FobzyWhy is Food so Big?
March 25th 2008 01:20
Sebastian Fobbs here aka fobzy
You didn't know that food was big, did you? We do know that food tastes good and can look even better but apparently, and please just keep this between ourselves, Food Companies are known to court them as a way to reach an interested audience for the price of shipping a box.
Mind you I don't think that picture would ship too well in a box, or more correctly the dish itself, containing the food that is and with the food in it. It looks like it would very quickly melt.
Of course, shipping the picture would not cause any difficulties whatsoever and these food companies have cottoned onto the idea of lots and lots of readers of small blogs, add to large numbers of readers and those readers do buy food, more often buying it than cooking it themselves but those pictures do set the salivary juices flowing, don't they, and let's hope now we have disposed of those pesky little ads that lead nowhere and certainly nowhere for me.
So it's food all round, food for breakfast, food for lunch and food for tea and for too many it's too much food too often, which those food companies just love.
I wonder if Woolworths or Coles or IGA or whatever other tiny company is left after the big food companies have gobbled them all up, will be scrutinizing my blog carefully for business opportunities.
Let's hope they are looking for successful little business people like myself. Success cannot be measured only in cents you know, of which I have yet to attract any, more's the pity but if I could rid myself of those other foolish little snippets, I would be a very happy little business person indeed.
So now you know why there are so many food blogs and some of them do very well (or so they tell me).
I'll just sit here for a few minutes at least waiting for the money to arrive.
From the big chains or the even bigger Google, I like those floating picture ads and if they can be anchored down for a while that would be really good.
All readers are welcome, can't have one without t'other.
| 67 |
| Vote |
subscribe to this blog
