in on the action. Like I mentioned previously, this ebook is something that others are not: it's big. That may sound silly and obvious, but it's true, and that's going to appeal to a lot of readers out there. It is all the convenience of an eReader, on a bigger format, and one you can easily maneuver thanks to the touchscreen technology. Something else that you can do with the new iPad is you can buy books right from the iTunes store without having to connect with a computer to do so. Plus, there are already so many free ebooks online free that you can read! But the great thing? A lot of large publishing houses have teamed up with Apple to make iBooks work. Some may even be releasing books earlier on iBooks than they will for the Kindle, Sony, & Nooks--spelling trouble for companies who previously held the market and now may have bigger competition than they expected.
So what will this do to publishing? Well, I predict that we will see an increase in ebook sales, or rather, a continuation of a trend that is already in place. Though this might also speed that up. Another thing is that prices may go down as these companies compete with each other, and that could be a huge problem for hard copy books, a market that is already taking a hit from ebooks. Who wants to spend $20 or more on a hardcover book, or even $10 on a paperback, if soon you will be able to buy many books online for far less--or even free? How this, and also other digital readers like the Kindle, will affect the publishing market remains to be seen, but you can be sure that the market is there for an eReader and that it's not about to go away. Another thing this may do for publishing is, again, an extension of a trend that is already there, but some publishers may choose to release a book only in ebook format, possibly only on iBooks. This could be good or bad for marketing, but it saves on publishing costs (especially those of overprinting a book, which could also be disastrous for a novelist), and it creates a kind of exclusivity for that book, making readers value a digital reader, and possibly one eReader over another.
These are all very early predictions for something that was just released today, but certainly things to think about. I would be very interested in what others have to say, so please, let's get a discussion going in the comments. Again, this is not a technology blog and I am focusing on this new iPad from a communicative, rhetorical, and publishing standpoint, so I am looking for things primarily related to those subjects.
And thank you for reading this far, that was a lot to take in, I know.
*Is an overuse of hyperbole redundant in and of itself?
**I would argue now that this is not a tablet computer, nor is it the new version of the iPhone rumoured to come out sometime this quarter, but it is somewhere in between and therefore we cannot truly call it a tablet any longer.
***Which, I must say, looks really shiny. And is a great idea, because it then makes the iPad into a touchscreen desktop computer. I think that's a huge selling point, at least for me. I don't mention this because again, this is not a blog to look at the technological aspects, you can find those anywhere else.
****I refer you to this very interesting article on ebooks & advertising that features Maureen Johnson!
Thursday, May 21, 2009
Money Issues in YA vs Adult Books
I generally reserve this blog for reviews, links, and other "formal" bookish stuff. In my mind there are "blogs" and then there's stuff to put up on my LiveJournal. I'm going to try to redefine my idea of "blog" this summer and work more personal thoughts into this, instead of only reviews. Whenever I want to say something about a book or literature, I will say it. I'll still leave out spoilers, of course.
Generally, I believe that children's literature (including Young Adult) holds more positive qualities than adult literature does, but this isn't the case in all areas. The biggest thing for me, lately, is that in regards to money, adult books seem more realistic. There's a simple reason for this: adults worry about money more. Because they spend their lives working for that money, and they have to pay the bills for water, heat, electricity, medical, insurance, etc etc etc. Then they have to buy groceries and toilet paper and rubber bands. Whatever. The point is, adults are constantly aware of how much money is going in, and how much money is going out. This is reflected in book catered to the adult audience. We see many issues of money in this genre: characters needing to pay rent, or trying to get a raise, worrying about how they'll pay their medical bills whenever something goes wrong.
In children's books, you don't see this. First off, because children don't pay their own expenses, they rely on their parents. This doesn't mean that children don't worry about money. When do we get to read the stories about the child who hides in the bathroom for the first ten minutes of lunch period so they can be at the end of the food line so that no one is around to hear them when they tell the lunch lady they get a free lunch? The story of the kid who has to buy all their clothes at the second-hand store and purchase all their shoes a size or two larger because they can't afford new things all the time? The kid who doesn't go to birthday parties just so they don't have to show up without a gift because the family couldn't afford one?
We don't read these stories very often. I think the main reason of this is that children who are reading the books don't want to read about those problems all the time--especially if they're living them. They might just want to escape the problem, put themselves in place of the main character, and live like royalty for a few hours. That's totally understandable.
With YA however, I see it a little differently. Young adults are no longer children, but not yet adults. They're somewhere in the middle, age-wise, and in this issue as well. Or, at least, in my opinion, they should be. That doesn't mean that they are. This is the age, especially in the later teens, that one gets their first job and starts to pay some things on their own. Sure, these things may just be movie tickets or new cds (assuming they even buy hard copies anymore), but it's their own money, and they need to keep track of it. Even still, you don't see this as much as you would expect. Yes, in John Green's Looking For Alaska this issue is tackled through The Colonel, who is always having Pudge pay for his cigarettes because he can't afford them. We go to his trailer even. But the thing is, the Colonel, much as I love him, is not the main character here. He's not the narrator either. It's all Pudge, and Pudge has the money to pay for cigarettes for both of them, to pay for McDonald's, and his family can easily afford the private school. Generally, the main characters have money. This may also go back to how poverty-stricken children want to escape their money issues through literature, but it may just be a way to make things easier on the author. Things are so much easier to get going if the character can afford them.
Still, there are books that address these issues, I'm not saying there aren't. Suite Scarlett by Maureen Johnson is a great example. The family is having financial troubles and are barely keeping their head above water at the point where the story begins. The hotel is beginning to fall into disrepair and we see the ways this impacts the family members. It's great, and more than that, it's believable. It's something that some of us can relate to. So why aren't there more books out there like this one? Why do our main characters always have to be upper middle class with spare cash and cars (even if they're not new)? Will books featuring a few money issues (even small ones) become more popular in our current economic situation, or will we see rise to more books like Charlie and the Chocolate Factory, where the poor boy finds the golden ticket--a way to rise above the current situation? I'd love to hear your thoughts on anything mentioned. Leave them in the comments.
Generally, I believe that children's literature (including Young Adult) holds more positive qualities than adult literature does, but this isn't the case in all areas. The biggest thing for me, lately, is that in regards to money, adult books seem more realistic. There's a simple reason for this: adults worry about money more. Because they spend their lives working for that money, and they have to pay the bills for water, heat, electricity, medical, insurance, etc etc etc. Then they have to buy groceries and toilet paper and rubber bands. Whatever. The point is, adults are constantly aware of how much money is going in, and how much money is going out. This is reflected in book catered to the adult audience. We see many issues of money in this genre: characters needing to pay rent, or trying to get a raise, worrying about how they'll pay their medical bills whenever something goes wrong.
In children's books, you don't see this. First off, because children don't pay their own expenses, they rely on their parents. This doesn't mean that children don't worry about money. When do we get to read the stories about the child who hides in the bathroom for the first ten minutes of lunch period so they can be at the end of the food line so that no one is around to hear them when they tell the lunch lady they get a free lunch? The story of the kid who has to buy all their clothes at the second-hand store and purchase all their shoes a size or two larger because they can't afford new things all the time? The kid who doesn't go to birthday parties just so they don't have to show up without a gift because the family couldn't afford one?
We don't read these stories very often. I think the main reason of this is that children who are reading the books don't want to read about those problems all the time--especially if they're living them. They might just want to escape the problem, put themselves in place of the main character, and live like royalty for a few hours. That's totally understandable.
With YA however, I see it a little differently. Young adults are no longer children, but not yet adults. They're somewhere in the middle, age-wise, and in this issue as well. Or, at least, in my opinion, they should be. That doesn't mean that they are. This is the age, especially in the later teens, that one gets their first job and starts to pay some things on their own. Sure, these things may just be movie tickets or new cds (assuming they even buy hard copies anymore), but it's their own money, and they need to keep track of it. Even still, you don't see this as much as you would expect. Yes, in John Green's Looking For Alaska this issue is tackled through The Colonel, who is always having Pudge pay for his cigarettes because he can't afford them. We go to his trailer even. But the thing is, the Colonel, much as I love him, is not the main character here. He's not the narrator either. It's all Pudge, and Pudge has the money to pay for cigarettes for both of them, to pay for McDonald's, and his family can easily afford the private school. Generally, the main characters have money. This may also go back to how poverty-stricken children want to escape their money issues through literature, but it may just be a way to make things easier on the author. Things are so much easier to get going if the character can afford them.
Still, there are books that address these issues, I'm not saying there aren't. Suite Scarlett by Maureen Johnson is a great example. The family is having financial troubles and are barely keeping their head above water at the point where the story begins. The hotel is beginning to fall into disrepair and we see the ways this impacts the family members. It's great, and more than that, it's believable. It's something that some of us can relate to. So why aren't there more books out there like this one? Why do our main characters always have to be upper middle class with spare cash and cars (even if they're not new)? Will books featuring a few money issues (even small ones) become more popular in our current economic situation, or will we see rise to more books like Charlie and the Chocolate Factory, where the poor boy finds the golden ticket--a way to rise above the current situation? I'd love to hear your thoughts on anything mentioned. Leave them in the comments.
Tuesday, April 07, 2009
BEDA09: Day 7: You Will Never Find the Perfect Swimsuit
Yay! I made it a whole week so far!
Just get that through your head right now. Unless of course you are a mannequin, in which case I'm a little afraid and will avoid you. No offense to you personally, I just have a fear of mannequins. Anyway...moving on.
Now, this may be different for guys because I don't have any experience in buying men's swim trunks, but this is true for women. Swimsuits are not made for you. They are made to make you feel like a lesser version of yourself. They do this through size discrimination. And really, it doesn't matter what size you are, the swimsuit business discriminates against you.
If you are really tiny: All the suits are too big for you. Sorry.
If you are small: You cannot have those cute skirt bottoms. This is what I spent a long time looking for today. I'm a size 4 and I have big thighs and I think the skirt bottoms look better than the others. What are those called anyway, the ones that look like panties? I don't know. But they don't make skirt or short bottoms for anyone under size 10, which is very unfair.
If you are a medium size: There is nothing in your size either, sorry. This is a scheme to convince you that you are too big, which you are not.
If you are a bigger size: There are no cute suits. This is also a scheme to convince you that you are too big to wear a suit, which you are not.
The media & the swimsuit industries are out to ruin your self-esteem. They want to make shopping for a swimsuit as painful as possible so that you will go home & starve yourself. Or take some sort of diet pills. They want you to become horribly anorexic, which by the way, is not sexy.
But who cares what the swimsuit industry thinks? GO SWIMMING ANYWAY. REBEL. BE HAPPY WITH THE WAY YOU ARE BECAUSE YOU ARE BEAUTIFUL. DON'T GIVE INTO THEM.
Just get that through your head right now. Unless of course you are a mannequin, in which case I'm a little afraid and will avoid you. No offense to you personally, I just have a fear of mannequins. Anyway...moving on.
Now, this may be different for guys because I don't have any experience in buying men's swim trunks, but this is true for women. Swimsuits are not made for you. They are made to make you feel like a lesser version of yourself. They do this through size discrimination. And really, it doesn't matter what size you are, the swimsuit business discriminates against you.
If you are really tiny: All the suits are too big for you. Sorry.
If you are small: You cannot have those cute skirt bottoms. This is what I spent a long time looking for today. I'm a size 4 and I have big thighs and I think the skirt bottoms look better than the others. What are those called anyway, the ones that look like panties? I don't know. But they don't make skirt or short bottoms for anyone under size 10, which is very unfair.
If you are a medium size: There is nothing in your size either, sorry. This is a scheme to convince you that you are too big, which you are not.
If you are a bigger size: There are no cute suits. This is also a scheme to convince you that you are too big to wear a suit, which you are not.
The media & the swimsuit industries are out to ruin your self-esteem. They want to make shopping for a swimsuit as painful as possible so that you will go home & starve yourself. Or take some sort of diet pills. They want you to become horribly anorexic, which by the way, is not sexy.
But who cares what the swimsuit industry thinks? GO SWIMMING ANYWAY. REBEL. BE HAPPY WITH THE WAY YOU ARE BECAUSE YOU ARE BEAUTIFUL. DON'T GIVE INTO THEM.
Thursday, March 06, 2008
Moonvertising
Moonvertising
I knew this was coming eventually: using the moon as a gigantic billboard. Starting March 21st Rolling Rock will have their logo imprinted on the moon's surface with a laser. Every full moon companies will be able to do this. We're turning the moon into the galaxy's biggest advertisement.
Tasteful? I don't think so.
My father made a good point about this, in a few years the children growing up will never know what a full moon looks like without somebody's banner plastered across it.
What has the world come to when we can't even gaze up at the stars without being subjected to this kind of media infiltration? I keep thinking of MT Anderson's Feed and how the moon was transformed into a tackier version of Vegas and there were flashing billboards at the bottom of lakes for all the "upcars" going above to see. Is that what's next for us? Because, after all, isn't the point of science fiction to prevent certain futures from becoming reality?
Another thing I wonder about is what effect will this have on the moon? If it changes things, even a little bit, it could really affect us here on Earth. The moon controls the tides, and if the tides are changed, well...just watch The Day After Tomorrow. That's the most extreme example, of course, but the moon does have affects on the tide & the tide in turn has affects on other parts of our ecosystem.
For the record, I'm against this. But I'd like to hear your thoughts, so sound off!
I knew this was coming eventually: using the moon as a gigantic billboard. Starting March 21st Rolling Rock will have their logo imprinted on the moon's surface with a laser. Every full moon companies will be able to do this. We're turning the moon into the galaxy's biggest advertisement.
Rolling Rock is an independently spirited beer that does things differently, which is why we're trying a new, more tasteful marketing approach this year: putting our logo on the moon -- movertising.
Tasteful? I don't think so.
My father made a good point about this, in a few years the children growing up will never know what a full moon looks like without somebody's banner plastered across it.
What has the world come to when we can't even gaze up at the stars without being subjected to this kind of media infiltration? I keep thinking of MT Anderson's Feed and how the moon was transformed into a tackier version of Vegas and there were flashing billboards at the bottom of lakes for all the "upcars" going above to see. Is that what's next for us? Because, after all, isn't the point of science fiction to prevent certain futures from becoming reality?
Another thing I wonder about is what effect will this have on the moon? If it changes things, even a little bit, it could really affect us here on Earth. The moon controls the tides, and if the tides are changed, well...just watch The Day After Tomorrow. That's the most extreme example, of course, but the moon does have affects on the tide & the tide in turn has affects on other parts of our ecosystem.
For the record, I'm against this. But I'd like to hear your thoughts, so sound off!
Wednesday, November 28, 2007
Christmas Shopping
First off, thank you to everyone who gave me feedback on the question in my last post about whether or not I am required to give a present to my dad's girlfriend. A special thanks to my good friend Eliza who suggested I get a nice ornament for the tree at their house, that way I'm able to give them a gift without it going specificly to any of them. It will go to my dad & his new family.
And now, on to more about Christmas shopping. So far we have survived Black Friday & we've also survived the biggest internet shopping day of the year (Black Monday?). I mostly survived my staying indoors because my car is in the shop, honestly. But here's the thing: where is all this shopping getting us? Are we better people because we went out and spent hundreds of dollars on things?
I was thinking about this long before Hank Green (of Brotherhood 2.0) brought it up, but he makes a very good point. People don't want our stuff, they want our time. Your family does not love you for your income & the things you might buy for them with it. Neither do your friends. And if they do, well, I'm sorry, they're not really your friends. Call me a cynic if you will, but I don't like the idea of going out and buying gifts for people, I'd rather not give gifts. And here's the truth: most people don't want more stuff. They will have it out for awhile, put it in storage, or maybe they'll throw it away, unless they're nice and give it to Goodwill or Juvenile Diabetes or any other such charity. I'd much rather give my money to a charity instead, to the people who actually need it. Because, let's face it, my family does not need another anything that I would buy them. They would like it, yes, but they don't need it.
When did Christmas become so materialistic anyway? That's not the point of the holiday, no matter if you are Christian or not. I believe that Christmas is to celebrate Christ, but if you do not believe that, well, I'm still willing to bet that you think of Christmas as a holiday to be spent with your loved ones. Why does our environment pressure us so much to give gifts at the holidays? Why do we give into that? What's the point?
The only gift I know I'm giving this year is a CD to my friend Katie of me singing 15 of our favorite Christmas carols. It's something I make for her because I love her and it's something she wants. Plus, it doesn't take up an awful lot of space.
And now, on to more about Christmas shopping. So far we have survived Black Friday & we've also survived the biggest internet shopping day of the year (Black Monday?). I mostly survived my staying indoors because my car is in the shop, honestly. But here's the thing: where is all this shopping getting us? Are we better people because we went out and spent hundreds of dollars on things?
I was thinking about this long before Hank Green (of Brotherhood 2.0) brought it up, but he makes a very good point. People don't want our stuff, they want our time. Your family does not love you for your income & the things you might buy for them with it. Neither do your friends. And if they do, well, I'm sorry, they're not really your friends. Call me a cynic if you will, but I don't like the idea of going out and buying gifts for people, I'd rather not give gifts. And here's the truth: most people don't want more stuff. They will have it out for awhile, put it in storage, or maybe they'll throw it away, unless they're nice and give it to Goodwill or Juvenile Diabetes or any other such charity. I'd much rather give my money to a charity instead, to the people who actually need it. Because, let's face it, my family does not need another anything that I would buy them. They would like it, yes, but they don't need it.
When did Christmas become so materialistic anyway? That's not the point of the holiday, no matter if you are Christian or not. I believe that Christmas is to celebrate Christ, but if you do not believe that, well, I'm still willing to bet that you think of Christmas as a holiday to be spent with your loved ones. Why does our environment pressure us so much to give gifts at the holidays? Why do we give into that? What's the point?
The only gift I know I'm giving this year is a CD to my friend Katie of me singing 15 of our favorite Christmas carols. It's something I make for her because I love her and it's something she wants. Plus, it doesn't take up an awful lot of space.
Sunday, April 15, 2007
Giftcards
In which I rant on why giftcards are actually a bad idea.
Today I remembered that in my wallet (which I got free from the library and has their contact info on it) I had a Simon Giftcard which may or may not still have money on it. So I pull it out to find out where to look that up at and I find 3 other giftcards! No wonder the ID side of my wallet was so thick!
So I looked them up online.
The Simon Giftcard had $1.53
The Kohl's Giftcard had $6.73
The McDonald's Giftcard had $0.18
The Marshall Fields Giftcard doesn't give you the option of looking it up online. Maybe this is because Marshall Field's doesn't exist in Chicagoland anymore?*
Okay, why this sucks:
Simon Giftcard- I found out recently that places won't take these cards unless it's over $7. I have $1.53. That doesn't work very well. I tried donating it to the Green Brothers' Foundation to Decrease Worldsuck, but PayPal doesn't like the card either. So, I can combine it with something else I guess, but as a cashier I can honestly say that cashiers don't like doing this, which means I'd have to do it somewhere I'm not a regular (like say, Amazing Fantasy Comics? or Dominick's grocery?) where they would remember me and hate me for awhile. But, overall, not so bad, but still bad because now the receiver of the giftcard needs to pay money to get their "gift."
Kohl's Giftcard- The amount on this actually doesn't suck all that much because I can get stuff with that. But I know that because I don't have any money to add to it it would end up like the Simon and McDonald's giftcards with low, unusuable (alone) amounts. The thing that actually does suck about this card is that it's excluded to one store. What if I didn't shop at Kohl's? What if I bought my clothes somewhere equally cheap like Target? This would be a problem.
McDonald's Giftcard- What could I possibly use 18 cents for? See this one sucks more than the Simon Giftcard because of three reasons I've already mentioned. 1)It's exclusive (to a place I don't eat!). 2)It's an insanely low amount that will probably never be used. 3)If I were ever to combine it with actual money (which I don't have) it would be a pain in the rear for the chashier (which rhymes btw) and yes, working at McDonald's pretty much means that the cashier already hates me for living and eating at their "restaurant" but now on top of that hate they have reasonable hate! It's just not a good thing.
Marshall Fields- I really don't think I ever used this. It could be expired for all I know. This sucks because it's exclusive to a store I don't shop at (because everything is too expensive)**. And you can't see your balance, how can I buy things if I don't know how much money I have?
In conclusion: give cash. If you absolutely must give a giftcard, give a Simon Giftcard because they can be used anywhere that accepts VISA. Oh, and make sure it's over $7.
So...anyone want 18 cents at McDonald's? If you send me a self-addressed envelope I'd willingly give it to you (hey, I'd even throw in 2 pennies to make it an even 20 cents). Actually, if you send me your address (in an email so you don't have to put it here-- that's lyokofans @ yahoo.com) I'll send you the card + 2 pennies. I'll pay for the postage with any change I find in the couch tomorrow...or on my bed if I ever clear it off.
Really, though. Someone take this McDonald's giftcard from me. I don't eat McDonald's! (for those interested I spent the other $4.82 on ice cream and my mom's lunch)
----------------
*Soon I will write up a blog post on why Macy's is a horrible place (hopefully tomorrow, but I sort of want to include a picture of something)
**You know you're poor when you can't shop at Marshall Fields (I refuse to call it by the evil name)
Today I remembered that in my wallet (which I got free from the library and has their contact info on it) I had a Simon Giftcard which may or may not still have money on it. So I pull it out to find out where to look that up at and I find 3 other giftcards! No wonder the ID side of my wallet was so thick!
So I looked them up online.
The Simon Giftcard had $1.53
The Kohl's Giftcard had $6.73
The McDonald's Giftcard had $0.18
The Marshall Fields Giftcard doesn't give you the option of looking it up online. Maybe this is because Marshall Field's doesn't exist in Chicagoland anymore?*
Okay, why this sucks:
Simon Giftcard- I found out recently that places won't take these cards unless it's over $7. I have $1.53. That doesn't work very well. I tried donating it to the Green Brothers' Foundation to Decrease Worldsuck, but PayPal doesn't like the card either. So, I can combine it with something else I guess, but as a cashier I can honestly say that cashiers don't like doing this, which means I'd have to do it somewhere I'm not a regular (like say, Amazing Fantasy Comics? or Dominick's grocery?) where they would remember me and hate me for awhile. But, overall, not so bad, but still bad because now the receiver of the giftcard needs to pay money to get their "gift."
Kohl's Giftcard- The amount on this actually doesn't suck all that much because I can get stuff with that. But I know that because I don't have any money to add to it it would end up like the Simon and McDonald's giftcards with low, unusuable (alone) amounts. The thing that actually does suck about this card is that it's excluded to one store. What if I didn't shop at Kohl's? What if I bought my clothes somewhere equally cheap like Target? This would be a problem.
McDonald's Giftcard- What could I possibly use 18 cents for? See this one sucks more than the Simon Giftcard because of three reasons I've already mentioned. 1)It's exclusive (to a place I don't eat!). 2)It's an insanely low amount that will probably never be used. 3)If I were ever to combine it with actual money (which I don't have) it would be a pain in the rear for the chashier (which rhymes btw) and yes, working at McDonald's pretty much means that the cashier already hates me for living and eating at their "restaurant" but now on top of that hate they have reasonable hate! It's just not a good thing.
Marshall Fields- I really don't think I ever used this. It could be expired for all I know. This sucks because it's exclusive to a store I don't shop at (because everything is too expensive)**. And you can't see your balance, how can I buy things if I don't know how much money I have?
In conclusion: give cash. If you absolutely must give a giftcard, give a Simon Giftcard because they can be used anywhere that accepts VISA. Oh, and make sure it's over $7.
So...anyone want 18 cents at McDonald's? If you send me a self-addressed envelope I'd willingly give it to you (hey, I'd even throw in 2 pennies to make it an even 20 cents). Actually, if you send me your address (in an email so you don't have to put it here-- that's lyokofans @ yahoo.com) I'll send you the card + 2 pennies. I'll pay for the postage with any change I find in the couch tomorrow...or on my bed if I ever clear it off.
Really, though. Someone take this McDonald's giftcard from me. I don't eat McDonald's! (for those interested I spent the other $4.82 on ice cream and my mom's lunch)
----------------
*Soon I will write up a blog post on why Macy's is a horrible place (hopefully tomorrow, but I sort of want to include a picture of something)
**You know you're poor when you can't shop at Marshall Fields (I refuse to call it by the evil name)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
LinkWithin
