…some industry professionals are stuck in obsolete
As I pulled up to my driveway this evening, a host on NPR was finishing up the last of two interviews with professionals who specialize in designing retail stores of the future. I was so intrigued in what they were not saying that I lingered in my car with the radio on. Surely a look in the review mirror would have found my eyes rolling around and maybe even a mouth agape. Two specialists that work on new retail store development were describing stores of the future that were obsolete today. There was not one solutions focused on helping box retail stores compete with online shopping trends.

Planning for the obsolete retail stores of tomorrow, today
If these two professionals are indicative of the brains behind new store designs, brick and mortar retailers will be building stores that are broken before doors to new stores open. Both were stuck on mood, atmosphere and a bit of today’s technology yet implemented. I was to take one part of the conversation to task, it was the mention of customized dressing rooms. The first interview specifically mentioned dressing rooms where you could plug-in your iPhone and turn on some mood lighting. The second interview also mentioned store mood lighting that the host compared to what casinos have been doing for decades. That segment did touch upon relevant tools for the modern retailer such as the store recognizing a customer in the parking lot. GPS enabled phones make this a realistic part of today’s shopping experience. A retail store could entice you to have an app that would use a GPS enabled phone to begin a personal shopping experience. In other words a store could welcome you as you entered with “HAL”, “Welcome Dave, be sure to use your store reward today!”

Today’s shoppers have much better real-time price shopping tools
What I did not hear was anything that would really help retail box stores compete with online shopping. Having had 25 years of working in CE, i.e. consumer electronics, I enjoyed a time when there was no competition on another corner and MSRP plus 20% what we put on the price tags (Pacific Stereo 1984). Twenty-three years later at Ultimate Electronics (2007) it was routine to verify a commission-killing competitive price online and hope to accessorize the sale because the company demanded that I make up for margin lost due to price matching. Today with the proliferation of mobile devices with browsers, I expect that a similar shopping experience begins with a customer showing that competitive price on his or her phone and simply stating, “can you match this price?”, followed up with, “by the way, that includes tax and the shipping is free”, followed up with, “and please match the online extended warranty”. This phenomenon is not limited to just consumer electronics. Anything a box store sells faces price competition in real-time, including clothing!

Building new box stores on a pessimistic outlook of online retail trends
During the second interview on tonight’s NPR show the store designer stated that his company predicts box stores to drive 80% of the retail sales through 2015. That prediction is extremely optimistic. Furthermore that prediction suggests his company is planning to build in obsolescence, but make it prettier. I can’t imagine any scenario where online retailing doesn’t make big gains in sales, especially as mobile devices become the dominant way to access the Internet in the United States. For box retail to compete, they need to co-opt online retail strategies and react to the shift in consumer’s use of digital technology. Online retailers offer better prices in part because labor and inventory costs are shared. Lower labor costs, “just in time inventory” and manufacturer fulfillment are not typical to box retail stores. The box retailer of the future has to address the supply chain and labor costs while still providing the advantage of personal service. The dressing room of the future can be part of the solution. Especially if that dressing room integrates a “PDSA, the personal digital shopping assistant.

About that comfy dressing room the store designers on NPR envisioned…
Imagine this scenario. You are an upscale big box clothing store. Your advantages include personal service and good margin despite discounters selling the same name brands. Another one of your advantages is a robust selection of inventory whereas the discounter selling upscale apparel tends to have one of this and none of that in the right size. I’d suggest that if you build a larger, more comfortable dressing room where you can plug in your iPhone and push a button for a latte, sales will drop. Not only will the customer linger in your comfy dressing rooms, but they may be inclined to shop you online. There is a reason dressing rooms are small, bright, and uncomfortable, with benches are barely big enough for you to sit down. The retailer knows that dressing rooms don’t sell anything.

If you must make a comfy dressing room…
Call me a dreamer or just plain retail smart after spending 25+ years in big box stores. My idea of the modern dressing room adds digital intelligence over mood lighting, comfy seating and places to plug in.  A smarter idea would be to keep dressing rooms small, but embed a large touch screen enable with a personal digital shopping assistant that would link to the registered customer automatically. A registered customer’s profile would include personalization with an optional head shot, body dimensions, (shoulder, waist, hip, weight, height and other personal aesthetics) that would allow creation of a digital mannikin. Digital tags on the clothing carried into the dressing room (that could double as shrinkage control devices), would automatically populate the “selection” area to allow the shopper to dress their digital mannikin by dragging and dropping clothes icons. The screen would also make suggestions based on the customers buying habits, fashion trends and product pushes. Think of paper dolls, but ramp it up to digital wire frame technology. The shopper in the dressing room could then “summon” additional selections to try on at the push on the screen. The customer could also pay and then give to the attendant to remove tags, bag and then send to the checkout so that shopping could continue.

Do you want to take that home today or…
The dressing room of the future will help close the door on price competition. In that dressing room with the interactive screen, once clothing is selected, a few things can happen. If the customer is not registered to the store, it should entice them to do so and can capture two bird with one net. A customer can register, customize a profile in the booth and get that store credit card at the same time. A first purchase reward for registration, that expires upon exiting the store, would incentivize “buy now”. Another path to reduce costs and offer competitive prices is through offering buying options. “Free Shipping AND Save 15% if you choose home delivery on the items chosen”. By offering more colors, bigger rewards and other incentives for buying online (while in the store), the retailer reduces cost by being able to warehouse inventory. The customer receives personal service and unlike the online shopping experience, still gets exposed to impulse buying opportunities. The dressing room will also seed impulsive sales which can magically appear at the door!

The personal digital shopping assistant advantage
The “PDSA” in the dressing room can also extend to digital kiosks on the main retail floor. Similar registration, clothes modeling and buying functions would offer a hybrid “online, while in the store” shopping experience. One advantage to offering digitally enhanced shopping kiosks enabled with the “PSDA” is that it would be fun, especially for families with children. The PDSA could reduce cash register lines by processing the sale. In all cases the PDSA would capture data that could be leverage to increase sales. Even better the digital shopping assistant could follow a shopper throughout the store and offer a final thank-you as they exit the store.

Pushing obsolete away incrementally
The goal of the smart dressing room and attendant personal digital shopping assistant is to stimulate offline sales in the retail box environment. Ideally the PDSA will be part of a modern, box retail shopping environment that increases store margins by reducing costs and helping customer buy more or “accessorize” every sale.

IL Law “Most Likely” Violates First Amendment Rights To Free Speech and Free Press
One day after Chris Drew, the artist that was arrested for filming his own arrest died of lung cancer, the 7th Court of Appeals handed the Illinois Eavesdropping a sternly worded rebuke. Most cases charged under this law prosecuted Citizens recording Police Officials, yet the 7th Court of Appeals made it clear that the Illinois eavesdropping statute is excessively broad and most likely unconstitutional.

“The court further noted that the making of an audio or audiovisual recording is covered by the First Amendment’s guarantee of speech. Therefore, the “First Amendment limits the extent to which Illinois may restrict … recording of utterances that occur in public.”

This is good news for Citizens, especially those that have had their Civil Rights violated by being arrested and charged with a Class 1 Felony. Technically the ruling only applies to the ACLU in Chicago, but it is likely State’s Attorneys will review this ruling to advise local law enforcement. From this Citizens point of view, it would seem a bit crazy to charge any Citizen with under this the law as written today given this ruling on the 2010 case put forward by the ACLU.

No matter how this ruling plays out, it is still advisable for anyone with a device that can record video to disable the audio capabilities if both parties of a conversation do not consent beforehand. Recording video without audio does not need any consent from any party whatsoever.

Pending in the 97th General Assembly is SB1808 that would gut existing exemptions under 720 IL CS 5/14-3 with:
“Replaces everything after the enacting clause. Amends the Criminal Code of 1961 concerning eavesdropping exemptions. Provides that a person who is not a law enforcement officer nor acting at the direction of a law enforcement officer may record the conversation of a law enforcement officer who is performing a public duty in a public place and any other person who is having a conversation with that law enforcement officer if the conversation is at a volume audible to the unassisted ear of the person who is making the recording. Defines “public place”. Amends the State Police Act and the Uniform Peace Officers’ Disciplinary Act. Provides that if a recorded conversation authorized under this exemption to the eavesdropping statute is used by the complainant as part of the evidence of misconduct against the officer and is found to have been intentionally altered by or at the direction of the complainant to inaccurately reflect the incident at issue, it must be presented to the appropriate State’s Attorney for a determination of prosecution. Effective immediately.”

Having said that, the statue would still be excessively vague and run afoul of the 7th Court of Appeals ruling on May 8th that stated the 1st Amendment protects recording “utterances” in public places. Illinois legislatures recently had the opportunity to fix the law, but refused and left the state at odd with most other states by sticking with “Two Party Consent”.

To add further confusion, if SB1808 passes and all exemptions revised the law would seem to open one door while closing another. In particular the existing exemption that allows one to record a conversation of someone other than a law enforcement person who has “reasonable suspicion” that another party to the conversation is about to commit or has already committed a crime. Now where this gets even more confusing is that the statue says no recording can be submitted to the police )if creating it didn’t occur under an exemption.) Then there is how “reasonable suspicion” gets interpreted as well as if there was a crime committed..

The simple approach would seem to be to not openly record audio or video with audio until the law is repealed or completely thrown out by the IL Supreme Court of SCOTUS. Although it is unclear how the State of Illinois would see any evidence so gathered, Hate Crimes, rise to the level of a Federal offense where there are no such prohibitions or warnings. Any evidence gathered would be admissible in Federal court. This court ruling is a massive blow against a law that has been twisted to protect law enforcement at by sacrificing a Citizen’s Constitutional protections.

This need to record surreptitiously is not necessary in Chicago because the cities top cop has already made it clear he will not enforce the law.

If I was in Nevada, I’d bet on IL 702 not surviving summer much less this year. If SB1808 passes, it has been suggested to me that multiple challenges will happen immediately. It is also likely that convictions will be reversed as cases are reviewed. Unfortunately, you don’t get a refund on your expenses though as a case in Boston, civil action has been a tool to make right what a bad law has tipped over.

Freedom is won, not given. The pursuit of Justice is an ongoing process that does not go without risks.

Show love for all mother’s, sister’s aunts and women today and every day
Just a few minutes to share my love and appreciate for the women that have shaped and loved my hard-headed, sometimes close-minded and unappreciative self. Mom’s in specific and women in general are our greatest treasure. This video goes out to Anna Marie, Jimmie Lee, Annica, Kathy, Yolanda, Annica Rae, Yolandea, as well as past women who I will respect by not putting their names here. On the other hand I will share that somewhere in Mendocino is a woman artist who was fundamental to my understanding love and in my town there is a teacher that was fundamental in love and survival. I send you my best wishes this Mother’s Day.

It is still the law of the land so mind what you video!
Recently a neighbor of mine in Marion County, Illinois called the county deputy on me for the third time in two months. This all started when I politely asked them to pick up the trash they were just ejecting into a pile on a lot they don’t even own. This wasn’t just any pile of trash either. It was a 15′x15′, 2′ high pile of household trash that apparently contained dead animals, tire carcasses and other assorted nasty things. I saw a rat on my property and walked over to ask them to be more “neighborly”.

Marion County Deputies stopped by and told me not to “trespass” on their property anymore, something I didn’t intend to do anyway since my next move was to advise the IL EPA to the mess. In the meantime from my neighbor’s property have come shouts of “Nigger”, and the occasional attempts at intimidation by having his grown kid parading around with baseball bats. Last week another individual who was reported by someone else to the EPA, stopped by and threatened me as “your worst nightmare”. This last Saturday, April 29th, in pursuit of documenting the mess, I was taking some pictures with the intent of taking some video. The neighbor then popped out and started in with verbal abusing me. I asked him not to address me and his tirade continued. After he made the statement, “You should go home and watch out because I haven’t done anything to you yet”, I finally responded and said to him “why would you threaten me, you know I am recording all this….”

Re-enter the Marion County Deputies and Illinois “Eavesdropping” Law..

Illinois has a particularly vague piece of law written into the Criminal Code. 720 ILCS 5/14-1 basically makes it illegal to record a conversation between two people without first getting their consent. This law also mandates if you know someone who is recording  audio, must report that individual to law enforcement. Although there are some exceptions to this law, those are very well-defined.

Three important definitions from within the criminal code:

a) Eavesdropping device.
An eavesdropping device is any device capable of being used to hear or record oral conversation or intercept, retain, or transcribe electronic communications whether such conversation or electronic communication is conducted in person, by telephone, or by any other means; Provided, however, that this definition shall not include devices used for the restoration of the deaf or hard‑of‑hearing to normal or partial hearing.

(b) Eavesdropper.
An eavesdropper is any person, including law enforcement officers, who is a principal, as defined in this Article, or who operates or participates in the operation of any eavesdropping device contrary to the provisions of this Article.

(d) Conversation.
For the purposes of this Article, the term conversation means any oral communication between 2 or more persons regardless of whether one or more of the parties intended their communication to be of a private nature under circumstances justifying that expectation.

By sheer luck, meaning instead of pushing “record”, I pushed “off”, my camera never got into the “record video” mode when my neighbor was committing verbal abuse. Deputies basically insisted on me showing the pictures and also suggested that someone might get arrested. The charge for “Eavesdropping’ per this statute is Class 1 Felony.

I did admit to the deputy that I was in the process of recording the property before the neighbor started his verbal battery. I then asked them if I had recorded this abuse, would I be arrested and he said yes. While someone can call you Nigger and at worst face “Disorderly Conduct”, if you record that threat, you could face a felon charge.

I found that pretty incredible that recording what appears to be a crime, could be a crime. Then I looked up the actual criminal code. Digging deeper into that law, I find something that will cause me to have a conversation with the State’s Attorney

Under exemptions I found this.

(i) Recording of a conversation made by or at the request of a person, not a law enforcement officer or agent of a law enforcement officer, who is a party to the conversation, under reasonable suspicion that another party to the conversation is committing, is about to commit, or has committed a criminal offense against the person or a member of his or her immediate household, and there is reason to believe that evidence of the criminal offense may be obtained by the recording;

This exemption appears to be pretty straightforward in defining that if a Citizen has a “reasonable suspicion” that a crime is going to committed, he has the right to record the conversation without first getting permission. I had a reasonable suspicion my neighbor would continue to commit “Disorderly Conduct” or

Actually my first thought was if someone is cussing you out and you are not talking back, it isn’t a conversation to start with. Theoretically if I had my much better HD camcorder out and had recorded his comments, I’d have been in my rights to document a crime. At least that is what my interpretation of the law is.

Alas, in the field the Deputies were either not aware of this exemption or don’t think it applied to the situation. As it is, the Deputies acquitted themselves professionally. Being a Deputy is often thankless, underpaid and they need to be darn near attorneys regardless of their jurisdiction.

In review, it would appear that I was well within my right to take video of the property and as many pictures of the neighbor I saw fit. On the other hand,until the law is modified or it is packed away by the Illinois Supreme Court, people should be taking silent movies to be safe. Understand that just the act of recording could get you arrested even though the law has been declared unconstitutional. Also it is the recording of audio that is illegal and it doesn’t matter if it is your phone, pocket recorder, video camera or camera that can record video.

It would appear I was one “right” button away from being another case to nail this law into the box of non-existence. This is very bad legislation.  If  720 ILCS 5/14-1 were to survive the March 2, 2012 ruling of “Unconstitutional” by Cook County Criminal Courts Judge Stanley Sacksas, as well as several other court rejections, I’d it would eventually run into the United States Supreme Court and the First Amendment.

Until then, I’d suggest that phones in Illinois should not have video with audio enabled. If this law remains in force, I’d suggest that any video taken in Illinois that has conversation in it and is subsequently posted on YouTube could be used as evidence against the videographer. The law is so broad that you could be arrested if you took a video at a wedding and didn’t post it. It doesn’t matter if you have your device hidden or out in public.

To take this to an even crazier level, before this law was enacted, I did the sound for a rally where a Presidential Candidate and standing Senator spoke. I recorded those speeches as did many with their phones-video and other video cameras. Today that would be illegal in Illinois without prior consent.

I will admit that the law caught me off guard, but that won’t happen again. Instead there will be a follow-up conversation with the Marion County State’s Attorney as well as other counsel. The main reason is I don’t really see an exemption in this law that allows for the gathering of news.

If you would care to research this law there have been a few other challenges, and an IL Supreme Court visit is due later this year.

ACLU of Illinois v. Alvarez, currently before the U.S. Court of Appeals in Chicago (7th Cir.), is a preenforcement challenge to the law, meaning that no one in the case was actually arrested.

Illinois v. Allison, involves a man who was arrested and charged with five counts of violating the eavesdropping law. The trial court ruled that the law was unconstitutional, and that ruling is currently under review by the Supreme Court of Illinois.

The third case is a civil lawsuit by Tiawanda Moore, who was arrested, tried, and found not guilty of violating the statute. She recorded two police officers who she claimed were wrongfully impeding her ability to file a sexual harassment complaint against another officer.

Also:
The 1st Circiut U.S. Court of Appeals, Boston, MA, eals in Boston (1st Cir.) ruled that this kind of filming is a “basic and well-established liberty safeguarded by the First Amendment,” in a case involving a complaint filed by a Boston man who filmed the scene of an October 2007 arrest on his cell phone, only to be arrested himself and charged with a violation of Massachusetts wiretapping laws. (This decision was cited in Illinois cited this decision as a “persuasive authority” for ruling on similar cases.)

“Old John isn’t going anywhere!
New technology forced me to update this website which up till now has been a “door” to my virtual sandbox. If you are not familiar with what a “sandbox” is, for web designers, it is a place to play with website design. In most cases that design is done on server that is not actually on-line, but as with some web content management designers, I prefer to work in the real space of the Internet. Working in a semi-private or secured on-line environment allows for testing in the real world.

As of this blog, this site is using a new mobile-responsive framework. I can say enough p

ositive about how a bunch of smart members of the WordPress open source community are working to create mobile-responsive WordPress theme frameworks. As a full-time WordPress shop, I am focused on bringing my clients as well as my personal web projects forward with technology. With this framework, WordPress has taken a bold step to staying ahead of the curve when it comes to informative, high ROI websites.

Even better, unlike many premium theme companies, this framework isn’t expensive. Even better, the current pricing structure doesn’t reach back in your wallet for additional features, access to forums or updates.

Just like infomercials, if you choose to launch and then customize your own WordPress, your results will probably be different from mine. In most cases you need to create graphics, add plugin functionality, know some CSS and in some cases, customize a child theme. Then to get the best results from the blog, it doesn’t hurt to know what Google does and does not like. IF you do everything right, not only will you have a great website that will keep your fans and clients informed, but you can also raise your search engine ranking. Google likes blogs and I have had plenty of success improving client site SEO.

I am what some might call a WordPress “specialist” with certain expertise in the platform. This site took me approximately eight hours from launching the WordPress to finishing this first blog. You do have to know a bit more than your log-in to maximize a stand-alone WordPress installation. Eight hours for a personal project ends up equaling about 20 for a client. You have to think harder for clients!