An exercise in how NOT to make friends: Time Warner Cable Austin

Let's face it:  Time Warner Cable in Austin has not done a great job of keeping customers happy in recent times.  From the KXAN/LIN TV debacle to the continual removal of channels from non-converter-equipped homes (highlighted by what used to be called KLRU2), Time Warner has developed a habit of cutting services for those not willing to kowtow to Time Warner's demand to rent a converter box for the newly raised price of $7.99 a month.

So you'll understand if I am not surprised by Time Warner's latest staring match, this time with KTBC/Fox.  I don't need to write much about this, as pretty much everyone else has already covered it, from the Statesman to Jim McNabb (who writes much better media-related stuff than I do) to the Austin Business Journal.  Both sides have websites up denigrating the other party.  Fox's website is full of testimonials from people promising to dump Time Warner if they drop Fox, and Time Warner's site proudly states that a vast majority of their 500,000 unique visitors told them to "get tough" with Fox.  (The site does not state whether all 500,000 visitors voted.  I sure didn't.  Mrs. Snowed asked me to click "roll over", and the site's response was "are you sure?"  Nice push-polling, Time Warner.)

(I will point out, and you can see here for confirmation, that I did correctly predict the exact date that the KXAN issue would resolve.  I am not currently making predictions regarding the Fox issue.  I also don't know the winning lotto numbers or whatever else you might want to know; otherwise, I wouldn't be begging people to hit the tip jar.  It's right there on the right of this page, you know...)

So with the potential loss of the Fox stations hanging over their heads, what does Time Warner propose to do next?  Well, first of all, they raised their prices again (my basic went up from 16.95 (my information last year saying 19.95 was erroneous) to 19.99, and I've already mentioned the converter price going up a dollar a month as well), and on top of that, they are back to their old games of moving channels to digital only (see note below).  On the chopping block for those without converters* this time are:  ABC Family, CMT, Oxygen, Style, and TruTV.  No date is given for the changeover.

Yes, I know Time Warner Cable is a business, and I further know that transmitting channels only via their digital package is much more economical for them.  That doesn't mean I have to like how basic/standard cable customers are treated by TWC.  As I've said before, about the only thing keeping me with them is WGN America.  If WGN ever gets pulled, I may finally dump Time Warner, as I've only been threatening for over a year.

But before I forget, there is a silver lining:  Time Warner has heard your agonizing, and to show you their appreciation, do they have a deal for you!  (Warning:  NSFW/language.)

*The page linked says customers can also use a "CableCARD-equipped Unidirectional Digital Cable Product", which, as far as I know, for most people, means absolutely nothing.  Is your set so equipped?  Neither is mine.**

**Of course, non of my sets are even HD-ready.  Have I mentioned I have a tip jar?

Edit: The Time Warner PDF page linked above is updated every so often, and so the channels listed are no longer shown at that link.

How NOT to attract customers to your restaurant on Sundays

On Sunday morning, as we usually do, we, the Snowed family, had had a great morning at our church and were walking back to the car.  And what do we find on our windshield but a flyer advertising specials at a nearby restaurant.

Okay, I'm sorry, but I find placing flyers on windshields of cars in church parking lots to be incredibly tacky.  (I don't really care for it the rest of the week, either, but I find this worse.)  Mrs. Snowed came right out and said this made her much less likely to visit this restaurant in the future, and I tend to agree with her.  To me, finding a flyer on my windshield after church is about the same as getting obtrusive sales calls at home during dinner.

But maybe I'm wrong.  Has placing junk advertising on people's windshields while they are at church become an acceptable technique?  Am I being overly sensitive?  Or do you believe this is annoying, if not invasive?

How NOT to attract customers with your junk fax

As a public service to junk fax spammers, I present the following list of things you shouldn't do if you want to attract customers, based on the incredibly dumb fax I pulled off the machine this morning.

Things Not To Do:

1.  Send junk faxes in the first place.

Well, that seems rather obvious, doesn't it?  I mean, it is possible, if you're clueless enough to put your contact information on your fax, for the recipient to sue you (this site shows how).  But let's assume that you've already decided to send your junk fax and deal with the consequences, of which you are sure there will be none.


2a.  Don't put your contact information on the fax except for a toll-free number, or
2b.  Be located somewhere other than the United States.

This just screams out "I am not to be trusted!" for US customers.  Heck, why not just include a solicitation for me to help you get my long-lost relative's money out of Nigeria?  (Aside:  our company actually did just receive a similar fax.  Apparently e-mail is too advanced for some people...)  Let's face it, there are not a lot of things that most companies need for which they need to contact foreign entities.  And that is particularly true for the service offered in today's offending fax (more on that later).

3.  Use misleading information/make your customer think they'll be getting something for nothing.

What, do some companies just not read their faxes before responding with "Golly gee, that sounds like a great idea!" or something?  Today's offender, yellowpage-texas.com (no link--it's not worth it), is offering, of course, the wonderful opportunity to have our company listed on their website.  And even better:  their offer includes free submission to Google!  Um, yeah, the real Yellow Pages (and AT&T's online site, yellowpages.com) already list us, thanks.  And, actually, so does Google.  And it has for years.

Oh, and I didn't mention:  this wonderful submission to this other non-AT&T-or-any-other-reputable-company-that-I-know-of site costs only $89 per month (!!) for two years.  That's rather hidden in the small print.  So, if someone responded to this and thought it was free, they'd be on the hook for $2,136.

Now, if those three items weren't enough, this last one's way over the top:

4.  Use a blatantly insulting gesture as your logo.

Seriously, what were you thinking?  This company decided it would be great to flip AT&T's traditional Yellow Pages logo (and isn't it still trademarked?) upside-down and assume no one would notice.  Well, first of all, if the two fingers are pointing up, it no longer means that you are letting your fingers do the walking (remember that?  I'm old), but also, in some countries, it is a very insulting gesture. 

The UK, as anyone who has watched Are You Being Served? knows, is one of the countries in which this gesture is seen as an insult.  And where is yellowpage-texas.com's parent company based?  You guessed it:  Manchester, UK.  I'm quite sure that the owners knew what they were doing:  they were basically flipping the bird to prospective clients and assuming no one would notice.

So, there you have it, junk fax senders.  Happy spamming!

How NOT to make people sympathetic to bicyclists' causes

Want to make people unsympathetic to the cause of bicyclists on the streets?  Only follow the rules when it suits you.

Anyone who drives on never-to-be-widened-ever-ever-ever Manchaca Road (see page 142 here for details) knows that it has the tendency to get backed up going southbound during afternoon rush.  So, it was no surprise the other day when I noticed a long line for the Stassney light.  However, in this case, there was an extra backup in the right lane.  (Thankfully, I was not in the right lane.)  As it turned out, there was a bicycle in the right lane, and cars were waiting to get a chance to move to the left lane to get around it.  That's all well and good.

However, as I sat at the Stassney light (the backup was enough that I did not make the light), I was rather surprised to see the same bicyclist riding up the sidewalk, but only until the light turned green.  At this point, he jumped right back into the right lane of traffic, cutting off several vehicles that, I assume, had just gone through the trouble of trying to pass him earlier.  I can only guess that at that point several of the drivers affected were not too happy about this situation, and about the bicyclist in general.

But Snowed, I hear you cry, it's legal to bike on the sidewalk!  Yes it is, per Austin City Code Section 12-2-13:  "Except as provided in Subsection (B) [a section that lists specific exceptions, not including any portion of Manchaca Road], a person may ride a bicycle on a sidewalk." Again, that's fine.  However, the bicyclist in question ignored Section 12-2-14:  "A bicyclist exiting from an alley, driveway, or building shall yield the right-of-way to a pedestrian on a sidewalk or sidewalk area, or to a vehicle on a roadway."  The drivers I mentioned earlier were cut off by the bicyclist, in total violation of this section.  I myself have almost hit a bicyclist who jumped onto Manchaca Road without even looking, about two feet in front of my car.

So, Snowed, isn't it legal for him to simply ride between the cars at a light anyway?  No, it isn't, per Section 12-2-16 (B):  "A bicyclist may not ride a bicycle between vehicles traveling or standing in the same direction within marked lanes of a roadway."  The proper thing to do would have been for the bicyclist to wait in line at the red light with the rest of us.

Again, I have nothing about bicycles on Austin streets; I simply think more people would be inclined to treat bikes nicely if their occupants know and follow the law.

How NOT to acquire new children's books

The other day the Snowed family visited our local branch of the Austin Public Library, as the children are voracious book readers (though the 2-year-old doesn't do a lot of reading by herself yet...). As usual, the 5-year-old picked out about ten books or so, while I picked up a book I thought the 2-year-old would like. And, I was right; the moment I put the 2-year-old in the car, she wanted that book. "Daddy, I want it!"

I figured it would not be a problem to give my daughter a book to peruse in the car on the way home. I was wrong. Very quickly I learned something important about my daughter: she gets carsick when she tries to read in a car. And did she ever, all over the book. Yuck.

Mrs. Snowed, thankfully, knew the best way to clean up such a mess on the pages of a book, and she did so. The book is now readable once again, though it is obvious that the book had gotten wet at some point.

And this brings us to the policies of Austin Public Library. We thought it would be for the best to call the library and ask them what they wanted to do with a book that had previously had on it, well, what it had had on it. The librarian to which I talked was quite nice, and she told me that once a book has had bodily fluids on it, it would be considered damaged and would no longer be acceptable for distribution. This makes perfect sense to me; I don't think I'd want a book on which someone else's child had gotten sick. So, it appears that we will be buying a replacement book for the library system, along with a $10.25 processing fee. That's the downside. The upside, if there is one, is that we get to keep the damaged book. Now, we're paying about twice the price for this children's book because of the method by which we are acquiring it.

So, to make a long story a little bit longer by adding a summary paragraph: if your child might get sick in the car, don't give him or her a library book (or, really, any book) to read. It's just not a good idea.

And if you want to buy books for your kids, stick to the bookstores. It's a lot less of a hassle.

How NOT to conduct a mayoral campaign

Not content to alienate people in Austin, Brewster McCracken has decided to tick off the entire city of St. Louis as well. His latest ad (referenced in this St. Louis Post-Dispatch column) references the decline of St. Louis's urban core. Not surprisingly, the residents of St. Louis aren't thrilled with Mr. McCracken, as seen in this KMOV report.

Mr. McCracken's ad is no longer embeddable (although it was previously...go figure), but you can see it here.

Note: the above is not intended to endorse any specific candidate for Austin mayor.

How NOT to conduct a sales call

The following is as true as I remember it...the gist of it is correct.

(ring, ring, ring)
Me: Hello, Snowed In Industries.
Absolutely Brilliant Salesperson: Hi, this is Absolutely Brilliant Salesperson with [some company]. We're just calling to update our records, so we need to confirm your copier's model number.
Me: I'm sorry, who did you say you were with?
ABS: I'm with [some company].
Me (getting suspicious): And what do your records say about us?
ABS: We don't show any record for your office. That's why we need to confirm your copier model.
Me: Have you done any work with us before?
ABS: First time I've ever called.
Me: Then why do you need our copier's model number?
ABS: We need to update our records.
Me (speaking slowly): Why do you need our copier model for your records?
ABS: (mumble mumble mumble)
(click)

How NOT to conduct a political interview

Anyone who thinks there are no stupid questions most likely hasn't seen Hannah Storm's asking Elizabeth Kucinich if she would show her tongue ring (at 3:05 in video, after compulsory 30-second ad). By the way, Mrs. Kucinch had the good sense to politely decline.