3 ms·

> How should I best let consumers know that my product is different because of its features, or the craftsmanship, or whatever. Should we all live in universes

by lsc 11y ago

> How should I best let consumers know that my product is different because of its features, or the craftsmanship, or whatever. Should we all live in universes bounded by the speed of chatter, so that HN's pure market sensibilities can be satisfied? Should I just wait for customers to stumble upon the right keywords to make my product show up in their ad-free search results? the problem is that there's a conflict of interest between the seller of a good and the buyer of a good. Every seller wants to claim that their product is better, regardless of actual reality, while every buyer would like to actually know which product is better As you rightly point out, the buyer doesn't want to do a lot of research to find this out, but.. the problem with advertising is that advertising does not give the consumer a good idea of what is actually best because of the aforementioned conflict of interest. I think if we are talking about reality, we mostly rely on the law here; E.g. if I go to the corner store and grab a gallon of milk, it probably won't poison me, because there are 'minimum milk' standards (my area has yet to legalize unpasteurized milk for human consumption) So I can buy the cheapest milk in the store, or the milk advertised to target my demographic, and either way, little harm is done. Worst case I spend a little more money than I'd need to. The right answer to the research problem is something like consumer reports (though really, I think it'd work better if it integrated with cooperative retail... e.g. I'd go to the store and only the top 2-3 products in each catagory are there.)

petra 11y ago
> . I'd go to the store and only the top 2-3 products in each catagory are there. Aren't you by limiting selection - limiting innovation, the ability of each one buying according to the price and other characteristics he he sees fit?
- lsc 11y ago
  Yes, if you hand over the choice of "limit all possibilities down to a few I can choose from" to another party, then yes, you are handing them a lot of power over you. However, you are probably going to hand that power to someone - there are just too many products to research them all. I am arguing that you are probably better off if you hand that power off to an entity who's only revenue source is you and people like you, than if you hand that choice off to conventional advertising agencies.
jessedhillon 11y ago
The right answer to the research problem is a digest of research results? I think you are overestimating greatly how much people care about most purchasing decisions. A false positive in my almond milk is not going to make a bit of difference, and a true positive will slightly please me for a week. For this, I would go consult Consumer Reports? And how do I know that Customer Summaries isn't more aligned with my values anyhow? The idea that advertisers all claiming to be the best is a detriment to consumers presupposes that we need to live in a world where people only speak about empirical facts. We are all skilled in the art of bullshit detection, and we all have aspirations which can be played to as well -- frankly, life would be dull if we weren't able to attach an undue sense of optimism to a cup of coffee from that new cafe. Advertising succeeds in some part because it pushes buttons which sometimes go unpushed in our daily lives.
- lsc 11y ago
  > The right answer to the research problem is a digest of research results? I think you are overestimating greatly how much people care about most purchasing decisions. A false positive in my almond milk is not going to make a bit of difference, and a true positive will slightly please me for a week. I don't know if limiting consumer choice to a few of the massive number of alternatives is the right answer. It's probably not the optimal answer, but it is the current answer. Right now, most consumers are exposed to 2 or 3 brands of a thing, and which two or three brands is controlled through advertising. What sorts of things a consumer is exposed to is also controlled by advertising. The problem with advertising, from the consumer's point of view is that the people paying for the advertising have interests that conflict with the consumer's interests. But yes, right now, advertising serves the product discovery function, and the product discovery function is important. My argument is just that the consumer would be better off if they paid someone to research the available brands and present them with a manageable number of choices, and with interesting new types of products rather than allowing the people selling them stuff to do that. My argument is that organizations structured like consumer reports, that is, organizations that only accept money from the consumers they are doing research for, would have the fewest conflicts of interest, and thus would probably provide better results (for the consumers) on average. > For this, I would go consult Consumer Reports? And how do I know that Customer Summaries isn't more aligned with my values anyhow? The consumer, of course, would still need to choose which consumer research group most closely matched their needs and values, which in and of itself is a hard problem. But, I think if done properly, and conflicts of interest avoided, it is an overall better product discovery system than advertising. Also, you'd clearly need to figure out some way of making it easier. Following the recommendations of the research agency I have hired needs to be as easy for me as following the recommendations of advertisers is for me right now, at least if we are to use this for things like milk. (Also, the more I think about it, the more I think what I said about integrating it with a store is a bad idea; it introduces conflicts of interest. But it would be the easiest way to reduce the cost in terms of checking with my research company before buying.)
greggman 11y ago
I come from games. It seems like advertising is the only way to effectively "get the word out" about my new game. I'm not seeing how that's useless. I also don't see the conflict of interest. If I make a bad game and people buy it they're not going to buy my next game so that problem is solved. So I all I'm trying to do through advertising is inform the people who might want a game like the one I created that my game exists and could they please take a look. Where's the problem?
- zanny 11y ago
  Because you are describing the informational construct known as discovery, which can - and is - provided through many methods in every field, including gaming, and does not require advertising whatsoever. Minecraft is basically a cultural icon now, despite having no effective advertising throughout its growth years. It was only after it was already gargantuan that Minecraft Pocket Edition started seeing adverts, primarily because the parent company ran out of ideas of what to do with their money, which is often the motivator for a lot of advertising budgets. Specific to the games industry, discovery is a problem if consumers both A. have no peer group involved in gaming to get recommendations from and B. have no sources of discovery media (ie, rankings, reviews, etc) to find games themselves. Which I'd definitely say is true - the two largest game stores in the world, Google Play and Steam, have incredibly bad discovery mechanisms built in, and the former's entire market is mostly an appeal to getting on top of said discovery mechanism through psychological manipulation in skinner boxes.
- lsc 11y ago
  >If I make a bad game and people buy it they're not going to buy my next game so that problem is solved. "one bite at the apple" eh? There are a lot of small companies in America, and a lot of people do businesses under different names. "Was an officer of the company I'm about to buy from involved in shady dealings in the past" is one of those things I'd love to have my consumer research firm research, but it's not something that comes in to play as much as you think, I think. A lot of the games are written by first-timers, or people who's first try flopped because nobody played it (which is similar as to the informational content you are talking about)

by lsc 11y ago

petra 11y ago

> . I'd go to the store and only the top 2-3 products in each catagory are there. Aren't you by limiting selection - limiting innovation, the ability of each one buying according to the price and other characteristics he he sees fit?

lsc 11y ago
Yes, if you hand over the choice of "limit all possibilities down to a few I can choose from" to another party, then yes, you are handing them a lot of power over you. However, you are probably going to hand that power to someone - there are just too many products to research them all. I am arguing that you are probably better off if you hand that power off to an entity who's only revenue source is you and people like you, than if you hand that choice off to conventional advertising agencies.

jessedhillon 11y ago

The right answer to the research problem is a digest of research results? I think you are overestimating greatly how much people care about most purchasing decisions. A false positive in my almond milk is not going to make a bit of difference, and a true positive will slightly please me for a week. For this, I would go consult Consumer Reports? And how do I know that Customer Summaries isn't more aligned with my values anyhow? The idea that advertisers all claiming to be the best is a detriment to consumers presupposes that we need to live in a world where people only speak about empirical facts. We are all skilled in the art of bullshit detection, and we all have aspirations which can be played to as well -- frankly, life would be dull if we weren't able to attach an undue sense of optimism to a cup of coffee from that new cafe. Advertising succeeds in some part because it pushes buttons which sometimes go unpushed in our daily lives.

lsc 11y ago
> The right answer to the research problem is a digest of research results? I think you are overestimating greatly how much people care about most purchasing decisions. A false positive in my almond milk is not going to make a bit of difference, and a true positive will slightly please me for a week. I don't know if limiting consumer choice to a few of the massive number of alternatives is the right answer. It's probably not the optimal answer, but it is the current answer. Right now, most consumers are exposed to 2 or 3 brands of a thing, and which two or three brands is controlled through advertising. What sorts of things a consumer is exposed to is also controlled by advertising. The problem with advertising, from the consumer's point of view is that the people paying for the advertising have interests that conflict with the consumer's interests. But yes, right now, advertising serves the product discovery function, and the product discovery function is important. My argument is just that the consumer would be better off if they paid someone to research the available brands and present them with a manageable number of choices, and with interesting new types of products rather than allowing the people selling them stuff to do that. My argument is that organizations structured like consumer reports, that is, organizations that only accept money from the consumers they are doing research for, would have the fewest conflicts of interest, and thus would probably provide better results (for the consumers) on average. > For this, I would go consult Consumer Reports? And how do I know that Customer Summaries isn't more aligned with my values anyhow? The consumer, of course, would still need to choose which consumer research group most closely matched their needs and values, which in and of itself is a hard problem. But, I think if done properly, and conflicts of interest avoided, it is an overall better product discovery system than advertising. Also, you'd clearly need to figure out some way of making it easier. Following the recommendations of the research agency I have hired needs to be as easy for me as following the recommendations of advertisers is for me right now, at least if we are to use this for things like milk. (Also, the more I think about it, the more I think what I said about integrating it with a store is a bad idea; it introduces conflicts of interest. But it would be the easiest way to reduce the cost in terms of checking with my research company before buying.)

greggman 11y ago

I come from games. It seems like advertising is the only way to effectively "get the word out" about my new game. I'm not seeing how that's useless. I also don't see the conflict of interest. If I make a bad game and people buy it they're not going to buy my next game so that problem is solved. So I all I'm trying to do through advertising is inform the people who might want a game like the one I created that my game exists and could they please take a look. Where's the problem?

zanny 11y ago
Because you are describing the informational construct known as discovery, which can - and is - provided through many methods in every field, including gaming, and does not require advertising whatsoever. Minecraft is basically a cultural icon now, despite having no effective advertising throughout its growth years. It was only after it was already gargantuan that Minecraft Pocket Edition started seeing adverts, primarily because the parent company ran out of ideas of what to do with their money, which is often the motivator for a lot of advertising budgets. Specific to the games industry, discovery is a problem if consumers both A. have no peer group involved in gaming to get recommendations from and B. have no sources of discovery media (ie, rankings, reviews, etc) to find games themselves. Which I'd definitely say is true - the two largest game stores in the world, Google Play and Steam, have incredibly bad discovery mechanisms built in, and the former's entire market is mostly an appeal to getting on top of said discovery mechanism through psychological manipulation in skinner boxes.
lsc 11y ago
>If I make a bad game and people buy it they're not going to buy my next game so that problem is solved. "one bite at the apple" eh? There are a lot of small companies in America, and a lot of people do businesses under different names. "Was an officer of the company I'm about to buy from involved in shady dealings in the past" is one of those things I'd love to have my consumer research firm research, but it's not something that comes in to play as much as you think, I think. A lot of the games are written by first-timers, or people who's first try flopped because nobody played it (which is similar as to the informational content you are talking about)