A Plea for Small Businesses

How can small businesses survive another UK national lockdown?  Is it even possible?  Since March 2020, UK society has undergone a paradigm shift, as everything has gone remote, online and socially distanced.  Everything, it seems, except businesses who haven't made the jump.

But how can small businesses, with small or no marketing budgets, stay afloat?

I've seen some great examples of local small businesses making the jump to online selling, and here's a summary of my informal research, presented as suggestions or advice:

https://www.classic-collectables.co.uk/  

1.  Share photos of the goods on your shelves
We still want to shop.  We miss being able to actually see the products we want to purchase.  We want to browse your goods, look at the items you're selling, and come up with purchase ideas, gift ideas and so on.  Get your photos up on your social media channels (Facebook seems to be the preferred platform) and show people that your shop is still stocked, even if it's closed.  Include the prices, or price ranges and show that you're still selling.  There is really nothing more infuriating than seeing pictures of amazing products on shelves (they could be collectable toys; they could be bespoke pottery items, designer clothes or whatever) and NOT having a price.  And if customers respond to your pictures and, for example, ask what the prices are, then RESPOND TO THEM!

Items on shelves with clear prices... definitely a good idea!

2.  Have multiple communication options
Some customers like social media.  Some like email.  Some prefer text messages, and others will probably want to speak to you (or your staff).  List all your communication channels on all your sites - it might be true that Facebook users will message you on Facebook, but they may actually prefer a different channel.  Do you have a website?  Link to it in your posts and in your profile.

Website; landline; mobile; facebook; email... list them all!  

3. Respond to all your social media
I can't stress this one enough (and I've written this in full capitals already).  I have personally made contact with a local small business on a number of occasions via Facebook messenger, and have tried to order various items from them.  I get as far as "I'd like to buy product number 1234, please can you order it." and then ... nothing.  If customers are reaching out to you, then reply to them - ask them to contact you via phone, or something, so that you can arrange payment.   Which brings me onto the next point...

4.  List your payment and delivery options
Should we send you a payment to your bank via online banking?  Do we click and collect, and pay you via a card machine?  Do you want cash on delivery?  And do you deliver?  What's your delivery radius?  Do you offer click and collect, or do you send orders out via Royal Mail/Hermes/Yodel?

We want to shop local.  We want to shop small.  A lockdown isn't going to stop us, just don't let it stop you.

Another day I haven't used Algebra

So, there's a meme floating around Facebook, which says, "Well, another day has passed, and I still haven't used algebra."  Really?  If it's true, it's not something to be especially proud of.  And the likelihood is that it's not true anyway.

For starters, there are many things that I learned at school that I don't use on a daily basis any more.  Foreign languages, for a start (although I probably do use them more than I realise).  Do I regularly apply the map-reading skills I learned at school? We have satnavs and apps for that.  And do I refer the Stuarts and the Tudors?  I suppose I should probably proudly announce that I haven't once consulted a history book this week, and rile all the historians I know.  Somehow though, Maths - probably due to its apparent difficulty or complexity - is seen as something that we should abandon, forget or even be proud of ignoring:

"Why do they make us learn math? It's not like I'll ever use it."
"Yeah, it's not like math teaches you how to work out complex problems logically."

However, Maths (and to some extent algebra) still permeates many areas of our life.  If you want to cook a meal (and you might), then you'll need to know when to start cooking it, in order to achieve a particular mealtime.  Or you might just start cooking as soon as you get home, and eat it as soon as it's ready.  But when will that be?  How long will it take you to get home if you drive at 30 mph?  40 mph?  Are you so sure that another day has passed and you really haven't used algebra?

And then there are those delightful puzzles on Facebook.  You know the sort - if three buckets are equal to 30, and two buckets and two spades are equal to 26, and a bucket and a spade and a flag are equal to 24, what's a flag worth?  I really don't think it's possible to solve that problem without using algebra (call it what you will).  How do you solve those problems?  Here's some help on BODMAS problems (or PEMDAS, if you're from the US).

Once you assign a numerical value (or a time, or a price) to an item (or a distance), and then start doing any sort of calculation on it, you are doing algebra.  Have you ever wondered which was better value in the sales?  The Black Friday sales?  The pre- or post-Christmas sales?  3 for 2 offers? Or buy-one-get-one-free? Or buy-one-get-one-half-price?

And if you have a £10 note in your pocket, and you want to know how many widgets you can buy without overspending... you used algebra.  I think it's fair to say that so far today, I have used algebra numerous times - you might even say X times.

X Factor Predictions Revisited and Updated

A few weeks ago, I listed a number of predictions about the X-Factor 2011, and here they are (so far) listed in bold with my comments.

*  At least one finalist to have estranged parent or sibling - I appreciate I'm late with this, given that immediately after the first episode, one of the judges discovered a brother she never knew she had.

This hasn't been uncovered yet, but give it time.  Let's not forget that a few weeks ago, Tulisa's long lost brother told us all about her childhood and upbringing.

*  Gary Barlow to have one of his Take That mates at the judges' house stage (and it won't be Robbie)

So that's score +1 for the Take That predicition, but -1 for suggesting it wouldn't be Robbie.  You win some, you lose some (a philosophy that might be of use to all those 'this is life or death for me' contestants).

*  One of finalists to have been bullied at school

We'll see...

*  There will be the formation of a boy group and girl group, made up of the boy dregs and girl dregs at the end of the boot camp stage.  "We want to put you together into a group [because we haven't got enough groups already]."

Yes.  It was an easy one, but it was worth mentioning.

*  These synthetic dregs-groups to go through to the live shows (you didn't think the judges would put them together and not let them go through, did you?).

And again, I was correct.  Too easy, really, but hey, some points are worth getting.

*  These synthetic groups to get eliminated in first two weeks - first the girls (who will dress inappropriately) and then the boys (who can't sing as a team)

I should qualify that I was expecting the public vote to start in week one, so give me another week here, folks!

*  Simon Cowell to make a guest appearance, to much fanfare and flashing lights

Still pending.

*  Last year's winner (whoever that was) to release album just in time for Christmas

Oh goodness me, was that really Matt Cardle hawking his new single last Sunday?  Really?  Imagine that.

*  Louis Walsh to pick a wildcard act (or just a wild act) which is no good, but which secures the votes of those who deliberately vote for the worst (Jedward, Wagner).

And this year, he's called Johnny.  It would have been Goldie too but she had the sense to leave.

*  There will be extensive media coverage of an apparent spat between two of the judges, probably the two ladies, but possibly the two blokes

Still waiting for this one, although the drama over "head judge" on The Xtra Factor was a parody in and of itself.  Nice one, ITV2.

*  One of the acts to suffer with a cough/cold/laryngitis/glandular fever part way through the TV shows

Still pending... just give them a few weeks.

*  Two of the acts to form a 'secret' relationship, again with much media coverage

I haven't worked out who this will be yet, but give me a week or so and I'll be able to suggest names.

Now for my additional predictions, having seen week one.

I wish I'd mentioned the excessive use of Orff's Carmina Burana classical piece every time something interesting (or dull) happens... like the judges walk on stage... or walk off the stage...  otherwise, I'd predict that they'd use it.

The synthetic girl group (which I've mentioned before) to wear excessively revealing clothes, and then to draw criticism for it, and then, in the same week, to get voted off.

Michael Jackson week.

Some disastrous cover versions of Take That and Westlife songs.

The judges to criticise each others' acts' "song selections" and "fashion sense" instead of the singing.

Movie Soundtrack Week.

One of the judges, probably Louis, to bend the rules on the allowed songs for "Movie Soundtrack Week" and pick a popular song that featured in an obscure movie.

One of the judges to say, "I think you could really be at risk this week," as a transparent ploy to get people to ring up and vote.  Seriously?  Do you think that the sales of the CDs and downloads comes close to the total phone revenue for the X-factor?  It's all about persuading, cajoling and manipulating people into voting.  I might start a whole other post on the manipulation of the public (and the public vote) by the judges' comments - "People really need to pick up the phone and vote for you this week" being a less subtle one, and "I think you're at risk" being slightly less obvious.

Deadlock.  Every week that it's possible, the judges will deploy deadlock instead of actually kicking off the weaker act.  Remember Jedward, hmm, and their excessively long stay on the show at the expense of acts who could sing better but didn't generate the same interest or phone votes?

I also wish I'd remembered that in the first few weeks, one of the judges usually makes a disastrous song choice and immediately dooms their act.  In 2007, it was Daniel DeBourg it was "Build Me Up Buttercup", this year it was Jonjo with "You Really Got Me."  Talk about a rabbit in the headlights (and in order to discuss rabbit in the headlights, I'd like to talk more about the ever-pale-faced Leon Jackson).

I predict that they'll release "The Charity Single" ... the money spinner now available with with 'extra' goodwill.

That's all for this time, so, keep watching (but not voting) until next time, when we'll probably discuss the allegations of phone-lines being rigged, of judges deliberately throwing their acts to the lions, and of not eliminating the right acts.

My X Factor predictions for 2011

Now, I reckon I'm a fairly optimistic person.  I look for the best in people and in situations, as a rule, and I will try to give people the benefit of the doubt.  However, I can also be quite cynical.  I don't see it as cynical, other people do, I see it as identifying trends and patterns and expecting them to be repeated - even though I hope for the best.


There is, however, one area where I am just plain cynical - or, alternatively, very good at spotting patterns and trends - and that is with the Saturday evening television monstrosity known as the X-Factor (which I do call the X-Factory given its aim of mass production of pop music and cardboard cut-out pop stars).


Here, then, based on previous years' viewing (despite myself) are my predictions for what we can expect from the Simon Cowell juggernaut this year.


*  At least one finalist to have estranged parent or sibling - I appreciate I'm late with this, given that immediately after the first episode, one of the judges discovered a brother she never knew she had.


*  Gary Barlow to have one of his Take That mates at the judges' house stage (and it won't be Robbie)
*  One of finalists to have been bullied at school
*  There will be the formation of a boy group and girl group, made up of the boy dregs and girl dregs at the end of the boot camp stage.  "We want to put you together into a group [because we haven't got enough groups already]."
*  These synthetic dregs-groups to go through to the live shows (you didn't think the judges would put them together and not let them go through, did you?).
*  These synthetic groups to get eliminated in first two weeks - first the girls (who will dress inappropriately) and then the boys (who can't sing as a team)
*  Simon Cowell to make a guest appearance, to much fanfare and flashing lights
*  Last year's winner (whoever that was) to release album just in time for Christmas
*  Louis Walsh to pick a wildcard act (or just a wild act) which is no good, but which secures the votes of those who deliberately vote for the worst (Jedward, Wagner).
*  There will be extensive media coverage of an apparent spat between two of the judges, probably the two ladies, but possibly the two blokes
*  One of the acts to suffer with a cough/cold/laryngitis/glandular fever part way through the TV shows
*  Two of the acts to form a 'secret' relationship, again with much media coverage


Print out the list, and tick them off.  If there any left by Christmas, I think I'll genuinely be surprised.  In fact, give me a week or two, and I'll probably have some more predictions.

Chemistry 3: Made-up names for chemicals

Okay, so last time I ranted about badly-defined science, and deliberately-misnamed scientific phrases, like liquid calcium in toothpaste, and silver molecules in deodorants.  But don't get me started on made-up chemicals.  Not make-up chemicals, made-up chemicals.  And not in science fiction, either, where they belong (kryptonite, dilithium and so on).  Crazy, thrown-together prefixes and suffices that sound like they're chemicals, but are nothing of the sort.  No, they aren't.  Nutrileum, nutrisse, proxylane... they're all nonsense.  Not to mention the use of correct chemical names in incorrect ways.  I mentioned this last time, but 'active oxygen' is another that gets me.  Why is it so different from 'inactive oxygen', or 'lethargic oxygen'?  No, adverts must contain 'active oxygen' because inactive oxygen would probably make us all go to sleep.

Let's take a look at a classic acronym:  AHAs.  Alpha-hydroxy acids.  Yes, that's acids - and by applying this product to your cheeks, you'll be putting acids on your face.  Doesn't this worry you?  Of course it does, because acids are renowned among the uninformed as being bad for your health (they cause tooth decay, among other things), so they get labelled AHAs instead.  What are they?  Acid molecules... organic acid molecules at that (more on 'organic' either today or some other time, but definitely soon).

Pentapeptides - or leftover bits of protein - penta meaning 'having five' and peptides meaning 'made from amino acids'.  So a pentapeptide is a molecule made up of five amino acids (most probably).  A typical protein has thousands of amino acid parts, so having five is a bit small.  Applying this goo to your skin and expecting it to automatically improve your complexion is a bit like trying to construct a piece of literature by randomly adding five-letter chunks to the end of it.  To be fair, skin is a living, well-designed material, and is able to pick out the right letters to keep spelling 'skin' the five-letter chunks, but I wouldn't be surprised if it was proven that eating more healthily does wonders for your skin.  After all, the digestive system is designed to absorb the amino acids to develop and maintain a healthy body, moreso than just throwing sticky creams at your skin, at any rate.

Oxygen is best breathed in through the lungs, carried out in red blood cells in the blood, and used to release the energy found in the food we eat.  Otherwise, oxygen is a gas that's capable of causing damage to cells, and that's why it has to be transported so carefully around the body.  A search for, 'dangers of oxygen' will demonstrate what unrestrained oxygen can do in the human body.  For 'active' in this context, I think it's probably best to read 'fizzy' and producing a tingling sensation.  I can't help wondering what they'll come up with next - perhaps turbo-charged water?  There's much discussion of active oxygen around, and the truth be told, I can't find (and don't know) of the exact definition of active oxygen, but from what I gather, it's all about the electrons in the oxygen molecule... suffice it to say, it's probably not all it's cracked up to be!

As for anything that ends in 'ane', 'ene' or 'eum'... oh dear.  How about methane (natural gas, and very smelly), benzene (I mentioned last time, a cancer-causing irritant) and the ileum (the last part of the small intestine, a dark and unpleasant place)?  And the additions of "oxy" or "xylane" make advertisers look as if they've been building words to obtain good Scrabble scores, instead of communicating science.

Not to mention the lazy addition of 'pro' to the start of a chemical name.  How about 'pro-retinol'?  Sounding like a concoction of pro, retina and alcohol, perhaps it's supposed to help with treating the bleary eyes that follow a late night out?  What's its chemical composition?  Nothing of the sort. Pro-argin (Colgate), Pro-retinol and Pro-gen (L'Oreal), not to mention Pantene Pro-V (where the V stands for...?).

Better still are numbers at the end of chemical names.  Pro-retinol-nine sounds even better than pro-retinol-one, although I'm sure the numbers are carefully chosen to sound scientific.  And if you don't think numbers can sound scientific, consider seven compared to four.  I don't know why pro-chemical-seven should sound better than pro-chemical-four, but Chanel certainly rates No 7, for some unknown reason!

I could go on... and let's be honest, in a future blog post I probably will.  In addition to more made-up chemical names, I'll look at the list of components in shampoo, soap, shower gel and so on, and begin to explain what they actually do, and why (if I can work it out) they're given the strange names that they have.  Until then, I'll keep smiling and laughing at the cosmetics adverts, and browsing the Advertising Standards Authority website for the latest promotional blunders!

Chemistry 2: A rant at pseudo-science adverts

"The only toothpaste with liquid calcium to strengthen your teeth"
"When a car brakes, some of the energy it produces is lost"
"Anti-perspirant with silver molecules"
"Contains pro-oxylane to give your hair extra shine"

Don't get me started on pseudo-science in television adverts.  The voice-over begins, sounding professional, authentic and a leading authority on all things scientific.  The picture zooms in with hexagons flying around all over the place, and stick-and-ball-model molecules start being absorbed into your hair, skin and teeth.

What is it with the hexagons anyway?  Do these chemicals contain honey from a honeycomb?  Do the treatments contain a hexagonal molecule, like benzene (causes cancer, leukemia and is fatal if absorbed in even small doses) or cyclohexane, say (harmful if inhaled or swallowed)?  Perhaps "hexagons" means "scientifically clever", and not "very dangerous".  Still, just watch a TV advert for the latest shampoo or face cream and count the hexagons.  Double your score if the hexagons are gold-coloured or shiny.

Liquid calcium, featured recently in a toothpaste advert (and an advert which thankfully has not been seen recently) is an interesting concept.  Calcium is a metal, and as is generally know, metals have high melting points; in the case of calcium, you have to heat it up to 842 to 848°C in order to melt it.  Now, if toothpaste actually contains liquid calcium, I wouldn't want to put it in my mouth - in fact I wouldn't want to hold the toothpaste tube (and I wouldn't even want to contemplate squeezing the tube, which would have to be made of something other than the typical plastic material).  Still, I'm glad the advert was taken off air.  The truth (a strange concept for advertising, I accept) is that it will contain a calcium compound in an emulsion.  It's a bit like saying that the sea is liquid salt:  interesting, but patently untrue.  Actually, a closer comparison would be to say that the sea is liquid chlorine: dramatic and thankfully untrue.

Next:  silver molecules in anti-perspirant.  Yes, some anti-perspirants contain some molecules that contain a silver ion in a larger molecule.  Here's an example of one such anti-perspirant and for those paying attention, please note the shapes on the front of the can.  The advert for the anti-perspirant features a silver truncated icosahedron - another scientific shape that's not relevant here - that strongly suggests that the product contains a molecule composed entirely and uniquely of silver atoms.

Silver molecule?  Or just a football?

The truth about 'silver molecules' is much more prosaic; the compound in question is probably a variation of the molecule silver sulfadiazine, which, incidentally also contains sulphur - again, not something you'll hear in  advert.  Here's silver sulfadiazine - I figured it was time for a diagram with some genuine scientific basis.  The silver ion is shown by the Ag+ as the chemical symbol for silver is Ag (from the Latin argentum, which also provides the French argent).

Next time, I'll look at made-up scientific names - if only for the fun of it.  Pro-xylane, AHAs, nutrileum, pentapeptides and the rest of it.  In the meantime, should advertisers use proper science?  Probably not.  Will they?  No.  Why not?  Because they're not worth it.

The X Factor Pantomime

Okay, so it's really got nothing to do with Chess, at all, but I figure it's time I wrote down some of my thoughts about the X Factor.  I'm biased, I'm opinionated and I thought I'd point out some of its biggest flaws, and the things that annoy me about it, just to see if anybody else feels the same.

Firstly, there's the theme tune, composed by Simon Cowell and some other people.  I wonder how much of the composition is down to Mr Cowell's musical talent, and how much of his writing credit is down to getting royalties every time they play it (once at the start, once at the end, and twice for every advert break).  Just a thought...

Then there's the whole 'making a drama out of nothing'.  When Dermot O'Leary announces the results of the vote, "In no particular order," I will roll my eyes.  Rest assured that the results of the votes are announced in the order that will produce the most drama.  Some of the more shocking results will be given at the start, then the ones that are safer will be announced, then it'll come down to two of the bottom three.  Except that this week, there's a double elimination... well, if they allow in four more acts at the start, they need to get through them fairly quickly, don't they?

Most years, and this year has been no exception, we've had the manufactured boy band and the manufactured girl band.  Take four or five individual candidates and bolt them together as a group.  They suffer from a lack of practice time, and hardly know each other at all, but they shouldn't have to worry too much - after all, they have a good record for getting through to the live TV stages.... but then getting eliminated very quickly.  I sympathise for the authentic groups who can sing well, as their space has just been lost to a cynical marketing ploy.

I'll add just one more thing before closing (and rest assured I've got plenty more to rant about next time) - the cash cow setup.  Not content with aiming for Christmas number one (and such a *shame* they didn't get it last year) the whole setup is to get people to spend money on the vote.  And how much money?  Based on some rough mental arithmetic, if they had, say, 4 million votes for just the final last year, and 35p from each call is straight profit, then that's £1.4million.  Just from the final - not counting any of the previous rounds.  Last year, Jedward (a whole article of their own) were clearly the money-spinners, as people were voting to keep them in, contrary to Simon Cowell's overly loud  protestation (and much money-counting in the background). And yet, when the time came for him to eliminate them - the first chance he got - he kept them in and eliminated Lucie Jones (nobody can remember her, but she was a good singer).  The decision got the press it deserved, in a Daily Mail article and Simon Cowell kept rubbing his hands with glee.

Anyways, I'll close for now, as Joe McElderry has just sung his new song, in a hope to get a number one hit (since he didn't get it last Christmas, and needs all the publicity he can get).