Wise Ideas

Of Paul Blart, Snuggies and Oxen

Happy Year of the Ox! 

Today marks the beginning of Chinese New Year.  As the Asia Times points out, "The Year of the Rat has ended in a global economic meltdown and a crisis of confidence unseen since the Great Depression of the 1930s. Can the ox - the strong, hard-working symbol for next year, which begins on January 26 on the Chinese lunar calendar - carry us forward to better times"

I'm no fortune cookie -- but two recent posts on this blog, and the attention the topic of those posts is getting in the mainstream media today -- are indicative of where the Ox is heading.

The first was way back on January 6th (still the Bush Administration), when I wrote that "acccording to Box Office Mojo's yearly box office results, all of 2008's top grossing movies were rated PG-13 or under," proof that Hollywood has discovered family values and is finally valuing families.

Apparently, the proof is in the pudding eaten by rotound movie sensation Paul Blart: Mall Cop, which for a second weekend in a row, ruled the box office with $21 million in ticket sales.  In today's Media Equation column in the NYTimes, David Carr writes that "according to Box Office Guru, theater revenues are up 9 percent so far this year and the recent Martin Luther King's Birthday weekend was the biggest in history, surpassing Memorial Day weekend and Thanksgiving weekend."  Driving that record breaking long weekend, in a segway no less, was Paul Blart. 

I've seen Paul Blart. It's no Finding Nemo, but my kids loved it.  We paid matinee prices, took our own snacks, laughed at the silliness of it all, and felt good leaving the theater having gotten out of the house and enjoyed a family experience for under $40.   And in these times, that's what its all about.

My second fortune cookie post was titled "Recession Buster: As Seen On TV!"  I wrote that increasing anecdotal evidence showed that the infomercial industry is a huge beneficiary of the recession.  Because of low TV ad rates and high anxiety among shoppers, "it seems millions of us have taken up offers AS SEEN ON TV (a phrase that must always be shouted) and bought ourselves a Snuggie (The Blanket With Sleeves!), a Buxton Over-the-Shoulder Orangizer bag, the Craft Lite Cutter, and a lifetime supply of Debbie Meyer Green Bags."

In a much longer, more journalistic explaination of this "theory," the The NYTimes today talks to all the network ad people and several direct marketers, who say it's gotten so bad/good -- that now the infomercial companies are fighting for prime time ad time.  But even more indicative is an article in today's AdAge, which announces that "Marketing's New Red-Hot Seller" is the "Humble Snuggie." (The Blanket with  Sleeves!).

"The quirky little blanket with sleeves has become the raiment of the zeitgeist, with more than 4 million units sold in just over three months and more than 200 parody videos on YouTube," writes AdAge.  However, the article quotes a Portland, OR marketing guy by the name of Doug Garnett as saying that "it was the quirky problem-solution DRTV ad that made the difference, not the design," for the Snuggie.

Not quite true.  It's the recession, the anxiety and the feeling of safety and cocooning that is making the Snuggie ---- not just the ad.  Just as it's the feeling of a happy ending for an overweight every-man that's making Paul Blart a hit.

At least, that's what my fortune cookie is telling me on this Chinese New Year Day. Happy Year of the Ox. 

Families are Boffo Box Office!

Jennifer Anniston may not be at the center of a multi-million dollar Best Actress Oscar campaign, but she is being treated like royalty at 20th Century Fox.  That's because her newest movie, Marley and Me, remains "top dog at the box office," as the LA Times puts it, having raked in $106.5 million since its opening two weeks ago.

In a crowded holiday field with a lot of Oscar contenders vying for attention and ticket sales, the three movies that have consistantingly drawn audiences over the winter break are Marley, Adam Sandler's Bedtime Stories and the Brad Pitt "vehicle," The Curious Case of Benjamin Button.  

So what - you may ask - do all these films have in common?  They are all rated PG-13 or PG or just plain G.  In other words, movies you can take your whole family to (although few under-13 year olds would want to see Benjamin Button.....).

And although you might argue that it was the holidays and of course there were a lot of family movies in theaters - you need to look at the bigger picture (so to speak).  Because In fact, 2008 might go down in film history as the year Hollywood discovered family values and started valuing families.

According to Box Office Mojo's yearly box office results, all of 2008's top grossing movies were rated PG-13 or under.  And in last year's top 20 grossing films, only three were rated R (Sex and the City, Wanted, and Tropic Thunder).  The rest were suitable for viewing by anyone 13 and under - most of whom were accompanied by a parent who had to drive them there anyway. 

An article in Monday's NYTimes argues that Superheroes including The Dark Knight, Iron Man and The Incredible Hulk helped rescue the movie industry in a year in which recession started eating away at discretionary spending like movies.  According to box office tracking service Media By Numbers, U.S. ticket sales totaled $9.6 billion last year, down less than 1 percent from the year before. 

“Considering the economic climate, I think that’s a pretty terrific result,” Michael L. Campbell, CEO of Regal Entertainment Group - the nation's largest chain of theaters - tells the Times.  “This industry is as recession-resistant as any I can think of.”

Recession-resistant?  Not so fast.  I would argue that if Hollywood all of sudden started rolling out a ton of un-family friendly fare --- they would see box office receipts drop like the Dow.  The key, it seems, is to make movies the whole family can see - because it is that niche audience that is still spending $9 bucks a head to be entertained.  A fact that other businesses should take note of as they struggle through these precarious times.

So while Jennifer, Owen and Adam may not be walking up to the podium to accept a gold statuette next month --- they will definately be walking the red carpet on Oscar Night, blinded by the flashes of the paparazzi and confident in the knowledge that even though they were far from a nomination --- they are box office gold in the eyes of their bosses and fans.

Mall-ed!

After months of depressing emptiness, a crowd finally showed up at my local mall yesterday - but not because of the Nordstrom Half Yearly Sale. 

Unfortunately, that crowd turned into an unruly mob of hormonally-pumped teen girls, who ended up actually stampeding the shopping center in search of the star of the upcoming movie "Twilight."

"Twilight," for those of you without teenage girls in the house, is the mega-hit young adult book series about vampires, which is hitting the big screen on November 21st.   And ironically, in the midst of Monday's incident at Stonestown Galleria Mall in San Francisco, blood was drawn when the mass of girls crushed forward into the mall's closed doors, leaving several young ladies injured. 

The crowd of up to 3,000 young girls (and boys - who just go where the girls are), were waiting for 22-year old Robert Pattinson, who some of you might recognize because he played Cedric in the Harry Potter movie series.  However, Pattinson's appearance was canceled after the riot.

However, as any mother can tell you, teen girls don't give up that easy.  By nightfall, the crowd had diminished, but still curled around the block.  So, according to The Contra Costa Times, "the actor agreed to sign autographs for the first 500 customers who were in line that morning, but the scheduled question-and-answer session was canceled."

This morning, other than a bunch of Big Gulp cups and other trash left behind, there are no signs of the crowd at Stonestown Mall.  Which again, is unfortunate for the retailers at Stonestown Mall - who can only dream of such crowds turning up at their Veteran's Day sales today.

Tink Talks! Will Little Girls Listen?

Since my daughter is soooooo old now (8 as of yesterday), she is sooooo over princesses and mermaids, and has graduated to tame teen rock stars and musically-inclined high school students - thanks to the entertainment geniuses at the House of Mouse. 

With Sleeping Beauty, Snow White and more recently Ariel and Jasmine, Disney has the 0 to 5 set covered with princesses.  And with Hannah Montana, Gabriella and Troy, and The Jonas Brothers, they have the tween and young teen set screaming. 

However, there's a a gap of girls that includes my daughter, who are too old for princesses and frankly too young for Disney's teen offerings - which are made instantly uncool to actual teenagers especially if their little brothers or sisters are "into"it.  So what's a company to do?

Enter old friend and Peter Pan sidekick Tinkerbell, the tiny fairy who has been handed the gargantuan task of recapturing the imaginations of little girls aged 6 to 10 looking for a franchise to call their own.  And, after a three year long build-up including the sale of 12 million copies of some 400 fairy books worldwide, Disney is now betting on Tink to deliver the goods.

Tinkerbell's big break-out started in earnest yesterday with the release of its straight-to-DVD/Blu-ray movie, Tinkerbell, the first of four straight-to-DVD movies starring Tink and her fairy friends. "What we found is most compelling for these girls about Disney fairies is that Tinker Bell has friends and she's figuring out who she is and what her talent is and what her place in the world is." Kathy Franklin, a Disney V.P. tells public radio's Marketplace.  "And that's something that 5-, 6-, 7-, 8-year-old girls are going through themselves."

However, the movies are just a pixie-portioned part of an extensive multi-zillion dollar campaign to reintroduce Tink and her fairy friends as a full-fledged franchise open for business.  Last Friday, Tink's virtual online world of Pixie Hollow went live, offering young fairy fans games, stories and of course, memberships for $5.95 per month.  V.P. Franklin tells Marketplace that in just four days, "7 million personalized fairies are already playing together on pixiehollow.com."

Also, just in time for the holidays, come some new Disney fairy bracelets and charms called "Clickables, which somehow link to the online pixie world.  "This is probably our first real effort at this more holistic approach to a franchise that includes a very immersive online experience tied to consumer products, physical goods," Steve Wadsworth, president of Disney Interactive Media Group tells The Canadian Press.  "This is the world where all these things come together."

And I haven't even mentioned the new Pixie Hollow attraction located in Disneyland's "Fantasyland," featuring a "real" life-sized Tinkerbell who little girls can talk to and pose with.  "It's an extension of the mythology that's going to be established in this film," Reed Jones, another Disney creative/exeuctive type tells The Orlando Sentinel.

Even before the movie was released, Tinkerbell was worth an estimated $1 billion this year alone to Disney.  Add in DVD, book, tie-in toys and other merchandise sales, PLUS online revenue for PixieHollow.com, and you can almost see the pixie dust turn to dollars before your very eyes. 

And while it may seem that The House of Mouse is wallowing in money these days (High School Musical 3 cost Disney $17 mil to make, and it raked in $42 mil its opening weekend), if Disney knows anything, it's that its target market eventually ages up and out of all of its product lines...so there always has to be something fresh available to hook new generations.  

This weekend I'll find out if Tinkerbell passes the ultimate product test from my daughter - who got the DVD as a birthday present last night from her brother.  Although she's crazy about High School Musical, it will be interesting to see if Tink can lure her back to an age-appropriate fantasy land filled with fairies.

However, I plan to keep my wallet and credit card hidden, just in case Tink passes the test.

The Sipping Point

The oil industry has its "tipping point," the per gallon price gas needs to reach before consumers start changing their habits to reduce consumption.  So it seems gourmet coffee has its "sipping point:" the point at which ubiquity completely dilutes a brand and makes it uncool.  Starbucks has reached -- indeed surpassed - its sipping point.

Ever since the announcement that it is closing 600 under-performing stores, there's been a lot of caffeine-fueled speculation on what went wrong at Starbucks.  Everything from the crummy economy, to over expansion, to misguided product expansionsn, to arrogant and dated real estate buying practices, to changing consumer preferences, to bad sandwiches has been blamed by business pundits. 

They are all right.

"Triple Vente Alert!  Baristas on the Loose!" shouts the headline from Canada's Globe and Mail.  History will remember the summer of 2008 as "the year the baristas went feral and the world was changed forever," the paper writes with more than a little sarcastic glee. 

Meantime, countless independent coffee shops and cafes are serving up hefty helpings of schandenfreude with every cup. 

For years while people (half) joked about there being a Starbucks on every corner, the coffee giant has laughed all the way to the bank.  But no-one's laughing now - at least no-one in Starbucks Seattle-area headquarters.  As the Seattle Times reports, "Starbucks did not say which stores will be closed, only that they are spread throughout the country. But it did say 70 percent of those slated for closure had opened after the start of 2006." 

To say that Starbucks had over-saturated the market is putting it lightly.  I just returned from 10 days of field research (aka: my vacation), and can unequivocally say that there is not only a Starbucks on every corner...but a Starbucks at every exit, too. 

My research started in the urban Bay Area coffee scene where there are more Starbucks than my kids could even count -- and continued through the sparsely populated desert sagebrush wastelands of northern Nevada and through the potato fields and cow-filled agricultural mecca that is southern Idaho.  And all through this road trip, we were never more than 70 miles away from a Starbucks. 

In fact we learned that there are more Starbucks per capita in the state of Nevada than anywhere else on the planet.  Coffee industry analysts tell the Las Vegas Journal Review that there are three reasons behind this:  "wise investments since Starbucks owns most of its stores and land in Las Vegas has been leading the nation in appreciation, savvy marketing, and a caffeine-craze driven by Las Vegas' 24-hour economy where many casino workers never sleep, or so it seems."

But since those reasons are Vegas-centric --- I would add a fourth:  truckers need caffeine, and Starbucks aimed to addict the entire industry by offering truckers a grande fix at every stop between Reno and Jackpot. 

But the coffee gourmands in Elko, Carlin, Winnemucca, Blackfoot, Idaho Falls and Pocatello may soon be grinding their teeth as Starbucks tightens its belt.  It turns out 6,793 Starbucks stores in the U.S. is at least 600 too many.  And as Portland's Oregonian says, "it turns out there is a limit to America's appetite for high-end coffee." 

Or, put another way, it seems we've all reached our "sipping point."

The "Sex and the City" Gap

I must be one of only a few estrogen-fueled beings who really doesn't care about the opening of the Sex and the City movie.  It's not because I disliked the show, the actresses, the topics or the fashion.  And it's not because I'm just being a snobby spoil sport. 

It's because I suffer from a Sex and The City gap. 

You see, during the years the show was racking up rave reviews and ratings  -  I was in a fog of diapers, sleepless nights, seemingly endless nursing sessions, toddler tantrums and general new mother mayhem.  Even if I had religiously tuned in Sunday nights to watch four self-absorbed women in their 20's find their way through the jungle that is Manhattan.....I probably wouldn't remember it. 

Sex and The City, the show, ran on HBO from 1998 to 2004 according to Wikipedia - a fact that many women can tell you, but one that I had to look up. 

In 1997 I had my first child, and just as he entered preschool in 2000, I had my second child.  By the time my youngest was in preschool and my oldest in grade school - and I was no longer glued to them 24/7 - Sex and The City had run its course.  I had missed it.  Throughout those years I do remember watching an episode here and there.  But due to the combination of not being a "regular" and being soooo damn tired....it never became must-see for me.

In fact during those fog years, nothing was must-see for me.  I know a lot of mothers of babies and toddlers find time to watch TV.  But I was not one of them...partly because neither one of my kids napped at the same time, or would sit still at the same time, or go to bed at the same time, or were quiet at the same time, or.......well......you get the picture.

Watching TV was not a priority when quiet had finally enveloped our house during those years.  Sleep was.  And when I did watch TV, within minutes I was usually watching the inside of my eyelids rather than the screen.

I am far from the first mom to report a "gap" of some sort that occurred with the onset of motherhood. Some moms, like me, experience a cultural gap.  Others who turn inward and nest with their young, can go through a societal gap.  But we all experience a profound change in our lives that we all handle in our own way.

Interestingly, after reading reviews and catching some of the inescapable coverage on morning TV, it appears that the profound changes women experience between their 20's and 40's is the overriding theme of the Sex and the City movie.

"Even viewers coming in cold will appreciate "Sex and the City" as the best American movie about women so far this year, and probably the best that will be made this year," writes movie reviewer Mick LaSalle in The SFChronicle.  

Sounds like a movie I'd like to see.  But is it really worth blowing a rare night out, plus the cash output involved, to see the continuation of a franchise I was never invested in, in the first place? I think not. And unlike the WaPost "The Check-Up" health and well-being blogger, I don't feel an ounce of guilt about it.

 Have a great weekend.

Fantasy Friday: "The Clooney Clause"

A gym buddy of mine tapped me on the shoulder while I was on the cross-trainer yesterday to ask why I looked so dreamily euphoric and happy.  We both looked up to TV screen I was watching while working-out, and there was the answer:  George Clooney was on The Today Show.

That sent us into gales of laughter.  It was then I told her about "The Clooney Clause."

The Clooney Clause is an agreement my husband and I have, though not in writing and not with an attorney.  It goes like this:  if George Clooney comes knocking on our door and wants to whisk me away forever, for a night, or even for an hour --- I am free to flit off with him, - deserting my husband and children - with no hard feelings.  As my husband admits, "heck, even I'd go with him!"

There are plenty of interpretations of such fantasies, and they are most often referred to as "Celebrity Clauses."  Examples can be found at this City-Data.com form originated in "Jersey," as well as plenty of other blogs written mostly by people whose list is made up of celebrities that could be my grandchildren.

But our Clooney Clause is different.  It doesn't cover just "a date" or a brush with fame.  It involves completely wrecking my family's life in order to "spend quality time" with a matinee-idol handsome man who seems to have some pretty sharp brains to go with his looks.  Risk-free self indulgence.  And a totally outrageous fantasy.

The Clooney Clause works both ways in my house.  If Uma Thurman should turn up at our door, my husband can ditch us just as quickly.  No hard feelings. 

So let's call this Fantasy Friday, the best day of the week for such ridiculously silly yet fun pursuits....and time for you readers to weigh in.  Do you have something like a "Clooney Clause" with your partner?  Who's worth wrecking your marriage over?  Click below on "Comments" and tell us who tops your list.

Have a great weekend.  I'll be at home waiting, George.

Polaroid Memories

Believe it or not kids - there was a time when you couldn't instantly view a photograph on a camera or phone screen, plug in, and just print out the good ones.  You had to actually take 12 or 24 or 36 pictures before, ever-so cautiously, easing the roll out of the camera and taking it to a film developer - which in some cases could be a drug store, a PhotoHut, or even a professional photographer's lab.

But there was one, very cool way to get instant pictures back in the old days, and they were called Polaroids.  You recognize that name?  Oh right....Andre3000 "shakes it" in Outkast's "Hey Ya." 

These bulky cameras spat out pictures instantly, and people would stand around for a few minutes staring at a small, stinky square of special photo paper, while the picture developed before their very eyes.  We seemed to have a lot more patience and time in those days. 

Why, you ask, am I boring you children with these sepia-tinged nostalgic thoughts about Polaroids? 

Well, the news broke this week in The Boston Globe that "Polaroid Corp., the Massachusetts company that gave the world instant film photography, is shutting down its film manufacturing lines in the state and abandoning the technology that made the company famous."  The company is closing its factories and cutting 450 jobs --- leaving those employees with nothing but the ironic Polaroid image their personnel manager took of them they day they started work at the now obsolete company.

I'm not the only baby boomer bemoaning the death of the Polaroid.  More than a hundred people have posted their laments on the The NYTimes Lede blog.  "The digital world is cold, colorless, devoid of a soul in comparison," laments one reader calling him/herself "progresswear."

And who can forget the classic TV ad campaign featuring the perfect fit couple of Mariette Hartley and James Garner...and their gentle of-the-times banter - highlights of which you can now watch endlessly on YouTube.  Radio Shack tried a similar pairing with Teri Hatch and Howie Long...which pales in comparison.

The story goes that Edwin Land, the inventor of Polaroid film, created this iconic product after his three-year old daughter asked him why she couldn't see a photo he had taken of her right away.

But you - you children of the 21st century - have seemingly never had to wait for anything in your lives.  With the exception of Polaroid, it took a whole week, instead of a whole minute, to hold your photos in your hand.  Half of the fun of the Polaroid was the anticipation....the slow reveal of the photograph. It's a joy that has seemingly gone the way of the Polaroid in this zippity-quick instant world of ours.   

Am I boring you with memories of the old days?  Well, you've listened long enough. Go watch your Nano or listen to your iPod.  I'm going to go put a Joni Mitchell LP on the turntable.

What's an LP and a turntable?  Well, that's another story.....

And the Nominees Are......

What?!  No Best Actress nomination for Amy Adams, who was brilliant as an animated Disney princess come to life in Enchanted?

How about the stellar work turned in this year by Homer Simpson, whose magnificence and versatility literally leaped from the screen in The Simpsons Movie?

Johnny Depp got an Oscar nod for his work in Sweeney Todd.  But why does the Academy continually ignore his resplendence in the role of Captain Jack in The Pirates of the Caribbean series?

As you probably know by now, the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences announced its list of this year's nominees yesterday.  And - has been the case for the past 10 years dating back to the birth of my first child - I have not seen a single movie nominated in a major category. 

In the spirit of transparency - I am compelled to disclose that I have seen Ratatouille, nominated for Best Animated Feature Film, as well as Enchanted, which earned three of five nominations for Achievement in music written for motion pictures (Original song). 

But if it ain't On Demand, DVD, or rated P or maybe PG -- you can guaran-darn-tee it that I haven't seen it yet.  And even without a bunch of statistics to back me up -- I'm pretty certain that most parents with kids under the age of 14 - who don't have a live-in nanny - can say the same.

This isn't to say that we parents haven't spent some major bucks on the movies this year.  Just take a look at the top domestic grossing films of 2007 here on BoxOfficeMojo.com --- and you'll see that MOST of the first 15 on the list are family/kid/teen movies.  In fact, Spidy 3, Shrek 3, Transformers, Pirates, and Harry Potter are top 5 money makers for goodness sakes....all movies my 10-year old saw in the theater!

It's no longer true to say Hollywood is ignoring families --- as I wrote a few weeks back in a blog I called "Hollywood Finds Families."  It is probably more likely true to say that the Academy, a loosely knit clandestine group of cinema-types who probably loathe children or simply ignore them - looks down their professionally sculpted noses at that certain category of film which has wide ranging appeal to audiences aged 3 to 93.

The way I see it - that's their problem.  Because months - even years after the 2008 Oscars are awarded....what film do you think is going to stay in the publics memory:  critic darling "There Will Be Blood," or guaranteed DVD seller "Alvin and the Chipmunks"?

Onslaught!

Buzz has burst out of the blogosphere and into the mainstream media this week about a video which - in 74 seconds - shows you all that's bad about the beauty industry. 

And here's the catch.  The viral video is a promotional product by a player in the beauty industry.

Click over to Dove.com, and you'll see a photograph of a young girl  who - BTW - looks remarkably similar to my 6-year old daughter.  The music builds with the lyrics "here it comes" - and then the onslaught begins.  Which also happens to be the name of the short film. 

"Onslaught" is a visual blizzard of the messages the beauty industry sends directly to women, and indirectly to young women and little girls:  you gotta be thin, sexy, smooth, thin, tight, un-wrinkled, perfect.  Did I say thin yet?   The tag line, as a group of young girls cross the screen, is the message "talk to your daughter before the beauty industry does."

This aggressive approach is the next phase of the "Campaign for Real Beauty" campaign launched by Dove's parent company, Unilever, some four years ago.  Known as the Dove Self-Esteem Fund, the program's goal is to reach 5 million girls worldwide by 2010, in order to "free the next generation from self-limiting beauty stereotypes."  As Dove's Alison Leung tells The Toronoto Star, the film packs a lifetime's worth of societal pressure emanating from the gazillion-dollar beauty industry into a mere minute (and 14 seconds).

"Onslaught" appeared just three days ago, and already it's been the subject of some 300 blogs, including the influential Huffington Post, according to Nielson's Buzzmetric BlogPulse service.  It's been uploaded to YouTube by 28 different users, viewed about 350,000 times (as of 6am this morning), and generated some 500+ comments including

"DANG! this was good. I agree! girls should appreciate their own bodies...not try to turn themselves into someone else."

"I think this is a great video as it is telling girls that they are beautiful with what their born with. Thats the type of ad we should see more often."

"At least the commercial is attempting to bring to light to the publics view on women's body images and how everything advertised is going to get to your child eventually."

As is the democratic dirt-digging way of the blogosphere, some YouTube posters point out that Unilever also happens to own AXE brand for men and Slim-Fast...which send just the kind of stereotypical messages the Dove campaign is fighting.

Nevertheless, "Onslaught" is generating just the kind of discussion its creators had intended...which coincidentally is exactly what I was talking about last week when I wrote a blog called Picture Day, bemoaning the negative influence the beauty industry still has on me after all these years:

"As much as advertisers want their ads to reflect their target markets -- women like myself need to face facts and acknowledge that no matter how good the shampoo, how beautiful the fashion or how technologically advanced the wrinkle cream...we will NOT look as good as the women in those ads, unless we spend $20K on a photo re-toucher."

Almost as if they were reading my mind, Unilever tells  AdAge that the next step in the Dove Self-Esteem Campaign is to "enlist yet-unnamed celebrities to appear at events to reveal how stylists, makeup artists, photographers and computer technicians produce their onscreen and on-page looks."

So does Real Beauty mean real money for Dove?  AdAge reports that "Dove's U.S. sales growth has flattened in the past year after two years of double-digit growth, according to data from Information Resources Inc." 

Will "Onslaught" be the sales jump start Dove is looking for?  What do you think of the video?  Will an unconventional campaign like this affect your next lotion, soap or shampoo buying decision?  Click below on "Comments" and tell us what you think?