4 ms·

> peddles pricy products and overuses the word “empower” while dabbling in many forms of pseudoscience and quackery—everything from homeopathy to magic crystals

by rdtsc 9y ago

> peddles pricy products and overuses the word “empower” while dabbling in many forms of pseudoscience and quackery—everything from homeopathy to magic crystals and garden-variety dietary-supplement nonsense. Just like there is an industry advantage of the poor segments of the population - lottery, liquor stores, cash advance places, rent to own, etc. There is a parallel industry geared for the wealthy. It is specifically designed appeal to them, to stroke their ego. It can't sell something that's a necessity so it was brilliant to focus on that just a little extra "feel a bit better", "be empowered". It really is an art. > Similarly, Goop has also recommended vaginal steam cleaning, which is And as if Hollywood and pop culture in general hasn't done enough damage, just couldn't resist preying on the insecurity and tell women their bodies are yucky. Someone evil there went through the use cases and the detailed analysis and decided that no matter how wealthy or successful, that's one thing they could tap into and monetize. The scheme was probably supposed to includes its own insurance against a lawsuit - embarrassment. Which powerful or wealthy woman is going to launch a lawsuit against them saying they've been hurt by this product? The homeopathy bit in there is also not random. It is designed to filter through only clients who would think that stuff works. That's a bit like scammers claiming they are all from Nigeria. It's a counter intuitive bit but it's very important. You gotta wonder how much are these celebrities involved in these scheme. It is hands off just someone managing their wealth or are they all micromanaging. I know someone who worked for one of the well known Hollywood celebrities and you'd be surprised how different they are in private compared to their on screen persona.

sogen 9y ago
> you'd be surprised how different Tell me more
- rdtsc 9y ago
  I won't name them. One I had in mind is known to be a kind, gentle fatherly figure on screen. In reality they are an asshole.
kbenson 9y ago
> It is designed to filter through only clients who would think that stuff works. That's a bit like scammers claiming they are all from Nigeria. It's a counter intuitive bit but it's very important. That's an interesting point I had never considered. I had often wondered why Nigeria was still mentioned even a decade ago. That it effectively filters out those that are likely to have heard of the scam or something like it, extending possibly even to online fraud in general, does effectively provide an explanation.
- ygra 9y ago
  It's also the reason behind the poor orthography and other low-quality traits of such e-mails. They rather effectively filter out everyone who isn't gullible enough to be fooled, saving them a lot of time dealing with non-serious replies.
- notahacker 9y ago
  There's a paper discussing that theory at https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/research/publication/why-do-nigerian-scammers-say-they-are-from-nigeria/ https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/research/publication/why-do-... As in previous discussions on HN, I'd say it's not necessarily actually applicable to the "Nigerian emails", because even really gullible people have spam filters than kill 99% of that stuff these days, and there are more practical reasons for 419 spammers to need to acknowledge they're based in Nigeria than filtering responses, like their objective being to get people to send a Western Union payment to Nigeria (not to mention said scammers' tendency to sloppily betray their Nigerian-ness even if they've managed to obtain use of a Paypal account and have progressed to the more widely-believable and probably higher-yielding scam of pretending to be little old Scottish ladies with high value items to sell). But I can definitely imagine using "homeopathic" for non-homeopathic "remedies" is a way of marketing specifically to people unconcerned with products' therapeutic effectiveness.
chrismcb 9y ago
How does a liquor store take advantage of the poor? Because it sells an addictive product cheaper than a bar does?
- jwhitlark 9y ago
  I think they were saying that there can be an advantage to an industry that serves the "poor" market.
- PixelB 9y ago
  Because a handle of vodka is cheaper than a visit to the doctor and all the medications you need, and will make you forget about all your problems.
  - Chris2048 9y ago
    So someone who want to buy that vodka shouldn't be allowed to?
- coldtea 9y ago
  Because it's major market is disenfranchised poor, alcoholics, etc, not casual drinkers who appreciate the occasional taste of fine liquor. Take advantage not in the sense that it doesn't provide them with the product, or sells it more expensively to them, but in the sense that it feeds on their problems.
  - hammock 9y ago
    I have not felt slimier than when when I was marketing a liquor brand and had the epiphany that 80/20 rule applies to it. If you look at the data, 80% of liquor is sold to people who drink 20 or more drinks a week. We spent so much time on marketing to "Millennial postgrads" but that wasn't the consumer..
    - jamie_ca 9y ago
      Yeah. Liquor consumption is crazy when you dig into the numbers. From [slate](http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/medical_examiner/2014/10/how_much_alcohol_do_americans_drink_consumption_predicts_alcoholism_and.html http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/medical_exa...), 11-drinks-per-week is the national average, but it's so top-loaded that hitting that average means you're in the top 20%. And given the top 10% is more-than-10-per-day, given it's also on the sharp end of the curve, I kinda don't even want to know what the numbers are for the top 5% or 1%...
jansho 9y ago
A while back, the Guardian wrote a piece about their annual expo: "Everyone is feeling good. Employees weave through the crowd with trays of probiotic juice. I decide I like the Goop expo. It is silly, but most of us seem to be in on the joke" It's a fascinating read [1] and it seems that not all of the attendants wanted their ego stroked. Some just need a quirky, random excuse to dig in their coffers - I think. Personally, I felt that the author's trying too hard to be satirical. The whole expo feels slimy; IV drips, oxygen sessions, colour-coded bracelets... it's New Age plus hippie plus hipster plus Paltrow probably cackling in the background. [1] https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2017/jun/14/gwyneth-glows-like-a-radioactive-swan-my-day-at-the-goop-festival https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2017/jun/14/gwyneth...
lallysingh 9y ago
> And as if Hollywood and pop culture in general hasn't done enough damage, just couldn't resist preying on the insecurity and tell women their bodies are yucky. Someone evil there went through the use cases and the detailed analysis and decided that no matter how wealthy or successful, that's one thing they could tap into and monetize. That shit's been going on for centuries man.
- Balgair 9y ago
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elixir_of_life https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elixir_of_life
Chris2048 9y ago
> couldn't resist preying on the insecurity and tell women their bodies are yucky They aren't supposed to. You can't build an economic model based on individual free-will and self-determination, then suggest that corporations have some higher duty. The mechanism for this is government regulation - If the government doesn't ban or regulate these type of products, the money's on the table for whoever will take it. > you'd be surprised how different they are in private compared to their on screen persona Actors shouldn't be fetishised the way they are; They literally earn more money, based on how mainstream-popular they are, so they have a lot of pressure on them to conform.

by rdtsc 9y ago

sogen 9y ago

> you'd be surprised how different Tell me more

rdtsc 9y ago
I won't name them. One I had in mind is known to be a kind, gentle fatherly figure on screen. In reality they are an asshole.

kbenson 9y ago

> It is designed to filter through only clients who would think that stuff works. That's a bit like scammers claiming they are all from Nigeria. It's a counter intuitive bit but it's very important. That's an interesting point I had never considered. I had often wondered why Nigeria was still mentioned even a decade ago. That it effectively filters out those that are likely to have heard of the scam or something like it, extending possibly even to online fraud in general, does effectively provide an explanation.

ygra 9y ago
It's also the reason behind the poor orthography and other low-quality traits of such e-mails. They rather effectively filter out everyone who isn't gullible enough to be fooled, saving them a lot of time dealing with non-serious replies.
notahacker 9y ago
There's a paper discussing that theory at https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/research/publication/why-do-nigerian-scammers-say-they-are-from-nigeria/ https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/research/publication/why-do-... As in previous discussions on HN, I'd say it's not necessarily actually applicable to the "Nigerian emails", because even really gullible people have spam filters than kill 99% of that stuff these days, and there are more practical reasons for 419 spammers to need to acknowledge they're based in Nigeria than filtering responses, like their objective being to get people to send a Western Union payment to Nigeria (not to mention said scammers' tendency to sloppily betray their Nigerian-ness even if they've managed to obtain use of a Paypal account and have progressed to the more widely-believable and probably higher-yielding scam of pretending to be little old Scottish ladies with high value items to sell). But I can definitely imagine using "homeopathic" for non-homeopathic "remedies" is a way of marketing specifically to people unconcerned with products' therapeutic effectiveness.

chrismcb 9y ago

How does a liquor store take advantage of the poor? Because it sells an addictive product cheaper than a bar does?

jwhitlark 9y ago
I think they were saying that there can be an advantage to an industry that serves the "poor" market.
PixelB 9y ago
Because a handle of vodka is cheaper than a visit to the doctor and all the medications you need, and will make you forget about all your problems.
- Chris2048 9y ago
  So someone who want to buy that vodka shouldn't be allowed to?
coldtea 9y ago
Because it's major market is disenfranchised poor, alcoholics, etc, not casual drinkers who appreciate the occasional taste of fine liquor. Take advantage not in the sense that it doesn't provide them with the product, or sells it more expensively to them, but in the sense that it feeds on their problems.
- hammock 9y ago
  I have not felt slimier than when when I was marketing a liquor brand and had the epiphany that 80/20 rule applies to it. If you look at the data, 80% of liquor is sold to people who drink 20 or more drinks a week. We spent so much time on marketing to "Millennial postgrads" but that wasn't the consumer..
  - jamie_ca 9y ago
    Yeah. Liquor consumption is crazy when you dig into the numbers. From [slate](http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/medical_examiner/2014/10/how_much_alcohol_do_americans_drink_consumption_predicts_alcoholism_and.html http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/medical_exa...), 11-drinks-per-week is the national average, but it's so top-loaded that hitting that average means you're in the top 20%. And given the top 10% is more-than-10-per-day, given it's also on the sharp end of the curve, I kinda don't even want to know what the numbers are for the top 5% or 1%...

jansho 9y ago

A while back, the Guardian wrote a piece about their annual expo: "Everyone is feeling good. Employees weave through the crowd with trays of probiotic juice. I decide I like the Goop expo. It is silly, but most of us seem to be in on the joke" It's a fascinating read [1] and it seems that not all of the attendants wanted their ego stroked. Some just need a quirky, random excuse to dig in their coffers - I think. Personally, I felt that the author's trying too hard to be satirical. The whole expo feels slimy; IV drips, oxygen sessions, colour-coded bracelets... it's New Age plus hippie plus hipster plus Paltrow probably cackling in the background. [1] https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2017/jun/14/gwyneth-glows-like-a-radioactive-swan-my-day-at-the-goop-festival https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2017/jun/14/gwyneth...

lallysingh 9y ago

> And as if Hollywood and pop culture in general hasn't done enough damage, just couldn't resist preying on the insecurity and tell women their bodies are yucky. Someone evil there went through the use cases and the detailed analysis and decided that no matter how wealthy or successful, that's one thing they could tap into and monetize. That shit's been going on for centuries man.

Balgair 9y ago
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elixir_of_life https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elixir_of_life

Chris2048 9y ago

> couldn't resist preying on the insecurity and tell women their bodies are yucky They aren't supposed to. You can't build an economic model based on individual free-will and self-determination, then suggest that corporations have some higher duty. The mechanism for this is government regulation - If the government doesn't ban or regulate these type of products, the money's on the table for whoever will take it. > you'd be surprised how different they are in private compared to their on screen persona Actors shouldn't be fetishised the way they are; They literally earn more money, based on how mainstream-popular they are, so they have a lot of pressure on them to conform.