Nobrainer’s Think Tank

Pay attention to the incredible shrinking Katie Couric:

If she isn’t a reason to throw a bag of hammers through your TV screen, I don’t know who or what is.

And here’s some not-news news about controlling kangaroo populations:

“Realistically, to deal with wild animals it has to be oral,” said Fletcher, who is collaborating with Newcastle University scientists on the research.

Government ecologist Don Fletcher said Wednesday the oral contraceptive method promised to be more efficient than existing technology for curbing roo numbers around Canberra such as vasectomies for males and injections for females because the fleet-footed marsupials would not need to be captured.

I’m pretty sure that natural selection developed a problem to this solution in the form of natural predators. Then I’m pretty sure that man became pretty efficient as an unnatural predator. You see, we invented these things called “guns” which impart very high velocity to small, but aerodynamic and dense masses. These high-energy, high momentum masses are not easily stopped by mammal flesh, thus causing damage and cessation of being. And dead animals don’t breed.

But apparently they want to develop contraceptives and the male kangaroos just don’t want nothin’ to do with condoms, which makes them like male humans in many ways. Apparently the kangaroos didn’t understand the condoms or how to put them on correctly. So when the researchers tried to interject and apply them when the moment was right, they effectively killed the mood and often earned swift kicks to the groin for their efforts. What a shitty job.

Experience: Those new mac commercials.

Discuss: Those commercials and macs with my mac-loving girlfriend.

Contemplate: Those new mac commercials. “Mac” seems rat-like and weasely to me. I don’t like rat-like, weasely people. I therefore do not like Mac.

Reinforce: Other writers agree:

My problem with these ads begins with the casting. As the Mac character, Justin Long (who was in the forgettable movie Dodgeball and the forgettabler TV show Ed) is just the sort of unshaven, hoodie-wearing, hands-in-pockets hipster we’ve always imagined when picturing a Mac enthusiast. He’s perfect. Too perfect. It’s like Apple is parodying its own image while also cementing it. If the idea was to reach out to new types of consumers (the kind who aren’t already evangelizing for Macs), they ought to have used a different type of actor.

Seth Stevenson, the writer of the above linked article in Slate, pretty much summarized my feelings on the commercials, going even beyond the unfortunate casting decision.

The commercials are simply too dishonest. “Everything just kind of works with a mac.” Or:

PC - “Yeah I had to restart there. You know how it is.”
Mac - “Actually I don’t.”

Perhaps I should take the first quote more literally, restating it just a bit: “everything works with a mac, only kind of.” I know the first quote is not true. I know the the second one is untrue. I also know that people who complain about the complexity of setting up a desktop PC (all those cords and cables!) generally suck at life.

(My 9th grade Spanish teacher would have people who claimed to be so helpless repeat after him: “I am too stupid to live”: unconventional but effective.)

Because I went to public school, and because my public school was cheap, I grew up using macs a lot. I always heard the same promises about their robustness, speed, superiority, and inability to crash. The IT guys were adamant. The IT guys were also full of shit. That’s a great part of the reason why I still loathe using Macs to this day. That’s a great part of the reason why these commercials fail to reach me.

I don’t get it. What’s the deal? What am I doing wrong that makes me convinced that the technologically advanced body wash is not nearly as good as old-fashioned bar soap?

I’m going through my 2nd trial of such a product. The first was years ago. The commercials had their “see how much lather you get from just a small amount” message. I figured it could be a small money saving route to try. So I bought in — I even picked up one of those stupid little fluffy things. It was not nearly as advertised. A small amount was enough for about my arm. The bottle and frilly thing were gone in a few weeks, much to my delight.

The conclusion at the time was that bar soap lasted longer, was cheaper, and lathered better.

For some stupid reason, I decided that by the year 2006 the bugs would have been worked out and things would be better. No. Nope. No way. No chance in hell. I’m just a gullible idiot.

As far as I can tell, they just put shampoo in a different bottle. Ever not had soap and had to use only shampoo in a pinch? Well I have. It’s exactly like using body wash. Except now instead of dealing with it from desperation, I’m paying extra to be pissed off.

Now I fucking hate myself — and those marketing fuckwads.

In the debates over technology for energy, the final yardstick is usually the actual cost to produce a unit of electricity. The inherent assumption is that the consumer will choose the electricity that costs the least. If that idea were applied to food, alcohol, clothing, or even water, the assumption is proven horribly incorrect. Why is it people are convinced to over-pay for Starbucks, or Pepsi, or Aquafina — and do so happily — but we assume that the same cannot be true in the electricity markets?

To mind, there are two issues that need to be addressed. Many of us are not exactly subjected to open markets, from which we can choose from whom we purchase our electricity. Secondly, electricity doesn’t carry a brand very well.

Let’s creatively solve both problems simultaneously. Concerned parties may argue that removal of price caps will lead to increased prices across the board, thus hurting everyone and regressively hurting the poor. Or they’ll argue that consumers will merely switch to the cheapest option (presumably dirty coal) which would be an environmental nightmare. This of course is the crux of our energy debate: cost vs. cleanliness.

Being as there is a Virginia Energy Choice website, I propose that we use that website while also building a system that involves… uhhh, damn. what’s the word… uh, CHOICE. (Pro-choice right? My electricity my choice! whoops, no place for sarcasm here.) Instead of offering merely a price to compare, however, create a small table breaking down the how the electricity is generated, and other basic information such as pollutant output. For example:

Once the consumer is able to make the right choice, it’s up to the marketers to create brands and make the consumer make the right choice. For example, right now I can opt to purchase wind power at a net price increase of about 50%. At least two problems remain: I found this information on my own and not because someone marketed it to me, and I’m not convinced that I should pay a 50% markup, even though I pay huge markups all over the place otherwise. I lied, there’s one problem: marketing — or a lack thereof.

Part of the marketing is branding. The non-minimum paying consumer wants, nay needs to be able to show off his or her choice. This may be done by simply putting a sign in the window, or a bumper sticker on the car. Let the consumer declare “I BUY BIG GREEN ENERGY.”

What’s more, the marketers need to make being green more than being environmentally aware. Make us want to do it because it’s cool. Don’t tell us it’s cool; show us it’s cool. Make guys think they will get laid.

Have a commercial with the Super Bowl winning quarterback surrounded by scantily clad women read:

I buy my electricity from Big Green. It’s a little more expensive, but it’s worth it for the future. Plus chicks dig it.

Can we at least agree that guys will do it if they believe it leads to sex?

Obviously I’m being a bit facetious, but I truly believe that we can be convinced to pay higher energy prices. What’s keeping us from it?

In case you missed the post from a few days ago on Cafe Hayek, I want to point out a few things.

The post, which focuses on an unlinked to NYT article, is interesting. But the first comment by Slocum was the best part. Pulling some quotes from an article on ReasonOnline:

The FLO defines a fair farm as a family farm that is a part of a large democratic cooperative. Farms cannot be “structurally dependent on hired labor,” which means that hiring even one laborer year-round makes a farm ineligible for certification. Even more controversial is the cooperative requirement. Rather than deal with individual farms, the FLO exclusively certifies large cooperatives composed of hundreds of small land-owning farmers, each with a single vote on how to best spend the Fair Trade profits.

Sayeth Slocum:

In other words, only coffee farmed according to collectivist ‘Dennis the Peasant’ rules of production are eligible.

The interesting thing here, is that Fair Trade was initially set up to eliminate the middle men who were shortchanging small farmers and to produce a transparent conduit for getting coffee from the farmer to retailers. Technically they are successful. Small growers who adhere to the strict rules and join the collective do get a better price for their beans — $1.26/pound. So by displacing up to 5 middlemen, the net cost of coffee goes… up? Yup, by perhaps 66%. The Fair Trade administrators are sucking up a huge amount of the revenue stream here.

And it appears from the articles that Fair Trade coffee isn’t known for even being particularly good. There’s not even any incentive for any farmer to improve quality, as he is only paid based on quantity. In this regard, the system is very much like the UAW pushing a “Buy American” campaign. Workers are being overpaid for an inferior product, which we should buy to feel better about ourselves.

This can — and I suspect will — be successful as long as good marketing strategy can maintain the information asymmetry among the American coffee consumer.

I started disliking Pepsi years ago when I got wise enough to realize that simply adding sugar to something does not necessarily improve its taste. If I were in charge of an inferior brand, such as Pepsi, I would rely on a superior marketing campaign.

For clarity, a superior marketing campaign does not include Jay Mohr and P. Diddy and a song called “brown and bubbly.” Jay Mohr is funny. His work isn’t. PuffDaddySeanCombsPDiddy is one of the biggest whores of the entertainment world. Tell me, Mr… whatever your name is, should I vote, die, or drink Diet Pepsi? And “brown and bubbly?” Because that differentiate your product from say that one from Coca-Cola. Or RC. Or the generic shit from my local grocery.

But on the one-way path to the bottom, Pepsi had outdone themselves by bringing in superstar Jimmy Fallon! This guy still has a career? He’s done anything since leaving SNL? Let’s not dwell on that. Instead let’s focus on the perfect commercial. Get this for a commercial: Jimmy Fallon and some ugly woman in ugly clothes start dancing along opposite side of the city street. Then they end up on the top of a cab and Jimmy throws her up and she never comes down, but Jimmy doesn’t care because he’s an idiot — an idiot with Pepsi. Air that bad boy, sit back, and watch the money come flowin’ in.

Who thought these were good ideas? Who agreed with them? What are they smoking? Can I have some?