H&R Block, reuniting you with your money.

H&R Block, now well known as being the un-doing of the Jeopardy Champion Ken Jennings, run their annual campaign to get people in. Reuniting you with your money is their concept.

Go in, get your taxes done and walk out with money. That's their version of reuniting you with your money.

The issue is that if H&R Block really wanted to reunite you with your money, they wouldn't allow you to walk out with money.
The quietly spoken and likely small print "fees apply" is the key to their pilfering.

I will confess that I haven't checked this in 2007, but in prior years, the 'fees' were this.
15% of the first $300 and 5% of anything else.

So, only $300, it's $45.
$400, it's $50
$1000, it's $80
$2000, it's $130
$5000, it's $280

It may not seem like a lot, but that's not the point, it's the concept that they want to reunite you with your money. When in fact, they want you to introduce your money to them.

This really caters to the instant gratification movement that is the newest thing tearing our world apart.

When I file my taxes, I get my refund in 4 to 10 days.
If you use the high end of 10 days and calculate the 'interest' you are paying on that cash back, you take the 5.6% (using $280 on $5000) divide by 10 days (per diem) and multiply by 365. You will find out that you are paying the equivilent of 204% interest per annum on you impatience. (If you use the 4 days as a benchmark, you get 511%)

I have an update. If you can't wait 10 days for a tax refund, you have other issues. You shouldn't be visiting H&R block, you need to go to a financial consultant. (I know a good one)

We can't blame H&R Block for doing it this way. I am sure there is some remote risk that allows them to discount your tax refund this way.
If the banks were smart, they would agree to loan you the money based on an H&R Block tax return for less of a take and they still would rake it in.

Or, just take a patience vacation, wait it out and get 100% of it for yourself. Isn't that the smart thing to do?

Back to the beginning.

What's the surest sign of desperation. Political advertising when no election (or threat of an election has been called)
Take one clip of Liberal Leader Dion, repeat it four or five times, each with a new spin and you have the makings of one of the poorest commercials, that alone wouldn't permit me to vote for the party.

That party of course was the Conservative Party. The clip of Dion was his saying "We have to return to power". Does anyone think that any of the party's leaders don't want to get into power? That's why there are in the leadership position, no?

They quote the spins as the sponsorship scandal, the refusal to get rid of the GST (something that no government would want to do anyway) and a bunch of other things, none of which Dion was responsible for.

Now, of course, Dion isn't saying "we have to return to power" to the Conservatives Sponsorship scandal cookie, that's their way of getting you to think that a party under someone else's leadership will repeat.
Which, to me, means the Conservative government, and their spin doctors don't think too much of the general public's intelligence.

I really wish we had a political penal system in place.
If a party does this or this or this, while in power, they can't rule again for, say, a decade.

Or, if a MP has to resign for doing something illegal, they have to return all their salary from their past terms, something just to inspire them to stay honest.

I guess simply being Canadian isn't enough anymore.

Wal-Mart's Pharmacists.

You would hardly realize that it's a commercial for Wal-Mart.
A little boy, claiming he is sick, while his mom explains that he got the flu shot, which .
She pulls the blanket off to reveal the little boy, ready to go out and play baseball.

So, my first question, is this kid going to play baseball in the winter, or is it summer already and either the mom took really long to give him the flu shot or maybe it's worn out.

What I do know, is it makes it look like people that get the flu shot are more likely to raise sneaky kids. (How do you like that spin)

Typically, pharmacists own the store that they practice in, but I think that these Wal-Mart stores may be an exception.
Most people shop at Wal-Mart because of the cheap prices, right. Despite claims that everyone that works there is happy, it is more likely to be a attitude that is ingrained during training.

Can you imagine Wal-Mart paying a lot for their staff? Neither can I. So, what about their Pharmacists.
If they don't own the store, how much are they paying people that are, according to surveys, amongst the most trustworthy professions out there.

Is it a progression, first, you start off in cosmetics, then electronics, then women's apparel and if you can convince a size 16 that she's a size 13, you move up to the pharmacy.

There are some jobs that aren't just meant for mimimum wage people, fire fighters, police officers, teachers and pharmacists.

Now, of course, they don't make minimum wage and I am positive that Wal-Mart ensures they are fully trained and licenced to dispense both medication and advice, but Wal-Mart?

Everything under the sun, a full service store is getting a bit out of hand.

"Welcome to Wal-Mart, one of our staff will be happy to help you out with anything you require. This hours specials are, 4L bag of milk in our grocery isle, only $3.88; Free Willy movies, only $4.37 in our video department; Pull over fleece tops for $8.12 in our young people's section and frozen sperm, only $12.96 in our family planning section"

Can't wait till they start dealing in adult films. The Wal-Mart exclusive "Tammy greets Becky"

Living that healthy lifestyle.

Certainly one of the biggest crocks (or Kroc) in the marketing world is McDonalds.
No more Hamburgler, Mayor McCheese and Grimace.

Now, we have these healthy looking children, playing, enjoying life and having fun. Obviously these people don't eat the food they are advertising.

When calories and fat content became an issue, McDonalds was met, probably for the first time, with declining sales.
What to do, what to do.

I can imagine one of two choices coming into that boardroom.

"Hey, I have an idea. Why don't we take all the food that we shouldn't really even feed our own children and make it healthy."

"That's a good idea Mark", as the CEO reaches under the table to trigger the button that releases Mark's chair down a shaft into a pit of left over french fries (which, I think, is how they make those hash browns)

"Any other ideas?" the CEO offers up to the newly promoted team.
"How about advertising that shows kids being healthy and still eating our products".

"But can the two really exist, hmmm. You don't have to die for that comment, but I will shock you". Five thousand volts should be fine, as long as the amperage is acceptable.

"What if we show kids being healthy and active and simply imply they are eating the food by putting Bernie, I mean Ronald McDonald playing with them".

"Great, you are now CEO and I am taking a $214 million package and will put that I turned around sales at McDonalds on my resume. Meeting over".

I loved McDonalds when I was a kid. My mom used to take me there on the occasional Friday.
McDonalds used to, believe it or not, help with my math.

You see, I thought that a McDonalds Milk Shake** was twice as thick as any other shake. So, when I was 1/4 way through done, I would say to myself, "I have drunk about 1/2 of anyone else's shake". Did the same thing at 1/3, 1/2, and 3/4 marks. When I got a bit older, I even ventured the guess at 3/5th and about 8/9's. Always multiplying those fractions by 2.

Damm, I was a McDonalds stud at multiplying fractions by 2, all because of their shakes.
Now, I put an ** because they used to be called Milk Shakes. They, approached by some regulatory board that found out that there was in fact no milk in them, they had a choice to make.

Either, put milk in them, or don't call them Milk Shakes. Hence, reborn as simply shakes. (They really should be called Stirs though, there is no shaking involved).

Putting milk in them was going to kill their budget.

I am very proud to say that I have not frequented McDonalds for about 6 years. If I thought I could have held out this long, I would be more exact on the date.
It wasn't because of SuperSize Me either, I haven't seen that yet. I abandoned McDonalds before it became trendy.

The same thing applies for KFC. I did get caught once when I was having dinner and my friend's home (who also happens to be my ex-wife). She loves KFC, not because they use white meat or they care about their customers, but damm it, fat tastes good.
So, it's the one time I strayed from my crap avoidance strategy. (CAS for short).

The fact that some of their product costs less than gum is disturbing, no?

But the most troubling issue, for me anyway, still is that they put money into promoting a healthy lifestyle instead of creating healthier food.

I don't really see much of a difference between a McFlurry and a DQ Blizzard, but I won't do the McFlurry because of the strategy of keeping customers at the expense of their health.

Yes, you could say that if one does McDonalds, they really should do everyone. But, that's not practical either.

I will stick with Subway. Eat Fresh at least.