Blog dedicado a la formación en todos sus ámbitos: presencial, online, a distancia
Hola:
Una infografía con 30 claves para estudiar y trabajar en Francia. Vía
Un saludo
30 claves para estudiar y trabajar en Francia
Hola:
Una infografía sobre ¿Cuánto tiempo y dinero cuesta montar mi empresa?.
Un saludo
Generado por: Actibva
Hola:
Una infografía sobre cómo atender a clientes enfadados.
Un saludo
![How to Handle Angry Customers [Inforgrafic from Provide Support]](https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/blogger_img_proxy/AEn0k_t9Z-WCPbrS2uA-yeJ2h4qGILG4KnuvAN1TlLWPkYd55qcCqOCDkTDCWEAf32ZyLK6WW9wJzqu1=s0-d)
From: http://ift.tt/QLzDLd
This reader did the thing that hardly any gadget-user does, and actually read the entire privacy policy when a new software update downloaded. “Having read the Privacy Doc I was not best pleased with the company’s assumption that I would simply agree to their sharing all our intimate viewing details (plus what ever else they can see) with all and sundry,” the LG television owner noted. Fair enough, but when he told the TV that he didn’t agree with the privacy policy, LG had some news for him. He didn’t want to share information with them? Fine: they wouldn’t share any information with him. By “information,” we mean “any of the features that are the entire point of having a smart TV.”
“If we make a material change to our Privacy Policy, we will update you via your LG Smart TV or other means. If you do not consent to the updated privacy policy, some SmartTV services may be restricted,” it spells out helpfully. What’s important to LG is retaining the right to mine your viewing habits (even what you watch on cable or broadcast TV) in order to serve more relevant advertising to you within the smart TV software.
The key question is this: can a company “change the goalposts at will,” as the tipster put it, and yank features of a TV hostage if users don’t agree to new terms and conditions? If the new privacy policy is radically different from the one you agreed to when first purchasing the TV, consumers might have a case.
Click image to read the full e-mail from the marketing company.
The message, from the “Community Director” of some marketing company, (click image above to read the full thing) was basically a pitch trying to convince us to apply to be a low-paid shill for one of the brands this agency claims to represent.
WE GIVE YOU STUFF, YOU WRITE NICE THINGS
“Our process allows brands to humanize their marketing efforts by connecting shoppers with the brands and retailers used in daily life by introducing them to new and existing products,” reads the e-mail. “We create opportunities for social influencers to partner with industry leading brands by weaving the product/retailer into their current conversation and compensate them for doing so.”
The letter gives the example of an alleged upcoming campaign for Target and Rubbermaid that challenges men to organize their garages, etc., presumably using Rubbermaid products.
It’s just like those segments on every reality TV competition where brands are “integrated” into the show — cook dinner with these Walmart steaks, drive around Munich in these Ford cars while toting an actual Travelocity gnome in the backseat.
And it’s everything that is wrong with advertising today, blurring the boundary between sponsored content and actual content, turning entertainment into advertising, attempting to shove talking points and branding messages down consumers throats at every turn.
We’ve written before about the many ways in which advertisers try to pay websites for sponsored content and the various methods those sites use to either make it obvious — or obscure — whether or not that content is bought and paid for.
The sorts of campaigns being pitched by this marketing company are even lower on that totem pole, as they want the blogger to provide the content in a way that convince readers/viewers that it’s truly legitimate and should be believed.
Beyond the question of ethics, the amounts that these companies pay to bloggers is usually fractions of a penny compared to what they would spend to have their branding reach the same number of eyeballs via traditional routes, so the bloggers that bite on this carrot are selling themselves short.
SHARE YOUR PERSONAL EXPERIENCES THAT WE PAID YOU TO HAVE
“Each blogger engaged in a campaign is able to share an individual and creative experience about the product/retailer in a way that will resonate with their readers on a personal level, while still providing a call to action,” continues the e-mail, presumably written by someone who still manages to sleep at night and occasionally look at himself in the mirror. “With each new campaign, we give bloggers the opportunity to shop for and interact with the brand so you may have a hands on experience, which in turn will add to the authenticity of the post. You will never be asked to write about a product you haven’t had the chance to experience.”
Well thank goodness they would never ask you to write about something you haven’t had the chance to experience yet! That would be misleading and wrong (and potentially illegal).
But we guess that giving people money and free stuff under the expectation that they will write nice things isn’t at all deceitful or unethical, so show us the money!
The one thing that has made me reluctant to post about this e-mail is that some folks might try to apply after coming to the realization that potentially lying to consumers for a few bucks falls right into their ethical wheelhouse. That’s why we’re redacting the company name, as it doesn’t deserve any free publicity, even if it is negative.
On Monday a judge ruled the 30-year-old man must seek treatment after it was determined that he was not mentally competent to stand trial after being arrested on six federal charges, The Los Angeles Times reports.
The man is accused of intentionally conveying false information and making telephonic threats after resigning from his post at LAX in September 2013.
After reviewing the man’s mental health evaluation, a U.S. District Judge determined he suffered from a mental disorder and cannot help in his own defense.
If the man is determined to be competent at a later date he could face trial. If convicted of all charges he could face up to 45 years in prison.
The Times reports the man made a rambling statement about doing the work of God during a recent court hearing.
After resigning from his job on Sept. 10, the man allegedly left a number of threats against LAX. These include leaving a package at the airport containing an eight-page letter detailing his complaints about a June 2013 incident that had led to a week-long suspension.
Shortly after resigning the man allegedly made three calls to airport officials warning the TSA was running out of time and that the airport should be evacuated.
When authorities arrived at the man’s apartment he was nowhere to be found. However, officials did find a note reading “09/11/2013 THERE WILL BE FIRE! FEAR! FEAR! FEAR!”
The man was finally spotted sleeping in a van parked by a local church and arrested by police without incident.
Investigators later found several online letters signed by the man that contained anti-American statements and references to the end of the world.
Former TSA screener incompetent for trial on LAX threats, judge rules [The Los Angeles Times]
Hola:
Una infografía sobre Crecimiento en la Nube. Vía
Un saludo
Crecimiento en la Nube
Hola:
Una infografía con los Beneficios del marketing de contenidos.
Un saludo
Beneficios del marketing de contenidos
