LooseSuits: Last 35 Posts

affects of the productivity and promotability of a company

fuscom — Fri, 03 Oct 2008 03:11:54

Aside from the industry, it also depends on the culture and physical environment of the office.

Productivity wise -- Any kind of odor, be it perfume or a cooked meal, in an open environment can be highly distracting.
Additionally, the decor of a place of business lends itself to the productivity of employees. Given that, it should be considered likewise that the personal "decor" of the employees will also work for or against you in a similar regard.

Regarding promotability -- Proper respect for your client or potential client is also something to consider. For instance, if you're a design firm who's primary client is an investment bank and there's a lot of face time at your place or theirs, you'd want to dress appropriately for no other reason than to at least you "get it" in terms of their culture and needs.

affects of the productivity and promotability of a company

Mike — Fri, 03 Oct 2008 01:04:42

Completely depends on the industry.

If I was working with a design firm and everybody wore suits to work, it'd freak me out.

If I was working with an investment bank and everybody had shorts and flip-flops on, it'd freak me out.

affects of the productivity and promotability of a company

graytiger71 — Tue, 30 Sep 2008 23:07:47

How does the personal appearance of employees affect the productivity and promotability of a company?

What about s?

Facial hair?

Perfumes/Colognes?

Anything else that would affect the company?

The Fannie and Freddie Government Buyout (Video)

Ozone42 — Wed, 10 Sep 2008 06:06:08

Frankly, I think we're doomed. Don't we have enough debt as it is?

There is a lot of blame to spread around with the whole pushing people towards adjustable rates fiasco... including everyone who took them. I don't know about you, but if someone is charging me interest, I am not going to trust them implicitly as to what the best loan for me is! I won't assume they're out to get me, but I'll do my own homework, the same as you would before buying a used car.

But the business leaders that were aware of the practice and allowed it were just plain idiotic. You may gamble on some lenders, and that's fine, but to willfully push many towards a bad decision and expecting the best... I just don't know what the hell they could have been thinking.

The worst part is the precedent this sets. The government cannot afford to bail corporations out of their own incompetence--even if the government initially set them up in the first place.

The Fannie and Freddie Government Buyout (Video)

Gnorb — Wed, 10 Sep 2008 03:47:10

But the questions: is it a good thing? Is bailing Fannie and Freddie necessary for the stability of the US economy? Or is taking on obligations of $6,000,000,000,000 a not-so-bright idea the country will be paying for years to come? What of the people that drove these companies to the ground, will they be made to pay some of their multimillion dollar bonuses and salaries back, or do they essentially get a "get out of jail free" card? And what about the homeowners who got sucked into loans they couldn't afford because their advisers told them it was OK? (Finally, what about the tax payer?)

Jumpstarting a Website ?

fuscom — Sun, 24 Aug 2008 22:49:39

Here's what instantly jumps out to me. You want more interaction and audience participation, yet the participation you are getting is hidden behind a story link, or restricted by a register or login command or placed in very small text under a comparatively big "Comment" button off to the side. Honestly, there doesn't really seem to be a big, open invite there for the user to have any incentive to put in the time to participate -- there's no open invite, no apparent ROI, no warmth, no apparent community in this "home grown" area.

If you want community participation in this, then bring that aspect of it front and center, don't hide it behind buttons and "login to post" commands.

The one thing I like to do, which might be helpful to you, is think how this website would come off if it were real. If HomeGrown Music were a festival, for instance, how would the current design and "rules" come off with actual people? If you had a session or area to discuss show reviews, how well would it come off to force willing participants to register before someone handed them a mike to express their comments to the room?

If you want participation, then show them you want their participation, and that you trust them enough, up front, to accept their thoughts to put it front and center.

Hope that was helpful.

Some advice, I've hit a bit of a wall with my web projects

seopher — Thu, 14 Aug 2008 12:20:59

Some good advice there sir and something I've certainly thought about. I think tagging the niche I operate in is hard, because I don't really discuss making money online (because I don't really make any), instead I focus on metablogging and marketing - two things I actually do and enjoy.

It's just finding content within this niche that has sufficient mainstream appeal to attract new readers... That's the trick.

Some advice, I've hit a bit of a wall with my web projects

Oli — Thu, 14 Aug 2008 03:06:17

For people reading this not familiar with your site, your most recent focus has been: making money online, SEO and metablogging.

Your niches...

I'm going to be honest with you: those are three of the most oversaturated niches there are. I'm not saying you shouldn't write that sort of content, but you'll have to make a hell of an impact somewhere to see a measurable response.

The readers of these niches (and I apologise to you, because I know I'm grouping you in here) collectively have less attention span than a hamster watching paint dry. You need to be consistently excellent instead of following the crowd.

Money

Money-wise, you're advertising to some of the most advert-alert people on the internet. These are guys who spend all day either monetising sites trying their hardest. You might want to mix things up a bit. Throw in a random interstitial. Randomly use those damned annoying underline-thingy-ads.

This is another reason I'd find being in the MMO niche extremely dangerous. At the top, you have a few guys making stupid amounts of money for doing nigh-on sod-all. I remember at one point in the distant history feeling slightly competitive with you over site income and traffic.

I've long since given up aspirations of taking over the world and to be honest, I'm a much happier person for it. I don't feel I have to write when I don't have anything to write about and I don't feel I have to shove ads under people's eyelids.

My point is if you're not making money online, you must occasionally ask yourself why you're writing about it. I would find that predicament too depressing.

Content

I'm sure this has dawned on you but you're pretty limited in your scope for new content. Everything has been said on the subjects and as soon as something new happens, a million people have written about it before you've head of it.

I don't know what you can do about that.

So how about providing something other sites don't? A regularly updated guide. All the little voices in the MMO arena squalk "I'm rich and here's how I did it" - but there's actually a lot less "how" and a lot more "here's what I'm doing now; click my links biatch". It's a horrible MLM-style pyramid.

You're not at the ProBlogger level so you can't speak with absolute authority (as if they can) but you can show how you're trying to get there. Long term experiments showing traffic vs income graphs, marking significant actions. Show what works and what doesn't. In doing so, you'll save people a lot of time.

Conversely if this doesn't work, you'll have more great content that doesn't get enough interaction and that won't help you psychologically.

Getting more interaction

Firstly, spruce up your comment form. It's basic and there's a captcha waiting there to scare people off. Turn the form into a two-stage process so they only see the bare minimum to begin with and ask the rest once they've posted the content of their post. zdnet have a great version of this: just a textarea and a button. It's great for luring people in, getting them invested in the process.

Additionally, with the two-stage process, you can do far more with the user. Once they've posted, you can ask them if they want to subscribe to the thread, if they want to subscribe via RSS or want one sugar or two.

Give it some styles too. Visually draw people in.

There's also a LOT of gumpf between the end of content and the comments. Rearrage the metacrap. Move Digg/contact/email and rss subs to the top of the sidebar. They'll get less attention but they're not delivering what you need anyway.

To conclude..

If I took over seopher.com tomorrow, I'd do the following things:

Examine if I really want to continue writing in the current niches. Are they sustainable? Can I succeed in them? Are they fun to write about?
Regardless, is the way I'm writing affecting the way people tend to comment. I'd take a look at something popular and try to emulate its style to see if that worked again. Perhaps chuck in some questions.
Ask myself how important monetizing was. How much does it degrade viewing/interaction performance? It that worth it?
Work on getting people from the end of my content straight into the comment box.

Some advice, I've hit a bit of a wall with my web projects

seopher — Thu, 14 Aug 2008 01:36:32

Hi guys (especially love for S, T and M), I've not been around much for many reasons, but while I'm trying to get my life together I've been pondering how to get my web-shizz together too.

I've been running a few websites for quite a while but prosperity seems awfully low; Seopher.com is running on decent subscriber levels but there's surprisingly little attention on the new content. It's barely paying for it's own upkeep too, and that's not ideal.

I just wanted to canvas opinion on maybe where I should be taking things. I'm finding marketing the website is a lucrative past time and I just need to somehow break through this glass ceiling and get more users reading the latest material and generally make the site more profitable.

Any thoughts?

Could they get your business back? (Real Estate)

fuscom — Wed, 13 Aug 2008 04:02:45

Emotional experience is a major part of a home purchase. When my wife and I were considering our purchase 12 years ago, our biggest consideration was not really on the money crunching front, but more along the lines of a hassle and error free build.

All we had heard from friends who had new construction was how frustrating the experience was for them in dealing with the builder. We did our research based on that, and then also looked around at the types of communities they built in, and then also the long-term outlook of the part of town we were wanting to move to.

What we probably didnt consider as much as we should have, was where WE would be years down the road, and how our needs and desires would change as we started and raised a family, and their agendas in parts of town not always convenient to our address.

Financially, we made a great decision, our home value has almost doubled in 12 years. Closet space wise (thanks to over generous grandparents spoiling our children), and multi-story wise, and "need a bigger garage" wise though...

To answer the "could they get your business back" question -- yes, and I'm happy to recommend them as a builder.

As for your decision, arguably only you'll know for sure. But I would bet that your true answer to that will come some years down the road as your house, family and neighborhood "settle in" and as your neighbors rotate in and out a few times, and the number crunching of today gives way to the home maintenance and repair issues of tomorrow, long after your grace period with the builder is over and done.

Having said all that, I join the other in congratulating you on your purchase.

Could they get your business back? (Real Estate)

Tyme — Tue, 12 Aug 2008 23:41:58

The costs would still end up being about the same, once all was taken into consideration, but the responsiveness was something that weighed very heavily on us: if the people of House 2 took this long to work on a deal, how long would they take to respond to any warantee issues on the home?

Congrats! I think you made the right decision for the right reasons. I would have made the same decision. If House 2 people had been more responsive (handled their business properly) this wouldn't be an issue. They didn't and although more expensive you have better service which you'll probably be thankful for in the end. Issues do come up with homes unfortunately. :(

On a side note while house hunting I noticed similar trends. One would think with the sluggish housing market responses would be better.

Could they get your business back? (Real Estate)

Ozone42 — Tue, 12 Aug 2008 23:25:10

You did the right thing. You don't need people jerking you around or dragging their feet. It's hard enough with all the laws and paperwork involved with buying a house.

Congratulations! Home ownership can be a lot of work, but it's also very rewarding having your own place that you can improve, enjoy, and be proud of.

Could they get your business back? (Real Estate)

Scrivs — Tue, 12 Aug 2008 23:12:28

I think you did the right thing. I don't understand the numbers game behind housing, but I do know that when people treat you with respect and actually show they care then it is always a good idea to go with them. Tyme and Mike can speak more on the housing numbers side so maybe they will toss in some input with that.

Could they get your business back? (Real Estate)

Gnorb — Tue, 12 Aug 2008 22:03:25

So, yeah, I just bought a house. My first, in fact. Feels cool, interesting, and with one pressing question in mind. Of course, this pressing question has a pretty long backstory with lots of numbers:

Two weekends ago we went to Tampa to see a couple of houses again. After months of searching, we had narrowed our search to these two. Both were in the same neighborhood, both were new construction inventory homes, and both were at about the same price:

House 1 (Built by Tripp Trademark Homes): Original value of $234,000 (including all upgrades). One story, 3br/3ba. 1850sqft. New price: $202,000

House 2 (Built by KB Homes): Original value of $210,000 (including all upgrades). Two story, 4br/2.5ba. 1878sqft. New price: $190,000.

As I said, both houses were in the same subdivision, sort of. Different Homeowners' associations, about 1/4mi from each other.

When we saw House 2, we were set. THIS would be our house. That is, until we started talking numbers, and looking at the business side of things. This house was offered to us at 190,000 with $5,000 towards closing costs. Total payment to purchase: ~$15,000. Interest rate was 6.5%

So we talked to the folks in House 1. Their offer: $202,000, $6,400 towards closing costs (which basically covered everything). Total payment to purcase: ~12,000. Interest rate was 6.75%, which they bought down to 6.5%

We started doing comparissons between the two houses.

House 2 had a corner lot (good) in an open street (bad), was highly visible (good) and had a major road going behind it (bad). Being a 2-story house, it would also cost more to insure than House 1. Electricity would also be considerably higher, since it had one AC unit for both floors, meaning the unit would be working harder.

House 1 was hidden away in the back of the subdivision (good) with a dead-end street (good), not very visible (bad), but with a conservation zone behind it (good). Because it was 1 story, it would cost less to insure. This was aided by the quality of the construction and many of the safety features added by the builder. Being a 1-story house, it would also take less electricity to cool.

In short, while the cost of House 1 was more, when you counted in maintenance the cost of both Houses was the same. So our decission was not yet made.

We talked to both builders about this, telling them what was going on with the other. They were wanting to sell, and we figured a bidding war was in our favor, if they took us seriously. We told them we would be making a decision no later than Wednesday.

House 1 responded immediately. They threw in $2,000 extra towards closing costs, bought down the interest to 6.375% (it had risen between the original estimate and this point), in addition to doing a 1 year buydown of the interest to 5.375%. Finally, they added in a few extras we requested, like an upgrded oven and upgraded lighting in some areas of the house.

House 2 took its time. It was Tuesday night before we heard from these guys again. They offered to lower the house price to $187,000, but that was all they could do.

We decided to go with House 1. The costs would still end up being about the same, once all was taken into consideration, but the responsiveness was something that weighed very heavily on us: if the people of House 2 took this long to work on a deal, how long would they take to respond to any warantee issues on the home?

We told the guy from House 2 that we had decided to go with House 1 and would be going to contract in 3 days. Then he told us he might be able to work something else out.

Saturday comes and goes. We go to contract, lock in a rate, and start the process, putting $3,000 on House 1.

I just got a call yesterday from House 2. They were able to bring the interest rate down to 6.375% and agreed to cover almost all closing costs, matching what House 1 gave us.

Had House 2 come to us with this deal just a few days before, we would have gone to contract with them immediately, no questions asked. As it is, I'll be paying slightly more for House 1, but feel considerably better about who I'm dealing with, given what came before.

Still, I've run the numbers, and if I go with House 2 instead of House 1, in the long term we'll be paying less for a (very slightly) bigger house with more land, even with the loss of the $3,000 (which is a non-refundable down payment on the property).

Question to you: Would you? Why or why not?

The Real Issue About Steve Job's Health

Ozone42 — Wed, 23 Jul 2008 21:03:15

He's a great businessman, and there's no doubt he saved apple and a lot of their success is due to his leadership. However I find this pretty ridiculous. News outlets pander to FUD. I saw one report that made a big deal about him not being on the earnings call the other day. A call he's only been in on 3 times in the last 11 years.

Apple does have the cult of personality factor going on, but I don't think it's necessary. They have a ton of really bright people at work on products. They just need someone who understands their strengths, goals, and the business world in general at the helm. A strong leader is required to continue to grow at the rate they have been, but is not required for success.

The Real Issue About Steve Job's Health

RightOn — Wed, 23 Jul 2008 20:42:58

I think there will be a great deal of panic from the fan boys, and the doomsday folks will drag out their death march drums YET AGAIN... but I too feel that Jobs and Apple have done a good job this time setting the balls in motion and will do an excellent job finding his replacement that what happened before, won't happen again.

The Real Issue About Steve Job's Health

Scrivs — Wed, 23 Jul 2008 20:22:04

I think they have already started giving people test runs at WWDC and MacWorld when they allow them to make cameos and show off a certain feature. They are still unsure as to who will succeed job, but rest asure the plan is in place. Of course the stock will drop when any concerns about Jobs arises and will drop again when he retires, but I think Apple has built a culture around itself that it should be able to push through. Or you might have the Bill Gates effect and the company stops getting mentioned anywhere at all.

The Real Issue About Steve Job's Health

Tyme — Wed, 23 Jul 2008 19:13:03

This is an interesting situation. Jobs obviously isn't going to be around forever...what happens when he leaves? Perhaps they need to start integrating new visionaries publicly now (they say they have a plan internally) so that in the event something does happen their stock won't tank every time he catches a cold.

Do you guys place an extreme amount of importance on Jobs being with the company?

Stressed Americans Leave 460 Million Vacation Days Unused

rileycentral — Wed, 23 Jul 2008 09:39:54

It's one of those things where if you don't have them you probably don't get the topic. Sorry about that. But it is really odd when people pass on days they are allotted and would not be penalized for taking. It sounds like some people here agree with that. Thanks for the comments.

Are Facebook Ads Going to Zero? Lookery Lowers Its Guarantee to 7.5-Cent CPMs

Scrivs — Tue, 22 Jul 2008 22:34:02

This doesn't surprise me at all and is a big problem for Facebook. At least Myspace was aware from the beginning what to do to gain revenue and wasn't ashame to just plaster the ads on there. Facebook, while I have respect for what they do, tried to keep it too clean and give targetted ads that just don't pull any weight.

With so many pageviews, an advertiser can see their campaign for the month gone in a couple of hours so who would be willing to pay a premium on the CPM rates?

Stressed Americans Leave 460 Million Vacation Days Unused

peroty — Tue, 22 Jul 2008 21:35:23

I wish I had vacation days TO take. Or sick days. Being a contractor sucks like that.

Stressed Americans Leave 460 Million Vacation Days Unused

jensized — Thu, 17 Jul 2008 22:50:17

I don't usually take mine consecutively, instead opting to take 3- or 4-day weekends spread throughout the year. That way I don't get burned out on work and I don't get restless on vacation. But you bet every single day gets used including the sick days, personal days and floating holidays!

Stressed Americans Leave 460 Million Vacation Days Unused

JoeLencioni — Thu, 17 Jul 2008 17:48:30

We can carry over a bunch of vacation days from year to year, so I have been taking some vacation from time to time while trying to build up my store of vacation days just in case. I would never ever let a vacation day go unused though... that's just crazy.

Stressed Americans Leave 460 Million Vacation Days Unused

superrats — Wed, 16 Jul 2008 00:10:48

I never have the time really. My boss always reminds me to schedule time off. Well, that's great, but there's never an opening in the job schedule for me to take more than 2-3 days off. I take a few long weekends, but never have taken one of those things called a vacation.

Stressed Americans Leave 460 Million Vacation Days Unused

rileycentral — Tue, 15 Jul 2008 11:04:17

To any people worried about missing work I say this: “Don't go mental, go on vacation!” SHEESH!

Stressed Americans Leave 460 Million Vacation Days Unused

BIGGER — Tue, 15 Jul 2008 00:16:46

At our company we stress to the employees how important it is that they use the PTO they EARN. We are pretty generous with our PTO policy and probably have very few that use their entire 22 days per year, but we definitely encourage it.

I personally very rarely use more than 2 weeks per year of PTO time. But then again as the only IT guy for the office, it is very hard to take much time off, without getting phone calls.

Most state workers in Utah shifting to 4-day week

BIGGER — Mon, 14 Jul 2008 22:39:27

The company I work for is offering a 4-10 schedule to our workers. The rule is, we have to have at least one person in each department to make sure we are covered, but for instance, my 2 techs switch between Monday and Fridays. One gets Monday and the other gets Friday for two weeks, then they swap. Basically once a month they each get a 4 day weekend.

The discussion in Management was that is saves gas, we can get publicity for being a green company and it also keeps employees happier. Our company is not in a position to offer raises this year, so this serves as compensation. We have noticed about a 10% increase in production since switching to it, however we really weren't expecting that. We decided that if we could do it and not lose any production it was worth it to offer the convenience to the employees.

We don't make is mandatory for employees, it is available to them as long as they are in good standing with the company, etc.

I don't like the idea of everyone getting Fridays off, or making it mandatory.

Stressed Americans Leave 460 Million Vacation Days Unused

fuscom — Tue, 08 Jul 2008 21:30:42

Every industry is different, I agree. I know energy traders who, by regulation, required to take 5 consecutive days off and forbidden to have any contact w/ the company during that time.

Sure all companies have their busy season, but I think that further explains why there's the option to rollover a certain amount of days.

460M does seem like a lot on the one hand. On the flipside though, given most professional people get 2 - 3 weeks, 3 days rolled over isn't really that alarming.

Stressed Americans Leave 460 Million Vacation Days Unused

Tyme — Tue, 08 Jul 2008 21:15:39

@fuscom - It could depend on the industry. When I worked in the accounting field we were extremely busy January - August, October was chaotic so that only left three solid months throughout the year for vacations, two of which are busy holiday months. Everyone couldn't take off at the same time so it was common for people to "push" part of their vacation into the next year and it would dwindle down from there.

I have a friend that is an attorney and due to her caseload she missed vacation time in 2007 and things don't settle down until September when she can take some time, IF everything goes okay. She also feels hesitant to take off because she's working towards partnership.

On the flip I know people who, working hourly, want the money and will forgo the vacation time (because they can get overtime working). Especially with their mortgage rates rising.

I think taking vacation time is dependent on the person's financial situation. 460M days is a very high number though.

Stressed Americans Leave 460 Million Vacation Days Unused

Ozone42 — Tue, 08 Jul 2008 20:38:56

I haven't taken any real vacation in a long time. I take days off here and there, but I am waaaaay overdue.

But I am a partner in my company, work from home, and my schedule is what I make it.

Stressed Americans Leave 460 Million Vacation Days Unused

fuscom — Tue, 08 Jul 2008 20:21:27

I'm kinda skeptical of that "3 days left on the table". Three days probably falls within most companies rollover policy. I would reason that people (especially families w/children) schedule bits of vacation time around differing schedules and thus will usually have some days leftover after all is said or done. I'd give that more credance than too stressed to leave and stay gone kind of situation.

Stressed Americans Leave 460 Million Vacation Days Unused

liza — Tue, 08 Jul 2008 20:06:49

I always try to use all my vacation days. If I only stay home with the family it is better than work.

Stressed Americans Leave 460 Million Vacation Days Unused

RightOn — Tue, 08 Jul 2008 19:40:22

I take EVERY SECOND of vacation offered to me every year. There is no way I can last a year without a break of some kind.

Stressed Americans Leave 460 Million Vacation Days Unused

Tyme — Tue, 08 Jul 2008 19:15:00

When I worked for someone else at first I was lazy about taking vacation days. Eventually I took a "use it or lose it" attitude and I made sure to use it. Some companies "force" their employees to take the time. One of the local hospitals here turned smoking-free completely. No smoking on the grounds period (not even in the car). Their suggestion? Deal with it, quit or use the vacation time to start a weaning process. o_O

Do you take vacation days? I tend to slide working for myself because I flex my time out or I'll save it up for something "big".

Most state workers in Utah shifting to 4-day week

Tyme — Wed, 02 Jul 2008 02:16:39

My brother worked for a big hotel change and they tried to go to a 4 day work week too and this was years ago. It didn't fly back then. People with families would have been in too much of a bind. The extra costs for daycare would have negated the extra time off. For the younger generation with no responsibilities it works out well. It was stated in the article this was where their focus was and I imagine it's ironic that the state can get away with paying younger people less.

A friend of mine works for a place that shifted to a 4 day work week. Once the customers have adjusted to the change it was only one more step to shift from having as many full-time workers to part-time workers. Next step? Cut those benefits. I warned my friend and he was prepared - went to school and grabbed some knowledge so when the day came, he was able to get a better paying job.

Scrivs and I were talking about ethics earlier today. This is where I would definitely raise an eyebrow if I was not ethically aligned with the state/company I worked for.