|« 6 August 2002 « - Back||Archives||Next - » 9 August 2002 »|
The Internet Debacle - An Alternative View
...let me remind you of something: the music industry had exactly the same response to the advent of reel-to-reel home tape recorders, cassettes, DATs, minidiscs, VHS, BETA, music videos ("Why buy the record when you can tape it?"), MTV, and a host of other technological advances designed to make the consumer's life easier and better. I know because I was there. The only reason they didn't react that way publicly to the advent of CDs was because they believed CD's were uncopyable...FALLOUT - a follow up to The Internet Debacle
Do I still believe downloading is not harming the music industry? Yes, absolutely. Do I think consumers, once the industry starts making product they want to buy, will still buy even though they can download? Yes. Water is free, but a lot of us drink bottled water because it tastes better. You can get coffee at the office, but you're likely to go to Starbucks or the local espresso place, because it tastes better.The CD people should really go have a talk with the DVD people, because the DVD people are making them look incompetent and greedy beyond measure... We recently saw a store window with assorted DVDs (2 hours of video, custom-programmed features) on sale for $11.99 and assorted CDs (40-70 minutes of audio) on sale for $13.99. There's something very wrong with that picture.
I shan't be the top Steve ever, I would imagine, there being plenty of big-name Steves who get talked up on the web (Jobs, Ballmer, Wozniak, Forbes...), but even if I could, I don't see why I would try, or care.
Is Google a self-marketing contest? (Is life a popularity/googularity contest?) Should there be one person you think of when you hear 'firstname' out of all the thousands/millions of them on the planet? And does having the top rank today mean you've "won" (whatever that means), or do you need to keep the top rank thereafter to still feel good about yourself? Someone else will eventually get it, even if you have it now; so what? Why is it worth any energy?
I understand companies wanting to be prominent in search results for their products and related keywords, but caring about first-name searches strikes me as ego- and fashion-based wankery, just another way to see who can pee furthest; silly and pointlessly vain.
Or am I missing something?
Added clarification, noting Brad and Anita's responses: I agree; checking on it once in a while can be entertaining as long as you don't take it too seriously, and if you are the top name, well, good on ya while it lasts. My annoyance is with folks who are clearly bothered by their not being the top and who spend their energy (and try to get others' assistance) to change it. 6 comment(s)
I don't take it seriously, but it was just a nice little bonus resulting from being on the web early, to be able to tell folks "just search for Anita" rather than tell my whole url (especially before getting my eponymous domain name).
I don't take it at all seriously, although I do think it's a harmless and fun way to sort of see the Google weighting mechanism at work, and I'm not above a little jocular crowing when I hit the top.
Heh. Thank you for the link to my first name, thus helping to fortify my supremacy over the esteemed Mr. Templeton. Alas, we seem to trade the top spot more or less monthly. Sic transit gloria mundi, and all that jazz.
I was going to say what Anita said, so sign me up for a "me too". I thought it was cool when I could encourage people to find me by searching for obvious things like "seth ai" or "seth unicycle", but one day I noticed I was top for "seth", and people tend to remember that (and are impressed). There are a few of us that bounce around at the top these days, so it's no longer reliable, but it's still fun. My coworker Lucas pointed out that all it means is that no one named Seth has ever done anything important, like say, make some really popular movies.
I don't make my name prominent on my site at all. But my weblog is in the first page of Google results for my nickname, anyway.Add a comment...
At the Coffee Shop, It's Always a Tall Order by Christina Ianzito [Washington Post]
[Starbucks] once included "Short" on its menu, along with Tall (12 ounces) and Grande (16 ounces) ... but the Short mysteriously disappeared from the stores' repertoire about five years ago, around the same time the Venti (20.5 ounces) hit town. ... To get the elusive Short, which is $1.43, you have to (a) know of its secret existence and, apparently, (b) order it by its proper name. Remember: small = Tall (12 ounces); Short = small (8 ounces).1 comment(s)
Just wanted to say that coffee shops are not the first to do this. I worked at a Dairy Queen many years ago and they were one of the few fast food restaurants to have a soda cup that was 8 oz. This was considered the "kid size". I began to notice that it was impossible to buy less than 12 oz of soda from a restaurant. Now it's happening with sodas from gas stations. It's practically impossible to buy a 12 oz can of soda while on the road. Retailers may make more money doing this, but I find it incredibly aggravating and the end result in my case is that I carry water with me and try not to buy drinks while I'm out.Add a comment...
Links, exploration and|
Photo by my wife
RSS Feed / Atom Feed
More Like This
Q Daily News
Laurel's TV Picks
Randall Bramblett: Thin Places
Doctors, Professors, Kings & Queens: The Big Ol' Box of New Orleans
Tears for Fears: Everybody Loves a Happy Ending
Ye olde Wishe Liste
|« 6 August 2002 « - Back||Next - » 9 August 2002 »|