Lik-Sang Is Out Of Business 722
AKAImBatman writes "Thanks to Sony's heavy handed tactics, popular game importer Lik-Sang is closing its doors. All Lik-Sang customers are having their orders cancelled and refunded. Any attempt to place a new order redirects your web browser to the news of Lik-Sang's demise." From the announcement: "'Today is Sony Europe victory about PSP, tomorrow is Sony Europe's ongoing pressure about PlayStation 3. With this precedent set, next week could already be the stage for complaints from Sony America about the same thing, or from other console manufacturers about other consoles to other regions, or even from any publisher about any specific software title to any country they don't see fit. It's the beginning of the end... of the World as we know it', stated Pascal Clarysse, formerly known as the Marketing Manager of Lik-Sang.com. 'Blame it on Sony. That's the latest dark spot in their shameful track record as gaming industry leader. The Empire finally won, a few dominating retailers from the UK probably will rejoice the news, but everybody else in the gaming world lost something today.'" Many thanks to Sony for ruining it for the rest of us. I hope that your business model makes up for the customer goodwill you're lighting on fire today. Update: 10/24 21:34 GMT by Z : Eurogamer has Sony's response to Lik-Sang's accusations.
WTF!?!?! (Score:3, Insightful)
Don't understand (Score:5, Insightful)
I really don't understand how Sony can do this kind of thing. Isn't this the kind of thing the World Trade Organisation is supposed to prevent? I thought that there was supposed to be essentially "free trade" between countries in the WTO. Or is it only free trade that benefits corporations that's allowed, not that which benefits us lowly consumers...
Sony's Fault (Score:2, Insightful)
Boycotts don't work (Score:5, Insightful)
Even though this move against Lik-Sang is outrageous, it turns out that people just don't care enough to deprive themselves of entertainment.
your all on crack (Score:1, Insightful)
Lik-Sang was given the right to distribute products within a certain region, they broke the terms of their contract with sony and now they're closing their doors, and blaming it on sony.
You make the bed you sleep in.. Lik-Sang chose to go outside the bounds of their contract, and are trying to ride high on a ton of anti-sony fanboy diatribe.
boohoo for them.
btw.. this happens all the time.. it's called the "grey market" or "black market".. it happens with everything from automobiles to tvs
Well, crap. (Score:5, Insightful)
Sure, they were a Hong Kong import/export warehouse who wrote websites in broken English, but they really seemed to care about making people happy more than the rest of them that just want to shift merchandise. They had news. They had reviews. They had style.
I feel like I've just lost the modern Internet version of the classic little mom-and-pop shop that always had the coolest stuff.
What's the alternative? (Score:5, Insightful)
In this case, you could always just pirate it instead of buying. Still gives them mindshare, but no profits. Seem to me that's the only way you'd ever accomplish a Sony boycott.
Consumers are sheep; unless provided an equally-attractive alternative, they'll never really give anything they enjoy up, no matter how repugnant its production might be.
Why they hate the grey market. (Score:5, Insightful)
The 'grey market' is an equalizer; it's a basically unified marketplace that defies the attempts of the monopolists to charge different prices for the same thing in different places, by taking advantage of the cheap global transportation that we're blessed with today.
This is why it's so hated.
Re:Boycotts don't work (Score:3, Insightful)
They usually don't work because a good company diversifies its product line far too much. That's why Phillip Morris [wikipedia.org] can't be put out of business. They own too many key product lines.
Sony, however, has been scaling back their operations. As it stands right now, their electronics lines are in shambles after cheapening and/or withdrawing a huge number of them. Great stuff like the Clie and the Vaio are simply gone or no longer the great products they once were. As a result, Sony's bread and butter has been their entertainment division. The PS3 push is an attempt to grow that entertainment division by capturing the living room. By loudly making our position clear to the public, there's a good chance we could cause a major disruption in thier entertainment products.
Re:correct (Score:5, Insightful)
So camera manufacturers have figured out how to live with it, I'd like to see why Sony has gotten the idea that it is better to sue it out of existence.
Re:BOYCOTT SONY! (Score:5, Insightful)
I think we all need to send a polite letter to Mr. Yankovic that we cannot purchase his music because of his distributor. With any luck, that will add a semi-important figure to the cause.
Does anyone remember the old Sony? (Score:5, Insightful)
Didn't think so!
Ever since Sony acquired large media properties, the old Sony has been slowly dismantled piece by piece, as one horrible business decision after another is foisted on the consumer by the influence of the media divisions. If Sony wasn't so concerned about defending their media units (dvds,cds,film,etc.), we wouldn't have had things like the root kit fiasco, crippled MP3 players, and $600 gaming systems. We also might have a company that focuses on what they did best, delivering consumer electronics to a willing market.
This is just the latest in a string of strong arm tactics from a company that has lost its roots and its way. Apparently, hitting them in the wallet is the only chance of getting them to change. Maybe if the PS3 flops, they will be forced to reexamine their structure and strategy.
I'm all for the calls of BOYCOTT! I wasn't going to buy an overpriced PS3 anyways, but I'm not going to be buying other Sony products either.
Lik-Sang was a great, quirky outfit. They'll be sorely missed!
Re:BOYCOTT SONY! (Score:5, Insightful)
Alternatively, fail to pay Sony (Score:2, Insightful)
It's possible to enjoy all of these without paying Sony for the privelge:
Playstation stuff - It's debatable about whether or not the hardware for the PS3 is a loss leader - thus, purchasing it may actually hurt Sony financially. To top it off, if you sell one on eBay this Christmas for a higher price, you would then make money at Sony's expense.
Alternatively, you could simply purchase all Playstation products (including the PS3 once there are ample supplies) used. Since Sony only makes money for the first sale of each property, you can rest assured that Sony won't make any money on your purchases. Or rent games from video stores or Gamefly.
Movies - Essentally the same as video games, simply rent the DVD once the movie leaves theaters or buy it used.
TV shows - Unless you're part of a Nielsen family, it makes no difference to Sony whether you watch their show or not. The TV show was already purchased by the TV station with money from the advertisers. If you feel you must do something, then either ask your local TV station to stop running said shows (Good Luck there - "I feel that since Sony shut down a game importing company it is morally reprehensible for you to show "The Boondocks.") or mute the ads and/or don't purchase any products that are advertised during said shows (this may prove diffcult, though - can you honestly stop going to your favorite local hot dog stand solely because one of their ads happened to run during Jeopardy! ?) Alternatively, wait for the series to be printed on DVDs, and then rent/buy used.
So...yeah. By doing these things, I'm contributing exactly as much money to Sony as the above poster while still watching shows I like.
Re:correct (Score:1, Insightful)
Just an example but the way I see it..
Sony makes product in China, sells same product in China for $5 USD, same product sells US for $50 USD. Someone wants to sell the product intended for China in the US and gets sued? Very odd.
part of the risk of the grey market (Score:2, Insightful)
Either way, you will eventually attract hostile attention, especially if you undercut the official importer (either by lower prices or earlier market presence). Your best strategy is to fly under the radar; that is, be too small a fry and ideally be in a market that is entirely neglected.
In Lik-Sang's case, they had a history of selling mod-chips (which according to some is black market rather than grey market) and they were undercutting the official importer. They also marketed in the UK, which has much more hostile laws to the grey market than the USA.
It is much harder to suppress the grey market in the USA via the courts. Believe me, they tried. It was quite a fight for a while, but eventually the grey market won.
Yet, the grey market is much less active in the USA. This is because the producers came to understand that the only way to drive the grey marketeers out of business in the USA was to compete with them on a level playing field; that is, to offer an official (and hence supported) USA version of the product at a competitive price.
To tell you the truth, I didn't mind being shut down. I am a consumer as well as a(n ex-)grey marketeer. The official importer undercut not only my price but the price that I paid overseas, and had a more suitable product for the USA market. Ultimately, my grey market activities were to help sponsor my overseas shopping trips, as opposed to being an income-producing business; and the official importer made that unnecessary.
The success of the grey market also helped convince the producers that there was a market in the USA for their product. That probably would not have happened if it weren't for us.
So, in the end, everybody won in the USA by not suppressing the grey market through the courts. Too bad that the UK government isn't as wise.
Re:Fishy? (Score:4, Insightful)
How about, "The kind of world that would harm us for doing something harmless, that helps people get what they want and are willing to pay for, is no world that we want to do business in. And the chance of us losing our savings and the shirt off our back in the next lawsuit are a bit too scary for us to sleep well at night." Just conjecture, but it's how I might feel in their situation...
Re:Boycotts don't work (Score:5, Insightful)
1. Enough people participate to make the cost of ignoring the boycott greater than the cost savings or revenue increase associated with whatever actions prompted the boycott.
2. The company that is being boycotted sees the boycott as being a long-term issue.
The following factors increase the likelihood of a boycott working against Sony:
1. Sony depends on volume sales for profitability. Their non-unit costs are significant (advertising, marketing, admin costs, etc) which means that they need to sell a lot of units of each product to make a profit.
2. Sony is aware of the bad rep they are accumulating. Should that rep cross over into the mainstream, it could _really_ hurt their bottom line. Companies with already-weak public images are more vulnerable to boycotts.
There are some factors that help Sony withstand a boycott:
1. Most of their products are non-commodity goods. One cannot simply substitute movie X from Sony with movie Y from Columbia/Tristar in the market. This is true of any of their IP-derived products (music, games, etc), so consumers are less likely to go without the Sony product. This is especially true with the game industry, as the field of competitors is very small.
2. Sony is an extremely large company with deep pockets. It's quite possible that they can weather any smaller boycott of a few years duration (and given the short-term memory of at least the American consumer, even a few years is more than enough).
3. Sony is a global corporation, and the larger the scale of a boycott, the harder it is to pull off.
I'm sure I've missed a lot of factors, but it is a fallacy to believe that boycotts don't work. Any company that ignores their customer base for too long will inevitably lose market share (unless, of course, there are market inequities (like monopoly status for IP distribution)) to their competitors.
My point is that a boycott WILL help (if only only a small scale), as long as it's a vocal boycott that hits the press. What's needed is a Sony insider to write a scathing tell-all book that makes the non-fiction best-seller list
Re:What's the alternative? (Score:5, Insightful)
At the end of the day, you can't effectively boycott a company which takes in so much cash per week as Nike, Sony or so on. You may win morally and feel nice inside but they will never see any impact on their bottom line. They probably own a bunch of brands you buy anyway, you just don't know it. It's pretty hard to do when these companies are so big and have so many assets and sub-brands.
However, doing it to the PS3 might be easy; you can make Sony Computer Entertainment look up from their beanbag chairs, by making the Wii the top selling console this Christmas. Or the XBox360. It won't take much. Or do things like buy a DS instead of a PSP - but, well, everyone is doing that ANYWAY. Your choice.
That would be easy to do given their problems with production we so hear rumors about. It only takes a hiccup over that holiday buying period for them to take notice. After years of domination of the console market, why not just show that over 2 or 3 weeks, you can knock them off the CHARTS (not lose them money or mindshare..) and stop them being so smug? Then they get the moral message of it.
You can buy a PS3 after Christmas if you are not still too disgusted with them.
Depriving them of money or mindshare isn't the answer, making a recordable, long-lived statement is, and I think having them lose the holiday season top-seller contest is a prime target.
Re:BOYCOTT SONY! (Score:5, Insightful)
Does that also mean no Apple, Dell, HP, or Toshiba Laptops which use sony manufactured batteries?
Re:BOYCOTT SONY! (Score:4, Insightful)
Unfortunately I had just bought some sony brand earplugs (I like them because they are in-ear but not as expensive as the shure E3c [or something like that]). After some time I had to buy replacement for the replaceable buds but sony wanted to rape me with £10 for I believe 2 pairs.
I held my boycott and bought some from a chinnese guy on Ebay, just for £5 for something like 6 pairs black and white
I just bought a DVD player, and I chose a Phillips (I believe Sony electronics are pretty overpriced, not as Bose of course but they are still overpriced).
I have explained my girlfriend about Sony practices and at least she will think again before buying Sony (although she still wants that iPod... even if there are other better mp3 players I have not been able to convince her).
I dont buy movies, I rent them via lovefilm and I seldom go to the cinemas, just when some nice "independent" film is screened.
I will buy a Wii, because mmm because I am not attracted to the othe 2 systems. Oh, and for all of you who believe that the PS3 will be incrdible expensive, just the other time I was showing my girlfriend the differences in prices (in the wikipedia), the price of the ps3 for Mexico is: MXN$7,999 ($640 US) MXN$9,499 ($760 US). Can you believe that shit? $760 US. I think that the market in Mexico for it is what, 2 persons? (well, lets say Fox children and the new president children). Of course you still have to buy the $99 US for the games... that is INSANE.
Yeah, I agree with the Sonny boycott. I hope more and more people realize that corporations are consuming their rights and start fighting the only way they can to stop them (no, political movements and any other kind of government related tactics wont work as corporations already spoon feed politicians, no I am not paranoid enough, I am from and lived in a country where corrupt government is blatant and the rich are the ones that control the goverment with the Mordida).
DAMNIT TO FUCKING HELL!!!! (Score:4, Insightful)
Sorry, I had to say it. That is all.
Re:Fishy? (Score:3, Insightful)
Lik-Sang can either (a) try to defend themselves in the entirety of Europe and get sucked dry, most likely negatively hurting their customers or (b) accept defeat and shut down gracefully, going out with style.
They don't have the warchest Sony does, and Sony knows it.
Sony hasn't wanted our business for years (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Why they hate the grey market. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:What's the alternative? (Score:5, Insightful)
"People" have no reason to know Lik-Sang is being shut down, and no reason to care. Seriously, why should they? What priority should Lik-Sang displace? How well things are at work? Should I take time off from spending time with my family or any number of other things in my life to Take Action(TM) about a small company that I've only barely heard of?
You can't care about everything. Shall I call you a sheep because you don't devote 10 hours a week to the plight of African diamond miners? Or because you didn't shout out to Breast Cancer awareness in your post?
Any given human can only worry about so many things at a time. Many, many, many of them are way more important than whether Sony is shutting down Lik-Sang. It may be an interesting story and maybe some people should work on it, but calling people "sheep" because they can't keep up with every sin, both real and perceived, of every corporation they deal with is just arrogant.
I guarantee you you don't even meet your own standard for "non-sheepness", if you took the time to articulate it. (Of course, most people who toss around the word "sheep" seem to simply know they aren't a sheep.) The reason I can guarantee this is that, for example, to explain this situation to my wife who probably isn't even aware that games are imported because they are never released here, let alone who Lik-Sang is, would take several minutes. In order to worry about all the things of a similar magnitude in life that occur would take way more than 100% of your life. We are not sheep for not spending more than 100% of our time worrying about your particular choice of sins in the world.
They are everyone. (Score:3, Insightful)
Most people do not care about ethical dilemmas if taking the 'high road' costs more than a few dollars extra. If you want to get them involved in a boycott, there either has to be some tangible goal that will benefit them, or the boycott can't cost them anything.
The free market value of a "warm, fuzzy feeling" is virtually nil.
Are you a walking billboard? (Score:1, Insightful)
I have to disagree with you there. In most cases, the old adage "you get what you pay for" holds true. Take running shoes for example. A good pair of running shoes is going to set you back at least $100, no matter what. If you buy anything cheaper, you're simply risking injury. That's just what it costs to make a good pair of running shoes.
Or how about sunglasses? Yes, Oakleys and Ray Bans are overpriced, but they actually are much better sunglasses than the kind on the spinning rack at the local drug store.
That said, while I do often buy name brand products when they are legitimately better, I resent advertising for them. I don't wear shirts with a big "Nike" swoosh plastered on the chest. I'm not a walking billboard. Why would I pay $35 for the "privilege" of walking around advertising for your brand? They should be paying me! I buy nice things that are high quality and will hold up to use, I just don't like to give them free advertising.
Boo hoo! (Score:2, Insightful)
"The cause?" "The cause???" What "cause?" The plight of some piddly little Hong Kong company that makes its money by skirting international trade laws? You think Weird Al is going to pull the plug on his most successful album ever to stand up for the right to illegally import non-compliant electronics in Europe?
Get over yourself!
Re:What's the alternative? (Score:4, Insightful)
Come on, you know the sheep. Judging by your post you are not one, but you see them around you. You know who they are and why some people call them so.
Oh and finally. I might not meet my own standards for non-sheepness but at least I can look at myself and assess my sheep level, fully aware of the possibility of there being a problem with it. This does not stop me from seeing other people's sheepness, and in fact it makes it easier.
Re:They are everyone. (Score:5, Insightful)
That's easy to say, but try working a low wage job and supporting a family, it's not that people don't care about these issues, it's that they can't afford to care.
I have a wife and 3 children.
I'd rather not shop at walmart, but I can't afford to spend 100 dollars more per month by going "the high road".
I'd rather animals are treated humanely and then killed humanely for their meat, but I can't afford 5 dollars a pound for hamburger or 7 dollars a pound for chicken.
Maybe what we need to do is rally around higher pay standards for the middle and lower classes, then we CAN make decisions that are the morally correct ones...
Re:BOYCOTT SONY! (Score:3, Insightful)
Huh. And what about the producers that recorded his music? The audio engineers that probably make a heck of a lot less money than he does? Do you think he'll take your $15.00 and divvy it up among the people that helped him make the album? I don't feel great about the situation in the music industry - I absolutely hate it. However, sending the money is just a way to not feel guilty about violating copyright. If you're serious about an actual boycott, don't buy the music. Don't consume the music. Find something else to listen to. Or, on second thought - you could also buy it used. Or purchase a rarity - a lot of artists make small promo records for labels other than their main one. I have no idea whether Weird Al has ever done anything like that though.
Cheers,Montag
Re:BOYCOTT SONY! (Score:3, Insightful)
I am not sure of the producers (although in this case they are probably label flacks) but generally the audio engineer is paid for his time at the time of recording, he does not receive royalties. Sure - he gets paid less than Weird Al, but there is always a disparity in the pay between tech and talent in the entertainment industry.
Re:Are you a walking billboard? (Score:5, Insightful)
I completely disagree with you on this point. The best pair of running shoes I ever purchased was $15 at Shopko. My track coach gave everyone a list of criteria to meet for an approved pair of shoes. He personally checked each pair and used the pair I bought as the example of a good running shoe.
What are sunglasses for? Shielding your eyes from the sun. A pair of $5 glasses with a high SPF rating does just as good of a job blocking out UV as a $200 pair of designer sunglasses. Ray Bans and Oakleys don't have some magical properties that make them better at blocking out UV. They just might look cooler and be made from more expensive materials (even then it's probably the difference between $1.00 of platinum and $0.05 of aluminum).
This I agree with wholeheartedly. I buy most of my clothing from the discount rack at Old Navy (because their clothes just happen to be designed for people with my body type). I don't buy anything from them full price. However, I own nothing that actually broadcasts "Old Navy". Just like you, I don't feel like being a walking billboard for any company.
Re:What's the alternative? (Score:3, Insightful)
What in hell are you talking about? What does Sony make that you can't do without? The only Sony thing I think I still use is an alarm clock from the 90s. Everything Sony makes has a better alternative that isn't locked into their proprietary crap (Memory Stick), and is much cheaper.
Re:Huh? (Score:5, Insightful)
Actually that is still an open question of weather the courts would uphold or throw out Sony's charges against Lik Sang were the case to be actually litigated.
A large company does not need actually enforcable legal claims in order to litigate a small company (or individual) into bankruptcy. Especially when they start filing lawsuits in fucking foreign courts. Lik Sang is a small Hong Kong company with no presense in the UK, and suddenly they find someone stuffing in they face a notice ok UK court proceedings against them.
One option is to simply ignoring the foreign court which has no juridiction against them, but that would mean the litigating party (Sony) would win any and all court motions by un-opposed default, no matter how bogus those court motions were, and the attacked company would eternally face the propect that that foreign monstrosity of bogus default rulings would come crashing down on them somehow some day. The eternal headache of an entire foreign legal system trying every method to strike at their business deallings and to get at Lik Sang iself, to enforce the unopposed default rulings against them.
Another option when you get that notice of foreign court action against you, is to rush out and locate and pay for some lawyer in that country, and to rush to supply that lawyer with the facts and other information of the case, and have him do his research and work to figure out the proper legal strategy and response to the case, and to manage to get that appropriate response filed with the court within the deadline listed on the court papers. Meeting that court deadline is really rough under those circumstances. And then of course you have to pay a legal team to actually fight out that legal battle for however long. And when you *do* take this option, going into that foreign court to argue the case usually involves an implict legal acknowledgement that you *accept* that that court has jurisdiction over you. You generally cannot both argue that the case against you is bogus *and* argue that the court you are in has no authority over you in the first place. By accepting the court's jurisdiction you are placing your head on the chopping block for that random foriegn nation's entire legal system... and you have been running your business perfectly legally under your LOCAL laws and god-knows how many ways you can get screwed because that random foriegn legal system is different.
And then of court there's the real killer... you go ahead and prepare to fight the good fight in the UK court room.... and before the judge ever rules on anything... you find yourself served with simultaneous court filings in the US and in Austrailia and in France and in Germany and every other country where Sony has lawyers already on in retainer. At which point it's all over. It doesn't matter if your business is 100% legal and if you would win each and every court case. A tiny company like Lik Sang cannot possibly afford the cost of a score or more of lawyers fighting multiple simultaneous court battles in various countries across the globe for years on end.
Oh, and lets not forget that Sony has been bleeding Lik Sang for YEARS with a series of LEGALLY BOGUS international lawsuits. For example here [theregister.co.uk] is a lawsuit over mod chips where Lik Sang was forced to give up the court fight and paid Sony an undislosed extortion payment to survive.... yet here [slashdot.org] is an ultimate Australian ruling on the issue showing that the mod chips (and Lik Sang's business) was perfectly legal in Australia and proving that Lik Sang was bled legal costs fighting a case where Lik Sang was in the right and paid Sony settlement $$$ to escape for a court battle where Lik Sang was in the right.
Lik Sang's business annoys Sony. It doesn't matter if Sony has any valid legal claim or not, Sony is big enough that the
Re:Does anyone remember the old Sony? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Are you a walking billboard? (Score:5, Insightful)
But you miss the point entirely. The purpose of the branding is to illustrate your disposible income as a measure of status. The less sophisticated the audience, the more obvious the branding. That's is why the logos on clothing for high-schoolers is far more prominent than the clothing for adults. When you buy Oakleys, or Air Jordans, or whatever today's fad is, you are quite literally paying for the right to display how much money you have to lose.
Re:Are you a walking billboard? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Are you a walking billboard? (Score:3, Insightful)
Indeed, shoes affect different people in different ways. I had shin splints in some shoes and running surfaces, but not in other shoes. My anecdotal evidence is that running barefoot on grass, dirt, concrete, and pavement (surfaces free of sharp pebbly rocks) has become more comfortable than running in shoes (and less expensive and more fun, especially when there is mud). This doesn't mean barefeet work for everyone, but it also means expensive shoes are not inherently superior to cheap shoes (with my barefoot adaptations I can run just fine in bed slippers or mocassins or anything with enough flexibility) or even no shoes.
And to my surprise, when I researched to make sure I wasn't damaging myself, I found no science in support of current shoe designs. Conclusion: whatever works for you is best; don't be fooled into thinking expensive shoes will necessarily "work for you".
Re:They are everyone. (Score:3, Insightful)
What once was an industrial might, is now an industrial bug to be squashed in an instant. We are fast becoming a service oriented economy, and we will not survive, but people just don't care. People only care when it directly effects them, and then they bitch, moan, and complain about it and wonder how things got so bad. They never think to look at where things are going before they get there (which is the major difference between American corporations and, for example, Japanese corporations - that Japanese are looking to the future, the Americans are looking at today's profits).
PGA
Re:What's the alternative? (Score:2, Insightful)
Except if you pay any attention at all to the news about which company is evil today, you can't act on all of it. Or, at least, I can't.
Offhand, I can think of several dozen companies at the moment that did things that I consider unethical. Jet Blue did their sleep deprivation testing on live planes with passengers. Sony speaks for itself in this context. There was the HP scandal, the e-coli spinach scandal. Going back a bit further, Target blocked the Salvation Army from standing at their door last Christmas. U-haul is generally a disastrous company to deal with. I completely forgot what the Adelphia scandal was, and I can't be bothered to google it. There's AOL, and its customer retention policy. There's pretty much the entire music industry, which I don't think I need to comment on further. There's big scandals, there's minor scandals, there's scandals that I only know about because I work in the industy involved. Etc.
Some of these things I care about deeply. Some of these things I think are stupid. But even the stuff that I care deeply about is, frankly, stuff I'm probably just not going to remember when I'm out shopping. Sometimes I do. I won't buy stuff that I can tell is Sony anymore. Haven't since the rootkit scandal. I avoid Jiffy Lube because I've heard too many horror stories of Jiffy Lube not doing the work they've been paid to do, and messing up the car in the meantime. I don't buy, or even really listen to music anymore, because hell if I can tell what's even remotely associated with the RIAA or not.
But I just don't have the energy or the interest to keep track of all the companies that do things I find unethical. If I remember when I'm purchasing, yes. But the odds of me remembering five years down the line, when I might actually have the money to afford to travel, that Jet Blue did a sleep deprivation study without warning the passengers are not high. I might, because I prefer to go on airplanes where I have as low a chance of dying as possible. But I doubt it. I make an effort when I see a company consistently doing unethical activities, but a large part of that is that I don't want them to screw me over too.
Not to mention subsidiaries. What, should I start studying what companies in every single scandal I care about own/are owned by? I hear about, on average, probably two scandals a day that I care at least a little about. Sometimes more. I flat out do not have time to research all of them. I have class. I have work. I... Okay, I don't have a social life. But I do have Civ IV.
Theoretically, yes, I could do something about every company that does stuff I disapprove of. But I have other things to do with my life.
If that makes me a sheep, so be it.
Re:Are you a walking billboard? (Score:3, Insightful)
The only thing that $ will buy you in footwear nowadays is possibly longer life (don't count on that, either.) It won't buy you comfort. Everyone's feet differ, every situation differs.
(My foot doctor told me he's never seen feet like mine (13WW with a super-high arch). Despite that, he managed to make me comfortable, using a $15 clearance pair of tennies from Kmart as a base, two years in a row now. I'll spend money on a cobbler before I'll spend it on expensive shoes. All the crap in the advertisements and by salesmen is just that - crap. They aren't paid enough to know any better. Find someone who actually looks at your feet.
(I don't run, but I do spend more than 12 hours on my feet every day. Until a couple years ago, I used to spend an hour in agony afterward, every day. Not anymore. Thank you, Dr. Bennis
I used to spend over a hundred dollars per pair on shoes. At least one pair of those contributed to my long-term pain more than they helped my short-term - but not that was not evident until months had gone by, and I couldn't go back and get refunded. The last pair of expensive shoes I bought lasted a whole six months. Woo.
I grieve for the death of the small business cobbler. Oftentimes they'd know one's feet better than one knew them oneself. Unintended effect of modern business, maybe, but it still sucks. I'd trade federal protection against bad business for having a lot of the small biz back. At least one had more choices.
The nearest cobbler to here is three hours away, not likely to know me. But I do have a very good local foot doctor - even if he is more expensive, and is constantly buried in people whose feet have been fucked up by mass-produced shoes.
Moo. I wish more people realized what it means when we drive local small biz out of viability, and would vote so. Not that voting makes a fucking difference anymore, and now I'm getting way off topic, so
SB