Irony Defined

Here’s an unfortunate train of events.  When examining Chris Rea’s Driving Home For Christmas song, scientists at the University of Sheffield in the UK found the following (links included):

Well, yes.  That “carbon footprint reduction” thing is doubleplus virtuous, of course.

However, as with all ivory-tower cogitations, Real Life™ has an unfortunate knack for making such conclusions look ridiculous:

Needless to say, the Eco-Loons don’t care, because not being able to visit your family at all on Christmas means that your carbon footprint would be lower still.

Which is why scientists should stick to things like discovering a better adhesive that sticks wood to metal, or improving the taste of Slim Jims (to give but two examples), instead of trying to add to the Smug Index of Virtuousness.

Just a thought.

Then again, we have another solution for this bunch of wokey watermelons, to make their carbon footprint go away completely:

…but no doubt someone is going to have a problem with this.

Not Just No

…but “fuck off and die” no.

I refer here, of course, to this push to make us all give up our regular gasoline-powered cars and replace them with fucking Duracell* vehicles.

Here’s one tale of woe.

And here’s the problematic infrastructure.

So fuck ’em.

Come to think of it, we could always switch to horses, except that those assholes at Peta will probably throw a hissy about that too.

I think I need to go to the range (he said, apropos of nothing).  Those guns aren’t going to shoot all by themselves, you know.


*And I mean no disrespect towards Duracell, who make excellent batteries.  I’m just not going to use them to power my car.

Quote Of The Day

“We’ve learned in recent years that when the Left’s theories are contradicted by the real world, they stick with the theory.  If the laboratory mice aren’t behaving as predicted, the problem isn’t the theory; it’s the mice.”Stephen Moore

Or as we used to put it:  if the facts don’t conform to the theory, they must be eliminated.  Sic semper sinistra.

Or, pictorially:


“We don’ need no steenkin’ rails!”

No Consequences

As I never tire of telling people here (and other places), Marxism is one of those strange belief systems that holds that as long as the intentions are praiseworthy, the consequences are irrelevant.  Take this latest episode in the People’s Soviet of Kaliforniaaahhh:

In their seemingly never-ending quest to make lives for Californians miserable, the state legislature passed a bill that Governor Newsom signed into law mandating a $20 minimum wage for fast food workers by April of 2024.  

…and why not?  Don’t we want people to be able to earn a “living” wage in California?  (Okay, Califuckingfornia is expensive to live in because of their insane one-party government and its onerous laws, rules and regulations, but we can discuss all that some other time.)

Well, sure.  Except that business owners, already driven up against the wall by said laws and regulations, have decided that enough is enough, and they need to rein in costs — in this case, salary costs.

So:

PacPizza LLC, operating as Pizza Hut, said in a federal WARN (Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification) Act notice filed with California’s Employment Development Department that the company has made a business decision to eliminate first-party delivery services and, as a result, the elimination of all delivery driver positions. Similarly, Southern California Pizza Co. has also announced layoffs, impacting about 841 drivers across the state.

Thus, Californians too lazy to fetch their own pizzas will now have to rely on expensive “third-party” delivery services (e.g. UberEats etc.) to deliver their deep-dish delicacies.

Oh, wait;  didn’t California recently pass legislation that made Uber service essentially too costly for people not on a corporate expense account?  Why yes, yes they did:

The California Legislature passed a law in 2019 that changed the rules of who is an employee and who is an independent contractor. It’s an important distinction for companies because employees are covered by a broad range of labor laws that guarantee them certain benefits while independent contractors are not.

While the law applied to lots of industries, it had the biggest impact on app-based ride hailing and delivery companies. Their business relies on contracting with people to use their own cars to give people rides and make deliveries. Under the 2019 law, companies would have to treat those drivers as employees and provide certain benefits that would greatly increase the businesses’ expenses.

But hey, that was too much even for the serfs and helots a.k.a. ordinary Californians, who later passed Proposition 22 in a ballot measure, in essence telling the legislature to fuck off and leave Uber and their drivers alone.  Of course, that was no good, so the CalGov tried to get the Prop 22 overturned in the courts (standard Commie reaction when the peasants revolt, if they can’t be stuffed into gulags or shot in killing pits).

Then in early 2023:

App-based ride hailing and delivery companies like Uber and Lyft can continue to treat their California drivers as independent contractors, a state appeals court ruled Monday, allowing the tech giants to bypass other state laws requiring worker protections and benefits.

The ruling mostly upholds a voter-approved law, called Proposition 22, that said drivers for companies like Uber and Lyft are independent contractors and are not entitled to benefits like paid sick leave and unemployment insurance. A lower court ruling in 2021 had said Proposition 22 was illegal, but Monday’s ruling reversed that decision.

Everyone following the story of the film so far?   (There may be a test.)

Anyway, now that the Cali Politburo has decreed that workers have to be paid a lot more than their services are worth, and employers have responded by applying one of the basic capitalist principles (when wages get too high, reduce the workforce), expect the Politburo to pass some equally-stupid new law, say that companies which sell fast food have to employ drivers.

You heard it here first.

Frankly, I look forward to the day when Californians have to fetch their own fucking pizzas, driving cars at $7/gallon fuel costs or EVs which catch fire and turn them and their pizzas into extra-crispy meals for buzzards.

Me, I say:  Let California sink.

Marketing Morons

We’re all familiar with companies that screw up their brands — Bud Lite coff coff — and I often wonder how they stay in business.

Chief among these offenders are companies which change their logo, a change which may not only cause customer confusion at the moment, but which can screw up future brand recognition as well.

One shining example of when it’s a good idea to change one’s logo is that of Federal Express, abbreviating that (unnecessarily-long) name to simply “FedEx” — and it made sense because ta-da!  that’s what their customers had been calling them for years anyway.  (And adding colors to differentiate the various services:  genius.)


And to be honest, FedEx hasn’t made that many mistakes anyway, over their relatively-short corporate history.

That makes sense.  But this one doesn’t.

WH Smith has left shoppers baffled after dropping ‘Smith’ from its signs in a trial rebrand. The High Street retailer has shortened the signs to simply state ‘WHS’ in a move that has confused customers.

The sign now consists of the three letters ‘WHS’ in a white font on a blue background, dropping the surname of William Henry Smith, who turned his father’s business into a nationwide concern.

I should point out that the stationery company has been known as WH Smith since 1846.  (It was originally founded by WH’s father in 1792.)  This is not a heritage to be messed with.  The change is massive;  it goes from this:


…which everybody knows, even internationally, to this:


…wherein the sign would idiotically incorporate the name of the town, as though customers would be unaware of where they are.

All that said, however, there may be some hope:

A spokesperson for WH Smith said the new signs were designed in mind to raise awareness of the range of products sold by the company.

He added that there were currently no plans to roll the new design out to further stores.

What fucking bullshit.  How does shortening the company name increase awareness of the product range?  More to the point, who was the moron who came up with this idea?

Here’s the thing.  “WH Smith” is inextricably linked with things like books, stationery, newspapers and such.  Yes, they sell other stuff such as toys and games — but mostly it’s paper and paper-related products, and it’s what they’ve been known for since the nineteenth century.

What are they going to do to their product range that would make so fundamental a change necessary?  Expand into tools and hardware?  Clothing and perfumes?  Garden furniture?

You see, that’s the problem right there.  It’s because WH Smith is so linked with paper and publications that it might be difficult to tell customers that “Oh no, we don’t just sell newspapers, we also sell motor cars and cookware!”

One ironclad marketing rule is that you never mess with your core brand’s identity — New Coke, anyone? — but if you want to expand your product offering, you do it under a new brand.  It’s why Procter & Gamble doesn’t sell Pampers tampons, even though Pampers and Always are part of the same corporate entity, and often manufactured under the same roof.  Most consumers, by the way, are blissfully unaware that the two products are made by the same corporation, nor should they or anyone else care, because it’s irrelevant.

So if WH Smith wanted to branch out and extend their product offering — and there’s nothing wrong with that, necessarily — they would need to separate the non-stationery items under a new brand, and preferably in a new location altogether.  Frying pans ain’t magazines, Bubba, and they require a different approach altogether.

FFS:  this is Marketing 101 stuff, and I feel like I’m explaining the need for personal hygiene to kindergartners.  I’m sure there are all sorts of Smart Young Things at the Swindon headquarters of WH Smith — pardon me, WHS — who would love to bend my ear about The Need For Change, and Not Letting Your Brand Become A Dinosaur and every other marketing trope (I nearly said “tripe”, which would have been equally appropriate).

I would have thought that said Bright Young Things might have learned from the debacle of New Coke — yeah, I know, but that was such a Long Time Ago and Times Have Changed, Old Man — but it pains me to think that they couldn’t even learn from the very recent debacle of Bud Lite, whose dolorous ripples are still being felt even as I write this.

The problem, you see, is that Marketing always has to stay relevant.  That’s what is taught, and it’s regarded as gospel — when in fact it really isn’t.  The core principle of marketing — Never Fuck With Your Brand — is about as unyielding, and as timeless, as the principles contained in The Gods Of The Copybook Headings.

Then again, the latter are also regarded as old-fashioned nonsense nowadays, so perhaps this whole “WHS” nonsense is unsurprising.

I just hope that this “WHS rebrand experiment” remains just that, and is tossed into the trashcan quickly.

Many A True Word

…spoken in jest, as the saying goes.  Here’s the jest:

…and here are the true words.

Back when I was a business consultant, I belonged to a share group of same-industry consultants who would meet twice a year at some pleasure spot (#BusinessDeduction) to swap stories, pass on potential leads and so on.

I was moaning about a recent catastrophe which had befallen me (details unimportant, but “fuckwit client” will suffice), when everyone at the table laughed, and one of the guys said:

“Never take on a gig when the client CEO has a Harvard MBA.”

And it’s true.  Not only are these ivory-tower assholes devoid of any true business sense, but the Harvard MBA must be a pretty shitty course, judging by their track record in the real world that I swam around in.  (That particular company failed, spectacularly, and the CEO left the country for a while.)

The only reason I can think of for anyone to get an MBA is if their undergrad course didn’t include things like Accounting, Stat or Marketing.