Friday, April 25, 2008
eBay's changes
eBay is the worldwide flea market where buyers and sellers can come together to exchange goods. Unfortunately, some new rules are changing the site into a more profitable endeavor for the owners of eBay, and the changes are hurting "power sellers."
Power sellers are usually small business owners who make a large portion of their income, if not all of their yearly income, by selling items on eBay. New rules (that became effective in the beginning of March, 2008) have increased the amount of fees sellers have to give to eBay, have affected how shipping and handling (S&H) is handled, PayPal is reserving the right to withhold profits from sellers, and sellers can no longer leave feedback on buyers.
So what do all of these changes mean?
It means that eBay has decided to take a larger cut of the profit. The change is being described as a move to "protect buyers" but really what is happening is that eBay and PayPal no longer want to get "screwed over" by bad buyers/sellers, so it leaves the middle man (power sellers) taking a large hit. Sellers can no longer see who they are selling to, which allows more room for scams.
Why does this matter?
It matters because our government, our world is run by a few select companies who are money hungry. It leaves no room for people to live the supposed "American Dream"--it is very difficult to start a company to make a profit when your competitors are so big. eBay was seen by many as an opportunity for small business owners to take back a part of the market share. But with the new fee increases, "greedBay" is now making even more money, and many small business owners are being pushed out of one of the only remaining markets for them to make a profit.
A boycott was organized for buyers and sellers to avoid eBay activity from February 18-25, 2008. However, eBay has responded that the boycott was merely "noise" and that the uproar will die down soon. There was little impact from the boycott, eBay has increased fees and allowed for sellers not to know how positive/negative their buyers are, and nobody is doing anything because, at this point, it is old news.
Should we do anything?
There's not much we can do. We could write letters, we could try to petition, we could try a lot of things. But at the end of the day, the people in charge are connected with big money, and they're not too opposed to the idea of eBay turning a bigger profit. So until major changes happen to our government, our capitalist society, our world, we will continue to be bossed around by the large companies we rely on.
Power sellers are usually small business owners who make a large portion of their income, if not all of their yearly income, by selling items on eBay. New rules (that became effective in the beginning of March, 2008) have increased the amount of fees sellers have to give to eBay, have affected how shipping and handling (S&H) is handled, PayPal is reserving the right to withhold profits from sellers, and sellers can no longer leave feedback on buyers.
So what do all of these changes mean?
It means that eBay has decided to take a larger cut of the profit. The change is being described as a move to "protect buyers" but really what is happening is that eBay and PayPal no longer want to get "screwed over" by bad buyers/sellers, so it leaves the middle man (power sellers) taking a large hit. Sellers can no longer see who they are selling to, which allows more room for scams.
Why does this matter?
It matters because our government, our world is run by a few select companies who are money hungry. It leaves no room for people to live the supposed "American Dream"--it is very difficult to start a company to make a profit when your competitors are so big. eBay was seen by many as an opportunity for small business owners to take back a part of the market share. But with the new fee increases, "greedBay" is now making even more money, and many small business owners are being pushed out of one of the only remaining markets for them to make a profit.
A boycott was organized for buyers and sellers to avoid eBay activity from February 18-25, 2008. However, eBay has responded that the boycott was merely "noise" and that the uproar will die down soon. There was little impact from the boycott, eBay has increased fees and allowed for sellers not to know how positive/negative their buyers are, and nobody is doing anything because, at this point, it is old news.
Should we do anything?
There's not much we can do. We could write letters, we could try to petition, we could try a lot of things. But at the end of the day, the people in charge are connected with big money, and they're not too opposed to the idea of eBay turning a bigger profit. So until major changes happen to our government, our capitalist society, our world, we will continue to be bossed around by the large companies we rely on.
Hey Jude
The Beatles are arguably one of the most influential groups of all time. They were able to voice their opinions for the world to hear--and the world listened. Their music wasn't like the music of today which is over-processed for the masses, it was political, it was beautiful, it was potent. So even today their legacy of being heard and spreading good vibes still lives on. This cute little boy is singing about something that he may not understand, but it is powerful none the less.
Wednesday, April 23, 2008
Globalisation and MTV
This video addresses some of the key issues discussed in class about how a few HUGE companies control just about everything. (Remember the five gatekeepers of the music industry??) The video is biased, but I enjoy that the issues are brought up and analyzed.
Funny Depiction of Clinton's and Bush's ;)
While this video is clearly biased, it does an excellent job of exposing how politicians use the media to portray a certain message (even if these messages will eventually contradict each other). Enjoy.
We
As we all know, the media influences us. All of us. The media decides our agenda, what and how we think about things, and there is usually a political agenda behind most messages. WeCanSolveit.org may have a political agenda behind it, as Al Gore started the non-profit organization, but I guess I do not care about that...what I care about is that FINALLY there is a large campaign in the media, persuading and influencing people to make some changes to help out our environment. The media will always try to change people's minds; this campaign's purpose is to educate people both in the US and across all continents about our earth's climate crisis.
This campaign is notable for a few reasons.
1) it is big, and big money has been put behind it to make it effective.
2) this money makes the campaign nothing short of professional. with someone as big as Al Gore backing the organization, it will be known, and people cannot help but at least listen to what WE is saying.
This campaign is also notable because of its excellent marketing (so, basically, WE is purposefully pulling out the "big guns" of marketing to get the word out). The symbol and the font of choice for the WE campaign is a special font made by a typographer for this specific organization; the "w" in the font looks like an upside down "m", emphasizing how individuals can get involved with helping the environment. The green circle is distinguishable, and the color green is nothing short of appropriate for its purpose. The commercials are effective, and the wecansolveit.org website is nearly flawless. Overall, I say kudos to Al Gore and WE for using the powerful media (that is often times used for much worse agendas) to help our earth out. Thanks.
Tuesday, April 8, 2008
Iraq
So, we're at war...right? How is it possible that the news of iraq is not ON the news? How is it possible that myself and my peers, relatively well-informed, educated individuals, do not really know what is going on in iraq? ? Do you think it is the media's fault? The governement's fault?...or both?
I do want to raise the issue that WE are IN Iraq, WE are at WAR, and there is a big campaign brewing that will inevitably decide what will happen in Iraq. So, what are the presidential candidates views on Iraq?
Surprisingly [sic], John McCain wants to stay in Iraq for a little longer, and iron things out with the American troops still inhabiting Iraq. Really, John McCain? We've been there five years, people have died, and for what? I personally see no progress, do not understand why we thought we should go over there in the first place, and obviously sticking around trying to smooth everything out is not working. Shall we try again with another proposal?? Thanks.
Hillary Clinton wants to withdraw troops from Iraq. But wait, didn't she vote to go into Iraq in the first place? I don't need a president who can't make up her mind. I am glad that she wants to get the troops out of there, though. Whats her real plan for life after troops in Iraq? It is hard to pin it down--she seems to not be making any promises....is that a red flag to anyone else? In the past if a president makes a promise and does not keep it, people start to question hard. So maybe Clinton is trying to avoid this cross-examination in the future. I just do not know what I think of her politically, yet. However, I would like to compliment her on her use of the media--way to go, your image may not be the most positive, but you sure have kicked butt to get to the top of the male-dominated system.
And Barack Obama. I'm not going to lie, from what I've seen so far he gets my vote for presidency. Nonetheless, I am still critical of his viewpoints on Iraq. His plan for Iraq is easily readable, but he wants to stay longer then Clinton does--I do not approve. However, like Clinton, he does not really pin down his exact plans, it is merely a bunch of abstract talk. Not a whole lot of promises to get out of Iraq and stay out if Iraq.
So I guess none of the presidential candidates believe in getting out right away and staying out. I would hope they are smarter then I am politically, since all of them seem to be in agreement to an extent, but it still does not make sense to me. Why are we still there? I believe it has to do with the United States' ethnocentrism--the belief that our way of life is better then anybody else's. Can't we just leave the Iraqi people alone? I do not want people to get hurt, and I do not want people to be discriminated against, but is it really our job to decide what is good for people? What is right? I guess I do not know, and I do not have the resources available to me to really make an educated decision--the media does not provide accurate enough data to do so. So maybe that is why all of the presidential candidates are in agreement on at least staying in Iraq long enough to iron things out--they know something we don't. Now, I know you may not agree with me on the rest of this blog, but you have to agree with me on this--our right to know what is going on via the press is one of the things our founding fathers wanted. I believe in this country, but I need other people to follow the rules too. Media? Catch up!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)