Attending school in California and becoming an engineering major can really pay off for college graduates — by thousands of dollars a year. According to a report released from salary-tracker PayScale.com, petroleum engineering majors and graduates of Harvey Mudd College are taking home the biggest paychecks.

While mid-career salaries fell 1.5% overall between 2009 and 2010, engineers, scientists and mathematicians continued to rake in the big bucks, as well as students who graduated from Ivy League schools. “Our society values something practical — that’s why poetry isn’t popping up on the top of the list,” said Al Lee, director of quantitative analysis at PayScale. “As in the past, engineering and [similar] fields with a strong math component plus a physical world component remain on the top, with lots of money to be made in these fields.” The data in the report, collected from 999 bachelor degree institutions in the last year, track median starting salaries of employees who graduated in the last five years and median mid-career salaries of graduates with more than 10 years of experience in a given field.

Follow the money: So where are all the lavishly paid engineers bred? According to PayScale.com, it’s Claremont, California, where Harvey Mudd alums go on to earn a mid-level salary of around $126,000. “Harvey Mudd is the nexus of all good places to be in terms of graduate earnings,” said Lee. “Not only do engineering majors make good money and this happens to be a specialized school for engineering, but southern California is an area that tends to have some of the highest wage earners in the country.”

Meanwhile, Dartmouth College, which claimed the title as the school with the highest paid graduates for the past two years, was knocked down the list to number two — tied with Princeton — with its graduates receiving a starting salary of $54,100 and a mid-career salary of $123,000. Since a large chunk of Dartmouth students typically head into financial services post-college, many graduates felt a blow to their wallets in the last year as financial companies cut back on pay, said Lee. Harvard, California Institute of Technology, Colgate, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Stanford, Duke and Bucknell rounded out the top ten list of schools with the highest-paid mid-career graduates. On the other end of the spectrum, if you choose Coker College in South Carolina — the worst-paying school on the list — be prepared for a starting salary of around $28,900 and a mid-level salary of $40,300.

Majors that pay: Topping the list of best-paying degrees this year, petroleum engineers earn a starting salary of $93,000 and a mid-level salary of $157,000. That’s $49,000 more than the next most lucrative majors, aerospace engineering and chemical engineering, which both produce graduates earning a salary of around $108,000. “Petroleum engineering has been an incredibly profitable sector for the last few years,” said Lee. “It’s a very cyclical field and depends largely on the price of oil, and we’re very much on an up cycle right now.” Electrical engineering was the third-highest paying major on the list, with mid-level pay of $104,000 per year, followed by nuclear engineering, applied mathematics, biomedical engineering, physics and computer engineering.

But I don’t want to be an engineer! If science and math aren’t your thing, don’t worry. There are plenty of other majors — many you wouldn’t expect — that will put you on the money-making track. “People always think they have to be an engineer if they want to make good money down the line, but there are a lot of other majors that will help you find good careers with salaries that anyone would be comfortable living on,” said Lee.

A building construction major typically leads to a mid-career salary of more than $94,000, while mid-level government majors earn $87,300 on average. International relations, supply chain management and urban planning also boast average salaries of more than $80,000 a year. Even majors like film production and zoology can help you land a good-paying job. While film-makers earn a starting salary of only $36,100 and recently-graduated zoology majors tend to make about $34,600, mid-level salaries come in at about $77,800 and $68,800, respectively.

After a year that showed the California wine industry’s worst performance in more than a decade, the road to recovery remains a long haul. The best that winery owners and grape growers can say today is: At least the wine market’s not getting worse. The 2009 numbers were enough to make any winery owner wince. California wine shipments were down 1.2 percent compared with 2008 – the state’s first drop in shipments in 16 years. The estimated retail value of wine sales in the United States fell by 4 percent.

The following is a culled from the  Marketplace articles: “Winemakers struggling to stay afloat in recession” and “Investors push 2009 Bordeaux to over $1,000 a bottle” and from Chris Macias’ article in the Sacramento Bee “California wine industry stems the bleeding, but road to recovery is long”

Tom Meyer, a one time marketing executive for Fetzer Wines, became a winemaker in 2003, because it became clear to him that a Corporation’s state of meaning and being is to make a profit. Mr. Meyers sentiments were, “Yes, we’re here to make a profit, but the profit’s going to be the result of our good action.” He was doing well up until the downturn. Now his $19 bottle wines are selling for $6.99 next to Trader Joes Two Buck Chuck. “We had to sell it far below what we had in it… Just to get the inventory gone.”

Alder Yarrow, who writes the wine blog, Vinography.com, says, “When people simply stop buying wine at most price points above $10, the real value of your inventory plummets, and as a result, banks stop lending money, and really bad things happen.”

“The wineries that produce these sorts of wines have grown for so long, and had planned for unending 10 to 15 percent annual growth, and then boom,” says Peter Kaufman the managing director of Bacchus Capital, a company that funds wine makers.

The slumping economy has forced some wine merchants to change their business strategy. Rod Farley of Beyond Napa, a wine boutique, saw his customers trade down once the stock market started tanking. While Farley still stocks bottles in the $50 and above range, he’s done some of his best business with $15 and under bottles dubbed “recession reds.” The “recession reds” program helped Beyond Napa enjoy a 9 percent sales increase in 2009, though overall store sales are flat so far this year. “Wineries are in denial about the fact that they’re drowning in a river of overpriced wine,” said Farley. “Our bottle count is up 20 percent, but our dollar count is flat, so people are buying more bottles for less money. Our ‘recession reds’ idea worked really well, and I’m happy with the way things are.”

Beth Diebels, a local social media consultant, has certainly been trading down in her wine purchasing. Buying a $30 bottle of wine was once a no-brainer, but her budget has tightened over the past two years, and she now aims for bottles in the $5 to $12 range. “There was definitely a time when I could afford the nice bottle,” said Diebels. “With the way the economy happened, it’s been a lesson in economics for me. I’m finding lower-priced wines that I do enjoy and didn’t know were out there.”

There is Hope:

The latest research from longtime industry consultant Gomberg, Fredrikson & Associates shows that shipments of California wine were up 0.4 percent for the first four months of 2010. That slightest of upticks is more than welcome. In the wine market these days, they say, “Flat is the new up,” said Warren Bogle, president of Bogle Vineyards.

There are small signs that the worst may be over. Wine importer Kermit Lynch has both a wholesale and retail business based in Berkeley. Kermit Lynch manager Steve Waters says when the recession hit, restaurants stopped buying wine, but the retail store was slow and steady. Now, Waters says the situation is reversed. “Our wholesale divisions in California and throughout the country have been on fire, a 10 to 15 percent increase. So it seems like, people are going out again, people are going to restaurants are buying wine off wine lists, which is great.”

As vintners look into the future, they are discussing Mother Nature’s impact on the wine industry’s recovery. Spring rains and unseasonably cool weather in Northern California have slowed the grape growing season. Crop production is already down 6 percent, according to Fredrikson. Regional grape growers and winery owners report that harvest is running about two weeks behind schedule. After a huge grape crop in 2009, which was up 11 percent from the previous year, a smaller crop in 2010 will actually help balance supply and demand. But business remains slow on the grape market for farmers like Bogle, who grows 1,200 acres of vineyards around Clarksburg for Bogle Vineyards and other wineries. The market is already flooded with bulk wine, and inventory is backed up at many wineries.

If the wine business does rebound, you can bet entrepreneurs like Tom Meyer, of now defunct Sauvignon Republic will be ready. After a tough year, his restaurant’s holding on. And with the wine label, Meyer says he only missed the mark by a few million. “And I think had we had another — this is going to sound crazy — another $2 million, we would have gotten over the hump, made the wines we wanted to make, paid our bank notes, life would have been great.”

And in news at the other end of the wine buying spectrum:

Investors push 2009 Bordeaux to over $1,000 a bottle

An exceptionally good Bordeaux is running at an exceptionally high price, with many buyers coming from China and Hong Kong. 2009 might have been a bitter year for the economy, but it was a very good year for Bordeaux. Wine from that region in France is selling for $1,500 a bottle — and it hasn’t even been bottled yet.

Wine experts generally agree that the perfect mix of a wet spring and a hot summer has made the 2009 vintage one of the best they can remember. But at more than $1,000 a bottle, who’s going to buy it? Investors are top of the list. But according to Simon Davies from specialist wine merchant Fine & Rare, a lot of the money is coming from China and Hong Kong, where genuine wine-lovers are ready to snap them up.”You know, it’s nice that these wines won’t necessarily be tied up in investment funds or what have you for, you know, for a decade or more. You know, it’s actually quite nice to think that these are going to admittedly very wealthy, but very wealthy end users. You know, these are actually going to be drunk and so they should be.”

And having spent all this money, the wine isn’t even ready to drink yet. It’ll be bottled and stored for 10 or 20 years until the owner decides to taste it. And when they finally do get around to pulling the cork, it’ll be worth a lot more than they paid.

Here is Jessica Bennett’s article which appears in Newsweek’s special report The Beauty Advantage.

Most of us have heard the story of Debrahlee Lorenzana, the 33-year-old Queens, N.Y., woman who sued Citibank last month, claiming that, in pencil skirts, turtlenecks, and peep-toe stilettos, she was fired from her desk job for being “too hot.” We’ve also watched Lorenzana’s credibility come into question, as vintage clips of her appearance on a reality-TV show about plastic surgery portray a rambling, attention-obsessed twit, stuffed to the brim with implants and collagen. (“I love plastic surgery,” she coos. “I think it’s the best thing that ever happened.”) Creepy, yes. But for all the talk about this woman’s motives—and whether or not she was indeed fired for her looks—there’s one question nobody seems to want to ask: isn’t it possible Lorenzana’s looks got her the job in the first place?

Not all employers are that shallow—but it’s no secret we are a culture consumed by image. Economists have long recognized what’s been dubbed the “beauty premium”—the idea that pretty people, whatever their aspirations, tend to do better in, well, almost everything. Handsome men earn, on average, 5 percent more than their less-attractive counterparts (good-looking women earn 4 percent more); pretty people get more attention from teachers, bosses, and mentors; even babies stare longer at good-looking faces (and we stare longer at good-looking babies). A couple of decades ago, when the economy was thriving—and it was a makeup-less Kate Moss, not a plastic-surgery-plumped Paris Hilton, who was considered the beauty ideal—we might have brushed off those statistics as superficial. But in 2010, when Heidi Montag’s bloated lips plaster every magazine in town, when little girls lust after an airbrushed, unattainable body ideal, there’s a growing bundle of research to show that our bias against the unattractive—our “beauty bias,” as a new book calls it—is more pervasive than ever. And when it comes to the workplace, it’s looks, not merit, that all too often rule.

Consider the following: over his career, a good-looking man will make some $250,000 more than his least-attractive counterpart, according to economist Daniel Hamermesh; 13 percent of women, according to the American Society of Plastic Surgeons (and 10 percent of men, according to a new NEWSWEEK survey), say they’d consider cosmetic surgery if it made them more competitive at work. Both points are disturbing, certainly. But in the current economy, when employers have more hiring options than ever, looks, it seems, aren’t just important; they’re critical. NEWSWEEK surveyed 202 corporate hiring managers, from human-resources staff to senior-level vice presidents, as well as 964 members of the public, only to confirm what no qualified (or unqualified) employee wants to admit: from hiring to office politics to promotions, even, looking good is no longer something we can dismiss as frivolous or vain.

Fifty-seven percent of hiring managers told NEWSWEEK that qualified but unattractive candidates are likely to have a harder time landing a job, while more than half advised spending as much time and money on “making sure they look attractive” as on perfecting a résumé. When it comes to women, apparently, flaunting our assets works: 61 percent of managers (the majority of them men) said it would be an advantage for a woman to wear clothing showing off her figure at work. (Ouch.) Asked to rank employee attributes in order of importance, meanwhile, managers placed looks above education: of nine character traits, it came in third, below experience (No. 1) and confidence (No. 2) but above “where a candidate went to school” (No. 4). Does that mean you should drop out of Harvard and invest in a nose job? Probably not. But a state school might be just as marketable. “This is the new reality of the job market,” says one New York recruiter, who asked to have her name withheld because she advises job candidates for a living. “It’s better to be average and good- looking than brilliant and unattractive.”

Remember the story about the 1960 Nixon-Kennedy debate? It goes to show our beauty bias is nothing novel. At the time, radio listeners thought Nixon had won, but those watching Kennedy’s tanned, chiseled face on TV, next to a worn-down, 5 o’clock-shadowed Nixon, were sure it was the junior senator. There are various explanations for some of this. Plato wrote of the “golden proportions,” which dubbed the width of an ideal face an exact two thirds its length, a nose no longer than the distance between the eyes. Biologically speaking, humans are attracted to symmetrical faces and curvy women for a reason: it’s those shapes that are believed to produce the healthiest offspring. As the thinking goes, symmetrical faces are then deemed beautiful; beauty is linked to confidence; and it’s a combination of looks and confidence that we often equate with smarts. Perhaps there’s some evidence to that: if handsome kids get more attention from teachers, then, sure, maybe they do better in school and, ultimately, at work. But the more likely scenario is what scientists dub the “halo effect”—that, like a pack of untrained puppies, we are mesmerized by beauty, blindly ascribing intelligent traits to go along with it.

There are various forces to blame for much of this, from an economy that allows pickiness to a plastic-surgery industry that encourages superficial notions of beauty. In reality, it’s a confluence of cultural forces that has left us clutching, desperately, to an ever-evolving beauty ideal. Today’s young workers were reared on the kind of reality TV and pop culture that screams, again and again, that everything is a candidate for upgrade. We’ve watched bodies transformed on Extreme Makeover, faces taken apart and pieced back together on I Want a Famous Face. We compare ourselves with the airbrushed images in advertisements and magazines, and read surveys—like this one—that confirm our worst fears. We are a culture more sexualized than ever (Mad Men notwithstanding), with technology that’s made it easier than ever to “better” ourselves, warping our standards for what’s normal. Plastic surgery used to be for the rich and famous; today we’ve leveled the playing field with cheap boob jobs, tummy tucks, and outpatient procedures you can get on your lunch break. Where that leads us is running to stand still: taught that good looks are no longer a gift but a ceaseless pursuit.

Deborah Rhode, a Stanford law professor and author of The Beauty Bias, is herself an interesting case study. During her term as chair of the American Bar Association’s commission on working women, she was struck by how often the nation’s most powerful females were stranded in cab lines and late for meetings because, in heels, walking any distance was out of the question. These were working, powerful, leading women, she writes. Why did they insist on wearing heels? Sure, some women just like heels (and still others probably know their bosses like them). But there is also the reality that however hard men have it—and, from an economic perspective, their “beauty premium” is higher, say economists—women will always face a double bind, expected to conform to the beauty standards of the day, yet simultaneously condemned for doing so. Recruiters may think women like Lorenzana can get ahead for showing off their looks, but 47 percent also believe it’s possible for a woman to be penalized for being “too good-looking.” Whether or not any of it pays off, there’s something terribly wrong when 6-year-olds are using makeup, while their mothers spend the equivalent of a college education just keeping their faces intact. “All of this is happening against a backdrop of more women in the workplace, in all kinds of jobs, striving toward wage equality,” says Harvard psychologist Nancy Etcoff. “So we’re surprised—but we shouldn’t be—how this [beauty curse] continues to haunt us.”

Forty years ago, when feminists threw their bras into the “Freedom Trash Can” outside the 1968 Miss America pageant (no, they didn’t really burn them!), it was to protest the idea that women had become “enslaved by ludicrous beauty standards,” as the organizers put it. At the time, women still made up just a fraction of the workforce, and yet they were rejecting the notion that, in work or play, they had to be confined to the role of busty secretary—a mere office toy. A decade later, as women entered the workforce in droves, it was boxy suits, not bustiers, that defined their dress. But today’s working women have achieved “equality” (or so we’re led to believe): they dominate the workforce, they are household breadwinners, and so they balk at having to subvert their sexuality, whether in the boardroom or on the beach. Yet while the outside-work milieu might accept the empowered yet feminine ideal, the workplace surely doesn’t. Studies show that unattractive women remain at a disadvantage in low-level positions like secretary, while in upper-level fields that are historically male-dominated, good-looking women can suffer a so-called bimbo effect. They are viewed as too feminine, less intelligent, and, ultimately, less competent—not only by men but also by their female peers.

To add an extra layer of complexity, there’s the conundrum of aging in a culture where younger workers are more tech-savvy, cheaper, and, well, nicer on the eyes. Eighty-four percent of managers told NEWSWEEK they believe a qualified but visibly older candidate would make some employers hesitate, and while ageism affects men, too, it’s particularly tough for women. As Rhode puts it, silver hair and furrowed brows may make aging men look “distinguished,” but aging women risk marginalization or ridicule for their efforts to pass as young. “This double standard,” Rhode writes, “leaves women not only perpetually worried about their appearance—but also worried about worrying.”

The quest for beauty may be a centuries-old obsession, but in the present day the reality is ugly. Beauty has more influence than ever—not just over who we work with, but whether we work at all.

Are the pricier pairs worth it?

Brett Arends’ article in The Wall Street Journal tells you what you need to know before buying:

1. Most sunglasses are made by the same company. Do you prefer the “quality” of Ray-Ban to Oakley? Do you think Bulgari is better than Dolce & Gabbana, or Salvatore Ferragamo is better than Prada? Wake up. They’re all made by one company, Italian manufacturer Luxottica–one of the biggest consumer companies that consumers have never heard of. Luxottica also makes sunglasses branded Burberry, Chanel, Polo Ralph Lauren, Paul Smith, Stella McCartney, Tiffany, Versace, Vogue, Persol, Miu Miu, Tory Burch and Donna Karan.

“We manufacture about 70% of those brands in our factories in Italy, and the balance in America and China,” says Luxottica spokesman Luca Biondolillo. “We do the design, the manufacturing, and the marketing,” he adds. The company makes most of those brands under license, working closely with designers at the relevant fashion houses. But it owns several brands itself, including Ray-Ban, Oakley, Oliver Peoples and REVO.

2. In many cases, the same company is also selling you the glasses. Luxottica also owns LensCrafters, Pearle Vision and Sunglass Hut. This is extreme vertical integration. The eye doctor telling you that you need a new pair of glasses, the sales people helping you choose them and the people who design and make the glasses all work for the same company. Make of it what you will. But if your financial advisor was actually employed by the mutual fund company that he recommended for your portfolio, you’d at least want to know.

3.The markups are as big as they seem. Whenever I have bought a new pair of regular eyeglasses, I have always reflected on how little I seem to get for my money. I can sort of understand why lenses are so expensive, as the material has to be made and ground precisely. But $100 or $200 for frames? These are bits of metal or molded plastic. Once I bought tiny slivers of hollow titanium that weighed considerably less than the bills I was handing over.

The cost of a new pair of glasses will of course reflect materials and labor. But the price will also reflect brand values and marketing–and how much consumers will pay. Luxottica says it makes a gross profit of 64 cents on each dollar of sales. Even after deducting sales and advertising costs, overhead and brand licensing royalties it’s still making 52 cents. That’s some margin.

While the company’s return on equity has fallen since the global economy turned down, last year it still managed a respectable 11%, according to data from FactSet Research Systems. A few years ago that number was as high as 20%. And investors are confident on the company’s future. The stock has jumped from $13 to $25 from last year’s market lows. It’s about 20 times likely earnings, an optimistic rating.

4. Those expensive sunglasses may not be any better for your eyes, either. “Three hundred dollar sunglasses don’t do anything better than $100 sunglasses, except maybe look better and have a brand name associated with them” says Dr. Jay Duker, chair of ophthalmology at Tufts Medical Center.

“A significant chunk of what you pay for isn’t the quality of the lenses, it’s the brand,” adds Dr. Reza Dana, director of the cornea and refractive surgery service at Massachusetts Eye and Ear Infirmary. He notes that making lenses that offer protection against harmful ultra-violet rays “isn’t very expensive technology.” And while spending more may get you better quality frames, here, too, there are laws of diminishing returns.

For about $40, says Dr. Duker, you can get a pair that offers 100% protection against ultra-violet rays. If you spend maybe $70 you should be able to get a pair with decent quality polarizing lenses that cut out glare. Beyond that, the medical benefits tail off pretty fast.

5. An inexpensive pair of sunglasses from the pharmacy isn’t the worst thing in the world. They may be fine for most people in most circumstances, Dr. Dana says. “The main reason people wear sunglasses is to block out (regular) white light,” he says, “and from that point of view, cheaper glasses work pretty well.” And they will probably block most UV rays, even if not all of them, he adds.

6. Those fancy glasses are really costing you a lot more than you realize. If you make your shades last for many years, that would be one thing. But who does that? The people who want designer items want the latest fashion each year. And then there are the pairs that get lost. Scratched at the beach. And sat on. Personally, I have come to consider sunglasses a disposable item, and I suspect I am not alone.

Over a lifetime these things add up. Indeed they compound. Even at, say, 4% interest, $200 a year over 50 years adds up to $30,000.

1.    Make ‘Em Laugh

“Most marketing campaigns fall down because they’re specifically designed to sell products and generate leads,” says David Meerman Scott, viral-marketing strategist and author of The New Rules of Marketing and PR. A better plan, he says, is to back off the sell and amp up the entertainment.

How: MicroBilt, in Cherry Hill, N.J., helps companies gauge the creditworthiness of their clients. (Yawn.) To spice up its message, it marketed itself by marketing its clients–specifically by creating edgy videos for them. For Red House, a furniture retailer in High Point, N.C., that offers financing to customers with shaky credit, MicroBilt created a video with a jauntily irreverent song about how Red House sells to “black and white people.” CNN ran a light-hearted news segment about it. For MicroBilt, it’s a subtle sell: The company name doesn’t appear in the commercials, but in theory the more furniture Red House sells, the more demand it will have for MicroBilt’s services.

Cost: Production could run to several thousand dollars, but sticking the video on YouTube is free.

2.    Be a Guru: Part I

Whether you sell real estate or fix teeth, you know a whole lot more about your business than your customers do. Attract attention by sharing that expertise.

How: The world loves an expert. Two decades ago, Barbara Corcoran, founder of the Corcoran Group, a New York real estate firm, created The Corcoran Report–a timely, statistical snapshot of local real estate prices–and sent the data to the local newspapers, which then printed the statistics. Another example: Every quarter, MicroBilt publishes a digital magazine, SEE, discussing regulatory changes and general tips on running small businesses.

Cost: Publishing a newsletter or a comprehensive white paper requires time and research, though you may find willing, able and cash-strapped business or journalism students to share the load.

3.    Stick to a Shtick

Some brands are so dialed in to a customer base–its history, interests and aspirations–that the marketing effort smacks more of a celebration.

How: Jeremy Cowan, founder of Shmaltz Brewing Co., maker of He’Brew beer, builds all his events around Jewish themes. Each year, he hosts an anniversary party where he gives out yarmulkes and Hanukkah Gelt (kosher chocolate coins) with his brand on it. (Jewish DJs often work their magic for free beer.) Cowan also ran a contest asking for bat mitzvah photos to create a collage now used on his label and invites. “It’s not just weird,” he says. “It reinforces our message and our vision.”

Cost: A few thousand bucks, depending on the extravagance of the events.

4.    Connect With Customers by Making Them Stars

This is a less costly twist on MicroBilt’s make-a-video strategy, with a dash of social-networking spice thrown in. Talented or not, people want to share their art, stories, even their hopes and dreams. Give them an outlet in exchange for sampling your product or service.

How: When skin care company Philosophy launched a new fragrance, “Unconditional Love”, just before Valentine’s Day this year, it put out a call for love stories to be posted on its Web site. It received 2,000 submissions. Each writer received samples of the perfume–and the company got their contact information.

Cost: Beyond the free products, minimal.

5. Tweet (No, really, we mean it.)

By now you’ve heard about Twitter–that curious, strangely addictive social-networking technology that facilitates the exchange of torrents of severely truncated messages (140 characters max) among millions of users. You may have read that it’s a waste of time–and in many respects, that’s true. What’s also true is that Twitter can be a powerful marketing tool.

How: Congratulations for getting to the end of this sentence. “As an online culture, people are not reading; they’re scanning,” says Dell Computer’s Stefanie Nelson, voice of @DellOutlet. “The shorter and more direct your message is, the more successful you’re going to be.” Dell tweets links to coupons at Dell Outlet’s Facebook page, which shoppers use during checkout at Dell.com. This strategy works for small companies, too: The abbreviated offers are easy to produce–you don’t need an ad agency to write 140 characters. Viral Marketing: In July, in honor of its 10th birthday, London-based do-it-yourself Web site builder Moonfruit gave away 11 Macbook Pro computers and 10 iPod Touches. Contestants had to tweet using the hashtag #moonfruit. (Hashtags collate Twitter responses.) Nearly a month after the contest ended, traffic to Moonfruit’s Web site is up 300%. Sales are up 20% this month, more than paying off the $15,000. investment. And the Moonfruit Web site has climbed onto the first Google page for “free website builder” (it used to be on the fourth). Word to the wise, says Moonfruit founder Wendy White: Such campaigns must be courteous and fit with a company’s brand, lest you draw the ire of the Twitter-sphere: “There’s a fine line between annoying people and getting the thumbs up.” Conversational Marketing: Online shoe-retailer Zappos doesn’t market on Twitter–it talks. A small army of 436 Zappos employees use Twitter (Chief Exeuctive Tony Hsieh leads the way with a shade over 1 million followers). “You get to see Zappos people and culture before you decide to buy anything from them,” says Shel Israel, author of Twitterville. Focus Groups: “There is a major element of Twitter that’s about listening and learning,” says Brad Nelson, the man behind @Starbucks. “Twitter is a leading indicator.” Collecting the information is as simple as searching for references to your company. There are many other ways Twitter can be an effective marketing tool from customer service to vendor selection.

6. Work the Press

Mentions in the news media offer what traditional marketing and advertising can’t: exposure with implied credibility. While PR is nothing new, plenty of companies (and PR agencies) still don’t get it.

How: To get your foot in the door with journalists, first build trust and rapport by offering information on your industry without angling for a profile, or even a quote. Second, offer constructive feedback on important stories; most journalists’ e-mail addresses are online, so you can write to them directly. Third, remember that pain sells–in any economic environment. Cautionary tales that readers can learn from are inherently intriguing, so don’t be afraid to share.

Cost: PR firms charge by the project or by monthly retainer (up to $15,000 a month). Tight on cash? Negotiate a pay-for-performance contract–based on press citations or other measurable metrics.

7.    Be a Guru: Part II

Disseminating data and white papers is nice, but ultimately connecting with customers is what counts.

How: Add your own personal touch by speaking at local organizations and penning articles for publications. “Don’t dare try to sell anything,” says guerrilla-marketing expert Jay Conrad Levinson. Your price: a brief biography and a link back to your Web site.

Cost: At the margin, nothing. You would have spent those hours networking some other way, right?

8.    Get on the Menu

If you can, let others do your marketing for you.

How: Four years ago, Chris Lindland, founder of Cordarounds, online peddler of pants with horizontal whales (that go “around” the leg), had a clever viral-marketing idea. He convinced the proprietors of the Black Horse pub, his favorite watering hole in San Francisco, to add Cordarounds as an item to its drink menu. The trade: Lindland promised (by way of a biweekly e-mail to customers) a free beer for all who dropped by the Black Horse wearing his Cordarounds. He only had to make good on that promise about once a month; meanwhile, hundreds of Black Horse customers ended up asking what the heck Cordarounds were.

Cost: Minimal.

9. Host a Virtual Trade Show

Traditional trade shows are a convention-center-sized hassle–and they cost a lot to boot. Add up booth rental and presentation time-slot fees, advertising, promotional doodads and travel expenses (never mind the lost time away from the office), and a company’s tab can rocket up to $100,000 per show. Hence the rise of virtual trade shows, designed to look and function like the real thing but that play out in real time in cyberspace. Entry fee: just $3,000 to $8,000. Better yet, you don’t need to be a computer wizard to participate.

10.    Meet the Neighbors

The rise of online networks plugged into specific local communities is a huge marketing opportunity for small businesses.

How: LifeAt.com, for example, allows users to post news, classified ads and restaurant reviews. The site keeps tabs on hundreds of “communities”–including specific apartment buildings and neighborhoods. Other sites that can help boost local visibility are Yelp.com, Insiderpages.com and Best of the Web.

Cost: Minimal, and varies by site and service provider.

11. Build a Board to Buff Your Rep

Small businesses are short on a lot of things, credibility included. The higher your profile, the more clout you’ll have with suppliers, partners and customers. A board of advisers can help.

How: Trustworthy lawyers and bankers are solid additions to any board. Whatever the mix, collect a spread of perspectives and complementary skills; also, assemble an odd number (three is good for a small business) in case you’re looking for a swing vote on a key decision. Finally, recruit advisers on a short-term basis: The advice your business needs at $500,000 in sales is different from what it needs at $5 million. (Note: Don’t confuse a board of advisers with a board of directors.)

Cost: Perhaps $5,000 in stipends annually

12.    Light up Their Inboxes

E-mail marketing has been around for years, but the tricky part remains getting people to open the messages in the first place.

How: Here are three handy tips, courtesy of Gene Marks, owner of the Marks Group, a technology consultancy to small businesses. First, avoid using generic addresses like sales@ or info@ in the “from” line; second, keep the “from” name consistent and recognizable in all e-mails; third, be clear and specific as to what’s being offered in the subject line (”Acme’s Weekly Newsletter” won’t cut it).

Cost: Easy-to-use, database-driven tools–many customizable, down to the logos and graphics–cost around $100 per month to blast thousands of e-mails.

13.    Bake It in

Marketing shouldn’t be an afterthought–it should be an integral part of the business concept and execution strategy.

How: KidZaam, in Prescott, Ariz., aims to make going to the dentist fun for kids. KidZaam’s office–in all of its red, blue and yellow glory–looks like something out of either a Bugs Bunny cartoon or a bad acid trip. While they wait for their appointment, kids can watch movies or play their favorite videogames. Parents have been known to drive two hours to ease the pain.

Cost: Depends on the concept.

14.    Barter for Exposure

By now, everyone knows that the more people who link to a Web site, the higher it appears in Google’s search results. That’s where all those trigger-happy bloggers come in.

How: ScanMyPhotos International, a Los Angeles-based shop that turns print photos into digital files, offered bloggers 1,000 free photo scans if they agreed to place a link to Scan’s site on their blogs. Result: Within two months, Scan’s site leaped to the first search page when Google users entered the phrase “photo scanning.” (Note: Be sure to specify the text that bloggers use when linking to your site–choosing the right keywords is critical to getting the most out of the search engines.)

Cost: Time and service–a potentially small investment for scalable, online businesses.

15.    Cozy up to Celebrities

Think celebrity sponsorship is the solely province of companies with huge marketing budgets? Think again.

How: When he wasn’t waiting tables at Red Lobster in Queens, N.Y., Daymond John dreamed of launching a designer T-shirt company. To get started, back in 1993, he leaned on friends in the music industry to finagle his way onto music-video sets, where he mingled with the performers and even begged their stylists and crew members to don one of his 10 early designs. “I think I got 200 ‘nos,’ ” John recalls. He eventually convinced hip hop group Brand Nubian to wear his shirts in their video “Word is Bond.” Soon, the press caught wind of FUBU, and now the full fledged “streetwear” company generates a whopping $370 million in annual revenue.

Cost: A lot of networking and phone calls.

16.    Wipe Off the Lens

If all else fails, take another hard look at the market and its willingness to pay for your product or service.

How: Four years ago, Sarah Endline, a former Yahoo! product designer, hosted small focus groups to hit upon a new candy idea: pebble-sized cacao beans smothered in premium chocolate. In one effort, Endline invited 12 people to munch on everything from Gummi bears to organic chocolate bars; later she enlisted Harvard B-school students to host focus groups on campus. Result: a rocking little candy maker called Sweetriot in Manhattan’s trendy SoHo district.

Cost: Market surveys can cost up to $10,000, but there are some cheaper online options. Zoomerang charges $600 for a year subscription to its surveys service; Survey Monkey offers subscriptions starting at around $20 per month or $200 a year. Focus groups? Perhaps $100 for food and drinks.

The defeat in a battle that lasted six years is a blow to Disney, which plans to appeal against the ruling. It said the verdict was “fundamentally wrong”, adding that it would “seek to have it reversed”. But Paul Smith, the chairman of Celador Entertainment, which used to own the series, said: “To have succeeded where most others wouldn’t have dared to tread is the greatest achievement. We took on a giant company and we won.”

The suit was brought when a dispute arose over Celador’s share of the profits generated by the show. Mr. Smith told the Financial Times Celador was entitled to a 50 per cent share of profits but its payments from Disney were much lower than expected. “We investigated and believed we were being defrauded,” he said. “We discussed it with Disney amicably to try and get to a conclusion there was money owing us that had not been paid.” When a settlement could not be reached, the group launched legal action in 2004. Disney argued in court that it had upheld its contractual obligations and Celador had structured the deal to get more money upfront, leaving Disney with the risks of producing and distributing the program.

Maybe there was a great risk to Disney for they purchased the US rights to this show in 1998 and in 1999 an email from Michael Eisner (the then Disney Chief Executive) stated, the program was as important to ABC’s fortunes as the group’s rights to screen American football. Hey, you never know what could happen in a year.

As for Fantasyland….here are our top 6 Disney Villains:

Cruella De Vil – evil is spelled right out in her name, and she’s going after puppies.

Maleficent – A rose would not smell as sweet if named after the bad fairy in Sleeping Beauty.

Captain Hook – the guy has got to be bad if you are rooting for a crocodile to eat the man

Lampwick (from Pinnochio) – oh the menace of the insipid bad influence that preys on the innocent.

Scar (from the Lion King) - Bad Lion, Bad Lion !!!

And of course the Queen (from Snow White) – Vanity gone wild and murderous. Worst Stepmother ever.

1. What is your value proposition?

If you can’t explain–in three, jargon-free sentences or less–why customers need your product, you do not have a value proposition, and thus, you do not have a business. Period.

2. Does your product address a viable market?

Seinfeld’s Kramer was convinced that the Mansierre (a bra for men) was his ticket to riches. Not that he did any research to confirm that there was a viable market, let alone one large enough to attract investment capital. Never assume you can create demand where it hasn’t already been expressed. Don’t hawk the next Mansierre.

3. What differentiates your product from the competition?

It’s true that Starbucks made people believe they wanted $4 caffeinated concoctions, and Louis Vuitton lulled people into shelling out $1,500 for denim handbags. But marketing alone won’t cut it. If you want to win in business, you need to deliver tangible value where other companies don’t. Examples: rock-bottom prices (Wal-Mart); ingenious product design (Apple); extreme convenience (FedEx). Find your edge and hammer on it.

4. Does the business scale?

The difference between modest wealth and obscene riches is “scale.” Scalable businesses are those that can produce the next widget at a fraction of the cost. Think software: Once Microsoft shelled out to develop the code for its Windows operating system, the incremental cost of printing each additional copy was next to nothing. What models don’t scale? Think service businesses, where the need for people grows with revenue.

5. How committed are you to making this happen?

You have a family and two kids. Are you ready to burn 100 hours a week for the next two years to get your start-up off the ground? Fair warning: If you want to run the show, get ready to give everything–and then some.

6. What are your strengths?

Google writes powerful search algorithms; Steinway works wonders with wood; Cisco sniffs out promising new technologies and buys them. Figure out what you’re good at and stick to it. An obvious notion, perhaps, but plenty of zealous entrepreneurs lose their way–especially when the world seems so full of possibilities.

7. What are your weaknesses?

Know what you do well, and know what you don’t. Example: Apple doesn’t make the cameras in its iPhone; it buys them from somebody else. Countless online merchants farm out the design of their websites and back-office payment systems. Wasting resources just to be mediocre is suicide: Stick to what you know and find trusted partners to handle the rest.

8. What price will your customers pay?

Why will people pay twice as much for Clorox as they will for generic bleach? Who knows, but nailing the upper limits of what customers will pay, be it for an iPhone or a bottle of bleach, is one of the biggest levers in any business model. Consultants get paid handsomely to help companies arrive at the right price. For more affordable advice, check out “The Six-Step Guide To Pricing Your Product.” Wannabe consultants should read “How To Price Your Consulting Services.”

9. How much power do your buyers have?

No business wants to sell squeegees to the only window washing company in town. If that customer demands big price cuts, walks away or folds, the business is done. Spread your risk by diversifying your customer base.

10. How much power do your suppliers have?

The fewer number of suppliers, the more sway they have. A knotty-pine grandfather-clock business may sound great, but what if there’s only one source of knotty pine? Answer: You’re going to pay. (On the flipside, beware getting hooked on hungry, low-cost providers who don’t keep an eye on quality.)

11. How should you sell your product?

Dell Computer bypassed retailers and sold directly to customers, with limited tech support. General Motors and Coca Cola rely on distributors to move their cars and cans. Clothing companies like Ralph Lauren work both internal and external channels. And Apple keeps adding more of its own airy and fashionable outposts, complete with live product tutorials and throngs of geeky customer-service agents. Whatever sales method you choose, make sure it aligns with your overall business strategy.

12. How should you market your product?

Getting the word out about your company–without going broke–is no mean feat. In the mid ’90s, America Online spent so much money flooding the planet with free trial software that it tried to mask the bleeding by capitalizing those expenses on its balance sheet. (Regulators later nixed that accounting treatment, wiping out millions in accounting profits.) For a host of innovative and affordable marketing techniques, check out “16 Must-Try Marketing Maneuvers.”

13. How big is the threat of new entrants?

If there’s money to be made, the competition will come. If not a direct rival (think what Microsoft did to Netscape in Internet browsers), then a substitute technology might take out your legs (look at what digital film did to Kodak). Construct barriers to entry–by filing a patent, securing an enviable lease, building a loyal following–long before that happens.

14. How do you protect your intellectual property?

A quick follow-on to the previous slide: Say you invented a car that can go 150 mph on solar power alone. A few months later five savvy rivals have reverse-engineered it and are now bringing their versions to market. Before you crank out prototypes for the public, file for a provisional patent. It protects your idea for a year while you work out the kinks. For more on intellectual-property protection, check out “Protect Your Prototype” and “The Patented Path To Profits.”

15. How much start-up capital do you need?

Any early-stage investor or small business consultant will tell you that most businesses fail because they were undercapitalized. While there are no absolute rules here, “you probably want to double your initial estimate,” says Jim Pack, chief executive of Curve Dental, an Orem, Utah, maker of dental office software.

16. How will you finance the business?

You have a few choices, including Aunt Sally, credit cards (dangerous), angel investors, venture capital (if you’re really onto something), bank loans (good luck finding them) and the most expensive route, equity. Beware, though: Selling shares to the public comes with a host of headaches, including dilution of ownership, loss of control and regulatory hurdles. Bottom line: Bootstrap the business if you can. Finally, always remember to match the timing of cash inflows from your assets and the outflows to cover liabilities. A mismatch can sting.

17. How much cash do you need to survive the early years?

For those who slept through the previous slide: Again, mind your cash. Plenty of entrepreneurs boast hockey-stick-shaped financial projections but turn out their pockets before the good times have a chance to kick in. (Remember all those busted dot-com companies from the tech boom?) Hold back on the Aeron chairs and mongo Mac computers until more cash is flowing in than out–and then add plenty of extra cushion.

18. What are your financial projections?

You can’t lead if you don’t have a destination. Two critical milestones: 1) the point where more cash is coming into the business than going out in a given period, and 2) the point at which you finally recuperate your cumulative initial investment (including an adjustment for the time value of money). Financial projections should be reasonable. Paint too rosy a picture and seasoned investors will run; more to the point, you might run out of cash.

19. How do you keep the help happy?

What is American Idol without Simon Cowell? We’ll all find out soon, but many people think the show won’t have nearly the same draw. If you’re lucky enough to find great talent, do your best to encourage them–and pay checks are just part of the equation.

20. What is your end game?

Looking to flip your business to the first guerrilla that comes along? MySpace did, Facebook hasn’t. Different end games require different strategies. Always be mindful of yours. Not sure whether you want to build the next great empire or just make a decent buck? Ask yourself the following 13 questions.

1. Why Go Big at All?

Mapping out your long-term goals for the business is critical before you decide to kick growth into high gear. Aiming to sell out in a few years? Fine. Suffused with competitive desire? OK. Just want to be left alone to trick out your product, with little care for the bottom line? Stay small.

2. Can You See Around Corners?

Empire-building isn’t just about goal-setting and pinpoint execution. Superstars like Bill Gates and Sam Walton are bona fide revolutionaries. Self-made billionaires don’t dominate industries, they transform them–and spawn new ones. That takes more than intelligence, courage and luck; it takes divine-like vision.

3. Can You Tolerate and Manage Ambiguity?

Successful entrepreneurs can see through a jungle of conflicting data. The chief operating officer might want to expand into Asia, but the chief marketing officer thinks the move is premature. If ambiguity doesn’t grind you to a halt, then you might have what it takes to go big.

4. Do You Prize Independence?

Most entrepreneurs do–that’s why they start their own businesses. Early on you can make key decisions with impunity; better yet, you can do it by your own clock. Not so when the business starts growing and the to-do list scrolls past your feet. Worse, you’ll most likely have investors and board members to appease.

5. Do You Have the Guts to Double-Down?

It’s hard enough for many of us to muster the courage to abandon our cubicles and start a small company, let alone build an empire. And while the risks pile up as businesses expand, billionaires have a confidence bordering on arrogance that checks their fear and doubt. (They also go to absurd lengths to prove to themselves that the bets they do make will pay off.) The other challenge: Amassing $1 billion means spurning tempting million-dollar offers from larger competitors and buyout shops. Now that takes true fortitude.

6. Are You Inspired by Creativity or More Process-Oriented?

Many entrepreneurs start companies on raw creativity. They envision a new niche–a brand new world, even. But such imagination can get in the way when it comes time to install–and live within–the systems and processes necessary to accommodate growth.

7. Are You Willing to Make Tough Decisions For the Growth of the Company?

Sure, your sister and college roommate helped launch your business, but they may grow less useful as the business outgrows them. If you’re not comfortable supplanting (or firing) them, stay small.

8. Do You Like Speaking in Public?

Companies of any significant size need a public face. Entrepreneurs who thrive on public performances–weekly meetings, shareholder gripe sessions, even television interviews–have an easier time than those who prefer to stay out of the spotlight. If public speaking isn’t your forté but you still want to grow, find a confident substitute who can sell your story.

9. Are You a Consensus-Builder?

In most cases, the bigger your business, the more input you need from those around you. That means being willing and able to marshal consensus. Entrepreneurs with a my-way-or-the-highway mentality should think about staying small.

10. Can You Delegate?

The bigger your business, the less time you’ll have to interact with your employees. Clearly you can’t know what’s going on in every department all the time. If you can’t delegate, forget about growing.

11. If You Say You Need it On Your Desk By 9 a.m., Will it Get Done?

Anybody can hand out pink slips, but leaders of growing companies have to go a step further: They must command a certain degree of respect. As the stakes rise, you need a few drill sergeants on board. Not willing to sacrifice a little camaraderie to reach new heights? Put a cap on your growth plans.

12. Can You Work on Christmas?

The road to the top is paved with sacrifice. If you can stomach the idea of missing family events–and you will miss them–you might have what it takes to see through a 10-figure dream.

13. Can You Deal with Isolation?

Being a billionaire can be lonely. “Friends” appear out of nowhere, and authentic relationships are harder to develop. Balanced billionaires can sniff out parasites and cultivate a loyal inner circle of people they trust and enjoy.

The truth will set you free. Well, I have to admit I just misquoted John 8:32 which says, “…you shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free”.  ‘Knowing the truth’ and ‘speaking the truth’ are not always the same thing. In these times, or perhaps all times, when blatant dishonesty seems to run rampant and reap profits…and when the dishonest are caught red handed rarely is there a mea culpa? Why is that? Have they just become so used to working the flimflam that they can’t stop. They also must know that the truth will surely put them behind bars, which is not anyone’s definition of freedom.

A nutshell view of the recent Rogue’s Gallery shows the truth being quite the stranger to:

November 2009 – JPMorgan, in its settlement with the SEC, agreed to pay a $25 million penalty and cancel $647 million in fees owed by Alabama’s Jefferson County as the result of a complicated derivatives deal that blew up in the county’s face. As part of the settlement, JPMorgan neither admitted nor denied wrongdoing — despite ample evidence that it had engaged in plenty of wrongdoing. Things like paying off local officials with millions to win no-bid contracts worth billions and convincing county officials to switch from fixed-rate bonds to bonds hedged with risky derivatives — a switch that has driven Jefferson County to the brink of bankruptcy. “We have been victimized by our creditors,” said a county official.

April 2010 – Goldman Sachs, David Viniar the chief financial officer, told the panel that “we share responsibility” for the financial crisis. He also said “we care very much about ethics at Goldman Sachs.”  That’s the closest Goldman Sach’s got to saying Mea Culpa. But not so with Daniel“Denial” Sparks, who ran the bank’s mortgage unit at the time. When Sparks was asked, “How about the fact that you sold hundreds of millions of that deal after your people knew it was a shitty deal? Does that bother you at all?” by Senator Carl Levin. Sparks replied, “I don’t recall selling hundreds of millions of that deal after that,” adding that he believed the e-mail referred to his performance, not the security itself. “If you can’t give a clear answer to that one, Mr. Sparks, I don’t think we’re going to get too many clear answers from you,” Levin said.

June 2010 – BP faced with mounting criticism of his company, including from within the oil industry, BP’s chairman, Carl-Henric Svanberg denied reports that BP had taken safety shortcuts on the Deepwater Horizon rig, where an April 20 explosion killed 11 workers and set in motion the leak that Mr. Obama has called the worst environmental disaster in American history. But he did apologize, in a way… “People say that large oil companies don’t care about the small people. But we care. We care about the small people.” The “small people” comment set off an immediate uproar in the blogosphere and elsewhere from people who said it showed BP’s indifference to those harmed by the spill. A BP spokesman called the remark a “slip in translation” by Mr. Svanberg, who is Swedish. Later Wednesday Mr. Svanberg apologized, saying he was “very sorry” he had spoken “clumsily.”

Damned if you don’t, damned if you do.

A possible explanation to the proclivity to deny, misdirect, or out right lie can be found in Mistakes Were Made (But Not by Me), co-authored by Elliot Aronson, a social psychologist and  professor emeritus of psychology at University of California Santa Cruz.

50 years ago a young social psychologist named Leon Festinger and two associates infiltrated a group of people who believed the world would end on December 21. They wanted to know what would happen to the group when (they hoped!) the prophecy failed. The group’s leader, whom the researchers called Marian Keech, promised that the faithful would be picked up by a flying saucer and elevated to safety at midnight on December 20. At midnight, with no sign of a spaceship in the yard, the group felt a little nervous. By 2 a.m., they were getting seriously worried. At 4:45 a.m., Mrs. Keech had a new vision: The world had been spared, she said, because of the impressive faith of her little band. The group’s mood shifted from despair to exhilaration. Many of the group’s members, who had not felt the need to proselytize before December 21, began calling the press to report the miracle, and soon they were out on the streets, buttonholing passersby, trying to convert them.

The engine that drives self-justification, the energy that produces the need to justify our actions and decisions — especially the wrong ones — is an unpleasant feeling that Festinger called “cognitive dissonance.” Cognitive dissonance is a state of tension that occurs whenever a person holds two cognitions (ideas, attitudes, beliefs, opinions) that are psychologically inconsistent, such as “Smoking is a dumb thing to do because it could kill me” and “I smoke two packs a day.” Dissonance produces mental discomfort, ranging from minor pangs to deep anguish; people don’t rest easy until they find a way to reduce it. In this example, the most direct way for a smoker to reduce dissonance is by quitting. But if she has tried to quit and failed, now she must reduce dissonance by convincing herself that smoking isn’t really so harmful, or that smoking is worth the risk because it helps her relax or prevents her from gaining weight (and after all, obesity is a health risk, too), and so on. Most smokers manage to reduce dissonance in many such ingenious, if self-deluding, ways.

Dissonance is disquieting because to hold two ideas that contradict each other is to flirt with absurdity and, as Albert Camus observed, we humans are creatures who spend our lives trying to convince ourselves that our existence is not absurd. At the heart of it, Festinger’s theory is about how people strive to make sense out of contradictory ideas and lead lives that are, at least in their own minds, consistent and meaningful. The theory inspired more than 3,000 experiments that, taken together, have transformed psychologists’ understanding of how the human mind works. Cognitive dissonance has even escaped academia and entered popular culture. The term is everywhere. The two of us have heard it in TV newscasts, political columns, magazine articles, bumper stickers, even on a soap opera. Alex Trebek used it on Jeopardy, Jon Stewart on The Daily Show, and President Bartlet on The West Wing. Although the expression has been thrown around a lot, few people fully understand its meaning or appreciate its enormous motivational power.

In 1956, Elliot Aronson arrived at Stanford University as a graduate student in psychology. Festinger had arrived that same year as a young professor, and they immediately began working together, designing experiments to test and expand dissonance theory. Their thinking challenged many notions that were gospel in psychology and among the general public, such as the behaviorist’s view that people do things primarily for the rewards they bring, the economist’s view that human beings generally make rational decisions, and the psychoanalyst’s view that acting aggressively gets rid of aggressive impulses.

Consider how dissonance theory challenged behaviorism. At the time, most scientific psychologists were convinced that people’s actions are governed by reward and punishment. It is certainly true that if you feed a rat at the end of a maze, he will learn the maze faster than if you don’t feed him; if you give your dog a biscuit when she gives you her paw, she will learn that trick faster than if you sit around hoping she will do it on her own. Conversely, if you punish your pup when you catch her peeing on the carpet, she will soon stop doing it. Behaviorists further argued that anything that was merely associated with reward would become more attractive — your puppy will like you because you give her biscuits — and anything associated with pain would become noxious and undesirable.

Behavioral laws do apply to human beings, too, of course; no one would stay in a boring job without pay, and if you give your toddler a cookie to stop him from having a tantrum, you have taught him to have another tantrum when he wants a cookie. But, for better or worse, the human mind is more complex than the brain of a rat or a puppy. A dog may appear contrite for having been caught peeing on the carpet, but she will not try to think up justifications for her misbehavior. Humans think; and because we think, dissonance theory demonstrated that our behavior transcends the effects of rewards and punishments and often contradicts them.

For example, Elliot predicted that if people go through a great deal of pain, discomfort, effort, or embarrassment to get something, they will be happier with that “something” than if it came to them easily. For behaviorists, this was a preposterous prediction. Why would people like anything associated with pain? But for Elliot, the answer was obvious: self-justification. The cognition that I am a sensible, competent person is dissonant with the cognition that I went through a painful procedure to achieve something — say, joining a group that turned out to be boring and worthless. Therefore, I would distort my perceptions of the group in a positive direction, trying to find good things about them and ignoring the downside.

20 Things You Should Never Buy Used

Via Wise Bread, by Amy Lu

Posted: June 7, 2010

1. Cribs and children’s furniture: If there’s any chance that you’ll put your children at risk by buying used, just buy new. Used children’s furniture, especially cribs, can be a safety hazard because you can’t be certain of a potential recall or if the crib was installed correctly.

2. Car seats: Even if a used car seat looks OK, damaged car seats aren’t uncommon. Considering that safety technology improves every year — and the fact that car seats can go for as little as $50 — buying new is usually the better option.

3. Bicycle helmets: Usually, a crash would only crush the foam inside the helmet casing, so the damage to the helmet may not be visible. However, since helmets are meant to protect against one accident only, buying new would be a safer bet.

4. Tires: Sometimes it’s hard to tell if used tires were once part of a totaled wreck. If they have been in an accident, they’re bound to be unstable and unreliable. Putting your safety at risk for the sake of saving a few bucks just doesn’t add up.

5. Laptops: Because of their portability, laptops are prone to all sorts of abuse and problems. When you buy a used laptop, unless it’s refurbished, you have no idea what it’s been through or when important parts will die on you. You also don’t get the warranties and tech support that come with buying new.

6. Software: Most software comes with a serial number that you register with the company when you activate the software on your computer. If the serial number on your use software has already been registered, you can’t use it again.

7. Plasma and HDTVs: The cost for fixing or replacing the parts on plasma or HDTVs is high. Sometimes, it costs as much as buying a new TV. Considering the repair costs, you’d want to get an extended warranty, but that isn’t an option if you buy your TV used.

8. DVD players: While it’s smart to buy used DVDs, this doesn’t apply to DVD players. DVD players have lasers that will eventually wear out. The cost to repair or replace may cost more than the player is worth.

9. Digital and video cameras: Like laptops, used digital and video cameras are likely to have been dropped and banged around. It may not be obvious, but once the damage kicks in, it’ll be expensive to repair. If you know what to look for in a digital camera, you can get a great new camera without breaking the bank.

10. Speakers and microphones: Speakers and microphones are sensitive audio equipment that don’t stand up well to blasting and mishandling. Like laptops and cameras, the damage may not be obvious, but their performance would be severely compromised.

11. Camera lenses: An SLR camera lens is the most expensive part of a camera. It also directly affects the quality of your images. Any damage to the lens, however slight, will show up in your photos.

12. Photo light bulbs: Not the ordinary light bulbs you use at home. We’re talking about the light bulbs used with photography equipment. They’re relatively expensive, but their life span is short enough that you likely won’t get much use out of them if you buy second-hand.

13. Mattresses and bedding: Just think: You may be sleeping with other people’s mold, mites, bacteria, and bodily fluids. Besides, even the really good mattresses are only supposed to last eight to 10 years, and it’s hard know for sure how old a used mattress may be.

14. Swimsuits and undergarments: This is probably a no-brainer, but it needs to be said: Do not, do not, do not buy used swimsuits or undergarments. They’re worn too close to the body — someone else’s body — to consider buying used.

15. Wet suits: Wet suits lose the ability to keep you warm over time. If you’re a scuba diver, or the last owner was one, the constant change in water pressure will eventually wear out the wet suit and make it more likely to tear.

16. Shoes: If you get used footwear, it’s likely they’re already molded to the last owner’s feet. Poor-fitting shoes are not only uncomfortable but can cause all sorts of health problems, as well.

17. Hats: Hats are likely not cleaned before they’re resold or donated. If you buy a used hat, you don’t know if you’re also getting skin infections, old sweat stains, hair products, and other cringe-worthy remnants. Now that’s a deal you don’t want.

18. Makeup: A good thing to remember about used makeup is that it’s a breeding ground for bacteria and a number of contagious diseases. The great deal you found may come with pink eye and cold sores. Instead of buying used, consider making your own beauty products (it’s easier than you think) or skip makeup altogether.

19. Pet supplies: Old stains and odors continue to ferment even if used pet supplies are sitting around in storage. If cleanliness is ever an issue, just say no.

20. Vacuum cleaners: Vacuums are among the heavy-duty household appliances that tend to get a lot of use and abuse. They can also cost more to fix than if you bought them new right from the start.