In the meantime, Baltimore fans can order a Joe Flacco Ravens Jersey today!
Tags:
Sunday, April 27, 2008
Ravens climb on the Blue Hen train and take Joe Flacco in the first round
Unlike the Eagles, who ignited a media frenzy in last year's draft when they decided not to trade up to get Derek Anderson's backup and Notre Dame alumni, Brady Quinn, and instead chose to get Kevin Kolb, the Ravens decided to pull the trigger and trade up and secure a new franchise quarterback, University of Delaware's own Joe Flacco. Guess the Eagles are still confident with McNabb, with their future resting on the shoulders and arm of Kolb. We'll see who gets back to the Superbowl faster.
In the meantime, Baltimore fans can order a Joe Flacco Ravens Jersey today!
In the meantime, Baltimore fans can order a Joe Flacco Ravens Jersey today!
Thursday, April 24, 2008
Out of state travels limit my internet access
I have a brief chance to hop on the internet this morning, but haven't had time lately to see what is going on back home in Delaware. I am due back Sunday. Maybe this budget crisis will be resolved by then.
Tuesday, April 15, 2008
Like your tunes? Better make sure someone has paid for them - copyright crackdown in Delaware bars
The News Journal recently posted an article regarding the enforcement of musical copyright in some upstate bars. Basically, the copyright owners of certain music acts and groups have decided that these delinquent bar owners have ignored their calls for a license to play their music long enough. Because of the importance of copyright and paying for things that people worked hard for, businesses that feature music need to be aware that the copyright man cometh. And you thought the tax man was bad.
These licenses, according to the article, run a business between $1,400 and $1,900 each to the respective copyright groups. Granted, for how much profiteering these companies probably have made in the years they failed to get a license, the cost is minimal. In these hard economic times, however, the licenses may be cost prohibitive. While I've never given any thought to who pays for the music at a bar, it does make sense given the adage that "nothing in life is free."
Can some sort of medium between the copyright owners and the barkeeps be found? Probably, but the answer isn't going to please these bar owners by any means. Is this going to have an effect on bars, such as Lobby House or Irish Eyes that feature weekly trivia games and DJ-hosts playing music from their laptops in between questions? One would think. Are the bars going to react positively or negatively to the threat of having to actually pay for entertainment? I think the answer to that one is pretty clear.
So what results? Either these bars pony up for the license and pass the costs onto those who frequent the establishment (or those who set up those fun karaoke nights) or they are going to have to figure out another way to attract the young and entitled MTV generation. Some things may work, such as setting up Guitar Hero nights and hope that Gibson doesn't bring a lawsuit against them. Other ideas might work, such as hiring more live bands (unlikely beyond the beach zones and the shortage of local bands that can be a draw), forcing the DJs to pay a percentage of the license costs (which will in turn force DJs to have to show that they are properly licensed and pass those costs onto the bar), installing more jukeboxes (that do not have burned CDs in them), or switching to some sort of satellite radio system (that may or may not be covered by these laws). In all likelihood, though, I foresee drink specials becoming even stingier than they already are if these bars are boxed into the corner of the first option.
The final score of this battle? Wasn't there a similar outcry when the smoking ban went into effect? I think the edge goes to the copyright owners.
These licenses, according to the article, run a business between $1,400 and $1,900 each to the respective copyright groups. Granted, for how much profiteering these companies probably have made in the years they failed to get a license, the cost is minimal. In these hard economic times, however, the licenses may be cost prohibitive. While I've never given any thought to who pays for the music at a bar, it does make sense given the adage that "nothing in life is free."
Can some sort of medium between the copyright owners and the barkeeps be found? Probably, but the answer isn't going to please these bar owners by any means. Is this going to have an effect on bars, such as Lobby House or Irish Eyes that feature weekly trivia games and DJ-hosts playing music from their laptops in between questions? One would think. Are the bars going to react positively or negatively to the threat of having to actually pay for entertainment? I think the answer to that one is pretty clear.
So what results? Either these bars pony up for the license and pass the costs onto those who frequent the establishment (or those who set up those fun karaoke nights) or they are going to have to figure out another way to attract the young and entitled MTV generation. Some things may work, such as setting up Guitar Hero nights and hope that Gibson doesn't bring a lawsuit against them. Other ideas might work, such as hiring more live bands (unlikely beyond the beach zones and the shortage of local bands that can be a draw), forcing the DJs to pay a percentage of the license costs (which will in turn force DJs to have to show that they are properly licensed and pass those costs onto the bar), installing more jukeboxes (that do not have burned CDs in them), or switching to some sort of satellite radio system (that may or may not be covered by these laws). In all likelihood, though, I foresee drink specials becoming even stingier than they already are if these bars are boxed into the corner of the first option.
The final score of this battle? Wasn't there a similar outcry when the smoking ban went into effect? I think the edge goes to the copyright owners.
Tags:
Thursday, April 10, 2008
UD wants to start a satellite in Sussex County - why not merge with DelTech?
I admit I haven't read the article in full nor the proposal, but I would hope that the fact that University of Delaware wants to open a Sussex County campus includes the suggestion to merge with Del-Tech. As a matter of efficiency, I highly doubt that the population down here can support one Wesley-type college, let alone two. I proposed as much a few months ago, but the fundamental idea remains the same given UD's interest in expansion: Expand Deltech into having 2-year and 4-year degrees, and make it like the Penn State satellite campuses. Deltech already has some sort of arrangement with the main campus, and now the credits would simply have to translate 1:1 instead of into whatever algebraic rip-off formula that currently is in place.
Penn State created its satellite campus system over twenty years ago and it has worked out fine. There is no reason for UD to reinvent the wheel on this one by creating a separate University of Delaware Sussex Campus, which would only serve to compete with Del-Tech, and quite frankly, would fall flat on its face. I caution these comments with my caveat that perhaps the proposal has this idea as an alternative, but if it does, the news certainly did not do a good job of reporting it.
Besides, what is the fiscal note that comes attached with this new campus as opposed to some sort of merger agreement? If UD is really anxious to create some sort of new school, why not open a med school? There certainly are enough shortages of them around Delaware.
Penn State created its satellite campus system over twenty years ago and it has worked out fine. There is no reason for UD to reinvent the wheel on this one by creating a separate University of Delaware Sussex Campus, which would only serve to compete with Del-Tech, and quite frankly, would fall flat on its face. I caution these comments with my caveat that perhaps the proposal has this idea as an alternative, but if it does, the news certainly did not do a good job of reporting it.
Besides, what is the fiscal note that comes attached with this new campus as opposed to some sort of merger agreement? If UD is really anxious to create some sort of new school, why not open a med school? There certainly are enough shortages of them around Delaware.
Tags:
Tuesday, April 8, 2008
Pontiac BMW ad - would someone in the market for a BMW actually make the switch?
I saw a rather odd commercial on tv the other day; it essentially pits the Pontiac against the BMW. At least one version of the campaign is available on YouTube. Another article writes how the Pontiac G8 embarrasses the BMW 5-Series in this commercial. Well, that's what the spot advertises, but does it really accomplish the goal? I think not. The only thing I thought when seeing this commercial was "who would ever mix up a Pontiac with a BMW?" Further, who in the market for a BMW would trade down for a Pontiac? It seems to be targeted at two very different consumer groups.
But maybe I'm a snob when it comes to this type of ineffective advertising. Or Pontiacs. For me, the spot was too long and too cluttered to follow. But maybe the spot is designed for those who pay close attention to television commercials. Or it hopes to gain some sort of viral status that will increase Pontiac's market share by a half of a percentage point over BMW. Sometimes I have to wonder about who approves these ad campaigns and what they are hoping to accomplish. This particular campaign misses the mark.
But maybe I'm a snob when it comes to this type of ineffective advertising. Or Pontiacs. For me, the spot was too long and too cluttered to follow. But maybe the spot is designed for those who pay close attention to television commercials. Or it hopes to gain some sort of viral status that will increase Pontiac's market share by a half of a percentage point over BMW. Sometimes I have to wonder about who approves these ad campaigns and what they are hoping to accomplish. This particular campaign misses the mark.
Tags:
Tuesday, April 1, 2008
These funeral stickers on the back of people's cars - enough already
Certainly people mourn in different ways and they can mourn in any way they want. I fail to understand, however, how these car stickers with "in memory of..." accomplish this task. Personally, I see them as pretty tacky. To each his own, I suppose. My point is simply to ask rhetorically, at what point do these memoriam stickers extend their stay? I would answer that if you had to order these custom stickers, the time has passed before you've even put it on the car.
Speaking of other ways you can devalue your car, I also saw a questionable sticker ad for some toy company while I was sitting behind some car at a light the other day. It seems to be for a kid's toy company, but the decal was a skull and crossbones. To me, this sends a mixed message, unless the sticker was operating to generate negative advertising. I can't remember the name of the company other than it was a toy company in Delaware, so it obviously wasn't that effective.
Enough with the bumper stickers/rear windshield stickers "in memory of" someone the driver knew. I can't be the only person who would rather be remembered in other ways when my time on the roads of 13 are passed.
In other news, I hear the General Assembly broke even on their gambling venture of which I mentioned yesterday. Probably the best they could hope for.
Speaking of other ways you can devalue your car, I also saw a questionable sticker ad for some toy company while I was sitting behind some car at a light the other day. It seems to be for a kid's toy company, but the decal was a skull and crossbones. To me, this sends a mixed message, unless the sticker was operating to generate negative advertising. I can't remember the name of the company other than it was a toy company in Delaware, so it obviously wasn't that effective.
Enough with the bumper stickers/rear windshield stickers "in memory of" someone the driver knew. I can't be the only person who would rather be remembered in other ways when my time on the roads of 13 are passed.
In other news, I hear the General Assembly broke even on their gambling venture of which I mentioned yesterday. Probably the best they could hope for.
Monday, March 31, 2008
General Assembly decides to take a gamble on nearly $50 million of the budget
For those of you who have not heard, the General Assembly approved today an emergency measure to address the budget shortfall this pending fiscal year. In a questionably close, bipartisan measure, the Senate approved by a narrow vote of 10-7 (with 4 abstentions) to pass House Resolution 214, what I am calling "The Blackjack Bill," which, according to the title, is "an emergency act to close the gap between the FY2009 budget." Governor Minner is expected to sign the blackjack bill tonight.
Presuming her approval, a group of nine Delaware delegates (3 from the House, 3 from the Senate, the Governor, Lt. Gov., and the Treasurer) will take $42.5 million from the general fund to Atlantic City tomorrow morning. According to the measure, gambling will commence no later than 1:00 EST. Although the press seems silent on where they are going (which I must assume is to keep away the riff-raff), my guess is they are going to Borgata.
Most of the blackjack bill looks like it deals with how the nearly $50 million can be gambled. For example, the money will be divided evenly among the delegates and left to various games of chance. Particularly, H.R. 214 limits the contingent to roulette, craps, and blackjack. Because Atlantic City casinos will not permit the entire $42.5 million to be bet at once, some minimum maximums have been set. Interestingly, any money bet at roulette must be either bet on red or black. I just hope they don't simply place $1 million on red and another million on black in the same spin.
An amendment to the resolution originally provided for an additional $2.5 million for slots, but after a questionable and then devastating $100,000 bet on a Wheel of Fortune machine earlier this afternoon, the Senate Revenue & Taxation committee rejected any further games of chance from being played. Surprisingly, however, another amendment provides for an additional $50 million to be allocated in case the committee comes back with over $200 million.
According to one senator, he expects the majority of the money to be spent on blackjack and roulette: "Even if we lose a million on one spin of the roulette wheel, the odds are in our favor that we'll win it back on the next spin." Another representative predicted that the measure could "yield results of at least 75%, if not 150% of the money we have allocated toward this process."
Creativity of fixing the budget appears to have no bounds. I hope the group is able to double up. Not sure what is going to happen if they lose their shirts.
Presuming her approval, a group of nine Delaware delegates (3 from the House, 3 from the Senate, the Governor, Lt. Gov., and the Treasurer) will take $42.5 million from the general fund to Atlantic City tomorrow morning. According to the measure, gambling will commence no later than 1:00 EST. Although the press seems silent on where they are going (which I must assume is to keep away the riff-raff), my guess is they are going to Borgata.
Most of the blackjack bill looks like it deals with how the nearly $50 million can be gambled. For example, the money will be divided evenly among the delegates and left to various games of chance. Particularly, H.R. 214 limits the contingent to roulette, craps, and blackjack. Because Atlantic City casinos will not permit the entire $42.5 million to be bet at once, some minimum maximums have been set. Interestingly, any money bet at roulette must be either bet on red or black. I just hope they don't simply place $1 million on red and another million on black in the same spin.
An amendment to the resolution originally provided for an additional $2.5 million for slots, but after a questionable and then devastating $100,000 bet on a Wheel of Fortune machine earlier this afternoon, the Senate Revenue & Taxation committee rejected any further games of chance from being played. Surprisingly, however, another amendment provides for an additional $50 million to be allocated in case the committee comes back with over $200 million.
According to one senator, he expects the majority of the money to be spent on blackjack and roulette: "Even if we lose a million on one spin of the roulette wheel, the odds are in our favor that we'll win it back on the next spin." Another representative predicted that the measure could "yield results of at least 75%, if not 150% of the money we have allocated toward this process."
Creativity of fixing the budget appears to have no bounds. I hope the group is able to double up. Not sure what is going to happen if they lose their shirts.
Tags:
Thursday, March 27, 2008
Chick-Fil-A's clever marketing scheme
I usually don't give away anything for free, but I have to give props to the marketing team of Chick-Fil-A. According to the radio yesterday, and as talked about at work by nearly everyone I spoke with, there is a new "free-standing" Chick-Fil-A opening in Camden (a town five minutes south of Dover) near the super Walmart. While that isn't that interesting, this certain is: part of their "grand opening" was to offer free meal combos once a week for a year for the first 100 people that showed up when it opened today at 6 AM. And what is even more quirky is that people started camping out around 8 am yesterday morning. I drove by the place last night to get a frame of reference and I counted 15 or so tents. I would say that their marketing ploy worked like a charm.
Now, the trick was that you would get 52 combos of choice, or one per week for one year. I'm assuming they are only good at that Chick-Fil-A. So on its face, this would cost the national office/local chain (assuming a $5/meal average) around $250 person (assuming they used up all 52 coupons). Multiply that for 100 people and the total incurred cost (less advertising and other related marketing expenses) is roughly $25,000. I would guess the actual cost will be about half that, if not less, for a number of practical reasons. Regardless, this free-combo-a-day-giveaway is marketing cleverness worth mentioning and a relatively inexpensive campaign for the buzz they created by this gimmick.
Now, the trick was that you would get 52 combos of choice, or one per week for one year. I'm assuming they are only good at that Chick-Fil-A. So on its face, this would cost the national office/local chain (assuming a $5/meal average) around $250 person (assuming they used up all 52 coupons). Multiply that for 100 people and the total incurred cost (less advertising and other related marketing expenses) is roughly $25,000. I would guess the actual cost will be about half that, if not less, for a number of practical reasons. Regardless, this free-combo-a-day-giveaway is marketing cleverness worth mentioning and a relatively inexpensive campaign for the buzz they created by this gimmick.
Tags:
Tuesday, March 25, 2008
A quick budgetary fix: Increase the bottle deposit
Under certain Delaware legislation, certain bottles are subject to a bottle deposit. In most cases, this deposit (which effectively operates as a tax) makes one's purchased bottle of soda go from being $.99 to $1.04. Whether this money goes into the state general fund, or in the hands of the store, I am not sure. Whether the bottles actually get recycled when they are returned is also questionable. While I can't find it, I think there's also a deposit for wine or beer now also, but that may also depend on where you buy.
My point is with this 5 cent deposit is that it only represents approximately 5% of the cost of the item, at least if we're talking about soda bottles. Wasn't the bottle deposit either 3 or 5 cents when sodas were half that price, or even a fraction of that price? Let's say for my argument's sake that years ago, the bottle deposit on a 15 cent bottle of soda was 3 cents. So way back when, the bottle deposit was about 20% of the cost of the drink. Given that everything else has increased or at least kept pace with inflation, why not this bottle deposit? Nobody cares about 5 cents. The trick is to figure out the line just below where people will stop caring. I see it probably at 15%, but argue a point why it could be even higher.
If the bottle deposit was 20% or even 25% of the cost today, per bottle, I think a lot more people would be inclined to recycle. And if not, the state could figure out a way to account for the money and the increased bottle deposit would be an easy and straightforward solution to inject a few million into the general budget. Soda sales alone should generate this - if they did the same thing for newspaper, beer bottles and other things DNREC wants everyone to recycle, maybe it would align the financial interests of both the purchasers and the environmentalists. Just a thought.
My point is with this 5 cent deposit is that it only represents approximately 5% of the cost of the item, at least if we're talking about soda bottles. Wasn't the bottle deposit either 3 or 5 cents when sodas were half that price, or even a fraction of that price? Let's say for my argument's sake that years ago, the bottle deposit on a 15 cent bottle of soda was 3 cents. So way back when, the bottle deposit was about 20% of the cost of the drink. Given that everything else has increased or at least kept pace with inflation, why not this bottle deposit? Nobody cares about 5 cents. The trick is to figure out the line just below where people will stop caring. I see it probably at 15%, but argue a point why it could be even higher.
If the bottle deposit was 20% or even 25% of the cost today, per bottle, I think a lot more people would be inclined to recycle. And if not, the state could figure out a way to account for the money and the increased bottle deposit would be an easy and straightforward solution to inject a few million into the general budget. Soda sales alone should generate this - if they did the same thing for newspaper, beer bottles and other things DNREC wants everyone to recycle, maybe it would align the financial interests of both the purchasers and the environmentalists. Just a thought.
Tags:
Tuesday, March 18, 2008
A double standard for governors and the women they sleep with
This is a rather simple observation: Obviously the New York Governor Spitzer's sex scandal involving a $5500 call girl is all the rave as of late. Ultimately, the embarrassment and nature of the offense led to his resignation and political and personal humiliation. If this event basically undid his political career, why is the same society so anxious to reward his escort, the now famous and in-demand Ashley Dupre? Between music downloads, a book deal, offers from particular movie and magazine companies, she seems to be coming out on top in this situation. It just seems rather backwards to me.
I'm almost of the mindset that if she's been rewarded this much, maybe he was not as in the wrong as the media made him out to be (notwithstanding his previous prosecutorial conduct in that particular area). Almost.
I'm almost of the mindset that if she's been rewarded this much, maybe he was not as in the wrong as the media made him out to be (notwithstanding his previous prosecutorial conduct in that particular area). Almost.
Tags:
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
