The Off Topic Topic

[Valmy]

By the way Happy Juneteenth Languish! The day we Texans celebrate that time an invading army forced our ancestors to do the right thing/liberated our ancestors from their fellow Texans.

And people say you never heard the phrase "I am from the Federal Government and here to help"

[Sheilbh]

By the way Happy Juneteenth Languish! The day we Texans celebrate that time an invading army forced our ancestors to do the right thing/liberated our ancestors from their fellow Texans.

And people say you never heard the phrase "I am from the Federal Government and here to help"

As Andrew Exum put it:

Juneteenth commemorates both a singular act, emancipation, as well as a more timeless tradition of Americans and in particular the federal government staring at Texas, mouths agape, wondering what the hell is going on down here.

[grumbler]

I'm always curious as to why Germany is so different. Regional GDP and GDP-growth maps of Europe reveal how unique Germany is regarding geographical distribution of wealth and how despite the narrative, the crisis not only affected Club Med, but pretty much everyone "rich" but Germany (and Austria).

Austria looks good at a glance, but Vienna, where 25+% of the Austrian GDP lives, is in negative.

It is delta GDP/capita, not absolute.

[Savonarola]

I went to the grocery store this morning and there had been a huge run on Aunt Jemima syrup; there were only a few bottles remaining.  Mrs. Butterworth's Syrup was low, but had more bottles than Aunt Jemima.  Uncle Ben's rice was still well stocked, but there's a limit on the amount of rice you can buy.

[Josquius]

https://medium.com/better-marketing/pepsi-nearly-had-to-buy-a-harrier-jet-for-a-customer-98424e32aa46

Pepsi Nearly Had to Buy a Harrier Jet — for a Customer
They shouldn't have advertised a $30 million item for $700,000

In 1996, Pepsi rolled out one of its "Drink Pepsi, Get Stuff" campaigns.
It was your usual promotion where you get points for purchases that you can later use.
The TV ad targeted teenage and early 20s customers. It showed all the cool things you could win with Pepsi points.
They showed a kid wearing a Pepsi T-Shirt: 75 Pepsi Points.
A kid wearing a leather jack: 1,450 points.
Sunglasses: 175 points.
They then boasted:
"The more Pepsi you drink, the more great stuff you're going to get."
Then it escalated.
The commercial ends with that same kid (wearing the leather jacket and sunglasses) landing a Harrier jet in front of a school.
Everyone's papers were blowing off their desks and kids were crowding to the window to see the jet landing.

A harrier is a "jump jet" which can go vertical like a helicopter. Its engines can rotate downwards. Source: CBS News pic
The campaign was mostly a success as sales increased significantly. But there would be an interesting twist to this promotion.
A 21-year-old business student, John Leonard, saw the commercial and took a particular interest in that jet.
To get the Harrier, he would need to buy millions of Pepsis (most winning Pepsis had one point on the label, others had three and five — there were no one-million-point Pepsi bottles).
The Workaround
There was a Pepsi Stuff points catalog. It listed all of the merchandise that one could get with their Pepsi points. John noticed the fine print said you could buy points to get merchandise instead. Each point was ten cents.
For example, the 1,450 point jacket cost $145 and the 175 point sunglasses cost $17.50. Both items likely cost a fraction of that to make. It was good margins and smart business.
What Pepsi failed to notice was the margin on Harrier (which wasn't listed in the catalog but was still advertised in the commercial).
John did some quick math and realized that the seven-million-point Harrier would cost $700,000 dollars. Back in the real world, a fresh Harrier sells for north of $30 million.
John Leonard found four investors who all pitched in. He then sent a check for $700,008.50 (he already had 15 points and the remaining $10 was to cover shipping and handling).
His check included a letter stating he wished to redeem his points for the Harrier they'd advertised in the commercial.
And Thus Began a War of Letters
Pepsi's marketing team wrote back:
"The item that you have requested is not part of the Pepsi Stuff collection. It is not included in the catalogue or on the order form. Only catalogue merchandise can be redeemed under this program.
The Harrier jet in the Pepsi commercial is fanciful and is simply included to create a humorous and entertaining ad.
We apologize for any misunderstanding or confusion that you may have experienced and are enclosing some free product coupons for your use."
John Leonard was not satisfied. His lawyer wrote a response:
"Your letter of May 7, 1996 is totally unacceptable. We have reviewed the video tape of the Pepsi Stuff commercial ... and it clearly offers the new Harrier jet for 7,000,000 Pepsi Points. Our client followed your rules explicitly.
This is a formal demand that you honor your commitment and make immediate arrangements to transfer the new Harrier jet to our client. If we do not receive transfer instructions within ten (10) business days of the date of this letter you will leave us no choice but to file an appropriate action against Pepsi."
Pepsi's senior marketing executive, Raymond McGovern, then jumped in with his own letter:
"I find it hard to believe that you are of the opinion that the Pepsi Stuff commercial ("Commercial") really offers a new Harrier Jet. The use of the Jet was clearly a joke that was meant to make the Commercial more humorous and entertaining. In my opinion, no reasonable person would agree with your analysis of the Commercial."
This is when formal court cases start firing up.
Quite comically, Pepsi had to file an official case stating they shouldn't be "required to furnish a Harrier jet" to John Leonard (one won't often see "furnish" and "harrier" in the same sentence again).
For the next three years, this case weaved through court systems before a judge ruled in Pepsi's favor for two key reasons:
A commercial is not a contractual offer.
The commercial was clearly tongue in cheek. No reasonable person would have thought the offer was real.
Lastly, and quite humorously again, the judge added this commentary:
"In light of the Harrier jet's well-documented function in attacking and destroying surface and air targets, armed reconnaissance and air interdiction, and offensive and defensive anti-aircraft warfare, depiction of such a jet as a way to get to school in the morning is clearly not serious even if, as plaintiff contends, the jet is capable of being acquired 'in a form that eliminates [its] potential for military use.' (The plaintiff had said he would settle for a Harrier without weapons during the proceedings).
Pepsi went on to amend its commercial, changing 7,000,000 points to 700,000,000 points.


They would also add a small print to the advertisement, saying "Just Kidding."
If there's any silver lining to all this madness, the case has now become a staple in law schools. A good majority of legal students will end up studying "Leonard v. Pepsico, Inc" as the case offers an entertaining look at the infinite grey area of contract law.
All that being said, a part of me still wishes they'd just given the guy the Harrier. Or done something cool for him besides offering a few coupons.

[Oexmelin]

There is a petition online to change the name of Columbus, Ohio, into « Flavortown ». In honor of Columbus' greatest son, Guy Fieri.

That is all.

[PDH]

Oh hod.

[The Brain]

There is a petition online to change the name of Columbus, Ohio, into « Flavortown ». In honor of Columbus' greatest son, Guy Fieri.

That is all.

Flavor Flav deserves a city.

[HisMajestyBOB]

There is a petition online to change the name of Columbus, Ohio, into « Flavortown ». In honor of Columbus' greatest son, Guy Fieri.

That is all.

I fully support this because Guy Fieri is awesome.
Washington DC could follow and rename after Jose Andres.

[Oexmelin]

There is a petition online to change the name of Columbus, Ohio, into « Flavortown ». In honor of Columbus' greatest son, Guy Fieri.

That is all.

I fully support this because Guy Fieri is awesome.
Washington DC could follow and rename after Jose Andres.

Be the change you want to see in the world. https://www.change.org/p/mayor-ginther-columbus-city-council-change-the-name-of-columbus-ohio-to-flavortown

[Sheilbh]

My one issue with cancel culture is it just doesn't work - there are two relatively prominent British journalists/writers who were "cancelled" a few years back for a whole range of very unpleasant stories from women (forcing themselves on them, putting something in someone's drink etc). I know some women in at least one of these guys circles and the stories that got published were, by some distance, the milder ones. Both men were on women journalists/activists WhatsApps to warn each other not to end up alone with either of them. One was sort-of centrist dad politics and the other one was hard-left and close to Momentum.

I am thrilled to discover that both have just casually re-entered the discourse and I'm seeing normal people re-tweeting and sharing their articles, especially in America. I don't even think either of them did the customary apology. I think they just laid low for a couple of years and then started pushing out content in the US and to other papers (both, needless to say, are very posh - lots of money, no impunity)

[garbon]

My one issue with cancel culture is it just doesn't work - there are two relatively prominent British journalists/writers who were "cancelled" a few years back for a whole range of very unpleasant stories from women (forcing themselves on them, putting something in someone's drink etc). I know some women in at least one of these guys circles and the stories that got published were, by some distance, the milder ones. Both men were on women journalists/activists WhatsApps to warn each other not to end up alone with either of them. One was sort-of centrist dad politics and the other one was hard-left and close to Momentum.

I am thrilled to discover that both have just casually re-entered the discourse and I'm seeing normal people re-tweeting and sharing their articles, especially in America. I don't even think either of them did the customary apology. I think they just laid low for a couple of years and then started pushing out content in the US and to other papers (both, needless to say, are very posh - lots of money, no impunity)

That would suggest 'cancel culture' is less insidious than its detractors insist.

[DGuller]

My one issue with cancel culture is it just doesn't work - there are two relatively prominent British journalists/writers who were "cancelled" a few years back for a whole range of very unpleasant stories from women (forcing themselves on them, putting something in someone's drink etc). I know some women in at least one of these guys circles and the stories that got published were, by some distance, the milder ones. Both men were on women journalists/activists WhatsApps to warn each other not to end up alone with either of them. One was sort-of centrist dad politics and the other one was hard-left and close to Momentum.

I am thrilled to discover that both have just casually re-entered the discourse and I'm seeing normal people re-tweeting and sharing their articles, especially in America. I don't even think either of them did the customary apology. I think they just laid low for a couple of years and then started pushing out content in the US and to other papers (both, needless to say, are very posh - lots of money, no impunity)

That would suggest 'cancel culture' is less insidious than its detractors insist.

How?  So some people were evidently not permanently finished off by mob justice, therefore mob justice is not as insidious?  Maybe it's just not as effective on sociopathic victims, who won't internalize ostracism as much as innocent people who made a mistake and faced disproportionate punishment.

[garbon]

My one issue with cancel culture is it just doesn't work - there are two relatively prominent British journalists/writers who were "cancelled" a few years back for a whole range of very unpleasant stories from women (forcing themselves on them, putting something in someone's drink etc). I know some women in at least one of these guys circles and the stories that got published were, by some distance, the milder ones. Both men were on women journalists/activists WhatsApps to warn each other not to end up alone with either of them. One was sort-of centrist dad politics and the other one was hard-left and close to Momentum.

I am thrilled to discover that both have just casually re-entered the discourse and I'm seeing normal people re-tweeting and sharing their articles, especially in America. I don't even think either of them did the customary apology. I think they just laid low for a couple of years and then started pushing out content in the US and to other papers (both, needless to say, are very posh - lots of money, no impunity)

That would suggest 'cancel culture' is less insidious than its detractors insist.

How?  So some people were evidently not permanently finished off by mob justice, therefore mob justice is not as insidious?  Maybe it's just not as effective on sociopathic victims, who won't internalize ostracism as much as innocent people who made a mistake and faced disproportionate punishment.

Sheilbh can't make a pronouncement that it is ineffective and then it still hold true that permanently finishes people off. My point was that his statement seem ill...considered.

[Sheilbh]

Sheilbh can't make a pronouncement that it is ineffective and then it still hold true that permanently finishes people off. My point was that his statement seem ill...considered.

I don't have a big issue with cancel culture. I'm just annoyed it doesn't work.