|
|
David Spates What are you doing for the next 1,000 hours? The American marketplace is full of outlandish
offers, and often what the sellers are offering is nothing the
buyers really want or can even use. The pitch may sound appealing,
but often if we, the buyers, pause long enough to fully consider
the promotion, we realize we're being played for fools. For instance, consider an ad in which America
Online is offering 1,000 free hours of online service for 45
days. Sounds great, doesn't it? No risk at all, and best of all
you get to enjoy 1,000 hours of online service for 45 days. Think
of it - 1,000 hours! Zowweee! Well, to me, spending 1,000 hours online in
only 45 days seemed like a lot. More than anyone would ever use. It is. With
the help of my trusty calculator, I determined that you'd have
to stay online for 22.22 hours of every single day to use up
the 1,000 hours. There are 1,080 hours in 45 days as it is. That
leaves 80 hours over the course of 45 days (that's about 1 hour,
47 minutes per day to you and me, Rusty) to sleep, bathe, eat,
work, spank the kids, berate the spouse and do all those other
chores that occupy our non-online time. Does anyone at AOL really expect people to
spend more than 22 hours a day online? I've know some Internet
addicts in my time, but 22 hours a day is a little ridiculous
even for them. The reason, obviously, that AOL offers 1,000 hours
for 45 days is that it sounds impressive. It gets your attention,
and that's what a good sales pitch is supposed to do, regardless
of the impracticalities. AOL just as easily could offer 10,000
hours of online service for 45 days. It doesn't make a difference.
No one is going to use 10,000 hours anymore than he'll use 1,000
hours. It's all in the presentation. Goofy offers like that always make me think
of the ridiculous "bargains" that convenience markets
and fast-food dives suggest. Have you been to a fast-food restaurant
(I use the word "restaurant" very loosely here) and
noticed the prices of, say, a cup of soda? Basically, it goes
something like this: You can get a small, which holds approximately
0.00042 ounces of liquid, for 79 cents. Or you can go with the
medium, which holds about 3 ounces of liquid, for 89 cents. If
you're feeling a little thirstier than 3 ounces of soda will
satisfy, try the large for 99 cents. It holds a little more than
126 ounces. If you're REALLY thirsty and want to get the best
soda bargain in town, by all means order the extra-large soda
for $1.09. It comes in an 55-gallon industrial oil barrel and
is more soda than any human could ever drink in a lifetime, but
it certainly is the "best value." And if you decide not to order the vat o'
cola, the paper-hat-wearing kid who just took your order looks
at you as if you've completely lost your mind. "Why would
anyone want a medium when he can get a large for just 10 cents
more?" he asks his manager, who wears a paper hat of a slightly
darker hue. "I don't know, Jimmy. Did you explain
that the 55-gallon drum was the best value?" "I sure did, Mr. Thompson." (Jimmy
is required to call his manager "Mr. Thompson" even
though "Mr. Thompson" is only 18 months older and is
the supervisor for no other reason but that he mastered the french
fry salt shaker after only five days on the job.) The same is true at your favorite Zippy-Do
Mart. A small drink contains one-thousandth of the soda contained
in the extra large cup, and yet it's only 20 cents cheaper. I think we Americans just want to feel like
we're getting the best deal we can possibly get, regardless if
we need what they're selling. A 126-ounce cola for 99 cents is
clearly a better bargain than a 3-ounce cola for 89 cents. You'd
be nuts to go with the medium. And that's how they get you - offering you
what you don't need but offering it to you in such a way that
you feel like a schmuck if you don't take it. Well, I don't need 126 ounces of soda in one
sitting. Over the course of the entire morning, perhaps I will,
but certainly not in one sitting. And I absolutely will not be
spending 22 hours a day online. I can't imagine spending 22 hours
a week, and that's a relatively modest 3.1 hours a day.
Who has time for that? I use the Internet plenty, but go outside
or read a book, for cryin' out loud. Twenty-two hours a week,
much less 22 hours a day, is absurd. "But it's free! It's too good to pass
up! It's a great deal!" OK. You convinced me, sign me up. · · · |