5 ms·

Yes, I personally find the (recurrent) dismissals of "marketing" posted on Hacker News are getting a little bit long in the tooth. It's either criticized as so

Yes, I personally find the (recurrent) dismissals of "marketing" posted on Hacker News are getting a little bit long in the tooth. It's either criticized as some magical tool that can flip a switch in people's mind and make them buy anything, or something completely useless because people should be able to educate themselves about the objective qualities of products before they make a decision. Every discussion gets muddled between people who a) have no experience in the field b) mix up marketing with advertising, with sales, or with anything they feel like criticizing c) do not seem to like the idea of commerce itself.

TeMPOraL 10y ago
There's marketing, and then there's marketing. You can do this by asking yourself what's the best product that would solve some problem for largest amount of people and then building that, or you can ask yourself how you can trick people into buying the cheapest shit you can get away with. A lot of marketing criticized on HN is of the second kind; this is also pretty much what most startups do, by the way.
- davidivadavid 10y ago
  "There's engineering, and then there's engineering. You can do this by creating new products that help people solve problems, or you can manufacture bombs that blow up and kill people." And yet nobody criticizes "engineering". Odd, isn't it? The trouble I've noticed is that the vast majority are completely unwilling to consider that what they feel is "the cheapest shit you can get away with" could also be a perfectly fine product for a set of users. The product that will solve a problem for the largest number of people will tend to be cheap. That means most of the time it won't meet the requirement of first-world privileged engineers who think everything has to meet impossibly high standards of quality. But that doesn't mean it's something that's not worthy of anybody's consideration. So I guess the problem is with the "tricking people" rather than the quality of the product. But here's some sobering reality for you: no amount of "tricking" whatsoever will make people buy things they don't want. You need a good product, i.e. a product people want. Sure, some companies will use false advertising (illegal) or use other (illegal) means of coercing people into buying things. And... that's not "marketing", sorry. Much like I won't call "terrorism" "engineering" because some people used engineering knowledge to blow up a car somewhere.
  - aninhumer 10y ago
    > "the cheapest shit you can get away with" could also be a perfectly fine product for a set of users. Where cheapness is bad is when it is sacrificing a large amount of utility for a marginal price reduction, to trick people into thinking it's the best value. > no amount of "tricking" whatsoever will make people buy things they don't want. Well of course not, since the "trick" is making them want it when it will provide little benefit.
    - davidivadavid 10y ago
      How do you know the benefit it provides isn't exactly commensurate to people's willingness to pay for it? Do you think that people buying Pet Rocks have been "tricked" into something, for example?

TeMPOraL 10y ago

There's marketing, and then there's marketing. You can do this by asking yourself what's the best product that would solve some problem for largest amount of people and then building that, or you can ask yourself how you can trick people into buying the cheapest shit you can get away with. A lot of marketing criticized on HN is of the second kind; this is also pretty much what most startups do, by the way.

davidivadavid 10y ago
"There's engineering, and then there's engineering. You can do this by creating new products that help people solve problems, or you can manufacture bombs that blow up and kill people." And yet nobody criticizes "engineering". Odd, isn't it? The trouble I've noticed is that the vast majority are completely unwilling to consider that what they feel is "the cheapest shit you can get away with" could also be a perfectly fine product for a set of users. The product that will solve a problem for the largest number of people will tend to be cheap. That means most of the time it won't meet the requirement of first-world privileged engineers who think everything has to meet impossibly high standards of quality. But that doesn't mean it's something that's not worthy of anybody's consideration. So I guess the problem is with the "tricking people" rather than the quality of the product. But here's some sobering reality for you: no amount of "tricking" whatsoever will make people buy things they don't want. You need a good product, i.e. a product people want. Sure, some companies will use false advertising (illegal) or use other (illegal) means of coercing people into buying things. And... that's not "marketing", sorry. Much like I won't call "terrorism" "engineering" because some people used engineering knowledge to blow up a car somewhere.
- aninhumer 10y ago
  > "the cheapest shit you can get away with" could also be a perfectly fine product for a set of users. Where cheapness is bad is when it is sacrificing a large amount of utility for a marginal price reduction, to trick people into thinking it's the best value. > no amount of "tricking" whatsoever will make people buy things they don't want. Well of course not, since the "trick" is making them want it when it will provide little benefit.
  - davidivadavid 10y ago
    How do you know the benefit it provides isn't exactly commensurate to people's willingness to pay for it? Do you think that people buying Pet Rocks have been "tricked" into something, for example?