First, I should say: by "spend", I mean spending of all three core resources: time, energy, and money.
While this video is specifically directed at the Catholic Church, it's relevant to all Christian churches in my opinion. Because of Western society's focus on always picking the cheapest option, we've got to the point where church websites and branding are frequently done by unprofessional volunteers. Sure, this can keep the costs down at a new church, and sometimes the volunteers are actually skilled in the relevant areas, but that isn't frequently the case.
I always find it odd when a well-known public figure, such as a film star, author, or celebrity, goes out of their way to "announce" which political figure or side they are casting their vote for. Voting is usually set up in a way that gives the voter complete privacy, so their decision is theirs alone. It's weird that some people have to go and make a big fuss about it. Why not just say why one should or shouldn't vote for certain sides and not make some big announcement?
What's even worse is when the person picks a side they know they will get hate for, and also don't agree with as much as some of the other options, and then go on to try to justify their choice.
The value-for-value business model, as described by Adam Curry and John C. Dvorak on their podcast, No Agenda, seems to be the only truly viable business model for digital media.
The stumbling block that many people seem to have when it comes to content in digital form is that it's very difficult to force people to pay a set price for something that can be perfectly replicated ad infinitum.
If someone is a craftsman and makes eight doohickeys in a normal work day, and two doohickeys are stolen, it's easy to see how someone stole two hours of their time (not to mention supplies, wear on his tools, and a portion of the time developing the concept of the product). But what if the doohickey is a digital file?
When I was younger, I remember asking (maybe not out loud, but at least introspectively) who was the best team at the Olympic Games. Of course, the Olympics is supposed to be more of a feel-good, everyone-wins-something kind of event, and doesn't have a true structure for an actual winner, but we subconsciously want that.
Every sports page in the newspaper and online seems to show the top three nations, along with Canada, sorted by their total medal count, and we seem to be happy with that. But what about the fact that the several nations have over 100 athletes while many nations have less than 10% of that? And don't forget that nations with more money and resources can probably train better athletes! I thought we could do better, and these are my suggestions.
No Agenda is a great show, but it's biggest downside is the fact that so many of the stories discussed are long and ongoing, making it hard for a first-time listener to jump in. That's why Adam and John did episode 200.5. It was meant to be an introduction to how the show works and all the little peculiarities.