Okay, I’m just having a bit of fun with UPS’ slogan and Pete Brown, UK beer writer. But today Pete has a nice overview of each of the big six beer companies that do business in the UK, entitled The Big Boys. It’s definitely worth a read. He talks primarily about their marketing efforts in the UK, but you get a sense of how he feels about the pros and cons of each company and the overall feeling that they’re not all the same.
Like Real Estate, Next Session About Location, Location, Location
Our 42nd Session will be hosted by Derrick Peterman, from Ramblings of a Beer Runner. He’s chosen “A Special Place, A Special Beer” as his topic, which Derrick describes geographically:
The Session provides a unique opportunity to explore this connection between the beer in our glasses and the place it comes from with perspectives from all over the world
So I ask for this 42nd Session that you write about a special place in your life, and a beer or brewery that connects you to that place. It can be the beer from your childhood home, a place you once lived, your current hometown, a memorable vacation you once took, or a place you’ve always wanted to go to but never had the chance. Please take a few moments to think about the how the beer connects you to this place, and share this with us. Of course, the definition of “place” is rather open ended, and in some cases, highly debatable, so it will be interesting to see the responses on what constitutes a place.
So look around the world and then bring home your own post for the next Session, on Friday, August 6.
The Secret History Of Alcohol?
I’m not quite sure what to make of this conspiracy theory, sent in by a friend and loyal reader (thanks Jeff). While I’m a natural skeptic, I do think at least parts of many conspiracy theories contain a grain of truth. But here’s one I’ve never encountered, and I’ve read a bit about Prohibition.
According to Hidden History, and specifically Rockefeller, Ford and the Secret History of Alcohol, at least part of the reason prohibition was successful had to do with business and money — are you shocked or surprised? — and a desire to eliminate the competition. To wit:
John D. Rockefeller, under the ruse of Christian temperance, gave 4 million dollars to a group of old ladies and told them to fight for Prohibition (they successfully used the money to buy off Congress). Why? Rockefeller owned Standard Oil, the main company pushing gas as an alternative fuel to alcohol.
Essentially, it killed ethanol as an alternative fuel, which has only been talked about again recently, at least in the mainstream media.
How true is this account? Beats me, but it’s got plenty of ancillary links to explore, such as this interesting one, Hydrocarbons versus carbohydrates: the continuing battle in the United States, at Before the Well Runs Dry. Who knows, but it’s fun to speculate.
Beer In Ads #143: Schlitz, That’s What I Call Real Beer
Monday’s ad is for Schlitz and will likely make anyone from CAMRA do a double take. Because the ad’s slogan is “That what I call real beer … no wonder it made Milwaukee famous.” But I don’t think most real ale or cask-conditioned fans are likely to agree. I’m not sure when the ads is from exactly, but given the scene I’d have to guess late 1940s or early fifties.
Manipulation Of The Crowd: Online Ratings
The latest issue of Scientific American has an interesting article, Manipulation of the Crowd: How Trustworthy Are Online Ratings?, a topic of interest to any brewery who’s ever received a bad review from either Beer Advocate or Rate Beer. Intuitively, it’s seemed to me that the overall quality of the ratings on those sites have been improving as they’ve matured and built up the number of users and reviews.
According to Scientific American, the bad news is that while most review-driven websites don’t accurately reflect the expected statistical bell curve (which would imply their accuracy), the good news is that the beer reviews online prove the exception to the rule and are, in fact, more often fairly and reasonably accurate.
The philosophy behind such rating sites is known as the “crowdsourcing strategy” insofar as the “truest and most accurate evaluations will come from aggregating the opinions of a large and diverse group of people.” But according to Eric K. Clemons, at the Wharton School of the University of Pennsylvania, ratings sites like Amazon, TripAdvisor and Yelp “suffer from a number of inherent biases.”
- Disproportion: “People who rate purchases have already made the purchase. Therefore, they are disposed to like the product. ‘I happen to love Larry Niven novels,’ [professor Eric K.] Clemons says. “So whenever Larry Niven has a novel out, I buy it. Other fans do, too, and so the initial reviews are very high—five stars.” The high ratings draw people who would never have considered a science-fiction novel. And if they hate it, their spite could lead to an overcorrection, with a spate of one-star ratings.”
- Polarization: “People tend not to review things they find merely satisfactory. They evangelize what they love and trash things they hate. These feelings lead to a lot of one- and five-star reviews of the same product.”
- Oligarchy of the Enthusiastic: “A small percentage of users account for a huge majority of the reviews. These super-reviewers—often celebrated with ‘Top Reviewer’ badges and ranked against one another to encourage their participation—each contribute thousands of reviews, ultimately drowning out the voices of more typical users (95 percent of Amazon reviewers have rated fewer than eight products). ‘There is nothing to say that these people are good at what they do,’ [computer scientist Vassilis] Kostakos says. ‘They just do a lot of it.’ What appears to be a wise crowd is just an oligarchy of the enthusiastic.”
Yelp, the one I’ve heard more people consistently complain about, apparently has some of the worst transparency issues and there’s the “perception that the company itself might be manipulating the playing field.”
A separate look at Netflix user data, Dissecting the Netflix Dataset, found some of the same relationships in rating the films rented from Netflix. For example, the average rating for a film is 3.8 (out of 5), neatly fitting the average bell curve results, such as this study mentioned in Scientific American.
A controlled offline survey of some of these supposedly polarizing products revealed that individuals’ true opinions fit a bell-shaped curve—ratings cluster around three or four, with fewer scores of two and almost no ones and fives. Self-selected online voting creates an artificial judgment gap; as in modern politics, only the loudest voices at the furthest ends of the spectrum seem to get heard
A similar look at IMDb ratings, Mining gold from the Internet Movie Database, part 1: decoding user ratings, saw complimentary results and the same looking bell curve. The average rating on the IMDb was 6.2 (out of 10) and the median was 6.4.
It seems that the more popular a ratings website is, and consequently the more reviews it gets, the more reliable the results are, or at least the better they seem to fit the bell curve of expected distribution of reviews that usually result from non-online sources. The higher number of reviews, the more fringe reviews at either ends of the spectrum are less heavily weighed. Unless, of course, it just plain sucks or everyone agrees on how terrific it is, but that’s most likely a situation that’s pretty rare.
But, as I said at the outset, the good news is that those problem issues with online ratings are apparently not a problem for the beer ratings websites, which are specifically mentioned as an instance where the crowdsourcing model does work.
RateBeer.com, which has attracted some 3,000 members who have rated at least 100 beers each; all but the most obscure beers have been evaluated hundreds or thousands of times. The voluminous data set is virtually manipulation-proof, and the site’s passionate users tend to post on all beers they try—not just ones they love or hate.
I’m quite certain those numbers would be similar for Beer Advocate, too, of course, suggesting that for both of the most popular beer ratings websites, that the results have become reasonably reliable, especially for the beers that have been most heavily reviewed. For new beers with just a few reviews, obviously it wouldn’t automatically be as reliable, but the only way to build up reviews is start somewhere. And that’s where looking more carefully at the reviewers becomes more important. A review with only 5 reviews where all 5 reviewers are experienced would arguably be different from one where all 5 reviewers were rookies or had very little experience. Obviously, the number of reviews a person has done is no guarantee that his or her reviews are better or more reliable, but it stands to reason that anyone who takes something seriously and continues to practice it will improve over time. And like craft beer itself, the longer it’s been around, the better it gets. It’s nice to see some scientific support to confirm that intuition.
Beer In Art #83: Bob Kessel’s Charles Bukowski
Today’s works of art is part of a series of American Icons by Bob Kessel. It’s am abstract portrait of the writer Charles Bukowski, who was known to drink a little alcohol from time to time.
Kessel writes of the portrait. “Appropriately, Buk is shown drinking a bottle of beer.” I love its simplicity of both palette — just red, white and blue plus yellow — and the imagery, capturing the essence of Bukowski in the portrayal of him hoisting a beer to his lips at a bar. It reminds me of a cross between Piet Mondrian and Roy Lichtenstein.
Below, it’s show with a frame to better see the white space intended to be around the exterior of the artwork. Limited edition prints are available of this, and other portraits from the series, American Icons.
To see more of Kessel’s work, check out his website and also his WordPress blog.
Also, below is a poem entitled Beer by Bukowski, from my Beer Poetry database.
Beer, by Charles Bukowski, from Love is A Mad Dog From Hell (1920 – 1994)
I don’t know how many bottles of beer
I have consumed while waiting for things
to get better
I don’t know how much wine and whisky
and beer
mostly beer
I have consumed after
splits with women—
waiting for the phone to ring
waiting for the sound of footsteps,
and the phone to ring
waiting for the sounds of footsteps,
and the phone never rings
until much later
and the footsteps never arrive
until much later
when my stomach is coming up
out of my mouth
they arrive as fresh as spring flowers:
“what the hell have you done to yourself?
it will be 3 days before you can fuck me!”
the female is durable
she lives seven and one half years longer
than the male, and she drinks very little beer
because she knows it’s bad for the figure.
while we are going mad
they are out
dancing and laughing
with horny cowboys.
well, there’s beer
sacks and sacks of empty beer bottles
and when you pick one up
the bottle fall through the wet bottom
of the paper sack
rolling
clanking
spilling gray wet ash
and stale beer,
or the sacks fall over at 4 a.m.
in the morning
making the only sound in your life.
beer
rivers and seas of beer
the radio singing love songs
as the phone remains silent
and the walls stand
straight up and down
and beer is all there is.
Guinness Ad #25: Have A Crab
Our 25th Guinness poster by John Gilroy features a crab trying to figure out how to get hos claws around a pint of Guinness and, presumably, drink it. Perhaps that’s why the text at the bottom reads “Have this one with me!,” because he can’t do it alone.
Session #41: Craft Beers Inspired By Homebrew
Our 41st Session about how homebrewing has, and continues, to influence and inspire commercial brewing. Hosted by the Wallace Brothers, Jeff and Tom, at Lugwrench Brewing. Jeff describes their topic, Craft Beers Inspired by Homebrewing, as follows:
Session topics typically come from the host’s area of passion — something they have a strong affinity towards. For Tom and I, the real pathway in our appreciation of Craft Beer has been through the hobby of homebrewing. Not only has this hobby fostered yet another reason for two geographically-separated brothers to collaborate (the core concept for the Lug Wrench blog being “a fraternal bond over beer”), it was through homebrewing where we learned what makes a marginal beer and what makes an exceptional beer. It was the lauching pad for how we came to admire (and sometimes fanaticize) about “good” beer. So during our discussions of potential topics, the debate kept coming back to homebrewing and how craft beer is connected to the amateur brewing community.
The chosen topic: Craft Beers Inspired By Homebrewing. How has homebrewing had an affect on the commercial beer we have all come to love? Feel free to take the topic in any direction your imagination leads you.
Write about a beer that has its roots in homebrewing. Write about a commercial beer that originated from a homebrew.
Write about a professional brewer you admire who got their start in homebrewing before they went pro. Write about a professional brewer who still homebrews in their free time.
Write about a Pro-Am beer tasted either at a festival or a brewpub. Write about an Amateur / Professional Co-op you’ve had the pleasure of experiencing (such as The Green Dragon Project).
Write about commercial brewers using “Homebrewing” as part of the marketing. Write about the Sam Adams LongShot beers, whether good or bad.
While there are many, many positive contributions I think homebrewing has made to commercial brewing and the wider beer community, the one that always resonates with me is the way in which the sharing of knowledge and technical assistance that is the hallmark of the homebrewing community has translated to commercial brewing, as well. It’s something I think we take for granted, but which is almost unique around the world. A few years ago, I did an article about collaboration beers, Brewing Togetherness, for All About Beer magazine and a little later took a trip to New Zealand, which resulted in another article, Kiwi Kerveza. One thing I learned while working on those two pieces is that one of the factors that allowed the rapid growth of our microbrewery scene stems from the fact that many, if not most, of the brewers who entered the field early on came to it from being homebrewers themselves. So they were used to the homebrew culture — and especially homebrew clubs — that invite and encourages people to share with one another, offer constructive criticism and assistance and simply be supportive. When those same homebrewers turned pro, so to speak, they continued to be as open with their fellow commercial brewers as they’d been in their homebrewing communities.
That was nearly a unique situation where in most other places that did not happen. In nations with older, more traditional brewing heritage, like Germany or England, most breweries were larger and their brewers came out of trade schools. They acted like most industries do, and trade secrets and other proprietary information was protected, and not freely shared. In New Zealand, I learned that its remoteness itself served to make people distrustful and unwilling to take or give advice or help. The effect of that in those places is it seems to have stunted a vibrant small brewery explosion. Those explosions are now taking place in most countries, especially those with rich brewing heritages. Any many I’ve spoken to credit the American craft beer scene for inspiration or influence. And that leads back to the openness of our craft brewers.
One brewer I interviewed for the collaboration article related a story from the Craft Brewers Conference, when it was in San Diego two times ago. He presented a seminar in which he shared brewing techniques with the audience, and the audience participated openly sharing their own experiences with the same techniques. After the seminar, a couple of German brewers came up to him and explained that such openness would never happen in Germany. Of course, they don’t have the homebrewing culture that America does.
So while homebrewing was the path most took to starting a craft brewery, it was that very culture of homebrewing that made them successful. Almost without exception, the early breweries that have not only lasted, but flourished, are the ones that were the most open and helped out their fellow small brewers. While counter-intuitive for most industries, it is one of the most important factors in turning our brewing reputation as a nation from laughingstock to one of envy in less than three decades, a remarkable achievement. And I believe it was thanks to homebrewing that it happened, and that it continues to be true. Thank you, homebrewers.
Beer In Ads #142: The Boogie Cup
Friday’s ad is more for a specific event, the Boogie Cup, than a beer or brewery. But as the World Cup resumes today, I thought it was appropriate. It was created by GGGrafik Design in 2005 for “Heidelberg’s Boogie Cup amateur soccer championship, infamous for the amount of beer consumed both on the pitch and on the terraces.” Here’s how they describe the creative process. “It’s also a deliberate homage to the great Herbert Leupin. It was voted one of the 100 Best Posters in 2005 from Germany, Switzerland and Austria and was the Gold Winner at the Graphis Poster Annual 2006.” I just thought it was cool.
Errors of Opinion
I got an e-mail a couple of days ago from San Francisco Chronicle columnist C.W. Nevius asking for my perspective on the proposed alcohol fee for his next column. He indicated he knew my position and disclosed that he was “in favor” of it. He also added this. “But due diligence says we need to represent both sides.” Reading that, I felt that he wasn’t really prepared to listen to anything I might say, but simply felt he had to talk to someone from the opposition so the paper could keep the illusion of being “fair and balanced.” So I wrote him back and said so, about an hour or so later.
I mean no disrespect and I don’t mean to criticize, but it sounds like you want to talk to me and get my opinion just because you have to, which is never the best way to begin a conversation, if I may be so bold as to say so. We may both be entrenched in our opinions but I look forward to giving you my side of the issue and having a lively discussion.
He wrote me back and thanked me for my time, but told me he’d found an alternative for his due diligence.
His column was published yesterday, and was titled Supervisor’s fee on alcohol a terrific idea, hardly conveying even a whiff of impartiality. That’s not necessarily a bad thing. It’s a column after all, he’s not writing a report on the proposed ordinance. Nevius’ opinion is his stock in trade, it’s why he has a job. I’m not convinced that all reporting should give equal weight to both sides, and columnists especially are more free to express their own opinions. In the days when most towns had two newspapers, bias was nakedly on display. You bought the paper that most closely reflected your point of view. Bias is inevitable, at least to some degree. Journalists are human, after all, and even if the writing manages to mask that fact, the way the story is framed, structured and even the headline chosen all can convey bias to the observant reader.
And for many stories, that’s not a problem. If you’re doing a story on the roundness of the Earth, you shouldn’t have to make sure the Flat Earth Society is represented. Not every story on the Holocaust needs a comment from some wingnut who doesn’t believe it really happened. But many stories, especially those that involve creating public policy that effects everyone, should have an even higher standard of informing the public about both sides. Unfortunately, in those circumstances — when it’s most important — is when it most often doesn’t happen.
Case in point is the proposed alcohol fee ordinance. I think that this issue is one of enough importance that both sides should get an opportunity to voice their points of view equally, but so far every story I’ve seen in the mainstream and local media is completely lopsided, presenting only the side of the Marin Institute, who’s been pushing this scheme for some time now, and have finally gotten some traction with San Francisco Supervisor John Avalos. The Marin Institute, despite their protestations to the contrary, is an anti-alcohol group. In their rhetoric they claim otherwise, but it in their actions it’s completely obvious.
So while I don’t begrudge C.W. Nevius his opinions, I think they are based on propaganda and misinformation, since that’s virtually the only information out there. He’s made up his mind, and it’s obvious my arguments fall on deaf ears, since he’s read at least some of what I’ve written on the subject and still believes what he does. But that doesn’t mean I won’t try to point out why I think his opinions are based on false assumptions and errors, mostly the ones that come from the Marin Institute.
So if you haven’t already, go ahead and read Supervisor’s fee on alcohol a terrific idea. It’s not too long. I’ll wait here. …. Done, okay, let’s continue.
He begins with the assumption, that “Supervisor John Avalos is as progressive as they come, but he’s crafted a terrific proposal.” I don’t know if he’s read it, but it’s a mess of vagueness, undefined processes and unanswered questions. It’s nothing if not poorly written. But perhaps most importantly, Avalos didn’t “craft” it, the Marin institute spoon fed it to him. Their propagandist language is all over the ordinance. Just compare their press release and what’s written on their website to the proposed ordinance and you can’t help but realize that fact.
Next up: “It is focused on a serious problem in the city, it targets very real costs, and it makes specific recommendations that will make a positive difference.” I’m sure there are problem drinkers in San Francisco, but has anyone seen any statistics that support how “serious” the problem really is? I haven’t. None have been cited in connection with this ordinance. It’s just stated and everybody seems to believe it. Show me the numbers, and let’s have them be from a neutral source for a change. The Nexus Study that’s required for the ordinance has not been made public yet, as far as I know. And that means nobody can really say that the ordinance “will make a positive difference” with any certainty. People can believe that, but until it’s put into place, it’s merely conjecture. I don’t believe it will, and I don’t think a fair Nexus Study will predict the effect will be positive. But that aside, even if there are people who abuse alcohol (as I’m sure there are) it’s still not everyone who drinks. Why is punishing the majority of drinkers who do so safely and responsibly so acceptable?
“Avalos is proposing a ‘charge for harm’ fee on liquor wholesalers and distributors that could amount to as much as a nickel a drink in San Francisco.” Okay, the “charge for harm” phrase is all Marin Institute. It’s propaganda and it’s absurd. As the Pillsbury Tax Page points out, “virtually every industry can be found to place some type of burden on society.” Should bullet manufacturers and gun makers have a “fee” imposed on them because of every crime that’s committed using a gun, including any trips to the hospital from gunshot wounds? Should every heart attack victim have the burden on emergency rooms mitigated by fees on red meat and other foods that increase the risk of heart attacks? It’s a slippery slope; where do you stop? Why is alcohol the only one targeted for this notion of “charge for harm.”
Then’s there the statement that the fee will be “as much as a nickel a drink.” He’s obviously not done the math. It will be different for each kind of alcohol and each package it comes in. A nickel is the low end of the spectrum, in many cases it will be much more than a nickel. And he’s also failing to recognize that because the fee will be imposed on “wholesalers and distributors” that it will be marked up, in some cases twice, meaning it will be more than five cents across the board.
Next it’s the “city’s ambulance and fire services, clogging San Francisco General Hospital’s emergency room, and using up valuable resources.” First of all, that’s what the resources are there for, but that aside, isn’t that a failure of our health care system? It isn’t the alcohol company’s fault if people abuse it and act irresponsibly. Not everyone who drinks alcohol is a burden on the system. The vast majority are not using up the city’s “valuable resources.” But they’ll have to pay just the same.
And here’s his alternative source for due diligence so he could appear to cover both sides of the issue.
“A tax is a tax, is a tax, is a tax,” said Matt Klink, spokesman for the California Alliance for Hospitality Jobs. “The restaurant and hotel industries are already getting pummeled in San Francisco because of the downturn in the economy. This would put San Francisco businesses at a significant disadvantage.”
Actually, it’s simply a straw man. He basically used that quote just to dismiss it, knock it down, without really addressing the very real concerns of any opposition. But, unfortunately, his dismissal is incorrect, or at least ignores important facts. Nevius argues that the concerns of the California Alliance for Hospitality Jobs are a “stretch” because “Avalos’ bill only targets wholesalers and large distributors, not restaurants or hotels.” First of all, that it “only targets wholesalers and large distributors” may itself be a stretch, because the ordinance in its incompleteness fails to address how fees will be collected from self-distributing companies outside the city and also distributors who sell to businesses in San Francisco but who themselves are outside the jurisdiction of the city. But more importantly, Nevius again fails to take into account that because the fees are imposed on the distributor, they’ll be marked up. Then the restaurant and hotels that he so blithely dismisses will also mark up what they buy from the wholesaler based on the new, higher price that includes the fee. That will mean San Francisco will have the highest price booze in the state, bar none. If he thinks that’s not going to effect business — especially convention business — when there are cheaper alternatives across the bridges, in the East Bay and South Bay particularly, then he’s seriously divorced from reality.
He’s then turns his thinking over to the Marin Institute, who he quotes. “Most alcohol production is controlled and profited by corporations based in Europe,” said Bruce Lee Livingston of the Marin Institute, an alcohol watchdog agency. “This fee is trivial to San Francisco consumers and negligible to businesses.” Okay, for the millionth time, so what? An unfair fee is rendered fair because the companies are headquartered outside the U.S.? Such jingoism reminds me of the people who used to insist people buy American cars because (say it with a hick accent) them foreign ones was bad for GM and the other U.S. car companies, ignoring the fact that most employed thousands of American employees along with countless indirect businesses created for parts, sales, repairs, and on and on. Take a look at Beer Serves America to get an idea of how just beer adds jobs to the U.S. economy, not including wine and spirits. It’s a lot. And saying it’s acceptable to further tax an entire industry just because the major players are owned by multinationals seems ludicrous to me.
But even conceding that the two biggest beer companies are not primarily owned by U.S. shareholders, that still ignores over 120 small California breweries that are most definitely owned by Americans, and the majority are owned by American families. Add to that all the other American craft breweries who sell their beer in California. There are over 1,500 breweries in the U.S. today and all but two of them are owned by Americans. But the Marin Institute thinks it’s okay to target them too. Talk about collateral damage. Then there’s how many small wineries in California? Small micro-distilleries? American-owned restaurants and bars and liquor stores? Doesn’t matter, f@%k ’em all.
Nevius concludes that “[a]ll in all this is a great idea” and the fee ordinance is a “thoughtful, reasonable proposal.” How he can come to that conclusion is beyond me.
He also never addresses the fact that because the people who supposedly cause all this harm represent only a tiny fraction of adults who legally drink alcohol, the ordinance effectively punishes the majority of drinkers who consume alcohol responsibly. So you and me have to pay more for a beer because some other yahoo couldn’t handle his drink and couldn’t be bothered to get his own health insurance. How is that fair, could someone please explain? That personal responsibility is completely ignored is also more than a little troubling. People should be responsible for their actions. But let’s not blame them, let’s instead go after the people who make the alcohol, or distribute the alcohol, or sell the alcohol. Let’s tax them more and risk more loss of jobs and revenue in a shaky economy. Let’s not try to build a more effective mass transit system so people can actually get around safely without a car. That might help ameliorate problems caused by people who drink too much. Let’s also continue to ignore the fact that alcohol is already the most heavily taxed substance sold in America. Without factoring in this new fee, of the cost of a beer, fully 44% is for taxes of one kind or another. According to a 2005 study by Global Insight and the Parthenon Group, “the total tax burden [on beer alone] adds up to nearly 70% more than the average amount of tax paid in the U.S. on all other purchases. That represents well above $10 billion in extra taxes paid on beer.” You can assume it’s as much or more on wine and spirits, too.
The Marin Institute, and similar neo-prohibitionist groups, all over the country are seizing on the poor state of our economy to further their agenda and persuade politicians that they can raise money by going after alcohol. It has nothing to do with taxes for them and in every instance I know of it comes nowhere close to fixing budget deficits even though that’s how it’s always sold. Alcohol is a handy target because it’s been so demonized throughout our history. Without knowing the facts, people accept that drinking is evil and that it’s okay to punish people who drink because they’re committing a sin anyway. It sounds crazy, but people really still believe that. But alcohol also has a myriad of health benefits and in moderation is part of a more enjoyable and healthier lifestyle, both physically and mentally.
There’s no doubt that the economic problems being faced by governments at all levels, from the federal to the local, are serious and need to be fixed. But taxing — yes, taxing — one of the few industries holding its own and keeping people employed and paying its already hefty taxes cannot be the right answer. It targets the wrong people, it punishes the innocent indiscriminately, it won’t fix the problem it’s purported to fix and it’s done for all the wrong reasons. What about that sounds like “a terrific idea.”