Pencil Wars

First and foremost, I would like to address the elephant in the room, yeah it is that pencil in the room.  That pencil that is an off orange, pink rubbery hard eraser, and silver metal wrap to attach it to the unauthentic feeling wood.  I am talking about that knock off of a pencil, the pencil that wishes it could be that Ticonderoga HB #2 soft!  Yeah you know the one I am talking about, the pencil that would leave smudges of graphite on your paper, or would rip a hole in your homework when you just wanted to erase something!  This blog is going to be a dive into the monster that is the standard wood pencil from office depot/Papermate. (It's actually about a perceptual map regarding two competing pencils)

Let’s break this down using a perceptual map.  What are some things people consider when purchasing a pencil? Functionality, erasability, quality, feel, lead brittleness, snapability, and of course price.  Now keep in mind that all of this is my perception only.  But still, I know everything, after all I am a wizard, Hagrid told me so on my 11th birthday (keep up with the references people).    Let’s focus on some basic aspects of the purchasing of pencils; cost and quality.

 That Standard Wood Pen from Office Depot/Papermate
So in my experience the standard wood pencil that is not Ticonderoga is super low quality.  The eraser falls out of its hold, the eraser is firm and causes paper tears as well as lead smudging, and the actual wood of the pencil is firm and uncomfortable to grip.  There is even a subreddit regarding the terribleness of these pencils! (Ayy Reddit Memes) Another testament to their poor quality is their rating on office depot, sitting horribly at a 2-star rating.  That's with 39 reviews too!  That means 39 people took the time to write reviews on a pencil, 24 of the reviews being 1-star ratings.  BUT, it does only cost $7.99 without tax for a 72 pack. (The Underdog of the pencil game)






Ticonderoga
On the other end of the ring we have the champ itself, the Ticonderoga HB #2 Soft.  The Ticonderoga is the tried and true.  The eraser is soft and smooth and allows for effortless erasing.  The eraser rarely ever rips off or smudges your writing.  The lead is soft and the wood is supple for maximum comfort without a rubber grip!  The true master of the wooden pencils.  The lead is sturdy and true like a mighty blade.  A 2005 review of the Ticonderoga pencil tells the journeys of a man and his search for the best writing utensil (A mans journey to write with a quality utensil) and what would you know? He chose the Ticonderoga as his newly preferred writing utensil.  BUT again we must look at cost, the Ticonderoga’s are currently listed at $13.35 without tax for a 72 pack.  (Ticonderoga FTW)
 



So here we are with our facts.  Thus this perceptual map was made using ancient hieroglyphics, shouts to them pharaohs!  As we can see the perception of these pencils is on different ends of the spectrum.  Now most would consider the pencils to be the same, functionality wise but from a standpoint one is significantly lower quality.  Now changes can be made to improve the perceived quality of these pencils by even possibly by redesigning the pencil.  Changing the color and textures is a large aspect that could alter consumers to increase their quality perception of these pencils.  But then again, you could just purchase Ticonderoga and not have to worry about anything!  *Ding ding* match over, we all know who the winner is!

PS. I swear I am not biased at all
 

Choosing choices of choice choosings

We finna break down this paradox of choice to a rudimentary level.  Quite possibly a more crucial choice than sith or jedi, what to eat for dinner, marvel or DC!  I am talking about the choice of your first starter Pokemon, first gen of course.  Charmander, Bulbasaur, or Squirtle?! Read this article, it dives into it for sure (I'm gunna be the very best!).  For the remainder of this blog post just acknowledge me as Professor Oak. Also by the way, this somehow relates to The Paradox of Choice by Barry Schwartz.

Charmander

Arguably the most popular of the big three.  But who is to say Charmander is the best choice?  Some would venture to say Charmander being your starter allows for a more balanced team from the start of the game.  This is because fire-type are hard to come by throughout the game.  But, fire is weak against ground, rock, and water.  The first gym boss you face is Brock, a known rock-type pokemon trainer.  Now your choice of Charmander for long-term reasons of balance, has now back fired because you are weak against your first boss?! Good choice? Who is to say?

Bulbasaur

Now Bulbasaur is the unloved child of the OG three.  Grass type is lame, weak, and considered useless until your Bulbasaur becomes a Venosaur.  Yeah thats because solar beam is super op.  But unlike Charmander, Bulbasaur can beat Brock with no problem.  So Bulbasaur has long term and short term potential right?  Wrong.  Throughout the game, you will face so many more powerful gym leaders that will ultimately give Bulbasaur and this grass-type a hard time.  So do you pick Bulbasaur for the sole intention of getting Venosaur at the end?  I mean Bulbasaur is cool but when you throwing down moves like growl and leech seed at the beginning, you cant expect much.  Yeah solar beam throws some critical hits on opponents but good luck getting to that point with sad little Bulbasaur.  Bulbasaur is for sure the underdog of the three so if you want that challenge then by all means accept it.  I seriously just rambled on in this paragraph just so it would line up with the picture to the right and be formatted better.

Squirtle
Winner winner chicken dinner.  Squirtle Squad or die, because he is the definition of a true finesser, prodigy of Kodak Black.  Squirtle holds the most advantages and least disadvantages against the gym leaders you will face along this journey too.  Squirtle also becomes Blastoise.  That's a giant turtle thing with water bazookas coming out of it's shell! Like c'mon, its nothing like sharks with laser beams but water bazookas is legit enough.  Squirtle also can learn the move surf, so we know yer boy Squirtle getting shacked on double overheard.  Now Squirtle doesn't make the game a breeze, but from a statistical standpoint Squirtle allows for the most stability.  So Squirtle is the most powerful from a stat standpoint, but the best pick still?

Now what does this have to do with choices?  Well looking at each pokemon, we can see one has initial rarity, another has initial success, and lastly one that offers the most balanced choice.  This paradox of choice, diving into which is best for you, kinda like maximizing your option.  In that case Squirtle is your boy, der he go again.  But in my case I always chose Charmander.  Why? Because his freakin tail is on fire and Charmander becomes Charizard!  So yeah I guess I am not a maximizer, but that's to say I was never unhappy! Well to wrap this up we can just say that no one wants Bulbasaur, bang bang bubble beam/flamethrower fired!

Brands, Bran, and Bran

All original photoshops done by the man himself, professional portfolio doesn't exist, don't seek it out.

Lets talk about brands baby, lets talk about brands and me!  Here comes another timeless classic from the Wizard of Jah writing in all the way from Valinor.  If you aren't familiar, visit sometime, lovely countryside.  Here we go, a brand is the story behind a company.  A brand is the values of a company.  A brand is the heart of the company. Kinda like how Bran, son of Eddard Stark, is clearly not the heart of Game of Thrones or the Stark family for that matter.  But much like how bran, that breakfast cereal stuff, is the heart of a well balanced breakfast for senior citizens.  While brands can be measured differently, whether that be in monetary terms or symbolic terms, brands are all operating with the same goal in mind.  That goal is for you to spend fat stacks of skrill on whatever a company sells.  

TOMS Shoes, Sellecking gimmick! 

Philanthropy, giving back, being an esteemed company that cares about the community.  While some companies do, which increases their value as a brand, it's not rare for a company to do some philanthropic work just to boost them sales.  An article written by AJ Agrawal of the Huffington Post even talked about different ways philanthropy can boost a businesses sales.  (THEY DON'T EVEN HELP PEOPLE) IN the article he even says, "businesses have discovered customers are actively looking for businesses that want to give back."  No don't get me wrong, but it kinda seems like business would maybe take advantage of this? You bet your sweet biscuits they would.  

Take Toms for example.  They are known as the one for one business model.  For every pair of shoes sold, they donate one pair of shoes to children around the world.  Now this is sweet, helping the children, THINK OF THE CHILDREN!?!?  An article by Adele Chapin on racked (TOMS cause dependency) wrote about how the shoes the children receive do not actively improve the children's lives.  In fact they even go on to say that it just makes the children more dependent on outside aid.  Now I'm not saying I don't care about the children of the world.  BUT, perhaps Toms could be promoting this "one for one" just to increase their own sales.  Playing on our little caring hearts just to increase some sales.  Potentially.  But after all, it does increase the consumer perception of their brand!

Bend the spoon, manipulate the consumer!

I mean seriously though, Forbes straight up has an article talking about corporate giving and how it can boost branding and sales. (Forbes aka Hypnotoad) This article even talks about a so called brand, Brand X (not to be confused with chemical X, the stuff that made the PowerPuff Girls), dealing with multiple charities and how the public reacted to their affiliation.  Then from this data Brand X would go on to pick the best charity for the market they are trying to reach.  SAY WHAT?!  Forbes is basically promoting picking a charity just to promote your brand to the market of your choosing.  Manipulative a little? Yessir.  

Maybe in a professional environment these so called philanthropic routes are truly catered to the business, but I do believe that they should be coming from a good place.  It's kinda like when those kids in high school that went on trips to perform charitable acts.  Yes all is good with that, but yet they were doing it deep down for the college application.  I am no saint, I barely give back to people I know, but just to go do something with an ulterior motive is kinda slimy to me.  Especially in business, like performing philanthropic acts to increase sales.  Do it because you want to.

So all in all I knew business was dog eat dog, but to pursue philanthropic work with the sole intention of gaining sales or manipulating the consumer market, is it truly justified as morally correct? Eh I am not the one to decide that.  That's for the almighty  Galactus decide.