It being Valentine's Day and all, I figured it would be appropriate to examine an interesting little industry which "attempts" to bring love together and maybe reduce the number of Valentine's Day suicides. For this week's edition of Pevlinomics I will be acting as a consultant for dating websites.
Why I find this concept so intriguing is because these companies must be hoping that their customers do not actually succeed and that their product fails. Paradoxically, any chance of repeat business DEPENDS on their product failing. This is simply because the dissatisfied customers will come back for more. Satisfied customers don't need the website anymore.
We have all seen these websites such as eharmony.com being adversited on the television featuring their "I just threw up a little bit in my mouth" couples and all the great activities they enjoy together. Really wants to make us single folk think about offing ourselves just a little bit, doesn't it?
Anyway, so these websites are bragging about all these matches they are responsible for, and all the marriages that have resulted from their superior pyschological bullshit testing based on compatibility factors and whatever the fuck else they get on with.
The truth is though, these companies can't afford their clients to find true and lasting love.
Instead, they're hoping to match people up with other people that they marginally enjoy and they marginally get along with, but not quite enough to settle down with. They want their clients to ENJOY themselves and tell all their friends about their positive experiences and the "nice guys" they've met and "great friends" they've created. But no marriages. Happy love is not so happy to eharmony's bottom line. Just offer them enough to remain optimistic.
Think about it.
If everyone on eharmony.com suddenly got married; their entire client base would be wiped out.
It's kind of like a phone company. Imagine this phone company is dealing with clients who need to make a SINGLE phone call. A very important phone call. Now, let's also imagine that everytime they dial a number, the customer will be charged for the phone call, regardless if they actually connect to anyone on the other line. Do you really think that the phone company wants that call to be connected and for clients to be happy?
Of course they don't.
They want an unsatisfied customer who is continuously using the phone; trying oh so hard to complete that one phone call they NEED to go through. If the phone call connects, the phone company will realise no further revenue from this customer. If an eharmony user finds their true love; the website will realise no further revenue from said user. And Kevin O'Leary's all important continuous revenue stream will all but dry up.
According to the world wide web roughly 197,830 people will get married in the US every year due to eharmony meetings.
WOW. As I am writing this, I am looking into various stats about eharmony.
Here I will stop as I have become shocked at the info I have found.
Now, I was going to take this opportunity to calculate exactly how much revenue eharmony was losing by having all these people (former customers) getting married. But the figures took me off guard and so my mind got a tad derailed.
If you purchase a yearly subscription to eharmony, it will cost you $20 per month! This is $240 a year. For ONE month of subscription it costs $60!! Equivalent of $720 a year! This business model creates more revenue then my calendar business!
For christ's sake this is insane. I've got a better idea. One ecstacy tablet will cost you about $10. So for the same price as a monthy subspcription for a year, you can acquire two "e-bombs".
Why don't you buy two of those, go out clubbing twice a month and you will be guaranteed to meet -TWO- true loves every SINGLE month!
Between POTENTIALLY finding one true over the course of a year searching the internet holed up in your room like a modern day hermit, or easily finding 24 true loves over the course of a fun filled and wild year of partying and actually dabbling in a bit of SOCIETY.. I will choose the latter, sir.
If I had thought of this earlier maybe I wouldn't be so lonely on this Valentine's Day.
I suddenly find myself becoming irrationally bitter towards an industry that has in no way harmed me (save for having to their commercials) and towards a society that is increasingly enabling these anti-social social networks to exist.
Whatever happened to getting wasted and making terrible decisions at the bar? Whatever happened to being set up on an awkward blind date by a mutual friend with a person that you are obviously not compatible with?
These are perfectly fine, true and tested methods of courtship that have endured time but are becoming more and more threatened by the double-edged sword that is technology.
Has it really come down to "I'm single, you're single. We've both posted our pictures on this website. Now let's go halves on an unhappy, forced relationship because my $720 bullshit yearly membership is almost up, and I don't feel like renewing. But I need some rate of return so you'll do".
Pevlinomics would call this "Cutting your losses".
I think I'd rather die alone thank you very much. Maybe even plow my $720 a year into a high interest savings account with a 2% rate of interest.
Either that or get heavy into drugs.
My advice to the dating website industry?
Keep dangling the possibility of happiness under your clients' noses - but don't quite let them experience it. It has worked well for you thus far.
Also, perhaps you should start lobbying your local MP's to take a tougher stance on illicit drugs that are so prevalent in today's bar scene.
They stand to be your stiffest competition.
Monday, February 14, 2011
Wednesday, February 2, 2011
Pevlinomics: If I Were Consulted..
As I look around this world of ours, I like to pretend that I could run things better. I think everyone feels this way about a lot of matters.
"Oh, those politicians! Don't know how to run a country.. If -I- were Prime Minister I'd.." You'd be voted out right away, because you don't belong there.
"Oh, those meteorologists! They don't know what they're talking about!". OK, grandpa. Stick your arm out the window and give me your 14-day weather synopsis and get it over with.
"Oh, these banks! They never have enough tellers working!" Go to the ATM, grandma.
However, the more I think about it, the more I believe that I COULD do things better. In fact, with my BBA from MUN tucked under my armpit, and virtually zero practical business experience - I reckon I could be quite the crack-shot business consultant. I'll give you a mere sampling of some Pevlinomics and show you how it can change our world.
Take the bar industry. The pub, the club, the tavern, the inn. These are all fine names for a local drinking establishment. Just by opening its doors, these watering holes are fairly certain of getting business. But they do just a FEW thing in a less than ideal manner.
Take the bouncers for example, who throw you out because "you're too drunk" or because "you've been fighting and your face is full of blood".
Big deal.
Just because you have the right (and granted, the responsibility) to kick me out, why can't you just be a b'y and let me give you custom? The overpriced drinks I'm procuring are paying your wage, buddy. You don't see Costco throwing me out because I buy too many Kirkland Signature products, do you? So why are bars kicking me out for buying too many drinks? It's absurd really. I never knew one could be TOO good of a customer. That's what I, and all my drunk buddies are. We are TOO good and TOO loyal. And see how we get treated?
The bar owners out there should really have a sit down with these guys and say "OK.. yes, we have given you free reign to eject whoever you see fit to eject. But going forward, maybe you get eject that meek, pale guy sitting in the corner nursing his iced water, as opposed to our most profitable customers who are currently slamming jager bombs at the bar like it's going out of style".
And getting kicked out for FIGHTING?! A fight merely serves to increase the atmosphere at a bar, a fight should be expected really. In fact, I propose an amendment to our current elitist policies found in bars which do not permit fighting. I propose a Blades of Steel (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MuFHWToil8s) rule where, after a bar fight, a winner is determined (either by whoever is alive, or by popular vote) and only the loser gets kicked out. The winner gets a free shot of their choice.
Why not right?
This would provide a rich differentiation for whatever bar implemented it, and if business school taught me ANYthing; it's that differentiation = competitive advantage. The droves would flock to this bar. Guaranteed.
My two main premises as bar consultant:
- Retain our most profitable customers
- Blades of Steel fighting policy
Let us now examine the calendar industry.
The whole business model of a calendar company is ludicrous when you think about it. I would say that the vast majority of calendars are purchased in the months of December or January.
Then what?
What are these calendar employees doing when business is slow (which is 5/6ths of the year)? They must be mentally decompressing after a massive rush of orders they experienced in December and January.
These rushes are so severe that they probably require medical care to treat their stress. And who is paying for this increased need of medical insurance? That's right. Me and you - the end consumer.
Frankly, I have had enough of footing these bills.
Furthermore, I was watching the hit CBC series "Dragon's Den" the other day and one of the dragons (I believe it was the always fiery Kevin O'Leary) said something to the effect of - the way to create wealth; REAL wealth, was to generate a continuous revenue stream (such as that of phone companies with their monthly plans, and banks with their fees).
Here is what I propose to the calendar corporations:
Stop selling FULL calendars.
Sell monthly calendars, weekly calendars and even daily calenders. For example, if the consumer chooses to go with the monthly calendar scheme, you would initially give them one months page from a calender. They would come in the next month to get their next page. CONTINUOUS revenue stream.
Wealth building at its finest.
Based on a $20 calendar; here is how my pricing scheme would be broken down:
Full Calendar (highly not recommended): $20
Month-by-Month: $5 per month
Weekly: $2 per week
Daily: $0.5 per day
The potential increase in revenue is so high, I truly cannot believe that these calendar conglomerates have not thought of this earlier. For a customer on the monthly plan, $60/year will be created as opposed to $20! That's a 200% increase in revenue! A weekly plan represents a 420% increase in revenue at $104/year! And a DAILY scheme? An staggering 812.5% increase in revenue, creating $182.5/year!!
Not ONLY will this genius new calendar model increase revenues dramatically, it will also increase the pure number of people who are purchasing calendars.
Think about it.
Most people are buying calendars at and around Christmastime, when expenditures are high, and extra pocket money is low. Sometimes shelling out $20 sounds awfully steep for a simple book of days. The calendar salesman has such a great angle with my new scheme. He could merely say "Yes, $20 IS a lot at this time of year. But let me ask you this: How many coffees in a day do you drink?.. Two? OK, so that's about $4 a day. What would you say, if, for 1/8th of your coffee expenditures everyday, I could get you a full years worth of calendar. A mere 50 cents a day?"
SOLD. Fifty cents a day? Pittance.
Additionally, this new scheme will solve the other problem of the worker's December stress and year long inactivity. Medical costs would plummet. Profits would soar.
Now, some of the general public may counter this idea with the fact that one reason people buy calendars is to plan months in advance, so they wouldn't go for this scheme. Well, to that I say "off with their heads!" Like the water sipping guy in the corner of the bar, those who plan ahead are not our best customers, and in fact are putting unnecessary duress upon our employees.
They can deal with the calendar on the bottom right hand side of their taskbar. See how that goes for them.
For all of your consulting needs and especially if your business needs a consultant who can see far, FAR outside the box - please do not hesitate to contact me via Facebook.
I'm here to improve the world in which we all live.
.
"Oh, those politicians! Don't know how to run a country.. If -I- were Prime Minister I'd.." You'd be voted out right away, because you don't belong there.
"Oh, those meteorologists! They don't know what they're talking about!". OK, grandpa. Stick your arm out the window and give me your 14-day weather synopsis and get it over with.
"Oh, these banks! They never have enough tellers working!" Go to the ATM, grandma.
However, the more I think about it, the more I believe that I COULD do things better. In fact, with my BBA from MUN tucked under my armpit, and virtually zero practical business experience - I reckon I could be quite the crack-shot business consultant. I'll give you a mere sampling of some Pevlinomics and show you how it can change our world.
Take the bar industry. The pub, the club, the tavern, the inn. These are all fine names for a local drinking establishment. Just by opening its doors, these watering holes are fairly certain of getting business. But they do just a FEW thing in a less than ideal manner.
Take the bouncers for example, who throw you out because "you're too drunk" or because "you've been fighting and your face is full of blood".
Big deal.
Just because you have the right (and granted, the responsibility) to kick me out, why can't you just be a b'y and let me give you custom? The overpriced drinks I'm procuring are paying your wage, buddy. You don't see Costco throwing me out because I buy too many Kirkland Signature products, do you? So why are bars kicking me out for buying too many drinks? It's absurd really. I never knew one could be TOO good of a customer. That's what I, and all my drunk buddies are. We are TOO good and TOO loyal. And see how we get treated?
The bar owners out there should really have a sit down with these guys and say "OK.. yes, we have given you free reign to eject whoever you see fit to eject. But going forward, maybe you get eject that meek, pale guy sitting in the corner nursing his iced water, as opposed to our most profitable customers who are currently slamming jager bombs at the bar like it's going out of style".
And getting kicked out for FIGHTING?! A fight merely serves to increase the atmosphere at a bar, a fight should be expected really. In fact, I propose an amendment to our current elitist policies found in bars which do not permit fighting. I propose a Blades of Steel (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MuFHWToil8s) rule where, after a bar fight, a winner is determined (either by whoever is alive, or by popular vote) and only the loser gets kicked out. The winner gets a free shot of their choice.
Why not right?
This would provide a rich differentiation for whatever bar implemented it, and if business school taught me ANYthing; it's that differentiation = competitive advantage. The droves would flock to this bar. Guaranteed.
My two main premises as bar consultant:
- Retain our most profitable customers
- Blades of Steel fighting policy
Let us now examine the calendar industry.
The whole business model of a calendar company is ludicrous when you think about it. I would say that the vast majority of calendars are purchased in the months of December or January.
Then what?
What are these calendar employees doing when business is slow (which is 5/6ths of the year)? They must be mentally decompressing after a massive rush of orders they experienced in December and January.
These rushes are so severe that they probably require medical care to treat their stress. And who is paying for this increased need of medical insurance? That's right. Me and you - the end consumer.
Frankly, I have had enough of footing these bills.
Furthermore, I was watching the hit CBC series "Dragon's Den" the other day and one of the dragons (I believe it was the always fiery Kevin O'Leary) said something to the effect of - the way to create wealth; REAL wealth, was to generate a continuous revenue stream (such as that of phone companies with their monthly plans, and banks with their fees).
Here is what I propose to the calendar corporations:
Stop selling FULL calendars.
Sell monthly calendars, weekly calendars and even daily calenders. For example, if the consumer chooses to go with the monthly calendar scheme, you would initially give them one months page from a calender. They would come in the next month to get their next page. CONTINUOUS revenue stream.
Wealth building at its finest.
Based on a $20 calendar; here is how my pricing scheme would be broken down:
Full Calendar (highly not recommended): $20
Month-by-Month: $5 per month
Weekly: $2 per week
Daily: $0.5 per day
The potential increase in revenue is so high, I truly cannot believe that these calendar conglomerates have not thought of this earlier. For a customer on the monthly plan, $60/year will be created as opposed to $20! That's a 200% increase in revenue! A weekly plan represents a 420% increase in revenue at $104/year! And a DAILY scheme? An staggering 812.5% increase in revenue, creating $182.5/year!!
Not ONLY will this genius new calendar model increase revenues dramatically, it will also increase the pure number of people who are purchasing calendars.
Think about it.
Most people are buying calendars at and around Christmastime, when expenditures are high, and extra pocket money is low. Sometimes shelling out $20 sounds awfully steep for a simple book of days. The calendar salesman has such a great angle with my new scheme. He could merely say "Yes, $20 IS a lot at this time of year. But let me ask you this: How many coffees in a day do you drink?.. Two? OK, so that's about $4 a day. What would you say, if, for 1/8th of your coffee expenditures everyday, I could get you a full years worth of calendar. A mere 50 cents a day?"
SOLD. Fifty cents a day? Pittance.
Additionally, this new scheme will solve the other problem of the worker's December stress and year long inactivity. Medical costs would plummet. Profits would soar.
Now, some of the general public may counter this idea with the fact that one reason people buy calendars is to plan months in advance, so they wouldn't go for this scheme. Well, to that I say "off with their heads!" Like the water sipping guy in the corner of the bar, those who plan ahead are not our best customers, and in fact are putting unnecessary duress upon our employees.
They can deal with the calendar on the bottom right hand side of their taskbar. See how that goes for them.
For all of your consulting needs and especially if your business needs a consultant who can see far, FAR outside the box - please do not hesitate to contact me via Facebook.
I'm here to improve the world in which we all live.
.
Wednesday, January 26, 2011
I, Bitter
I find myself to be overly bitter about certain, very trivial things in life - for absolutely no reason.
I'm hoping I get my lifetime's worth of bitterness (and partying) out of my system at a relatively young age so that I can be a happy (and sober) geriatric, and not the type of stinky old man who hates his life - and in turn makes you hate yours when you are around him.
My latest feeling of ANTAGONISM has just, moments ago, washed over me while I was checking a website that I truly love to hate.
DICTIONARY.COM defines the word "fear" as: "the feeling or condition of being afraid".
Now, obviously, I KNOW what fear is, but I was merely looking for a way to verbalize its meaning to someone who didn't speak English. However, I feel that this definition is not sufficient because the word "afraid" may not be understood either. So, I proceeded to look up the word "afraid".
Dictionary.com defines "afraid" as: "feeling fear".
Let us look at these two definitions in a mathematical sense, and draw conclusions henceforth, shall we?
IF:
fear = the feeling or condition of being afraid
AND:
afraid = feeling fear
THEN:
fear = the feeling or condition of feeling fear
AND:
afraid = the feeling of being afraid
Conclusion?
Math is telling me that English doesn't know what the fuck it's talking about. This is the equivalent of a math problem something like this:
Solve for X given that:
Y = Z
Z =Y
Now, I don't know if this is just me (more than likely it is), but this just does not work in my life.
My sad, blank eyes stared incredulously at the computer screen with what was surely the look of an utterly defeated human. This is what a simple, online dictionary has reduced me to.
I needed a word to describe my feelings, a word that my vocabulary could not produce on its own, so I typed in "bitter" in hopes of finding a suitable synonym.
What I found was in fact much more sinister.
Dictionary.com defines "bitter" as: "producing one of the four basic taste sensations; not sour, sweet, or salt".
Since - may I ask - WHEN is it a sufficient definition to simply list what a word does NOT mean? Think about it, where do you draw the line as to when this is unacceptable? What's next? Will dictionary.com start defining words such as "door" as follows:
Door: one of many basic parts to a house; not floor, not ceiling, not wall, not window, not sink...??
What if you also do not know what a "ceiling" is? After eliminating everything else listed as NOT being a door, you're still not 100% sure if a door is what we call a door, or if a door is what we call a ceiling.
So you decide to look up "ceiling".
Ceiling: one of many basic parts to a house; not floor, not door, not wall, not window, not sink...
This system is SICK, it's just purely sick. Our whole system of language and communication sits on a foundation of assumed knowledge and circular logic that will eventually become unsustainable and it is all due to the advent of the DICTIONARY.
What pompous, arrogant, egotistical, sophistical, right leaning, aristocratical elitist decided that we as humans needed unnecessary words to express intangible feelings, to describe nouns and verbs and to talk amongst each other about shit that no one cares about - just because we can?
Why must we verbalize FEELINGS? They are merely feelings after all. Isn't it enough that we FEEL them, we also FEEL the need to TALK about them.
"I feel sad". Keep it as a feeling. You're over-complicating an already over-complicated method of communication.
What ever happened to the good ol' homo-erectus days of minimal, only necessary conversation?
"Saber tooth. Spear." I like it. It's efficient and to the point.
Today it would be:
"Oh my god, I see a big hairy moose with long nimbly legs and wobbly knees. Over there between the oak and the ash trees.I feel very powerful in that this beast's life lies in my hands. Hand me my rifle, please. Thank you. The kids will be eating moose sausage by day break".
Who else can you blame except the massive dictionary conglomerates who are cashing in every time we spout out an incomprehensible lexical item that a peer, colleague, friend or foe must look up?
Lest we let the thesaurus people off the hook. I mean, what is society's need to have multiple synonyms for one word. It's insane. Foolish. Maniacal. Demented. Pure lunacy really.
Or maybe it's all just me being bitter.
I'm hoping I get my lifetime's worth of bitterness (and partying) out of my system at a relatively young age so that I can be a happy (and sober) geriatric, and not the type of stinky old man who hates his life - and in turn makes you hate yours when you are around him.
My latest feeling of ANTAGONISM has just, moments ago, washed over me while I was checking a website that I truly love to hate.
DICTIONARY.COM defines the word "fear" as: "the feeling or condition of being afraid".
Now, obviously, I KNOW what fear is, but I was merely looking for a way to verbalize its meaning to someone who didn't speak English. However, I feel that this definition is not sufficient because the word "afraid" may not be understood either. So, I proceeded to look up the word "afraid".
Dictionary.com defines "afraid" as: "feeling fear".
Let us look at these two definitions in a mathematical sense, and draw conclusions henceforth, shall we?
IF:
fear = the feeling or condition of being afraid
AND:
afraid = feeling fear
THEN:
fear = the feeling or condition of feeling fear
AND:
afraid = the feeling of being afraid
Conclusion?
Math is telling me that English doesn't know what the fuck it's talking about. This is the equivalent of a math problem something like this:
Solve for X given that:
Y = Z
Z =Y
Now, I don't know if this is just me (more than likely it is), but this just does not work in my life.
My sad, blank eyes stared incredulously at the computer screen with what was surely the look of an utterly defeated human. This is what a simple, online dictionary has reduced me to.
I needed a word to describe my feelings, a word that my vocabulary could not produce on its own, so I typed in "bitter" in hopes of finding a suitable synonym.
What I found was in fact much more sinister.
Dictionary.com defines "bitter" as: "producing one of the four basic taste sensations; not sour, sweet, or salt".
Since - may I ask - WHEN is it a sufficient definition to simply list what a word does NOT mean? Think about it, where do you draw the line as to when this is unacceptable? What's next? Will dictionary.com start defining words such as "door" as follows:
Door: one of many basic parts to a house; not floor, not ceiling, not wall, not window, not sink...??
What if you also do not know what a "ceiling" is? After eliminating everything else listed as NOT being a door, you're still not 100% sure if a door is what we call a door, or if a door is what we call a ceiling.
So you decide to look up "ceiling".
Ceiling: one of many basic parts to a house; not floor, not door, not wall, not window, not sink...
This system is SICK, it's just purely sick. Our whole system of language and communication sits on a foundation of assumed knowledge and circular logic that will eventually become unsustainable and it is all due to the advent of the DICTIONARY.
What pompous, arrogant, egotistical, sophistical, right leaning, aristocratical elitist decided that we as humans needed unnecessary words to express intangible feelings, to describe nouns and verbs and to talk amongst each other about shit that no one cares about - just because we can?
Why must we verbalize FEELINGS? They are merely feelings after all. Isn't it enough that we FEEL them, we also FEEL the need to TALK about them.
"I feel sad". Keep it as a feeling. You're over-complicating an already over-complicated method of communication.
What ever happened to the good ol' homo-erectus days of minimal, only necessary conversation?
"Saber tooth. Spear." I like it. It's efficient and to the point.
Today it would be:
"Oh my god, I see a big hairy moose with long nimbly legs and wobbly knees. Over there between the oak and the ash trees.I feel very powerful in that this beast's life lies in my hands. Hand me my rifle, please. Thank you. The kids will be eating moose sausage by day break".
Who else can you blame except the massive dictionary conglomerates who are cashing in every time we spout out an incomprehensible lexical item that a peer, colleague, friend or foe must look up?
Lest we let the thesaurus people off the hook. I mean, what is society's need to have multiple synonyms for one word. It's insane. Foolish. Maniacal. Demented. Pure lunacy really.
Or maybe it's all just me being bitter.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)