Part I: Luxury Demands, Commodity Pocketbooks
Part II: "I'm just looking"
Part III: Introducing the new....
News is coming out hot and heavy that Apple is going to be releasing the 8th version of their popular iPhone. This has techies in a craze over the details and wonders that promise to make this version WAY more advanced than anything prior.
That's the buzz anyway, the reality is that cell phones have advanced remarkably little since the introduction of the first iPhone yet prices for them have increasingly skyrocketed.
This runs counter to other trends in tech, where prices seem to drop fairly rapidly. (Priced a 4K HDTV lately?) In fact, I will argue that tech is the one consumer area where Americans will pay a premium consistently for a brand. (Cell phones, not tech in general) Even personal computers lack 'traditional' brand loyalty.
We're seeing a raft of new tech items that sure look nice, but don't seem to DO a whole lot. Again, we've stagnated. When the biggest news about the iPhone 7 was that they eliminated the headphone jack you know something is amiss.
Apple has been the master of this, convincing people they need the new flashy toy without actually explaining what it does that's all that different, but other companies are gaining ground. Samsung (who currently makes the best cellphone in my opinion) has, to date, given me little reason to pay an increasing price for the S8 which doesn't appear to offer more in functionality than does my current S7.
Motorola is now offering extensions, which supposedly turn your phone into a 70 inch television screen, or a DSLR camera, but doesn't seem to have bridged the gap of providing a battery that will either watch an entire movie or take more than a handful of pictures. Browing the Internet on your phone? Good luck. Battery drain falls quicker than Hillary Clinton's Presidential hopes on election night.
The newest doo-dad is the so-called "digital assistant" who can play music for you, turn on the lights, order pizza (and pay for it, if you load a credit card into it's memory [which can be hacked]) and...what actually?
Yes, they're cute little dots, but I can't help but be reminded a little bit of the Dr. Who episode where all of the black cubes appeared on Earth. We already have invented AI that's created it's own language, and while I think the "SkyNet" doomsayers are being more than a little silly, it's not too hard to imagine a day where less of our day to day decisions are made by us rather than computes.
And that's the danger. We've already accepted a world where we allow politicians, marketers and big business to make many decisions for us, (Think about that, complete strangers that you're letting run your life) is it much of a stretch to think that computers running complex algorithms could going forward?
Unlike clothes or cars or foodstuffs, tech is sold to us with the promise that it will make our lives easier, that not having it makes one a Luddite and is akin to Ted Kascinsky sitting in that damn cabin slowly, inexorably going insane. And we're buying into it.
Possibly at the risk of everything else. Including our common sense. Which we've outsourced to the government, which is a problem I'll address in the next chapter.
Showing posts with label BadBusiness. Show all posts
Showing posts with label BadBusiness. Show all posts
Monday, September 11, 2017
Sunday, September 10, 2017
BadBusiness: Introducing the new..... (Part III of ?)
Part I: Luxury Demands, Commodity Pocketbooks
Part II: "I'm just looking"
A couple of years back I decided to buy a new car. My old Mazda3 was getting up in miles and was starting to show signs of age. I thought the transmission might be going out, the interior was pretty worn and it was just time.
Since i hadn't been in the car market for almost 10 years (I hold onto cars) I thought that test-driving almost everything in the style I wanted, a 4-door sedan, would be the way to go. I started off heading to dealerships, getting harangued (while I typically like good customer service I would not qualify what happens at car dealerships to be such) and finally heading out on a pre-determined course to highlight what each car did well before coming back to the dealership to be hard-sold on a vehicle in which I had little interest.
As I drove, I was noticing a disturbing trend. All of the cars that I was driving felt and looked, minus a few obvious cosmetic differences, almost exactly the same. (Ignoring the Nissan Altima obviously, which is a piece of automotive crap) The Kia Optima was indistinguishable from the Hyndai Sonata, which felt remarkably like the Chevy Malibu, which was remarkably similar to the Ford Focus. I even test-drove a Mercedes CLA 250 which was remarkably similar in form to all of the above. (albeit around $10K more expensive.)
Of all the cars the CLA was the most disappointing. I LOVE Mercedes, I consider them to be some of the finest machines on the road. And what they have created is a middling front-wheel drive sedan with the tri-star badge. It was horrible.
I eventually settled on the Subaru Legacy, in large part, because the driving position was insanely comfortable and the cabin was a nice place to be. I have not regretted that decision, but I worry that the next time I go to purchase a vehicle it will be even worse.
We've entered a moment in consumer history where companies have figured out that they can spin less as more provided they make the price point right. Technologically we've stagnated, and that's in large part because the consumer has decided that the price point is king. Granted, this is not true in all cases. There is such as thing as "label envy" where people will pay more for a "name brand", but in many cases (as with the CLA) the upmarket badge doesn't provide any additional quality.
Louis Vuitton is a prime example of this. They are faux luxury, the victory of marketing over substance. In reality thy make bags of middling quality and unimaginative design that people will pay a premium for because they think it makes them look wealthy. No it doesn't, it just makes you look like you've got the measles.
Despite their upmarket reputation however LV items can be had for cheap. Yes, there are knock-offs, but there are also discount bins at outlet malls and you even find their stuff at Costco. Now, I like Costco, even have a membership there, but there is nothing about the place that screams 'luxury'. In fact, there's nothing about Louis Vuitton that screams it either.
In fact, you name the 'luxury' brand and I'll show you where quality has fallen. Tommy Hilfiger? They used to make GREAT dress shirts, now their items of OK quality for the masses. Polo? Except for their top-end 'couture' lines they're the same. Coach? There's better leather out there, Cadillac? They are responsible for the Escalade, a gigantic waste of tarmac. I've already spoken about Mercedes (except for the S class obviously) and even BMW has fallen off of late. Audi's are basically 4WD Volkswagens (and you can't buy one lest you be branded a prat) even Lamborgini is owned by VW, which is a crime.
Yes, I know, there's still Ferrari, but you can't afford one of those anyway, and I wouldn't drive one on the streets of Houston even if I could.
In fact, very little that is out there today can really be called "luxury" with a straight face. And when someone tries to produce a luxury item they're soon slapped in the face by the realities of market demand.
Consider this: After performing many upgrades to their first and business class services airlines are already starting to pare them back. The reason for this? For the most part they're giving it away as upgrades as the American traveler refuses to pay premium prices for a premium product.
The notable exception to this trend is technology, but I think there are more problems there which I'll discuss next.
Part II: "I'm just looking"
A couple of years back I decided to buy a new car. My old Mazda3 was getting up in miles and was starting to show signs of age. I thought the transmission might be going out, the interior was pretty worn and it was just time.
Since i hadn't been in the car market for almost 10 years (I hold onto cars) I thought that test-driving almost everything in the style I wanted, a 4-door sedan, would be the way to go. I started off heading to dealerships, getting harangued (while I typically like good customer service I would not qualify what happens at car dealerships to be such) and finally heading out on a pre-determined course to highlight what each car did well before coming back to the dealership to be hard-sold on a vehicle in which I had little interest.
As I drove, I was noticing a disturbing trend. All of the cars that I was driving felt and looked, minus a few obvious cosmetic differences, almost exactly the same. (Ignoring the Nissan Altima obviously, which is a piece of automotive crap) The Kia Optima was indistinguishable from the Hyndai Sonata, which felt remarkably like the Chevy Malibu, which was remarkably similar to the Ford Focus. I even test-drove a Mercedes CLA 250 which was remarkably similar in form to all of the above. (albeit around $10K more expensive.)
Of all the cars the CLA was the most disappointing. I LOVE Mercedes, I consider them to be some of the finest machines on the road. And what they have created is a middling front-wheel drive sedan with the tri-star badge. It was horrible.
I eventually settled on the Subaru Legacy, in large part, because the driving position was insanely comfortable and the cabin was a nice place to be. I have not regretted that decision, but I worry that the next time I go to purchase a vehicle it will be even worse.
We've entered a moment in consumer history where companies have figured out that they can spin less as more provided they make the price point right. Technologically we've stagnated, and that's in large part because the consumer has decided that the price point is king. Granted, this is not true in all cases. There is such as thing as "label envy" where people will pay more for a "name brand", but in many cases (as with the CLA) the upmarket badge doesn't provide any additional quality.
Louis Vuitton is a prime example of this. They are faux luxury, the victory of marketing over substance. In reality thy make bags of middling quality and unimaginative design that people will pay a premium for because they think it makes them look wealthy. No it doesn't, it just makes you look like you've got the measles.
Despite their upmarket reputation however LV items can be had for cheap. Yes, there are knock-offs, but there are also discount bins at outlet malls and you even find their stuff at Costco. Now, I like Costco, even have a membership there, but there is nothing about the place that screams 'luxury'. In fact, there's nothing about Louis Vuitton that screams it either.
In fact, you name the 'luxury' brand and I'll show you where quality has fallen. Tommy Hilfiger? They used to make GREAT dress shirts, now their items of OK quality for the masses. Polo? Except for their top-end 'couture' lines they're the same. Coach? There's better leather out there, Cadillac? They are responsible for the Escalade, a gigantic waste of tarmac. I've already spoken about Mercedes (except for the S class obviously) and even BMW has fallen off of late. Audi's are basically 4WD Volkswagens (and you can't buy one lest you be branded a prat) even Lamborgini is owned by VW, which is a crime.
Yes, I know, there's still Ferrari, but you can't afford one of those anyway, and I wouldn't drive one on the streets of Houston even if I could.
In fact, very little that is out there today can really be called "luxury" with a straight face. And when someone tries to produce a luxury item they're soon slapped in the face by the realities of market demand.
Consider this: After performing many upgrades to their first and business class services airlines are already starting to pare them back. The reason for this? For the most part they're giving it away as upgrades as the American traveler refuses to pay premium prices for a premium product.
The notable exception to this trend is technology, but I think there are more problems there which I'll discuss next.
Saturday, September 09, 2017
BadBusiness: "I'm just looking" (Part II of ?)
Part I: Luxury Demands, Commodity Pocketbooks
In part one I discussed American's wanting the allusion of luxury at a low price. Today I want to discuss how this, in part, has led to the death of retail. I'm not suggesting what follows 100% killed the industry, but it was a big contributing factor.
As Americans have gone for "cheap at all costs" in retail, automobiles, airfares etc. two things have happened.
1. Customer service has died.
2. Pride in ownership has faded.
I want to take a minute to discuss issue 1 here, because it's been something that I've especially noticed both living in Houston and traveling.
The WORST trend in retail is price matching. The person who invented the price match should be drawn, quartered and have their brain examined for signs of CTE.
The problem with price matching is that not all goods are created equal, and not all stores are created equal either. A boutique store selling Polo shirts should provide a higher level of customer service than would Wal-Mart selling made in Mumblistan knock-offs. As well they should. But when that store decides they have to compete on price with said retail giant, they then have to cut their staffing budget and Henri the tailor is replaced by Stephen the 18 year-old who could take it or leave it whether you buy that shirt.
When customer service goes the way of the Dodo, there's no reason for Marcus' Haberdashery to continue to exist. Contrary to popular belief, it wasn't online shopping that did in retailers such as JC Penney and Sears, it was the rise of Marshall's and Ross and other off-price retailers, and outlet malls. The simple fact of the matter is that JC Penney still offers a good line of store-label clothing, but they have chosen to price it as though it's being sold at Wal-Mart or other discount retailers. As a result of this their customer service is atrocious. As a matter of fact, it can be worse than atrocious during busy hours. And I say that as a fan.
Other industries have followed suit. Airlines have stripped their planes bare, cut down on food choices (including in First Class) and have generally made the flying experience a pathetic one in an effort to offer the lowest fare possible, in many cases this is the only fare they can offer.
It used to be that you could find a nice wine store, complete with a licensed Sommelier, who could assist you in navigating the weird world of Cabernet Sauvignon, Cabernet Franc and *shudder* Sauvignon Blanc. Now you probably purchase most of your wine at the grocery store. Have a question about a wine-growing region or a certain vintage? Yeah good luck. And don't count on those bottles having been properly stored either. Not that many Americans know, sweet wines still being the number one seller.
Even liquor and beer fall into the trap. Total Wine & More has just moved into the Houston area. They are widely considered to be the Wal-Mart of the liquor industry, moving in, offering certain high-demand items at bargain prices (they have tremendous buying power due to their national footprint) and running existing stores out of business because they cannot compete on price.
Once upon a time, they could compete on service (The customer service at TW&M is horrible FWIW) but now they can't because the customer doesn't care. Americans have allowed themselves to become a commodity themselves. Sure we throw up airs, post on social media, feign outrage when we feel we've been slighted, but in reality what people are really looking for in this case is a few moments attention and (hopefully) a bucket of free shit.
This idea has caused several companies to pack it in. It used to be that, when you entered a store, a sales rep was immediately there offering assistance. After years of being angrily shouted at "I'm just looking!" most companies have abandoned this tactic and now only employ some cashier and stock personnel, whose job it is to clean up the messes that customers leave behind. If you think things look bad after a hurricane, walk into a clothing store during a holiday sale. It's bad enough that they should be declared disaster areas.
The take-away from this is that, while it's hip and trendy to blame Wal-Mart, or the airlines, or the "Internet" for ruining things the fact is that we brought all of this on ourselves. We demanded, through our buying habits, that companies race-to-the-bottom and offer less and less and less in the way of customer experience.
After they cut out any semblance of service, the next step was to decrease the quality, which is something I'll discuss next.
In part one I discussed American's wanting the allusion of luxury at a low price. Today I want to discuss how this, in part, has led to the death of retail. I'm not suggesting what follows 100% killed the industry, but it was a big contributing factor.
As Americans have gone for "cheap at all costs" in retail, automobiles, airfares etc. two things have happened.
1. Customer service has died.
2. Pride in ownership has faded.
I want to take a minute to discuss issue 1 here, because it's been something that I've especially noticed both living in Houston and traveling.
The WORST trend in retail is price matching. The person who invented the price match should be drawn, quartered and have their brain examined for signs of CTE.
The problem with price matching is that not all goods are created equal, and not all stores are created equal either. A boutique store selling Polo shirts should provide a higher level of customer service than would Wal-Mart selling made in Mumblistan knock-offs. As well they should. But when that store decides they have to compete on price with said retail giant, they then have to cut their staffing budget and Henri the tailor is replaced by Stephen the 18 year-old who could take it or leave it whether you buy that shirt.
When customer service goes the way of the Dodo, there's no reason for Marcus' Haberdashery to continue to exist. Contrary to popular belief, it wasn't online shopping that did in retailers such as JC Penney and Sears, it was the rise of Marshall's and Ross and other off-price retailers, and outlet malls. The simple fact of the matter is that JC Penney still offers a good line of store-label clothing, but they have chosen to price it as though it's being sold at Wal-Mart or other discount retailers. As a result of this their customer service is atrocious. As a matter of fact, it can be worse than atrocious during busy hours. And I say that as a fan.
Other industries have followed suit. Airlines have stripped their planes bare, cut down on food choices (including in First Class) and have generally made the flying experience a pathetic one in an effort to offer the lowest fare possible, in many cases this is the only fare they can offer.
It used to be that you could find a nice wine store, complete with a licensed Sommelier, who could assist you in navigating the weird world of Cabernet Sauvignon, Cabernet Franc and *shudder* Sauvignon Blanc. Now you probably purchase most of your wine at the grocery store. Have a question about a wine-growing region or a certain vintage? Yeah good luck. And don't count on those bottles having been properly stored either. Not that many Americans know, sweet wines still being the number one seller.
Even liquor and beer fall into the trap. Total Wine & More has just moved into the Houston area. They are widely considered to be the Wal-Mart of the liquor industry, moving in, offering certain high-demand items at bargain prices (they have tremendous buying power due to their national footprint) and running existing stores out of business because they cannot compete on price.
Once upon a time, they could compete on service (The customer service at TW&M is horrible FWIW) but now they can't because the customer doesn't care. Americans have allowed themselves to become a commodity themselves. Sure we throw up airs, post on social media, feign outrage when we feel we've been slighted, but in reality what people are really looking for in this case is a few moments attention and (hopefully) a bucket of free shit.
This idea has caused several companies to pack it in. It used to be that, when you entered a store, a sales rep was immediately there offering assistance. After years of being angrily shouted at "I'm just looking!" most companies have abandoned this tactic and now only employ some cashier and stock personnel, whose job it is to clean up the messes that customers leave behind. If you think things look bad after a hurricane, walk into a clothing store during a holiday sale. It's bad enough that they should be declared disaster areas.
The take-away from this is that, while it's hip and trendy to blame Wal-Mart, or the airlines, or the "Internet" for ruining things the fact is that we brought all of this on ourselves. We demanded, through our buying habits, that companies race-to-the-bottom and offer less and less and less in the way of customer experience.
After they cut out any semblance of service, the next step was to decrease the quality, which is something I'll discuss next.
Friday, September 08, 2017
BadBusiness: Luxury Demands, Commodity Pocketbooks. (Part I of ?)
I ran across a pretty interesting article on Inc.com the other day that made me think.
The Really Comfortable Plane That Airlines Just Don't Want to Buy. Inc.com
The story is about the Bombardier C-Series commercial jet. The C-Series is, by all accounts, a marvel. It's got wider aisles, wider middle seats, more space between rows, and the airlines aren't interested.
Not because they're a bunch of sadists who like to see passengers cramp-up due to lack of circulation mid-flight, or because they're clueless (although the media would certainly like you to think they are). Nope, they don't want to buy this plane because they, rightfully, understand that the vast majority of American passengers won't pay even a small premium to fly on one.
And that's a big problem in American consumer culture right now. We've been led to believe, by Madison Avenue, that we have champagne tastes when we're actually running on a Mad Dog 20/20 budget.
Yes, Americans demand nice "stuff", but they demand that "stuff" at bargain basement prices. This has led to two things:
1. True luxury goods becoming more and more scarce, especially in America
2. Faux-luxury taking its place.
For example: If you travel to Las Vegas, as I do often, you see brand names selling wares that are decidedly not cheap. The Europeans and Asian tourists flock to these stores (Prada, David Yurman, etc.) and buy one or two pieces before spending the rest of the evening playing Baccarat and quaffing Champagne by the bottle. American tourists are hitting up the sales rack at Tommy, various "off-label" stores offering cheap knock-offs of designer goods while standing in line to play $5 blackjack, the shitty $5 "Sands" Roulette wheel and penny slots. They then go to White Castle or some restaurant with a celebrity chef's name emblazoned on it to try a "seasonal" tasting menu that doesn't change year-round.
An American might walk into Prada, but will run out once he/she sees that the shoes have a price tag of over $1000. (Full disclosure: I'm not a fan of Prada, I don't find their designs all that practical or enticing) And this is in 'see and be seen" Vegas, where 7 For All Mankind and Lucky Brand jeans are still a thing.
Go to a city like Houston and luxury goods in the Galleria are jumped on by tourists from (again) Europe, Asia and South America. (The Galleria in Houston being one of the most multi-lingual malls in America I'm betting) while locals head to one of the many "outlet malls" to fill up bags full of Tommy Hilfiger, Polo and US Polo Association.
But those aren't even the REAL Hilfiger, Polo, or Brooks Brother's items. They're outlet mall knock-offs usually made in Vietnam.
The important thing is that they are cheap, and plentiful. And if America likes anything it's cheap and plentiful goods. See Wal-Mart for an example of that.
This race to the bottom of the price structure has led to two bad trends. Trends that I'll discuss further in Part II of this series.
The Really Comfortable Plane That Airlines Just Don't Want to Buy. Inc.com
The story is about the Bombardier C-Series commercial jet. The C-Series is, by all accounts, a marvel. It's got wider aisles, wider middle seats, more space between rows, and the airlines aren't interested.
Not because they're a bunch of sadists who like to see passengers cramp-up due to lack of circulation mid-flight, or because they're clueless (although the media would certainly like you to think they are). Nope, they don't want to buy this plane because they, rightfully, understand that the vast majority of American passengers won't pay even a small premium to fly on one.
And that's a big problem in American consumer culture right now. We've been led to believe, by Madison Avenue, that we have champagne tastes when we're actually running on a Mad Dog 20/20 budget.
Yes, Americans demand nice "stuff", but they demand that "stuff" at bargain basement prices. This has led to two things:
1. True luxury goods becoming more and more scarce, especially in America
2. Faux-luxury taking its place.
For example: If you travel to Las Vegas, as I do often, you see brand names selling wares that are decidedly not cheap. The Europeans and Asian tourists flock to these stores (Prada, David Yurman, etc.) and buy one or two pieces before spending the rest of the evening playing Baccarat and quaffing Champagne by the bottle. American tourists are hitting up the sales rack at Tommy, various "off-label" stores offering cheap knock-offs of designer goods while standing in line to play $5 blackjack, the shitty $5 "Sands" Roulette wheel and penny slots. They then go to White Castle or some restaurant with a celebrity chef's name emblazoned on it to try a "seasonal" tasting menu that doesn't change year-round.
An American might walk into Prada, but will run out once he/she sees that the shoes have a price tag of over $1000. (Full disclosure: I'm not a fan of Prada, I don't find their designs all that practical or enticing) And this is in 'see and be seen" Vegas, where 7 For All Mankind and Lucky Brand jeans are still a thing.
Go to a city like Houston and luxury goods in the Galleria are jumped on by tourists from (again) Europe, Asia and South America. (The Galleria in Houston being one of the most multi-lingual malls in America I'm betting) while locals head to one of the many "outlet malls" to fill up bags full of Tommy Hilfiger, Polo and US Polo Association.
But those aren't even the REAL Hilfiger, Polo, or Brooks Brother's items. They're outlet mall knock-offs usually made in Vietnam.
The important thing is that they are cheap, and plentiful. And if America likes anything it's cheap and plentiful goods. See Wal-Mart for an example of that.
This race to the bottom of the price structure has led to two bad trends. Trends that I'll discuss further in Part II of this series.
Tuesday, January 19, 2016
The Oscars: Some of Us Have Been Boycotting them for Years.
I make it a point to be otherwise occupied on Oscar Night. It's the same for the Grammy's, and the American Music Awards and the Golden Globes. I have, on rare occasions, watched the People's Choice awards however.
I have lived quite the happy life despite never watching the rather silly Men's Choice awards or anything that might have ever been awarded to Ben Affleck. I do, every year, make it a point to tune in to the Tony Awards. This is primarily due to the fact that, living in Houston, it is typically a few years before any new shows come to town.
I'm not a fan of award shows, especially in the entertainment industry. Typically all these become are chances for people to politely clap for winners that, in other circumstances, they would gladly shank, or an opportunity for someone with a Dramatic Arts degree to lecture us on International politics.
So I usually pass.
Because of that I can't really work up a can of care over this.....
Calls for boycott of Oscars grow over diversity of nominees. Jake Coyle, AP via Chron.com
Not the institutional racism, Of course that's a bother. I'm referring to the entirety of the Oscars themselves. The annual beauty pageant that the movie world throws itself in a vain attempt to assuage their raging Narcissism.
I can say that it would be nice if everyone learned to ignore them, if we didn't give two-shits what the actor just out of drug-rehab was wearing, whether or not Actor X showed up with Actor Y and if the wedding is back on or even if Penelope Cruz had a wardrobe malfunction exposing herself to the pathetic people over at TMZ for two seconds.
My idea is this.
Just keep making movies where things blow up, battles are fought and the CGI is good. You can also make dramas that tell good stories, and comedies that make me laugh. Just make sure that the drama doesn't get too much in the way of an action movie and, for the love of it all, please stop trying to lecture me on my morality in your movies. (I'm looking at you Matt Damon)
That the Oscars is a good-ol'-boys network staffed, predominantly, by wealthy Caucasian progressives should not surprise you, after all, many of those people are the same people who make up the ideological leadership of the increasingly (at the top) Caucasian Democratic Party.
So, yes, it was silly that Straight Outta Compton didn't get a nod, or that Idris Elba (who I would like to see be the next James Bond FWIW) didn't score a nomination and, in a perfect world, that kind of thing would change. I will also admit that it's telling, after last year's debacle, they were so tone deaf that they didn't even make a nod towards tokenism, which is what I thought they would do. Turns out, they couldn't even go that far.
But in many ways this is better, because now we have the opportunity to drop the charade that any of this crap matters. To stop pretending that the proclivities of some crusty old Hollywood insiders somehow tells us whether or not a movie is any good. To admit that, for the most part, their judgment on what's good or not really, and I mean REALLY, sucks. Ben Kingsley won an Oscar for Chrissakes and Peter Lorre never did. Neither did Edward G. Robinson which is criminal. American Sniper didn't even garner a nomination for Best Picture. While you're at it, go look at the winners of best picture over the last 20 years and the runners up. Then go look at the highest grossing movies of those years. The entire Oscar process is a long-running inside joke.
Why don't we take this opportunity not to call for separate but equal (as is Jada Pinkett Smith) but to call for and end to the silliness that is award season all together. We know what good acting is, and that Will Smith accomplished it in Concussion, that Denzel Washington should have been nominated many more times than he was and Mykelti Williamson should have won for Bubba Blue. We know all of this so having these awards shows take up television time is really a waste. Then we can take up the vacant space with more shows such as Galavant.
Well, except for the Tony Awards. Because without them those of us who don't live in New York might never get to see anything from Broadway other than Wicked and the Disney musicals.
As such, this is the last Oscar-related blog post that I hope to ever write.
I have lived quite the happy life despite never watching the rather silly Men's Choice awards or anything that might have ever been awarded to Ben Affleck. I do, every year, make it a point to tune in to the Tony Awards. This is primarily due to the fact that, living in Houston, it is typically a few years before any new shows come to town.
I'm not a fan of award shows, especially in the entertainment industry. Typically all these become are chances for people to politely clap for winners that, in other circumstances, they would gladly shank, or an opportunity for someone with a Dramatic Arts degree to lecture us on International politics.
So I usually pass.
Because of that I can't really work up a can of care over this.....
Calls for boycott of Oscars grow over diversity of nominees. Jake Coyle, AP via Chron.com
Not the institutional racism, Of course that's a bother. I'm referring to the entirety of the Oscars themselves. The annual beauty pageant that the movie world throws itself in a vain attempt to assuage their raging Narcissism.
I can say that it would be nice if everyone learned to ignore them, if we didn't give two-shits what the actor just out of drug-rehab was wearing, whether or not Actor X showed up with Actor Y and if the wedding is back on or even if Penelope Cruz had a wardrobe malfunction exposing herself to the pathetic people over at TMZ for two seconds.
My idea is this.
Just keep making movies where things blow up, battles are fought and the CGI is good. You can also make dramas that tell good stories, and comedies that make me laugh. Just make sure that the drama doesn't get too much in the way of an action movie and, for the love of it all, please stop trying to lecture me on my morality in your movies. (I'm looking at you Matt Damon)
That the Oscars is a good-ol'-boys network staffed, predominantly, by wealthy Caucasian progressives should not surprise you, after all, many of those people are the same people who make up the ideological leadership of the increasingly (at the top) Caucasian Democratic Party.
So, yes, it was silly that Straight Outta Compton didn't get a nod, or that Idris Elba (who I would like to see be the next James Bond FWIW) didn't score a nomination and, in a perfect world, that kind of thing would change. I will also admit that it's telling, after last year's debacle, they were so tone deaf that they didn't even make a nod towards tokenism, which is what I thought they would do. Turns out, they couldn't even go that far.
But in many ways this is better, because now we have the opportunity to drop the charade that any of this crap matters. To stop pretending that the proclivities of some crusty old Hollywood insiders somehow tells us whether or not a movie is any good. To admit that, for the most part, their judgment on what's good or not really, and I mean REALLY, sucks. Ben Kingsley won an Oscar for Chrissakes and Peter Lorre never did. Neither did Edward G. Robinson which is criminal. American Sniper didn't even garner a nomination for Best Picture. While you're at it, go look at the winners of best picture over the last 20 years and the runners up. Then go look at the highest grossing movies of those years. The entire Oscar process is a long-running inside joke.
Why don't we take this opportunity not to call for separate but equal (as is Jada Pinkett Smith) but to call for and end to the silliness that is award season all together. We know what good acting is, and that Will Smith accomplished it in Concussion, that Denzel Washington should have been nominated many more times than he was and Mykelti Williamson should have won for Bubba Blue. We know all of this so having these awards shows take up television time is really a waste. Then we can take up the vacant space with more shows such as Galavant.
Well, except for the Tony Awards. Because without them those of us who don't live in New York might never get to see anything from Broadway other than Wicked and the Disney musicals.
As such, this is the last Oscar-related blog post that I hope to ever write.
Friday, January 15, 2016
Houston Economy: Let's talk for a minute about the Oil and Gas Industry*.
Gloom & Doom.
If you read through the pages of the media all is gloom & doom as the oil industry reels from low prices caused by supply glut caused in part by a big slow-down in the global economy coupled with the refusal of any producing bloc to agree to cut back.
The details are much more complicated than that but in general that's a pretty accurate overview of what's going on right now.
At this point you might as "We're still drilling?" and the answer to that is "Yes, we are." Although it's at much lower levels than it was in a high-price environment. There are many reasons why a company might still be increasing production during a price environment such as this, lease obligations, sunk costs, contracts, marketing obligations, pipeline obligations etc. but a large part of it is that continued growth acts as a hedge to bottoming stock prices.
In short, market analysts expect companies to increase production at certain rates. Failure to hit these rates is generally seen as a "bad thing" in terms of market share and can result in the price of a company's stock free-falling.
The problem, as I see it, is when the cash-flow needed to continue development develops a conflict with the cash-flows needed to continue dividends to shareholders. Some companies will kill the dividend, some companies with kill growth. Both options will have a negative drag on stock price initially, but I believe that stopping development would be more beneficial to the long-term health of the market than would ending the dividend.
Granted, there is some development that companies cannot avoid. For example, most processing contracts with plants come with minimum volume requirements that the plants need to maintain efficiencies, the same goes for transportation contracts and pipelines. The operators of both the pipelines and the plants don't want to see their volumes reduced because it hurts their profit margins (their profit is based mainly on fees and tariffs, not on commodity price [plants are more sensitive to price fluctuations than pipelines, due to processing allowances etc.]). Because of this they have no incentive to work with producers to cut down on volumes.
Royalty owners (private) want to see more production as well. Already most private royalty owners are seeing their checks cut by almost 2/3rds from 2013/2014 levels. For most seniors living on a fixed income this is quite the shock to the system. The only way to hedge against this is for companies to continue drilling on their leases. However, owners of non-developed leases should be OK with companies waiting until higher margins can be found.
Finally, governments (yes, even the Federal Government) are pushing for increased production. State and Federal coffers are losing revenue to the point that they're seeking to re-write the rules to punish companies during market downturns and hedge their revenue from price fluctuations. In short, the Government still thinks that oil and gas royalties are annuities. As such they're writing new rules and leases (including Texas FWIW) which could serve to further retard exploration on government lands even IF the price returns to $50-$60/Bbl since they would make other opportunities more profitable.
I've said before that the companies who did not take on a lot of debt, and who had discipline when signing leases and agreements would have the flexibility to ride this out. Those companies who lost sight of fundamentals, or who bought high and at poor terms to get into rich areas, will shortly be paying the price. For all of the talk of bankruptcies etc. what you're more likely to see is a wave of mergers and acquisitions now that so-called "big oil" has purged it's balance sheets of non-core assets.
Yes, this will mean a loss of jobs, damage to the local real-estate markets as homes are lost and offices consolidate, but it will also mean a stronger, leaner Oil and Gas industry on the other side. While this also means that Houston Region is in for some tough times, it could be doubly tough for the City of Houston as more and more companies seek to operate in the much-cheaper suburbs.
Oil and Gas companies are currently bringing their costs in-line with a protracted low-price environment, something they have the ability to do right now because they DID learn their lessons from previous boom/bust cycles. The companies that didn't learn will soon be gone, their assets purchased by the survivors.
Remember that when you read the gloom and doom stories and the chastisements that another boom was "pissed away" because it wasn't. Anyone suggesting otherwise is telling you a lie.
*Note: As I've stated many times before: I am employed by an Oil and Gas firm in Houston. Some might call this bias, I would suggest that it's insight.
If you read through the pages of the media all is gloom & doom as the oil industry reels from low prices caused by supply glut caused in part by a big slow-down in the global economy coupled with the refusal of any producing bloc to agree to cut back.
The details are much more complicated than that but in general that's a pretty accurate overview of what's going on right now.
At this point you might as "We're still drilling?" and the answer to that is "Yes, we are." Although it's at much lower levels than it was in a high-price environment. There are many reasons why a company might still be increasing production during a price environment such as this, lease obligations, sunk costs, contracts, marketing obligations, pipeline obligations etc. but a large part of it is that continued growth acts as a hedge to bottoming stock prices.
In short, market analysts expect companies to increase production at certain rates. Failure to hit these rates is generally seen as a "bad thing" in terms of market share and can result in the price of a company's stock free-falling.
The problem, as I see it, is when the cash-flow needed to continue development develops a conflict with the cash-flows needed to continue dividends to shareholders. Some companies will kill the dividend, some companies with kill growth. Both options will have a negative drag on stock price initially, but I believe that stopping development would be more beneficial to the long-term health of the market than would ending the dividend.
Granted, there is some development that companies cannot avoid. For example, most processing contracts with plants come with minimum volume requirements that the plants need to maintain efficiencies, the same goes for transportation contracts and pipelines. The operators of both the pipelines and the plants don't want to see their volumes reduced because it hurts their profit margins (their profit is based mainly on fees and tariffs, not on commodity price [plants are more sensitive to price fluctuations than pipelines, due to processing allowances etc.]). Because of this they have no incentive to work with producers to cut down on volumes.
Royalty owners (private) want to see more production as well. Already most private royalty owners are seeing their checks cut by almost 2/3rds from 2013/2014 levels. For most seniors living on a fixed income this is quite the shock to the system. The only way to hedge against this is for companies to continue drilling on their leases. However, owners of non-developed leases should be OK with companies waiting until higher margins can be found.
Finally, governments (yes, even the Federal Government) are pushing for increased production. State and Federal coffers are losing revenue to the point that they're seeking to re-write the rules to punish companies during market downturns and hedge their revenue from price fluctuations. In short, the Government still thinks that oil and gas royalties are annuities. As such they're writing new rules and leases (including Texas FWIW) which could serve to further retard exploration on government lands even IF the price returns to $50-$60/Bbl since they would make other opportunities more profitable.
I've said before that the companies who did not take on a lot of debt, and who had discipline when signing leases and agreements would have the flexibility to ride this out. Those companies who lost sight of fundamentals, or who bought high and at poor terms to get into rich areas, will shortly be paying the price. For all of the talk of bankruptcies etc. what you're more likely to see is a wave of mergers and acquisitions now that so-called "big oil" has purged it's balance sheets of non-core assets.
Yes, this will mean a loss of jobs, damage to the local real-estate markets as homes are lost and offices consolidate, but it will also mean a stronger, leaner Oil and Gas industry on the other side. While this also means that Houston Region is in for some tough times, it could be doubly tough for the City of Houston as more and more companies seek to operate in the much-cheaper suburbs.
Oil and Gas companies are currently bringing their costs in-line with a protracted low-price environment, something they have the ability to do right now because they DID learn their lessons from previous boom/bust cycles. The companies that didn't learn will soon be gone, their assets purchased by the survivors.
Remember that when you read the gloom and doom stories and the chastisements that another boom was "pissed away" because it wasn't. Anyone suggesting otherwise is telling you a lie.
*Note: As I've stated many times before: I am employed by an Oil and Gas firm in Houston. Some might call this bias, I would suggest that it's insight.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)