If I read an article about why people should return products which don’t meet their needs then you’d likely find me agreeing with it vigourously due to its simple logic. For instance, despite my agreement that the recently released iPad is going to be fantastic driver for change in the consumer devices space, I have decided that I don’t need one presently. I like to think I am good at the balancing of my WANTS and my NEEDS in our consumption driven society.
But then, while reading the final paragraph, I had to do a double take. The author of said article went off on a tangent that he was going to sell his shares in that company due to his dislike of the product, its marketing and because the company
‘could have put their money into developing a product that would actually change things’
This immediately struck me as odd as he readily admits the purchase was his own ‘hype based spending’.
Eventually, I thought the idea so farcical that I forgot the rationale of the rest of the article and laughed for quite some time. Certainly, if I were to follow that sort of advice, I’d be selling shares I hold in Banks today. The performance and outlook of their shares doesn’t matter a jot, does it! I hate the way they gouge us for Mortgages. They could do so much better with what they have got, so I’m going to sell my shares.
I also dislike what Google did when they released Buzz – read TRUSTe’s opinion on Google. So if I had their shares I’d be selling them too. I mean, if you dislike a company’s product, and they could invest their money in so many better things (in your opinion), those are the sorts of things you do right?
The idea you have to agree with every product a company markets and concur with all of their investment decisions in order to own their shares seems kind of mad to me. In any case, you’d be spending some amount of your money and your time doing research. It’d be research not just into the company’s performance on the Sharemarket, their Financial Health and prospects. You’d need to be using, buying, researching ALL of their products as well as perhaps needing to know confidential insider information about unapproved investment plans they may have for the years down the line.
It sounds like a nice idea, but just like sharing customer data with third party websites in order to give them a “better” experience, not so great in Practice. Either way, I’m sure Nick O’Neill is now fervently researching his entire stock portfolio in order to ensure that his other investments are not going to put him to shame in the sustainable investment stakes in the future. He could do worse than use Greenpeace’s ‘Green Electronics’ League Table as a starting point.
I had to check the date of the post – 1st of April was only a couple of days ago after all. I believe the penny dropped when I recalled that WebBlogs and other online ‘properties’ of course rely on traffic to generate revenue. Nothing wrong with that, one has to drink beer after all. But realistically, it’s all about the Search Engine ‘Juice’ isn’t it?
So sorry, I don’t buy it, Nick, I think your blog post ‘Why I’m returning the iPad‘ was nothing but link bait. You probably wrote it weeks ago and then spent the last few weeks telling the world why you wouldn’t buy an iPad. This would of course serve to highlight how you wavered while trying to manage your personal balance of wants and needs while heroically coming out on top in the end.
And all so you could launch your mutton dressed as lamb post, sit back and let the inbound links, views and dollars roll in.
Trust in New Media Journalism, indeed.