On the other hand, this is Amazon.com we're talking about here, and already having a widely-known name is worth its weight in gold. Just look at iTunes -- DRM is a hassle, buying a full CD of older music is cheaper at a store, but sales keep coming anyway.
After all, genericization (that's probably not a real word) of a product name is really only the first step in commoditization of that product. After all, if you can't use your name to distinguish your product from anyone else's anymore, that product has essentially become a commodity, and that makes the competitive environment much more challenging. After all, when people buy tissues these days, how many are really loyal to the particular brand Kleenex anymore? How many people care if the personal casette player they buy is actually a Sony Walkman? Or that the copier they buy is actually a Xerox? Or the aspirin they buy is really Bayer Aspirin? And so on.
When your brand name is equal to the actual product, you have won. The competitive environment is only more challenging because it's hard to expand when you own the market. You aren't competing in the market, you are the market. Which brand is more valuable and has larger cumulative sales: Kleenex or Scott, Xerox or Brother, Coca-cola or Pepsi, iPod or Zen, IBM or Compaq, Kodak or Fuji? Some don't even have notable same-product competitors: Reynolds Wrap, Q-Tip, Advil, A1 Steak Sauce, etc.
I would take having my product become the commodity any day.
included with this is the knowledge that just about every journalst/editor you come across will, of course, have a superior attitude (which i always found funny - because without pr people, journalists would either not get a story or have to do a significant amount of leg work to get it, and well, journalists, also, by and large, are lazy.)
That is exactly what schools teach, but it's no more true than what the journalists are taught (that all PR people are parasitic shills who are looking to take advantage of your free publicity). Sure, there are bad apples out there on both sides of the fence, but most of us understand that it's a symbiotic relationship. Some of us even like working together.
It's worth noting that not all publicity is created equal. Press releases are usually only generally targeted to inform news sources of potential leads. On a story with nominal news interest, I'd be happy with 25% of the sent releases getting coverage. If the goal is to get a feature story written, I would take a more personalized approach.
Complaining because you received a mass-release is like whining because the speaker at a convention didn't address you by name durning his keynote. Sure, the agency should have used BCC, but guess what -- if the editor was that important, he would have probably received a personalized letter and a phonecall instead of the mass release. Besides, that mass-mail was probably from an intern or secretary. Agencies aren't going to waste client dollars calling every possible publication to ask for each editor's interest.
Now, I don't work for Rocket Science, but I do work in the PR industry. As a random observer, I just took a quick look at Network World's online editorial calendar: two names for two stories on each issue, and a list of editors/reporters and specific beats was nowhere to be found. What exactly do they expect, that I am going to spend five days calling every editor at every trade publication so that I can find out if they want one release? Geesh. If you can use the news, then use it. If not, trash it. Why drag a whole agency's name through the mud? Maybe he just got some $8/hr intern fired.
Secondly, the bible is man-made (anyone having studied its history is forced to conclude this), so a valid opinion is that it is not the whole and accurate word of God, but rather a human perversion of God's message. There are many conflicting documents of christ's teachings, and once you start doubting the bible's accuracy and completeness, it's only a small step to doubting what was and wasn't a part of christ's teachings.
So, yeah, depending on where your beliefs lie, you can be a christian (someone who beliefs that christ was the son of God and sent to save us) and have completely different beliefs than what current bible canon dictates they should be.
There are plenty of Christian values, but they all fall under the same basic tree. You are arguing semantics here (it has nothing to do with "valid opinion," it is a question of what you call your specific religion. Don't get me wrong -- definitions can be renegotiated, but at a certain point, you really are just better off creating a new term.
To take on such a label as "Christian," you also have to make some sort of claim about who is giving an accurate record of Christ's life. If your canon of choice is not the Bible, perhaps the common definition of Christian is not the most precise label for your beliefs. Feel free to believe in the Bible as an imperfect source, but do realize that you are misapplying the label of Christian. A good deal of people believe in Jesus, even the Jesus of the Bible, but would not subscribe to his Messianic teachings or call themselves Christians. I feel confident in assuming that the majority of intellectuals would agree: there are certain components of faith that cannot be ignored and still remain "Christian." Roughly 2000 years of Christian Church history would dictate that the belief in the Bible as the word of God (man-made, God-inspired, and thusly inerrant) is one of the most basic rules.
After all, once you decide the narrator is lying to you, you stop believing the rest of the story.
"If PS3 is backwards compatible with the PS2, it will be a slam dunk as people can still play their old games,"
Why would I buy a $700 system that plays my old games when I can just keep using my PS2?
PS3 is ahead of its time, pure and simple. It is future proofed (assuming developer interest is still there when people get around to wanting higher-def systems in four years) at the cost of price and dev time, and only time will tell whether or not consumers will go to that dance.
Those analyzing Jack's letter for logical and factual fallacies are missing the point. Those of us who know the truth immediately know that ThinkGeek is not based in Seattle and that it has a seller/vendor relationship to PA. We know that Mike could have gotten the e-mail from a number of PA's game community contacts, or even from the public posting at VGcats.com (which was even linked on PA's frontpage). We know that many gamers contacting the FBA do so because of alleged acts of unprofessionalism on Jack's behalf, not grinding axes. We know that Thompson's alleged behavior towards those he disagrees with is, at best, counter to his claim to be a Christian and, at worst, criminal harassment. We know that Jack often resorts to ad hominem attacks and other logical fallacies when arguing. And, we know that any moves Jack makes to deter the Bar from proceeding with an investigation are, themselves, violations of specific federal civil rights statutes. Truth and logic are not on Jack's side.
But communication is about effective rhetoric, not truth. While the tone of this letter may be lacking a certain level-headedness befittig of a lawyer addressing the Bar about an investigation, it is not simply spouting off madness, either. He is establishing his good name before the Bar with his professional history, claiming corruption in the industry and government, and making a colorable argument that the gaming community has been catalyzed to harass him into submission once again. Classic rhetorical strategy based on Aristotle's teachings on Ethos, Pathos and Logos.
Not foolishness, either. Every time a gamer contacts the Bar with a "me too!" instead of tangible examples of Jack's abuses, or a gamer calls him at home to "discuss his position on the issues" (as if we don't already know), or someone sends a threat via voicemail and e-mail, we are making Jacks point for him.
Slashdot Mirror
On the other hand, this is Amazon.com we're talking about here, and already having a widely-known name is worth its weight in gold. Just look at iTunes -- DRM is a hassle, buying a full CD of older music is cheaper at a store, but sales keep coming anyway.
After all, genericization (that's probably not a real word) of a product name is really only the first step in commoditization of that product. After all, if you can't use your name to distinguish your product from anyone else's anymore, that product has essentially become a commodity, and that makes the competitive environment much more challenging. After all, when people buy tissues these days, how many are really loyal to the particular brand Kleenex anymore? How many people care if the personal casette player they buy is actually a Sony Walkman? Or that the copier they buy is actually a Xerox? Or the aspirin they buy is really Bayer Aspirin? And so on.
When your brand name is equal to the actual product, you have won. The competitive environment is only more challenging because it's hard to expand when you own the market. You aren't competing in the market, you are the market. Which brand is more valuable and has larger cumulative sales: Kleenex or Scott, Xerox or Brother, Coca-cola or Pepsi, iPod or Zen, IBM or Compaq, Kodak or Fuji? Some don't even have notable same-product competitors: Reynolds Wrap, Q-Tip, Advil, A1 Steak Sauce, etc.
I would take having my product become the commodity any day.
included with this is the knowledge that just about every journalst/editor you come across will, of course, have a superior attitude (which i always found funny - because without pr people, journalists would either not get a story or have to do a significant amount of leg work to get it, and well, journalists, also, by and large, are lazy.)
That is exactly what schools teach, but it's no more true than what the journalists are taught (that all PR people are parasitic shills who are looking to take advantage of your free publicity). Sure, there are bad apples out there on both sides of the fence, but most of us understand that it's a symbiotic relationship. Some of us even like working together.
It's worth noting that not all publicity is created equal. Press releases are usually only generally targeted to inform news sources of potential leads. On a story with nominal news interest, I'd be happy with 25% of the sent releases getting coverage. If the goal is to get a feature story written, I would take a more personalized approach.
Complaining because you received a mass-release is like whining because the speaker at a convention didn't address you by name durning his keynote. Sure, the agency should have used BCC, but guess what -- if the editor was that important, he would have probably received a personalized letter and a phonecall instead of the mass release. Besides, that mass-mail was probably from an intern or secretary. Agencies aren't going to waste client dollars calling every possible publication to ask for each editor's interest.
Now, I don't work for Rocket Science, but I do work in the PR industry. As a random observer, I just took a quick look at Network World's online editorial calendar: two names for two stories on each issue, and a list of editors/reporters and specific beats was nowhere to be found. What exactly do they expect, that I am going to spend five days calling every editor at every trade publication so that I can find out if they want one release? Geesh. If you can use the news, then use it. If not, trash it. Why drag a whole agency's name through the mud? Maybe he just got some $8/hr intern fired.
Congrats, fella. You sure showed them.
Secondly, the bible is man-made (anyone having studied its history is forced to conclude this), so a valid opinion is that it is not the whole and accurate word of God, but rather a human perversion of God's message. There are many conflicting documents of christ's teachings, and once you start doubting the bible's accuracy and completeness, it's only a small step to doubting what was and wasn't a part of christ's teachings.
So, yeah, depending on where your beliefs lie, you can be a christian (someone who beliefs that christ was the son of God and sent to save us) and have completely different beliefs than what current bible canon dictates they should be.
There are plenty of Christian values, but they all fall under the same basic tree. You are arguing semantics here (it has nothing to do with "valid opinion," it is a question of what you call your specific religion. Don't get me wrong -- definitions can be renegotiated, but at a certain point, you really are just better off creating a new term.
To take on such a label as "Christian," you also have to make some sort of claim about who is giving an accurate record of Christ's life. If your canon of choice is not the Bible, perhaps the common definition of Christian is not the most precise label for your beliefs. Feel free to believe in the Bible as an imperfect source, but do realize that you are misapplying the label of Christian. A good deal of people believe in Jesus, even the Jesus of the Bible, but would not subscribe to his Messianic teachings or call themselves Christians. I feel confident in assuming that the majority of intellectuals would agree: there are certain components of faith that cannot be ignored and still remain "Christian." Roughly 2000 years of Christian Church history would dictate that the belief in the Bible as the word of God (man-made, God-inspired, and thusly inerrant) is one of the most basic rules.
After all, once you decide the narrator is lying to you, you stop believing the rest of the story.
"If PS3 is backwards compatible with the PS2, it will be a slam dunk as people can still play their old games,"
Why would I buy a $700 system that plays my old games when I can just keep using my PS2?
PS3 is ahead of its time, pure and simple. It is future proofed (assuming developer interest is still there when people get around to wanting higher-def systems in four years) at the cost of price and dev time, and only time will tell whether or not consumers will go to that dance.
It is anything but a slam dunk.
Those analyzing Jack's letter for logical and factual fallacies are missing the point. Those of us who know the truth immediately know that ThinkGeek is not based in Seattle and that it has a seller/vendor relationship to PA. We know that Mike could have gotten the e-mail from a number of PA's game community contacts, or even from the public posting at VGcats.com (which was even linked on PA's frontpage). We know that many gamers contacting the FBA do so because of alleged acts of unprofessionalism on Jack's behalf, not grinding axes. We know that Thompson's alleged behavior towards those he disagrees with is, at best, counter to his claim to be a Christian and, at worst, criminal harassment. We know that Jack often resorts to ad hominem attacks and other logical fallacies when arguing. And, we know that any moves Jack makes to deter the Bar from proceeding with an investigation are, themselves, violations of specific federal civil rights statutes. Truth and logic are not on Jack's side.
But communication is about effective rhetoric, not truth. While the tone of this letter may be lacking a certain level-headedness befittig of a lawyer addressing the Bar about an investigation, it is not simply spouting off madness, either. He is establishing his good name before the Bar with his professional history, claiming corruption in the industry and government, and making a colorable argument that the gaming community has been catalyzed to harass him into submission once again. Classic rhetorical strategy based on Aristotle's teachings on Ethos, Pathos and Logos.
Not foolishness, either. Every time a gamer contacts the Bar with a "me too!" instead of tangible examples of Jack's abuses, or a gamer calls him at home to "discuss his position on the issues" (as if we don't already know), or someone sends a threat via voicemail and e-mail, we are making Jacks point for him.