Consumer Tips: How to navigate the Toys R Us liquidation
[UPDATED: 12/17/2018] TRU officially closed all remaining US stores as of mid-summer. This article is here simply for legacy reasons. Buh-Bye TRU and thanks for all the fun. We’ll miss you this holiday season.
If you’re thinking of visiting Toys R Us to take advantage of the store closing liquidation sales, this is your safety guide. Don’t throw your money away at Toys R Us, make every dollar count. Let’s explore.
Giving Gifts
Toys R Us’s liquidation is All Sales Final. The first tip is pretty straightforward. If you’re looking to buy a gift for a child, you are trying to stock up for the holidays or for any other rainy day reason, keep in mind that you cannot return, exchange or refund anything you purchase at this time. For gifts, this can be critical, particularly with children. You should always make sure that the person who receives that gift can return or exchange it if they don’t like it. Purchasing from Toys R Us on liquidation, you forfeit the return option.
Even if the gift is to be given while Toys R Us is still open, there are no refunds or exchanges. So, be aware that whatever gift item you choose is theirs to keep forever. You might want to be prepared to perform an exchange with your own money. Note that this can become an uncomfortable situation.
If you know there’s a possibility that your gift might be returned, you should buy from Amazon, Target or Walmart instead which leaves that option open for the recipient.
No Returns, Refunds or Exchanges
This goes hand-in-hand with All Sales Final. If you purchase items from Toys R Us during liquidation, you may get a great deal, but at the cost of no refunds, returns or exchanges. Make absolutely certain that what you buy is absolutely something you intend to keep.
Whether or not you intend to give the item as a gift, you should open the item and check it thoroughly. Do it in the store if at all possible. If it has batteries, make sure to test the item for functionality. You may not be able to test a battery powered item in the store, however. They may not allow you to remove the item from its packaging in the store to perform this test. You may have to take it home and check it there. By that time, you’ve already purchased and it’s too late if it’s defective. If you’re in doubt, leave it at the store.
If you do find a dead or defective item, you will need to contact the toy manufacturer directly and work your exchange through the manufacturer. Keep your receipt. This exchange process could take a whole lot more time than if you bought at a store still accepting exchanges.
Consider your purchases during a liquidation carefully. Do not purchase Toys R Us gift cards… but this should go without saying.
Extended Warranties
If you decide to buy an expensive item that could break easily, you should ask of Toys R Us to offer you a SquareTrade warranty plan. This will ensure you can get a replacement after Toys R Us closes. In preparation for this article, I spoke with a representative at SquareTrade who confirmed that they will continue to honor all SquareTrade warranties purchased at Toys R Us. If you do decide to invest in an expensive item that is prone to defects or breakage, you should also consider purchasing a SquareTrade warranty during liquidation.
Video Games and Video Game Consoles
Purchased video game content is a reasonably safe investment during the Toys R Us liquidation. It’s rare that a disc or a cartridge is defective.
On the other hand, purchasing a video game console or other video game hardware is a bad idea. If you must purchase one, purchase a SquareTrade warranty at Toys R Us to go with it (assuming they are still selling these warranty plans). If it’s not SquareTrade, then you should call the plan service provider before you check out at the store to ensure that insurance plan will continue to cover your purchase after Toys R Us closes for good.
Without an extended service plan, you have no replacement policy if it’s defective or gets broken. Be very cautious of buying video game hardware from Toys R Us during liquidation without a warranty. Though, you can try to work through the manufacturer warranty, it’s sometimes only 90s days. During liquidation, this is the one time where you should consider the purchase of a third party warranty, at least for purchases like video game consoles… particularly the Nintendo Switch which is portable and prone to being dropped.
However, certain types of lesser expensive video game hardware, like controllers, wires, Amiibo, cases, pens and other similar $30-$50 items are safer to buy, particularly when they are marked down 50% or more. However, consoles themselves, like the Nintendo Switch, Xbox One X and PlayStation 4 are not considered good investments from a liquidation sale.
I’d also suggest to avoid buying these devices from eBay as well because many will flood eBay listings from sellers who went to Toys R Us just to cash in on these low prices. If you’re thinking of buying a console from eBay, ask where it was purchased. Be wary if it’s from Toys R Us.
Dolls, Action Figures and Non-Battery Toys
Toys that don’t require batteries and don’t have complex moving pieces are some of the safer items to buy. They offer less defects and are more likely to last the test of time than RC vehicles, video game consoles, battery powered electric child cars, electric skate boards and other custom battery items.
Consumer Safety and Toy Recalls
Toys R Us was very good at keeping up with safety recalls. Unfortunately, they are going out of business. This also means that any toys you purchase during the liquidation that later fall under a recall, you can no longer return to Toys R Us. Like the All Sales Final discussion above, consider that items like cribs, baby items and other possible dangerous infant and toddler toys won’t have any place to go if they are recalled, especially if your baby gets hurt. Though, the manufacturer might honor a return or exchange, you will not be able to do so at Toys R Us. You will also not be able to make any legal claims of injury to Toys R Us once they have closed.
Safe or Unsafe Investment?
Here is a list (not exhaustive) of items that I consider safe, somewhat safe and not safe for a liquidation purchase so long as you fully understand that you cannot return or exchange them at TRU.
Note, safe, somewhat safe and not safe represent what I consider as a “safe purchase” (i.e., getting value for your money vs. throwing your money away), these labels do not describe whether the toy or item itself is safe for use by a child. You will have to determine toy safety yourself.
| Toy Type | Liquidation Safe Purchase? | Contains Battery? | Reason |
|---|---|---|---|
| Dolls | Safe | No | |
| Motorized Dolls | Not Safe | Yes | Prone to defects and can be unsafe No store warranty |
| Bicycles | Somewhat Unsafe | Depends | If you’re buying for a gift, unsafe. If you’re buying to use now, perhaps. If it has a battery, unsafe. TRU may or may not offer assembly. Use your best judgement. |
| Motorized Electric Kid Cars | Not Safe | Yes | Batteries can be defective May not be able to find replacement battery No store warranty |
| Action Figures | Safe | No | |
| Plush Animals | Somewhat Safe | No | Depending on what it’s made from, it may be safe or unsafe. Choose carefully. |
| Vinyl Figures | Safe | No | |
| Hot Wheels | Safe | No | So long as the Hot Wheels contain no batteries |
| Lego | Safe | No | So long as the Legos contain no batteries |
| Motorized Toys | Not Safe | Yes | Avoid motorized or electronic toys |
| Video Games | Safe | No | Games themselves are rarely defective |
| Video Game Consoles | Not Safe | Maybe | Could be defective No way to exchange No store warranty Choose 3rd party insurance plan if you must buy |
| Video Game Controllers | Somewhat Safe | Yes | Typically okay along with certain accessories. |
| Barbie | Safe | Depends | If the Barbie doesn’t contain a battery, this should be safe. If it contains a battery, make sure the doll is working before leaving the store. |
| Baby Toys | Depends | Depends | For safety reasons, I do not recommend buying baby toys and items via liquidation sales. |
| Diapers | Safe | No | |
| Cribs | Not Safe | No | Cribs can be dangerous for infants. Purchase at a store where you can return. |
| Car Seats | Not Safe | No | Car Seats can be dangerous for infants. Purchase at a store where you can return. |
| Skateboards | Safe | No | |
| Electric Skateboards | Not Safe | Yes | Avoid because of custom battery (replacement) |
| RC Vehicles | Not Safe | Yes | Avoid because of custom battery (replacement) |
| Tablets | Somewhat Safe | Yes | If Apple, you can rely on Apple. If another brand, avoid. |
| Wrapping Paper / Party | Safe | No | |
| DVDs and Blu-ray | Safe | No | |
| Toys To Life (Amiibo) | Safe | No | |
| Headphones | Not Safe | Depends | High chances for problems |
| Toys R Us Exclusives | Somewhat Safe | Depends | Avoid with custom batteries |
| Wooden Toys | Somewhat Safe | Depends |
Use Your Best Judgement
The above is not an exhaustive list, so always use your best judgement if it’s not listed here. If the toy contains no battery at all, it should be fine. If the toy contains or uses standard AA, AAA, C, D or button cell batteries, you’re fine. If the toy contains a lithium ion and/or custom battery, you should avoid purchase. Any toy that contains a custom battery may have been custom made for Toys R Us. This means you may find it difficult or impossible to find batteries later. House brand or Toys R Us exclusive toys requiring refill packs should be avoided. Toys and products for infants should be avoided for safety reasons. The only product I would suggest is safe for an infant is diapers and possibly formula as long as it’s a name brand, not a house brand.
Tablets and electronics should be avoided if not from Apple or another recognized brand. If it’s a house branded electronic item, avoid.
Toys R Us Exclusives
Toys R Us Exclusives are now considered rare. However, that doesn’t mean they’re a good investment. Pop figures are fine, exclusive Barbies are fine and exclusive Hot Wheels are fine (see the list above). However, any exclusives that require something that you can only get at Toys R Us (like batteries or refills), you should avoid purchase.
Toys R Us Geoffrey toys
These are likely to be some of the rarest toys available. If you want a piece of memorabilia to commemorate Toys R Us, you should head over fast and pickup whatever Geoffrey items you can find. If you’re looking for plush, you might have to ask at the service desk.
Happy Deals and good luck!
↩︎
Can Tesla survive?
Investors have been overly exuberant about Telsa. By that I mean, because Tesla set up shop in Silicon Valley rather than Detroit, many investors see Tesla as a ‘tech company’. Folks outside the Bay Area, however, see Tesla as a car company. Let’s explore.
Car Company vs Tech Company
For whatever reason, too many people see Tesla as a tech startup. The fact is, Tesla is in no way a tech startup. It is a car company. Tesla has, so far, provided no new tech to the world. Cars, in fact, are not in any way new technology. Worse, there’s nothing new about Tesla’s cars that have not been done before. The only claim to fame that Tesla has is its partnership with the Lotus design team to design and help produce the Tesla Roadster. If the Roadster looks amazingly like a Lotus Elise, now you know why. But, paying for someone else to design your vehicle’s interior and exterior isn’t innovative, it just means you have money.
Let’s also consider even though Tesla decided to go electric in its vehicles early on, it is by no means the first electric vehicle to market. Tesla’s decision wasn’t without a significant amount of peril or adversity, adversity that continues to this day. For example, gas powered cars have huge infrastructure around the globe to buy fuel. In 5-8 minutes, you’re fueled up and ready to go again for hundreds of miles on a single tank. Unfortunately, charging electric vehicle batteries is a laboriously slow process by comparison. Sure, even with a Tesla Supercharger, you’re still stuck charging your vehicle for at least 30 minutes to get a 65% charge (about 170 miles). If you want a 100% charge, you’ll be there a whole lot longer. If it’s not a Supercharger, then plan to spend a whole lot more time there.
If the 30 or so minutes you must wait is at a time when it’s convenient (i.e., you’re stopping for dinner anyway), then that’s great. If it happens to be when you’re pressed for time, you’re not going to be a happy camper. If you don’t plan your trip properly or if you get tripped up by construction, you may find yourself off course without a charging station handy. Then where are you?
So far, all of the things I’ve mentioned above have nothing to do with tech and everything to do with usability. Specifically, car usability. More specifically, car usability with regards to electric vehicles which charge slowly and offer very little nationwide infrastructure. This is the adversity that Tesla is up against.
Pushing Boulders Uphill
Tesla has a long way to go before the US has electric infrastructure at a saturation where electric cars can even come close to replacing gas powered cars. That’s not to say it can’t happen sometime in the future, but Tesla is pretty much alone in this and has given up several times along the way. Yes, Nissan, Toyota, Mini and Chevy have all introduced electric vehicles, but they are the outliers. They aren’t pushing for nationwide charging coverage. These vehicles have not yet become the bread-and-butter vehicles that keep these brands afloat. Every car manufacturer, other than Tesla, sells gas powered vehicles. With Tesla’s electric-only approach, it is sink or swim… and currently, Tesla is pretty much just treading water. Tesla hasn’t even tried hedging its bets by producing an alternative fuel assist hybrid to augment its slow recharge times and offer a vehicle with much longer distance. In fact, by not embracing such a strategy seems to be terribly remiss on their part.
For Tesla, this should be considered self-imposed adversity. Why not invest in producing a car that accepts natural gas, gasoline, alcohol or even hydrogen? I think we’ve already seen that Tesla has pretty much pushed the limits of its electric vehicle paradigm as far as it can go.
Expensive Bells and Whistles
I can hear the throngs of Tesla owners now… groaning at this article. Wake up! You bought a $100k commuter car. Sure, it has that nice 17″ (now dated) display in the middle of the dash and a few interior niceties, but it’s a car. A car is a car is a car. It takes you from point A to point B. Does it matter what bells and whistles it offers inside? You’re not buying the functionality of the technology, you’re buying the functionality of the car. Worse, it’s not that this technology hasn’t already existed in a car before Tesla and it will definitely exist in many cars in the future. Just look at the Prius. It’s not 17″, but it definitely had an in-dash display from the beginning.
Don’t be fooled by the Silicon Valley hype. Tesla isn’t a tech company, it is a car company. They don’t offer innovative technical solutions or innovative technical products. They offer a car (or rather, many models of cars). A car, I might add, that is from a brand that has yet to prove itself as a long term car brand. Let’s take the Saturn car brand as a prime example. When Saturn came about, its claim to fame was all of the hand-holding and attention they gave new car owners. Where is Saturn now? Dead. The company ceased producing cars in 2009 and closed its doors in 2010. Its sales model wasn’t sustainable. Its cars were mediocre.
Can Tesla Survive?
Is Tesla’s model sustainable? That depends on Elon Musk. Once Elon finally admits to himself, his employees and the rest of the world that Tesla is, in fact, a car company and not a tech company, he will be able to realize what he needs to do to take Tesla to the next level. The problem right now is that many investors in Tesla see them as a tech stock, not a car company. Tesla is not a tech stock. Let me repeat that. Tesla IS NOT a tech stock. Don’t fool yourself that Tesla is anything other than a car company, like any company out of Detroit or Japan or anywhere else in the world where car manufacturing exists.
Fundamentally, Tesla has been battling the infrastructure issue. Elon simply hasn’t been able to gain any substantial traction for Tesla’s electric plan throughout the continental United States. Sure, there are Tesla Supercharges in select areas, areas requiring you to plan your trip well in advance to ensure you can find chargers all along the way. If you find yourself off the Supercharger path, you could literally end up stranded in the middle of nowhere with no way to get a charge. If your car happens to break down, then what? Better have AAA with its longest distance towing option as you might find yourself sitting in the cab of a tow truck being hauled to the next Supercharger station.
Infrastructure has not been a friend at all to Tesla. Let’s understand a little better why. Electric cars, while they are clean vehicles, are not clean on the environment. Instead of pushing the pollution out of the tailpipe, it is now being pushed out of the exhaust stacks at electric generation facilities. Tesla (and other electric car makers) need to understand that the pollution doesn’t stop, it just moves to a different location. If California’s electricity were produced from 100% clean, renewable resources, I’d be writing something different here (at least for California). Instead, that’s a pipe dream. California still receives much of its electric generation from fossil fuels which is used to charge up a Tesla (or any electric plugin vehicle), less than ideal for pollution. This is why the government hasn’t hopped on board with bringing electric infrastructure to the forefront. On top of that, there’s no incentive from gasoline producers to push this agenda. So, where would those incentives come from? The government (and ultimately, all of us via our tax dollars). I don’t want to have to pay to build a huge electric infrastructure raising my taxes.
Tesla’s Failures
Ultimately, Tesla had planned to introduce a battery swap program to help reduce charge times. However, Tesla had to admit that this was a failed pipe dream. They were forced to drop the idea entirely. This is where Tesla made its first and most important mistake. Apple releases products that it feels are good for users. They don’t care if people like or dislike them. That was Jobs’s MO. He decided on behalf of the public what we should like. If you didn’t personally like it, you went someplace else. Tesla should have introduced the battery swap option in spite of the complaints, costs or problems. Push the idea out regardless. Drive the market to adopt the idea instead of caving into market pressures. This is where Elon completely differs from Jobs and Apple. Though, Jobs was arguably a marketing visionary. Elon is, at best, a huckster. There is literally nothing visionary at all about the Tesla cars being produced. Modern yes, visionary no.
Once you understand the difference between the words “modern” and “visionary”, you’ll quickly understand that what makes a Tesla vehicle attractive is its amenities. These same types of amenities are those that drive the sales of Lotus, Lamborghini, Maserati, Bentley, Cadillac, Mercedes Benz and even Lexus… i.e., luxury car brands. Tesla is less about being an electric vehicle and more about becoming a luxury car brand. Luxury is why you buy Tesla. That’s why you buy any type of luxury car. Again, don’t kid yourself. It’s not the technology, it’s the luxury. Luxury, I might add, that comes with a fairly steep price (both monetarily and time wise). Yes, it costs around $60k-$100k, but that’s not the half of it. You also spend a fair amount of time not even being able to use the vehicle because it’s hooked to the charger. With a gas powered vehicle, its downtime is measured in minutes. With Tesla, its downtime is measured in hours. When I say downtime, I’m strictly talking about the time it takes to ‘refuel’ it, not mechanical breakdowns which are a whole different bag.
Since most people don’t have Superchargers available at their homes, they are subject to longer charge cycles. This means you need to plan for this. Don’t come home on low charge and forget to charge it. You’ll be in a world of hurt the following day when you need to get to work. Tesla is a car brand that isn’t completely worry free. You must take the time to plan your day and when to charge. If you forget even once, you’re going to be late for work.
Tesla as a Commuter Car
Considering all of the above and the ~256 mile range on a charge makes Tesla not ideal for long distance travel, at least not without proper trip planning. It’s a great about-town car, but for long distance travel, I’d suggest owning a vehicle with a gas charger. A gas charger vehicle means you can stop at any gas station to refuel the power generator. Our alternative fuel infrastructure may not be optimal today, but it is the infrastructure we are stuck with for the moment. Trying to find alternative fuels like propane, hydrogen or natural gas could leave you just as stranded as electric alone. With a gas car, you can travel anywhere there is a gas station and refuel in minutes. This infrastructure is far and wide and everywhere.
Ultimately, this lack of electric infrastructure relegates Tesla vehicles to commuter cars as their best use case. For me, justifying spending $60-100k for a commuter car is way too much. Consider that for those of us who also live in apartment complexes means leaving our expensive Tesla vehicles sitting idle on dark parking lots to fully charge, then walking away. Not ideal. You pretty much have to own a home and install a Tesla specific charger to get decent charge times and know your car is safe. It’s also fairly inconvenient leaving your car sitting on a parking lot for several hours only to have to go back when it’s done and pick it up.
Many apartment complexes are way behind the times, but they are not the exception. Let’s consider the infrastructure that Tesla has built since the first Roadster was introduced. Let’s just say, it’s not much. It’s better than it was, but it is no where near where it should have been at this point. This is the primary reason Tesla will fail, unless they change their ideas and embrace the fact that they are not only car company, but a luxury car brand. This is the reason other car companies will do better than Tesla with their everyday electric vehicles. Tesla is a luxury brand that only families of a certain affluence can afford. Vehicles like the Nissan Leaf and the Chevy Volt are the everyday electric cars. These are vehicles that are both affordable and offer better value for the money than Tesla’s short distance expensive luxury vehicle.
Oh, but the Model X has gull wings you say? Really, that’s something you’re going to argue? Ok, let’s argue it. If you have kids, these doors are entirely unsafe for little fingers. Sure, Tesla may claim safety features, but do you really trust your kid’s little fingers against an electric door closing mechanism? Go ahead, I dare you.
Safety Track Record
Tesla is a fairly new car company founded in 2003. It never produced cars before 2006. Its first vehicle is the Tesla Roadster. Tesla has had difficulties keeping up with demand for the Roadster. Its first commercially successful vehicle was the Model S introduced in 2008, Tesla’s second model vehicle. Other models have since followed. And yes, I realize the ~$33,000 Model 3 is on the way… but they’re having production problems with this model. It could be years before you see your preorder.
Basically, what Tesla is making is all new without the benefit of years of manufacturing experience. This means that testing safety features in its vehicles may not be a top priority. Let’s consider the safety of lithium-ion batteries when in a crash. Actually, let’s scale that back a little. Just by poking a hole into your cell phone’s lithium-ion battery will cause noxious fumes, possible fire and/or explosion. Let’s scale that up to electric cars. If the battery in your Tesla is compromised due to an accident, you could easily find your car on fire, electrocuted or in an explosion. While this is not exclusive to Tesla’s electric cars, the size of Tesla’s batteries could make them particularly unsafe. It could also mean that if you’re injured in a Tesla, first responders may need to secure their own personal safety against your vehicle’s battery before using the jaws-of-life to extract you from the vehicle. This precious time lost could mean the difference between life or death.
You’re exposing your family’s safety to Tesla each and every day you drive it. Ford, Chevy, GM and even Toyota are brands that have existed for decades. These companies fully understand the concept of proper safety design and of recalls, lawsuits and defects. Unfortunately, Tesla has only had just a few years to gain this knowledge. Yes, they have hired seasoned industry vets to help get their vehicles to be their safest quickly, but the question isn’t what they added, but what they missed. They’re a new car company with new growing pains. Sure, you can hire expertise, but can you be sure of what you missed? Who really knows? Tesla has been relatively lucky that they have not yet seen an egregious safety failure on all of their vehicles. The question is, have they done it right or have they been lucky or it is just a matter of time?
Worse, could Tesla survive such an huge safety recall in all of their vehicles? Who really knows? Sure, their company is highly valuated, but that doesn’t mean they have the cash to support a massive lawsuit or an expensive recall. Ultimately, when you buy into Tesla, you’re buying into all of this. You should think long and hard about whether this is the car for you. Don’t buy it because it drives nice or because the seats are comfortable or because dashboard looks cool, buy it because it makes the most sense for your budget, the way you intend to use it and your family’s safety.
Can Tesla survive? This depends on whether they can truly get beyond their ‘tech company’ mentality. Tesla is a car company. At some point, they’ll have to admit this. Once they admit this, then they can truly begin to take their cars to the next level. If not, then perhaps Tesla is just a flash in the carburetor.
Toys R Us: Say Goodbye to an Era
For many, we grew up with Toys Я Us as the go to place to find that cool new toy, game, doll, action figure, Teddy Ruxpin, train set, learning toy, crayons, movie or even video games. Times are a changin’ folks and Toys R Us now finds itself way less than one Barbie away from permanent closure. Let’s explore.
Update from the News Desk — 2018-03-14
Toys R Us headquarters has apparently informed all US and UK employees on Wednesday, March 14th that all US and UK locations would be closed, a move that would lose 33,000 jobs. This would be one of the biggest retailer liquidations. CEO David Brandon intended to file paperwork to begin the liquidation proceedings on Wednesday.
From small to BIG to defunct
In the 70s, I remember toy stores primarily consisting of smaller retailers in malls, usually carrying Lincoln logs, wooden toys or learning toys. While I didn’t mind visiting these places, they felt more like a library than a toy store. They also didn’t carry much of the things that I liked. It wouldn’t be until sometime the mid-70s when a Toy R Us opened near my house. That’s when toy shopping all changed, at least for me.
I’m sure my parents hated taking me to Toys R Us, just as so many parents do. For us kids, it was like a day at Disneyland: a gold mine, a treasure trove, a place of dreams. Unfortunately, the parents were having none of it… or at least, as little as they could walk out of the store carrying. Good on them, but that didn’t make Toys R Us any less magical to a 8-10 year old. We loved it, we loved going there and we especially loved it when we got to take something home with us.
Geoffrey
I was never a super big giraffe fan, but Geoffrey was a fun and charming mascot constantly pointing out cool new things in the store. I would come to see Geoffrey as cute mascot designed to help me find new stuff. Not always, but a good bit of the time. Sometimes he was just present, like Mickey Mouse. That Giraffe always made me smile because I knew that I was at that magical place, like Disneyland but local. Over the years, Geoffrey began being used less and less by TRU, but he’s still considered their mascot.
Every once in a while, Toys R Us would offer an enter-to-win a fill-your-cart shopping spree. I always wanted to win one of those as a child, but alas never did. To think what I would have filled my cart with. The mind boggles, if only because some of those toys are considered highly collectible today. Though, those toys most assuredly would not have remained closed in their packaging after making their way home.
Growing Up
As I grew into my 20s, got my own car and job, my relationship with Toys R Us changed. No longer was it that magical place, but it now had firmly become a store and I was a consumer. Still, it was a place to go to find that hot new toy that everyone’s talking about. It also became the place to find computers and video games. If I couldn’t find it at Target or Kmart or, later, Walmart, I could almost certainly find it at Toys R Us or Kaybee or Children’s Palace (competitors at the time) and to a much lesser degree FAO Schwarz. Toys R Us was always the first place to go, then the others as they were less reliable.
Dominoes
As the competitors fell over one at a time, first Children’s Palace in 90s, FAO Schwarz in early 00s, then in the middle 00’s, Kaybee Toys, Toys R Us was still standing and, in 2009 would acquire the FAO Schwarz brand, but would sell it off in 2014. It was (and currently is) the place to go to find all things toys. Unlike Target and Walmart that choose to stock limited toy items, Toys R Us (like the previous Children’s Palance and Kaybee) still carries aisle after aisle of wide ranging toys you can only find at Toys R Us. You simply can’t find this selection of toy items at a discount department store. This is why I always ended up at Toys R Us in search of fun, exciting new things.
The Mistakes
Throughout the later years, I’ve grown a love-hate relationship with the Toys R Us chain. Not only because I worked there for a short time while in my 20s, but also because the management does a lot of things that don’t make sense. For example, Babies R Us. For a time, Toys R Us stores devoted half of their space to baby goods. I don’t have a baby, so there’s no interest in that. Yet, Toys R Us decided to kill half of their store space to devote to these products. This meant, less space for toys, games and other items.
I understand that the management wanted to expand their selection into babyland, but it was a mistake to take away valuable Toys R Us aisle space to devote to all-things-baby. This, in my opinion, was one of the biggest mistakes the Toys R Us management foisted upon its stores. That was, until they finally spun Babies R Us into its own stores and gave it its own space.
Later, the management decided to do away with separate Babies R Us stores and chose to abut the two stores together for one seamless one-store experience. That was at least better than taking away shelf space from an already cramped toy store, but even that was unnecessary and, in my opinion, a mistake. They can be next to each other, but walled off and separate stores with separate stock and separate staff. I know why they did chose to hook them together. They did it so they could use one set of checkout lanes, one set of cashiers and one set of staff to stock both stores.
The X
At around the time that Babies R Us was coming into its own as a separate store chain, Toys R Us decided to change its shelving layout. Instead of the more logical long rows running from the front to the back of the store (with middle store aisle breaks) which made it easy to find everything, the store layout designer decided to change the aisles to be side to side and then create X shaped rows in the middle of the store. Not only were these rows much harder to navigate, the layout of the aisles were crippled as a result. This layout made finding things incredibly hard and it seemed like they had less shelf space.
Not only was everything now moved around haphazardly, it made finding what you’re looking for overly hard. Meaning, now you had to navigate the whole store looking at everything just to find that thing.
Maybe the designers thought this was a good idea? It wasn’t. This is the second mistake from Toys R Us management.
Overbuying and Stocking the Wrong Toys
I don’t know how many times I visited Toys R Us in the 90s only to find the same toys every time I visited, sometimes months apart. These we affectionately call peg warmers. This mistake continues to plague Toys R Us to this day. Not only did Toys R Us have incredible buying power way back when, they just didn’t use it to their advantage. Instead, they would continually overbuy on dud toys and not buy enough on the hot toys.
You can’t sell toys that you don’t have in stock. For example, Cabbage Patch kids. When that craze hit, they couldn’t keep them on the shelves. You’d think Toys R Us could have negotiated with the manufacturer and buy 10x the amount they originally bought… simply so they could fill the demand. Sure, there might be a drought while the manufacturer created more, but eventually they would have enough stock quickly to satisfy demand. Alas, they didn’t and the shelves remained bare until the toys were so cold you couldn’t even give them away. Too little, too late.
Further, Toys R Us needed to let the local managers order stock for their specific location to stock toys that are regionally hot. Not every toy sells the same in every store, yet Toys R Us felt the need to send cookie cutter stock out to every single store. If you walked into a Toys R Us in any state, you’d see identical stock. Each store manager needed to be given free reign to specifically order stock in sizes that made sense for amount of local demand they were seeing for a given toy item. If they couldn’t keep a specific skateboard stocked, then the manager should be able to order the proper amount to cover the local demand from their store. In fact, stores that couldn’t sell the item should have shuffled the stock over to stores where the demand was high. That’s smart inventory management. Nope.
Store managers should also be able to nix slow selling items from their shelves and replace it with hotter selling toys. Why continue to carry that obscure toy that you can’t even clearance out when you can sell 100x as many Tickle Me Elmos? Having great selection is fine as long as you’re not stocking 50 of an item you can’t even give away. Again, smart inventory management people. Stock them in small quantities, sure, but not in the quantities that each store was getting. Shuffle extra stock to other stores that have none. Remember, I worked there, I saw the stock amounts in the stock room.
Nope. Toys R Us continued to make this mistake year after year.
Over-expansion
Nearly every business thinks they should open as many stores as physically possible. But, you can’t do this when most of your stores are operating in the RED. Toys R Us was no exception. This chain continually felt the need to open new stores rather than trying to shore up their existing stores and get them each to an individually profitable status. If the management had stopped their expansion plans and, instead, focused their efforts on making each store profitable by the end of Q1 each year, Toys R Us would not be in this predicament.
Dated Store Displays
Not too long ago (perhaps early 00s), Toys R Us did away with the X aisle layout and converted them back into horizontal rows once again. However, the aisles now run left to right in-store rather than the original front to back design (which was arguably its best floor plan). Unfortunately, their fixtures are all incredibly dated pegboard and 70s style metal fixtures. They look like they’re straight out of a 70s store… even when the store is brand new. Maybe these are the cheapest fixtures they can buy? No idea, but they don’t look modern.
The store is also incredibly jam packed with stuff. The shelves are always full of stock yes, but it doesn’t help when the stock is old and is sitting on dated shelving units lit by 70s style fluorescent lighting fixtures.
The Business
Here’s Toys R Us’s primary operational problem and the problem that ultimately leads to where we are today. Toys R Us always relied on the holiday shopping season to pull its stores into the black. Meaning, Toys R Us always operated its stores in the RED through 80-90% of the year hoping for the holiday season to pull each store up and out and operate in the black for that year. This was the chain’s primary mistake. This operating model had been ongoing since the 80s. This was the way that TRU intentionally chose to operate its stores. This was also entirely their biggest operating failure and it’s the mistake that is now what’s threatening closure and costing TRU its business.
In addition to operating in the red, Toys R Us also didn’t wield its buying power to get the best possible credit terms, the best possible deals and the best possible return arrangements. If a toy doesn’t sell, package it up, send it to another store that can sell it or send it back to the manufacturer for full or partial credit. Let the manufacturer deal with that stock rather than trying to organically clearance out items on the shelves years later. No, get these old toys off of the shelves to make way for new toys. Fill the shelves with toys that can sell and that will pay the bills.
If you can’t pay your bills, you can’t stay in business. Business 101. Yet, Toys R Us management felt that they were above these rules. The management team felt they could continually run their stores in the red without ramifications. Well, fate has now caught up with you, Toys R Us.
Being Acquired by Private Equity Firms
Because of the way Toys R Us chose to operate its stores, it could not support being acquired in this way. This acquisition was entirely shortsighted on the part of the private equity companies involved and they (and us consumers) are the ones who are now paying the ultimate price.
In 2005, Toys R Us was acquired by a set of private equity firms. These firms included KKR & Co., Bain Capital and Vornado Realty Trust in a $7.5 billion buyout deal. These three companies (and their investors) sank $1.3 billion of their own funds into the purchase, leaving the rest of the purchase price of $6.2 billion to be made up in loans. These loans saddled Toys R Us with an over $6 billion debt burden. A debt that, because of the rather nonsensical business model that the stores had been following since the 80s, could never be recouped. All of this leads to…
Bankruptcy
In late September 2017, Toy R Us filed for bankruptcy protection against its creditors. This means that its creditors can no longer go after Toys R Us for not paying bills. It also meant that the loans left over from that terrible 2005 buyout deal could no longer collect on those loans. Of course, in return for this court issued bankruptcy protection, the company has chosen Chapter 11 to work through a plan to reorganize in a way to get themselves back to profitability and pay their creditors over time before time runs out. For the Toy R Us management, that meant finding a suitor to buy the business… because, of course, they couldn’t be bothered with actually trying to restructure the stores in a way to make them profitable. Oh, no no no.. that’s just too much work.
What? Are you kidding? Are you really expecting some well funded company to swoop into this ailing business holding onto a mountain of debt and offer to buy you? Really? The way that TRU operates is textbook operating procedure for failure. It cannot continue to operate in the way that it does. Even closing half of the stores may not be enough to solve this operating problem. It’s only surprising that it took this long for this toy chain to make it to this point. I expected this day to come a lot sooner.
Toy Collectors and Toys R Us
I full well expected to see Toys R Us fail in the 90s. However, Star Wars saw to it to keep Toys R Us in business. The Star Wars collectors came out in wild abandon to snap up tons of revamped Star Wars merchandise for not only the previous trilogy (including the Orange and Green carded Power of the Force series), but also snapping up the then new prequel trilogy toys. These toys still remained hot even after 1983’s Return of the Jedi cooled down. It all heated up again when the Prequels began in earnst in 1999 (toys beginning to appear in stores about a year earlier). Toys R Us got a reprieve from their red ledger problems due primarily to Star Wars collectors, Hasbro and a few other unrelated hot toys during the 90s (Tickle Me Elmo). Almost every year, there was some new fad that kept Toys R Us’s year end strategy in check. Though, this strategy would ultimately fail them when, in the last 10 years or so when there just haven’t been those must-have toys or collectible Star Wars toys. Even the Zhu-Zhu pets weren’t enough. Even the latest Star Wars trilogy from Disney has not had the merchandising power that the 90s saw. Though, Disney isn’t crying over what they have sold.
In fact, I’d venture to guess that the 90s collectors have all but stopped collecting and have moved on with their lives… which put a huge crimp in the Toys R Us budget. In fact, during the collector heyday of the 90s, Toys R Us did their very level best to chase away the collectors. Much to their own chagrin, they succeeded in doing so by the mid-2000s. It also doesn’t help that collectors can now buy full cases directly from places like Entertainment Earth, which no longer meant the need to scour the pegs at Toys R Us in the wee hours of the morning. You could order cases directly from the comfort of your own home, then see them delivered to your doorstep.
Amazon and Online Shopping
Because of the power of the Internet, Amazon and eBay, it’s pretty easy to find that hot toy at more reasonable prices. Yes, Toys R Us is still a staple in the current shopping landscape. When it closes, both Amazon and Entertainment Earth will simply pick up where Toy R Us left off without missing a beat. If anything, I’d suggest that Amazon pick up the Toys R Us branding at a fire sale during liquidation and rebrand the Amazon toy section to Toys R Us. Keep the TRU brand alive, but not with all of that bloated store baggage. Then, dump the Babies R Us brand entirely. You can still sell baby things, but branded as Toys R Us.
Toys R Us Closing
As I said, I have a love-hate relationship with Toys R Us. I do enjoy visiting and seeing what’s new, but every time I walk into a store, I’m confronted with the dated shelving and decoration, the continual nagging reminder of just how careless the management is and how much of a wasted opportunity that Toys R Us was when it could have become the biggest most profitable toy chain in the world. Yet, they’ve failed.
If Toys R Us can manage to pull a rabbit out of a hat at the last minute and keep the lights on, I’ll be fine with that. Sadly, I think this is likely where it will all end for Toys R Us.
Gift Cards or Rewards — Use em’ or lose ’em
If you have any remaining unused gift cards from Toys R Us, be sure to visit a store now and use them immediately. Don’t wait until after Toys R Us begins closing its stores.
Likewise, if you have any rewards points left on your rewards card, log into Toys R Us Rewards, issue certificates and use them up now. Same for Babies R Us Cashback Endless Rewards program. Otherwise, forfeit your chance to convert those points into dollars. Representatives for Toys R Us have said that they will honor gift cards, rewards points and cashback programs for 30 days. The 30 day clock likely began on Wednesday March 14th, when they filed their liquidation paperwork with the court.
I guess in an odd way, I do kind of get that shopping spree after all, and many years later. I just found that I have over 2500 points in my rewards account. That equates to a $100 shopping spree.
For my $100 in rewards points, I got a Nintendo Monopoly set, a Care Bear Grumpy Bear, Two Schliech Geoffrey branded figurines, 5 different Halo Hot Wheels, a Pit Amiibo, a Pain-Yatta Skylander, a Playmation Vision figure and two Geoffrey branded reusable shopping bags. I ended up paying $9 to cover the tax. I also bought a $5 Geoffrey gift card and immediately used it to get dock protector straps for a Nintendo Switch. I wanted the Geoffrey branded gift card as a souvenir. I’d also previously purchased the day before, two Geoffrey 18″ plush and one Geoffrey plush gift card holder, which I’ll put that used Geoffrey gift card in.
Returns and Exchanges During Liquidation
Check any purchased merchandise thoroughly for defects the same day you buy it. If there are any problems, return it the same or next day and exchange it. Don’t wait even a few days to exchange as you may not be able to find the same item. According to Toys R Us representatives, all sales are final. This means, no refunds. However, they may continue to honor exchanges for a period of time. If you’re uncertain of any of this, ask for details at the service desk before you buy.
If you’re thinking of shopping for gift items, you might want to buy elsewhere. Buying a gift for someone could mean the gift recipient can’t return or exchange the item. You don’t want to force a gift onto someone when it’s not something they want only for them to find they cannot return it.
Be that Toys R Us Kid one last time
If you grew up visiting and are as fond of Toys R Us as I am, I’d suggest for you to take a few minutes out of your day and visit your local Toys R Us to reminisce about the good ole days. Once the liquidation sales start, they’re quickly going to look like half-filled shells of a store. Note that the deadline for Toys R Us to find a buyer is early April of 2018, so visit them quick. You have less than a month.
You might even want to pick up a souvenir, such as a plush Geoffrey, to remember what was Toys R Us and what it meant to us as kids. If you want a plush Geoffrey, ask at the Customer Service desk. It seems they keep them there for some reason.
Biggest Failed Kickstarter Projects
Even though there have been successful projects on Kickstarter and Indiegogo, projects have also failed for a variety of reasons. Some projects are outright scams solely designed to part you from your money. Let’s explore 11 of these extreme failures.
Don’t Believe The Hype
There are many, many hucksters out there. They can be anywhere in the world from China to Silicon Valley. When you see something that seems too good to be true, it probably is. If you choose to back any projects on Kickstarter or Indiegogo, you need to be 100% prepared to lose all money you offer to back a project. Not all projects succeed and this article aptly proves that not everyone in this world is out to make good on their promises. Without further adieu, let’s dig right into the first failure…
11. Holo Cow, Batman!
The product creator H+ purported its Kickstarter Holus 3D display idea to be a unique new 3D holographic display technology. The Holus was a Kickstarter campaign in 2015 that touted lots of false claims. The idea is that the images would appear in 3D in real-time as a holograph. Unfortunately, that’s not what the pitch video shows. This Kickstarter campaign amassed CA $297,790 from 496 backers.
Let’s watch this professionally produced pitch:
What went wrong?
Note the still image on the video above. You can see the image passes beyond the edge of the pyramid corner seamlessly. This is not possible. The video uses 3D rendered imagery as an effect, not a physical working prototype which lead to false and misleading information. This is not, in any way, a holographic display. Instead, on the top of this device, there’s a flat panel LCD screen (probably cheap one) that reflects one of 4 different flat images into each side of the glass pyramid. This makes it look like the image is ‘floating in space’, but it is not in any way a 3D holographic experience. This is an entirely scammy device for how it was sold to the backers. People were roped by the hyperbole and backed this project. Suffice it to say, not everything is always as it seems on Kickstarter.
This device is not even an original idea, nor does it offer holographic imagery. Let’s also consider that you can go to Amazon and buy this less than $10 device for your phone which essentially does exactly the same thing as The Holus. There are even models of this device for less than $4 if you really want to go cheap. These display enhancing devices existed long before H+’s idea. This is definitely one that attempted to pull the wool over the eyes of the backers with false claims. There’s now even an arcade game named Crazy Tower that uses this “pseudo-holographic” technology for its display. It’s not 3D either.
Apparently, H+ is still in business trying to hawk this thing. You can visit their web site at hplustech.com. Holo promises seem to be all the rage, let’s scam on.
10. Backpackin’ To The Bank
This next failure, Backzips, was a Kickstarter project that used the take-the-money-and-run approach. This project raked in all told, over $168,000 between Kickstarter and Indiegogo backers. The idea was allegedly to create a backpack that was made of Kevlar, had USB ports, sported an up to 12,000 mAh battery pack and a zipper located in such a way so as to secure your belongings inside from prying hands behind you.
What went wrong?
Suffice it to say, the delivery date(s) came and went, then came and went again over and over. There are 1,495 backers who’ve left over 1012 backer comments on Kickstarter with no answers. November, 16, 2016 was the last time backers heard from the project’s creators. Suffice it to say, that money is not coming back.
After one KS backer later found what appeared to be the same exact bag on sale at Aliexpress, he contacted the seller to get the story. Here’s what the seller had to say:
I am a backpack distributor in China. I suffered the same situation with you. I ordered 100pcs from KS, but I still didn’t receive it. Unfortunately I did pre-sale in domestic market, my customers pushed me from Nov, I don’t want to lose my reputation in China, It is very important for us to do business. so I tried to contact the manufacturer of this bag per the info on KS “same manufacturer with samsonite”, I know that factory, it is famous in China, so I contacted them, I was told that they did have 2000 stocks in warehouse, waiting for their customer to pick them up. They can’t sell to us directly, they have signed contract, but if we need, they can make as they have material stock, so I negotiated with them, placed 500pcs order with them directly. they don’t accept order less than 1000pcs of each color, I am lucky because there is rest material. now I can hold my Chinese customers, but i am waiting my products from KS also.
Apparently, the Backzips Kickstarter project creator even appears to have stiffed the manufacturer. They apparently sent a deposit to create 2000 pieces and then never showed back up to pay for the finished bags, leaving the manufacturer holding the bag (2000 to be exact). Looks like the project creator screwed over everyone all around.
Let’s watch the Pitch video:
Don’t go digging out your wallet for this one, lest you become like the 1,495 other Kickstarter backers who got ripped off backing this project. Just keep your wallet firmly closed and your eyes open as we continue to the next beefy failure.
9. Where’s the Beef?
The Kobe Red Kickstarter campaign led by creators Magnus Fun actually had its plug pulled just before the campaign closed and before the project creator(s) got their money. Kobe Red was project to offer Kobe beef jerky that’s so tasty, “omg im licking my fingers in public” or so the text testimonial goes. The product was supposed to be the world’s first “100% Japanese Beer Fed Beef Jerky.” Yeah, right. The project amassed over $120,000 in pledges from 3,252 backers.
The project creators never put up any substantial backing material to support the claims that they could, in fact, make this beef jerky, but they apparently did put up excited videos about how great it would all be. Unfortunately, I am unable to find a video for this particular almost-scam. The creators “Magnus Fun” deleted their Kickstarter account and along with it, their videos (which didn’t seem to make it to YouTube).
What went wrong?
It would ironically be another Kickstarter funded project that got the plug pulled on Kobe Red. That other project was Kickstarted. It was a documentary film crew investigating Kickstarter projects and just so happened to investigate this project at the time Kickstarted was being filmed. As a result of the fishy problems surrounding the Kobe Red campaign, these documentary filmmakers brought their information to the attention of Kickstarter staff, who summarily pulled the plug just before that $120,000 ended up in the bank account of Magnus Fun.
In this case, the backers didn’t get screwed and the would-be scammer got nothing… lucky Kickstarter backers. Sometimes justice is best served with a side of 100% Japanese Beer Fed Beef Jerky. Let’s jerky on over to the next failure.
8. Burn me Once, Burn me Twice
The Laser Razor is a now-suspended Kickstarter campaign that managed to amass over $4 million in backing from over 20,000 backers, but couldn’t come close to delivering a working prototype. While the razor does have a cool look, I’d personally have been skeptical of this project (and the device), particularly after having watched that semi-amateur video. Just look at the quality of this video and tell me if you trust any of the people shown in it?
Let’s Watch:
While the video shows off a prototype of sorts, notice that it has a wire. That wire apparently is a small fiber transmitting the laser and may be enough to ‘cut’ the hair. Unfortunately, that fiber is incredibly fragile. The razor also can’t be used against the skin. It must precariously balance above the skin. If you go too fast or try to cut too many, the fiber breaks. If they had managed to actually make this thing work in a reliable way, it would ultimately be similar to a laser hair removal device. However, it wouldn’t be bright enough or go deep enough to affect the follicle in the pore. Instead, it would just lase the hair shaft from the surface of the skin. Unfortunately, this laser would likely be strong enough to burn the skin. Additionally, such a laser would likely be just dangerous enough to need eye protection while using it. Not something you’d really want to don every morning just after getting out of bed.
As a result of the lack of producing a functional and necessary Laser Razor prototype to satisify Kickstarter rules, the Kickstarter staff suspended the project before the creators received any money. Yet again, the backers were lucky. This is a bit unusual considering that the project had over 20,000 backers with over $4 million in funding. With $4 million on the table, you’d think that the creators should have been able to hire an engineer capable of pulling off a truly functional prototype. Nope.
After the project was suspended by Kickstarter, Skarp moved this campaign over to Indiegogo for a second campaign where it raised over $500,000 from over 2,700 backers (a far cry from what they raised on Kickstarter), but still not a slouchy number.
What went wrong?
In 2016, CNET visited Skarp to see if the prototype that Skarp had created actually worked. According to CNET, while it did cut individual hairs, it also broke during the demonstration. So, there’s that. Skarp did receive its funds from Indiegogo, but apparently Skarp is not willing to refund anyone. They have also, so far, not delivered anything functional.
Let’s watch this CNET report:
Skarp was apparently to deliver its first product in 2016, it is now 2018 and Skarp still hasn’t delivered anything. Skarp could have engineered a better standard razor in all that time while still working on their flagship product. At least release something. Skarp’s web site is still active at www.skarptechnologies.com, so someone’s still paying the bills on that. I guess it’s all of those Indiegogo suckers.. er… backers. Let’s try not to get razor burned again, m’kay?
7. Kanoa Borrow A Light?
When it comes to earbuds, Apple pretty much has it sewn up for the wireless category. There are few headphones that beat the functionality and quality of the Airpods (even as stupid as they look while wearing them). The Bluetooth connection to the phone or whatever, for the most part, is rock solid. There is the occasional drop out, but nothing too bad. They charge fast and they usually connect pretty fast.
However, Kanoa tried to create a set of wireless earbuds to compete with Apple’s Airpods via an Indiegogo campaign. They thought they could do better. Unfortunately, the Indiegogo campaign page is not available due to ‘pending review’, so I will have to write out the details about what it is rather than showing you the pitch video. The Earbuds touted a charging case, a small design, supposedly rock stable connectivity and app-controllable noise cancelling.
To prove their worth, Kanoa sent a pair of Truly Wireless Earbuds to a YouTuber to give an honest (ahem) review about them. When the YouTuber tried to use them, they failed in pretty much every conceivable way.
Here’s a 30 minute video Cody Crouch from iTwe4kz channel telling his story of these headphones:
TL;DW — I’ll cut to the chase for you, you can come back and watch the whole thing later.
What went wrong?
Cody found that pretty much every feature that he tried to use had some kind of problem. The headphones paired to the phone fine. But, the earbuds wouldn’t pair to the app so he couldn’t control the noise cancelling feature. After several hours of screwing with them and a call to the company, he got it working. Then, when he tried to use the noise canceling feature, it failed with constant loud feedback when he turned the outside noise level up to above 60%. After that, the earbuds wouldn’t charge in the charging case properly and needed to be reset, but there was a complication because the charging case was itself charging. He had to unplug the charging case to charge the earbuds. When he went outside to film part of the review, he tried to use them with the phone in his back pocket while on a skateboard. The earbuds wouldn’t work when he turned his head. They would disconnect. While he was on the phone with Kanoa working out these problems, the earbuds produced static.
He ultimately had conversations with the company about all of these problems and Kanoa eventually conceded to these problems by attempting to pay him $500 to create a good review of these earbuds. That’s when Cody gets really triggered. He then posts the above video stating what garbage the headphones really are.
After his video posted, the company shutdown and closed stating:
Capital funding is essential for ramping up production. Unlike on typical crowdfunding platforms we allowed backers to ask for refunds at any time. This policy kept us honest, but also added vulnerability once we had made major financial commitments. Setbacks and some bad publicity, like reviews of non-shippable beta units, stirred our audience. Most significantly and to our unpleasant surprise, our investors recently backed out of our funding round. We do not blame them, but this was a pivotal setback since capital was essential for ramping up production …Unfortunately, without that investment, we do not have enough capital to stay operational while we find a solution.
This carefully crafted statement basically sums it all up. Cody’s YouTube review caused, at least according to this statement, their financial backers to pull any further support and they had to close their doors. In 2018, their web site is down.
The moral here is not to request YouTube folks review your product, particularly if your product is not ready for general consumption. Just put the item onto the market and let the chips fall where they may. In this case, it’s probably best that Kanoa folded based on how junky and janky these earbuds were. Kanoa move to the next one now?
6. Fly Me to the Moon
Another failed Kickstarter project named Zano by its creator Torquing wanted to build a tiny drone that claims to be an autonomous, intelligent, swarming, nano drone. After all, drones have been around for quite a while, even super tiny ones. The drone would also contain lots of bells and whistles including a camera. Basically, instead of a bunch of cumbersome controls, the drone would follow your phone around taking pictures for about 15 minutes at a time. So, what’s wrong with this drone? That’s what the Kickstarter team wanted to find out after the drones sucked so badly they couldn’t fly properly. This Kickstarter project amassed $3.4 million in pledges from more than 12,000 backers.
Let’s watch their original pitch:
What went wrong?
In addition to various supplier problems, once Zano began shipping in Septemer of 2016, the company decided to ship the drones to pre-order customers rather than backers, which angered many. The few drones that did end up in the wild angered their owners for entirely different reasons. They didn’t work well. Sometimes the units would take off and land immediately. When they did stay in the air, they would randomly veer off course crashing into something. The drones also appeared to have no obstacle avoidance system as promised. Basically, all of the diatribe promised in the video never became reality. It was a bunch of smoke and mirrors.
According to Gizmodo, by November 2016 and as a result of all of the drone problems, Torquing declared bankruptcy. Along with that bankruptcy, so dried up the $3.4 million from all of the pledges. So ends the saga of the Zano and all of the money they raked in. Let’s drone on.
5. Deal Me Out
How hard is it to create a deck of cards? In 2012, Altius Management put up a Kickstarter campaign to produce ‘horrific’ playing cards on Bicycle playing card paper. This project amassed just over $25,000 from 810 backers. What happened? Altius Management couldn’t deliver on decks of simple playing cards. By 2015, this project was part of a lawsuit which a judge ordered the company to repay a portion of the money it had collected from Kickstarter.
Let’s watch their pitch video:
What went wrong?
Not sure entirely, but Ed Nash of Altius Management failed to deliver on the decks of cards for over 3 years. By 2015, a court had issued a judgement against Mr. Nash to repay the damages. Though, at the same time, Mr. Nash began making good on the orders and backers began receiving their decks. It was too little, too late for Mr. Nash. The court judgement still stood regardless of the decks being delivered.
Here’s one case where the backers were able to get at least something for the lack of delivery. Nope, no Aces up my sleeve, but there might be a Joker in this next failure.
4. Tripping the Light Fantastic
Here’s another Kickstarter campaign that started with grand plans. This time the creators Central Standard Timing promised to produce the thinnest watch in the world. It is called the CST-01. This watch is … well, let’s watch the video:
I know this one looks cool, but don’t pull your wallet out lest you become another of this project’s victims. This Kickstarter campaign amassed over $1 million dollars from over 7,600 backers.
What went wrong?
Apparently, the manufacturing process for this watch was a whole lot more complicated than anticipated. In 2015 after a whole lot of silence from the creators, the watch’s team posted a comment stating that the watch would be delayed due to losing their manufacturer. Not long after that notification, the company filed for bankruptcy.
$1 million dollars up in smoke. Some reporters claim it wasn’t malice, but that the company was in over its head. I don’t buy that. These companies know what it’s going to take to manufacture the product before they ever get to Kickstarter. If they don’t, they shouldn’t even be there. This should be question #1 from Kickstarter staff before ever listing a project of this nature. Time marches on.
3. Oh yeah? Oh, No!
Let’s now examine what might be considered one of the biggest crowdfunding successes that also became one of the biggest failures: Ouya. Though, the biggest failure award would actually go to #1 on this list. This console, conceived by Julie Uhrman, was touted to be the next best thing since sliced bread. Yet, what it turned out to be is a sluggish disaster worse than a generic $40 Android tablet. The Ouya began its dream as a Kickstarter campaign and ended as one of the biggest crapfests to come out of a Kickstarter.
Let’s watch their pitch video (note the mix of professional and amateur content):
The Ouya Kickstarter campaign amassed over $8.6 million dollars from 63,416 backers. That’s a lotta coin to rake in, but it’s not the largest Kickstarter funded project. Stay tuned, that’s yet to come.
What went wrong?
The Ouya is cheaply designed and built both inside and out. According to some buyers, the controller buttons would stick. Some buyers had their controller wear out within a week’s worth of use. The innards consisted of an Android based computer. But, it was a computer with far less power than your average Android smart phone or tablet. It could barely play games, according to many. Indie games were present on the console, but only when the Ouya had enough power to sufficiently play them. Most times, it didn’t.
The primary problem with any new console is adoption. Without getting developers to adopt the platform and begin writing or porting games over, it’s all done and your platform is dead. The Ouya never got the developer momentum going. It just floundered for too long. Worse, at a time when Ouya was still trying to fulfill orders to the backers, they decided to sell the console in stores. This is when the Ouya appeared in the likes of Amazon and Best Buy, and later Target. This made many backers angry who had yet to receive their console. Ouya ended up being acquired by Razer in 2015. As the TechCrunch article states:
Notably, Razer is not acquiring the hardware part of Ouya’s business, specifically the microconsole and controller …
Yes, best dump all of that Kickstarter baggage as quickly as possible. So, what happened to Julie Uhrman? After the acquisition, she ended up writing off the Ouya with her apropos closing tweet:
If you really want a high powered Android gaming console, you should check out the NVIDIA Shield TV on Amazon. I can personally vouch for the quality of NVIDIA’s consoles and controllers. These things are rugged, durable and the gaming system is a powerhouse (at least as far as Android gaming is concerned). Ouya on over to this next failure.
2. Dump that Ice, Party’s Over
Even though this Kickstarter product is still shipping on Amazon, this next one is considered by many to be a very big failure. This is the Cooler Master by Ryan Grepper. To some, this one is also considered as the second biggest failure in the history of Kickstarter. Some backers got what they were promised, but many are still waiting (even in 2018) for their cooler to arrive. It’s also not like this cooler is inexpensive at $450. As many as 20,000 backers had been waiting for two years for their product to arrive as recently as June of 2017 (more on this below). In fact, this was Ryan’s second attempt to create a Kickstarter campaign for the Coolest Cooler. The first campaign was considered a spectacular failure.
Grepper writes of his first Kickstarter attempt via this 2014 Mashable article:
that campaign was riddled with mistakes: the target funding goal was relatively high ($125,000), the design for the product wasn’t far enough along and the campaign launched over the winter when the last thing people were thinking about were coolers. Sure enough, the campaign fell more than $20,000 short of its goal.
After the failure of his first Coolest Cooler Kickstarter project, Grepper tried again seven months later. Grepper’s second Kickstarter project amassed a whopping $13,285,226 in pledges among 62,642 backers. This is one of the biggest Kickstarter fundraising campaigns ever. Though, not the biggest. That accomplishment (and subsequent failure) is coming up next. Before that…
Let’s watch the Coolest Cooler backer pitch:
What went wrong?
Extremely slow delivery of the product. Even as late as the middle of 2017, there were as many as 20,000 backers still waiting for their coolers to arrive. These 20,000 also found out, after a Department of Justice investigation, that they may have 3 more years to wait before it arrives. That’s over 6 years waiting for a product. That means some coolers may not arrive until 2020 for many backers of this project. This would burn me up. By then, as with many other of these Kickstarter project owners, Ryan’s company could be bankrupt. We’ll have to wait and see on this one. Nothing cool about this.
These two Amazon answers sum up all that went wrong with this product:
‘Nuff said.
1. I’ve Got Something In My Shoe
“What is the biggest failure in the history of Kickstarter”, you ask? Pebble. This e-paper based watch was touted by Pebble founder Eric Migicovsky to be such a great wearable, after all, just watch the positive upbeat videos below! In fact, the company thought it was so great that it warranted three Kickstarter campaigns. Yes, you read that right, three! Though, the third campaign was, in fact, a last ditch effort to save the Pebble company. It didn’t work.
The campaigns included the original Pebble, the Pebble Time and the Pebble 2 / Pebble Time 2 / Pebble Core. Between these three campaigns alone, the Pebble company received $10,266,845 for the Pebble campaign (68,929 backers), $20,338,986 for the Pebble Time campaign (78,471 backers) and $12,779,843 for the Pebble 2 campaign (66,673 backers) which totals an astonishing USD $43,385,674 from 214,073 backers! That’s an average of $202.67 per backer. So, what happened?
Let’s watch the pitches (fullscreen available):
| Pebble | Pebble Time |
| Pebble 2, Pebble Time 2 and Pebble Core | |
What went wrong?
The wearables market crashed and took Pebble with it. This Wired article tells all that you need to know about Pebble’s financial mess and the story behind the third, and ultimately failed, Kickstarter Pebble 2 campaign. Suffice it to say, Pebble’s sales took a nosedive in 2016 and Eric Migicovsky couldn’t find any further funding… so the company turned back to Kickstarter. In fact, of the Pebble 2 / Pebble Core Kickstarter campaign, Wired states:
The Core is destined be become a ghost product, a brilliant prototype that will never be delivered to the 24,000 people who ordered it on Kickstarter. (They will get refunds through the Kickstarter system.)
As of December 2016, Pebble closed its doors and obviously stopped making its wearables. According to TechCrunch, FitBit acquired what was left of Pebble for an estimated $40 million, apparently barely enough to pay off Pebble’s debts. However, in 2017, it was revealed by TechCrunch that Fitbit paid $23 million to acquire Pebble. That’s probably just barely the amount needed to cover Pebble’s debts. This, after Pebble had amassed nearly $44 million in Kickstarter campaigns. I’m quite sure the founders felt bad all the way to the bank. And with this failure, I’m so glad this pebble is finally out of my shoe.
Final Thoughts – Crowdfunding as a Platform
What do all of these failures say about crowdfunded projects? Think, people, think. If the project seems to good to be true, it is. Don’t invest money into crowdfunded projects unless you are entirely prepared to lose every last cent. And yes, it is investing. Kickstarter is not a store, even though it looks like one. Even when you do manage to get a product that works, you can see how quickly these companies that seemed successful can fail. Then what are you left with? In Pebble’s case, you’re left with an unsupported device. In Ouya’s case, a crappy console. Invest your money in companies that have a solid reputation for building high quality products and that have a history of remaining in business.
Investing in these startup crowdfunded companies is a recipe for failure. Kickstarter is a great platform to raise $50k to write a book, create a film, or even perhaps write an indie video game. But, don’t go into Kickstarter with projects that are at the $500,000 to $5 million dollar level. These levels of funding, while immense, have a high probability for failure. It seems that many project creators have little to no knowledge of either how to run a business or how to manage finances, let alone create a product. Some of them may even be hucksters simply out to part you from your money without providing anything. Stay away from these high dollar funded projects and put your money into established businesses with established products. You’ll thank me later for this advice.
Note, this is not an exhaustive list of all of the failures between Kickstarter and Indiegogo. Oh, no no no. There are have been a whole lot more than this list. It seems that there have been so many, I’d have to create a blog series to document these failures (and to document them as they continue to fail… and they will).
If you’re interested in such an ongoing series, please let me know by leaving a comment below AND by following this blog by clicking the blue Follow button in the upper right of this page. If you’ve been scammed by a crowdfunded project, please leave a comment and I’ll consider featuring it in a future article.
↩︎
Rant Time: Adobe VoCo’s ethical dilemma
I have to wonder about Adobe’s business ethics at times. First, there’s Photoshop. While I can admit that photo editing has a legitimate purpose, such as correcting red eye or removing telephone lines or removing reflections of the camera man from a photo, there is the much seedier and ethically murky purpose for Photoshop. Now comes Adobe VoCo. It is a product idea that does for spoken audio what Photoshop does for images. Let’s explore this YouTube clip from 2016:
Skip to 3:18 for the meat of this video.
VoCo’s Use Cases and Ethics
Though, yes, I will concede that the demonstration above was funny and we all laughed, the demonstration has a deep seated ethically murky undertone once the laughing stops. In fact, that’s what prompted this blog article.
Unlike Photoshop which has actual real world use cases (yes, other than making models thinner and glowier for the cover of Vogue), VoCo is one of those unnecessary tools that, while cool in theory, makes Adobe seem that it’s now in the business of causing world disruption instead of actually solving creative problems. After the ethical problems created by Photoshop, Adobe has to know the ethical quandary it introduces by bringing the VoCo audio editing tool to market. Adobe decides to go ahead with demoing this tool anyway. So much for business ethics. Instead, Adobe should have patented and shelved this product idea and never shown it off.
There’s no effective real world use case for this product other than for making someone say things that they actually didn’t say. The only use case where this technology might even be somewhat useful, depending on output quality, is in the voice over industry where an actor might be unavailable at a time when a line needs to be changed to fit continuity better. The voice over industry is the only industry where VoCo could have even the smallest glimmer of hope of a use case. This is such a tiny niche market segment to introduce this tool in such a public spectacle way.
The only other use case would be to sample all of the audio from a particular dead actor or actress’s productions and then recreate lines of new spoken dialog based on that. Again, this is one of those entertainment areas that fits firmly into the uncanny valley, particularly if the spoken lines are attached to a CG actor. Again, this is not a substantial use case in my opinion and is most definitely creepy. It’s definitely not a big enough use case to warrant this public release spectacle. Do we really want to see Marilyn Monroe or Elvis brought back to life on the big screen using CG and VoCo dialog?
There is no other legitimate use case for this product. It’s like Adobe intentionally wants to flaunt its lack of ….
Business Ethics and Self-Editing
Businesses today have no ability to self-edit or recognize ethics. That is, stop ethically bad product ideas from making it to the market. Just thinking about this product and how it could possibly be used, it doesn’t have legitimate use cases (other than the voice over use case I mentioned above). However, there are perhaps thousands of illegitimate uses for this tool. Let’s list a few of them, shall we:
- Falsifying a deposition to make the person being deposed say something they didn’t say
- Falsifying a statement of non-confession to make a person confess to a crime when they didn’t actually confess
- Falsifying a phone conversation
- Changing any spoken words from non-incriminating to incriminating evidence
In legal circles, the use for this tool is ripe for abuse and has use cases as wide as the Grand Canyon and as deep as the Mariana Trench. In other words, while VoCo has no substantial legitimate use cases, it has thousands of illegitimate use cases. There is no way Adobe couldn’t see this. There is no way for Adobe to feign ignorance about this tool or the ethical problems it imposes if released.
Legal Evidence
Some have theorized that this tool would become just as Photoshop has. Basically, because evidence can now be manufactured in products like VoCo, it means that audio evidence would no longer be easily admissible. While that idea has some soundness to it, the legal system is not always technically savvy and can sometimes move at a snail’s pace. Eventually, the courts and lawyers will be on board with this ‘manufactured evidence’ sound clip idea, but not before several someones are incriminated over manufactured evidence that isn’t caught in time.
Some have theorized that Adobe should watermark the sound clip. The difficulty with audio watermarking is that it ruins the audio. No one would buy a professional audio tool that intentionally makes the audio sound bad or introduces something that is audibly noticeable, strictly because Adobe wants to insert a watermark to legally cover their collective butts. No. No one would buy a tool that causes damage to the audio output. This means that only a silent kind of watermark could be introduced. Such a watermark would consist primarily as a tag within the saved audio clip file. Any tags introduced in a save file can easily be stripped away by converting the audio clip to a new format or by playing the audio clip back and recording it on analog equipment. In fact, a whole industry and set of tools would likely appear to strip out any watermarks imposed by Adobe onto the saved files.
Unless there is a substantial way to identify that the clip has been edited, and I don’t know how Adobe could even solve this problem fully, VoCo is a tool that would end up more abused than legitimately used.
Flawed Product Ideas
While this is somewhat of a cool technological advancement, it doesn’t need to exist. It doesn’t need to exist because it has basically one limited use case. I’d argue that as a production runner, you can just wait until the voice actor becomes available and ask them to re-record the lines you need. That is, instead of using a tool like this. A tool like VoCo might save you some time, but by demanding such a tool for your use, it means the rest of the world must also endure the consequences of a world full of falsified evidence. Is that the world you want to live in? Evidence that could even be used against you, the audio editor. No, thanks.
However, it’s clear that prototype code has been written based on the video above. This means that Adobe could release such a product into the wild in the future. Thankfully, as of this article in 2018, this product does not yet exist. Unfortunately, Adobe has already opened Pandora’s box. A working prototype means that any coder with leanings towards audio engineering could produce a similar tool and release it into the wild without the help of Adobe. Thanks Adobe.
It is as yet unclear when or if this product could ever be released. Note that this video segment apparently showcases experimental product ideas (products that may never see the light of day) and not actual products. After all, such a legally murky product would have to clear Adobe’s legal team before release. Considering the many negative use cases for such an audio editing product and the legal liability that Adobe might endure as a result, I’d hope that Adobe’s legal team has shelved this product idea permanently.
Agree or disagree? Please leave a comment below. Also, don’t miss any new Randocity articles by subscribing to this blog via clicking the blue follow button at the top right.
Rant Time: eBay and shipping fees
This one will be quick. Today is the day I decided to do a little shopping and hopefully find a bargain online. Once again, foiled. Why? Let’s explore.
Bargain Shopping
I open a browser and go to eBay. I go there because I typically expect to find reasonable prices on most things. Sometimes I can find item prices at substantially reduced prices from Amazon. However, today wasn’t one of those days. I began searching for a specific item and I actually found it. In fact, I found the item at a very reasonable price. I even found the same item on Etsy with this very same listing problem. The problem wasn’t the price for the item, but it was in the shipping costs. I’ll skip mentioning this specific item because it’s not really relevant to the article. I’ve seen this problem on and off for many different items over the years. I’ve finally decided to rant about this problem.
While I can find the item I want at $5.99, I see that the shipping fee is $18.00 (or sometimes higher). What ridiculousness is this? Why am I expected to pay 3x the price of the item in shipping fees? No, I just won’t do that.
Stop These Listings
I don’t know what goes into that $18 cost, but many times I see the item is shipping within the US to a US address. Yes, I realize that FedEx and UPS and even the USPS (to an extent) aren’t always inexpensive for shipping. But, who in their right mind would pay $18 to ship an item that costs $5.99 or less? Not me.
It’s time that Amazon, eBay and Etsy stopped these listings. There is no reason to force would-be buyers to weed through useless listings like these to find someone who’s willing to offer a much more reasonable shipping fee. It would be a simple matter for these sites to decline to list items whose shipping fee exceeds 1x the cost of the item. When it gets to 3x the cost of the item’s price, it’s way too high and a waste of a listing. How many people would really pay that?
Maybe there are some people out there desperate enough to pay that high a cost for shipping, but I’m not one of them. I firmly believe that to be any kind of a deal, the shipping fee should be equal to or lower than the cost of item being listed. If shipping costs exceed the price by more than 1x the item’s price, the listing should be refused. Or, alternatively, make the default search filter remove listings with unnecessarily high shipping fees. For the people really interested in paying high shipping costs for an item, then click a checkbox to enable searching these. Yes, it is time to penalize sellers trying to price gouge through shipping fees.
Shipping Scam and Advice
I do realize that for a time there was a scam going around that sellers would back load the cost of the item into the shipping costs. So, instead of listing the item at a reasonable price, they would list the item for $.99 and then back load the item’s cost into the shipping and handling fee at something like $19.99 or similar. The reason for this is that it makes your product seem low priced until people looked at the shipping costs. It was simply a way to game the search listing sort engine. I’m sure that the seller thought they could trick someone into thinking they’re paying $.99 by not looking at the shipping fee. That’s a very old trick. A trick, in fact, that eBay is so well aware of, all of their listings now tell you shipping costs up front right in the search listing page. As a seller, it does you no good to try and trick the system using such tactics. Instead, it only makes you, as a seller, look like you’re trying to pull a fast one.
If you have something to sell, be honest with your prices and your shipping costs. People prefer honesty over trickery. If you know your shipping and handling is going to end up at $40 for a $5 item, don’t even bother to list the item in that way. It’s not worth it. This also makes you look inept. It would be better to front load your costs into the item itself and then reduce your shipping costs. In fact, you might as well just include the cost for the item plus the shipping costs together and state that it’s free shipping. You’re likely to attract more buyers this way than attempting to back load your costs into the shipping and handling fees.
Ridiculousness Abounds
Over the last several years, I’ve seen more and more of these kinds of shipping ripoff listings. These sites need to crack down on the listings with overpriced shipping and stop them (or, at least, filter them out by default). When I go shopping, I’m always looking for a deal. If as a seller, you can’t provide me with a deal at least as good as stores in my local retail area, then don’t show me those listings at all. Few people would want to pay 3x or higher in shipping costs for a seemingly low priced item. It’s just not a sustainable product offering.
If you have put items up on eBay or Etsy and sold them with a shipping cost 3x higher than the price of the item, sound off in the comments below. I’d like to know if you were able to sell that item or if the listing expired. My guess is that the listing expired. If you did sell the item, I’d like to know if your buyer was satisfied or dissatisfied with what they spent on shipping fees. I’d also like to know how many people returned the item once they found out the actual shipping costs.
Home Automation: The good, bad and ugly
You’ve just picked up an Amazon Echo with a Hue Starter Kit and you have decided to take plunge into controlling small devices in your home via Alexa. Well, here is what I’ve learned so far about this process. Take note, it’s not always easy to set this up. Keep in mind that I haven’t explored every system or every device. This article documents only my experiences with those devices I’ve tried. Let’s explore.
Smart Home Hubs
The first thing you need to understand is that many home automation systems still require a centralized hub to control the accessories (i.e., lights, switches, dimmers, and plugs). Systems like Wink and Hue are good in that a hub aggregates all of the accessories under a single logical device, these devices also have their own pitfalls. Some lights and plugs are WiFi only and do not require a hub, leading to even more consumer confusion, more apps and more logins and passwords.
As an example, Hue’s bridge (hub) comes in several versions (I’ll explain the reasons for this shortly). If the you stay within the Philips universe of devices, then you’ll be good. However, the moment you step outside of the Philips universe, just like with Apple’s products, compatibility takes a significant dive. It’s the same situation for Wink. As long as you wholly subscribe to the devices that are compatible with a Wink hub, you’ll be perfectly fine. If you choose to add in a bulb that isn’t compatible, your days will become far less happy. Worse, if you want to intermix devices from the Philips universe with the Wink universe, you’re asking for a world of hurt.
Intermixing Devices
So you’re probably asking, “why would I want to intermix devices?” It’s very simple. Cost. While the Hue color bulbs are spectacular for producing vivid colors, they aren’t so great for their brightness levels and they are substantially pricey. If you want to get a bulb that supplies higher than 50-60 watts of effective illumination, you have to jump out of the Philips universe. I don’t know why Philips is dragging their feet on 75 and 100 watt Hue bulbs, but they are and its frustrating. That means you might end up over at GE or Cree or even looking at LIFX bulb.
Costs, Value and Brightness
Hue bulbs are also incredibly pricey. At around $60 per color bulb, changing every bulb in your home is likely going to cost hundreds or perhaps thousands of dollars. Even the ambient white colored Hue bulbs at $30 are still quite pricey because they can range their colors between cold and warm white. If you simply want a bulb you can turn on and off and dim, there are far cheaper options… like the Cree Connected (~$15) and the GE Link (~$20). These are quite a bit less costly than the Hue white ambience bulbs. However, Hue also makes a 4 pack of white dimmable bulbs that cost around $13 per bulb (note that this may be holiday pricing). However, these bulbs are simple on, off and dim only. They do not vary the color hue of the bulb. The color they are is basic warm white… same for the Cree and GE Link. You also have to buy these Hue white bulbs in a 4-pack to get this lower pricing. Otherwise, each Hue bulb will cost around $17 separately. This 4-pack is your best deal for low cost hue bulbs. However, they are also not that bright.
At the time when I purchased into the Cree and GE Link, Philips still didn’t make these less costly bulbs. These are relatively new additions to Hue’s line and likely came about because of the Cree and GE Link bulbs.
What that means is that I’m not about to abandon the two bulbs I bought just to go buy four replacement Hue bulbs. The GE Link bulb is also quite bright, brighter than the Hue bulbs even though it is supposedly a 60 watt equivalent. Clearly, some bulbs are brighter than others even when rated similarly. This is why it’s important to look at the bulb illuminated to see if you like the color temperature and the brightness.
Clearly, we want good quality long lasting and bright lights. Specifically, lights that are bright enough for the given fixture and room. You may only need a 40 watt bulb in some instances, but in others you might want a 150 watt bulb. Sad to say, there aren’t many 150 watt LED equivalent bulbs on the market. Even of you find one, it’s not likely to be a connected bulb (see WiFi plugs below). The brightest bulbs seem incompatible with being connected. I don’t know why that is, but few lighting manufacturers want to produce both a connected bulb and a bulb that’s brighter than 60 watts. 60 watts is incredibly dim by itself. You’d need at least 4-7 of them in a fixture to sufficiently illuminate a living room.
Why there aren’t any 100 watt bulbs to date? I have no idea. Philips, GE and Sylvania need to get right onto solving that problem.. and soon.
Compatibility
If you’re willing to stay within a single manufacturer’s universe of apps, plugs, switches and bulbs, then you won’t run into many compatibility issues. If you want to actually do something useful, like use the Amazon Echo or IFTTT or Google Home or any other third party product, that’s when you run into problems.
Amazon’s Echo is probably the single most compatible home automation platform out there. However, that said, I’d consider Amazon’s Echo to only be about 80% compatible with most products. There are still a lot of products that cannot be controlled by Alexa, even though they have apps. IFTTT fares far worse at about 50% compatible. Apple’s Homekit is about 30% compatible with most systems. Though, if you’re willing to stay in the Philips universe, Apple’s Homekit jumps up into the high 90% range for compatibility. On the other hand, Apple’s Homekit has very little compatibility with Wink. Supposedly the Wink hub 2 is compatible with Homekit, but apparently that hub barely even works.
To get a fully functional Wink system, you have to use the Wink hub version 1 which isn’t compatible with Homekit. You’re probably asking, what is Apple Homekit? Homekit is Apple’s built-in small device automation system which is compatible with Siri. If you want task Siri to turn on, off or dim your lights, that assistant uses Homekit to get the work done. If Homekit can’t see your lights or accessories, it can’t control them.
There are many devices that Alexa can see and manage that Apple’s Homekit can’t. Apple has just floundered around doing nothing to improve compatibility to other home automation and lighting systems. This means that clicking the home icon to control your lights may or may not work on iOS… and more likely not to work than work.
Multiple Hub Versions
Hue’s system comes in several different hub versions. So does Wink. So does Zigbee and WeMo and many other device makers. These upgraded hubs add new features, such as compatibility with Apple’s Homekit or Google’s system. Keep in mind that even if a hub says it’s Homekit compatible, that doesn’t mean it’s fully compatible. It may only offer iOS the most bare bones minimums such as lights on and off, dimming and possibly color changing. Hue, for example, still prefers you to singly control all of their lights through the Hue app rather than through Apple’s Homekit compatible controls. Hue adds such extra features as light scheduling, vacation randomization and proximity fencing. Proximity fencing allows you to program the hub to turn lights on when near or off when out of range. These types of services are not visible through Homekit.
Fractured System
So what have I learned then?
- Philips Hue system is great so long as you don’t stray outside of it. Philips own bulbs work perfectly. Philips Hue can also see and control Hue compatible, but primarily Wink bulbs. Hue will not update firmware on any devices other than Hue devices. This is not optimal or in any way secure especially since you can only pair a device to one hub at a time.
- Wink will update fully Wink compatible bulbs, but won’t update firmware on Hue bulbs. Upgrades for Hue happens through Hue’s system.
- It is possible to run two hubs controlling different devices, but Wink’s hub won’t talk to Hue and Hue’s hub won’t talk to Wink.
- To bridge these two systems, you’ll need something like Alexa that can aggregate unlike device networks into a homogeneous whole.
- Alexa can’t aggregate bulbs and devices that aren’t Alexa compatible. So, you always have to read the box to make sure. Even then, you’ll likely need a skill to make it Alexa compatible.
- With Alexa’s skills, you can have Alexa log in to manage any device that offers a skill. You can then aggregate these devices under Alexa groups to control unlike systems.
- Homekit is the least compatible home control system out there. Don’t rely on Siri to control your devices unless you are meticulous in ensuring all of your devices are 100% Homekit compatible. This is likely to be costly because Apple is only willing to integrate with companies willing to pay money for this. That automatically means that only those companies making significant bank will be willing to pay off Apple to that end.
- Hue’s motion control sensor triples as a light and temperature sensor. Oddly enough, the only way to see the light and temperature pieces is through Homekit. Philips Hue app won’t show these sensors. This means you have to try and piecemeal together a system from pieces here, there and everywhere.
- Alexa still cannot directly set the color of Hue’s color bulbs. This must be done via a predefined IFTTT applet.
- Homekit can set the color of Hue’s color bulbs directly via Siri, but is limited in many other ways… specifically in the exact wording of how to get Siri to control the devices.
- Updating firmware on devices requires the correct app or hub. For example, Hue will update Hue devices, but not third party devices. If you want to update your third party devices, you need the right app or hub. Leading to….
- A device can only participate in any one hub system at any one time. Because I wanted the latest firmware on my GE and Cree bulbs, I had to buy a Wink hub and pair them with that. That also means I can’t use my Hue motion sensor to turn off one of the lights in a bedroom any longer. Now I have to buy a D-Link sensor and use that… adding to the cost and more hassles.
I find these systems fractured and annoying. There is no standard at all. Philips does what they do. Wink does similar, but is not compatible with Philips unless you buy into the Hub 2 (which is apparently junk). Sylvania is doing their own thing. Many bulb manufactures are now choosing WiFi for their bulbs to avoid even needing a hub. This means many competing standards in the lighting control area.
Until Philips or other lighting manufacturers put together a consortium to better the home automation world, home consumers will suffer with many competing and incompatible standards.
Electric Outlets
Recently I have gotten into controlling some devices using small connected outlets. Obviously, the devices to be controlled are dumb devices like plain old lamps or holiday lighting. They can’t be dimmed or change their colors, but they can be turned on or off. Once setup for control, I can enable scheduling to turn them individually on or off at specific times. However, what I’ve found here is just as fractured and confusing as the lighting systems. These plugs don’t require hubs. They are straight up WiFi devices.
I’ve so far bought the following:
- A WeMo branded outlet
- Three Conico / Jinvoo controlled outlets
- One TP-Link controlled outlet
Each of these devices has their own app and requires its own username and password. WeMo’s outlet uses the WeMo app, Conico uses the Jinvoo Smart app and TP-Link uses the Kasa app. Three apps and three logins for similar kinds of smart plugs. Yet more garbage on my phone and more passwords to remember.
However, because each of these apps have Alexa skills, I can set Alexa up to control all of them via a single device group. I have two of them controlling my Holiday lighting strands. I have a third as a bathroom night light and fourth and fifth not yet allocated, but likely will control more holiday lighting. I can put individual schedules on each of these plugs and I can voice control them via Alexa individually.
Unfortunately, to set up schedules, I have to do this in the phone app. This setup cannot be done in any single place. This is why this fracturing of devices is so bad.
IFTTT
What is this? This acronym stands for ‘IF This Then That’. It’s a small simple type of programming language. For example, if I say, “Alexa, trigger blue bedroom”, Alexa will send the command to IFTTT.com that will then interpret the command and perform the programmed action. The action could be turn off a light, send an email, send me a text or any of a wide array of actions. It’s a 1 to 1 action. Something happens, something is triggered.
How is this a problem here? I talked about the motion sensor above. This Hue sensor is captive to the Hue world. IFTTT has no way to capture any of the Hue sensor data and act upon it. Hue’s developers have not exposed any of this data to IFTTT for triggering alternative actions. For example, I’d like to turn on some lights if the motion sensor is tripped. While I can do that from within the Hue universe of devices, I can’t turn on both Hue and Wink lights from that motion sensor. Worse, the only thing I can do with the Hue motion sensor is turn on a device. I can’t send an SMS or email or anything else like that. Even though IFTTT can control both my Wink and Hue bridge devices, there is no action to read from the Hue motion sensor.
Instead, I had to opt into buying a D-Link WiFi motion sensor that is IFTTT compatible. This means I can then capture the motion event, send it to IFTTT to trigger an action of turning on a Wink and Hue bulb. It is not possible to do this with the Hue motion sensor. At least, that’s the theory. I haven’t yet received the D-Link sensor, but based on its description, it should be possible.
Overall, the world of home automation of small devices is fractured and confusing. There are many competing standards that don’t help the consumer in any way. In fact, this situation is made worse because device manufacturers intentionally hobble their own systems to prevent use of third party devices. This leaves home consumers to fend for themselves while trying to find a way to get their home system working. While I can understand the profit motivation in creating a captive ecosystem, it doesn’t in any way make it easier for a consumer. Until there’s a standard that all manufacturers agree to follow, we’re going to continue to see device after device using its own standard and supplying its own app to control that device.
If you’re going to invest in a smart home system, I’d suggest staying within a specific manufacturer’s ecosystem if at all possible. However, smart outlets may not be available under all systems. I don’t believe that Philips yet ships any smart plugs that are compatible with Hue. Wanting to add controls for plugs or other devices might mean the need for outside devices. However, even then I’d suggest sticking with a single manufacturer. Even if you use Hue and WeMo, that’s better than buying plugs from all over the place and trying to integrate 5 or more systems together. You may have to pay a premium to keep the number of systems down, but it will help keep the confusion to a minimum.
Why you should NOT use Disqus on your site!
What is Disqus (pronounced discuss)? This is a service that purports to offer an embedded comment / discussion service to your blog or website. Seems like a good feature, but let’s explore why this service shouldn’t be used.
Discussion Forums
Any good blog site or article site should offer a way to allow for comments. However, I find far too many sites that don’t offer comments at all. This is not the focus of this article, but it is one of my pet peeves. Should you choose to add a discussion or comment service, you should not consider using Disqus at all. Why?
Every good discussion package should offer a way to moderate posts and see every post that’s been submitted to your article. I believe that while Disqus does offer moderation, it also has a built-in spam detection package that hides posts from you that have been detected as spam. The problem with using Disqus, is that not only is their spam detection heinously faulty by filtering out many valid posts as false positives, Disqus does nothing about it. This means that as a site owner, you could be losing many, many valuable and valid comments to Disqus’s spam detection system.
As a site owner, you won’t even get to see those detected posts to know they were even there. They are simply hidden in the user’s profile on Disqus who posted their comment. Secondarily, the person leaving the comment can do nothing to get their comment unspammed. Once it’s detected by Disqus’s spam filter, that comment is lost for all eternity. Disqus staff not only does not monitor these failures, they do nothing about them. Disqus offers a comment platform and they can’t even do that job.
If a user clicks on the This is not spam button, nothing happens. The post is not reposted. No one at Disqus looks at the comment. No one approves it. So, the comment remains in perpetual limbo solely on the user’s Disqus profile.
Disqus as a Discussion Service
As a site owner contemplating embedding Disqus as a comment platform for your site, you want to know that your reader’s comments appear timely and fully. This is guaranteed not to happen with Disqus. You don’t want to use a half-baked discussion system thinking you’re actually getting to see all comments on your posts. With Disqus, I’d guess at least 50% of all comments left on an article are lost to Disqus’s extremely stupid spam filtering system. That number might even be higher than that. If you actually want to see all participation on your posts, you should find another system to enable comments on your articles. DO NOT rely on the Disqus platform as they WILL lose valuable comments from your readers… comments that you will never see.
If you really value reader feedback and participation, do yourself a favor and DO NOT USE Disqus as a platform. Until this company actually gives a damn about your users and actually gives you the tools to manage every user response (spam filtered or not), you should find another service to add discussion feedback to your articles that you post.
Better, lead your users your other social media site where open discussions are, in fact, permitted without the draconian spam engine that Disqus currently employs to hide and censor valid and valuable comments from you.
Beware of Silicon Valley Clean Energy and energy slamming
If you live in California, you need to read this. This situation has scam written ALL OVER IT. Let’s explore.
State / City Mandated ‘Clean Energy’
Apparently, as a result of city voting, some cities (such as Cupertino) have decided to force residents in that city to change their power generation provider to a third party instead of PG&E. In my case, it ends up being the scam outfit Silicon Valley Clean Energy. Why are they a scam? Here’s what happened.
First, they enrolled my electrical generation service under SVCE’s generation service without my permission. Then, SVCE waited over 60 days to notify me of my enrollment into their power generation service. Because they offered opting out at less than 60 days for free, this means I am not only being assessed a $5 exit fee from SVCE and I am now being put under PG&E’s transitional rates (which are likely to be higher than normal PG&E rates for at least 6 months). Oh, it gets even better.
Second, because I was force exited from PG&E’s generation services, PG&E gets to assess a Power charge indifference adjustment (PCIA) charge (effectively it is an exit charge for leaving PG&E’s power generation services). This charge on my last bill was $25.60. If you add this charge together with SVCE’s power generation charges, the total generation fee becomes identical to PG&E’s generation charges. If you spread this fee out over 12 months, SVCE’s charges aren’t as low as they seem. Also, this PCIA seems to be assessed once a year (or as frequently as the CPUC allows PG&E to assess it). Basically, this is a charge that PG&E gets to assess to cover generation fees they lost because you moved to a competitor. And, they get to do it each year.
Third, SVCE’s crap web site would not accept my opt-out request. Their opt-out form is entirely broken. I ended up calling their phone and opt-ing out there. Unfortunately, I have no idea if they really got my opt-out request because this fly-by-night outfit only has 9-5 call-center business hours. So, I have to wait until the following day and contact them.
Fourth, I was only notified of my ‘enrollment’ in this service because of a cheap card sent to me in the mail over 60 days after my enrollment.
Fifth, they make a lot of bold claims about using wind and solar energy for generation, but do not back up those claims anywhere. They could simply be buying PG&E generated power and reselling it.
Charges and electric slamming
Not only does PG&E get to assess random charges as a result of the customer now using a third party power generation company, the power generation company gets to assess random exit charges for leaving their service when I never voluntarily joined it in the first place.
This entire situation smells of CLASS ACTION LAWSUIT. So far, I will have been assessed around $35 in fees plus an unknown amount for rates (up to 6 months) simply because SVCE grabbed my service without notifying me timely. This is the exact thing that long distance phone companies were doing in the 90’s. It is called slamming. This scam type is just another form of state / city endorsed slamming, now with the electric service.
The Feds need to jump on board and stop this slamming activity quick and force the same payback charges on the company who slammed the customer. Here’s what long distance providers were forced to do if they slammed someone onto their service and the end user paid the bill:
If you have been slammed, but discover it after you HAVE paid the bill of the slamming company, the slamming company must pay your authorized company 150 percent of the charges you paid the slamming company. Out of this amount, your authorized company will reimburse you 50 percent of the charges you paid the slamming company. Or, you can ask your authorized company to recalculate and resend your bill using its rates instead of the slamming company’s rates.
Electric generation companies need to be held accountable for slamming in the same way as long distance providers. Companies like SVCE riding on the coattails of city votes shouldn’t get a pass to switch services without permission. Slamming is slamming whether it’s for telephone service or power generation. No matter what it is, it’s a rip off unless the change is by consumer permission. If there are fees involved, the customer MUST authorize the change in advance. Otherwise, it is slamming.
How to protect yourself from the Equifax breach
Every once in a while, I decide to venture into the personal financial security territory. This time, it’s for good reason. Unfortunately, here’s a topic that is fraught with peril all along the way. It also doesn’t help when financial linchpins in the industry lose incredibly sensitive data, and by extension, credibility. Let’s explore.
Target, Home Depot and Retailer Breaches
In the last few years, we’ve seen a number of data breaches including the likes of Target and Home Depot. While these breaches are severe problems for the companies, they’re less problematic for the consumer in terms of what to do. As a consumer, you have built-in protections against credit card fraud. If a thief absconds with your number, your liability is usually limited to around $50, but that also depends on the card… so read your fine print.
With the $50 you might have to pay, the inconvenience to you is asking your credit card company to issue you a new card number. This request will immediately invalidate your current card number and then you have to play the snail mail waiting game for a new card to arrive. That’s pretty much the extent of the damage with retailer like Target or Home Depot.
No one wants to go through this, but it’s at least manageable in time… and you can get back on with your life. For breaches like Equifax, this is a whole different ball game, let’s even say, a game changer. Breaching Equifax is so much more than a simple credit card inconvenience.
Credit Reporting Agencies and Breaches
With Equifax breached, this is really where the government needs to step in with some oversight and regulations. What your social security number is the the government, your credit reporting file is to your personal financial health. This breach is a dangerous game… and worse, Equifax is basically taking it lightly, like it’s no big deal. This is such a big deal, you will absolutely need to take steps to make sure your data is secure (and even then, that only goes so far).
First, I’ll discuss what this breach means to you and how it might affect you. Second, I’ll discuss what you can do to protect yourself. Let’s start with some basic information.
There are 3 primary credit reporting agencies (aka credit bureaus):
Unless you’ve never had a credit card, you probably understand what these businesses do. I’ll explain for the uninitiated. These agencies collect and report on any outstanding credit card or revolving lines of credit you currently have. If you have a mortgage, these entities know about it. If you have a credit card (or many), they know. They also know lots of other data (i.e., previous and current address), what loans you’ve had in the past, what bank accounts you have, what balances are on your outstanding lines of credit, any collections activities and the list goes on and on. It also lists your birth date, social security number and full credit card numbers and account numbers.
Based on all of your credit lines, how well you pay and so on, these companies create a FICO credit score. This score determines how low of interest rates you’ll receive on new loans. These companies are not only a bane to actually exist, but they are your lifeline if you need new credit. Even just one blemish on your record can prevent you from getting that loan you need to buy your new house or new car. Without these linchpin companies, lenders wouldn’t be able to determine if you are a good or bad credit risk. Unfortunately, with these companies, consumers are at the mercy of these companies to produce accurate data to lenders (and to protect that data from theft)… a task that Equifax failed to do.
What did Equifax lose?
Equifax lost data for 143 million record holders. While that number may seem small, the damage done to each of those 143 million record holders will eclipse the damage produced by Target and Home Depot combined. Why? Because of how these credit reporting agencies actually work.
Equifax (and pretty much all of these credit reporting agencies) have flown under the radar in what they do. If you go to a car dealer, find a car you want and fill out loan paperwork, that dealership will pull a credit report from one or more of these agencies. Your credit report will contain a score and all loans currently outstanding. It also shows how well you pay your loans, any delinquencies in the past and other financial standing metrics. This credit report will be the basis of whether you get a loan from the car dealership and what what interest rate.
Hackers had access to this data between May and July of 2017. The hack was found on July 29th, but not reported to the public until September 8th. That’s over a month that Equifax sat on this news. It’s possible that they were requested by law enforcement to hold the announcement, we just don’t really know.
What was lost?
According to the Washington Post:
Hackers had access to Social Security numbers, birth dates, addresses, driver’s license numbers, credit card numbers and other information.
According to the New York Times:
In addition to the other material, hackers were also able to retrieve names, birth dates and addresses. Credit card numbers for 209,000 consumers were stolen, while documents with personal information used in disputes for 182,000 people were also taken.
Those dispute documents being PDFs of bills, receipts and other personally identifying information. I’ve also read, but have been unable to find the corresponding article, that the hackers may not have had access directly to the credit report database itself, but only to loose documents in a specific location. However, even with that said, do you really trust Equifax at this point? I certainly don’t.
Why is this such a big deal?
Because the credit reporting agencies have played it fast and loose for far too long. They make boat loads of money off of each credit report that’s pulled. If you pay $50 as part of the loan process to pull your credit report, the dealership will keep part of that money and the rest goes to Equifax. Because many loans applications are processed every day, some credit reporting agency is making money. Making money isn’t the problem, though.
These agencies will pull a report for anyone willing to spend money. This includes people with stolen credit cards. However, that only gets thieves so far before being caught. Instead, breaking into computers at the agency allows them to not only pull credit reports for anyone who has a record, they can get access to lots of sensitive information like:
- Social Security Numbers
- Birth Dates
- Addresses
- Places of employment
- Home Addresses
- Credit card numbers
- Dispute Documents
- Etc..
Basically, the thieves may now have access to everything that makes up your identity and could steal your identity and then attempt to divert bills away from your house, create new cards, and do other things that you may not be able to see. If they managed to get access to your credit report, they can open cards out the wazoo. They can charge crap up on those cards. And, they can perform all of this without your knowledge.
Credit Monitoring
You might be thinking, I’ll set up a credit monitoring service and have the credit reporting service report when activity happens. Even that, while only somewhat effective is still subject to being breached. If the thieves have access to all of your identity information, they can request the credit reporting service to do things like, reissue passwords to a new email address and send sensitive reports to a bogus address. These thieves can even undo security setups like a credit freeze and reassign all of that information to their own address. You won’t see or even know about this unless you regularly check your credit reports.
This problem just barely peeks into the can of worms and doesn’t even open it fully. There are so many things the thieves can do with your identity, that by the time you figure it out, it could be far, far too late. So, don’t think that signing up for credit monitoring is enough.
Sloppy Security Seconds
In fact, it wasn’t seconds, it was almost 2 months before the breach was known to the public. A move that not only shows complete disregard for 143 million people’s financial security from a company who should be known for it, Equifax doubled down by creating a lead generation tool in their (ahem) free TrustID tool. Keep in mind that that TrustID tool is only (ahem) free for one year, after that you pay. Though, protecting against new account creation is only half the problem. The other half to which TrustID can’t help is protecting your existing accounts. Because credit reports contain every account and every account number you own, if your data was compromised (and with 143 million accounts worth of data lost, it’s very possible), you need to do so much more.
Even the Security Checking Tool (which was questionably put up on a brand new created domain???) seems to have been a sham and had its own share of SSL certificate problems leading to some browsers showing the site as a scam. Some Twitter users have entered bogus data… and, this checking tool seems to have stated this bogus data was included in the breach. The question is, does that tool even work or is it merely security theater? Yet another black eye in among many for Equifax’s handling of this data breach. To wit…
and then this tweet…
To sign up for Equifax’s TrustID premium service, you have to enter even more personally identifying data into a form of a company that has clearly demonstrated they cannot be trusted with your data. Why would anyone do this? Seriously, signing up for a service with a company who just lost a bunch of information? No, I think not. Instead, Equifax should be required to pay victims for a monitoring service with either TransUnion or Experian (where breaches have not occurred.. yet).
On top of entering even more personal information, the service requires you waive your right to lawsuits against Equifax and, instead, requires binding arbitration. Yet another reason not to sign up.
It’s not as if their credit monitoring service is really going to do you a whole lot of good here. If you really do want a credit monitoring service, I’d suggest setting it up with Experian or TransUnion instead. Then, figure out a way to get Equifax to pay you back for that service.
Can’t I reissue credit card numbers?
While you can do this, it won’t protect you fully. The level of what the thieves can potentially do with your data from Equifax goes much deeper than that. Yes, changing the numbers will help protect your existing cards from access. However, it won’t stop thieves from opening up new accounts in your name (and this is one of the biggest problems). This is why you also need to set up a credit freeze.
Because the thieves can now officially pretend to be you, they can do such things as:
- Pretend to be you on the phone
- Call in and request new pin codes based on key identifying information (address, SS#, phone number, etc)
- With your old address, they can then transfer your bills to a new address
- They can reissue credit card numbers to that new address
You’re probably thinking, “What about the security measure my bank uses? Won’t that protect me?” That depends entirely upon how convincing the thief can be over the phone. If they can answer all of your identity information and find a representative who can bypass some of the banks security steps, they can get a foot into the door. That’s all it takes for them to basically take over your credit accounts… which is one step away from potentially hijacking your bank accounts. A foot in the door is enough in many institutions to get the ball rolling towards full hijacking.
How do I protect myself?
If your data was involved in the breach (unfortunately, the tool that Equifax provides is sketchy at best), the three bare minimum things you should do are
- Contact one of the three credit bureaus and ask for a free 90 day fraud watch
- Contact all three and ask for a credit freeze on your records at each credit reporting agency
- Set up credit monitoring at TransUnion or Experian
The 90 day fraud watch means they will need to let you know when someone tries to do anything with your credit report. However, this watch is only good for 90 days and then expires. The good thing about requesting this watch is that you only have to do it at one bureau. All three will receive this watch request from your contact with one of them. The bad thing is, 90 days is not nearly long enough to monitor your credit. In fact, the thieves will expect the 90 day fraud watches, wait them out, then go after it hard and heavy after these begin expiring.
A freeze, on the other hand, lasts until you unfreeze. A freeze puts a pin code on your credit record and that pin is require each time a company needs to pull a copy of your credit report. This will last far, far longer than a 90 day watch and serves to stop the thieves in their tracks. To freeze your records, you will need to contact all three separately and perhaps pay a fee of $5-10 depending on where you live.
Setting up credit monitoring means you can be alerted to whenever anything changes on your credit report. But, credit monitoring won’t stop the changes from occurring. Meaning, you’ll be alerted if a new card is opened, but the monitoring service isn’t a preventative measure.
You can contact each bureau as follows to set up any of the above services, including a credit freeze (links below):
- Equifax or call 1-800-349-9960
- TransUnion or call 1-888-909-8872
- Experian or call 1‑888‑397‑3742
Neither a fraud watch nor a credit freeze will impact your credit score. A freeze simply prevents any business from pulling your credit report without having your pin code. Companies for which you already do financial business or have loans established can still pull reports as needed. However, any new loans will be required to have your security pin code. You can learn all about the details of a credit freeze at this FTC.gov web site.
Unfortunately, because the breach may have been more extensive than it appears, a thief can now contact the credit bureaus over the phone, pretend to be you and have any pin codes removed and/or reissued. Then, gain control over your credit records. This is why this breach is so treacherous for consumers. You need to be on your guard, vigilant and manually monitor your credit report for at least the next 12 months regularly. This is the part no big box media site is reporting. Yes, this is a very treacherous landslide indeed that is at work. Even if you do all of the protections I mention above, thieves can still subvert your financial records for personal gain by knowing your key personally identifying information.
How do I stop the thieves?
This is the fundamental problem. You can’t, at least not easily. To truly protect yourself, the scope of changes would include all of the following:
- Get a new social security number
- Reissue all of your credit card and debit card numbers
- Open new bank accounts, transfer your money into the new accounts
- Close the old bank accounts
- Reissue new checks
- Change your telephone number
- Move into a new address (or obtain a P.O. Box and send your bills there)
- Legally change your name
- Change all of your passwords
- Change all of your email addresses
- Set up multifactor authentication to every financial app / site you log into that supports this feature.
Unfortunately, even doing all of the above would still mean the credit bureaus will update your credit report with all of this new data, but your prior history would remain on the report… possibly up to and including all of the old account, name and address information. It is very, very difficult to expunge anything from a credit report.
In addition to the above, I’d also suggest closing any credit lines you don’t regularly use. If it’s not there, it can’t be exploited. None of this is a magic bullet. You just have to wait it and shut the thieves down as things materialize. Being diligent in watching your credit report is the only way to ensure you nip things in the bud early.
Tidal Waves and Repercussions
It is yet unknown the extent of their breach or the extent to which each consumer may have to go to protect themselves from this deep gash in the financial industry. Not only does this gash now undermine each account holder’s personal financial well being, it undermines the credibility of the very industry holding up the world’s economy. This is some serious shit here.
If half of the US’s residents are now available to identity thieves, those organizations who help protect the small amounts of identity theft throughout a normal year cannot possibly withstand a financial tidal wave of identity theft paybacks which could seriously bankrupt many credit organizations. In fact, if this tidal wave is as big as I suspect it could become, we’re in for some seriously rough financial waters over the next 6-12 months. By the time the holidays roll around, it could be so bad, consumers cannot even buy the goods needed to support the holiday season. Meaning, this could become such a disruptive event in the US’s financial history, many businesses could tank as a side outcome of consumers not being able to properly spend money during the most critical season of the year.
This has the potential to become one of the most catastrophic financial events in US history. It could potentially become even more disruptive than the 1939 stock market crash. Yes, it has that much potential.
Since I have no reason to believe that Equifax has been totally honest about how much data has actually been lost, this is the reason for this level of alarm. I’d be totally happy if the amount of data lost was limited to what they have stated, but the reality is, nothing is ever as it seems. There’s always something deeper going on and we won’t find that out for months… possibly at the point where the economy is hit hard.
Equifax Aftermath
Because the US is so pro-business, Equifax will likely get a slap on the wrist and a warning. Instead, this company should be required to close its doors. If it is not providing adequate data security measures to protect its systems, then it needs to shut its doors and let other more capable folks handle this business. This sector is far too critical of a service and that data too risky if lost to allow flippant companies like Equifax to continue to exist in that market.
Random Thoughts - Randocity! 
leave a comment