Hitting where it hurts

Yesterday, on Twitter, a well-known author was advocating a boycott of a well-known internet retailer.

The story about the boycott is here. The well-known author is Mark Haddon.

Let me make it absolutely clear that I have nothing but respect for Mark Haddon. However, I'm not convinced that a boycott is going to help here.

After his initial tweet:

The Xmas anti-Amazon campagin is gathering momentum. They stand to lose £500,000  http://www.theguardian.com/books/2014/nov/20/amazon-anonymous-campaign-veto-christmas …

I responded with this:

Potentially much collateral damage on this one. Marketplace sellers, self-published authors to name but two categories.

He said:

No one is suggesting not buying any presents just buying them elsewhere.

Which, I hope you'll agree, I wasn't suggesting that anyone was suggesting. So I pointed out:

I wasn't suggesting that anyone was suggesting not buying presents. Just pointing out that boycott hurts more than just Amazon

He countered:

as does not boycotting amazon. but there is a good reason for resisting amazon before they eat everyone up.

And I wrote:

which is all very well if you have a publishing deal. self-published independent authors might feel differently

To which he replied:

amazon has a near-monopoly on the self-publishing market. so authors who self-publish feel feel more warmly about them.
that doesn't stop them being terrible employers & tax cheats who try & destroy anyone who stands in their way.

I felt the first of those was a little cheeky so I wrote:

it's difficult not to feel more warmly to an organisation that will help in your career than to those who ignore or condescend
...and mainstream publishers are very good at acting as though theirs are the only works of quality. amazon more open.
sure, their salaries are low and their tax is very 'efficient' - but that applies to a good chunk of the high street too
which is not to condone, merely point out that the competition doesn't exactly smell of roses either

And he finished with:

we should perhaps leave this subject for now. i'll be writing a lot more about it later in the year...

And me (too desperate for the last word):

I already had! I think you're one of the good guys. Just be careful where you wave that boycott stick.
Writing a lot more about it? If you want to write it as a debate, I hereby volunteer to put the argument for the defence.


I don't think he'll take me up on the challenge

...which is a shame because I think his position is deeply flawed.

And, simply because he's written a number of excellent and well-received books, doesn't mean that he should have more of a chance to influence the public perception of the state of retail than the next person (i.e. me).

But it sounds like he'll have the opportunity to write 'a lot more' about his view.

So I hereby repeat my challenge. Bring it on. Tell me how boycotting one company is going to help anyone at all in any way. And let me answer, point for point.


Here's a taster of some of the counter-arguments

You're going to have to accompany the boycott with a list of which retailers are acceptable and which ones aren't. We can't get everything from John Lewis, you know.

And I don't want to start rating companies for how well I think they treat their staff and whether their tax efficiencies are more or less aggressive than any other company's.


Retailers don't owe anyone anything

And it's a rather tired argument to suggest that any company should pay any more tax than it's legally obliged to. I'm not defending the position - but the change must come from government. You can't expect a company whose duty is to its shareholders to pay a penny more in either tax or salary than it needs to in order to comply with the law.

Some might do so. That's up to them.


Here's the cheeky bit

The boycott has to cut both ways, of course. If any author feels so strongly that they want to boycott a retailer - and wants to persuade others to do the same - let that author pull his/her own work from that retailer.

Otherwise, how can we take them seriously? If you expect customers to shop less conveniently and (perhaps) more expensively, then lead from the front.


P.S.

I don't mind whether you buy my books from Amazon, from me - or from any retailer you like the look of. All readers welcome and appreciated.

http://www.petertarnofsky.co.uk

It's like Tony Jordan's "Hustle" is coming true - without the good guys

In 2004, Hustle began on BBC1. Slipping down a treat, close enough to plausible, stuffed with charismatic actors - thoroughly enjoyable, in other words.

In the very first episode, in the first few minutes, Robert Glenister's character rolls himself over the bonnet of a car driven by a man on the phone, not watching where he's going. (You might recognise where this is going, given my last blog post.)

In fiction, that driver might change his ways. In the real world, they go speeding around nattering and tweeting with impunity. Where is Ash Morgan when you need him?

The classic setup

Many of the stories used the wonderful trope that you can't con an innocent man (or something like that - I assume they weren't referring to the Billy Joel song).

So there would be some dodgy geezer operating barely inside the law, greedily going for self-enrichment regardless of the impact on others - and therefore being caught by the gang of fraudsters who dangle an offer that turns out to be too good to be true, before swindling him/her out of a significant sum of money. Or valuable object. Or something.

Sometimes, Robin Hood style, the proceeds would end up with the injured party from the beginning of the story.

Here's one of theirs

Greedy property magnates buy up housing estate in opaque circumstances. They then proceed to evict decent working-class folk who live there, tart up the estate and rent out at vastly increased rates. With no regard, naturally, for the previous residents.

Hang on - that's actually happening. And, what makes it even better, one of these magnates even lives in the sort of house that his fictitious counterparts used to have.

Here's the juicy part of the story.

Which sting would be the most appropriate?

If this were happening in the world of fiction (because clearly I'm not suggesting or condoning real-world crime), how would Mickey's gang take them down?

And, in the real world, without Mickey's gang, what hope is there?

Solving serious problems (and other clickbait)

Some would say that my choice of title is inadvisable if I want readers. We'll see. (Statistics available on request.)

Regular readers of my work will know that I have a pet hate of people who drive inconsiderately, dangerously or with an overactive sense of entitlement. I wrote about it here. And I also touched on the subject in a few places in this rather attractive book.

You can probably imagine my opinion of people who make phone calls while driving.

However, seeing the number of people texting or tweeting or updating their Disgracebook status or (for all I know) watching something on Netflix while driving - that makes me long for the days when they were just talking - you know, distracted but still fundamentally looking where they were going.

This week, the police tweeted a new campaign. Here's the poster:

And what an absolute waste of time, money and typography that is.

I'm going to stick my neck out here and suggest that this poster will do absolutely NOTHING WHATSOEVER to reduce the problem of idiot drivers not looking where they're going.

This poster will appeal to those who like to solve a puzzle.

They (We?) will look at it, consider it, work it out, feel slightly smart, get a tiny pleasure rush in that bit of the brain that likes to feel it's doing good work - and then carry on with their (our?) day.

Most people will see a lot of words, not bother to read past the first line and certainly won't read the tiny print at the bottom. Did you even notice it?

Utter rubbish. Could I do better? Of course I could. So could you.

I can't draw very well so forgive the crude sketch which I have literally drawn on the back of an envelope.

Clearly a more skillful illustrator might have included a steering wheel and made the sight line more obviously going to the phone rather than to the world outside. But I think it's direct, hard-hitting and clear.

And yes, we can wonder why the child has no knees and is wearing a cardigan. Alternatively we could press for campaigns that are more eye-catching.

It has been done before. In fact, a direct approach was used to tackle a similar problem  - that of teenagers getting distracted by their phones and forgetting basic road safety.



One example looked like this:

And, horrible as it is, the poster is eye-catching and its message is very clear. I was trying to show the moment before - they went straight for the moment after.

Pointless without enforcement

But the best campaign ever in the history of campaigns is destined to fail if there is no enforcement. I have never seen (or heard of) anyone stopped (let alone punished) for driving while staring at a screen.

They're not hard to find. I pass at least ten offenders while walking to and from school. They pootle along the road, staring at their screens, prodding them with their fingers and occasionally glancing up to check that the traffic in front is still moving.

Clearly they feel that what they're doing is fine, that they're entitled to do it and that they are safe drivers, oh yes.

Stop them, fine them, revoke their licences. It wouldn't take many before word got around.

Let's not wait until it becomes normal to stare at screens while driving - and unfashionable to complain about people doing it - and some morons say that any attempt to stop it would be a war on motorists. In the same way that going after people driving way over the speed limit is, apparently, a war on motorists.

There's only one war against motorists

And that's the one being waged by other motorists. Trying to get people to drive safely and within the law is not an example of the nanny state.

Go on - argue with me. I dare you.