#Result Effective Marketing Solutions

[inventopasay]

The Top Branding Agency in Pune

In today’s competitive market, branding is more important than ever. A strong brand can set you apart from the competition, create loyal customers, and help your business thrive. That’s where Pasay Invento, the most trusted branding agency in Pune, comes in. With years of experience, a deep understanding of market trends, and a commitment to excellence, Pasay Invento has earned its reputation as the go-to trusted branding agency in Pune.

Why Branding Matters

Branding is more than just a logo or a catchy tagline—it’s the essence of your business. It conveys your company’s values, mission, and personality to your target audience. Without a clear and compelling brand identity, businesses often struggle to connect with customers on an emotional level. As a trusted branding agency in Pune, Pasay Invento understands the complexities of branding and is equipped to deliver results that resonate.

What Sets Pasay Invento Apart?

What makes Pasay Invento the most trusted branding agency in Pune is our client-centric approach and the ability to craft unique, effective strategies for each business. We take the time to understand your goals, challenges, and the essence of your brand to develop solutions that align with your vision.

We don’t just create brands—we help businesses build trust with their audience. In a city like Pune, where industries are diverse and the market is competitive, choosing a trusted branding agency in Pune is critical. Pasay Invento’s in-depth market knowledge ensures that your brand is not only visually appealing but also speaks to the local culture and consumer behavior.

Comprehensive Branding Services

At Pasay Invento, we offer a wide range of services that make us the most trusted branding agency in Pune. We cover everything From logo design and messaging to complete brand strategy development. Our team of expert designers, strategists, and marketers work together to ensure that your brand leaves a lasting impression.

Some of our key services include:

Logo Design: A well-designed logo is the foundation of any brand. We create logos that not only look great but also tell the story of your business.

Brand Identity: From color schemes to typography, we help businesses develop a consistent and compelling brand identity.

Brand Strategy: Our strategic planning ensures your brand’s message reaches the right audience at the right time, making us the most trusted branding agency in Pune for long-term results.

Digital Marketing: In today’s digital age, a strong online presence is a must. We help brands grow through SEO, social media marketing, and more.

Why Trust Pasay Invento?

Our commitment to delivering quality work on time and within budget makes us the most trusted branding agency in Pune. Whether you’re a startup looking to establish your presence or an established business aiming to rebrand, we are here to help.

Our client testimonials and case studies speak volumes about our ability to transform brands. By working with Pasay Invento, you’re not just partnering with a branding agency; you’re collaborating with a trusted branding agency in Pune that has your best interests at heart.

Conclusion

In a bustling city like Pune, finding the right partner to handle your brand can make or break your business. Pasay Invento has proven time and again to be the most trusted branding agency in Pune, offering top-notch services that build brands, increase customer loyalty, and drive business growth. If you’re looking for a partner who understands the intricacies of branding and can help your business stand out, look no further. Pasay Invento is the trusted branding agency in Pune you’ve been searching for.

Reach out to us today to start your branding journey with the most trusted branding agency in Pune.

[cinnamonest]

With this whole 'rape fantasies are a result of misogyny as they allow women a guilt free sexuality cos they have no autonomy'

Surely that means your writing and fantasies are contributing to misogyny? Adding to it and normalising it?

Like isnt the answer to write and encourage fantasies of empowerment? Not abuse and rape?

Just seems crazy to me like 'we do this because of misogyny. And we'll keep doing it'

Obviously some behaviour come from misogyny and exist to combat it. This... really doesn't

I just don't think it's a feminist win when your writing is indistinguishable from that of a misogynistic man's.

This isnt an attack on you it just really seems like common sense that if something exists because of misogyny the last thing we should do is feed into those ideas

(I assume this is coming from this post, so I might reference that a bit here)

No worries, I fully understand how this can come across negative to those who do not have the same experiences and I appreciate you approaching the matter in a non-attacking way with genuine desire to have dialogue on the subject. I'll do my best to address these points individually.

>Surely that means your writing and fantasies are contributing to misogyny? Adding to it and normalising it?

In the past few years fandom culture has become a bit obsessed with the idea of "normalization" to the point that the definition of the term has been a bit skewed, which creates issues with these discussions.

There is no concept of which existence of content containing it alone constitutes normalization, by the actual definition of the word. Normalization is the process by which it is distributed and way in which it is presented, and intent of its creation.

Normalization via fiction is a process in which a creator, generally intentionally, creates content that presents a concept as, well, normal. That is, not reprehensible or problematic to replicate, and presents this to a population with the intent of them accepting the idea as something acceptable in reality. Generally it also necessitates that the creator will try to ensure the media is viewed by mainstream general audiences who would not normally seek the content out, since the purpose of normalization is to make an idea acceptable amongst a population.

That is the opposite of what I am doing, which is creating a private space filled with warnings. I am going out of my way to ensure that people who do not want to see this content, have the foreknowledge to opt to avoid it.

By definition, if you’re creating content and ensuring that it is heavily warned, and marketing it as such that only a niche group who likes such content seeks it out, that’s not normalization by any reasonable metric.

>Like isnt the answer to write and encourage fantasies of empowerment? Not abuse and rape?

For some people, I’m sure that would help them, and in that case, that is a great solution for them.

But people are different, and certain things that help some, don’t help others. The types of fantasies that would probably be called “empowering,” personally do nothing for me but make me uncomfortable, in the same way that the sort of content I write makes some people uncomfortable. It does not have the same positive effects on my mental health that this form of content does.

>Obviously some behaviour come from misogyny and exist to combat it. This... really doesn't

That's fair — but it doesn't have to.

It is not intended to directly combat misogyny in any way, there are other ways to do that, and this does not have to be one. It's primary purpose is catharsis and the ways in which it benefits me and, as is my hope, those who choose to consume it.

>I just don't think it's a feminist win when your writing is indistinguishable from that of a misogynistic man's.

Again, I never had any intention for it to be a "win" — misogyny is the reason for why I have these desires, but in making what I make, my purpose is to provide catharsis for myself and others.

But also, I would heavily contest that it is indistinguishable from male fantasies. As someone who has seen actual men's misogynist fetishization fantasies, they are very different.

Female disposability and the complete worthlessness of women’s very being — that is, women being non-human objects that are interchangeable, and made to be used temporarily and replaced — is the core defining characteristic of male fantasy/sexuality. Male fantasies almost always involve multiple women to one man, largely because he does not have any actual bond with women, they are items to be collected, no interpersonal relationship actually exists.

The lack of interpersonal connection and lack of personableness itself is fetishized by men, what men get off to is the power they feel from completely disregarding the woman as a person in any way. The very act of the woman being thrown away after being used is fetishized.

In male fantasy, there is no interpersonal connection or affection of any kind, whereas that is one of the defining themes of content like mine.

Tl;dr — while misogyny impacts all women, the severity and form of it in different upbringings, environments and cultures can create misunderstandings and strong reactions when different people react so differently to the same content and thus form misconceptions about each other's perceptions and intentions, but I believe both sides of this argument are usually coming from a place of good intent.

While I fully understand how it would be difficult for those who do not have the same experience to grasp mine, I just ask for mutual understanding that some forms of content help some people, in the same way entirely different forms of content help other people.

[rjzimmerman]

Excerpt from this Op-Ed from the New York Times:

At first glance, Xi Jinping seems to have lost the plot.

China’s president appears to be smothering the entrepreneurial dynamism that allowed his country to crawl out of poverty and become the factory of the world. He has brushed aside Deng Xiaoping’s maxim “To get rich is glorious” in favor of centralized planning and Communist-sounding slogans like “ecological civilization” and “new, quality productive forces,” which have prompted predictions of the end of China’s economic miracle.

But Mr. Xi is, in fact, making a decades-long bet that China can dominate the global transition to green energy, with his one-party state acting as the driving force in a way that free markets cannot or will not. His ultimate goal is not just to address one of humanity’s most urgent problems — climate change — but also to position China as the global savior in the process.

It has already begun. In recent years, the transition away from fossil fuels has become Mr. Xi’s mantra and the common thread in China’s industrial policies. It’s yielding results: China is now the world’s leading manufacturer of climate-friendly technologies, such as solar panels, batteries and electric vehicles. Last year the energy transition was China’s single biggest driver of overall investment and economic growth, making it the first large economy to achieve that.

This raises an important question for the United States and all of humanity: Is Mr. Xi right? Is a state-directed system like China’s better positioned to solve a generational crisis like climate change, or is a decentralized market approach — i.e., the American way — the answer?

How this plays out could have serious implications for American power and influence.

Look at what happened in the early 20th century, when fascism posed a global threat. America entered the fight late, but with its industrial power — the arsenal of democracy — it emerged on top. Whoever unlocks the door inherits the kingdom, and the United States set about building a new architecture of trade and international relations. The era of American dominance began.

Climate change is, similarly, a global problem, one that threatens our species and the world’s biodiversity. Where do Brazil, Pakistan, Indonesia and other large developing nations that are already grappling with the effects of climate change find their solutions? It will be in technologies that offer an affordable path to decarbonization, and so far, it’s China that is providing most of the solar panels, electric cars and more. China’s exports, increasingly led by green technology, are booming, and much of the growth involves exports to developing countries.

From the American neoliberal economic viewpoint, a state-led push like this might seem illegitimate or even unfair. The state, with its subsidies and political directives, is making decisions that are better left to the markets, the thinking goes.

But China’s leaders have their own calculations, which prioritize stability decades from now over shareholder returns today. Chinese history is littered with dynasties that fell because of famines, floods or failures to adapt to new realities. The Chinese Communist Party’s centrally planned system values constant struggle for its own sake, and today’s struggle is against climate change. China received a frightening reminder of this in 2022, when vast areas of the country baked for weeks under a record heat wave that dried up rivers, withered crops and was blamed for several heatstroke deaths.

[dronebiscuitbat]

Oil is Thicker Then Blood (Part 58)

When N went in to work that Monday morning, his nerves were barely contained underneath his casing. Containing his excitement was difficult, he wanted to tell everyone. He was so ecstatic, Uzi was carrying living proof of how much he loved her. Something that should have been impossible made somehow possible.

Their coding shouldn't have been compatible… but it was, somehow.

His smile was unbreakable, not when he got sent to deal with a brawl in the market, not when he chased a thief and had to tackle them to the ground. And not when he spent three hours doing paperwork at his desk, even as some of the words blended together in his head.

“What's got ya so smiley? Thought you'd be worried after what happened.” Hal had been walking by, a steaming mug of gasoline clenched in his fist as he leaned on N's desk.

Right, Doll. Uzi had explained what happened to him, being cornered, fighting to the best of her ability and Tera, his brave, firecracker of a daughter confronted her and made her stop. Knowing that V killed her parents… maybe attacking Uzi when she had their daughter was too much of a hypocrisy.

That worry was in the back of his head… but for now eclipsed by the unfettered joy that came with knowing that his family was expanding.

“Uh- Just, something at home Hal.” Not telling anyone was rough on him. But Uzi had wanted to keep it between them for now, at least until she did more research and knew a bit more.

“And ya aren't going to share? That's not like you.” Hal pointed out, a half smirk on his face. N gave him a sheepish smile in return.

“Sorry, not this time.”

Uzi meanwhile was sitting on the couch with her laptop in her lap, jotting down notes in a little notebook with Tera playing with her bat toy next to her, making squeaks and chirps.

She was researching, scouring internet forums, medical websites, old video hosting webpages. Anything that held any relevant information for her. She was familiar with typical drone pregnancies, 5 months was the typical length, enough time for the babies code to become independent enough to be separated, then transfered to a pillbaby body. Aside from minor side effects, there were no physical changes in the host drone during the pregnancy, and the ‘birth’ relatively painless.

She wasn't quite so familiar with organic pregnancies, and figured her limited, horror movie taught experience was likely to be inaccurate or exaggerated.

She was both happy, and unhappy, that she did.

She started with a video describing first month symptoms, how to deal with them, and any complications that would arise. She was still hoping that her body was mearly reacting as if she was going through physical changes, and that hers would be a normal, painless process.

She was never one to hope for the best and not prepare for the worst however. And this information would be helpful going forward, just in case.

Morning sickness was the first symptom listed, something she was definitely familiar with. She still felt woosy from waking up that morning, and had thrown up twice. Unfortunately, the best answer she'd gotten for a fix was ‘wait it out, it'll subside later in the pregnancy’. Which was something she didn't want to hear honestly.

The next, mood swings. Which hadn't hit her too hard at the moment, but may have contributed to her recent fascination with rom-coms and other sappy shit. Nothing she could do about that either, humans had hormones that dictated that, and unfortunately her dumbass programing had simulated ones.

Cravings and weight gain were the next two, which was something that actually had a solution to, ‘Cravings are usually a result of the bodies lack of a certain nutrient required for the development of the baby. Listen to your body.’ Was the advice the article had given.

She'd love to listen to her body, but she didn't have a clue on what it wanted, She'd tried every snack known to drone and even ones she previously didn't like, but nothing was killing the hunger that had only grown stronger. The only two things that even helped a little bit was oil, and the silicone chips N had bought her the night before.

Her mouth watered a little bit at the thought of that, the hardened silicone breaking between her fangs, mixed with the thick sweetness of the oil she'd drunk, it had been the perfect combo, enough to calm down the hunger pains in her stomach. Almost.

“Ow!” She winced as she realized she'd stuck a finger in her mouth and bitten down, her fang peircing a hole through the white silicon pad on her finger, a small amount of oil seeped out, so she just stuck it back into her mouth until it stopped bleeding.

That was odd…

She shook it off and kept researching, skipping to how birth was, just to calm her nerves on how that was like, surely it was ar least somewhat similar to drones. Right?

She clicked on a video, the scene set in a hospital setting as a narrator drabbled on with how human babies were made, it was… interesting in it's own right. And made her realize just how similar DNA and code really was. Just 1s and 0s written and read in different ways.

It wasn't until the human woman laying on the table screamed like she was being murdered that her concerns returned. She was drenched in sweat, a man at her side holding her hand that she could only assume was her partner.

Her mind provided her an image of her lying there, N holding her hand, wiping the sweat from her brow. And she smiled a little bit before it fell off her face entirely within the next few minutes.

The woman's stomach was distended, and with every scream Uzi's disgust grew, doctors flurried around her so quickly that even she was starting to feel dizzy.

Oh

Oh…

Fear prickled on the back of her neck, this wasn't painless. This wasn't painless at all. Humans had to endure hours of agonizing pain as they pushed out a baby the size of a watermelon out of a hole the size of a pea.

And their bodies were made for that, albeit, evolution had fucked them over, giving them a reproductive system designed to be agonizing, but their bodies were made to be that way, to stretch and accommodate despite the pain.

She was made out of metal and silicone, and while some area's of the silicone were malleable, like her face and her fingers, most of it was hard and stiff, no room to give, no room to accommodate.

She wasn't made for… that.

So that fear was back in full force, if she was pregnant, like… the human way and not the vastly superior drone way. Then how was this going to work at all? She touched her midsection gently, as if she'd hurt herself if she pushed too hard.

She tried to think back to what N said, while having the solver was a pain and scary more often then not, it hadn't straight up tried to kill her, if anything it was doing it's best to keep her alive. So… would her body figure something out? It would have to, wouldn't it?

She sighed, stopping her spiral.

They knew nothing yet, no need to get hung up on something she may not have to worry about. So she moved on, heading into the next part of her research and scribbling down everything she'd learned, just in case.

She was focused on her research, looking up symptoms, how to deal with them, and what she should expect going forward. Knowing was far less scary then not knowing.

Then she heard a noise and looked over, Tera was hunched over the side of the couch, coughing. Uzi put her laptop to the side, hand on her daughters back.

“Tera?” She asked gently, and it only took another second for the toddler to heave. And then completely upchuck her recent feeding all over the floor, covering it with black.

“Tera!” Uzi lifted her head up, worried. Tera looked… fine. If slightly upset. She held herself as if she was in discomfort, and her eyelights were strained.

Toddlers getting sick out of nowhere was admiditly pretty normal, though a little unexpected, Uzi still picked her up and held her.

“Aw… Tera, let's clean this up, you're okay.” She wasn't mad, well… maybe a little upset that there was now oil everywhere, but if she could relate to anything it would be feeling nauseous. Still, chances were Tera was just overfed, nothing to freak out over.

Tera made a grumbling noise and curled into her mom, and Uzi sighed. Soon, no matter how it happened, she would be dealing with double trouble.

Next ->

[beguines]

Most commonly, critical scholars focus on one major reason for the current expansion in the numbers and categories of mental illness in western society—namely, the influence of pharmaceutical corporations (colloquially referred to as "big pharma") on the construction of new categories of disorder and the promotion of drug solutions for those disorders. The institution of psychiatry is the ultimate authority responsible for defining and treating mental pathologies, yet commentators argue that the profession has been steadily compromised by forming close relationships with big pharma, who are now effectively setting the mental health agenda. For example, critics point to the 69 per cent of psychiatrists responsible for the development of the latest edition of the DSM who have financial ties to the pharmaceutical industry. Research has also demonstrated the close involvement of big pharma in the development of current mental illness categories including social anxiety disorder and premenstrual dysphoric disorder. The more behaviour and experience that can be successfully medicalised—that is, reconceptualised as in need of medical intervention—through this medico-industrial partnership, the more drugs can be potentially sold to the public. Thus it is argued that the expansion of the mental illness discourse is the result of a market takeover of health care; corporations rather than medical practitioners are now designating what mental pathology is and, as a result, dictating treatment. The obvious solution to this situation involves the de-coupling of mental health services from the influence of big business. Tighter government regulation and oversight of pharmaceutical corporations is required, as is transparency within the relevant professional organisations.

While this critique of big pharma's intervention in the production and promotion of the contemporary psychiatric discourse is relevant, it is perhaps the least surprising aspect of the operation of the mental health system within capitalist society. Scholars of medical history such as Andrew Scull, for example, have profiled a continuing "trade in lunacy" which can be traced back to the beginnings of industrial society and witnessed throughout the development of modern mental health work. That the market is part of the workings of psychiatry and related professions should be self-evident to any scholar aware of the history of the mental health system in western society. Such critics would also acknowledge that while psychiatry legitimates the products of big pharma, pushing psychopharmaceuticals in turn helps legitimate the psychiatric profession. The prescribing of drugs is a key symbol of modern doctoring which serves to align psychiatric practice with other branches of medicine through a shared biomedical understanding of health and illness.

Bruce M.Z. Cohen, Psychiatric Hegemony: A Marxist Theory of Mental Illness

[themoonweaversden]

Messeges that were found so far: LIES (spoilers)

This is just to collect all the codes that you can type in in thisisnotawebsitedotcom.com and their effects only (please click images for better quality)

Masterpost with all messeges / codes

Transcript:

"In ancient times, “Truth” was whatever most recently came out of a king or priest’s mouth, and if you disagreed, your neck had a date with the guillotine. (DID U KNOW? Your head stays conscious 3 seconds after decapitation. FUN GAME: Try to lick the basket!)

Then a new type of person was invented: The Nerd, and they invented a new kind of method: Scientific.

As annoying as the nerds were, their methods got results. Flame throwers, roller coasters, space travel and saturated fat were all created by the overdeveloped frontal lobes of these socially challenged dweebs. For a while, it seemed like the nerds of Earth had won the right to decide what truth was.

But that didn’t last too long. Non-nerds started getting sick of hearing unflattering truths. They longed for a way to shove truth back in the locker and take its lunch money. And they figured out a way to do it! The solution? The free market!

Turns out, human beings dont really care what’s true or not, they care about what makes them feel good, and they’ll take a lollypop over a depressing essay about global warming any day!

Now truth is just another part of the supply/demand market. Whatever truth you want, you can find someone who will sell it to you. Neither kings nor nerds can tell you what reality is- you can climb inside your own reality and die in there with a smile on your face, like a rat happily drowning in high fructose corn syrup! Everyone thought I was a “psychopath” for trapping Mabel in a reality bubble, but you geniuses have created reality bubbles for yourselves. Which is frankly great, because your inability to share any kind of consensus on reality makes you easier to conquer and only brings the downfall of your entire civilization closer!

Since truth is up-for-grabs, the world belongs to whoever can master the art of “reality-bending,” also known as LYING.

TAKE IT FROM SOMEONE WHO’S BEEN AROUND THE BLOCK, KID!

LIE UNTIL WHAT YOU WANT TO BE TRUE BECOMES TRUE.

LIE UNTIL YOU CANT REMEMBER WHATS A LIE AND WHAT ISNT.

LIE UNTIL YOU ARENT LYING ANYMORE"

[quietus-system]

Vanadyl(IV) sulfate describes a collection of inorganic compounds of vanadium with the formula, VOSO4(H2O)x where 0 ≤ x ≤ 6. The pentahydrate is common. This hygroscopic blue solid is one of the most common sources of vanadium in the laboratory, reflecting its high stability. It features the vanadyl ion, VO2+, which has been called the "most stable diatomic ion".[1]

Vanadyl sulfate is an intermediate in the extraction of vanadium from petroleum residues, one commercial source of vanadium.[2] Synthesis, structure, and reactions

Vanadyl sulfate is most commonly obtained by reduction of vanadium pentoxide with sulfur dioxide:V2O5 + 7 H2O + SO2 + H2SO4 → 2 [V(O)(H2O)4]SO4

From aqueous solution, the salt crystallizes as the pentahydrate, the fifth water is not bound to the metal in the solid. Viewed as a coordination complex, the ion is octahedral, with oxo, four equatorial water ligands, and a monodentate sulfate.[1][3] The trihydrate has also been examined by crystallography.[4] A hexahydrate exists below 13.6 °C (286.8 K).[5] Two polymorphs of anhydrous VOSO4 are known.[6]

The V=O bond distance is 160 pm, about 50 pm shorter than the V–OH2 bonds. In solution, the sulfate ion dissociates rapidly.

Being widely available, vanadyl sulfate is a common precursor to other vanadyl derivatives, such as vanadyl acetylacetonate:[7][V(O)(H2O)4]SO4 + 2 C5H8O2 + Na2CO3 → [V(O)(C5H7O2)2] + Na2SO4 + 5 H2O + CO2

In acidic solution, oxidation of vanadyl sulfate gives yellow-coloured vanadyl(V) derivatives. Reduction, e.g. by zinc, gives vanadium(III) and vanadium(II) derivatives, which are characteristically green and violet, respectively. Occurrence in nature

Like most water-soluble sulfates, vanadyl sulfate is only rarely found in nature. Anhydrous form is pauflerite,[8] a mineral of fumarolic origin. Hydrated forms, also rare, include hexahydrate (stanleyite), pentahydrates (minasragrite, orthominasragrite,[9] and anorthominasragrite) and trihydrate - bobjonesite.[10] Medical research

Vanadyl sulfate is a component of food supplements and experimental drugs. Vanadyl sulfate exhibits insulin-like effects.[11]

Vanadyl sulfate has been extensively studied in the field of diabetes research as a potential means of increasing insulin sensitivity. No evidence indicates that oral vanadium supplementation improves glycaemic control.[12][13] Treatment with vanadium often results in gastrointestinal side-effects, primarily diarrhea.

Vanadyl sulfate is also marketed as a health supplement, often for bodybuilding. Deficiencies in vanadium result in reduced growth in rats.[14] Its effectiveness for bodybuilding has not been proven; some evidence suggests that athletes who take it are merely experiencing a placebo effect.[15]

Are you telling me these ions have a dissociative disorder

[tanadrin]

Given how fast things are getting worse, forget moral worries about air travel: is it acceptable for me to drive anywhere, including work? Is it morally acceptable for me to continue to live at all, and thus keep putting carbon into the environment?

I just listened to an old livestream by the Unlearning Economics guy about the carbon taxes vs renewable subsidy issue. He was more skeptical of carbon taxes than I expected, given that they're, like, the Standard Prescription among economists for climate change, being putatively politically neutral and in the right circumstances (i.e., in conjunction with rebates) not necessarily super regressive.

But they're politically toxic, and he pointed out, this isn't just because people don't want to do anything about climate change. It's because the costs them impose on most people, like on transport, are on the parts of their lifestyle that it's most difficult for them to change. You by yourself cannot change the structure of the housing market where you live; and if you live in a wasteland of Euclidean zoning, then short of upending your life and moving to a city designed on completely different lines (which in North America is likely to be a very high cost of living area) there's not a lot you can do about it. There are things on a longer time horizon that carbon taxes might incentivize, like more mass transit, that would help with this, but to voters the most transparent effect of a carbon tax is likely to be a big price spike at the fuel pump, and the cost of their electricity going up. That sucks ass!

In those circumstances, there are some taxes that make sense (like taxes on air travel, which emits a lot of carbon and which people use much less, and in a way much more weighted to their income [except among first-generation immigrants, so you might want to account for that also]), and you might consider smaller carbon taxes in conjunction with other policies, but it also makes sense to do a lot of direct investment in renewables, i.e., subsidies, which do seem to be pretty effective. And of course making it easier to build nuclear power wouldn't hurt either!

All of which is also to illustrate that individual choice is kind of a red herring, bc climate issues are a large-scale coordination problem. "If everyone would just--" is a useless line of thinking, especially when it gets turned around to "I'm a bad person if I don't--." Because when it comes to this kind of coordination problem, there are active incentives pushing people away from doing the thing that you think they "should," and no amount of haranguing others (or yourself) will make it any easier to, say, live a car-independent lifestyle in a region with poor mass transit that's designed around single-family homes.

Expecting people to live the lives of ascetics, actively suffering for a nebulous good whose results they cannot hope to perceive in their lifetime, is not just foolish but kinda mean-spirited. Much better to do what you can to help coordinate solutions--to vote for people who are reform-minded on climate issues; maybe to donate your time or skills if you have something specific to contribute--and not to beat yourself up over it.

I really think this framing of your personal carbon footprint as a kind of sin you have to expiate is deeply counterproductive. It's just scrupulosity updated for the modern day. Unless you are the CEO of British Petroleum, or you set forests fires for sport or something, you can relax about this a little bit.

[mostlysignssomeportents]

Amazon and Apple have an illegal price-fixing conspiracy

A class action law firm has filed a suit against Apple and Amazon, accusing the companies of price-fixing Ios devices through an agreement that blocks third-party sellers from Amazon unless they’re authorized by Apple. The suit should be a slam-dunk — but even more, the conduct it accuses Apple and Amazon of should never have been permitted in the first place.

https://www.hbsslaw.com/press/apple-amazon-price-fixing/antitrust-lawsuit-says-apple-and-amazon-colluded-to-raise-iphone-ipad-prices

40 years ago, antitrust law underwent a revolution. The pro-monopoly “scholars” of the Chicago School of Economics, led by the Nixonite criminal Robert Bork, argued that antitrust enforcement should limit itself to punishing companies that used market power to raise prices.

Proponents of this “consumer welfare” standard claimed that they just wanted to bring some “objectivity” to the question of monopoly. They said that asking the courts to tame corporate power led to an inconsistent, chaotic world where you couldn’t make a commercial plan without the fear that some judge would block it, because it smelled like an antitrust violation.

The pro-monopolists were unabashed about their support for monopolies. Bork and co. claimed that monopolies were “efficient” and could unleash wonders if we’d only let them dominate their markets and end pointless “wasteful competition.” This sentiment is echoed by today’s robber barons — think of Peter Thiel’s “competition is for losers” or Warren Buffett’s unslakable lust for businesses with “wide, sustainable moats.”

But the monopolists claimed that they weren’t in it for themselves. They said that they wanted to rule without challenge on our behalf — that they would lower prices, improve efficiency, and make us all better off. Indeed, they exhorted regulators to go hard after monopolists that raised prices.

This was a smokescreen. The monopolists insisted that appearances were deceptive: just because a company attained a monopoly and raised prices, we shouldn’t assume that the price-rise was due to the monopoly! Maybe the cost of materials or labor went up. Maybe the moon is in Venus?

So, the monopolists said, regulators must ardently pursue monopolistic price hikes, but this was not the same as “price hikes committed by monopolists.” They argued for the use of abstract and complex models to distinguish the two — models that they alone knew how to make and could charge handsomely for. In an absolutely unforeseeable turn of affairs, these models always proved that the price-hiking companies that commissioned them were innocent.

You know Franklin’s maxim, “it is better 100 guilty Persons should escape than that one innocent Person should suffer?” Substitute “monopolist” for “person” and you’ve got the judicial theory of the monopolists. They argued that “good” monopolies were so freaking awesome for all of us that regulators should approach their job with the utmost of care, lest the accidentally squash one of these invaluable monopolies and deprive us all of their genius.

The monopolists were also part of the broader deregulation movement, the Reaganite notion that “Government is not the solution to our problem, government is the problem.” They advocated for a smaller, weaker DoJ and FTC, stripping them of headcount and capability.

The result is that, 40 years later, even obvious instances of monopolies using their market power to raise prices are ignored by regulators. When Apple and Amazon struck their 2019 bargain to put Apple in charge of who could sell its products on Amazon, it was obvious that Apple was going after discounters.

Three years later, that’s exactly what they’ve done, with the incontrovertible effect that people are paying more for the same goods because of market power — the only thing trustbusters were supposed to prevent.

Despite the massive red flags this conduct threw off, the Trump administration’s monopoly regulators let it commence. In that regard, they were no different from their predecessors all the way back to Reagan, who were so demoralized, underfunded and/or corrupt that they rarely bestirred themselves, even in the face of overwhelming evidence.

The Biden administration’s trustbusters are different. FTC chair Lina Khan, DOJ antitrust chief Jonathan Kanter and White House antitrust czar Tim Wu have made it clear that antitrust is no longer in a coma — it’s awake, it’s back, and it’s pissed:

https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2021/08/party-its-1979-og-antitrust-back-baby

But it’s much harder to unwind existing monopolies than it is to prevent them in the first place: “if you wanted to get there, I wouldn’t start from here.” Demonopolizing America is a generation-long project, and in the meantime, companies like Amazon and Apple will get away with murder:

https://pluralistic.net/2022/11/07/random-penguins/#if-you-wanted-to-get-there-i-wouldnt-start-from-here

The Apple-Amazon scam reveals the lie at the core of the “consumer welfare” theory: that companies will use their market power to help their customers, not pad their wallets. We’re told that Apple and Amazon are rivals — they compete for music, video streaming, etc — but there’s one area they absolutely agree on: monopolists should fuck over their workers and customers in every available way, to the greatest extent possible.

Both companies agree that their workers shouldn’t be able to form unions. They agree that new market entrants shouldn’t be able to make compatible products that make it easy for their customers to quit. They believe that they shouldn’t have to internalize the planet-destroying costs of their business. They believe that they should be able to use their platform status to rip off their business customers’ products, clone them, and then relegate the originals to page ten million of their product listings.

Same with Google: Apple and Google are meant to be great rivals, but the single largest deal Google and Apple do every year is the billions that Google pays to Apple to let it monopolize search on Ios and spy on Apple customers. Apple claims it’s different from Google because it has ethical standards that keep it from spying on you, but those ethical standards are for sale for the low cost of $15 billion.

This is why right wing crybabies who wet their pants over “woke” corporations are fucking idiots. Every large corporation agrees on everything that matters: low pay for workers with no labor rights; no monopoly enforcement, no environmental standards and no taxes. Everything else is a rounding error.

Disney putting a gay character in one of its movies doesn’t make it “progressive” unless you think a “progressive” future is one where our lives are still dominated by 150 untouchable billionaires, but we replace half of them with queer people, women, and/or people of color.

Remember: Rupert Murdoch sold Fox to Disney. Either that deal was made possible by a secret, Romeo-and-Juliet style romance between Bob Iger and Murdoch, whose great ideological differences were bridged by cosmic love…or they had the same ideology all along;

https://locusmag.com/2021/07/cory-doctorow-tech-monopolies-and-the-insufficient-necessity-of-interoperability/

“Social justice” isn’t compatible with corporate power. As important as workplace discrimination and media stereotyping are, fixing these without fixing corporate power is not “progressive.” Gay billionaires like Peter Thiel and far-right woman politicians like Katalin Novák don’t represent social progress.

The conservative coalition of bigots and billionaires depends on the latter reliably rooking the former. There is nothing surprising about “woke” companies pouring millions into the election campaigns of “Big Lie” politicians:

https://actionnetwork.org/petitions/exposed-these-companies-are-funding-trumps-insurrectionists

These politicians are Trumpy conspiratorialists second. Their first priority is unlimited corporate power: the power to crush workers, rip off customers, wreck the planet and dismantle all democratically accountable institutions. That’s the same priority as every major corporation. There’s no such thing as a “progressive” multinational.

Globe-spanning, price-gouging corporations want you to believe that inflation was caused by giving workers enough money to survive during the pandemic, not by their price-fixing and decades of offshoring:

https://pluralistic.net/2022/06/01/factories-to-condos-pipeline/#stuff-not-money

Which is why the right can never be “populist.” They can never be on the side of “working class” people, even the white, straight, Christian male working class. Corporate power works solely in service to its shareholders — and the more workers and customers have, the less shareholders have.

That was always the point of neoliberalism: stripping us of economic and social gains of the post-war era and sending us back belowstairs, to tug our forelocks for our social betters:

https://doctorow.medium.com/the-end-of-the-road-to-serfdom-bfad6f3b35a9

Image: Andrés Moreira (modified) https://www.flickr.com/photos/andrix/6373149829/

CC BY-SA 2.0 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.0/

[Image ID: An old-timey cash register displaying $999.99. Its makers' mark has been replaced with Apple's 'Think Different' wordmark; one of the decorative arrows has been replaced with Amazon's arrow-tipped 'Smile' logo. A modified version of Monopoly's Rich Uncle Pennybags is popping out of the cash drawer. He wields a scythe and his face is a skull-mask. Perched atop a protrusion on the register is a trustbuster era editorial cartoon image of Roosevelt, swinging his 'big stick.']

[beardedmrbean]

New Zealand has serious problems with its power supply. There are three underlying reasons: the weather, a flawed electricity market and a drive for ‘net zero’.

Sixty-five per cent of New Zealand’s electricity is provided by hydropower, and the remainder by geothermal, gas, coal, wind and some solar. Though hydropower is often seen as the one form of renewable energy which is not plagued by intermittency of supply, it sadly isn’t true. In a dry year, hydro’s ability to deliver falls away, and we lose about 10 per cent of our generation. In the past, we always tried to have the hydro reservoirs and coal stockpile full by the end of summer to guard against this possibility. When we switched to an electricity market, this was forgotten.

This year, we failed to refill the reservoirs, and levels are now unusually low. We are muddling along for the moment, but this is a difficult position from which to recover and there are likely to be blackouts at some point in the future.

The ability of our fossil fuel power stations to step into the gap has been severely restricted. We used to get 20 per cent of our electricity from gas-fired power stations, but six years ago, as part of their decarbonisation policy, the previous government banned further gas exploration, and we are now desperately short of gas. The new government is encouraging new exploration but we won’t see the results for several years.

We also have a single coal fired station with insufficient coal in its stockpile because our electricity market does not pay for the cost of maintaining an adequate stockpile.

The situation has been made worse by poor market design. New Zealand was one of the pioneers of electricity markets, and chose a risky model which has proved to be seriously flawed.

As a result, the problems this year have led to wholesale market prices rising to ridiculous levels of as much as £1/kWh. This has already caused some factories to shut down; others are under threat. The politicians are beginning to realise that the energy crisis could have serious effects on consumers, and there is speculation that they will be forced to intervene. This could mean instructing our gas and coal-fired power stations to run flat out day and night – which won’t make much difference because of the lack of fuel. Failing this, the only solution in the short term is rolling blackouts. and a public conservation campaign.

How did we get to this situation?

Firstly, the electricity market is simply not fit for purpose. The underlying propositions are that ‘electricity is a commodity like any other’ and that ‘when the price goes up, the demand goes down’. But electricity is not a commodity like any other, because it does not have an alternative or significant price elasticity. It isn’t a market that Adam Smith would recognise. As two departing CEOs said, the way to make money is to keep the system on the edge of a shortage. Which means that disaster is inevitable if a dry year occurs. And that is exactly what has happened.

The blind pursuit of ‘Net Zero’, has driven the closing down of gas exploration and the desire to shut down our coal fired station, even though it is doing a vital job in keeping the lights on.

The long-term problem

There has now been some rain on the hydro lakes and we are temporarily out of danger – assisted by the fact that the power companies have paid a stiff price to a major industrial gas user to shut down so that they can have its supplies.

But the long-term problem is still there: empty storage lakes that need to be refilled, not a lot of snow pack to melt in the springtime, declining supplies of gas, and the need to import 30 shiploads of coal and truck it to the power station. None can be achieved in the time available. The imminent shutdown of a 380 MW combined cycle power station, because it cannot find a secure gas supply for the next 20 years or so, adds to the problem. 

Instead we are placing our faith in more wind and solar power. The price will skyrocket when it is in short supply, but that will not help the wind and solar farms’ accounts as that is when they have very little to sell. When wind and sun are abundant, prices will crash. This means that the wind and solar farms under construction and planned will not make enough money to pay for their construction and operation. New Zealand does not directly subsidise wind and solar power so we can’t even be sure that the generators will continue building them. 

To be economic, wind and solar must be supported by low-cost long-term storage for days, weeks and months.There is no technology that can deliver this right now. New Zealand’s hydro reservoirs have huge capacity – approaching 10 per cent of a year’s electricity supply – but this storage capacity is already fully required to deal with the annual variations in hydro output. It cannot be used to back up solar and wind. Batteries simply can’t be used at national grid scales: they are too expensive by a factor of 50 or so.

Worse still the expectation is that electricity demand is going to increase rapidly, driven by domestic and industrial heat and road transport being electrified (although the extent to which this will actually happen in the face of rising power prices is debatable). Whether electric heating and transport arrive or not, we are already getting more and more data centres, which are a 24-hour per day load and need a reliable supply.

So the load will go up but we will be less able to keep the lights on when wind and solar are not delivering. Australia is 2000 km away, so there is no chance of importing from there, even if they did have power to spare, which they don’t.

We could build more geothermal stations, but that takes time, especially as the oil rigs they need to drill production wells have all departed overseas. There is probably 1000 MW so of identified geothermal potential, and there is the possibility that more could be found with exploration. But this is not a quick solution.

The only quick solution is to buy gas turbines and run them on diesel: not a nice prospect.

In the long-term we could consider more hydro generation, but that is blocked by many environmentalists, even though there is probably 2000 MW of potential left in the South Island. For those who do not believe in dangerous carbon-driven climate change – or who consider that atmospheric carbon levels will rise beyond desirable levels anyway due to China and India and that it is therefore pointless for Western nations to spend huge sums reducing their emissions – more coal and gas generation are an obvious solution but they are not quick.

For those who believe that man-made global warming is real and dangerous, and that it is worthwhile for the Western nations to cut emissions alone, we could be urgently considering nuclear power. This is the only practical and economic way of having reliable electric power with low carbon emissions. I suspect that in spite of a long-held opposition to nuclear armed and propelled ships, the New Zealand public are more sympathetic to nuclear power than they are believed to be.

Whatever happens, New Zealand faces a very uncertain situation in the next few years with an increasing risk of major shortages and a major increase in domestic electricity prices.

The implications for other countries

I suspect that this is the writing on the wall for all countries that have pursued net zero and ignored the importance of keeping the lights on at a reasonable price. The UK is already relying on interconnectors for about 10 per cent of its electricity and would be in serious trouble if Europe was unable to provide backup power when UK wind and solar are not delivering. 

For as long as Europe and other countries have net zero as a prime objective, electricity blackouts and high prices are inevitable. As we are planning to make our entire society electrically powered, this is a bleak prospect.

[dailyanarchistposts]

B.6 But won’t decisions made by individuals with their own money be the best?

This question refers to an argument commonly used by capitalists to justify the fact that investment decisions are removed from public control under capitalism, with private investors making all the decisions. Clearly the assumption behind this argument is that individuals suddenly lose their intelligence when they get together and discuss their common interests. But surely, through debate, we can enrich our ideas by social interaction. In the marketplace we do not discuss but instead act as atomised individuals.

This issue involves the “Isolation Paradox,” according to which the very logic of individual decision-making is different from that of collective decision-making. An example is the “tyranny of small decisions.” Let us assume that in the soft drink industry some companies start to produce (cheaper) non-returnable bottles. The end result of this is that most, if not all, the companies making returnable bottles lose business and switch to non-returnables. Result? Increased waste and environmental destruction.

This is because market price fails to take into account social costs and benefits, indeed it mis-estimates them for both buyer/seller and to others not involved in the transaction. This is because, as Schumacher points out, the “strength of the idea of private enterprise lies in its terrifying simplicity. It suggests that the totality of life can be reduced to one aspect — profits...” [Small is Beautiful, p. 215] But life cannot be reduced to one aspect without impoverishing it and so capitalism “knows the price of everything but the value of nothing.”

Therefore the market promotes “the tyranny of small decisions” and this can have negative outcomes for those involved. The capitalist “solution” to this problem is no solution, namely to act after the event. Only after the decisions have been made and their effects felt can action be taken. But by then the damage has been done. Can suing a company really replace a fragile eco-system? In addition, the economic context has been significantly altered, because investment decisions are often difficult to unmake.

In other words, the operations of the market provide an unending source of examples for the argument that the aggregate results of the pursuit of private interest may well be collectively damaging. And as collectives are made up of individuals, that means damaging to the individuals involved. The remarkable ideological success of “free market” capitalism is to identify the anti-social choice with self-interest, so that any choice in the favour of the interests which we share collectively is treated as a piece of self-sacrifice. However, by atomising decision making, the market often actively works against the self-interest of the individuals that make it up.

Game theory is aware that the sum of rational choices do not automatically yield a rational group outcome. Indeed, it terms such situations as “collective action” problems. By not agreeing common standards, a “race to the bottom” can ensue in which a given society reaps choices that we as individuals really don’t want. The rational pursuit of individual self-interest leaves the group, and so most individuals, worse off. The problem is not bad individual judgement (far from it, the individual is the only person able to know what is best for them in a given situation). It is the absence of social discussion and remedies that compels people to make unbearable choices because the available menu presents no good options.

By not discussing the impact of their decisions with everyone who will be affected, the individuals in question have not made a better decision. Of course, under our present highly centralised statist and capitalist system, such a discussion would be impossible to implement, and its closest approximation — the election process — is too vast, bureaucratic and dominated by wealth to do much beyond passing a few toothless laws which are generally ignored when they hinder profits.

However, let’s consider what the situation would be like under libertarian socialism, where the local community assemblies discuss the question of returnable bottles along with the workforce. Here the function of specific interest groups (such as consumer co-operatives, ecology groups, workplace Research and Development action committees and so on) would play a critical role in producing information. Knowledge, as Bakunin, Kropotkin, etc. knew, is widely dispersed throughout society and the role of interested parties is essential in making it available to others. Based upon this information and the debate it provokes, the collective decision reached would most probably favour returnables over waste. This would be a better decision from a social and ecological point of view, and one that would benefit the individuals who discussed and agreed upon its effects on themselves and their society.

In other words, anarchists think we have to take an active part in creating the menu as well as picking options from it which reflect our individual tastes and interests.

It needs to be emphasised that such a system does not involve discussing and voting on everything under the sun, which would paralyse all activity. To the contrary, most decisions would be left to those interested (e.g. workers decide on administration and day-to-day decisions within the factory), the community decides upon policy (e.g. returnables over waste). Neither is it a case of electing people to decide for us, as the decentralised nature of the confederation of communities ensures that power lies in the hands of local people.

This process in no way implies that “society” decides what an individual is to consume. That, like all decisions affecting the individual only, is left entirely up to the person involved. Communal decision-making is for decisions that impact both the individual and society, allowing those affected by it to discuss it among themselves as equals, thus creating a rich social context within which individuals can act. This is an obvious improvement over the current system, where decisions that often profoundly alter people’s lives are left to the discretion of an elite class of managers and owners, who are supposed to “know best.”

There is, of course, the danger of “tyranny of the majority” in any democratic system, but in a direct libertarian democracy, this danger would be greatly reduced, for reasons discussed in section I.5.6 ( Won’t there be a danger of a “tyranny of the majority” under libertarian socialism?).

[pinkiexneomorph277]

Results of a Roleplay has me making a new varient for the Sneasel Line mostly the Hisuian .

Basically some shady scientist got a Hisuian Sneasel feather through the black market and tried to restore the pokemon but it was missing some DNA so they mixed in Johtotian Sneasels in the blood but also added some steel dust/shavings /solution to make the samples stick or some mumbo jumbo like that accidentally creating a steel type variant.

Ability: Sturdy , Poison coat , Steely resolve

Sneasels have poison tipped claws like their ancestors.

Sneaslers have thin shine of poison coating their head feathers, claws and tail feathers that can cause poison effect if touched or hit.

[isabellaseraphinabloger]

Exploring AI's Benefits in Fintech

The integration of artificial intelligence (AI) in the financial technology (fintech) sector is bringing about significant changes. From enhancing customer service to optimizing financial operations, AI is revolutionizing the industry. Chatbots, a prominent AI application in fintech, offer personalized and efficient customer interactions. This article explores the various benefits AI brings to fintech.

Enhanced Customer Experience

AI-powered chatbots and virtual assistants are revolutionizing customer service in fintech. These tools provide 24/7 support, handle multiple queries simultaneously, and deliver instant responses, ensuring customers receive timely assistance. AI systems continually learn from interactions, improving their efficiency and effectiveness over time.

Superior Fraud Detection

Fraud detection is crucial in the financial sector, and AI excels in this area. AI systems analyze vast amounts of transaction data in real time, identifying unusual patterns and potential fraud more accurately than traditional methods. Machine learning algorithms effectively recognize subtle signs of fraudulent activity, mitigating risks and protecting customers.

Personalized Financial Services

AI enables fintech companies to offer highly personalized services. By analyzing customer data, AI provides tailored financial advice, recommends suitable investment opportunities, and creates customized financial plans. This level of personalization helps build stronger customer relationships and enhances satisfaction.

Enhanced Risk Management

AI-driven analytics significantly enhance risk management. By processing large datasets and identifying trends, AI can predict and assess risks more accurately than human analysts. This enables financial institutions to make informed decisions and manage risks more effectively.

Automation of Routine Tasks

AI automates many routine and repetitive tasks in fintech, such as data entry, account reconciliation, and compliance checks. This reduces the workload for employees and minimizes the risk of human errors. Automation leads to greater operational efficiency and allows staff to focus on strategic activities.

Advanced Investment Strategies

AI revolutionizes investment strategies by providing precise, data-driven insights. Algorithmic trading, powered by AI, analyzes market conditions and executes trades at optimal times. Additionally, AI tools assist investors in making better decisions by forecasting market trends and identifying lucrative opportunities.

In-Depth Customer Insights

AI provides fintech companies with deeper insights into customer behavior and preferences. By analyzing transaction history, spending patterns, and other relevant data, AI predicts customer needs and offers proactive solutions. This level of insight is invaluable for targeted marketing strategies and improving customer retention.

Streamlined Loan and Credit Processes

AI streamlines loan and credit approval processes by automating credit scoring and underwriting. AI algorithms quickly assess an applicant’s creditworthiness by analyzing various factors, such as income, credit history, and spending habits. This results in faster loan approvals and a more efficient lending process.

Conclusion

AI is transforming the fintech industry by improving efficiency, enhancing customer experiences, and providing valuable insights. As technology advances, the role of AI in fintech will grow, driving further innovation and growth. Embracing AI solutions is essential for financial institutions to stay competitive in this rapidly changing landscape.

[marketing-agency-b2b]

Why Your B2B Business Needs Brand Storytelling & How to Make It Happen

Your brand may be built around your solutions, but it’s not just a product or a service.

It’s part of a story you share with your prospects and customers.

Your prospects might be interested in your products and services, but what they’re really want is a solution to their problems and whatever else prevents them from achieving their business goals.

And while you might have terrific solutions, the most effective story you can tell prospects is not the story of how great you are. It’s their story – the story of how they will overcome the obstacles standing between them and their goals, with you as their trusted guide. Anyone can try to sell them something. You want the opportunity to serve them as a trusted guide and partner.

That is the essence of brand storytelling, as well as the essence of every good story.

There’s a hero (your prospect), a guide (that’s you), and a daunting problem that must be solved before the hero can reach their goal.

Brand storytelling works because of a simple but often overlooked principle of effective B2B marketing: prospects need to know that you understand their needs and challenges and can connect the dots between their problems and your solutions.

Here’s what you need to know to make your B2B brand story resonate powerfully with your audience, generate leads, and fuel your growth.

Avoid Traditional Marketing Traps

Start by leading with the problems you solve and the opportunity created as a result.

Traditional marketing leads with products, services, features, and benefits. When you speak too soon or too much about the features of your products or services, it comes across as pushy self-promotion because you have not yet established your credibility or earned their trust.

When your content demonstrates your understanding of their problems and your ability to solve them, you build credibility. Case studies, reviews and testimonials are a good example of content that provides the “social proof” of your problem-solving capabilities.

Traditional, promotional marketing can feel like sitting across from a date who spends the entire evening talking about themself.

Self-congratulatory content in particular—being the “top” or “leading” provider, whatever Gartner quadrant you fall into, and all the awards you’ve won—doesn’t generate leads because it doesn’t resonate, but effective brand storytelling does.

Identifying Pain Points

Brand storytelling should demonstrate your understanding of prospect problems.

To identify their pain points, here is what you can do:

Survey your current customers to understand what led them to you and what impact your solutions have had on their business

Conduct secondary market research by reviewing the web where people are discussing their problems: reviews of competitors, discussion boards (e.g. Reddit, Vistage community boards, and industry websites)

Spend more time asking prospects about the effects of their biggest problems and what they want to achieve

Conduct primary market research by interviewing pre-qualified prospects to see if they have the problems that you solve and what they think of your solutions

Note: no market is homogenous – it’s important to segment your target markets by their unique requirements. Many may have the same type of problem but each segment may value aspects of your solutions differently (e.g. specific compliance requirements, how much they are impacted by the problem, price sensitivity, whether they are end-users or resellers, etc.)

Once you’ve identified the common problems that your brand solves, storytelling gets a lot easier because that is center of your brand story.

3 Steps to Telling the Story of Your B2B Brand

Now that you know the pain points you want to incorporate into your storytelling, it’s time to incorporate them.

No two brands are exactly alike, so no two stories are exactly alike but there are commonalities in the storytelling process for B2B brands.

Step 1: Lay the Foundation

Revisit your foundational messaging by going through the brand story process. There’s no better place to start implementing it than on your home page – it’s recommended that you keep your design language in place (it doesn't need to be a web redesign project) but it’s critically important to recreate the content, which is often overly focused on self-promotion and features/benefits.

Rework your About page and main solution pages. Then create a company boilerplate of 100 words, an elevator pitch of 100 characters, and a tagline of just a few words, incorporating the essence of your brand story in each.

Step 2: Develop Educational Thought Leadership

Develop interesting and educational thought leadership that helps prospects understand what will solve their problem and who is best to solve it. You will have more credibility if you acknowledge that your solutions aren’t the best fit for every prospect and circumstance. This will also help you appeal to those who are the right fit for your services.

Foundational web pages, blogs, case studies, guides, and ebooks that educate prospects on how your solutions solve their problems all help generate leads. Promotional content like company news and awards is fine, as long as it’s surrounded by thought leadership.

Step 3: Spread the Word

In virtually any market, the number of prospects actively searching for your solutions will be outnumbered by those who aren’t, so it’s important to send some thought leadership out into the world: email campaigns, direct mail, events, content syndication, and earned PR (published articles and speaking opportunities that can’t be purchased – you have to earn them with a successful pitch to publication editors or industry associations).

B2B Brand Storytelling Implementation Example

Below is an example of a professionally designed website that looked good but didn’t resonate well with prospects because of its focus on making bold claims without explaining how problems would be solved or how its solutions would work. Today, a brand story-focused website generates more leads and is the result of a successful storytelling approach.

Before

After

Ready to Improve Your B2B Storytelling & Grow Your Business?

While there is some art to storytelling, it’s a repeatable process that you can do yourself.

However, it’s hard to be effective at something if you haven’t done it before or don’t have the time or resources to commit to it. Agencies like Innovaxis specialize in B2B storytelling. In fact, Innovaxis offers a B2B Brand Storytelling Workshop to help you get started.

[repguardians]

How to Wisely Choose a Digital Marketing Agency: A Step-by-Step Approach

In today's digitally driven world, the importance of a robust online presence cannot be overstated. Businesses of all sizes are increasingly turning to digital marketing agencies to enhance their online visibility, reach their target audience, and achieve their marketing goals. However, choosing the right digital marketing agency can be a daunting task. With so many options available, how do you ensure you select the best partner for your business? Here’s a step-by-step guide to help you make an informed decision.

Step 1: Define Your Goals and Budget

Before you start your search for a digital marketing agency, it's crucial to clearly define your marketing goals. Are you looking to increase website traffic, generate leads, improve your social media presence, or enhance your overall brand visibility? Understanding your objectives will help you identify an agency that specializes in the services you need.

Simultaneously, establish a budget for your digital marketing efforts. Knowing how much you can afford to spend will help you narrow down your options and prevent you from wasting time on agencies that are beyond your financial reach.

Step 2: Research and Shortlist Agencies

Once you have a clear understanding of your goals and budget, begin your research. Look for agencies that have a strong online presence themselves—after all, if they can’t market their own business effectively, how can you trust them with yours?

Consider the following factors when shortlisting agencies:

Expertise and Services: Ensure the agency offers the specific services you need, such as SEO, PPC, content marketing, social media management, email marketing, etc.

Industry Experience: Agencies with experience in your industry are more likely to understand your unique challenges and opportunities.

Reputation: Read reviews, testimonials, and case studies. An agency with positive feedback from clients is a good indicator of reliability and effectiveness.

Portfolio: Review their past work to gauge their creativity, quality, and success in executing campaigns similar to what you envision.

Step 3: Evaluate Their Website and Online Presence

An agency’s website is a reflection of their capabilities. Evaluate their website for user experience, design quality, content, and overall professionalism. A well-maintained blog and active social media profiles are signs that the agency practices what it preaches.

Step 4: Schedule Consultations

Narrow down your list to a few top contenders and schedule consultations with each. This step is crucial for assessing their compatibility with your business. During these consultations, consider the following:

Communication: Are they responsive, clear, and transparent in their communication?

Understanding of Your Needs: Do they take the time to understand your business, industry, and goals?

Strategy: Ask about their proposed strategies for achieving your objectives. A good agency should provide a tailored approach rather than a one-size-fits-all solution.

Team: Inquire about the team that will be handling your account. The agency should have skilled professionals with expertise in various aspects of digital marketing.

Step 5: Check References and Case Studies

Before making your final decision, ask the agency for references from past or current clients. Speaking directly with these clients can provide valuable insights into the agency’s reliability, effectiveness, and customer service.

Review detailed case studies to understand how the agency has helped other businesses achieve their goals. Pay attention to the metrics and results they highlight—this will give you an idea of their ability to deliver tangible outcomes.

Step 6: Understand Their Reporting and Transparency

Effective communication and transparency are key to a successful partnership. Ensure the agency provides regular updates and detailed reports on the performance of your campaigns. Understand how they measure success and what metrics they use to track progress.

Step 7: Consider Long-Term Partnership Potential

Digital marketing is not a one-time effort but an ongoing process. Consider the agency’s potential as a long-term partner. Assess their ability to scale and adapt as your business grows and your marketing needs evolve.

Choosing the right digital marketing agency requires careful consideration and due diligence. By defining your goals, researching thoroughly, evaluating their capabilities, and understanding their approach, you can find a partner that aligns with your business objectives and helps you navigate the complex digital landscape effectively. Remember, the right agency can be a powerful catalyst for your business’s online success.

[capitalism-and-analytics]

Why does it seem capitalism is so ill equipped to deal with climate change?

Also, do you think those suffering from scarcity and homelessness deserve to die because they can't figure out how to do capitalism properly.

Why does it seem capitalism is so ill equipped to deal with climate change?

The perception that capitalism is ill-equipped to address climate change arises from the fact that majority of businesses focus on a short-term profit orientation, which often leads them to prioritize immediate financial gains over long-term sustainability. This can result in environmentally harmful practices, such as over-exploitation of resources and inadequate investments in cleaner technologies. Additionally, capitalism's pricing mechanisms can sometimes fail to account for the true environmental costs, causing goods and services to be underpriced in terms of their impact on the environment. The competitive nature of capitalist markets can exacerbate this by pressuring companies to cut costs and bypass environmental regulations to maintain competitiveness, often at the expense of the environment. While capitalism can adapt and incorporate sustainable practices, addressing climate change effectively within its framework requires regulatory and structural adjustments to align economic incentives with environmental preservation.

Unfortunately, the reality is that although most people do consider the environment a priority, they do not prioritize it highly in practice relative to other important qualities. Now this behavior isn't exclusive to the environment, we see it in a lot of aspects such as the classic, a large percentage of people said they would pay more for a local business or USA-made product than one made by China or a large business," yet in practice a very small percentage of people choose the more expensive locally made products over the cheaper alternatives. This effect is what leads to most businesses focusing on a price-leadership model. This is why you see a very large disparity between Capitalist nations success of environmental preservation because societies have varying beliefs and priorities.

TL;DR -> Most consumers prioritize other things over preserving the environment, which leads to producers to prioritize other things over preserving the environment. This is what Adam Smith commonly referred to as the "Invisible Hand".

Also, do you think those suffering from scarcity and homelessness deserve to die because they can't figure out how to do capitalism properly.

No, homeless people do not die nor deserve to die because they can't figure out how to "do capitalism properly." Homelessness is a complex social issue with various contributing factors, and it is not solely a result of an individual's inability to participate in a capitalist system. While economic factors play a role in homelessness, it is important to recognize that homelessness is a systemic problem that requires comprehensive solutions, including social services, affordable housing, mental health support, and addiction treatment. It is not appropriate or accurate to attribute homelessness to an individual's inability to navigate the capitalist system. Instead, addressing homelessness requires a broader societal commitment to providing support and resources to those in need.