|
About This Author
I am SoCalScribe. This is my InkSpot.
|
Blogocentric Formulations
Logocentric (adj). Regarding words and language as a fundamental expression of an external reality (especially applied as a negative term to traditional Western thought by postmodernist critics).
Sometimes I just write whatever I feel like. Other times I respond to prompts, many taken from the following places:
Thanks for stopping by! 
September 25, 2011 at 3:33pm September 25, 2011 at 3:33pm
| |
So who all is going to this shin-dig? I know it's not exactly cheap (especially since I have to fly from the West Coast and stay at a hotel), but honestly, how often will there be an opportunity to meet so many of the great friends I've made on this site, and maybe even make some new ones? What can I say; I'm a sucker for socializing with friends. |
September 20, 2011 at 9:35pm September 20, 2011 at 9:35pm September 19, 2011 at 1:48pm September 19, 2011 at 1:48pm
| |
For those of you who may not have heard the news (or received the email if you're a subscriber), Netflix will soon be splitting their streaming video service and their DVD-by-mail service. The two were previously integrated on the same service with the same bill, but will now be separated. Netflix is going to be the name of the streaming service, and Qwikster will be the name of the DVD-by-mail service.
The financial perspective isn't what bothers me. There will now be two separate charges from two separate services (since I subscribe to both), but the total amount being charged by both services won't be any higher than it currently is. In that respect, I don't have a problem.
Where I do have a problem is that splitting these two services effectively destroys the integration they once enjoyed. Right now, I can go onto the Netflix website and look at both my queue of saved movies that are available for streaming, and my queue of saved movies that are available to be sent to me via mail. More importantly, when I'm looking up a movie, I can see whether it's available instantly or by mail and can add it to either queue. And even more importantly than that, it tells me when a movie is available instantly (since the choice is more limited by the DVD-by-mail option). Thus, if I'm browsing through my queue of DVD-by-mail titles and I see one near the top that's now available instantly, I can move it down the list or actually watch it without having to worry that I'm going to get something in the mail that I could be watching instantly at home.
Apparently Netflix is done with that. Netflix and Qwikster will be two separate services with two separate websites. No integration whatsoever. Which means that, if you're like me and are interested in the most efficient way of watching movies possible (i.e. you look up a movie and watch it on instant if available, and order it by mail if not), you now have to check two different websites and maintain two different queues which have absolutely nothing to do with one another. 
Megan McArdle wrote a very astute article on this issue for The Atlantic:
So what is it that Netflix (I use that term to describe the company as a whole, regardless of whether Qwikster is on the way) is really trying to do? Distance themselves from the DVD-by-mail business, which is destined to be phased out at some point? That seems the most likely of possibilities, although I agree with her assessment that the way they're going about it just doesn't make sense. This seems like an impulsive and rash move that is destined for - and is already receiving - a great deal of backlash from customers who see this as a stupid and ultimately ineffectual solution.
The bottom line is that Netflix's stock price has taken a hit. The negotiations with content providers are not going well (you may have noticed the new wave of "get it here X days before Netflix (and/or Redbox)!" advertising by competitors, and the fact that some providers like Starz and Showtime are refusing to provide content at all). There's no question that Netflix's business has to change and adapt to the new marketplace, where they're competing with Redbox and Blockbuster Express. Just like the brick-and-mortar video stores had to adapt to compete with Netflix, now Netflix has to compete with video-on-demand (VOD) and kiosk rentals in every grocery store.
I'm surprised that Netflix's response to the competition is to split the company's identity and divide up its integration, seemingly in an esoteric attempt to phase out a part of the business that's destined to fall by the wayside eventually. As McArdle pointed out, none of that really addresses Netflix's primary issue, which is the fact that their instant/streaming service is undervalued and they made a mistake in making it so cheap... because now their customers expect it to remain cheap. And now they do this instead of confronting the real problem. 
I'm not Blockbuster's biggest fan, but I have to give the failing company credit where credit is due. They're figuring out a way to survive in an era where brick-and-mortar retailers are becoming more and more scarce. With the advent of their Blockbuster Express kiosks, they take advantage of their strengths (agreements with studios that give them access to movies earlier than new companies like Netflix and Redbox), while adapting to the current market and actually putting their rental business in kiosks which are growing in popularity. They figured out a way to survive in a tough economy, much like Barnes & Noble with their foray into the eReader market and overhauling their special order service, while Borders stubbornly stuck to the brick-and-mortar business plan and suffered for it.
I respect companies that adapt to change... that find ways to soldier on in the face of adversity. Especially when the marketplace is like it is currently and not just changing in minor ways, but completely revolutionizing itself. When a company can find a way to stay viable and stay solvent during these kinds of crises, it impresses me.
Sadly, if today's announcement is any indication, it seems like Netflix is not handling the change well. I've been a faithful subscriber for many years and have never really had a problem with their service... until now. I would rather deal with price adjustments; I can understand and respect that. What I can't understand is alienating and pissing off existing customers by changing the way they interact with your business, just to address some obscure goal (which doesn't really address your real problem) in the first place.
I sure hope Netflix figures it out sooner rather than later. It would be a shame to see such a great service tank because of such stupid decisions. 
|
September 11, 2011 at 2:53pm September 11, 2011 at 2:53pm
| |
It's been awhile since I've ranted about anything in my blog, so here goes (you've been warned  ):
What really gets to me is when the media blows something completely out of proportion, just so they have something to talk about. I'm sure living in a big city exacerbates the problem, but it seems like every time I turn on the news or read an article, everybody's jumping to extreme conclusions just so there's something to talk about in what would otherwise be a relatively brief and unforgettable moment.
Take the case of Roger Federer for example. (I'm using tennis because the U.S. Open is wrapping up.) Despite what you may think of the man personally, or perhaps more accurately, whether you buy into the "Greatest of All Time" argument or not, there's no question that the man has had an exceptional tennis career. He holds the following records (most grand slam titles (16), most consecutive weeks at number one (237), most consecutive grand slam titles (5 Wimbledon, 5 U.S. Open), most consecutive semifinal appearances (23... the previous record was 10), most consecutive quarterfinal appearance (30 - and still counting), one of only seven players to win a career grand slam (winning all four grand slam events), and trust me... the list goes on and on. If not truly the greatest tennis player of all time, certainly one of the greatest, and definitely the most consistent.
The problem is now Roger's on the back nine of his career. He just turned 30 this year, he has a family now, and there's not a whole lot left in tennis that he hasn't accomplished. He's not displaying the sheer dominance that he did in his best years where he was all but unbeatable, and now every time he loses a match, commentators and journalists start talking about how he's finished. How he'll never win another slam or how he just doesn't have what it takes anymore.
The thing is, he's still regularly making it to the quarterfinals or semifinals... which means he's making it into the final eight (or four) players from a competition that starts with 128... every single time. He's still the #3 ranked player in the world, and when he loses, it's rarely to anyone who's not the #1 or #2 player (both of whom are six years younger than he is and in the prime of their careers), and almost never to anyone outside the Top 15 players. Most importantly, it's not like the matches are complete blowouts either. Yesterday's semifinal against Novak Djokovic went to 7-5 in the fifth set... one game short of a deciding tiebreaker. Federer even held match points toward the end (but couldn't convert). Djokovic, by comparison, is 24 years old and... at 63-2 with 10 (possibly 11 if he win the U.S. Open on Monday) titles... is having one of the most astounding years in tennis history. And Federer almost beat him. Djokovic has been decimating opponents left and right, and Federer nearly beat him yesterday. Not to mention that one of those two losses was the work of Federer. (The other one was a retirement, which means Federer is actually the only one to have beaten him outright this year).
Sure, maybe Roger's not #1 at the moment, and maybe he's not dominating every event like he used to... but he's still right up there with the best players in the world. So the fact that he just barely lost a semifinal match to the #1 player in the world... or that 2011 is the first year since 2002 that he hasn't won a grand slam... is a bit premature to say that his career is all but over. And yet, the commentators and the media... every time he loses a match or doesn't win a title, starts talking about how his days are numbered. I just don't understand why it always has to be all or nothing. You're either the best of the best, or you might as well throw in the towel. There is no middle ground anymore.
But sensationalism isn't just in sports and for competitive athletes.
In 2005, there was a train wreck in Glendale, California that involved someone abandoning their vehicle on the tracks. Supposedly, the vehicle's owner intended to commit suicide, then changed his mind and abandoned the vehicle on the tracks. Unfortunately, it was on the tracks of a commuter train, which was derailed and killed 11 people. It was a pretty awful incident, but it was made infinitely worse by the local news stations, one of which even had a "Killer Train Week" where they had all kinds of interviews and special reports about how dangerous trains are... including a live re-enactment of an old train running into a car and derailing. All week they talked about how dangerous trains are, and how trains need to be made less dangerous for the public's safety... all because there was an awful train wreck that was caused by an idiot parking his car across the tracks. It boggled my mind that they basically downplayed the entire accident itself, because they were more interested in scaring the hell out of people about train safety.
And then, of course, there was Carmageddon.
If you didn't hear about that, the busiest freeway in the United States is Los Angeles' 405 Freeway, which sees more than half a million cars a day drive over it. They needed to close the freeway to work on an overpass. The freeway was closed from Friday night at midnight to the middle of the night on Sunday night... well outside the window for commuter traffic. Naturally, they made announcements months in advance, advising people to stay away from the freeway that weekend. But as it got closer, the media started releasing reports that sent people into a frenzy. People were theorizing that you'd get stuck on the freeway for twelve hours if you ran into traffic; hospitals put up their doctors and nurses in nearby hotels so they wouldn't have to drive home; some people rented helicopters to get them around town that weekend; even the mayor told people to get out of town if they could, or at least avoid leaving the house, as if it we were in a state of emergency or something.
I think it's sad that people feel the need to play up stories, jump to conclusions, and stir people up. I miss the times when the news was just the news... objective reporting and semi-objective reporting, where the goal was to inform rather than to scare, rile, agitate, or concern.
|
September 1, 2011 at 3:38am September 1, 2011 at 3:38am
| |
I was helping my wife look for videos for her class tonight and I came across the following motivational/inspirational video, about what it takes to become really successful:
Thought it was worth sharing. |
© Copyright 2025 Jeff (UN: jeff at Writing.Com). All rights reserved.
Jeff has granted InkSpot.Com, its affiliates and its syndicates non-exclusive rights to display this work.
|
Comment • View 3 comments 
