http://www.good.is/post/at-this-vending-machine-swapping-is-
the-new-buying?utm_campaign=daily_good2&utm_medium=email_daily_good2
&utm_source=headline_link&utm_content=At%20This%20Vending
%20Machine%2C%20Swapping%20is%20the%20New%20Buying

Yuck! Well, I’m here to tell you how to solve this hobgoblin by giving you some information about the question mark “at the end.”—the one that I’ve highlighted in black. For that is not a question mark for the title of the article, but rather the gate to server world.

If you look at the above url, you’ll notice a few things you’re likely to recognize. This domain is unusual for not being a “.com” but other than that, the title of the article is pretty clear. You can read it out loud, “At This Vending Machine Swapping is the New Buying.” But see, that’s a title, not a question. That question mark is the end of the URL and the beginning of a bunch of variables that programmers and publishers can use mainly to see where you came from. I was in my mail program when this article popped up, I clicked on the link, and this URL was sent to my browser, letting the good people at Good Magazine know that I arrived on their doorstep from out of an email they sent to me.

But look, copy only the portion up to the question mark and Voila, the URL still functions perfectly:

http://www.good.is/post/at-this-vending-machine-swapping-is-the-new-buying

Some people prefer to automate this process a bit by using URL shortening services such as bit.ly or goo.gl or, my favorite, is.gd, and I do use them for Twitter. But when sending along an article to a friend, I consider this bad etiquette. In a way, it takes advantage of trust and removes information from the receiver which would otherwise give them a choice to spend their time on your missive or not. Consider the difference here:

Hey,

Thought you would appreciate this article from Good Magazine:
“At This Vending Machine Swapping is the New Buying”
http://www.good.is/post/at-this-vending-machine-swapping-is-the-new-buying

Hey,

Check this out:
http://is.gd/1OgsZz

You see? There’s no context. The second message reads like an imperative. But, people are busy. People may not be more or less likely to go to the link you’ve so generously shared if it’s shortened, but if they put it away for later, chances are they’ll forget it. Instead, the context of the title might be enough to spring something to mind later and they’ll seek it out of their inbox. Besides which, I can’t help but think that courtesy and clarity in email are two things worth striving for.

Publishers!: You should note for yourselves that bad URLs are likely harming your readership. URLs like the first one above often just break in email programs when people try to share them. It’s why URL shortening services exist, but they are not a panacea. Ask your webmaster (are they still called that?) how a reader can land on the site, your URL variables then register with your server, and afterwards direct the reader to a new copy of the page with a nice URL that people can more easily share. It’s not hard to do. (Particularly savvy web masters will use javascript to dynamically update the URL without ever making the reader think they’ve left the page!)

Complete Title: “The Impact of an Octopus Can Potentially Change Your Artistic Trajectory”

It hasn’t happened to me, mind you, but it could. It could happen to any one of us. Think about it! And where will we be then? I don’t think life continues on normally after a celphlapod assaults you.

Feel free to try these yourself.

Search: Fox

Google: FOX Broadcasting Company – FOX Television Shows www.fox.com/

Google: 5 Lovable Animals You Didn’t Know Are Secretly Terrifying … www.cracked.com/…/5-lovable-animals-you-didnt-know-are-secretly…

Google: Steiff 1542/35 Curled Up Ringel Fuzzy Red Fox 1977 35cm KFS … www.ebay.com/itm/Steiff…Fuzzy-Red-Fox…-/150716495372

Google: What the hell does this even mean? – Yahoo! Answers answers.yahoo.com › … › Education & Reference › Quotations

Google: Well That Was Close! – YouTube www.youtube.com/watch?v=zGhKw5rew1Q

Google: miserable at my best gummychocolates.tumblr.com/

Google: Loren Feldman – Google+ – Aww is everybody crying about google … https://plus.google.com/117245298692605482770/…/KMsENb2ke9…

Google: Hunter S. Thompson Quotes (Author of Fear and Loathing in Las … www.goodreads.com/author/quotes/5237.Hunter_S_Thompson

Google: He SaId:-”I love yOu” I rEpLiEd “WhAt A cOiNcIdEnCe.!! I love … www.facebook.com/…cOiNcIdEnCe…Too-/202517949818580?…

Google: Did you mean: Love? Seriously, Google. IT was just looking for a fox.  

Google: Logitech CEO: Google TV ‘cost us dearly,’ no Revue replacement … www.theverge.com/…/logitech-ceo-google-tv-cost-us-dearly-no-revu…

Google: The Dark Knight – Wikiquote en.wikiquote.org/wiki/The_Dark_Knight

Google: Showing results for I loved Batman, to, Google. But… I gotta go?Search instead for I loved Batman, too, Google. But… I gotta go Search Results 1. Blades of Glory (2007) – Memorable quotes www.imdb.com/title/tt0445934/quotes

Google: wedding – alanahines – Google Sites sites.google.com/site/alanahines/wedding

Google: Google Maps Mania: Good Night Google Maps! googlemapsmania.blogspot.com/2006/…/good-night-google-maps.ht…

Google: Your search – … – did not match any documents. Suggestions: • Try different keywords.

I love this poster because the intended message gets so overwhelmed and even contradicted by aspects of it’s design. Despite a US literacy rate of 99%, the US adult population can be categorized into “half readers and half non-readers.” Reading is not exactly an American past time, is what I’m saying, and Britney Spears (as opposed to some famous author) is not exactly the best spokesperson choice for literacy, IMHO. And I wouldn’t have pointed out the U states reading stats but it’s sort of irresistible given the symbolic patriotism stretched across Britney’s boobs.¹ And I suppose that Harry Potter is the pop fiction of the age, but aren’t there really more literate choices?²

“Hey!” (sounds out the inevitable disagreement) “Other options wouldn’t make reading as exciting and cool for kids.” Yeah! I agree! In fact, we should put the word “Read” right in the poster in an over-used trajan-like movie poster font that looks like daggers, cuz reading will cut ya’, man! And Britney Spears is more than an awesome spokesperson—–she is so radical that she should have an angelic gaussian light spilling down on her! We could even present the book over Britney’s nether-regions as if to say, boys, if you you finish this book, guess what else you’ll get? And don’t tell kids to go to the library tell them it’s “@ your library,” because @ is cool or something. Yes, I am certain—certain, I tell you—that kids read because of this poster’s placement in children’s libraries.³

To the first question, it is useful to know that there are two competing theories about what a corporations’ leaders motivations should be. On the one hand, a school of management established by Peter Drucker argues that (in his words) “There is only one valid definition of a business purpose: to create a customer.” Under this managerial view, making a better product, creating a better experience should be the top priority. On the other hand, many corporate executives have come to believe in the arguments laid out by finance professor Michael Jensen and Dean William Meckling of the Simon School of Business at the University of Rochester. Their theory argues that a corporate CEO’s number one goal should be to maximize shareholder value. (You can read much more about this clash of ideas in “The Dumbest Idea In The World: Maximizing Shareholder Value” by Steve Denning over at Forbes. Definitely worth the read.) The problem that arises from this point-of-view is that there are ways that a CEO can increase shareholder value without concerning him/herself with bettering a product. Most of these involve managing information in some way. The first method is that CEOs can manage the expectations of analysts who make investment advice. Exuberance has been shown to be able to increase stock value. This, to paraphrase Roger Martin in Fixing the Game, is like the coach of a football team managing the spread for the bookies instead of trying to win the game. A second method is to use advertising and product placement in media to manage brand recognition, and that part is important because of what psychologists call the recognition heuristic.

In Psychological Review (Vol. 1, No. 9) Daniel Goldstein and Gerd Gigerenzer put forward a simple mathematical function that fairly accurately predicts subjects’ decision-making (in cases with two options). The predictions indicated that, in very general terms, individuals will choose something they know over something that they are unfamiliar with. They call this decision process the recognition heuristic and speak directly to the fact that information transmitted via media has the advantage of appearing before an individual multiple times. What this accomplishes is to make an individual estimate that they have interacted with a brand more often than they actually have, increasing its recognition, and the likelihood that the advertised product will be chosen over the lesser or un-advertised.

Where corporations often run into trouble (Hi, RIM!) is that they come to rely on these informational crutches. Playing the spread becomes more important than winning the game. Talking up unproven projects in development becomes more important than actually shipping. Any advantages that a collection of skilled people brings begins to deteriorate as money is funneled away from design and development and into other channels better used for support, and talented people leave. If there’s one thing that annoys talented engineers and designers, it is seeing that the focus of a company is on something other than what is being produced. After a while, a firms lose the ability to innovate even when executives decide to change focus, because the talent needed to steer the ship has jumped ship. As the vaunted Steve Jobs might say, “Real artists ship”¹. In fact, Apple makes an exceptional example in this respect, reducing their advertising budget when compared to their revenue growth, and spending a fraction of what other technology companies spend while dominating multiple markets because of the effectiveness of their design and engineering. Managing shareholder expectations and engaging advertising are important aspects of corporate management, but they are no substitute for creating a product or service that compels consumers to want to engage with it. You can and probably should advertise, but don’t be surprised when consumers get wise to the fact that all you do is advertise.

For instance, if the act of signing up for war could be considered altruistic, certainly the opportunity for altruism disappears the moment you’re “in the shit.” Not so. Consider some stories from David Axelrod’s “The Evolution of Cooperation.” In it he talks about how British and German troops “regularized” their firing on each to such a degree that injury could be easily avoided by both sides. “These rituals of perfunctory and routine firing sent a double message. To the high command they conveyed aggression, but to the enemy they conveyed peace.” (on Page 86) Peace in the midst of gunfire! We are a bizarre species.