The Good Samaritan Shop.: #firstworldproblems are NOT problems.

The Good Samaritan Shop.: #firstworldproblems are NOT problems.: I'm convicted. Whenever we're inconvenient, we complain.  Because we're so used to having everything at a push of a button, at a single ...

Cost of punishment versus cost of prevention?

Well.  As you can see.  Blank.  I have no answer.

But my previous post on rising vigilantism in Malaysia has really got me thinking.  Logic tells us, surely the cost of prevention is a lot lower than the cost of punishment (total cost incurred related to crime).  But I really want to put a figure to it.  Because nothing convinces us better and harder than seeing black and white numbers straight up in our face.  Nothing helps us crystallize solutions better than hard facts.

So, I'll need any help that I can get.  If you could just kindly point me to available resources (Malaysia or best practices on international shores), that would be deeply appreciated.

Who commits the crime, where, when, how and most importantly why?  It's so easy for us to generalize criminals as 'immigrants' but yea this is public perception but does it help the solution if we're so polarized?  So who else?  Poor people?  School drop-outs?  Who?  If we could intervene when they are 5, we not only spend less public funds on punishment but we're able to prevent hundreds and thousands of crime unfolding a decade later.  But before we decide the point of intervention, we need to know, exactly 'the point of intervention'.  What if they are not Malaysians?  

Much much much appreciated.  Thanks in advance :)

Strategic planning available.

If you have a job (that's not made up of under-table doings), which requires strategic input and planning, feel free to contact us!

:)

Do I really want to quit my job?

This is brilliant.  The brilliance lies in the stark truth of what the ad is saying to me because... I was about to quit my job! (and I kid you not).  To save the world (I seriously kid you not).

How many of us are locked in the routine cycle of the corporate world, breathing in the mundane money-powered lifestyle and finally realising that there's something missing that's really bigger than our paycheck?  Either after being exposed to a one time pow-wow campaign (think KRONY) or incessant exposure to causes that pull our pity strings in all directions, that we decide to call it quits because we're (true to the following ad below) sad, angry, guilty for not doing what we can to save whatever we feel we should be saving.

Yup.  That's me.

But what if we're all meant to be play our part in this ecosystem of superheroes.  What if we all have different super powers?  There's only one of each in the Avengers.  So it wouldn't work if 80% of us quit to join the 20% Greenpeace advocates to stop the capitalistic world from misbehaving.  I mean, if 100% of us is on the other side fighting the cause, then logically speaking there's no one to fight against anyway, right?  Right.  That's one solution.

But here's another one, probably a better one given there're 80% of us scattered across the globe; Sit at your desk, do what you're skilled to do, live the life you're creating but make better smarter choices.  Maybe it's time for us to redeem our guilt by practising some self-compassion that we're not so bad after all.  We could choose a cuppa from free-trade versus a mugga that's not.  Maybe there is an easier way to do things.  And the easier way is presented here:  Enjoy.

Is there really equality between genders?

Something that caught my attention today.  From the graph below (click to go to original publisher's website), get this: In jobs common for men, men are paid on average 2 to 3% higher than women.  In jobs common for women, men are still paid higher!  Granted women tend to hit a pay ceiling because when they have kids, they are more willing to trade off money for time which subsequently affects performance and remuneration.  But what if she does not have a family?  Hmm.  I can't really tell if this is true because I don't know how much I would be getting if I was a man.  I don't think my boss, who's a man, would tell me in all politically correctness if I should be earning more if I grew a pair :/ but frankly I'm really quite curious to know.

I remember some years ago, an American friend told me that job seekers in the US of A normally do not state their biodata in CVs.  That is to remove biasness from potential employers - you should be hiring me for my experience, skills and potential and not gender, colour and age.  I wonder if this holds water in Asia?  Because everyone prefers a hot young thing (tell me it isn't so especially in the advertising business?).  So the next time your new boss takes you in, don't be too enthusiastic.  It could be for all the wrong reasons.  But I suppose it's only when you get in, you show them who's the boss ;)

Or to just make it simple.  Give everyone a set of Google interview questions.  That'd gauge their IQ, EQ and mental agility pretty well.  But for heaven's sake, give a fair pay.  Inequality is so out of fashion!

When the testing stops, the manipulation stops too?

Recently read an article on Campaign Brief with regards to the latest 'facial coding technology' by Milward Brown.

Says Daren Poole (global brand director for Link, Milward Brown's existing copy testing solution): "Traditional methods of measuring emotion are not always capable of capturing a true emotional response. Facial coding allows us to track how a person really responds, rather than what they claim to have felt. There's no substitute for a real smile, laugh or frown and for the first time in Australia we can measure this all in the viewer's home environment. 

"Facial coding as part of Link can measure factors such as how well it captures a viewer's attention, how they respond to it and ultimately provide guidance in the analysis of the ad's impact on the brand. If a campaign is pushing the boundaries in terms or humour or controversy this is a controlled means to test how consumers really respond."

Neuromarketing is almost like the perfect matrimony between science and art.  Finally, marketers can make scientific sense out of the art business (called communication or more crudely some say, advertising) via MRI scans.  Getting neuro-scientists to decipher brain activity when 'respondents' are exposed to different storyboards, subsequently helps them to put the dollar on the best one that brings the most profitable emotion home (kaching).

It may sound fine and dandy and even awesome initially, as Morgan Spurlock professed after one of these scans, that he wanted a Coke but didn't know why (The Greatest Movie Ever Sold).  That is how powerful an ad message can be.  More explanation of the usage of MRI scans in marketing here:



Now.  Let us pause for a minute.  Let's take a minute to consider the effects of such testing in Political Marketing.  Are we still in awe?  Let's take another minute to consider the result of neuromarketing in say... pharmaceutical business?  Are you just burnt out from 21st century-living that a good old vacation can't fix or do you really need to be fixed with a drug?

I always felt FGDs fall short of something - people are back-rationalizing what they did in a room with a two-way mirror hence making findings a lot less accurate.  Gives you a sense of direction but hardly provides any crux to the issue.  But to now pay them to sleep through scanners?  Hmm.

I've always thought marketing or advertising as a courtship.  Between us and the consumer.  You don't really know what makes them click unless you put (a hell lot of) effort in trying to understand their world.  It's like a real relationship isn't it?  No effort, no depth.  If you don't bother finding out what they like, dislike, what makes their heart pulpitate and what makes it stop, you'll never develop that dream partnership of a companion they truly want to exist!

Well, hang on a sec.  That's where neuromarketing comes in.  Pay them, scan them, and they'll fall in love with you because amidst of the 10 storyboards of words, surely you must have said something right.  And them walking out of the room, falling in love with you but have no idea why.  And yea, you sustain that relationship as long as they don't fall in love with someone else.  And you extrapolate the findings and make hundreds and thousands and millions of others fall in love with a can of whatever-you're-selling.  Brill.

But that takes away so much romance isn't it?  Whatever happened to good old ethnography?

Neuroscience in consumer courtship - aye or nay?

Does the rise of crime make us 'Spiderman' in our own rights?

It's an appalling situation.  In Malaysia, it's deemed not safe to walk alone, in pairs, in triples, in groups.  It's not safe for man, woman, young, old.  It's not safe to park your car, pick up your car, drive on the road and heaven-forbid, stop at the lights. It's not safe if you accidentally hit someone's car, or someone hit your car.  It's not safe to be out and about and it's also not safe to be at home.  It's just.  Complicatedly not safe.

Not to scare you guys who are potential visitors to our lovely country, please come.  So far, we've not heard a lot of cases involving foreigners.  You see, we get robbed by foreigners (apparently).  So, tourists should definitely be fine.

When these heinous crimes go unattended by the local police force, it is natural for the citizens to take matters into their own hands.  The upside which I've seen: People are more bothered to look out for one another within their own network.  Detailed information is shared on Facebook and travels through many many many degrees thereafter, tagged with apt advice for people to be kinder, and more alert to their surroundings.  The downside?  Some unlucky 'baddies' who unfortunately were not able to make a run as fast as they've planned got beaten up, ran over, and God knows how else they were punished before they were handed over to the police.  It's bad that our faith in our law-enforcer is at an all-time low.  But for us to enforce 'law' as deemed justified in that situation?  Well, I don't have an answer.  It's a very grey area.

I suppose this is what happens when the official law-enforcement system is not upheld with integrity and trust.  It forces citizens to become your neighbourhood 'Spiderman/woman'.  The burning question is: This 'unofficial' system seems to work fine if everyone one of us are on the same defining page of what is 'good' and what is 'bad'.  'Good' - protect one another.  'Bad' - beat bad people up.  'Good' - share criminal 'hotspots' to warn one another.  'Bad' - share bloodied criminals so it becomes a lesson to other wannabes.  What happens if we're not on the same page anymore?

Hmm.  Has this noble responsibility of fighting crimes make us better people?  Or.  Worse?  I don't know.  You tell me.

Car Thief Got Beaten like CRAP shared by jovi jun from honda club lover it seems they were trying to steal one of the honda club member car, which they treat like their wife and all of them beat them up before the cops came, they took their photo just in case they do it again to warn others - PJ Community Alert.

Stopping crime and punishing criminals are poles apart.  Strategic or scare tactic?  Prevention or punishment?  Which do we do first?  Check-in with ourselves or cast that stone?