Marketing Nuance: A Subtle Point - The Set Fee Real Estate Blog ...

You listed with a real estate broker to sell your house, right?

Actually, that?s probably not the correct syntax. What you really did was to list with a broker to get your house sold.

It?s a subtle difference in wording, but one that points out the disconnect between thought and reality for many real estate consumers. The first phrase imbues the broker with near magical powers: he is going to take the house, wave his magical real estate wand, and cause someone to buy it. That?s really not what happens, although many brokers would like you to believe the myth that it does. Phrase two is closer to the mark: you?re going to use a broker to gain access to the natural matching of buyers and sellers that?s already going on. The broker is not magical. He is just a skilled gatekeeper.

Of course, I was selling real estate when dinosaurs roamed the earth and I?m sure things have changed (yeah, right), but . . .

Sellers used to be very concerned about what I was going to DO to sell their house. They wanted to see examples of the advertising I would run on their property, thinking that it was advertising that would cause the house to sell. They wanted to know how many open houses I was going to hold, thinking that the activity of allowing people easy access would cause the house to sell. They seemed to think that selling a house was an active process, that somehow advertising and activities would cause otherwise disinterested potential buyers to suddenly want the home.

I toyed with the idea of telling the truth ? that that?s not what happens at all ? but opted instead to do what I was taught in one seminar or another: play to the sellers? misconceptions and overwhelm them with all of the advertising and activities I was going to DO.

By the way: this ?grin at ?em and tell ?em what they wanna hear? attitude is how salespeople die. Truth is always best.

The TRUTH was probably best expressed by my old broker back in Stone Mountain, Georgia, Richard Williams. Richard was and still is a real estate visionary and one of the smartest brokers I ever met. I was railing on one day about how he needed to do more advertising in this publication or that one when he calmly said, ?Jim, a certain number of buyers are going to buy houses in the neighborhood today whether you are there or not. Your job is to get in front of as many of them as possible.?

That statement encapsulates the marketing function of a real estate broker as accurately as it can be. People can?t be made to want to buy real estate. They either do, or they don?t. A little education can help them make an informed decision, but it is a decision beyond anyone else?s control. Their decision to buy one house over any other is not a decision at all, it?s a choice, an illogical, personal, quirky choice. No amount of full page advertising is going to cause them to choose one house over another.

The broker?s job is to orchestrate a marketing program that puts his or her office in front of as many of these potential buyers as possible. Once that is achieved, ?selling? real estate becomes a matching process: buyers? hopes and needs to inventory.

So how does a smart broker market to get in front of as many potential buyers as possible?

Job one is to be SEEN, to be VISIBLE. The consumer needs to see your sign, your logo, your name everywhere to have a comfort level that you may be able to help. The most effective way to accomplish this is with For Sale signs . . . SO: the best thing your real estate broker can do to sell your house is to go out and get another listing and another listing and another listing. The company with the largest number of signs in the neighborhood* is probably going to get the largest number of calls . . . of course, what they do with the calls is another issue, one we?ll talk about in a moment.

Job two is to GENERATE LEADS: to put marketing pieces into the hands of consumers that will motivate them to make contact with the office. When a broker decides to create a marketing piece, he or she should do it dispassionately . The decision to advertise one house or another should be made based on which one will cause the largest number of potential buyers to contact the office, not on which seller is ?owed? advertising this week. This is an important point. Truth is: almost always, the property that motivated the potential buyer to contact the office is NOT the property they eventually buy. There are dozens of kick-out factors they may encounter as they do their investigation. But that doesn?t matter. What?s important is that they contacted the office.

So, when a broker decides to advertise a property, it?s not to get that particular property sold, it?s to generate buyer contact. It is this general lead generating activity that will cause your house to sell and it may not even involve advertising your house at all.

Now, in today?s ordinary agent centered real estate world, this ?orchestration? of marketing rarely occurs. Agents, stumbling all over one another to beg for listings, promise the one tangible thing they can think of: advertising. And sometimes they actually do it: willy-nilly, this property, that property, whichever seller is most cranky this week. The broker is not taking control of this process, is not doing the higher level job of deciding what to advertise and what not to advertise, because he can?t afford to. He?s already paying his willy-nilly agents SOOO Much that he has no money for carefully planned marketing. In a universe where agents who do 6 deals a year command a 75% or even 80% split of the commission, marketing becomes the responsibility of the agent, not the broker, and there is no coordination, no strategic planning of marketing, no sense to it at all.

Ok: we?ve got Job One and Job Two. Here?s the third thing the real estate broker needs to do: CAPTURE LEADS. When marketing causes a potential buyer to contact the office, what will then cause them to agree ? however subtly ? to letting the office match them with a perfect property? It is a process that often occurs on the telephone, and smart brokers work on it constantly.

It?s important to understand what courage it takes for a potential buyer to pick up the phone or fill out an online inquiry form. They know they are likely going to hear from a salesperson . . . and that?s not what they want at all. What they want is the information. Period. So there is a very natural defensiveness on the other end of the line when the agent answers the phone.

How the agent handles the call, how he or she relaxes the caller, provides valuable information, builds a comfortable rapport with the caller is EVERYTHING. All of time money and effort the broker has used to generate the lead can be lost right here if the agent is not prepared to earn the caller?s trust and then to begin the matching process. Now, think back to the last time you called a real estate office for information on a property. Uh-huh. I know. It was a painful experience. If the agent made any attempt to earn your business at all, it was probably lame, stupid and full of sales scripts. And that?s IF they tried to get your business at all (most won?t).

As a business consultant to real estate companies, I can almost always increase the company?s bottom line by several percentage points (and that?s a lot) by simply working with whomever is answering the phone and responding to buyer inquiries. I?m not kidding. That phone call, that inquiry, is the ARENA. That?s where the process of ?selling real estate? begins. It is so important, I think it makes perfect sense for a home seller to call the office of the agent they are considering and see how they are handled. If the person on the other end of the line can?t comfortably communicate competence, if they can?t skillfully earn the right to help you find your next home, how are they going to capture the real caller who might be perfect for your house?

Bottom line: advertising wont sell your house. An agent or broker won?t sell your house. What will sell your house is an office with an active lead generation and capture process. And where will you find such an office? I?d suggest you look at Help-U-Sell. Our offices continue to keep the broker in charge of marketing, lead generation and capture. We are completely focused on the process and we do it better than anyone in the industry. AND: with low set fee pricing, we save sellers a lot of money, too.

*I talked about visibility in terms of signage only. It?s simpler that way. But understand that visibility extends far beyond your front yard. Today it?s getting the inventory all over the Internet. It?s putting the best houses in the inventory everywhere a potential buyer is apt to be looking. Marketing is like building a spider web: the more strands in the web, the more places the company?s identifiers and best listings can be seen, the more potential buyers can be caught.

Tagged as: how to sell a house, real estate marketing, Richard Williams

Source: http://setfeeblog.com/2013/03/02/marketing-nuance-subtle-point/

kourtney kardashian kourtney kardashian DNS Changer ernest borgnine ESPYs 2012 venus williams Freeh Report

After Newtown, states slow to embrace new gun laws - U.S. News

By Matthew DeLuca, Staff Writer, NBC News

Months after the mass shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School, new state-level restrictions on guns have been slow in coming, and they?ve mostly been concentrated in a handful of states that already have tough gun laws.

Meanwhile, lawmakers in at least a half-dozen other states have gone the other way, proposing and in some instances passing bills that would expand where and when a person can be in possession of a firearm.

But for residents in the vast majority of states, gun ownership looks unlikely to change much absent federal legislation.?

A person can still buy a pistol at a Nevada gun show without a background check or carry a rifle inside the New Hampshire state house, just as he or she could before Adam Lanza brought a Bushmaster .223 rifle into a Newtown, Conn., elementary school and opened fire.

?There has been activity in other states that one might not ordinarily think of -- Colorado, for example,? said Jon Vernick, co-director of the Johns Hopkins Center for Gun Policy and Research. But there remain ?the Idahos of the world, where really little has changed since Newtown.?

Gun-control advocates had high hopes that the Newtown tragedy would serve as a galvanizing moment for the country. Dan Gross, president of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, said at the time that he hoped it would be a ?catalyst to demand the sensible change.?

While recent mass shootings do appear to have moved public opinion ? a recent NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll found American support for stricter gun laws at its highest level in a decade ? there has not been a rush at the state level to embrace sweeping new gun laws.

And most of the dozen or so states where significant new restrictions have been proposed already have a ?C+? rating or above from the Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence, putting them among the nation?s top states for gun control.

?Most of the viable proposals on the federal level and in most states would have very little impact on self-defense,? said UCLA law professor Eugene Volokh. ?But pretty much all the gun control proposals out there are not going to be terribly effective at combating criminals.?

In New Jersey, several lawmakers began calling for new gun laws in the immediate aftermath of the Newtown shooting, even though the state already has an A- rating from the Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence. Legislators voted a raft of bills through the Democrat-controlled state assembly on Feb. 22, including a ban on .50 caliber weapons and a 10-round magazine limit. Those bills may still be held up by a hesitant Senate and Republican governor.

?We?re going to take a hard look at the bills the Assembly did,? New Jersey Senate President Stephen Sweeney said in an interview with Philadelphia radio station 106.9FM. ?Some might be changed, some might not go through at all.?

At the same time, lawmakers in Wyoming, South Dakota, Kansas, Tennessee, Texas, and Arizona all moved to loosen their controls on firearms, in many cases thumbing their nose at prospective federal legislation.

An Arkansas bill allowing holders of concealed-carry permits to bring their gun into churches was signed into law by Governor Mike Beebe, a Democrat, on Feb. 11.

First sponsored by state Senator Bryan King, the Church Protection Act passed the state?s Republican-controlled Senate by an overwhelming majority. In Kentucky, the state Senate voted 34 to 3 on Feb. 25 to approve a bill outlawing the enforcement of federal gun laws that do not yet exist.

The most aggressive gun-control legislative action so far has come in New York, where Gov. Andrew Cuomo championed one of the nation?s toughest bans on assault weapons, the first to come in the wake of Newtown. But the state already boasted gun laws that were among the nation?s toughest.

Even in states seared by recent tragedies, lawmakers have found their progress slowed.

After Connecticut lawmakers failed to coalesce around any of the gun laws offered in the days after Newtown, Democratic Gov. Dan Malloy introduced his own proposal and vowed to shove it through.

Lawmakers are trying to forge a bipartisan consensus but they are finding it difficult. ?I would hope that we would have a broadly supported bipartisan bill, but I think it?s more important that we have a strong bill that meets the need,? said Sen. Majority Leader Martin Looney, a Democrat.

In Colorado, home of the Aurora theater shooting, House lawmakers advanced gun-control bills after some last-minute lobbying from Joe Biden, drawing the wrath of Republicans.

The bills would mandate universal background checks, ban magazines with more than 15 rounds, and allow college campuses to prohibit concealed carry. With the Senate planning to vote soon, the magazine maker Magpul Industries threatened to abandon its plant 28 miles from Denver?if the proposed magazine limit is put into law.

?Colorado is in a unique position in that we have suffered these tragedies firsthand, so there is a drumbeat in Colorado,? said Colorado Senate President John Morse, a Democrat. ?I think the governor will be in support of all of these bills once we get them to his desk.?

Passing a bill expanding gun rights can be complicated, too, as Wyoming State Representative Kendell Kroeker, a Republican, found out.

He got a bill passed in the state House of Representatives that would have made it illegal for anyone to enforce any new federal law that placed restrictions on guns, ammunition, or other firearms accessories within the borders of the state.

That bill died amid questions of its constitutionality, Kroeker said. But the response from his constituents was ?overwhelmingly positive,? he added.

Whether gun ownership changes for most Americans may come down to actions taken on the national level, as hesitant state lawmakers wait for a cue from Washington. The Senate Judiciary Committee put a one-week hold on prospective federal gun bills on Thursday.

Related:

Gun stores running low on weapons as sales surge

Anger, violent thoughts: Are you too sick to own a gun?

Source: http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/03/02/17151151-after-newtown-states-slow-to-embrace-new-gun-laws

sag aftra merger dj am bully bohemian rhapsody bohemian rhapsody spike lee carson daly

Pentagon's Scariest Robot Can Now Hurl Cinder Blocks Your Way

Boston Dynamic's Big Dog was already one of the most advanced—and terrifying!—robots on the planet. Well, it just got scarier, because now it can accurately throw cinder blocks at you while on the march. More »

Source: http://feeds.gawker.com/~r/gizmodo/full/~3/olnovPRAcbw/pentagons-scariest-robot-can-now-hurl-cinder-blocks-your-way

joan crawford john goodman kendall marshall whitney houston news sylvia plath whitney houston autopsy results obama trayvon

Sequester storm gathers over D.C. economy

John W. Schoen , NBC News ? ? ? 17 hrs.

Let the sequester begin.

President Barack Obama on Friday signed an order that starts putting into place federal spending cuts that could begin forcing layoffs of federal workers. Obama signed his directive, entitled "Sequestration Order for Fiscal Year 2013," after he and congressional leaders failed to come up with an alternative budget plan.

The nation's capitol and nearby Virginia and Maryland will likely feel the worst of the impact. States heavily-reliant on federal spending - as far away as New Mexico - are also in for some rough weather.

With half of the roughly $85 billion in cuts targeting the Pentagon, the impact will be heavily concentrated in D.C., Virginia and Maryland, where defense spending accounted for about 10 percent of the three states? combined economies in 2010, according to a report last month from Wells Fargo economists Mark Vitner and Michael Brown.

?Cuts in nondefense outlays would likely trigger significant furloughs, layoffs at civilian contractors and generally less business for supporting services, including law firms, caterers, airlines and hotels,? the report said.

Related story: As meeting yields no breakthrough, Obama blames 'dumb' cuts on GOP

The law mandating spending cuts gives federal agencies until the end of the fiscal year to complete them, but the Defense Department has already notified its 800,000 civilian employees of possible furloughs, and private defense contractors have already begun cutting back.

Virginia, where many defense contractors have set up shop near the federal money spigot, is squarely in the cross-hairs of the impending budget cuts. The state is home to 174,000 federal workers, 19 military facilities (including both the Pentagon and the country?s largest naval base in Norfolk), 90 federal offices, 550 federal government-leased or -owned properties, and 25,000 federal government contractors.

Last month, Republican Gov. Robert McDonnell wrote a letter to President Barack Obama warning that his state stands to lose $4.2 billion in economic output over five years - or 0.6 percent of total state gross domestic product - if the cuts take full effect.

?In the event that you and the Congress take no action and allow sequestration to proceed, we are estimated to lose approximately 82,000 direct jobs at federal agencies and contractors, and an additional 82,000 indirect jobs supported by business and personal spending that will be impacted by the cuts,? McDonnell wrote.

The federal cuts, in turn, have forced the Old Dominion to tighten its own belt; McDonnell?s proposed budget for next year includes $2.3 billion spending cuts, including deep cuts to K-12 education and health and human services

Maryland is also bracing for the coming storm. Democratic Gov. Martin O?Malley unveiled a budget in January that boosts the state?s Rainy Day Fund from 5 percent to 6 percent of the state?s $16 billion general fund. Though Maryland's economy relies about as heavily as Virginia's on federal spending, the state has done a better job battening down the budget hatches with more than $1 billion in reserves to blunt the impact of further federal cutbacks.

The budget pain for the region began two years ago, after the flow of federal dollars to the greater DC economy began drying up. Federal spending in the area - including the northern Virginia and Maryland suburbs - fell by 8.4 percent in the two fiscal years ending last October, according to the George Mason University Center for Regional Analysis.

Since peaking in July 2010, federal employment has declined by 2.3 percent. Despite the cuts, the unemployment rate in D.C. stood at 8.4 percent in December, down from a peak of 10.4 percent at the end of the recession. Virginia's jobless rate was 5.6 percent, down from a post-recession peak of 7.4 percent; Maryland?s was 6.7 percent in December, down from 8.0 percent. The national rate was 7.8 percent in December.

While the regional Washington economy is ground zero for the sequester budget shock, the pain of spending cuts will be felt as far away as Alaska.

The biggest losers of defense dollars, for example, would be California, Texas and Virginia, which each took in more than $30 billion last year, according to the Pew Center on the States.

Some smaller states are also big spending targets. While defense accounted for more than 8 percent of Virginia?s economy in 2011, Pentagon spending made up 6 percent of Mississippi?s economy and 5.5 percent of Connecticut?s, according to the Pew Center.

Hawaii, home to the U.S. Navy?s Pacific Fleet, also could see layoffs and reduced income growth, according to the Wells Fargo economists.

?In addition, Alaska with its Air Force, Army and Naval operations would also be disproportionately impacted from defense cuts,? they said.

The effect would also be concentrated in cities that benefit from heavy defense spending, including Huntsville, Ala., San Diego and St. Louis

The pain could be blunted if Congress eventually breaks the stalemate that produced the painful package with the explicit purpose of forcing compromise on a more rational alternative. Analysts say that ? at about half percent of U.S. GDP - the depth of the cuts need not be so painful. But because Congress mandated that agencies wield the budget axe blindly across all spending, they have no discretion in deciding where to make the cuts.

Once the furloughs begin, Congress can expect the phones to start ringing. Some of the loudest complaints will likely come from large defense companies and other large contractors with operations spread across many states. Those calls from voters are often more effective than conventional lobbying efforts, Neal Dihora, a defense industry analyst at Morningstar, said.

?The whole job loss angle is a whole lot stronger from a company?s perspective,? he said. ?It?s a lot better to rally the employee base than to throw a lot of money in a handful of Congressmen?s pockets.?

State governors have haven?t had much luck lately lobbying for more aid from Washington, which currently provides about one-quarter of state and local revenues, according to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. Since the 2009 federal stimulus package dried up two years ago, states have scrambled to stabilize their budgets which ? unlike the federal government ? have to be balanced every year. The sequester will inflict even more pain.

The 2011 Budget Control Act ? which created the sequester time bomb when enacted in August 2011 - has cut federal funding for a wide range of state and local services, including education, water treatment, law enforcement, and others, to the lowest level in four decades as a share of the economy. If the full impact of the sequester cuts take effect, states will lose another $6 billion in federal funding, according to the CBPP.

Information from Reuters was included in this report.

Source: http://www.nbcnews.com/business/economywatch/sequester-storm-gathers-over-d-c-economy-1C8641474

supercross christina aguilera etta james funeral sundance film festival the flintstones etta james ufc on fox evans vs davis

Wall Street (and Main Street) give sequester a big yawn

Mark Koba , CNBC ? ? ? 6 hrs.

While politicians in Washington fan the flames of economic doom from the billions in automatic spending cuts scheduled to begin going into effect Friday, they've apparently failed to light a fire under many Americans.

Investors seem to be indifferent, according to analysts, with the markets having priced the sequester into equities, as stocks and bonds remain unfazed.

Stock were higher at midday Friday as President Barack Obama met with congressional leaders at the White House in a gathering that lasted less than a hour. After the meeting, Obama warned that the effects of the budget cuts would ripple through the economy.

Share prices have been rising for the past four months to hover just under five-year highs on the strength of corporate earnings and the Federal Reserve policy of near-zero interest rates.

So why Wall Street's couldn't-care-less attitude? Reasons for the "sequester blahs" vary? from the expectation that just another political squabble will eventually end in a deal, to media hype, to even a sense of bring it on.

One of the biggest reasons, however, is that investors don't think the budget cuts would stifle the recovery, which has been gathering steam lately.

"There is no immediate and visible impact to the economy so markets are not seeing it as a tail risk," Ayako Sera, a market economist at Sumitomo Mitsui Trust Bank in Tokyo, told Reuters.

As for Main Street, a hardly scientific and certainly not complete look at recent comments on CNBC.com shows how some people seem to be taking the sequester in stride, if not wanting it to just plain happen. (Some editing to posts for reasons of spelling and punctuation.)

From Beeboo: "Washington is doing it again, wait to the last minute, I keep saying, get rid of all of them all 535 . Let's start all over, and let's limit their terms to ONE."

From Wicked_Smart: "This is right up there with the Mayan apocalypse ... $85 billion in cuts still leaves $915 billion of an annual deficit. This will come, pass, and nobody will notice."

From NewDay12: Shut everything down...who cares.....people should know how to fend for themselves anyways ... if you rely that heavily on the government you have bigger issues in your life."

From 2B: "The pathetically too small sequester doesn't even reduce the growth of spending but somehow only things that truly affect the most Americans will be cut. We could get rid of 90% of the Departments of Education (in effective, counter productive) and Energy (totally focused on the wrong issues) and nobody would notice outside of the employees themselves."

"I think people can't get their minds about what the effects of sequestration will be," said Mark Zandi, chief economist with Moody's.

"It's not like a tax increase that hits everyone at the same time. These furloughs and layoffs and budget cuts are abstract right now. It's not real to people yet," Zandi said.

There's proof to Zandi's statement. A recent survey showed that fewer than one in five of those polled said they understand very well what would happen if the sequester went into effect.

Zandi also said that the Washington blame game is confusing the issue.

"People are very suspicious about the politics of it all and who's right and who's not," said Zandi. "They don't know who to believe and don't really understand the seriousness of it all."

One analyst said people might be too busy to even notice what's going on.

"So many people are working long hours, trying to feed the family, and just keep their heads together. I don't think they even have time to focus on sequestration," said Timothy Nash, an economics professor at Northwood University.

Nash said the past battles over taxes and budget cuts has left many with a boring sense of 'here we go again.'

"We had the recent 'fiscal cliff' scuffle, and the debt ceiling fight before that last year, and we'll have that battle again this year. It just seems to go on and on for people," Nash said. "They're getting immune."

"Also, people are somewhat apathetic about the economic recovery," he added. "They're frustrated. But I'm still amazed at how they don't take the sequester seriously. They need to."

Even if many are ignoring the sequester, an NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll released earlier this week found that majorities of Americans believe the sequester is not a good idea and that the contentious budget negotiations make them less confident about the U.S. economy.

By 52 percent to 21 percent, the public calls the sequester a "bad idea" rather than a good one, the poll found. Nor do Americans feel good about the way Obama and Congress are dealing with each other on the issue; by 51 percent to 16 percent, they say budget negotiations so far make them less confident about the economy.

Barring a deal between Congress and the White House, the $85 billion in automatic, government-wide spending cuts this year begin to go into effect on Friday. Most government agencies have funds available after Friday, but the clock would be ticking on how long they can keep operating.

One of the biggest problems from the cuts is the number of government workers placed on furloughs or laid off. Those worker notices would go out on Monday.

Among the agencies expected to be hit hard first is the Transportation Security Administration. It would be forced to reduce its workforce, including a seven-day furlough for airport screeners, which would increase passenger wait times at most of the nation's airports by more than an hour. Fewer air traffic controllers would also be on the job, increasing wait times even more.

"That's when people will really start to feel the impact of sequestration and probably be upset very fast," said Zandi. "Long wait lines at airports, national parks closed, job losses and fewer government offices open will wake a lot of people up."

Until then, it's just theater of the absurd, said Mark Zupan, the Dean of the University of Rochester's Simon School of Business.

"Its like a Kabuki dance that politicians make over these budget issues," Zupan said. "People are getting tired of it and that's why they don't have much interest in it."

? 2013 CNBC LLC. All Rights Reserved

Source: http://www.nbcnews.com/business/economywatch/wall-street-main-street-gives-sequester-big-yawn-1C8638598

micron susan g komen kenyon martin kenyon martin big miracle slab city super bowl snacks

Shopping on the Web and Shopping in the Street ? a Comparison ...

It is often claimed that more people shop online than do not; or that the number of people shopping online is rising beyond the number of people shopping in the street. In many areas this is probably true. Certainly entertainment and leisure shopping is done online much more frequently than off, a result of the fact that people can find more stuff online, get better prices and don?t have to drive anywhere to get what they already know they want.

That?s the rub, right there. With a CD or a DVD, you already know what you?re getting ? and you have probably heard clips of the music, or seen bits of the movie, before buying the item. Certainly new CD purchases can easily be made with a ?listen to the MP3? function forming part of the buying process. You know what a CD looks like, and how big a DVD cases is. There are, in other words, no surprises beyond potentially discovering that your once-favourite band is now rubbish.

Buying other stuff, though, like clothes and jewellery ? now that?s a different story. It doesn?t matter how good the photos are, or how well lit the watch model might be. Whenever you buy something because of how you think it will look, your opinion is changed when the item arrives on your doorstep.

This is not, by the way, to suggest that this is always a bad shift in opinion. Mostly it?s neutral. You tend to think something was going to be bigger than it actually is, or smaller, or a slightly different colour ? but overall it?s essentially no surprise. Occasionally, you get a real departure from what you thought, but not often.

The point, though, is that wearing things and using accessories (like watches and jewellery) to alter the way you look has always been about trying them on. Seeing the item in the flesh is an intrinsic part of making that kind of buying decision, and it is one that the internet has never quite been able to match.

This is why a whole new way of buying clothing and accessories has developed. It?s a mishmash of buying online, where prices are always potentially cheaper and availability is usually greater; and buying in stores where you can look at the item, touch it and spend some time with it before you make your decision.

The technology enabling it is the smart phone ? and the smart business is just waking up to the fact that, far from discouraging browsing for items online while customers are in store, it can make its shop part of its website.

Let?s say you want to buy mens watches. You go out to a relevant store and you find the models you like best. Now you get your smart phone out and see if you can find them cheaper anywhere else.

The store that encourages this, or that uses its bricks and mortar presence as a shop front for its website, keeps the customer. The store that doesn?t, doesn?t. In simple terms ? no-one is going to pay more for the same watch than they have to, when they can order online there and then, walk away and wait for it to be delivered. In this way the shipper gets the best of both worlds ? seeing and feeling the item and still paying online prices for it.

Author Bio : Diyana Hall is an online business analyst. She is compiling a report about online-bricks and mortar crossover based on customers who buy mens watches.

Source: http://www.whatishowto.net/2013/03/01/shopping-on-the-web-and-shopping-in-the-street-a-comparison/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=shopping-on-the-web-and-shopping-in-the-street-a-comparison

British Open leaderboard Jessica Ghawi People Water Fred Willard Emmy nominations 2012 Ramadan 2012 Michelle Jenneke

Outrage over Scalia?s ?racial entitlement? remark

Justice Antonin Scalia (Mark Wilson/Getty Images)Civil rights leaders are up in arms over Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia's skeptical questions about a key portion of the Voting Rights Act, a cornerstone of the civil rights movement that brought an end to Jim Crow-era racial discrimination at the polls in the South.

In oral arguments over the law on Wednesday, Scalia, a stalwart of the court's conservative wing, suggested that the Voting Rights Act was overwhelmingly reauthorized in 2006 by Congress because the nation's politicians were afraid to oppose a "racial entitlement."

Scalia said that each time the Voting Rights Act has been reauthorized in the past 50 years, more and more senators supported it, even though the problem of racial discrimination at the polls has decreased over that time. "Now, I don't think that's attributable to the fact that it is so much clearer now that we need this," he said. "I think it is attributable, very likely attributable, to a phenomenon that is called perpetuation of racial entitlement. It's been written about. Whenever a society adopts racial entitlements, it is very difficult to get out of them through the normal political processes."

The Supreme Court was hearing arguments from Shelby County, Ala., that the nine states and assorted counties covered under the 1965 law no longer need special federal oversight to prevent them from discriminating against black voters.

Rep. John Lewis, D-Ga., a major figure in the civil rights movement who was a former chairman of the Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee, said on MSNBC that he was appalled by the comment. ?It is an affront to all of what the civil rights movement stood for, what people died for, what people bled for, and those of us who marched across that bridge 48 years ago, we didn?t march for some racial entitlement,? he said. ?We wanted to open up the political process and let all of the people come in, and it didn?t matter whether they were black or white, Latino, Asian-American or Native American.?

NAACP President Ben Jealous told ABC News, "The protection of the right to vote is an American entitlement. It is a democratic entitlement. And those who would seek to use incendiary rhetoric from the bench of the Supreme Court should think twice about their place in history."

The Rev. Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson also criticized his remark.

Later on Wednesday, Justice Sonia Sotomayor appeared to indirectly reprimand Scalia for the comment, asking Shelby County's attorney Bert Rein whether he believes the right to vote protected under the act is a racial entitlement. Rein answered, "No."

Spencer Overton, a law professor at George Washington University and a fellow at the liberal think tank Demos, told Yahoo News that Scalia's comment represented a "political assumption that has no place in a court of law. His assumption raises questions about his ability to approach this case in an impartial manner, and it also suggests that the question of the persistence of voting discrimination is best left to Congress," Overton wrote in an email.

Justices often make controversial comments or ask provocative questions during oral arguments, and it's very difficult to predict a case's outcome simply by listening to the justices question the attorneys. But most court-watchers emerged from the oral arguments believing the portion of the Voting Rights Act that singles out states and counties with a history of racial discrimination at the polls?most of them in the South?will be struck down. Discriminating against minority voters would still be illegal under the act, but people who hope to challenge discriminatory actions would have to do so through the regular court process, which takes longer than the special pathway set up under the law.

Source: http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/civil-rights-leaders-outraged-over-scalia-racial-entitlement-172338534--election.html

adrienne bailon yelp stock honda classic news channel 5 nashville weather jason varitek andrew breitbart dead