24 March 2005
Space Needle, Goose . . .
Terry Pettus Park
My uncle, Terry Pettus, has a park named after him in Seattle, not far from the houseboat on Lake Union where he lived most of his life. It's a very unprepossessing little place, just a few park benches, some terraces, and a pier. A nice couple was having coffee at one of the benches, with a goose attempting to beg pastry from them (to no avail). They were curious about me snapping photos of the place; I told them about Terry. They told me I looked like an independent filmmaker, which in a way, I suppose is true; maybe they thought I was location-scouting.
23 March 2005
DHL/Airborne Has Their Work Cut Out For Them
One interesting thing that has popped out of the survey is that DHL/Airborne is perceived as being significantly worse by our customers than the United States Postal Service. Lowest ranking of any parcel carrier, in fact.
This is quite a distinction, albeit a dubious one. Given that they try to sell us on their services once a quarter, regular as clockwork, I am looking forward to imparting this information to their rep the next time we speak.
22 March 2005
The truth hurts, sometimes
Java is Object BASIC.
It shares with BASIC a fascination for strings, and deep in its heart of hearts is really an interpreted language (anything that runs as wild with introspection as does Java isn't really comfortable with this whole “compiled” idea).
There's just something about Java that makes you start aching for an Evaluate statement.
And an ultimate Object base class is just a stupid idea, OK? That's something C++ most definitely got right.
But it's still better than C.
21 March 2005
Me, in Seattle
I'll be in Seattle this weekend, attending Norwescon (my first Science Fiction convention since, oh, dinosaurs ruled the earth). If you are a friend of Blowfish, and would like to say hi... come up and say hi!
We Have Ways of Getting Information
Bribes, for example.
In the extremely unlikely event that you are a Blowfish friend or customer and are not on our email mailing list but are reading this here, we're doing a survey of our customers. There's a goodie in it for you if you finish it.
We're already getting good, useful information that we'll use to develop the business in interesting and creative ways. For example, we've learned that my video reviews suck.
Blowing Kisses
Speaking of things in the "Thank God They're Nearly Done!" category . . . Allow me to present Blowing Kisses, our first book, publication date May 1, 2005.
I wish I could take credit for the photo, but it's stock from Veer. I'm utterly delighted to give credit to Mary Anne Mohanraj for her patience and perseverance in bringing this marvelous anthology together. And, of course, the writers. Especially the writers.
Why, yes, I have fallen in love with Adobe Illustrator's "Drop Shadow" filter. Why do you ask?
Blowfish Friends and Lovers #1
Thank God this sucker is nearly done. Blowfish Friends and Lovers, Volume 1 is at the replicators. Words cannot describe how happy I am to see this movie almost ready to ship.
I directed. Strut, strut, preen, preen. There, I'm over it.
Still No Signs of Brain Activity from Washington Republicans
From the BBC, which must be wondering what the hell is in the water over here.
The White House has said the law was narrowly tailored and not intended as a precedent for Congress to step into battles over the fate of seriously ill patients.
Of course not. It's only setting the precedent to get involved in those cases in swing states where political grandstanding to shore up a brainlessly reactionary political base is involved. For example, if someone is seriously ill and requires medication that is too expense for them to afford but could be imported from Canada for much less, they are on their own. Medical marijuana to relieve crushing pain? Please, just say no to drugs. We have important things to worry about.
Customer Service, the Blowfish Way (part 1 of a series)
I've started formalizing a lot of Blowfish's customer service policies, and I thought it might be fun to publish them here. Given how lousy so much CS in the world is, it can't hurt.
Today's Topic: We don't say “no.”
Of course, that doesn't mean we always give the customer what they are asking for; that would be insane. It means that we do everything we can not to use the word “no” with a customer, especially in a way that directly contradicts the customer.
Wrong interaction:
Them: “Your web site said that I could return it!”
Us: “No, that's not what the web site says. That item is not returnable.”
Correct interaction:
Them: “Your web site said that I could return it!”
Us: “The description of the item does include a note that says that particular item is not returnable. Is it defective in some way?”
The important points are:
- Do not directly contradict the customer unless it is absolutely required. It almost never is.
- Tell the customer what is the case, rather than spending time on arguing with the customer's perception.
- Always lead the customer from what they want to what we can do, rather than dwelling on what we can't do.
Stupid Business Tricks: “Receipts” vs. “Invoices”
Today, I received a shipment from a company from whom I had rented a (gasp) dirty video. The shipment included a piece of paper on which the transaction details are recorded. This, by itself, is entirely reasonable. So, what's the stupid business trick?
- The piece of paper says “invoice” across the top. This is a stupid thing to call a piece of paper you are sending to a retail customer, since it implies a demand for payment, even though it's already been paid. (Back before we had our own order management software, the less-than-wonderful software we were using called these things invoices, and you couldn't change it. We got lots of freaked-out customer calls.) What's so wrong with “receipt”?
- The invoice doesn't include any information about payments that have been applied, really making it look like a demand for payment.
So, what have we learned today?
- Don't call things “invoices” in prepaid retail transactions.
- Always show payments that have been applied to an order, and make it clear that no balance is due (if that really is the case).
18 March 2005
Today, I hate Sprint
After waiting on hold for 15 minutes with music-on-hold that sounded like a Muzak version of Magma, I get to speak to a billing rep whose job it is to . . . take a message and issue a ticket number.
“Hi, here at Sprint we don't care enough to put people with any training on the phones. But we're happy to screech at you and throw feces at you. A billing specialist will return your call by the end of the next business day, sucker.”
I hate Sprint.
Everything's under control
It's good to know that the United States Congress have solved all the other problems facing this country of ours, and now has time to spend on the use of performance-enhancing drugs by professional athletes and the disposition of one brain-dead woman in Florida.
I'm so proud to be an American today.
14 March 2005
He's Right, You Know
A judge has struck down California's law banning the marriage of same-sex couples, saying that “It appears that no rational purpose exists for limiting marriage in this state to opposite-sex partners.”
12 March 2005
You're Not The Boss Of Me
So, to almost no one's surprise, the judge in the Apple vs. rumor site case ruled that California's journalist shield law does not apply to civil lawsuits over trade secret matters. (Technically, this is not a lawsuit against the blogs, btw, but Apple's attempt to enforce a subpoena against them.)
Of course, one could be forgiven for thinking that the ruling was something else, given the reaction of the blogosphere. For example, SFist stated that the ruling was that “California's shield law ... didn't apply to bloggers ...”. MacWorld went even farther, raising the alarm that the judge “disagreed with lawyers arguements [sic] that online publications are covered by the First Amendment.” (Quote from the RSS summary.)
Woo-hoo! Now we're cookin' with gas! Blogs aren't journalists? Blogs aren't covered by the First Amendment? How dare they! Let's turn our sense of thwarted entitlement up to 11!
Of course, the ruling said neither of those things. What's going on is that there is a free-floating narrative that's been kicking around the blogosphere for a while (given a tremendous boost by the last election), which is:
Blogs are too real journalism! They're more journalism than those stupid old newspapers! We break more news earlier than stupid old newspapers, and no one gives us any respect. No one appreciates how hip and with it and cutting edge we are, and we should get all the same goodies as those stupid old newspapers!
The Apple vs. blog lawsuit was custom-made for that narrative, because it seems to have something to do with the particular status of blogs vs. newspapers (and other traditional journalism). But it doesn't. It has nothing to do with it. Doesn't touch on it at all.
The issue is, was, and always will be in this suit: Does the California journalist shield law offer a defense against a lawsuit brought on the basis of trade secret law? Reasonable people can disagree on this point, but the judge said “no,” and no one should be surprised by this ruling; the case law definitely points that way. The reason that traditional journalists don't often get caught by this is not because the courts are in awe of them; it's because traditional journalists usually don't do stupid things like publish unattributed rumors that are likely to get them sued under trade secret law. (Daring Fireball makes this point far more eloquently than I can.)
So, in fact, this whole case rather contradicts the narrative that blogs aren't being taken seriously. Apple is certainly taking them seriously. What it does mean is that blogs are expected to have the same responsibilities as traditional media, and that means taking it on the chin if they publish things that could get them sued. To act otherwise is to act like an adolescent who starts complaining about their “rights as a human being” as a way of avoiding taking out the trash.
8 March 2005
Um, thanks, but...
IRA offers to shoot man's killers.
Is it just me, or is this being somewhat unclear about what an “end to paramilitary activity” means?
4 March 2005
Don't to that to me, Dave
Ever since I switched to OS X, I've been using Safari. Safari is a fine browser, really it is... except for its incredibly annoying tendency to just “go away” into some kind of 100% CPU-use loop for seconds at a time. I have no idea what it is going, but it has rendered it nearly useless.
So, I'm switching to Firefox. But where is the system- (or at least account-) wide preference to change your default browser? In Safari, just to make you feel guilty about bagging it.
3 March 2005
UPS and Old Mort
I've been known to bash the Post Office once in a while. But, to be fair, we have horror stories to go with each of our parcel carriers, here at Blowfish.
Recently, a customer ordered some stuff from us, via UPS 2nd Day Air, to be delivered to her house in Alaska. UPS claims that they deliver, themselves, to each and every street address in the United States.
Perhaps they believe Alaska to still be part of Russia.
When the parcel reached the UPS station in Fairbanks, we discover that, no, UPS does not deliver to that particular street address in one of their happy wrapping-paper brown trucks. Instead, it appears that they see who is driving by, yell out the window, “Hey! Going to So-and-So's place?” If the local in their pickemup-truck answers in the affirmative, the parcel is tossed into the back next to the deer carcass, and Old Mort in the truck is entrusted with the delivery.
In this particular case, Old Mort seems to have been hitting the Ranier Pale Ale a bit too hard (well, it is February in Alaska, you would too), and throws it onto the wrong step.
Eventually, after much complaining to UPS, we get them to call Old Mort to go back out and get the rifled package and toss it onto our customer's porch. The unintended recipient has rifled it, but apparently doesn't like any of the stuff that our customer has has ordered, so Mort was able to extract the package.
The customer was very nice about it, thank goodness, although she was a bit mortified about having her order be quite so public. We were pretty mortified, too.
But, so far, UPS has never lost a $600 package off of one of their trucks, like Fedex Ground did to us.