Groupon Unveiled

Or sort of. They kind of went public yesterday, offering for sale a limited number of shares. I can recall being told by a relative who worked on Wall Street how the stock market is not gambling, it's investing. Truth be told, it is a gambling kind of investment. This is perfectly described in the PBS Newshour interview with New York Bureau Chief of Wired Magazine when he was asked if Groupon is profitable and what it's business model is. Groupon, he explained, is on the road to profitability and when people buy shares, they are not looking for immediate profitability, but a future profit. What is the business model of Groupon? They work with businesses to promote their service or product by marketing it at a discount to a high volume of people, the idea being that some of those one time discounted customers will become regulars.  He cited an example of 500 people showing up for a spa treatment that is usually $80 dollars but is discounted to $20 dollars if enough people subscribe to the deal on Groupon. It's real cute when people who obviously have zero small business experience offering a service offer up their own theoretical details that have little relationship with reality. For a person who runs a spa, having someone pay $20 for a treatment that is usually $80 is not a good business move, because it wastes product and creates vastly more work for the person who is likely a one person operation.  The real kicker is how, Mr. Bureau Chief explains, Groupon makes money regardless of the long term outcome of the businesses they do business with! They are acting as a broker, so to speak, albeit in the most simple sense. No huge bridges and being created, this is just a slightly new spin on marketing that is all a buz only because it is founded by an already well to do person.  This epitomizes what is faulty with Wall Street and the publicly traded companies, as they are given clout and value...LOTS OF VALUE...before they ever prove to be a viable business. Facebook has bought up other companies, meanwhile the real value of Facebook, minus the fluff, is not obvious.  The idea that being publicly traded makes a company accountable to the public is a misrepresentation of the facts, as we are now learning over and over and over again.  Groupon might pretend to be servicing small businesses, but they have no skin in the game, since they get paid regardless of the outcome of their service. That Groupon is a publicly traded company only gives it more of a buffer, a $700 million buffer, from the reality of its own failures and limitations.  In this context, a mockery is made of small businesses, the majority of which do not enjoy the buffer of cash infusion...not without putting out work and product and having to measure the losses and gains on an immediate basis. I signed up for Groupon where I reside.  Indeed, a spa treatment was offered, discounted from $195 to $95, provided that 20 people sing up. So far only 4 people have signed up for the service. There is a substantial service discount for spider vein laser treatment that has attracted 130 people, likely due to its huge discount.  Terms and conditions apply to this deal, which I have not read.  While I am not certain, I am familiar with human nature, which is to skimp when your are skimped on. Simply put, you get what you pay for. The idea for the businesses is that some customers will become regulars.  In truth, when you are marketing non essentials, the people who are looking for discounts will not be the ones who become regulars.  With the current economic trends on Wall Street, the amount of disposable income that people will likely have to spend on luxury items, be it going out to eat, spa treatment, recreation, yoga, shopping, etc, is being diminished.  One does not have to subscribe to Adam Smith's ideal to understand the reality of his ideology that has taken hold: in capitalism, there are always fewer masters than workers, which is why the masters will have the upper hand.  Wall Street seems to be a mystified method for overcoming this intrinsic limitation.

Ode to the Coffee Joint

              How do coffee shops maintain themselves as havens for work and socializing?  Like any other business, they must create an ambiance that is customer friendly to whatever demographic or clique they choose to cater to, the great equalizer being those who are willing to spend money.  In my former home town, an allegedly coveted coffee shop, once famous for hosting a beat poet or two, folded.  The naive bleeding heats of Boulder, mostly newcomers to the town, claimed that the landlords were greedy to have asked for more rent.  Perhaps, but this is beside the point.  What is the value of a benevolent landlord, or a charitable coffee shop, for that matter? The business, Penny Lane, may have been a cool hang out back in the day, but it had deteriorated into a loitering spot for people who liked to play chess for hours without spending money.  If commons such as these are so valuable, then all interested parties, do set up a not for profit hang out that accommodates this practice.  I have been to one, in or around Half Moon Bay, Ca, and I did find it very charming for its books and casual, if not downright lackadazical service.  The cashiers were charming and smart and the baked goods were good; not free. The scenery was the ocean, an unbeatable commodity.  Penny Lane, however, was a throwback to a bygone era in Boulder.  It smelled bad, the service was average at best, and there were not enough spaces for reading or studying as much as there were dark corners for lurking.  There was also a stage for local performances, which was a plus.  Clearly, there were not enough paying customers to support this business.  The landlords, a Greek family that had roots in the city that  doubled the amount of time that Penny Lane did, found tenants who could pay increased rent.
             Another highly idiosyncratic business establishment which is, or was, a small but global chain based out of SF is Espresso Roma, colloquially referred to as "the Roma."  The title betrays the seemingly predatorial quality of its patrons, in that they very closely resemble vagrants.  The space is, one would imagine, prime real estate while the proprietor has not seen fit to repair the rotting would floor.  The attitude among the last crop of employees reflected a certain disdain for the status quo and how it had left them, and the seemingly pitiful place where they work, out of the loop of prosperity that is enjoyed by other establishments.  The style of service aims to be cool by being offensive and oblivious to their function as a shop that professes to serve coffee and baked goods.  You see, when you approach a counter and are asked, scornfully, "what's up," it leaves room for so much verbal abuse that it is almost arresting.  What is up? What is up, j-hole, is that I am standing here waiting for you to take my order.  A simple "hey, what can I getchya," or even "what do you want," would be delightful.  "What's up" is that you are a douche who will not be garnering my hard earned money.  Not even a quarter, you self important ass face...yes, I realize how my attitude may be apart of the problem:)
           Experiences like those are what makes people who aim to avoid the maladjusted and unskilled barista for the overworked and under appreciated Starbucks employees.  I appreciate them for their professionalism and simple gratitude.  It becomes less charming when they push their baked goods, which are unhealthy and tasteless.  Their assemblage of corporate music compilations exude the soullessness that they profess to decry.  The most charming employees are those who look exhausted by the grueling routine and have a hapless look on their face.  My heart goes out to you as well as my tips, thier tips rather, as infrequent as they may be (since I am not a regular coffee drinker); but they are not paltry, I don't think. 
           Then there are lovely places where the people and the product are complimentary on the whole. The thing is that, in a place like Austin, TX, in a time such as July, the establishment should have air conditioning that is at least equal to what one has at home.  Otherwise I am inclined to stay at home and drink and eat for less.  Who needs to be distracted by the chitter chatter of people, the noise of music that other people choose, or the person sitting next to me who is fond of beating on his bare foot to the rythym of the music.  Whatever happened to Bobby McFaren?  Is he still alive, tapping on the soles of his feet alongside a symphony orchestra somewhere? Stop it, just stop.
            I finally left, after reading only a small portion of what I intended to, having become bloated, yet unnourished by the sugary, milky, watery drinks and ice tea that I was compelled to order to justify my visit.  I went home to enjoy a real meal in the cooler air conditioning of my place...but I miss the company.

Thanks to Rolling Stone

While the cover of the last issue of Rolling Stone features a "pop icon"with a beautiful ass, the most beautiful picture is within the pages that offer a photographic record of the brutality that soldiers have indulged in.  It is a gross indulgence, a total compromise of the human condition, it is sub human.  It is more egregious when we consider how arrogantly our media had, from the start, asserted our superior grasp of Democracy.  The mere sight of the word exudes a sadness.  Politics is not just pragmatic, it is also spiritual.  The movement to desensitize us, all of us, to what matters in this world, to the necessity for compassion, is fighting and winning, even though they will never win the spiritual battle.  I look at the photographs of these soldiers who pose triumphantly above the mutilated body of a young Afghan male  They betray the enormous weakness of their being.  It is not simply the obvious cruelty, the overwhelming cowardice of the soldiers, but how they will never triumph. I know I am naive and ignorant to their pain, the pain and suffering of the soldiers.  It is perversion that causes one, or, in these times, many, to overlook the innate value of life.  Life, today, is a politicized concept in the for profit model.  A premium is placed on the brand new life for its maleable quality, for its helplessness, for its delightful distraction, its beautiful folly.  Who speaks out for the value of this young man?  Who speaks for the value of his self determination, or for anyone's, when we have the raw proof of what will become of human life on earth? 
This human corpse, bloodied, mutilated, has kept the evidence of its beauty.  Its a handsome face that resembles someone I used to love.  This is the face of someone whom I could have loved, I could have met, and now I will not be able to.  He is beautiful, I cannot emphasize this enough.  Maybe this is why they could only take away his pinky..if only they had the sense not to kill him, or any of the others...who is being foolish now?  They are soldiers in a wholly unprincipled war, it is a battle not for principle, but for resources, a purely political battle. Killing is the order of the day and what we see in these pictures is the best of it. Over here we can barely uphold the veneer of a concerted hatred for any one enemy. One day it is Al Qaeda, the next it is the Taliban, it was weapons of mass destruction, and there are those very uncreative people who try to incite a mindless riot about Muslim Extremists.  It is an absurd task, the one of developing propaganda.  It becomes dangerous when people, especially policy makers, become so incensed as to devote too much time and attention to this when the massive violence and destruction wreaked across the globe is the destructive force of the most powerful war machine on the earth.  It is wrong that they would abuse this privilege...no, it is wrong that we the people have offered up this privilege so readily.  War is a crime and it reduces people, humans, to corpses and sub human creatures. 
I can only look at the beautiful face of this dead body.  There is beauty in death, in weakness...there is beauty where brutish and artless violence is not. 

The Value of Facebook

It was curious to hear President Obama cite Facebook as an example of a new and innovative company.  Sure, money is being made and money is being spent on the services that the social networking site offers, but to describe the business as "innovative" seems like a stretch...a big one.  I did a little bit of digging around to find that Facebook makes it's money off of advertising, as well as an estimated 100 million on "virtual gifts" that people like to gift their friends with.  Frankly, if a "friend" of mine were so foolish as to spend money on a virtual cupcake as a token of their affection for me, I'd be annoyed.  That is what snail mail is for, so that you can offer a person something they might actually use and enjoy.  To be fair, FB did not invent the world of virtual merchandise, they merely capitalize on it.  I suppose innovation today refers to anyone who is able to make money, lots of money, in this increasingly polarized economy.  While Obama claimed to want to offer increased praise for science fairs as we do for athletes, it is curious that the man who developed the drill that eventually helped to free the Chilean miners, received diminutive praise, despite the truly innovative and amazing feet that was accomplished.  Facebook, regardless of what it has the potential to be, is a vastly effective marketing tool.  The site itself is cumbersome and it is not inconceivable that a better product could and will be created.  It is noteworthy how the majority of FB business lies outside the U.S., since people within the U.S. have been deluded into believing in the intrinsic American character of businesses that might have originated here, but do not necessarily have provenance in America.  It is of greater importance that the media has caught wind of social networking sites and their function as tools for democratic protest, as we are witnessing in Egypt.  It is of paramount interest that Goldman Sachs has chosen to invest in Facebook...what is Goldman Sachs' commitment to free and fair elections and a transparent and accountable government?  It's a good question.  While Facebook has great potential, just as the internet itself has offered tremendous potential, the lucrative quality of the business and the way it makes it's money are not keys to it's innovative quality.  In a world that is plagued by disease, hunger, war, poverty, and an energy crisis to boot,  pointing to Facebook as an indicator of innovation seems a callow gesture of paying homage to a business that is innovative only insofar as it is capitalistic; and like so many other huge money making ventures, it could not have been realized without the true innovation that came before it, which, like Facebook required the collusion of many people, but instead of it being commandeered by one person, it was offered up to the public at large, free of charge.  Facebook is free and it always will be, says the slogan, however this is a dubious claim.  Why wouldn't one charge at least a nominal fee, given how FB has cornered a market and people are attached to the product? Beside the money, though, Facebook and it's story, as depicted in The Social Network, offers up a world of not so human interaction, where the participants are likely to behave the way they would in any public forum, where, in order to fit in and be accepted, posts ooze with positivity (or something like it)...and at least a little egotism, of course.  How else could a bunch of people be convinced that it is a good idea to offer up pictures and anecdotes of their intimate lives?  Read the fine print, these memories are property of Facebook.  How truly innovative to dismantle the right to privacy, but Facebook is not the first to do this, either.  It just makes it seem fashionable instead of sinister.  That goes for the user, too.  Fail to step out of line and use the marketing site for things that might not be lucrative to investors and...who knows, you might not have access to the social networking site where it is best to just tell your Facebook friends about your latest hike, dinner outing, or concert...not that pesky rally for free and fair elections...where's the money in that?  Then again, the joke is on all those who fail to recognize the intrinsic value of civil society, which was built upon through struggles and efforts that can not be commodified because they are far too valuable.  In this brave new world of Facebook, let us not forget what is really valuable in life, that is, actual friends, not just virtual ones, and the sharing of earnest and concerted reflection, as opposed to the shallow act of listing the fun facts about ones' day. 

Subcontractors...the Collarteralized Debt Obligation of Work

I was at the local library yesterday in Redwood City. It is a lovely facility.  Inside there is a small cafe that serves tea, coffee drinks, and some food items. It is nice, as well as closing down.  The corporation that runs it does, or did, so by subcontracting out a "manager," whom they trained and then who was responsible for making the operation profitable and giving the company Fresh Foods something or other, their "cut."  The manager found it to be wholly unprofitable and gave it up, and the company was unable to find anyone to replace the post, since they do not get enough traffic to make the business profitable.  Now, I understand how corporations make money and the advantages of running a business as such: consolidation and broad reach of money making ventures allow resources to be pooled instead of a small business person operating in the lonely confines of his own operation...in theory.  The twisted side to it is how corporations seem to like to pretend that a business has potential profit (shocker, I know) when it does not.  Since businesses are able to hide behind the cloak of "privacy," despite how they effect the lives and communities of people every day...especially those trying to eek out a living on meager incomes.  Anyhow, one business in particular that get's my goat, and got my wallet, was Service Magic.  They are different from Angie's List in that they do not rely on personal testimonials, which, if they are offered by actual customers, are great.  But why would I need to go on a national website to do this? Why not just ask my neighbor or see how businesses are rated by the community in which I live?  Back to "Service Magic."  They run a duplicitous campaign to service providers in that they tell independent contractors that they will bring business to them for a monthly fee.  Then they tell the consumer that they "interview" the best candidates for their household needs and connect them as such.  What they really do is charge the independent contractor a fee every time a POTENTIAL customer calls.  Yes, the independent contractor gets charged for every phone call, regardless of whether they get the business.  When I decided to cancel this service, since it was very expensive advertising that wasn't valuable to my business, the person with whom I spoke, the paid by the hour employee who knows little to nothing, obviously about running their own business, started to question me on my business practices!  Yes, instead of simply following my request and canceling MY service, they acted as though I was supposed to follow their advice so that I might keep paying them for a service that amounted to nothing. Their business model was to piggy back on people who actually worked and provided a service for the purpose of creating a pretend business that provided a pretend service.  They did not discriminate any of the independent contractors, they received payment from them.  It was galling to have someone from an office, whom I was paying, act as though I worked for them...total b.s. No, Service Magic, I PAID YOU, not for advice, but for the alleged service you offered!  In the same vein, my partner hired, under the ill advice of his friend, a certain house painting company to paint the house.  The business was solicited, as the boy who showed up at the door was canvassing the neighborhood looking for customers on behalf of College Pro or College Works...one of the two.  The boy had an absurd yet elaborate folder containing his C.V., which did not include house painting, but a testimonial about  the joint degree he was pursuing in music and business and his goal to be in the music business.  He was intent on entering the music business "with a business degree, not a guitar" his cover letter read. Awe, ain't that cute, he wants to be a suit!  The gimmick that the company he worked for was selling was to send the ambitious young college student to your door and have you swoon over how cute and industrious they were, so that you would sign onto having your home painted by him and his band of high minded forward thinking college students, whose work ethic far surpassed that of the independent contractor, who, according to their philosophy, had only the petty desire to "put food on their table."  I kid you not!  They had the nerve to knock the working person who actually painted homes for a living as being disingenuous.  The overall business is the same: exploit a bunch of college kids who are looking to make some extra money and promote the real "go getters" i.e., the ones who drink the Kool- Aid of your business model, to "managers," whose job it is to find more people to sign up for their house painting service, which was not cheap compared to the little person who simply wanted to put food on their table.  After putting us on the schedule for a couple of months in advance, when the time came to actually paint the house, there was a slew of scheduling conflicts, and a meeting with the boy again who gave us a speech about how he aimed to be "self sufficient," and his success in getting so many people to sign up to get their house painted that they didn't have enough time to actually paint the houses! Oops! After he sent another "manager," over to power wash our deck with our garden hose, which was then destroyed, I called to say we were not longer interested in having them paint the house and that we would be seeking a refund for our deposit.  After getting the run around from the corporate offices who made claims that were refuted by our managers' manager, who aimed to try and make amends by setting up a "meeting" to discuss the situation.  I told him on the phone not to waste his breath and that we simply wanted the refund to which we were entitled, which was about five hundred dollars less than what we paid.  The mangers manager and our manager came to the house, two lanky boys in their youth trying to relate to me as though they had a leg to stand on after two weeks of canceled appointments and a busted hose.  I explained to him frankly how they had already made a bad impression and that I didn;t want to have to deal with a gaggle of youths who were far from professionals painting the house in their inept fashion.  I wasn't that mean, but that was the gist.  Our manager, who had been so ingratiating, said nothing, offered no apology, and listened on with arrogance that could be seen in his face.  I should have been far more inquisitive and held our manager to his pledge to want to outdo the person who painted houses for the small minded purpose of "wanting to put food on their table."  The manager's manager had been in "meetings" all day....a business designed to take money for a service that you are not so qualified to offer, whilst creating a hierarchy of managers to feed off the profits.  We were offered a referral from our neighbor of the guy who painted their house, a nice guy who ran his own small business.  He and his crew were mindful and attentive and respectful and they charged at least a grand LESS than the firm we signed a contract with.   He had been doing this for years and it was frustrating to think of how much business is taken from him and other independent businesses by companies who aim to make money not off of the work they do, but off of the shoddy work they train others to do...all because they have a well organized marketing campaign.
         If there is an ideological rift in the business world, it is between those willing to do the work and those aiming to have work be disproportionately heaped onto those at the bottom of the rung of the ladder of hierarchy.  Then there are those businesses who are truly high minded, who shy away from disingenuous gimmicks and who offer a real stake in the business by offering decent wages and salaries, ending the hierarchy of wage distribution. Yes, that means everybody gets paid the same, from the CEO to the worker.  Namaste Solar in Boulder, Co is one example, and there are a growing number of worker cooperatives that operate not in the exact same way, but for the purpose of creating equity in work, for the employees, the consumers and the communities of which they are apart.

Did the Democrats Stay Home to Make a Statement?

While this is the explanation offered by democratic organizational leaders and media pundits, the more plausible explanation is that the Republican Party candidates, the motley crew that they've become, utilized an old method of inspiring people to vote in midterm elections: arousing extremist sentiments on hot button issues.  By "extreme," I mean reactionary and therefore, unreasonable and by "hot button," I mean controversial.  While the Republican Party alleges to want to balance the budget, repeal what they derisively refer to as "Obama Care," and reduce the role of government, none among them can say where they would begin in earnest, nor can they attest to the viability of such policies in terms of offering valuable public policy.  How about they walk their talk with a simple gesture: refuse to take a salary and refuse to be covered by the generous health insurance that is offered to Congress and by the taxpayer, and last but not least, reduce the budget for military spending...the latter is a bit of a ruse, since both parties are committed to the outrageous graft that the military industrial complex is able to bleed from our bankrupt coffers. 
To all those allegedly disaffected Democrats out there, its' time to quit your bitching for not getting everything you want when you want it. While Gary Wills may have earned himself the right to criticize the Obama administration for not coming to the table with a bold enough alternative to our overpriced and under performing health care "system" (though it is not wise or prudent to point to the disjointed bureaucratic ponzi- scheme of health insurers as a coherent system), few can attest to their ardent activism that would have offered broad support and understanding of the value and need for a public option, or some variation of a public option.  These are high stakes interests and unless we are willing to wage a real multi- pronged effort against such deeply entrenched interests, namely the insurance companies (who were at their inception not the money hoarding nightmarish corporations that they have evolved into), we cannot expect a boon such as a public option. Sure, Obama, perhaps unwittingly, surrounded himself with status quo politicians like Rahm Emmanuel and Tim Geithner,  but we must understand that these positions are typically lobbied for.  Obama the candidate and President Obama are bound to diverge in appearance because President Obama does not have the luxury of only representing those who agree with him, but must compromise with those who do not.  The best that the people can work for is to expose those interest groups who exert power in the background and hold them accountable to a clear set of ethical standards.  In the case of health care, our system in the U.S. is the most expensive and the least effective and businesses as well as government are responsible for paying the tab for this lack of performance.  This is not viable.

While Ralph Nader, bless his enduring heart and soul, beckons democrats to stop rooting for a party that clearly does not support progressive change, the top down approach to changing government has never been the most enduring.  Women were not granted the right to vote because the sitting President wanted it to be so, they were granted this right by sacrificing their time, their lives and in many instances, their dignity, for the purpose of securing a higher level of dignity for themselves and for generations to come.  This is the case for all social movements.  The problem is the absence of a coherent plan and set of principles by which to direct society through these difficult times.  While the activist movement of the '60's offered a notion that we the people are capable of changing the political landscape in which we live, locally and nationally, it did not offer a blue print that lasted.  We need to create a set of principles and viable actions that will guide us.  Need some tangible suggestions?  Let us put energy independence- not from the Middle East- but from oil all together, at the top of our list of things to work for.  We need more zero energy homes, more car-need-free neighborhoods and cities, better inter-city transportation, as well as intra-city.  What else?  Let us redefine the meaning of entrepreneurship so that it eliminates from it's definition those who make money off of government programs.  You are not an entrepreneur if your biggest client is the United States Government! That includes all military contractors and their pals on Wall Street.  In order to address these issues with veracity, we must recognize how hierarchies promote ignorance and sloth and these are obvious impediments to progress.  While Meet the Press is shocked by the news that the unstable dictatorship of North Korea has developed a uranium enrichment plant (which is only news because people are wholly unaware of the fact that the U.S. offered the funds for this decades ago), it is more important to reflect on the impending mass extinction of the plant life on earth and the ecosystem that we depend upon for survival, as did a bunch of scientists in Tokyo just over a week ago.
If we are going to rumble, let us offer principle instead of a sense of alleged superiority.
Republicans, you can't have it both ways! You cannot be against government intervention and for state sanctioned religion, you cannot be for a balanced budget and support a gross military build up, you cannot be for the troops and against offering benefits to Veterans, you cannot espouse the value of corporations while limiting the value of government, because the actions of corporations create the reality in which we the people live, and in doing so, they are a political entity that enforces rules and regulations WITHOUT representing the people with Democratic safeguards i.e. transparency, accountability, representation and the ability to vote people our of their positions of power.  Think about it, if you keep pandering to corporations while posing as a public servant, you are undermining the need for government and for yourself as a mediator between the wants of corporations and the needs of the people (actual individuals who are not able to donate tens of millions of dollars to a political campaign).

That's all for now...