MONEY Leisure

Shark Week Turns into a Feeding Frenzy for Consumer Eyeballs—and Cash

140801_EM_SharkWeek_Cupcakes
No "Shark Week" party is complete without a dozen of these cupcakes ($34.95 via Discover Channel store). courtesy of Georgetown Cupcakes

When there are shark-themed donuts and cupcakes for sale, it becomes clear that the marketing of "Shark Week" and sharks in general has, well, jumped the shark.

The Discovery Channel’s “Shark Week” kicks off on Sunday, August 10, bringing the frenzy of interest in the fascinating creatures of the deep to all new heights. The annual event is a ratings bonanza, and a hot topic on social media, complete with its own prerequisite hashtag #sharkweek.

While there’s nothing stopping “Shark Week” from being fun, entertaining, and informative all at once, some experts in the field—of scientific research, not entertainment or marketing—feel like the circus surrounding sharks is overkill, perhaps even exploitive. “I’m kind of disappointed, and I think most researchers are, too,” George Burgess, director of the Florida Program for Shark Research, told USA Today. “It obviously is a big draw, but I’m afraid that the programs have gone more to entertainment and less to documentary over the years. It’s kind of a shame, because they have the opportunity to teach good stuff in what’s going on with science.”

The Discovery Channel is hardly the only party that’s guilty of playing to the lowest common denominator by focusing on “blood and gore or animals performing tricks,” as Burgess put it. And it’s hardly the only player out there trying to hook consumers’ attention (and dollars) by way of the shark.

Sharks—or more precisely, the fear of sharks—have a long history of helping to sell stuff. Movie tickets, for instance. Steven Spielberg’s “Jaws” not only kicked off the summer blockbuster as a phenomenon, but is also widely considered the biggest and best summer blockbuster film of all time. A series of sequels and other shark movies followed, as did the ever-expanding, factually questionable “Shark Week” on the Discovery Channel. In the so-called “Summer of the Shark,” in 2001 (mere weeks before 9/11, it’s often noted, when very different fears took over the American consciousness), unwarranted hype over shark attacks was used to sell magazines and keep viewers glued to 24/7 news channels, awaiting word of the next deadly aquatic encounter.

We’re still fascinated by sharks, and sharks are still being used to lure us into shops and TV shows and movies that we should probably know better than to watch. Lately, in an age dominated by memes and ironic-air-quotes “entertainment,” the cold-blooded mankiller of the deep has been replaced by an equally fictitious creature—the shark as adorable mascot.

This summer, “Shark Week” has been joined by the straight-to-cable arrival of the gag “movie” “Sharknado 2.” But given how much over-the-top goofball hype goes into “Shark Week” itself—Rob Lowe waterskiing atop two great whites anyone?—the Discovery Channel event seems to be its own best parody.

The merchandising of sharks and “Shark Week” has been, in a word, shark-tastic (the title of a book sold on the Discovery Channel, naturally). Among the roughly 150 items listed on the site as appropriate purchases for “Shark Week” celebration are shark kites, a Shark Week smartphone case, Shark Week bottle openers and coozies, “clever” shark T-shirts that say “Bite Me” and “I’m Hammered,” and Shark Week cupcakes that show Rob Lowe atop his pal sharks again.

Elsewhere in the ocean of summertime shark products, Dunkin’ Donuts is selling a Shark Bite Donut (the frosting resembles a life preserver), and Cold Stone Creamery has shark-themed cupcakes and ice cream sundaes, complete with colorful gummy sharks. Limited-edition “Shark Week”-inspired soap is available at one New York City boutique, while a “Shark Week” search at etsy turns up more than 1,300 hand puppets, pencil holders, custom-designed panties, pieces of jewelry, and other crafts. A whole other list of goods has been devoted to the frenzy around “Sharknado,” including a new perfume called “Shark by Tara,” created by one of the movie’s stars, Tara Reid.

The normally sober tacticians at Consumer Reports even got in on the action, using the Sharknado sequel as an excuse to run a review of chainsaws—the perfect weapon in the battle against sharks falling out of the sky.

Then there’s shark tourism. It might seem odd that any beach community would actively want to associate itself with sharks. Yet the effort to brand Chatham, Mass., the town on the elbow of Cape Cod—near plenty of seals and therefore sharks too—as something along the lines of the Shark Capital of America has been several years in the making. Starting in 2009, news spread that biologists were tagging great white sharks off the coast. Sure, it freaked some swimmers and boaters out, but it also drew the masses to the coast, bearing binoculars with the hope of spotting one of the beasts.

“The great white shark is sexy,” Lisa Franz, Chatham’s chamber of commerce chief, explained to the Boston Globe last summer. “Chatham as a town, I think, has embraced the whole shark concept,” she said. “As long as nobody gets hurt.”

Fast-forward a year, and the shark schlock business is booming. “Truthfully, we’ve probably grown about 500 percent in terms of the sale of our shark apparel,’’ one Chatham tourist shop owner offering “T-shirts, hoodies, hats, belts, dog collars and other accessories” featuring great whites for $10 to $45 told the Associated Press in June.

People seem to love the shark meme so much that local restaurants and shopkeepers understandably have a new fear: They’re scared about what would happen to business if the sharks suddenly went away.

MONEY online shopping

Why Retailers Actually Want You to Unsubscribe From Their Spammy Email Lists

Wooden "SPAM" stamp
Bill Truslow—Getty Images

Gmail made it easier than ever to unsubscribe from unwanted email lists sent by retailers that somehow got hold of your email address. So go on, unsubscribe. Marketers won't mind (much).

This week, a message posted by Google + explained that a change at Gmail makes it quicker and easier to unsubscribe from unwanted email lists. “Sometimes you end up subscribed to lists that are no longer relevant to you, and combing through an entire message looking for a way to unsubscribe is no fun,” the note stated. To simplify things and save users time, Gmail is now automatically putting an “Unsubscribe” button at the top of the email, just to the right of the sender’s email address. Click it and those annoying emails you’re tired of deleting will soon go away (in theory at least).

Google made the case that the “unsubscribe option easy to find is a win for everyone. For email senders, their mail is less likely to be marked as spam and for you, you can now say goodbye to sifting through an entire message for that one pesky link.”

Not everyone is viewing the change in quite the same win-win light, however. Adweek described the Unsubscribe button as potentially “a huge blow to email marketers” because making it easier for people to unsubscribe will naturally result in more people unsubscribing. That means fewer people getting the messages of retailers, activist groups, and others that are constantly seeking ways to bolster their ranks of email list subscribers.

So this is awful for the retailers that rely on such lists to spread the word about new products and deals and thereby boost sales, right? Well, not necessarily. One email marketing expert told InternetRetailer.com that there’s an upside to the change at Gmail. On the one hand, yes, putting the Unsubscribe option in a more prominent position will put the idea into the heads of more subscribers and cause subscriber numbers to shrink. But Chad White, lead research analyst at the email marketing firm ExactTarget, said that the people who will utilize the quick Unsubscribe option are problematic subscribers to begin with. They’re the consumers who are most likely to complain about the emails and/or the company, and they’re more apt to categorize the emails as spam. Reporting an email as spam to Gmail is worse for the sender than unsubscribing, as it damages the sender’s reputation in the eyes of email providers.

“While marketers don’t want people to unsubscribe, that may be a better option than them hitting delete without reading an e-mail or hitting the Spam button,” said White. “This is the least bad option because it doesn’t hurt the sender’s reputation.”

Gmail’s Unsubscribe option has actually been around, but flying under the radar, for a few months. It was only just this week that the company introduced and explained it in a big public way. The development follows the much more significant innovation at Gmail last summer, when the service introduced a system categorizing emails into separate boxes for one’s Social, Promotions, and Primary messages. Retailers and marketers worried (and still worry) that the system segregates Promotions into an easy-to-ignore folder.

Yet as with the Unsubscribe button, some think there is an upside to Gmail’s categorization system. When the Gmail categories were introduced, Forrester Research analyst Sucharita Mulpuru told us via email, “The segregation could actually be helpful because people can quickly scan in one place things that may/may not be relevant without having to hunt for personal emails in a sea of mixed clutter.” She also argued that the category system could help marketers reach a much more targeted audience, providing “a ‘destination’ for people that’s not unlike getting a pile of Sunday circulars.”

Now that it’s easier to unsubscribe, marketers can assume that the people who remain subscribed are more of a core group that find the messages relevant and appealing. In other words: They’re really great customers. “There are actually people who love marketing emails–that’s the reason they still stay subscribed to email lists in the first place,” said Mulpuru. “It’s very opt-in and self-selected.”

MONEY Food & Drink

Sorry, Dude, You’ve Been Drinking the Wrong Beer for Years

Beer tasting
Daniel Grill—Getty Images

A blind taste test reveals that if you're loyal to a beer brand because of the taste, you just might be fooling yourself.

A new study from the American Association of Wine Economists explores the world of beer rather than wine, and the findings indicate that you could be buying a favorite brand of brew for no good reason whatsoever. While the experiments conducted were limited, the results show that when labels are removed from beer bottles, drinkers can’t tell different brands apart—sometimes even when one of those brands is the taster’s go-to drink of choice.

In the paper, the researchers first point to a classic 1964 study, in which a few hundred volunteer beer testers (probably wasn’t too hard to find folks willing to participate) were sent five different kinds of popular lager brands, each with noticeable taste differences according to the experts. But people who rated their preferred beer brands higher when the labels were on bottles “showed virtually no preferences for certain beers over others” when the labels were removed during tastings:

In the blind tasting condition, no beer was judged by its regular drinkers to be significantly better than the other samples. In fact, regular drinkers of two of the five beers scored other beers significantly higher than the brand that they stated was their favorite.

The new study takes a different, simpler path to judging the quality of beer drinkers’ taste buds. Researchers didn’t even bother with ratings data. Instead, the experiments consisted of blind taste tests with three European lagers—Czechvar (Czech Republic), Heineken (Netherlands), and Stella Artois (Belgium)—in order simply to find out if beer drinkers could tell them apart. The experiments involved a series of “triangle tests,” in which drinkers were given a trio of beers to taste, two of which were the same beer. Tasters were asked to name the “singleton” of the bunch, and generally speaking, they could not do so with any reliable degree of accuracy:

In two of three tastings, participants are no better than random at telling the lagers apart, and in the third tasting, they are only marginally better than random.

What these results tell researchers, then, is that beer drinkers who stick with a certain brand label may be buying the beer for just that reason—the label. As opposed to the taste and quality, which are the reasons that consumers would probably give for why they are brand loyalists.

As the researchers put it in the new study, “marketing and packaging cues may be generating brand loyalty and experiential differences between brands.” In other words, we buy not for taste but because of the beer’s image and reputation that’s been developed via advertising, logos, and other marketing efforts. Similar conclusions have been reached in studies about wine; one, for instance, found that wine drinkers will pay more for bottles with hard-to-pronounce names—because apparently we assume that a fancy name is a sign of better quality. We also buy beer, wine, and a wide range of other products due to force of habit, of course.

Drinkers who are loyal to a particular beer brand may hate to hear this—heck, so are consumers who are loyal to almost any product brand—but the research indicates we are heavily influenced by factors other than those we really should care about, such as quality and superior taste.

All that said, we must point out the study’s shortcomings. The beer tastings were very limited in scope. It’s not like tasters were asked to compare Bud Light and a hoppy craft IPA, and then failed to tell the difference. And just because some volunteers couldn’t differentiate between beers doesn’t mean that you, with your superior palate, would be just as clueless. You may very well buy your favorite beer brand because, to quote an old beer ad, it “tastes great.”

Just to be sure, though, it might be time to take the labels off and do some blind taste testing. Could make for a fun Saturday night.

MONEY Shopping

WATCH: Best Apps for Your Lazy Days

If you’re feeling a bit sluggish and don’t feel like leaving the house to get food, clothes or anything else, there’s an app for that — actually there’s a lot.

MONEY Kim Kardashian

How to Keep the Kids From Giving the Kardashians Your Kash

Kim Kardashian
Dominique Charriau/WireImage—Getty

Kim Kardashian is in the news again, and (surprise!) not because she did something good for society. The reality show starlet recently released an iPhone game, Kim Kardashian: Hollywood, and now one parent is revolting after learning the app “tricked” her child into spending over $100 on in-app purchases in just two days.

tweettext

When Ayelet Waldman, the bestselling author of Bad Mother and wife of novelist Michael Chabon, checked her son’s iTunes account she found that he had spent $120 on the Kardashians’ product — even though she and her husband thought they had adjusted their account settings to prevent such purchases.

The game, which markets itself as free, incentivizes players to buy in-game currency (called “koins”) in order to advance in the story. The game allows users to spend anywhere from $4.99 to $99.99 in a single transaction depending on how many koins they want to buy, and these sales are reportedly making Kim $700,000 a day. It’s such a clear money-grab that Stephen Colbert spoofed the app on an episode of the Colbert Report.

Kim Kardashian Hollywood
Glu Games

Luckily for Waldman, Apple ended up refunding her child’s purchases (and he’s learned to hate the Kardashians, so that’s a plus), but parents can’t depend on companies coming to the rescue when young users are fooled into handing their parents’ money over to game makers. Here’s how to secure your device and avoid unexpected bills.

1. Turn off in-app purchases entirely. It’s the simplest and most effective way to stop micro-transaction hungry apps in their tracks. On Apple products, go to the settings app and tap “enable restrictions.” That will let you disable your kid’s ability to install apps, delete apps or make in-app purchases. On Kindle Fire, just go to settings for the Amazon Appstore and turn off “in-app purchasing.”

You can also get rid of in-app purchases and other online dangers by turning off the internet entirely. To do this on Apple products, go to settings and flip the airplane mode switch. On Fire, you can do the same thing in “Quick Settings” under “Wireless & Networks.” But remember, this won’t prevent your child from making purchases if you let them back online.

2. Set up a password for in-app purchases. Setting an in-app purchasing password will let your children still be able to use in-app purchases—but only with your approval. On Apple tech, it’s as easy as going back to the “enable restrictions” setting. On Kindle Fire, it’s not quite so simple. You can use the “Parental Controls” section of settings to set a password, but the FTC says that each new purchase creates a window of time (15 minutes to an hour) when anyone using the device can continue making in-app purchases.

3. Avoid “free” apps that aren’t so free. There’s no such thing as a free lunch, and at least on smartphones, there’s increasingly no such thing as a truly free game either. According to a FTC survey from 2012, about 84% of the apps that let kids make in-app purchases were advertised as “free.” These games often require purchases to make the game more fun or decrease the difficulty to more manageable levels. It’s often cheaper to pay a couple bucks up front for a good game than risk paying more over time with an ostensibly free product.

Did your kid run up a huge bill on a mobile device? How did they do it? Did you get a refund? Do you have any advice for other parents?

MONEY wants to hear your story. Fill out the confidential form below. We won’t use your information unless we speak with you first.

MONEY E-Commerce

3 Ways Walmart Is Trying to Out-Amazon Amazon

140805_HO_OutAmazon
Okko Oinonen/GalleryStock

Walmart might look like the sleeping giant of e-commerce, but it has one surprising advantage in the online space.

On Monday, Walmart announced a major overhaul of its e-commerce offerings. The brick-and-mortar Goliath plans to add new features to its website in the coming months, including more personalized product recommendations, discounts available in the user’s local store, and significantly faster check-out. The moves are presumably aimed at making Walmart more competitive online with Amazon, the other dominant force in American retail.

Walmart still dwarfs Amazon in terms of total revenue, having pulled in $473 billion in 2014 compared to Amazon’s mere $60.3 billion. But Walmart’s been woefully slow to embrace online commerce, a realm where Amazon outsold the biggest-box retailer seven-to-one last year. And the larger trends have to concern the executives in Bentonville: E-commerce in the U.S. grew at about six times the rate of conventional retail over the past year.

On the other hand, Walmart is hardly the sleeping giant that it’s often portrayed as. A closer look at the company’s moves in recent years reveals a slow but consistent effort to catch up to Amazon’s online offerings. That effort is starting to pay off: Walmart’s online sales grew 30% in the 2013 fiscal year, to $10 billion. (Amazon’s online sales started at a much higher number, but grew “only” 20% during that time.)

Meanwhile, Walmart may have an ace in the hole — in the form, ironically, of its 4,900 U.S. retail outlets. Generally seen as a symbol of Walmart’s lumbering inability to adapt to the digital world, those stores may prove to be Walmart’s one big advantage in the online space.

Here are three ways Walmart is trying to turn up the heat on its major e-commerce adversary.

1. A Better Online Experience

Walmart’s Monday announcement was entirely web-centric, and focussed on an area that has long been one of Amazon’s great strengths: usability. Amazon pretty much invented one-click shopping, and has the patent to prove it. Meanwhile, users of Walmart’s old site had to go through six pages before they were allowed to click the buy button. That’s not how you win customers from the market leader. The new Walmart site, which is being rolled out gradually (about half of Walmart.com’s visitors have been using a portion of its new features), makes major strides in this area by turning the buying experience into a simple, one-page process.

Walmart will also be introducing a custom recommendation engine that serves users with customized product suggestions based on past searches, purchase history, and location. This personalization even extends into the brick-and-mortar stores by showing customers deals and coupons that they can cash in at nearby Walmart locations.

walmart
Walmart’s new site is trying to let you buy what you want in as few steps as possible.

2. Same-Day Delivery

Amazon, eBay, and other e-retailers know their next big opportunity for growth — and the one huge disadvantage they face vis a vis brick-and-mortar stores — is the human desire for instant gratification. Overnight delivery is great, but if your iPad/TV/groceries are just a five-minute drive away, even the next day can seem like too long to wait. As a result, Amazon has been spending through the nose to build the infrastructure necessary to make same-day delivery a reality. Already, Bezos and Co. offer it in 12 metro areas.

That might sound like a lot, but Walmart has the potential to put Amazon’s same-day coverage to shame. The chain has thousands of locations across the country, and has long advertised a “Site-to-Store” feature that allows customers to order online and then pick up their order at a nearby Walmart location right away. Lately, the company has been putting increased effort behind this hybrid digital/conventional form of retail: The number of products available for same day pick-up has tripled in the past 18 months. And having a store with an actual cashier also means Walmart customers who purchase online can choose to pay for their order in cash.

If the item isn’t on shelves at the moment, Site-to-Store also replicates (and pre-dates) one of Amazon’s most useful features, Amazon lockers, by allowing customers to order nearly any item and have it delivered to a store location.

So why isn’t Walmart dominating when it comes to delivery? Well, it turns out that executing on the promise of same-day delivery isn’t so easy. Amazon Prime typically still beats Walmart shipping times on all but a select few products. But Walmart is getting better. The chain has rolled out traditional save day delivery in an increasing number of test markets, and according to spokesman Dan Toporek, has begun building out its next-generation order-fulfillment network in which online fulfillment centers work in concert with distribution centers and stores that are set up to deliver web orders to create shorter delivery times.

3. War For Your Groceries

While everything from calling a cab to shaving has been disrupted by an online ordering model, stocking up on groceries has remained a chore most of us still have to do in person. But Amazon and Walmart have been one-upping each other in recent years to change that. Amazon made the first move, having launched AmazonFresh in 2007, enabling customers to order meat, veggies, and comestibles the same way they would a new printer. Initially available only to those in the Seattle area, Fresh has expanded into Northern and Southern California.

But Walmart has battled back with Walmart To Go, which the company tested in San Francisco for three years and recently expanded to the Denver area. What’s more, To Go has at least one advantage that Amazon can’t yet offer: Shoppers can order online and then pick up in stores. Walmart claims this as a real competitive advantage: Fifty-five percent of those surveyed supposedly told the retailer that they prefer to pick groceries up themselves so they can grab any forgotten items on the way through the checkout.

Still the Underdog… For Now

Make no mistake, Amazon is still king of the online retail space, and looks likely to retain its crown for the foreseeable future. But Walmart’s online redesign and roll-out of Amazon-like features that leverage its army of stores, make it a force that no one can ignore, especially as Amazon looks less focussed than ever on its core e-commerce business.

Either way, when two giants like Amazon and Walmart fight, the consumer tends to win.

MONEY Shopping

WATCH: Walmart Wants to Be Your Amazon.com

The brick-and-mortar retail giant is revamping its website in the hopes of dominating online commerce as well.

MONEY deals

A+ Back-to-School Deals Priced from 1¢ to $1

140801_EM_SchoolSupplies
Catherine MacBride—Getty Images/Flickr

To get your business during prime back-to-school shopping season, stores have launched wild price wars on school supplies, starting for as little as 1¢.

We’ve compiled a checklist of some back-to-school deals that just might seem too good to pass up: None runs more than $1, and one is available for a single penny.

But before filling up your (online or actual) shopping cart, take note of a few caveats. First, despite the fact that these offers are from national retailers, prices can vary from region to region, so the deals at your local store may be different than the ones below. Second, in many cases these rock-bottom prices are only available in-store, not online. They’re essentially “loss leaders,” existing mainly to entice you into the store, where you’ll perhaps be tempted to buy other things, some of which just might be (the horror!) full price.

Lastly, customers may be limited as to how many of these super-cheap items they’re allowed to buy, to stop some bargain-hunting hoarder from cleaning out the entire store and ruining the sale for everyone else. For the most part, the prices below are valid through Saturday, August 2. If you miss out, don’t sweat it: A whole new set of back-to-school deals is sure to appear like clockwork in the Sunday circular.


When you spend at least $5 at participating Office Max and Office Depot stores, you’re allowed to buy their store-brand colored folders for a penny apiece (limit of 10 per household).

15¢ to 20¢
The “Less List” of sale items at many Staples includes two-pocket folders for 15¢ and 70-page one-subject notebooks for 17¢.

25¢
Kids’ scissors, 12-inch rulers, 6-inch protractors, and 4-oz. bottles of glue are among the back to school standards priced at a quarter each at Office Max and Office Depot.

50¢
Pick up a 24-pack of Crayola crayons (normally $1.47) at Walmart and Staples (normally $1.99).

One-subject notebooks and 5-inch scissors go for 49¢ apiece at many Walgreens.

$1
Five-pack of highlighters (normal price: $4.29) at Staples

12-pack of Bic pens (normally $1.99) at Office Max and Office Depot

12-pack of colored pencils or two-pack of Sharpies at Dollar General

Absolutely everything at Dollar Tree

MONEY

This Summer, Sharks Want to Take a Bite Out of Your Wallet

This summer, there is no escaping from sharks: shark TV shows, movies, merchandise, and even shark tourism have chomped down on America's collective imagination and are thrashing us all about.

Sharks—or more precisely, the fear of sharks—have a long history of helping to sell stuff. Movie tickets, for instance. Steven Spielberg’s “Jaws” not only kicked off the summer blockbuster as a phenomenon, but is also widely considered the biggest and best summer blockbuster film of all time. A series of sequels and other shark movies followed, as did the ever-expanding, factually questionable “Shark Week” on the Discovery Channel. In the so-called “Summer of the Shark,” in 2001 (mere weeks before 9/11, it’s often noted, when very different fears took over the American consciousness), unwarranted hype over shark attacks was used to sell magazines and keep viewers glued to 24/7 news channels, awaiting word of the next deadly aquatic encounter.

We’re still fascinated by sharks, and sharks are still being used to grab our attention and perhaps a few of our dollars. Lately, though, in an age dominated by memes and ironic-air-quotes “entertainment,” the cold-blooded mankiller of the deep has been replaced by an equally fictitious creature—the shark as adorable mascot.

This summer, “Shark Week” has been joined by the straight-to-cable arrival of the gag “movie” “Sharknado 2.” But given how much over-the-top goofball hype goes into “Shark Week” itself—Rob Lowe waterskiing atop two great whites anyone?—the Discovery Channel event seems to be its own best parody.

This summer, the merchandising of sharks and “Shark Week” has been, in a word, shark-tastic (the title of a book sold on the Discovery Channel, naturally). Among the roughly 150 items listed on the site as appropriate purchases for “Shark Week” celebration are shark kites, a Shark Week smartphone case, Shark Week bottle openers and coozies, “clever” shark T-shirts that say “Bite Me” and “I’m Hammered,” and Shark Week cupcakes that show Rob Lowe atop his pal sharks again.

Elsewhere in the ocean of summertime shark products, Dunkin’ Donuts is selling a Shark Bite Donut (the frosting resembles a life preserver) starting next week, and Cold Stone Creamery has shark-themed cupcakes and ice cream sundaes, complete with colorful gummy sharks. Limited-edition “Shark Week”-inspired soap is available at one New York City boutique, while a “Shark Week” search at etsy turns up more than 1,300 hand puppets, pencil holders, custom-designed panties, pieces of jewelry, and other crafts. A whole other list of goods have been devoted to the frenzy around “Sharknado,” including a new perfume called “Shark by Tara,” created by one of the movie’s stars, Tara Reid.

The normally sober tacticians at Consumer Reports even got in on the action, using the Sharknado sequel as an excuse to run a review of chainsaws—the perfect weapon in the battle against sharks falling out of the sky.

Then there’s shark tourism. It might seem odd that any beach community would actively want to associate itself with sharks. Yet the effort to brand Chatham, Mass., the town on the elbow of Cape Cod—near plenty of seals and therefore sharks too—as something along the lines of the Shark Capital of America has been several years in the making. Starting in 2009, news spread that biologists were tagging great white sharks off the coast. Sure, it freaked some swimmers and boaters out, but it also drew the masses to the coast, bearing binoculars with the hope of spotting one of the beasts.

“The great white shark is sexy,” Lisa Franz, Chatham’s chamber of commerce chief, explained to the Boston Globe last summer. “Chatham as a town, I think, has embraced the whole shark concept,” she said. “As long as nobody gets hurt.”

Fast-forward a year, and the shark schlock business is booming. “Truthfully, we’ve probably grown about 500 percent in terms of the sale of our shark apparel,’’ one Chatham tourist shop owner offering “T-shirts, hoodies, hats, belts, dog collars and other accessories” featuring great whites for $10 to $45 told the Associated Press in June.

People seem to love the shark meme so much that local restaurants and shopkeepers understandably have a new fear: They’re scared about what would happen to business if the sharks suddenly went away.

Your browser, Internet Explorer 8 or below, is out of date. It has known security flaws and may not display all features of this and other websites.

Learn how to update your browser