Came across a failed package design for Hanes sweatshirts and sweatpants, as is evidenced by the number of items either opened or rewrapped.
Come on, people want to at least hold up a shirt or pair of pants to see if they’ll fit. This packaging doesn’t even let you approximate that. Hanes should know this.
However, when I laid out one of the open shirts, I discovered that maybe Hanes didn’t want people to look at these, let alone try them on. This shirt looks like it’s made for someone wider than they are tall. I’ll grant you that such a market exists, but in the women’s fashion world, these shapes are usually labeled as 1X, 2X, etc., most likely in “petite,” not your average sizes in the regular ladies’ section.
Incidentally, the proportions of the pants seemed average.
If you make the engineers answer e-mails and phone calls from the customers, the second or third time they get the same question, they’ll actually stop what they’re doing and fix the code. Then we don’t have those questions anymore.
Do the engineers get customer service training? Just curious.
Too bad the rest of the interview sounds rather male-centric. There isn’t any mention of Paul’s wife, though he talks about his kids. If he’s a single dad, that might have been important to mention, because the rest of the article is full of “he” and “him” and “guys.” Aren’t there any female programmers working at Kayak.com?
How is it possible for Amazon to take a commission larger than the sale price?
I looked at the fine print, and here it is:
Amazon collects fees only when your item sells. At that time, Amazon collects your sales price and shipping costs from the buyer, deducts a commission of 6 to 15 percent of the sales price, a per-transaction fee of $0.99, and a variable closing fee.
For books, that variable closing fee is $1.35.
If you’re a Pro Merchant, the $0.99 transaction fee is waived. Even so, Amazon really doesn’t make it easy for people to profit from low-priced items. It seems really unfair for Amazon to cut into your shipping allowance, though.
I knew Amazon’s commission was higher than, say, Half.com, but I didn’t realize they do it with fees which allow Amazon’s profit to be equal to or greater than yours.
Really, that was it? That was the commercial that had activists all in a tizzy?
Almost two weeks ago, Mike Celizic (writing for NBC) announced that money is the only reason CBS would agree to air this ad:
There is no other reason — and certainly no good reason — for anyone, including a television executive, to decide that the ethical standards which had stood for generations are suddenly no more worth preserving than that hairball the cat just coughed up.
Really? You mean commercials during the big game have NEVER challenged ethics before? Those ethical standards have stood for generations?
Let’s take a look at the other ads that have aired tonight (so far). Back in the early days of this game, I seriously doubt any TV executive would have allowed an ad with:
men and women parading in their underwear around the office;
a woman ripping her shirt off (albeit with a camisole underneath) and an address where you can view the rest (which, the company is proud to say, was banned from TV);
a man falling out of a casket full of snack chips – during his funeral;
a group of men walking the hills without pants on;
a close-up of a middle-aged football player’s rump with a cheetah-print thong visible above his pants; or even
Betty White getting thrown into a muddy puddle.
But they probably would have allowed an ad with a football player’s mom saying how much she loves her son. Which is all this ad really says.
