Liam's Blog

BROMANCE or BRAND ROMANCE (I should coin this alternative definition)  is the intimate relationship between a person and a brand that develops through shared meaningful experiences between an individual and the products they buy (Fast, 2010). The meanings we attach to various products over the course of their life make them so much more than the inanimate objects they appear to be. Like all relationships, these BROMANCES inevitably come to an end as a product breaks or another more attractive product comes along. However, one’s feelings toward this brand never completely fade and they think of it when making their next purchase. If this brand treated them well and lasted quite a while before it broke, they are likely to go out and search for another product of the same brand. Clearly, BRAND ROMANCE is an important factor in the phenomenons of repeat purchases and brand loyalists.

Of course, as one shops for a new product, they look for an upgrade, not exactly the same product that left them (one way or another) and broke their heart. This search for an upgrade is a demonstration of the value of offering unique features in marketing and selling a product. Features such as automatic doors, leather seats, remote start, a DVD player and satellite radio are what makes a car stand out when it is put up for sale or resale. These features are what catches one’s eye and causes them to take the time to check out such a product. In effect, such features differentiate a product by providing it with a unique brand personality. The role that children play in helping parents to select a new car, for example, prompts the inclusion of such features as a DVD Player and TV in a minivan that give it a ‘fun’ personality. Appearance isn’t everything, however. If the car doesn’t have a solid engine and an intelligent computer system, all of these features are meaningless.

As a society, we love to witness a well developed conflict for the entertainment value it provides.  Donald Trump knows this is true and so he ensures the contestants on his show, The Apprentice, experience constant unrest.  In the first episode of his new season this week, Trump reminds the contestants that they are not friends, but competing against everyone with whom they are on a team.  He knows the success of his show depends upon the entertainment value provided by verbal battles stemming from antagonism among the hopeful apprentices.  This season looks promising due to the presence of a vicious district attorney on the women’s team who battles with words for a living.

Similarly, highly developed conflict is at the root of one of my biggest passions, hyped UFC events.  Sure the company can put the most beloved man in the sport and Canadian hero, George St. Pierre, on the line to defend his title and approach one million Pay Per View buys, but how will the non-title fights fair?  The key to success, as UFC head, Dana White, understands is in the promotion.  However, million-dollar marketing campaigns are not going to do anything without the cooperation of the fighters.  The fighters who know how to promote themselves and realize the true value of entertainment build-up their fights by creating controversy between themselves their opponent in pre-fight interviews, at the weigh-in (generally watched by the hardcore UFC fans who will enthusiastically tell their friends), and v-logs posted for their fan-bases, etc.  In effect, these fighters create a story for fans to follow, the climax of which is their upcoming fight.  Personally, when I become engaged in such an intense story, I HAVE to watch the fight.  If I miss such an event, the only thoughts running through my head for days to come are: Who won? Who won? Who won? And How? (I can’t just know I need to experience it visually for myself).

A demonstration of the true VALUE of entertainment is provided by Brock Lesnar who came to the UFC from the WWE where he was a professional entertainer.  In his cross-over to mixed martial arts as a professional athlete he was quickly able to generate a huge fan-base among MMA fans.  Headlining UFC 100, in merely his fourth fight in the UFC and rematch against Frank Mir, Lesnar was able to generate a record-breaking 1,600,000 Pay Per View purchases for the UFC.  Following his fight which he helped to strongly hype by trash talking the man who had submitted him in their previous encounter, Mir, Lesnar flipped off the booing crowd, bashed the event’s main sponsor, and shared more information than necessary about what he was going to do with his wife after the event.  Although this may be common in some associations such as the WWE, this behavior is extremely unorthodox in the UFC which is more focussed on the actual sport taking place.  In effect, Lesnar made himself infamous and continues to draw in enormous revenues for the UFC after his rapid ascent.

Other UFC related examples of the value of conflict in entertainment are demonstrated by the infamous ‘Huntington Beach Bad Boy,’ Tito Ortiz.  Ortiz is not only a great athlete, but a very smart entrepreneur and you can see it in almost all of his fights.  From wearing his own clothing line, Punishment Athletics, after all of his fights to the repeated controversy surrounding his actions, Ortiz knows exactly how to gain publicity.  Looking at his fight record, it is clear that he is not the greatest fighter.  However, he has still managed to headline some of some of the highest grossing UFC events in the past.  Another note about his fight record is that he has fought MMA pioneer, Ken Shamrock, three times as well as ex-light heavyweight champion, Chuck Liddell, twice.  Were these rematches necessary?  Were the outcomes of these events that close?  The answer is simply, no.  The reason all of these rematches occurred is because the fans demanded them.  Why?  Because Tito Ortiz has created bitter rivals in these two opponents.  I don’t think he really dislikes or even cares about the other two so much.  The comments he has made about these two men appear merely to be an attempt at provoking them in order to stir up controversy.  Tito Ortiz has succeeded and become much more than a UFC fighter.  He is a worldwide celebrity, though he is no longer even in the top ten light-heavyweight fighters in the world.  Furthermore, his marriage to porn star, Jenna Jameson, propelled him even further into his celebrity status.

One of the UFC’s most recent advertising campaigns which was for UFC 117 involved the use of one of the most outspoken but relatively unknown fighters up to this point, Chael Sonnen who was to match the reigning middle weight champion, Anderson Silva.  Although a rip-off of an established Dos Equis beer commercial, it still seemed to be quite effective under the circumstances.  The commercial was not a complete success in contributing to the bottom line likely due to Sonnen being relatively unknown up to this point and Silva severely tarnishing his own image during his last several performances.  However, this full utilization of fighters to create conflict (and a story) in promoting events is exactly what the UFC should continue to do in the future in order to generate hype.

Here are a couple of interesting blogs that offer some more insight into the world of marketing:

Seth\’s Blog

Olivemylove

Calvin\’s Blog

MULTI-LEVEL MARKETING COMPANIES: the sinister, low-life, unethical, pyramid-shaped, modern snake-oil salesmen following in the footsteps of Mr. Charles Ponzi… or so I thought. Working a closing shift one night last week, i quickly became bored and as usual broke out some reading material. Thoroughly engaged in my book, The Millionaire Next Door: The secrets of America’s Wealthy, I was caught off guard when a customer ripped open the front door and strolled inside. Observing the cover of my book that was now lying down on the counter, he struck up a conversation regarding, this book, other business related books and business in general. I quickly became very excited as I only recently began to read these books and have never been able to discuss them with anyone before. After about five minutes or so he began to tell me about the company he was working for: their amazing product and how they are one of the quickest companies to ever reach a billion dollars in revenue. All of this information was quite stimulating as I am very interested in the stories of such successful businesses and had no longer than a few hours prior realized that I needed to find a new job or create a business venture of my own. After about a 20 minute conversation, he gave me his card, a sample of the product he was selling for the company and promised to send me an email with more information regarding a job? Or business opportunity? It wasn’t quite clear at the time. Anyhow, I went home that night to have my hopes dashed when I found out this company, Mona Vie, was a multi-level marketing company.

I have always understood multi-level marketing companies to be somewhat of a scam where people who get in earlier (or are at the top of the pyramid) have the potential to make quite a bit money. On the other hand those who are hired later (or are at the bottom of the pyramid) have a much greater chance of losing the money they put into the company and essentially being exploited. I remembered one thing that the Mona Vie distributor had said about how Donald Trump and best-selling author, Robert Kiyosaki, were both endorsing these multi-level marketing companies and decided to investigate. What I found shocked me. He was not lying. My two heroes that I look up to for advice and hoped to be like some day as they had both made their fortunes investing in real estate were pushing some barely-legal con-artist run corporate structure on their loyal fans. I needed to do more research and develop a better understanding of exactly how these companies operate.

It appears that the main argument in support of these companies is that the pyramid structure actually resembles the same pyramid structure which makes up compensation plans of corporations across the globe where a few ‘higher-ups’ earn many times what the numerous employees of lower levels earn. After visiting many sites in support of and against MLMs and Mona Vie all of the information I gathered did not sway my opinion on these companies; I was still unsure what to think. My decision not to bother pursuing this company stemmed mainly from what I viewed on Mona Vie’s website. It was simple. There were three steps: 1.View the opportunity (I did so and found that the speakers for the company sounded corny and full of B.S.) 2. Buy the product and 3. Become linked with a fantastic global support network. The order was what got through to me the most. I was expected to spend several hundred to thousands of dollars on a product before I was ever trained to sell it? This did not make sense to me. I was also weary of this amazing support network because it sounded like it involved purchasing a number of books on selling and establishing connections with distributors above me who no doubt have their own problems to worry about besides training me. Though their helping me may well benefit themselves, they may possibly have no obligation to teach me.

As for Robert Kiyosaki, who I believed to be an quite an honest man, I remained disappointed until I began to look under the surface and see what should have been obvious. A YouTube video in which Robert Kiyosaki discusses several concepts from his Rich Dad series is currently circulating under quite a few titles. Though I have no idea what the original title of this video was, it has been renamed to suit the need of those at Monie Vie and has been posted to their website in order help with their process of recruiting distributors. The new title states, “Robert Kiyosaki on MLM business Opportunity,” clearly distorting the original meaning of the video. What he actually describes in the video, besides several concepts from his earlier books, is the opportunity in working for direct sales companies because of the extensive training they provide you with. Most likely, he is referring to reputable companies that have some sort of a screening process and train those who they feel are most qualified thoroughly.

Donald Trump has also started a network marketing company that sells medical products. It is hard to say whether this is simply in his nature and he is the type of man who would sell his mother if the profit was large enough or he has actually created a legitimate and ethical company. From my understanding, all that would be required to avoid exploitation and unethical practices in a network marketing company is provide a legitimate product and to extensively train employees on sales before requiring them to purchase it. However, the majority of these MLM companies appear to only train in why their product is so great, rather than sales techniques and practices (from my experiences with several of them at least). Overall, it appears that jobs in direct selling can be quite beneficial but only if a number of conditions are satisfied by the company. If I ever decide to get into this line of work (which could provide a great experience I’m sure), it would only be for a well established company with a reputation for a great sales training program and legitimate products. I will make sure I avoid any ‘on the rise’ companies that are ‘making millionaires every week’. Stay cynical my friends…just a little.

Below is the Kiyosaki video that I mentioned- under one its many titles on You Tube.

Older generations frequently complain about the music that young people listen to today.  They incessantly proclaim that modern popular music will fail to stand the test of time as the popular music from their youth has.  I even had a professor give a bit of a lecture (which I found quite interesting) on why exactly this is so.  It was not until this point that I could finally understand where these older generations are coming from.  Nevertheless, I have to say that those with this point of view are not objectively observing the facts of the situation.

Explaining a study by Theodore Ordorno, my professor described how modern music has been shaped by the economy.  The ‘commodifying’ of music has changed its structure, meaning and purpose.  In effect, music has become merely ‘ear-candy,’ characterized by repetitive themes, a loss of authenticity and a soporific effect.  Further, the composition of modern popular music involves: 1. Details that are independent of the whole  2. A melodic structure that is highly rigid and frequently repeated  3. No overall theme so details can be altered  4. A focus on intelligibility (as opposed to being abstract) while trying to appear novel.  The experience that this type of music provides involves:  1. A strong reaction to parts, while the whole has little influence on reaction  2. Reminiscence of similar experiences (the listener is not forced to develop a framework in order to listen to the piece -> there is no thought involved)  3. Identifying the best pieces as those that are most often repeated (played on the radio)  4. Aesthetics that reinforce everyday life (familiar and comforting).

From this analysis, I interpret the feelings of older generations as directed toward those songs that are the most popular of today.  The most blatant example in my mind of one of todays worst artists that people love is, of course, Usher.  Oh my gosh, he is bad.  With lyrics as original as:

“she was dancing sexy, pop, pop, popping, dropping, dropping low

never ever has a lady hit me on the first sight

this was something special ; this was just like dynamite

honey got a booty like pow, pow, pow

honey got some boobies like wow, oh wow…”

It brings me pain whenever I hear this song, or for that matter any song by Usher, Ke$ha, The Jonas Brothers, Miley Cyrus, Taio Cruz, …the list goes on.  The song exemplifies the previous description of a pop song in that about half of the song is excruciating to listen to, leading up to certain catchy verses, the lyrics of which mean absolutely nothing.  Surely, any of the numerous fans of this song try to block out the part in which Usher drags out a painful “Ooh, oh , oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, ohh my gosh.”  Therefore, strong reactions to the song only come from certain hooks throughout it.  The song degrades women, talking about parts of their body as characterizing them and does so in a diction simple enough for a three year old to understand.  Finally, constant repetition and a lack of any apparent theme (unless you count encouraging girls in clubs to have more sex with Usher as a theme) cause this song to be worthy of only destruction.  Regardless, people love it.  Little girls start to scream (with joy) when they hear it on the radio and millions of people pay money to download it from itunes.  I don’t get it.

On the other hand, there are a number of pop artists that I do appreciate.  I recognize their flaws and I understand the simplicity and sometimes the ignorance of their music, yet I still enjoy it.  At the same time, I am fully aware that the quality of their music is much lower than that of some other artists such as Muse, Beck, Coldplay, Serj Tankian or Queens of the Stone Age who will never be mainstream because they innovate.  They create entirely original pieces which often sound quite strange.  It is in this strangeness that I recognize their creativity and their musical genius.  In contrast, I only recognize the entrepreneurial genius in artists such as Lil Wayne or 50 Cent, who seem to be music producing machines.  It is as if they have developed the perfect popular music producing formula and they strictly abide by it.  Bands such as Radiohead and The Beatles are the few exceptions where the most innovative bands approach or become mainstream.  However, the fact is that several decades ago, these innovators frequently became the most successful bands with the rise of rock in the fifties and sixties (Jerry Lee Lewis, Elvis, Johnny Cash, The Beatles, The Rolling Stones…), the beginnings of punk and metal in the late seventies and eighties (Billy Idol, The Ramones, Motley Crue, Guns N’ Roses, Metallica…) and the surge of grunge in the early nineties (Soundgarden, Nirvana, Stone Temple Pilots).  These are the bands that will, without question, stand the test of time.

These conclusions have lead me to fully understand the perspective of many among older generations.  However, modern pop music is not entirely a new thing.  Flashback to the eighties: Madonna is writing songs like ‘Material Girl’ and ‘Like a Virgin.’  Although she may be boldly innovating in terms of offensive content, she is setting the stage for the future of detailed, explicit pop music of which the whole is irrelevant.  Everybody thinks of the prominent line, “Like a virr-err-err-gin…” when the title of this song is mentioned -the rest is irrelevant.  After the majority of authentic gangsters have left music in the late nineties, hip-hop artists will continue  to rap almost exclusively about sex, drugs, the streets, money and possessions, though with an elevated level of hypocrisy.

Flashback further to the sixties, The Doors infuriate Ed Sullivan and are banned from any future performances on his show for saying the word “high” in a live performance. Meanwhile, pop artists of the era are relatively cleaner, yet they demonstrate the same characteristics as those pop artists of today that are looked down upon by older generations.  The Beach Boys take a couple of ‘doo-wop’ melodies and bend and twist them a million ways to create numerous hit records.  Furthermore, the content of all of their songs remains within the confine of being related to cars, surfing or girls.  The Shangri-Las achieve great success releasing the corny, one-dimensional ‘Leader of the Pack’ in 1965, the content of which is related to youth relationships.  Forty-five years later, Justin Bieber would achieve a similar level of success, similarly penetrating the hearts of millions of young girls with the release of his similarly annoying single, “Baby.”

My point: Has the quality of music really deteriorated over the years and become too focussed on standard topics as many members of older generations claim?  No.  Although the level of explicit content in pop music has dramatically increased over the years, the majority of ideas in popular music have remained consistent with or stemmed from earlier ideas.  Furthermore, the weak structure and lack of meaningful or new themes in pop music has been around for decades.  The only apparent shift that I can observe is the increase in the popularity of standard pop music and a decline in the popularity of those musicians who innovate.  Both types of artists and bands are still around and developing, however.  This shift in what is the most popular may be due to a slow decline in the rebellious spirit of the sixties and seventies.  This spirit has had a number of resurgences in the music industry over the years and has possibly died out among the mainstream population.  Maybe mainstream society is just too apathetic and accepting of things the way they are today.  Regardless of what has become of mainstream society, I will continue to enjoy several pop artists but give full credit to those who have innovated in order for their music to come about as well as appreciate the truly strange and original modern musical innovators.

          Listening to CKNW a few days ago, I was excited when Bruce Allen came on to do his ‘Reality Check.’ For a change, however, he did not provide me with any insight or present anything that I have not already heard (repeatedly). To summarize, he talked about how my generation, those currently in school, are going to have a much more difficult time finding work than any prior generation. An increase in the quality of healthcare along with other factors has contributed to members of the aging population staying in the workforce longer. Refusing to retire and possessing experience far beyond what the keen business student may obtain in their several years of college or university, the ‘Baby Boomers’ present an enormous obstacle to the younger generation in finding careers. This leaves college and university graduates battling over such positions as barista or waiter/waitress.
          If these allegations are, in fact, true and unexaggerated and it is actually this difficult for the college or university graduate to find a career, to me, it only makes sense that the most appealing option would be to start a company or become self-employed. A rise in the number of people who are self-employed over the past few decades has demonstrated that this is an extremely viable way to build a career and earn a living. Furthermore, an increasing number of “rebels” such as marketing guru, Seth Godin, and ‘Go Daddy’ CEO, Bob Parsons, have gained significant popularity teaching aspiring businesspersons to go against the flow of society and innovate rather than strictly following what is learned in school.
          Though business schools and other educational institutions have also begun to adopt such teachings, the first 13 years of every Canadian’s life still consists of learning to follow authority and fit into the current societal structure in order to eventually work as a subordinate in some form of bureaucracy. In general, are Canadians capable of overcoming these years of structure and conformity so that they may start a project of their own? Are Canadians too dependent upon security or do they lack the confidence to take on a bold new project upon which their livelihood depends?
          The answers to these questions will also answer the question which is my main point: What does the future of self-employment look like for Canada? I feel all signs point to a continued increase in the rate of self-employment over the next decade or so, as more ‘Baby Boomers’ reach the traditional age of retirement and continue to work. What do you think?

          I recently calculated my carbon footprint using a tool I found at http://go-beyond.ca/carbon-footprint-calculator; the results were quite interesting. Apparently, assuming that I commute to UBC from Delta via public transit Monday through Friday as I have for seven of the past eight months, I produce 4.84 tonnes of CO² in a year. Now, that seems like an awful lot to me as carbon is a gas and I think of it as being very light. The breakdown of my footprint is 34% from my daily commute, 49% from the food I eat and 17% from shelter. It appears the main problem with my current lifestyle is my commute, while my ‘food-print’ is relatively low and my energy use at home is quite low as I live with seven other people in a medium sized house. Switching to an alternative method of transportation is suggested, though I currently do not drive and am rarely in a car. In fact, I would love to cut down on my commute just as much as the environment would love for me to; I intend to do so next year by living in Vancouver. Eating more of a locally produced, vegetable-based diet is also encouraged as this would benefit my health, the local economy and community and the ‘world at large.’                                                                                                                                                                                                      

          Most of these suggestions seem doable and I will attempt to consider how my actions impact the environment more in the future. Overall, I am surprised that the site seems to tell me I am doing a fairly good job at containing my carbon output. I was expecting more of a harsh criticism of my lifestyle, pointing out a number of details that I typically overlook. I am sure, however, that the impact of my carbon footprint will become a much more serious issue upon increasing my transactions in the business world, especially as an entrepreneur.

          The following commercial is a fantastic example of the power of sustainability as a marketing tool. It does a great job of presenting the matter of environmental protection in a light-hearted and comical manner, while ensuring the underlying message of this being the truth and a serious issue is present. As the world becomes increasingly obsessed with the theme of environmental protection, there is much profit to be had. In effect, it adds a new dimension to marketing that can be explored and exploited from a number of perspectives. Going back to the theme of music which I have brought up a number of times throughout this blog, the reduction of plastic disposal and production could be used a point on which base the marketing of an online music retailer. Although many albums are now packaged with recycled or recyclable materials, a significant amount of plastic is still used in the industry. With the diminishing number of CD sales, this is no longer a huge issue but it is just an example of a way help shift the remaining amount of CD sales to online retailers. In recent years, consumers have become increasingly motivated by sustainable advantages in their purchases. Furthermore, this trend will likely continue as offering such “advantages” becomes more of a common standard and less a unique “advantage.”

           A newfound interest of mine, artist management and promotions, likely entails a very different strategy and approach than the traditional marketing of goods and services. However, I have no doubt there a number of similarities as well which can be observed by making useful comparison of the two. As with any product, building a brand around an individual musician or a group is essential to success. With today’s technology capable of making almost anyone’s recordings sound good, the creation of an image which fans can look up to or, in some way, identify with is quite important (ei: the nerdy kids can identify with Weezer, the kids who fancy themselves ‘gangstas’ can worship Lil Wayne and 50 Cent, the ‘chill’ ones can bask in Beck’s mellow melodies, the stoners can trip out while listening to Radiohead or Queens of the Stone Age and the young clubbers can memorize all of Akon or Pitbull’s lyrics). Similarly, the marketing of any of the products that are prominent in today’s market requires a focus on the differentiation of the brand. Personally, I love all sorts of music and the content of my itunes library is so varied that there is only one word to describe each individual song within it: creative.

          With the mass of music out there today, as with products, it is crucial that new artists attempt to occupy some sort of niche in the market. Taking a unique approach to the development of their music by letting their creativity flow and attempting to do something different than anyone else, though risky, will likely pay off much more than “trying to become the next _______.”  For example, Kid Cudi, one of my favourite new artists, exploded onto the scene not too long ago and did so through creating some of the most original rap music I have ever heard. Rather than talking about money, women and being a gangster as has been done so many times before, he created a new sort of genre of ‘stoner-rap.’ In doing so, Cudi demonstrated that if a position in the consumer’s mind is already over-crowded, the creation of a new position to occupy can be quite beneficial. Similarly, a few years earlier, Kanye West released his completely original and hugely successful debut album, The College Dropout, which incorporated lyrics warning young kids about drugs and preaching Jesus.  As with any industry in business, the music industry is led by those who innovate bring something new to the market.  The role of a manger appears to be to encourage this development and guide the creation of a successful image as well as promoting it and spreading awareness of the artist’s ‘brand.’

          I am going to briefly discuss a man who I look to as an example of how to be successful as an entrepreneur and in business in general, Donald Trump. I am interested in him particularly because he has made his fortune in real estate development, which I find to be more exciting than any other industry in business. Not only has Trump dominated real estate development in New York City, he has also had great success in Las Vegas, Chicago, Florida and a number of places around the world. However, the road to achieving his current level of success has been filled with failures as well as victories.

          Working for his father from a young age, he learned all the basics of real estate development as well as how to be ruthless in making deals with others which would greatly contribute to his later success. He was able to achieve great success through making real estate deals and fixing up and developing hotels, skyscrapers and casinos. By the early nineties he had built up a massive real estate empire across the United States and had an estimated net worth of 1.7 billion dollars. However, due to a decline in the real estate market at this time, he lost most of what he had and the once seemingly unstoppable Trump Organization went several hundred million dollars into debt. It was only through an immense infusion of loans that his corporation was able to survive bankruptcy. Through more shrewd deal-making and hard work, Trump had recovered all of what he had lost by 1997 and his net worth was even larger than it had once been.

          Since this time when the ‘Trump’ name was tarnished, he has been able to restore it to its former glory. Today, it is widely respected and associated with the highest quality in luxury real estate. Moreover, in the past decade Trump has strayed out of his comfort zone and entered a number of other industries such as television, producing the hit show ‘The Apprentice’. He even has his own line of bottled water, Trump Ice! His fearlessness, persistence, and ruthlessness have enabled him to achieve a level of success that aspiring entrepreneurs everywhere hope to achieve.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mljMRRRb1vw 

The following blog consists of a brief interview with the owner of the small appraisal firm, Fast Appraisals, my dad.

Q: So dad… how has digitization affected the real estate appraisal industry?

A: Well at the company I used to work for (Elliot Appraisals) my boss would spend over a thousand dollars a month to purchase film used to take photos of properties to be included in appraisal reports and have them developed. Now, using a digital camera, I just upload the pictures I take and insert them into my reports on the computer which are typically sent online to NAS (an appraisal management firm) who distributes them to the banks. This method is much more efficient and in place of the cost of film and photo development is a much smaller cost for ink used in printing some of the reports. Paper is also saved in submitting most of the reports online, which was not possible before widespread internet use.

Q: What about the use of mobile devices?

A: Many companies now require their employees to possess Blackberries or similar devices so that they can communicate with their office while on the road. I regularly spend a number of hours away from my office at a time while completing the field work involved in appraisal or working with an employee.

Q: But aren’t cellphones sufficient?

A: The thing is that NAS expects me to either accept or refuse work within an hour or two so that they can quickly pass it on to someone else who is available if I am not and have no one available to pass it on to. At first when I was told I had to purchase a Blackberry I was reluctant do so and worried about the complication of this new technology, but I now realize the efficiency that it provides me with and navigating the device has become second nature to me… for the most part. I no longer return to my office to find my inbox overflowing with appraisal requests, having to reject a number of them which may agitate NAS and cause them to restrict the amount of work that they send me. My Blackberry also allows me to send information and updates I receive about jobs to employees as I receive it while on the road.

Q: I remember you mentioning something about computer generated appraisal reports once…

A: Oh yeah. Computer generated appraisals are called AVM (Automated Valuation Model) reports. They provide basic reports and a number of companies use them because they are cheaper and quicker than using real estate appraisers.

Q: Well how come they aren’t exclusively used? How come your job isn’t obsolete?

A: AVMs aren’t nearly as reliable as humans and can make mistakes. They are strictly used by such companies as CMHC (Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation) that insure high ratio mortgages where small mistakes in reports typically do not make a significant differences. Also, this is just a more convenient method for them. Because CMHC is using taxpayers’ money it does not do as thorough a job in its reports. On the other hand, banks are responsible to shareholders so they are more prudent and use appraisers. They are more concerned with falsified profits that may be reported and losses that may be incurred as a result of computing errors.

Q: K. Thanks a lot.

A: Ok go to bed now.

Q: In a minute!

Well I thought that was very interesting anyhow. Real estate is fascinating! Hope we have a COMM 486 class on it soon!