Monday, June 23, 2003
The things that bug me
& one that doesn't
Avril lends her voice to the Concert
for Toronto while promoters line
their pockets with c notes.
Physical State: stiff
Mental State: bitchy
Music: The Daily Show With Claire Kember on Totally Radio
Fashion sense: green t-shirt, grey sweats
Yeah its been awhile guess you thought I disappeared. Not to worry.
Maybe its the oncoming heat that I'm expecting for the summer or just my obnoxious cynical liberal leanings but I have EVEN MORE things to complain about today. So here we go.
Bone of contention #1
This past weekend saw a huge megastar concert series on Saturday that happened at SkyDome and the Air Canada Centre. The likes of Avril Lavigne and Diana Krall and others all showed up to perform at this concert that was sold out in 3 hours. The thing that bugs me is that the promoters were supposed to use the concert to promote Toronto to tourists letting them know that it was safe to come to our city. It was also cunningly reffered to as the "SARS relief concert". What really has me going are a couple of things that may seem out of line on my part. One: None of the proceeds went to SARS research, hotel and restaurant layoff victims or overworked nurses (what a SARS relief show should mean). The profits just went into the pockets of the performers and the promoters (they seemed to have abused the drop in tourism angle as their "reason" for putting on the show. So philanthropic of them huh?). Two: the show sold out in 3 hours making it impossible for anyone except Toronto and area residents to buy tickets (there were no hotel promotions or airline packages to entice out-of-towners to come to Toronto). Isn't selling tickets to a Toronto concert to "Toronto only" people like preaching to the converted? While I'm not a fan of these acts (although I think Avril is a better role model for young girls than Britney) I don't think that their hearts or minds were in the right place by agreeing to perform. Its sad that many of the ticket buyers probably mistakenly thought they were helping out a cause when what they were really doing was just supporting a concert promoter, Clear Channel entertainment (responsible for some of that lousy radio you get to hear. See previous posts). They deviously used the misfortune of SARS as their selling point while knowing full well that they weren't going to really help out the affected parties that could benefit from the proceeds. Maybe this show idea was part of the "Come to Toronto" campaign originally but why couldn't they have promoted the concert as a tourism boost but also as a relief for SARS research and victims? What would have been the harm in that? Bottom line profits I guess and being tied to a donation responsibility. I probably think that Jane and Joe suburban saw the show then hoofed it back to Mississauga asap (I hope that they supported Toronto businesses before and after but I wonder). As well if the promoters had any balls they'd tally up the money and make a big donation to the city, victims and researchers as a gesture of good faith. But hey is this going to happen? More to come.
This SARS mania is way out of control as well (I'll save my editorial on that for another post that might include the new term "sars nerd" referring to acts who cancel their shows out of fear of SARS, come on!).
Bone of contention #2
Starbucks have instigated a "policy" of charging you additionally for the use of soy milk in their drinks. So if you had a latte, they'd charge you for the FULL price of the latte (a price that would include regular milk) and also add on an additional soy milk /"lactose-intolerant discrimination" charge. So you're paying double in effect for the milk product (and with Starbucks you're already taking out a second mortgage to buy their drinks so...). I contacted the Starbucks office in Toronto and the Seattle head office by email (something I very rarely do). I said that I was confused by the double charge and thought it was unwarranted. I was told that because of the "quality" of the soy milk used in Starbucks and the cost of carrying these products this cost had to be added to the full price and not substituted in place of the regular milk. Is it just me or is this total bullshit? Anyone who buys soy milk at the grocery store knows that the price is pretty damn close if not equal to the cost of dairy milk, so this is pretty crappy and worth further investigation. It would seem that Starbucks are using this lack of consumer education to do a number on the unsuspecting "lactose-and-value-intolerant" consumer. What's more is that this fact is not advertised in their store. Pretty devious. Most people don't even think twice about it. Like looking at your change when you go to the corner store, you just expect that you're not being ripped-off. Ask your barista and see what they say (I was told by one guy that he got in trouble from the boss for not double-charging for soy products). I'd be interested to know if this is a Toronto-only phenomenon. The customer comes first, eh? No coupons or customer loyalty pr efforts either from the head office. Nice one. Of course there are people out there who probably would chastise me for even supporting Starbucks in the first place but I like their coffee not their policies. Others are probably saying "put up or shut up, loser"...fair enough. These are just some things that rub me the wrong way. Maybe I'm being an idiot. You decide.
Mr. Rayner Rocks
One more thing before I leave is that I'd like to draw your attention to one of the brilliant minds of our Toronto newspaper community, Mr. Ben Rayner. His column is worth buying the paper for everyday and it never fails to entertain. Check out his column on tv commercials we all love to hate (some of the humour may be lost on people who live outside of Canada in some cases). Read his column here.
