Blog dedicado a la formación en todos sus ámbitos: presencial, online, a distancia
Overall, retailers are kind of disappointed with Americans’ lack of materialist gluttony this holiday season. Yes, online shopping was up, which created the massive shipping logjam that had some postal carriers and private shipping service drivers out on the roads on Christmas Day.
While Americans spent more online this holiday season than the same period last year, the total over the entire season didn’t increase as much as experts expected. Maybe that’s because of the foreshortened shopping season, with a late Thanksgiving.
While online spending is more time-efficient for most consumers, it’s not necessarily better for the environment. When you throw away the boxes that your online purchases came in without sorting out bits of plastic wrap and inflatable air pillows, where do those boxes end up? A recycling plant that the Wall Street Journal visited points out that if you don’t break down and sort out your boxes, they’re going to end up at the dump.
Online holiday sales up 10%, but running short of expectations: ComScore [CNBC]
Amazon limited new Prime memberships amid shipping delays [CNBC]
The Last Christmas Present: Lots of Trash [Wall Street Journal]
Our colleagues down the hall at Consumer Reports tell us that while companies certainly would like for you to send them your information, it’s not always necessary. What most likely will happen when you fill out the card, especially if you provide information about your income, habits, and hobbies, is that you’ll get marketing mail. Maybe you think catalogs and junk mail are fun, and you’re cool with that. If you don’t read the warranty information carefully.
Of course, if the item is defective or otherwise problematic and gets recalled, you probably want to know about that. This is especially true in the case of children’s toys. The easiest way to track down customers in the case of a recall is using the warranty registration information on file.
There can be other benefits, too: I asked for and got an electric toothbrush for Christmas, because I’m old and boring. The company offers an incentive to register it: six extra months of warranty protection. I’m probably going to send that card back.
What you’re more likely to need when you use a warranty is the receipt: make sure to file those away, if you have them, in order to prove your purchase date.
Should you register that new product? [Consumer Reports]
YouTube is full of web-celebs with decent followings who make some cash by allowing the site to run ads against their videos. YouTube also has a horrendously inaccurate and over-eager system called Content ID that flags videos that may contain copyrighted music content. When a monetized video is flagged, YouTube takes away the ads and therefore any money that clip would be earning, which would be fine if Content ID weren’t such a tin-eared agent bent in favor of the recording industry.
YouTuber Adam “The Alien” Manley ran up against the idiocy of Content ID twice in the last week, with multiple music publishers claiming that his recent rendition of “Silent Night” violated their copyright, in spite of the fact that the song, an English version of a nearly 200-year-old German Christmas carol by Franz Gruber (not to be confused with another Yuletide figure, Hans Gruber from Die Hard), has been in the public domain for more than a few years.
According to Adam, he received a Content ID notice almost immediately after posting his video to YouTube. It stated that “One or more music publishing rights societies” claimed to have the copyright for a song that predates the Civil War.
And of course since Content ID is a shoot-first system, Adam’s clip was no longer being monetized while he appealed the copy-bot claim.
BUT he was given the opportunity to allow his video to keep making money if we was willing to let the copyright holders to share in the revenue.
So not only was YouTube willing to accept that multiple groups could all rightfully claim copyright, and thus automatically de-monetized the video, it was willing to let those same multiple entities share?
Adam appealed and the claim was quickly dropped.
Then he woke up Monday morning and received a second notice. This one was also from multiple alleged copyright holders, but at least it was more specific, naming BMG, Warner, and Universal as the claimants.
Writes Adam:
“As one might imagine, it is immensely frustrating, even angering, to have fraudulent claims made on the same video two days in a row. I had assumed that disputing the first claim, with its vague insinuation of multiple parties claiming the song, that dealing with it once would mean it was dealt with. But it seems that any time I sing a Christmas carol, I will have to expect a horde of false claims.”
And so he once again filed an appeal with YouTube. BMG responded quickly, dropping the claim, as Adam had not secretly signed a recording contract and made an album of Christmas carols. But neither Warner nor Universal had replied as of Christmas Eve, and the video still appears to be de-monetized, meaning Adam has made virtually no money from the nearly 30,000 views the clip has received.
And it could continue that way, since Content ID gives copyright claimants 30 days to respond to disputes.
Let’s just put this plainly: Content ID is broken, and it will likely only get worse as copyright bots learn to detect even the faintest hint of infringement.
The bots won’t get better at distinguishing between someone singing a public domain Christmas carol and someone wrongfully using a recorded version of that carol because it’s in the publishers’ best interest to bully YouTube users into believing they have violated copyrights, even when they haven’t.
Why do the publishers get 30 days to respond but the video uploader loses his right to earn ad revenue immediately? It’s not like the monetization money was going directly into Adam’s bank account with each video view. The system could just as easily have continued to run the ads while Adam’s appeal was reviewed. If his appeal was successful, he gets the money. If not, it goes to the copyright holder or just to YouTube.
[via BoingBoing]
We’ve argued for years that wireless companies should do away entirely with phone subsidies, or at least do what AT&T is offering — dropping monthly rates for those who own their phones outright. But unlike those international wireless customers who are used to paying full price for their phones — often several times the subsidized cost to the consumer — it may get a bit ugly making the switch to unsubsidized phones here in the states.
DEVICE PRICES
A top of the line smartphone with a new two-year contract will currently run most wireless customers around $200, only about 1/3 of what they would pay for that phone without the subsidy.
If all the major wireless companies were to ditch subsidies, one would hope that device manufacturers would eventually drop their sticker prices on these devices in order to keep consumers buying phones. Many people have no problem paying a couple hundred bucks every two years and either re-upping with their current provider or trying out a new company, but will that level of turnover continue if these same consumers have to pay $650 when they want a new phone?
T-Mobile has tried to minimize the sting of those high prices by allowing customers to pay for their unsubsidized plans via monthly installments without financing charges. While that has the effect of making these phones more purchasable — the customer doesn’t need to go out of pocket for the full price right away — it does nothing to actually drop the price of the phones.
If the other providers follow T-Mobile’s lead and replace subsidies with installment plans — which wouldn’t shock us, as all of their recently launched early upgrade plans work this way — wireless manufacturers would still be able to charge sky-high prices to consumers, rather than being forced to compete against each other with lower prices. But, as I discuss below, that may be the price we have to pay.
INNOVATION & NEW PRODUCTS
Consumers’ rapid adoption of smartphone technology has spurred a remarkable level of innovation in what is still a relatively new technology. This has been aided by the ability to switch up to a new phone every 20-24 months, resulting in a continuous flow of improved-upon products. How would this be impacted by the removal of subsidies? Again, it will likely come down to how wireless companies get rid of the subsidies.
While just removing them outright and forcing consumers to pay full-price right away for a phone would like result in better price competition, it may also stanch the flow of new products. If someone suddenly finds out that the new version of the phone they’ve been using for two years will suddenly cost him 3-5 times what he paid, and he’s got to pay the whole price up front, he may delay making that purchase or switch to a cheaper option.
If that device is available to purchase through an installment plan, however, the high sticker price won’t be as much of a put-off, and he may very well be willing to re-up those installment payments on the next phone after 24 months. If so, then the turnover of devices may remain relatively unchanged.
WIRELESS RATES
One of the main reasons to push for the end of subsidies is that it should result in lower wireless subscription rates for consumers. T-Mobile dropped its rates to reflect the lack of subsidized devices and AT&T’s rates are now $15/month lower for people who own their phones.
While lower rates are always welcome, consumers need to be wary of wireless providers using these lower rates as an excuse to slowly raise prices back to where they were before. Sure, the provider drops rates $15 bucks now, but that will gradually increase over time, and many consumers won’t notice or put up too much of a fuss because the rates will still be less than they are currently paying.
“You’re looking at what is likely to be a lower price, less profitable wireless industry in the future as a result,” one analyst tells the L.A. Times. “Service and device are being unbundled, and the consumer gains transparency in the process.”
While I agree with the idea that subsidies are on the way out and this is a good thing for consumers in the long run, I also think the analyst is being a little too optimistic about the wireless industry’s transparent, less-profitable future, and that they will continue finding ways to chisel away out our wallets with unnecessary fees and charges. Here’s hoping they prove me wrong.
“At the glass window, [the suspect] was observed making sexual motions on the glass window that were described as ‘humping’ and rubbing his genitals against the window,” wrote the detective on the scene. When security showed up on the scene, he fled.
With the help of two women who witnessed his tender but rather cold encounter with the store window, police apprehended and arrested the man. He’s now in jail on felony indecent exposure charges. He has been convicted for indecent exposure before, but no word on whether he the previous incident involved any sandwiches.
Police: Man caught copulating with sandwich shop window [KOMO]
As far as we know, this is a new record, and it could be . The previous one was 228 customers at a Tim Hortons drive-thru in Canada.
Are these chains inefficient and kind of silly? Sure. We still love to hear about them, though. It’s the symbolism of sharing with others. We like the idea that people receive someone else’s generosity, then choose to pass it on.
Hundreds show generosity at Newington, Conn. Starbucks [NECN]
The folks at DealNews.com tested Amazon’s policy of giving 1-month free extensions to Prime accounts for shipments that don’t meet their guaranteed delivery dates.
(NOTE: This extension policy does not cover free Prime accounts like Amazon Student and Amazon Mom, only paid Prime memberships.)
So when they realized their order of a roll of Spider-Man duct tape (which is apparently a thing that exists and you can buy) was a few hours past the guaranteed delivery time, they wrote to Amazon customer service and asked about whether they would be eligible for the free Prime extension.
Amazon wrote back, gladly extending the Prime membership for another month. This, in theory, could be done up to 12 times for a Prime shopper, so customers who do a lot of buying on the site — and who keep track of exactly when items are guaranteed to be delivered — can get two years of the service for the price of one.
Even those Prime customers who are in the 30-day trial period can score one free month of service by complaining about a late delivery.
DealNews says that non-Prime customers can have their shipping costs refunded if a guaranteed delivery date is not met.
Obviously, you should not file a false complaint or try to trick Amazon into giving you a free month of Prime. But when you’re annoyed that the UPS/FedEx/USPS driver hasn’t dropped off your Wolverine footie pajamas, it’s good to know that you have this option.
“We’re just doing a little bit of a different technique,” a Melbourne police sergeant tells Florida Today. “When we pull the motorists over, we’re also giving them the scratch-off tickets that the officers bought with their own personal funds. It’s something good to do in light of the holidays. We’re getting a lot of surprised looks… people don’t know what to say.”
Police say that by early afternoon on Wednesday they had already handed out 30 lottery tickets to speeding motorists and others pulled over for moving violations.
There were probably a lot of printed-out photos standing in for gifts under Christmas trees across the country. A combination of huge last-minute demand, retailers’ promises of Christmas delivery, and bad weather meant that many gifts that were supposed to arrive on the last business day before Christmas didn’t. Lots of people were disappointed. Joseph was one of them. Then…there was a modern miracle.
He had ordered a small gift for his wife (“A stocking stuffer, really,” he writes) on December 19th, and it was scheduled to arrive before Christmas thanks to his Amazon Prime membership. Only it didn’t. This wasn’t catastrophic for Joseph, but he was disappointed.
Here’s what he saw in the tracking data from FedEx:
Joseph told his wife that she could expect another gift later in the week, which is always fun. Who doesn’t like residual gifts? He certainly didn’t expect the doorbell to ring on Christmas Day…and find an apologetic FedEx driver on the porch with the delayed package!
“My wife and I are veterans of the hospitality industry and we absolutely appreciate the exceptional decision made by somebody with FedEx to do everything possible to keep us from being disappointed,” he wrote to Consumerist. “Our guess is that there are a few others out there who must be similarly impressed.” They can’t be the only ones who received a surprise gift that they thought had been delayed until after the holiday.
Well done, FedEx, and thank you to all of those drivers who worked on the holiday to get packages into their customers’ hands.
That “unhealthy choice” on the left looks awfully familiar.
Listing fast food under the heading of “Unhealthy choice,” the McResource site said that while picking up a meal at the drive-thru is “convenient and economical for a busy lifestyle, fast foods are typically high in calories, fat, saturated fat, sugar, and salt and may put people at risk for becoming overweight.”
It was this revelation that a McDonald’s website would effectively be telling people to not eat McDonald’s all the time that finally drove the fast food giant to shut the site down, reports CNN.
“A combination of factors has led us to re-evaluate and we’ve directed the vendor to take down the website,” reads a statement from McDonald’s. “Between links to irrelevant or outdated information, along with outside groups taking elements out of context, this created unwarranted scrutiny and inappropriate commentary. None of this helps our McDonald’s team members.”
A recent study showed that a majority of fast food workers in the U.S. receive some sort of public benefits, leading some to argue that these companies are using welfare and other programs to effectively subsidize the wages they pay to their employees, to the tune of nearly $4 billion a year that comes from taxpayers.
“Still waiting for the third version to complete this fuel pump trifecta,” writes Taylor. Actually, my question was this: if there were a third broccoli cheddar soup sign, would that one have 190 per calories per serving? The calorie count is increasing from left to right, so it would make sense.
