When the hockey star Sean Avery took an internship at Vogue earlier this summer, the work uniform that the fashion-besotted left wing chose included a shorts suit that showcased his athletic calves.

“Why go to work and be hot?” he asked last week, adding that there was no compelling business reason to look modest and dull on the job. “You can look good and not have that boring-type look,” said Mr. Avery, who signed with the Dallas Stars this summer after several seasons with the Rangers. “Why are women allowed to do it and not men?”

I write a lot about politics so I was a bit amused by the characterization of this style as being borne from “left-wing” thinking in the fashion industry.  Well, it definitely is NOT conservative.. but the style isn’t really “liberal” — it’s just uhh what is the word I’m looking for.

Ahh yes, DUMB.

Well, to each their own I guess. If you’re interested in flirting with getting fired at your top notch law or accounting firm, by all means give it a try. You can read more about this business fashion blunder and the reasoning behind the fashion statement, here.

 Factoring in two or three days for the bill to arrive, two or three days for the check to get back to AT&T, and a Sunday or two, that leaves three to five days for customers to pay their bills before the angry letters and phone calls begin.

In the age of the Internet, this may seem reasonable because payments should be in on or around the due date, except the problem in this case is that notices of late payment or non-receipt come only a few days before collection harassment officials are notified.

Virtual Pressroom

Microsoft Makes Strategic Changes in Technology and Business Practices to Expand Interoperability

February 21, 2008

Microsoft today announced a set of broad-reaching changes to its technology and business practices to increase the openness of its products and drive greater interoperability, opportunity and choice. These changes are codified into four new interoperability principles and corresponding actions: 1) ensuring open connections; 2) promoting data portability; 3) enhancing support for industry standards; and 4) fostering more open engagement with customers and the industry, including open source communities.

The Microsoft site has the details, audio and video highlights of the press release and changes in MS policy.

Engadget published this piece on the cynicism that is widespread in the industry regarding this latest MS statement.

Echoing the reactions of many to Microsoft’s decision to open things up this morning, the European Commission issued a statement this morning saying that while it welcomes any moves towards “genuine interoperability,” it’s not going to believe it until it sees it — it’s counted four similar announcements by Redmond in the past, with nothing to show for it. Of course, Microsoft is currently being investigated for antitrust violations in Europe, so there’s a whispered belief that the new steps are a ploy to derail that process, but that’s pretty doubtful — and the EU’s not having it anyway, saying that “Today’s announcement by Microsoft does not address the tying allegations.”

Meanwhile, the WSJ had commentary on possible motives, but seemed more trusting of the Silicon Valley giant.

Skeptics will argue that it’s a peace offering to regulators in Europe, where Microsoft is under constant scrutiny, and to regulators in the U.S., where a successful acquisition of Yahoo would undergo close scrutiny.

Finally, Venture Beat has an interesting spin on the future of Microsoft that is not laced with spite and distrust as most commentary on the story.

With Ray Ozzie taking over as chief software architect for the departing Bill Gates, there is certainly a chance the company actually means to change its ways going forward. Ozzie, a veteran of Lotus Notes and Groove, two collaboration-based applications, would seem to have a mindset more in line with the open Internet. However, as they say, actions speak louder than words.

Here are a few links from Yahoo’s Tech section that could come in handy if you need to catch up on the drama:

In response to eBay’s recent announcement that it would no longer allow sellers to leave negative feedback for buyers, the uproar has been deafening. How deafening? So loud that a boycott has been planned, set to begin tomorrow on February 18, 2008 and run for (at least) a week.

The article seems to suggest that the boycott won’t last because there are few other options available for merchants.  I’d tend to agree with the author and I think in the end this is the right thing to do for consumers.  If certain consumers act in bad faith, it’s easy to report them or even take legal action if necessary.   You can read more about this issue, here:  “eBay Boycott Begins Tomorrow: Will it work?“

Well, some new research suggests that up to 50% of the clicks on advertisements are done by serial clickers.   These people make up 6% of the total Internet population, but their attention is grabbed by ads in a way that overwhelms and throws off previous research on the topic.  With a potential 6% of Internet surfers responsible for 50% of the clicks online, does that make branding and CPM ads that more important?  The research claims that although this small percentage of Internet users are online for hours more than others, they are not as likely to purchase the goods after they click.

The average salary of these surfers — that in my non-professional opinion I’d attribute to OCD — is below 40,000 / year.

The study was carried out by the media agency Starcom USA, behavioral targeting network Tacoda, and digital consumer insight company comScore.  They worked on research that would study click-through rates, their source, and the effect it has on online advertising.

The study reveals that a very small group of consumers who are not representative of the total U.S. online population is accountable for the vast majority of display ad click-through behavior. 

This is an interesting story because online advertising is such a hot topic right now and every major Silicon Valley company is trying to gain ground in a market that Google currently dominates.

While many online media companies use click-through rate as an ad negotiation currency, the study shows that heavy clickers are not representative of the general public. In fact, heavy clickers skew towards Internet users between the ages of 25-44 and households with an income under $40,000.

Their relatively younger age tells us a lot about their behavior alone.  I’d imagine that this group is the prime targeting group for marketers as they probably tend to be more impulsive and more easily distracted from the content by animations and vivid marketing visuals.

Heavy clickers behave very differently online than the typical Internet user, and while they spend four times more time online than non-clickers, their spending does not proportionately reflect this very heavy Internet usage. Heavy clickers are also relatively more likely to visit auctions, gambling, and career services sites – a markedly different surfing pattern than non-clickers.

While this may be seen as a ‘negative’ because conversion rates are low, it’s an obvious benefit to the ad serving companies like Google because they can leverage the additional hits for CPM ads and also use the inflated hit count to negotiate better deals.  As far as CPM ads are concerned, the analysis that came about as a result of the research did not allow them to conclude that there is a correlation between  branding and click ratios.

Starcom data suggests no correlation between display ad clicks and brand metrics, and show no connection between measured attitude towards a brand and the number of times an ad for that brand was clicked.

Of course, advertisers will probably use this data to try and shift the burden on ad servers to yield better production or reflect this fact in the price.  It’ll be interesting to see if any companies budge on this matter, though, since Google itself dominates the industry and has a virtual monopoly on online quality ads and sites.  They are also cutting down on spam sites and domain parking exploitation of ad serving — although not entirely, as Google has deals w/ companies like Go-daddy to serve their ads.

“There is more and more emphasis by advertisers for greater return-on-objectives in campaigns, particularly in the digital space where the accountability data is so readily available,“ says Starcom USA Director of Connections Research and Analytics Grant Prentice. “Natural Born Clickers shows us that we can’t count on click-through rate as our primary success metric for display ads; Starcom is more reliant on shifts in brand attitude metrics and analytics tying on-line exposure to sales as the true measures of online advertising efficacy.” 

This doesn’t mean a whole lot because of how ad publishing works though.  Basically the market decides how much each click is worth, marketing agencies and departments have to decide how much they are willing to pay for targeted traffic.  Sometimes branding is more important than selling products, especially early on and CPM might actually be less effective than a CPC type model.

 “While the click can continue to be a relevant metric for direct response advertising campaigns, this study demonstrates that click performance is the wrong measure for the effectiveness of brand-building campaigns,” said Erin Hunter, executive vice president at comScore.

“For many campaigns, the branding effect of the ads is what’s really important and generating clicks is more of an ancillary benefit. Ultimately, judging a campaign’s effectiveness by clicks can be detrimental because it overlooks the importance of branding while simultaneously drawing conclusions from a sub-set of people who may not be representative of the target audience.”

I  know that bloggers and small business providers are usually at the bottom of the food chain when it comes to their revenue interests, but it sure would be nice if research would yield results that benefits the little guy, too!  In my view, I don’t think advertisers are paying enough for sites with quality content.  If they want to pay peanuts then serve their ads at spam sites.  For producers of strong original content maybe the big boys should consider raising prices based on venue. This may actually encourage higher quality content online rather than mass producing garbage sites to make a dime off unsuspecting Internet users.

Yahoo’s board has decided Microsoft’s $31-per-share offer “massively undervalues” the company, according to a report in The Wall Street Journal. Yahoo is expected to formally reject Microsoft’s offer, the Journal reported.

“Massively undervalues” tells me that it is a negotiation tactic.  The reason I believe this is the case is because when the news of Steve Ballmer’s offer was spreading like wildfire, Yahoo’s stock was in the process of a massive decline over the prior year and down under $20.  A company of Yahoo’s standing and success, branding and prominence in the Silicon Valley and globally, has the right to argue that it is worth much more than $31 a share.  Usually, initial offers are either low-ball offers to test the waters, or made to get the negotiation process rolling and expect to pay a premium over that offer price.

It looks like from here on out, it’s a lawyer’s game and I expect Microsoft might bite or maybe make an offer between $35 and $38 dollars a share.  What Yahoo suggests may sound like pocket change in the grand scheme of things for Microsoft, but I am sure the Silicon Valley giant will consider its options and inevitably acquire Yahoo.  The only way this falls through is if a bidding war breaks out with another company that can afford Yahoo.  At that point all bets are off.  One thing is certain, Yahoo is sitting pretty in all of this and I’m pretty sure the board isn’t going to blow this one — stockholders and employees should prepare to celebrate.

If some Mississippi legislators had their way, they’d put forth a law that would ban obese people from being served at restaurants.

State Rep. John Read, a Republican who is one of the bill’s three authors, says he wasn’t trying to offend anybody and never even expected the plan to become law.

“I was trying to shed a little light on the No. 1 problem in Mississippi.”

This may sound humorous as you read along, but this isn’t a spoof.  Obesity is a real problem with consequences for Americans and we’ve been unable to solve this growing epidemic without the use of drugs or surgery to solve the issue.  Of course, exercise and dieting is ideal, but helping to fight obesity isn’t like having the flu or acquiring a chronic disease that can be cured drinking a Slimfast(tm) every morning.

The question that should be asked is whether the Republican Representative crossed the line by proposing such legislation.  If you take him at his word that this was not a serious proposal, but intended to shed light on a serious problem in Mississipi, then maybe he has done his state a great service.  Obesity is much like other sensitive subjects, e.g. Affirmative Action.  No one wants to talk about it because it is a pretty prickly subject and people get hurt in the process no matter which way you roll on the issue.

Steve Holland, the Democratic chairman of the House Public Health and Human Services Committee, said in a statement he will “pocket veto” the bill. “It’s dead on arrival at my desk.”  Although he appreciates the “efforts of my fellow House members to help curb the obesity problem in Mississippi, this is totally the wrong approach.”

How can you not laugh at the public press that the issue is receiving?  First, you have a candidate with the gall to put forth such an ‘idea’, then you have a Democrat coming out to fight the ‘good fight’ and defending the rights of the obese.   Way to stick up for the little… errr, big guy? Again,this is a serious problem so why are we walking on eggshells to get to the heart of the problem?  Eventually, it may be policy makers that help America shed the weight.

About one-third of Americans are obese (30 or more pounds over a healthy weight), and 66% are overweight or obese. Even so, obesity experts are outraged by the bill.  “It would be hard to concoct something more ridiculous,” says Kelly Brownell, director of Yale University’s Rudd Center for Food Policy and Obesity.

I’m no Yale expert and I haven’t spent my life studying the problems with obesity like Mr. Brownell, but maybe it is good to call a spade a spade?  Instead of dealing with emotions that inevitably arise out of the hate and frustration, self-esteem problems and depression, maybe we should focus on the problem itself and find ways to encourage the masses to help combat the problem?  Maybe this noise will help push obese people to stay away from the super-size or learn more about all the foods and drinks that are most dangerous to our health.

I don’t want to be insensitive about the issue, but it’s just not a simple problem to solve.  Showing love and support isn’t everyone’s forte, so it’s a futile effort to try and control what politicians, celebrities and ‘experts’ say.  The problems that stem from humiliation, shame and guilt are not trivial and it does offend and hurt some people:

“This brings bias against obese individuals to a new and appalling level, and at a time when significant progress is being made in the effort to stop blaming obesity on the people who have it and to address the social and political conditions that drive it.

Again, I cannot agree with the expert, it seems he’s too involved and has a hard time being objective.  In my view, it never really is about blaming obese people, most people don’t think of it in those terms unless you push the issue.  How often do you think “maybe he should stop eating, doesn’t he have self-control?”  Most Americans don’t go about their lives thinking, “darn, she sure is fat, why doesn’t she just exercise or go on a diet?!”

If anything, the question most Americans are asking is “Am I fat and what can I do to keep myself looking good.”  Sadly, the same areas of society that encourage obesity indirectly (e.g. super models, strip clubs, television and Hollywood) are also the ones that discourage people from eating that extra french fry.   It’s easy to blame these vices on the problem of teenage anorexia, but in my view, both anorexia and morbidly  obese people are also suffering from severe mental disease or stress and require the help of a mental health expert in addition to a physical fitness expert.

“Are these legislators fighting to get rid of soft drinks in schools? Are they working to stop the relentless marketing of unhealthy foods to children? Are they doing anything about the fact that poor people do not have access to healthy foods?”

This is the best argument made against legislators who would dare bring up obesity under such crass legislative proposals.

Restaurants and Corporations Encourage America’s Obesity Problem

Consumers are provided incentive to purchase fatty foods because they cost a lot less than the ‘premium’ low-calorie foods.  Fast food restaurants are serving up individual meals that have as much as 50 to 75% of a typical calorie intake for the day and maybe doubling or tripling the fat intake.  Consumers do have a responsibility to moderate their intake, but with obesity you have a special self-perpetuating cycle of guilt.  People eat to deal with stress, they eat to socialize with co-workers, eat to handle depression and settle impulsive behaviors that would best be handled by psychiatric help.

While this is a problem that involves many factors, people have to be careful not to entirely shed the blame of obesity on society.  Society is part of the problem, there is no doubt about that.  We have to remain cognizant of the fact that shedding personal responsibility might be one of the biggest reasons that combating obesity has become so difficult to solve.  It won’t be long before pharmaceutical companies or scientists design a solution that won’t increase the risk of heart failure or death.  Until that happens, it is the duty of all Americans to help fend off this problem and it starts with YOU.

If you enjoyed this article, please subscribe to the news feed — free column on business and technology.  You may sign up for the e-mail version using the form located within the sidebar. 

Within the Church of Scientology, you are taught that Scientology is the one and only solution to all mankind’s problems, and during this narrow window of opportunity in mankind’s history it is possible to “clear the planet” (ie give everybody auditing) and save humanity from itself. Most other goals pale in comparison and anything that detracts from Scientology, or its expansion is in essence a mortal sin against humanity. This belief is strong enough to get people sign up the Sea Organization [wikipedia.org] (LRH’s private navy) on a billion year contract (ie you are in for the long haul… and not just this lifetime)

Anyone who attacks the church is either a suppressive person (2.5% of the population who are evil – think Hitler), PTS due to a connection to an SP (Potential Trouble Source – 20% of the population), or has committed various other overts and withholds (ie sins and secrets) and it trying to justify their own actions by making the Scientology seem less (because if you admitted to yourself that Scientology was the “one and only solution” then your otherwise small crime would have to weigh fairly heavily on your conscience). Anyone who commits various sins and suppressive acts, will be subconsciously aware of this, and slowly do themselves in (ie get sick, have an accident) to prevent themselves from committing more crimes.

You can read the insightful comment in detail at slashdot: “Internet Group Declares War on Scientology”

L Ron Hubbard is rumored to have suggested that the best way to make money is Religion, that’s where the money’s at!  Whether he said it or not, that is so damned true.  People will pour millions of dollars into any religion that is ‘legitimized’ by the masses.  In the case of Scientology, it has become a life philosophy for the rich and powerful to learn to hone their “skills” and improve their lifestyles.

I don’t write about issues related to film and entertainment that much, but this story is too funny to pass up. To be honest, I know very little about Jessica Simpson other than she looks great in a Bikini.

Her hot bod wasn’t enough to bring the perverts or the ladies to see her latest flick, though! Blonde Ambition averaged $48 per screen on Friday for a total box office of $384. Based on an $8 ticket price, it means 6 people paid to see the movie at each theater (avg) and only 48 people went to see the flick.

Ouch! I guess that’s what she gets for distracting the Dallas Cowboys last week! In case you’re not a sports fan, they lost for only the second time this season to the lowly Philadelphia Eagles — at home!

Click here to view the embedded video.

If you want to hate on Microsoft some more, read my angry “Microsoft and Windows sucks” article and add your own experiences.

“My husband and I were having a conversation about what foods could and could not be made better with the addition of bacon. Sure, that was a good salad, but it would have been so much better with bacon. That was a delicious baked potato.. I wish it had some bacon on it. You know what was missing from breakfast this morning?- bacon. I think we’ve come up with so many foods which bacon can enhance, that we really were wondering what foods it wouldn’t.”

A woman after my own heart! I know what you’re thinking right now, “oh no, they didn’t…”

Yes, yes they DID!

Delicious Chocolate Chip Cookies with Bacon

I just about fell out of my chair when I saw the beautiful cookies.

I was excited and I wanted to share the news of chocolate chip bacon cookies with my friends. Only one problem, all of my buddies on IM at the time were Jewish. As funny as it sounds, I thought it might be offensive or taken improperly and maybe I’d seem culturally insensitive so I sent it to my non-Jewish friend.

He happens to have Polish roots and I thought to myself, hey, “Polish Sausage!” I knew for sure he’d love it! Here’s how he responded:

M: 12/10/07 2:56 PM: Oh God.
M: 12/10/07 2:56 PM: That is so disgusting.
Fred: 12/10/07 2:57 PM: No man, so delicious!
M: eeeeeeew

Well, I guess Chocolate covered cookies with bacon may not be ready for prime time. I personally love the idea and I think it could be the next million dollar project, but you never know how fickle consumers will react.

This got me thinking, with proper marketing and a solid recipe, who knows, maybe it could work?

This is one of the reasons why I need great people around me when it comes to making business decisions. I get so excited and want to take over the world with bacon covered chocolate chip cookies. My advisers and friends tell me that it’s not a wise move and I should consider something more “safe”, like… bacon-flavored ice cream.

Glad I asked!

About a month ago, we released a new feature called Beacon to try to help people share information with their friends about things they do on the web. We’ve made a lot of mistakes building this feature, but we’ve made even more with how we’ve handled them. We simply did a bad job with this release, and I apologize for it.

This is a good move from a personal standpoint, it probably helps relieve some of the personal anxiety that comes with being responsible for so much outrage out there. It’s also a great move for the company, because if anything, this privacy issue has created some real resentment between long time users of Facebook’s platform.

While I am disappointed with our mistakes, we appreciate all the feedback we have received from our users. I’d like to discuss what we have learned and how we have improved Beacon.

All of the negative press won’t be enough to overwhelm Facebook in the long term, but I’d be surprised if it’s potential for growth slows due to the bad press. Hopefully this is a lesson for all hot companies that look to act as data-mining operations and conduits for corporate preying and exploitation of social web users.

Mashable put up a poll to gauge the public reaction to Facebook’s drama.