Posterous
Joe is using Posterous to post everything online. Shouldn't you?
Unknown35
 

joe’s posterous

On Starbucks Gold « Caffeine-Fueled Sermons by Mike

It should be fitting that my first caffeine-fueled sermon be on the subject of Starbucks’s recent changes to its customer loyalty program, Starbucks Gold. For those unfamiliar with it, Starbucks Gold is a program that offers 10% off all Starbucks products, free WiFi, a free drink on your birthday, and several other small perks for an annual fee of $25. It was recently decided to cancel the program in favor of My Starbucks Rewards, in which participants will earn free drinks and other perks based on the number of drinks purchased (for no annual fee). The program only applies discounts to drinks and not to merchandise or whole bean. The explanation given is as follows:

“So why are we changing a good thing? We’ve heard from a lot of you on ways we can make the program better. As a result, the new program will be free.”

So why lament over a program that is now free? The reason is simply mathematical, though the calculations are not necessarily straightforward. In short, a customer would have to spend $833 a year at Starbucks to make the Gold card a better value than My Starbucks Reward. Excluding little perks, the My Starbucks Rewards card offers an approximate 7% discount while the Gold card offers a 10% (the $25 fee must be factored in, however). Fortunately, I do not spend that much a year in Starbucks but this calculation is based strictly on drink purchases. Any merchandise or whole bean would alter the formula in favor of the Gold Card. Thus, for me I’m on the cusp between these two programs.

So for a consumer who is served equally well by either program, the problem becomes a symbolic one—it represents an underlying corporate mentality that has taken hold particularly strongly during the extant financial crisis. In trying to boost year-over-year same store sales, corporations need to court new customers and boost frequency among their sporadic visitors. By watering down its former loyalty program, Starbucks is able to appeal to those for whom such a steep annual fee would not have been justified. Yet there are many people who spend upwards of $800, $900, or $1,000 a year in Starbucks and it is precisely these customers who have kept Starbucks’s financial head above water during the recession. It is these patrons who have not flocked en masse to the less expensive coffee shop alternatives such as McDonald’s and Dunkin’ Donuts. However, now that the economy is on an upswing, Starbucks can spurn its most loyal customers because they do not need to be rewarded for returning as they’ll be returning regardless.

And while this decision reflects poorly on Starbucks it is not altogether surprising, coming from a corporation that has been known for making some very poor decisions (to the point of senseless) with respect to its business model; see: Valentine’s Day Memo. However, this decision goes beyond cluttering their stores with CD’s, stuffed animals, and chewing gum. If there were customers, as they say, that wanted a free system then give it to them! But don’t eliminate a popular system like the Gold card; rather, make it a tiered system with the top tier being the current Gold program. It rings completely hollow that they did not allow for this and thus makes it virtually impossible for them to divorce themselves from the notion that this change was for reasons of profit as opposed to customer satisfaction. With all this talk of loyalty programs, it seems that Starbucks management does not realize that, fundamentally, loyalty is a two-way street. I do not think twice of driving past three Dunkin’ Donuts, a McDonald’s, and two independent coffee shops to get to a Starbucks. But for that loyalty I expect some in return.

Loading mentions Retweet
Posted November 23, 2009
// 0 Comments

'The Office' Ends As Documentary Crew Gets All The Footage It Needs

'The Office' Ends As Documentary Crew Gets All The Footage It Needs

November 23, 2009 | Issue 45•48

SCRANTON, PA—After nearly six years on the air, NBC's hit show The Office ended abruptly Thursday when documentary filmmaker Ian Sheffield announced that he and his crew had all the footage of the Dunder Mifflin Paper Company's Scranton branch required for their project. "In retrospect, we really over-shot this thing by an enormous margin," said Sheffield, adding that he likely had more than enough good material after filming a British workplace from 2001 to 2003. "We would have finished much earlier if one employee or another didn't insist on being interviewed every three minutes. And I have no idea why we were invited to Jim and Pam's wedding. All of that stuff is totally unusable." Sheffield said that the footage will be drastically cut down and used primarily as B-roll for the planned 90-minute educational film about paper manufacture and production.

More News Briefs

Loading mentions Retweet
Posted November 23, 2009
// 0 Comments

Loading mentions Retweet
Posted November 15, 2009
// 0 Comments

I guess we all should have seen this coming

Sent from my iPhone

Loading mentions Retweet
Posted November 15, 2009
// 1 Comment

TCNJ Magazine » In Focus November 2009 » Professor Argues for Legalized Kidney Markets

james stacy taylor articleAs a graduate student, James Stacey Taylor stumbled upon one philosophy article that opened his mind to a widely controversial academic challenge. The article, authored by Paul M. Hughes, argued that respect for individual autonomy required that human organ markets be strictly prohibited.

“This struck me as very odd, since it’s usually thought that respect for autonomy requires that persons be allowed to have more options, not less,” Taylor said. Currently an associate professor of philosophy and religion at TCNJ, Taylor has researched the issue for 10 years and become an informed voice in the debate.

In August, the professor discussed the issue with 89.3 KPCC’s Larry Mantle. In September, he addressed TCNJ students and answered their questions on the issue as part of the School of Culture and Society’s Politics Forum series. His lecture was straightforwardly titled, “Why markets in human transplant organs should be legalized.”

Concerned with chronic shortages in the availability of transplant organs, particularly kidneys, Taylor has assembled a point-by-point argument advocating a legal market in human organs as an alternative to the altruistic system.

Kidneys are a prime focus in the organ market debate: first, because they are in especially high demand, and second, because human beings only require one of their two kidneys for survival. In a legal kidney market, a person in need—of money, education, or some other incentive—might sell one of his or her kidneys without consequence.

During the lecture, Taylor noted that both the American Medical Association and British Medical Association favor a pilot program that incentivizes for kidneys. He also cited the situation in Iran, where the selling of kidneys is legal, as proof of the potential of organ markets. Iran has eliminated waiting lists for those in need of transplant kidneys.

Instead, Taylor said, there is a different kind of waiting list: Iranians wait in line to sell their spare organs away.

Taylor foresees some movement to legalize incentives in the United States within the next five to ten years. “It’s likely that more indirect forms of compensation will be allowed, such as the provision of long-term health insurance for the vendor and his or her family members, or education credits,” he said.

Arguments against the legalization of kidney-selling focus on three points: the risks of living-patient removal procedures, the pressure that impoverished people may feel to sell their organs, and the prospect of dishonest selling. Taylor rebutted: the risk of death from kidney-removal procedures is lower than other cash-motivated activities that are common practice, he said. For example, the lowest statistical range of death rates in high steel construction is 0.01-0.03%. The highest rates of death due to kidney removal are 0.00-0.02%.

Responding to the poverty issue, the professor acknowledged that the majority of organ sales would come from the poor, but argued that giving them the option to sell their organs was better than giving them no option. Taylor used a metaphor to argue his point: a ship captain threatened by a storm might dump his cargo to keep from going under. Restricting the sale of organs, Taylor said, is like telling the endangered captain that he can’t abandon his own goods.

Regarding selling practices, Taylor said that the practices of an open, legalized commercial system would mark a significant improvement over those of black-market systems already in operation.

He expects that the government would play a role in regulating organ sales the way it does under the current altruistic system. “Moreover,” he said, “I think that it’s useful to note that the government could also play an indirect role in ensuring the quality of organs…providing a legal framework in which people could seek legal redress for any contract violations that might occur in such a market.”

These aren’t the only arguments that fall under Taylor’s purview. There are also issues related to taxation, the problem of ethnic compatibilities, and the concept of personal autonomy that he’s written about for years.

The topic remains contentious. However, Taylor said that since he first encountered Hughes’ argument years ago, he and his opponent have developed a positive scholarly relationship. “Incidentally, Paul was good enough to comment on my initial criticisms, and we’ve since become good friends,” the professor said, then laughingly added, “although he still mistakenly thinks that markets in human organs are immoral!”

Email This Post

 Email This Post

Loading mentions Retweet
Posted November 11, 2009
// 0 Comments

Excuse Me, But I'll Be Handling The Gentleman's Discourse For The Rest Of The Evening

Excuse Me, But I'll Be Handling The Gentleman's Discourse For The Rest Of The Evening

By A 750-Milliliter Bottle of Whiskey
November 10, 2009 | Issue 45•46

A 750-Milliliter Bottle of Whiskey

Ah, pardon me, milady. May I have a word? I trust you're enjoying tonight's festivities? I should say I am. Nothing stirs the blood quite like an evening of dancing, conversing, and libations, wouldn't you say? My apologies for the confusion; while I'm aware that you have been speaking with the gentleman here, I should let you know that, as he has now imbibed a considerable proportion of my contents, the conversational duties will henceforth fall to yours truly.

I think we've heard quite enough from him by now, anyhow.

I should clarify: You began a conversation with a somewhat charming and erudite man, and now you shall be interacting solely with me, the substance contained within an ordinary bottle of whiskey. The shift is slightly jarring, I'll admit, and perhaps even unsettling. Nevertheless, let me assure you that this is as he intended. By consuming nearly half my contents, he elected to have me act as his proxy in all manner of interpersonal communications.

You'll be getting to know me quite well over the next three hours, or at least until I take over his body in toto and pass out in the nearest chair, whichever comes first. If you care to listen, I believe you'll find many of my anecdotes and opinions fascinating. For example, were you aware that it took him nearly half an hour to drive himself here because the Chinaman in front of him never learned to read a damned speedometer?

Now, now, please—calm yourself. Before you jump to conclusions, know that I am not being deliberately racist. No, that's just the sort of unfiltered "from the hip"—if I can use the vernacular—statements you can expect for the rest of the night. I'll be unearthing many facets of his personality of which he himself was previously unaware, as represented by the aforementioned racially charged remark, a few half-baked political notions, and a long, rambling explanation of why his former romantic partner was so wrong to abandon him despite the fact that he dedicated nearly three years of his life to her and who in the hell was she to imply that he was incapable of loving anyone but himself?

This reminds me, I have also been tasked with undertaking all possible romantic endeavors tonight. Most likely this will occur in the form of an awkward pass; perhaps I'll lean in to brush your hair out of your face but inadvertently poke you in the eye, because I will have control of his motor functions as well.

Have I mentioned that you have great tits?

My apologies, that was merely an observation intended as a compliment. I can see how it might be misinterpreted, but believe me, I had only the purest intentions at heart. In matters of beauty, I prefer to do away with formalities, and in point of fact, they are quite impressive as far as tits are concerned.

I say, is that Van Halen I hear? Ah, splendid. Permit me to scream "Hell, yeah! Turn that shit up, goddamn it!" Also, if you would be so kind as to indulge me in this opportunity to pantomime playing multiple instruments. I am infrequently afforded a setting in which to clumsily pretend I am performing before an audience I imagine to be appreciative, and I must say I do enjoy it so.

Panama! Whoo! Panama-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha…Pana…. Fucking Panama!

Well now, I suppose at this point you should know that I am also assuming the duties ordinarily filtered by his sense of decorum and dignity. This will result in some spectacularly bad dancing, as well a fair amount of drooling. I may also stand over a bowl of chips and shovel them into my mouth with the same glassy-eyed stare one sometimes sees on a particularly unintelligent dog or cow. But fear not! If I should overstep some social convention, you may inform me in any way you see fit without fear of consequence, as my charge will have no recollection of it the next day.

Now, if you'll excuse me, I believe I've been slighted by that gentleman who just bumped into me, and I feel that the only way to maintain my honor is to call him a fucking faggot and engage in fisticuffs. I've enjoyed this chat, and look forward to talking once again, assuming I don't decide that I'm going to take over tonight's driving duties as well.

Loading mentions Retweet
Posted November 11, 2009
// 0 Comments

Ooooo

Sent from my iPhone

Loading mentions Retweet
Posted November 5, 2009
// 0 Comments

Conclusion

Taking pictures with Snapture does not geotag them :( while taking pictures in the regular iPhone camera app does. la

Loading mentions Retweet
Posted November 3, 2009
// 0 Comments

Test 2

Sent from my iPhone

Loading mentions Retweet
Posted November 3, 2009
// 0 Comments

Test 1

Sent from my iPhone

Loading mentions Retweet
Posted November 3, 2009
// 0 Comments