There's a classic trap for writers, particularly the journalist/commentator types, which involves the appeal of the counterintuitive argument. Find a popular position (cell phones are dangerously distracting drivers), point out a flaw in its conception (cell phones are a very easy-to-spot new distraction, but no one is investigating the safety impact of the in-car CD player or a driver-distracting anecdote told from the next seat), and come to a specious conclusion: drivers using cell phones aren't any less safe than those who turn them off when they get behind the wheel.

Currently going at Slate: Daniel Gross explains why QVC is a better business than Amazon. Now, as I get paid by another online book retailer, I should be happy to see the Seattlites get negatively compared to another business -- it's depressing to see "the competition" get all the good press.

However, Gross's article irks on a basic level, because its premise -- that QVC, because it is currently more profitable than Amazon, "beats" Amazon-- is so simplistic as to be meaningless. Gross winds up telling us only that it is possible to make more money pushing (mostly) crap via the TV than selling books and electronics (and a lot of crap) via the Internet.

It's also possible to make more money selling oil, drugs, or whole buncha stuff at Target. If we compare businesses solely on this level, we don't learn much. To say that "t-commerce" is beating "e-commerce" is to suggest that the two are using two different media to serve the same purpose. But they're not. One is pushing a limited array of marked-down goods (with access to more if you have the computer to search), relying on the TV to capture interest of the browsing consumer. The other is offering a much wider product base to a different kind of customer -- the one unlikely to be reached by a TV pitch-person, the one shopping for a specific item or category of items. Amazon is, I think, competing more directly with big-box retailers (and, sadly, small booksellers) than with QVC.

Gross wants to pitch this as "sexy Amazon doesn't get the job done like unglam, down-market QVC" -- but what he doesn't say is that it's not the same job. Amazon (like other Internet retailers) offers a service that QVC -- due to the push-only nature of television -- can't; a large, dynamically run, fast-response catalog business. It's a business with limitations: it depends on its customers having computors at home or at work, and being happy to shop on them. Granted, more people have the TV/telephone combo that works for QVC -- but if I want a specific thing - a digital camera, a copy of The Magic Christian, whatever -- am I going to sit on the couch and wait for QVC to offer it up? I can go to QVC's website and search, of course -- but that would negate Gross's argument that it's the phone and the TV that do it for QVC.

Gross's bizarre conclusion suggests that QVC offers warmth and community lacking at digitally cold A-zon:

But QVC's advantage also lies in the overall shopping experience. In the end, watching QVC is a far richer and more satisfying event than shopping at Amazon.com. Customers can call in and chat with the hosts. Sales operators offer everyone who calls a friendly voice in the night. Purchasers are subject to the warmth of human suasion rather than the cool logic of data and text information. Online shoppers have to seek out Amazon and then search for items on it. By contrast, QVC reaches out to its customers. What's more, QVC offers more instant gratification to impulse buyers and serious shoppers alike. An insomniac with a credit card and a touch-tone telephone can make a purchase from the comfort of her couch. Despite all the hype, t-commerce still beats e-commerce.

I'm glad Gross has made pals with those warm and cuddly QVC operators and chatty hosts (no cool logic behind the pitches made there!), but someone -- perhaps his editor -- might suggest that after he hangs up, he get some sleep. Those long nights staring at the screen seem to have been having an effect.