Each Halloween, I tell a tale, a tale which means much to me.
Because you see, this is a tale, a tale of my great uncle, Sam McGee.
It's a grisly story of friendship, horror, ice, and snow...
And though I can tell it well, it's better told by this video.
Happy Halloween!
You get home, open your mailbox, and what do you find? A cheque! For you! For $25! Sweet!
Or is it? Look more closely and you'll see this is just another "marketing cheque". Oh I'm sure the marketers have a more technical term for them, but that's what they are: cheques with strings attached. Sometimes, big strings. The cheques look just like normal cheques- nice designs, very legit-looking. But then you get the fine print: "Singing and cashing or depositing this check will enroll you in.... blah blah blah..."
So you do the obvious thing... take the free money, of course! But you're not just signing a cheque (or "check" as Americans call it), you're signing a CONTRACT. And I figure that very often, people sign these contracts without having the slightest clue what they're signing up for.
It could be credit insurance, a magazine subscription, or that ever-elusive volcano insurance you've been looking for. The point is, the marketers make these things so real-looking, the intention is obvious: use the lure of money to flat-out trick consumers into signing up for something they don't want.
These "marketing cheques" are new to me, being a relatively recent resident of the U.S. I can't see this flying in Canada (along with other marketing tactics, like 50 credit card offers per day, often several from the same company- do they not learn?) But, I have a problem with these shady cheques. Not for myself- I'm not the one I'm concerned about. I'm concerned about the people who just cant distill the fine print, who really NEED all the money they can get, and can't afford to be scammed.
Is it just me? Is this just fair-game marketing? Like using hot women to sell beer? Or is this type of behavior seriously harming consumers, to the point it should be made illegal?
There's a fine line between marketing and trickery, but even marketers must have souls, right?
Here's my favourite articles of the day...
First, about a school near Boston that banned the game of tag on school property. Nice job. Hey, if you can ban something like tag, can't you also ban the clinically-insane parents who do the complaining?
Then this funny story, coinciding with the upcoming opening of the Borat movie (can't wait!!!), about the Kazakhstan gov't misprinting the word 'Bank' on their bank notes. Oh, the embarassment... I always felt a bit (ok, maybe a tiny tiny bit) sorry every time Sacha Cohen made fun of Kazakhstan- I mean, what did they ever do wrong? It's not like they'd do something totally silly like misprint their own money? Would they?
Came across this funny cover of a parody of a style magazine for Seattle men... Could this be true? Nahhhh.
Earlier this week I attended the AjaxWorld conference down in Silicon Valley with a group from Amazon. It turned out to be an ultra-exciting collection of people, companies, and technologies, all looking forward to the future of internet applications and software applications in general.
At this point it's hard to argue that Ajax is not the way of the future. Yes, there's always been hype in every area of technology, but this is a no-brainer. Internet-connected applications with the usability of desktop applications. Ease-of-use, power, with access to the entire world's data, and billions of other people. It's the holy grail of software.
A plethora of well-known and lesser-known companies came out for the show. As I saw it, they fell along a few dimensions:
1. Flash vs. Ajax: Some say the future is DHTML and XMLHttpRequest, running in the browser; others say Flash is the answer: a cross-platform runtime that eliminates the problems inherent with multiple operating systems and browsers.
2. Open source vs. closed source: Some framework and tool makers have opted for open sourcing their software, while others protect their source but provide binaries for free. Closed source building on top of open source seemed to be a common theme as well.
3. Thin vs. heavy client: some technologies continue to build on the server-side web page model, and this is seen in some Ajax frameworks that build on JavaServer Faces. On the other end of the scale, you have a heavy client (such as a Flash one) with a light server side that acts as an interface to a backend SOA (service-oriented architecture). There may not be a "right" answer, but both sides were well represented.
Some of the incredible things spotted at the conference...
- Adobe. It's clear they know what they're doing. All of the people from Adobe (or should I say Macromedia?) were amazingly smart and a pleasure to talk to. And Flex hits the bull's eye. The FABridge for connecting Ajax with Flash components, and the upcoming "Apollo" desktop deployment method both add to Flex's appeal.
- OpenLaszlo. IF they can pull it off... The DHTML output is a technical marvel. If you can't figure out how the future will play out in terms of Flash vs. Ajax, this is an easy way to solve your dilemma.
Of course, no trip to Silicon Valley would be complete without a trip up to the city, so I went and met with my friend Joe from Google. Here's some pictures of me in North Beach, San Francisco, and a crazy dude who hung out with us just before last call (courtesy of Joe's phone).
Cool technology, fun city, memorable trip... what more could you ask for? :)