Rock Band Video Game Selling T-Shirts Of Fake Bands

from the lotttttts-of-t-shirts dept

When critics of our analysis of the economics of infinite and scarce goods want to mock our ideas or make fun of us, they often fall back on the false claim that the business model we advocate is "give away everything and make it up by selling t-shirts." Or, rather, if they're really in a mocking mood, they usually write "llllllloooooooooooooooooootttts of t-shirts." It's quite amusing, though, of course, it shows a fundamental misunderstanding of what we mean by scarce goods.

That said, t-shirts can make up one part of the scarce goods that someone sells, though, it will almost always be a small part of it. And, there's no reason to mock the contribution that selling t-shirts can make as part of a larger business model. Reader Aaron de Oliveira points us to the interesting news that the super popular video game Rock Band is now letting players who have uploaded their own fake rock band logo order t-shirts, keychains and other merchandise from their fake band. As de Oliveira correctly notes, not only does this make some money, but it also makes the gaming experience better, connects fans more closely to the game and their own fake rock band in the game:
The company realizes it's not in the music business or in the t-shirt business. Its business model is the custom experience and it uses music (fun & free or cheap) and t-shirts to improve that experience in such a way that people are willing to pay for it.
Bingo. So go buy llllllooooooooottts of t-shirts to make it work.


Reader Comments (rss)

(Flattened / Threaded)

  1.  
    icon
    Skeptical Cynic (profile), Oct 13th, 2008 @ 2:16pm

    They just don't get that the value will always be in scarce goods.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  2.  
    identicon
    Ron, Oct 13th, 2008 @ 2:44pm

    How soon until the RIAA tries to get a piece of these bands?

    You just know someone is holding a brainstorming session (rubbing both brain cells together I guess) trying to figure out how they can get a piece of the action.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  3.  
    identicon
    B, Oct 13th, 2008 @ 3:05pm

    Re: How soon until the RIAA tries to get a piece of these bands?

    More likely we'll see lawsuits for people making logos look a little too much like real band logos, kinda like how Marvel sued the creators of City of Heroes because you could make heroes look like X-Men.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  4.  
    identicon
    Yakko Warner, Oct 13th, 2008 @ 3:08pm

    3D models of your avatars, too

    Probably the coolest feature is that you can get a 3D model of your in-game avatar. Wired has an article about it here, which includes a video of the technology they're licensing. They call it a "printer", which doesn't seem to do it justice: it builds a solid model from a computer model.

    The upshot is you can build your in-game avatar, customize its proportions, clothing, instruments, etc., apply artwork in nearly infinite combinations, and purchase a physical, 3D model of it.

    Their website lets you build one and view a little preview of your model, and I have to admit, seeing my little character in 3D, I was strongly tempted to click that "Purchase" button.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  5.  
    identicon
    Not a Doomsayer, Oct 13th, 2008 @ 4:17pm

    Financial Crunch

    When the money's rolling, the "give away the music and make money on t-shirts and touring" model works, or the "1000 True Fans" model works, but in a financial crunch, I'm betting that a lot of people just won't have enough money to buy the optional fancy packaging or fill their tank with gas to drive across the state to a show.

    It will be interesting to see what impact this will have.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  6.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Oct 13th, 2008 @ 5:02pm

    Except the idea that anything infinite exists except maybe the universe is an impossibility.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  7.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Oct 13th, 2008 @ 6:23pm

    Re:

    "Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former."

    --Albert Einstein

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  8.  
    icon
    Aaron deOliveira (profile), Oct 13th, 2008 @ 6:36pm

    Re: Financial Crunch

    i think the point of the infinite goods isn't that there is a magic pill cure all for every market. rather, by adding value to a scare good (t-shirts, figurines, etc.) with an infinite good (music, 3-D digital models, etc.) you give your customer a reason to buy. you can also add value to an infinite good to give your customers a reason to buy.

    i think a very early example of this was the advent of coupons. this may be an old wives tale as i can't find the reference to cite, but it makes my point. soap sellers began wrapping their soaps in paper. women who where buying it expressed concern that they were paying more for the paper when it was the soap they wanted. to alleviate their concerns, the soap seller began printing coupons on the paper for soap to give the women added value to the purchase.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  9.  
    identicon
    Not a Doomsayer, Oct 13th, 2008 @ 7:04pm

    Re: Re: Financial Crunch

    I don't mean to be ungrateful, but I'm not sure how your response addresses the problem of a market with dwindling expendable income in relation to alternative models that rely heavily on the "extras" of finite goods riding on the back of infinite goods.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  10.  
    icon
    Aaron deOliveira (profile), Oct 13th, 2008 @ 10:11pm

    Re: Re: Re: Financial Crunch

    all markets will suffer when expendable income dwindles.

    the point of infinite goods is that understanding them makes it easier to add value above and beyond your competitor.

    think of it more in terms of value. value that you can provide your customer and value that you can capture from your customer. both at little or no cost to your business directly.

    using infinite goods to add more value to something can justify it's current price or beat out a competitor in a recession.

    understanding where infinite goods add value also lets you diversify revenue streams. you're not dependent entirely on your ability to produce a good and collect from a single stream of customers.

    infinite goods produce value in new places in markets. learning how to capture them can help a business maintain its cash flows in a recession.

    i'm enjoying your questions. any more? (marroncito@yahoo.com)

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  11.  
    icon
    PaulT (profile), Oct 14th, 2008 @ 1:08am

    Re: Re: Re: Financial Crunch

    In a falling market, all models dependent on disposable income will falter. The question is not whether this model is immune to the financial crisis - it's not - but whether it's more resilient to that crisis than the usual "charge for the music" model.

    I'd say it is, because the music still acts as advertising and keeps the desire to buy other goods high for when the money is available. Unless this becomes another Great Depression (I don't believe it will), the disposable income will still be there for many people, they'll just be a bit more careful about where they spend it. A good night at a gig or a T-shirt might be more desirable than a CD. In the Rock Band case above, people won't be able to spend $200 on the game again but can afford $50 for T-shirts - relatively easy income for Harmonix with low risk (they don't need to keep unsellable stock as the T-shirts are printed on demand).

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  12.  
    identicon
    Twinrova, Oct 14th, 2008 @ 4:23am

    Excuse me, Mike

    In case you haven't realized, Rock Band is not free.

    Nor is downloading new tracks.

    And the official Rock Band store starts a price structure of $24.99 for a tshirt.

    Tell me again how this model of "freeconomics" works in this environment, where nothing is "free".

    No, this is just another example of finding other revenue elsewhere while overcharging what they offer now.

    Sorry if this sounds cynical, but it's not. $24.99 for a damn tshirt is ridiculous, let alone charging gamers to get their band logo on a shirt.

    In the worle of "freeconomics" you talk about, shouldn't this feature be free to Rock Band fans?

    Stick on point, Mike, because if you're going to accuse me of mocking your model, then you should make better arguments for your stand on "freeconomics" and not try to stick one in where there is no clear evidence of free anywhere to be found.

    Oh, and just to reiterate my defense (not mock): Nothing is free. "Free"'s cost is made up elsewhere, usually in the overinflated price of "scarce" goods.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  13.  
    icon
    Aaron deOliveira (profile), Oct 14th, 2008 @ 6:00am

    Re: Excuse me, Mike

    in freeconomics or infinite goods. there is no one right way to do things. it is rather a recognition of 2 things. that infinite goods can make scare goods more profitable and that infinite goods create value in new places in your market to be captured.

    harmonix, the makers of rock band, a building a ton of value on top of something that is very easy to distribute. in this case music. there is only a very small cost difference between selling the same music to 1 person as 10,000 people. yes there is still a cost involved, but it is of such a negligible nature, that the music they sell could be called 'infinite'. another reason it's called infinite is that whether they sell it to one person or one million people it doesn't run out. they don't have to spend any more time producing said good.

    so back to how they're using music as an infinite good. they add value on top of the music, specifically in their unique experience. people are willing to pay for the game and the peripherals not just because they like the music, but because of the experience. the music adds value to all of the peripherals, which are scare goods, and gives people a reason to buy them.

    an infinite good like music has also created value in another part of the market that harmonix is now trying to capture. part of their experience is the 'cool factor' of having/being your own band. they offer other scare goods, key chains, t shirts, figurines which capture this value that is created by the infinite good music. harmonix can continue to collect revenue by selling an infinite good, it's software. another infinite good, music within the game, a scare good, the peripherals and now they've found another place to capture value from their customers by selling customized scare goods like t-shirts & key chains.

    as far as whether they should charge $24.99 for a t-shirt. i imagine you'll find lots of real bands t-shirts out and about in the world. i have a Reba McEntire & and a MegaDeath t-shirt in my closet. as far as the utility these shirts, they could probably not command a premium like $24.99. they are no different than your average t-shirt you can get from wal-mart. what adds value to the shirt and makes it worth it to someone is the association with performer.

    specifically on the $24.99 rock band t-shirts. rock band is offering a service. any player could probably find their own way of producing any of the goods being offered, t-shirts, key chains even the figurines. the reason they would pay rock band is that it would be extremely time consuming and costly, probably more than the $24.99 cost to purchase one from Rock Band. harmonix has added value to a plain t-shirt by offering a connection to the players own user experience, as well as offering a bit of convenience in the customization. harmonix has done all the leg work for the customer.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  14.  
    identicon
    paintballbob, Oct 14th, 2008 @ 6:20am

    Excuse Me, Twinrova

    direct quote: "there's no reason to mock the contribution that selling t-shirts can make as part of a larger business model." Here Mike was not talking about giving Rock Band away for free, but rather selling t-shirts as a larger business model. As a college student I get t-shirts for free all the time, and I can tell you that giving things away for free (especially in my demographic) will make people take a second look at whatever the product is promoting.

    On another note, have you ever been to a career fair? There is free stuff on every table, because companies know that when free enters the equation, they get much more attention (not to mention free advertising when people show other what they got for free).

    Yes, Rock Band is expensive, ad the t-shirts are not free, but this article is part of a larger idea.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  15.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Oct 14th, 2008 @ 7:47am

    T - Shirts

    "T-Shirt sales . . . thats the sweetest plumb!" - Krusty the Klown

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  16.  
    identicon
    Twinrova, Oct 14th, 2008 @ 9:43am

    Re: Excuse Me, Twinrova

    I'll reply to this comment and the one above it, given most people totally skipped my point.

    Mike specifically stated this was a jab at those who "mocked" him during his discussions of freeconomics, which is totally outside the scope of this particular blog regarding tshirts.

    I could understand the blog IF Rock Band was free or the keychains, tshirts, etc. were free, but clearly this is a case of opening a brand new business market.

    In regard to the career fair offerings (or any other public outing), "swag" is advertising and its sole purpose is to get you to look. That's a given.

    But the swag isn't free (my original debate). Sure, you could take the swag, walk away, and never look back and you can claim it's free, but ask the consumers if they enjoy paying for your free swag with overpriced goods.

    There's always a cost to "free". It may not be direct, but someone's got to pay for the swag. I can not believe some of you believe these items are free, printing is free, and delivery to said location for distribution is free.

    The consumers of the company has paid for that swag, so enjoy it for "free". You'll be paying for someone's free swag in the future.

    While I do understand this is a good thing (hey, a business has to grow!), I draw the line at how much we consumers have to pay in order to generate stuff that's not to our advantage, such as decreased costs.

    In regard to Rock Band, they're making profits on these TShirts, etc., so why doesn't the cost of the game come down for new releases? (Not the price drop often seen later)

    If a consumer looks at what's paid for swag, advertising, and other "non-related to us but to make the business grow", you'll see why I debate the "freeconomics" here.

    Think about this: Take the number of McDonald's commercials you see every day and multiply by $250,000 (the average cost of a 30 second commercial). Now, assume this commercial runs 7 days a week, 365 days a year.

    Sum it up.

    Now price a filet-o-fish sandwich.

    The ad to you was free, but to those buying a fish sandwich, that's a pricey "free" product.

    Imagine, now, what the price of that sandwich would be if McDonald's quit running ads altogether, especially given they're one of the most recognized business on the globe.

    In gaming, this is often why consoles (excluding Nintendo) sell for much less than production cost because profits are generated through software sales.

    Same concept. The cost is just different.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  17.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Oct 14th, 2008 @ 1:39pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Financial Crunch

    I still think people would choose to pay for the music itself rather than a t-shirt or a fancy package if money was tight and they had to make a choice.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  18.  
    icon
    Aaron deOliveira (profile), Oct 15th, 2008 @ 5:18am

    Re: Re: Excuse Me, Twinrova

    it's gonna take me til later today, but i'll get a reply up to answer your points. this is definitely a good conversation. my response should be up this afternoon.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  19.  
    icon
    Aaron deOliveira (profile), Oct 15th, 2008 @ 10:23am

    Re: Re: Excuse Me, Twinrova

    The very first thing we need to do is distinguish between infinite and free. A lot of times in these kinds of discussions people use the 2 interchangeably. That's not quite correct to do so and often leads to confusion.

    Let's define an infinite good. An infinite good is something that can be reproduced endlessly. Once it is created, it does not need any new inputs, resources, etc. The second property of an infinite good is that as many people that want it can have it. Both of us possessing the same infinite good allows up both to benefit from owning it and doesn't detract from the others use of it.

    Here's an example of an infinite good. Before there was any electricity or computers or digital anything, there were infinite goods. Music is such a good. Once a song is created it can be reproduced endlessly with no new effort on the part of the creator. It can also be enjoyed by as many people as want it. When you learn a song you can sing it yourself. You singing it or sharing it does not prevent anyone else from singing or sharing it. Music is a good that does not take any more inputs to copy and allows as many people as want it to have it.

    Before we tangent into incentives to create music or other infinite goods, lets save that for later in the discussion.

    We need to take a slight tangent here to address the subject of zero. When it was first implemented throughout the world, it created a lot of confusion. It took societies ages to even recognize the number zero, it was considered heretical in some areas for a while. Zero caused all sorts of problems in that it didn't work like other numbers. It isn't a number. It's the absence of a number, and that screws up a lot of things. For thousands of years, it held back progress. You can't have advanced math or physics without an understanding of zero -- and the difficulty in accepting it was a real problem. Of course, for all of us who learned about zero in elementary school, this seems laughable. How could zero be such a difficult concept to understand? Except, as I read the book, it occurred to me that it's the exact same problem that was causing this breakdown in the discussion. It's incredibly easy to misunderstand zero in economics. That's because economics, we're often taught, is the "science of scarcity" or understanding resource allocation in the presence of scarcity. All too often, economics itself is defined by scarcity. The "zero" changes all of that. Plugging a zero into an equation that expects a non-zero sends it haywire (think of what happens when you divide by zero) -- and that leads people to think that the equation must be broken. So, for example, basic economics tells you that a free market will push prices towards their marginal costs. If their marginal costs are zero (as is the case with digital goods and intellectual property), then it says that price will get pushed towards zero. However, this makes people upset, and makes them suggest the model is broken when a zero is applied. They see a result where there is no scarcity, and it doesn't make sense to them since they've always understood economics in the context of scarcity.

    Because the cost of infinite goods is being driven toward zero it is disrupting several economic models. It is also creating several new and ultimately more profitable models. Economic models are configured in several different ways. Some economic models are designed to output a tangible good such as furniture, cars, etc. Other economic models are designed to output intangible goods such as music, software, etc. These intangible goods are also infinite goods. When you plug a zero into these economic models, things change radically. If you are producing a good that had an infinite good as an output such as music, software, etc. you are finding that all the money, time and resources you are spending is now returning zero. That is a broken economic model. That model has been disrupted.

    So what should someone with such an economic model do? If they realize that an infinite good is driving toward zero it makes a great input for other products and services. Several economic models are being built with infinite goods as an input. Specifically for businesses built with music as an input like Harmonix, they are not in the 'music business'. They are not trying to use music as an output and sell it. Rather they are using it as in input that adds value to other things they can sell. Specifically for Harmonix, they are selling a customized experience. They are using an infinite good music and another infinite good, their software, to create a scare good - the experience. They are also using the same infinite goods to add value to the peripherals they are selling. The peripherals are near worthless on their own, but when they are coupled with the infinite goods of music & software as well as the scare good of the experience, they too become valuable and people are willing to pay for them.

    Harmonix is also selling music as tracks for their software. They are able to sell music at a premium because they have bundled it with their other infinite good, the software. Record labels are having trouble commanding the same premium because they are selling music as a stand-alone output. Harmonix is giving people additional value for the music they purchase.

    So now lets get down to the issue of t-shirts and what Harmonix is doing with them. At no time has it been said that creating, printing or delivering the t-shirts is free. What has been said is that these particular t-shirts have an additional input in them beyond the cloth, sewing, printing & delivery. They have a connection to the custom experience that Harmonix has built. T-shirts on their own have a specific value determined by the market. Usually you can pick up several t-shirts for a few bucks. You could even find a way to print your own logo on them. There is however a cost to doing so. Time and resources. You must find all the resources necessary, printing tools, imaging software, in order to produce the t-shirt. You must also spend the time to create the output - a tshirt with your Rock Band logo on it. Harmonix is able to sell their t-shirts at a premium because of 2 things. They have already gathered the resources necessary to produce the scarce tangible good, in this case a t-shirt. That is the same for any business model. The 2nd they have is the connection to their custom experience. Those willing to pay $24.99 for a t-shirt with their custom logo on it feel that Harmonix has provided sufficient value to justify the price they will pay.

    And now to reply to some of your quotes specifically:

    "I could understand the blog IF Rock Band was free or the keychains, tshirts, etc. were free, but clearly this is a case of opening a brand new business market."
    You are entirely correct in your understanding of what is happening. Harmonix IS opening a brand new business market by selling key chains, t-shirts, etc. What is being pointed out is that this new business market is available to Harmonix because of their use of infinite goods. An economic model that uses infinite goods follows the same rules that other economic models follow. One of the major points in understand infinite goods is that they tend to open up multiple new markets and that incumbents should move to capture those new markets before they are disrupted by new entrants.

    "In regard to Rock Band, they're making profits on these TShirts, etc., so why doesn't the cost of the game come down for new releases? (Not the price drop often seen later)"
    Economic models vary. Introducing infinite goods does not change this. In Harmonix's case, they are using infinite goods, the free part, as an input. Their business model currently doesn't contemplate offering any outputs for free. Right now they are offering sufficient value to justify both the price of their software & peripherals as well as t-shirts. Lets look at some tangible goods for hypothetical examples. If there is a 2 star hotel offered and a 4 star hotel offered at the same price, most people would choose the 4 star hotel because it offers the better value at that particular price. Harmonix, and other companies that use infinite goods as an input have the ability to add more and more of the infinite good to their offerings of scare goods and increase the value of those scare goods. This will allow them to either command a premium price, like the t-shirts or better justify their current price.

    "Mike specifically stated this was a jab at those who "mocked" him during his discussions of freeconomics, which is totally outside the scope of this particular blog regarding tshirts."
    Mike was pointing out the irony of the situation. Mike had early on used t-shirts as an example of a scare good that could be made more valuable by being bundled with an infinite good such as music. He was mocked by people claiming that all businesses that were being disrupted by infinite goods couldn't rely only on t-shirts. They said that these companies would have to sell 'lots of t-shirts'. Mike and others have gone on to show numerous examples of how infinite goods work inside the economic models people already accept. When this article was posted, showing that Harmonix was in fact selling t-shirts much the way others had mocked earlier, Mike found it ironic that Harmonix was doing what others had said couldn't be done. Specifically make money selling t-shirts. Mike pointed out that it was also ironic because Harmonix's business is not dependant on selling t-shirts. Rather, the t-shirts are an additional revenue stream. Mike made a joke saying that Harmonix better sell 'lots of t-shirts' in order to stay in business. That was his jab.

    "In regard to the career fair offerings (or any other public outing), "swag" is advertising and its sole purpose is to get you to look. That's a given. But the swag isn't free (my original debate). Sure, you could take the swag, walk away, and never look back and you can claim it's free, but ask the consumers if they enjoy paying for your free swag with overpriced goods."
    I like the way you put it: "get you to look". Attention is a very, very valuable scare good in our day and age. Giving away swag to get attention is exactly what they're doing. In this particular model, there is a cost involved in giving away tangible goods for free. What happens when you introduce a zero into that model by replacing the tangible goods with infinite goods? Now you can give away as much as you want and little to no cost. Your input is infinite goods which can be free and your output is attention which is very valuable. There are several companies that are now figuring this out.

    "The consumers of the company has paid for that swag, so enjoy it for "free". You'll be paying for someone's free swag in the future."
    You are entirely correct. You will be paying for someone's free swag in the future. The point is to realize that this is not a problem. It is something to be embraced and capitalized on. Mike has gone over numerous examples of this on previous posts. I will give you won more. I recently attend the Texas Renaissance Festival. One of the acts that perform there is 2 singers called Iris & Rose. Before we were married, my wife had been a fan of them for years. She purchased all 6 of their CDs. While we were dating and through our marriage, I've been introduced to their music by my wife and become a huge fan. In this case because my wife already paid for all of their music and "shared" it with me, I will never purchase any of their products simply because I acquired them all when my wife shared with me. They will probably never make a dime off me directly. However, during this trip the to the Texas Renaissance Fair we go and attend all their shows. We're big fans. These shows are free. They make their money selling CDs and are paid a fee by the fair for their performances. So there I was watching the performance with several other people who had obviously never seen or heard them before. I was really into the show. I was singing along to all the music and since it was a live show, responding to what was happening onstage at the appropriate times for an audience response. I noticed that because I was so into it that it rubbed off on several of the people around me and they got into it as well. They were really enjoying themselves. When Iris & Rose announced that they had CDs for sale, these same people that I had just influenced immediately whipped out their wallets to purchase the CDs. Several of them purchased multiple CDs. I was not the only cause for their CD purchase, but my being a fan and having fun increased the value of the CDs to those that purchased them. Specifically they were able to experience Iris & Roses music and see it's effect. I have never paid a cent for any of Iris & Roses music, but they will profit from my continued attendance at all their shows. Now imagine that since it cost them nothing to promote themselves to me and if there were millions of people like me, how much more valuable would the music be to those who wanted to acquire it?

    "Think about this: Take the number of McDonald's commercials you see every day and multiply by $250,000 (the average cost of a 30 second commercial). Now, assume this commercial runs 7 days a week, 365 days a year. Sum it up. Now price a filet-o-fish sandwich. The ad to you was free, but to those buying a fish sandwich, that's a pricey "free" product. Imagine, now, what the price of that sandwich would be if McDonald's quit running ads altogether, especially given they're one of the most recognized business on the globe."
    You make your point correctly. Given the parameters you pointed out they would have the effect that you observed. The massive expense in this case is the advertising. McDonald's is paying for ad agencies time & expertise as well as paying for air time all over world. What would happen if because of infinite goods, McDonald's could have all of their advertising without having to pay for it. There are numerous examples on TechDirt of advertising and content being the same thing and engaging your customers to help create that advertising as well as help distribute. You correctly identified that right now advertising is a huge cost center for McDonald's. Their future use of infinite goods could change that.

    "Same concept. The cost is just different."
    Correct. correct. correct. None of the concepts change. Just the way business have to approach them does. Things like supply and demand are still in effect. The question is what happens when the supply becomes infinite?

    If nature has made any one thing less susceptible than all others of exclusive property, it is the action of the thinking power called an idea, which an individual may exclusively possess as long as he keeps it to himself; but the moment it is divulged, it forces itself into the possession of every one, and the receiver cannot dispossess himself of it. Its peculiar character, too, is that no one possesses the less, because every other possesses the whole of it. He who receives an idea from me, receives instruction himself without lessening mine; as he who lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  20.  
    identicon
    Band merchandising, Apr 10th, 2009 @ 11:33pm

    Band merchandising

    When the economy is shrinking the income will falter. In an career fair people will attract more towards free goods. It is one way of drawing attention.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]


Add Your Comment

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here
Get Techdirt’s Daily Email
Save me a cookie
  • Note: A CRLF will be replaced by a break tag (<br>), all other allowable HTML will remain intact
  • Allowed HTML Tags: <b> <i> <a> <em> <br> <strong> <blockquote> <hr> <tt>
Follow Techdirt
A word from our sponsors...
Essential Reading
Techdirt Reading List
Techdirt Insider Chat
A word from our sponsors...
Recent Stories
A word from our sponsors...

Close

Email This