4 ms·

Outright advertising in the old school sense is dead and has been for a long time. Marketing is not. I think this author is deeply confused. Now, more than ever

Outright advertising in the old school sense is dead and has been for a long time. Marketing is not. I think this author is deeply confused. Now, more than ever, the perceived value of cheap products is being inflated by brand. Look how much people pay for a can of Red Bull, which offers less volume than a soda and less caffeine than a coffee. Look at how much people pay for Starbucks coffee and Hermès purses. It’s all smoke and mirrors. In many cases, you’re paying more for an inferior product because the brand gods took advantage of your cognitive bias. The example of Tesla is particularly ridiculous to me and shows how little understanding of marketing the author has. Tesla isn’t a no-marketing company that only relies on its good product. What about a Tesla is superior? Not the interior. Mercedes has them beat there. Not the technology - it’s been proven unreliable at best. Not the range - many gasoline cars have better range. Not the price - their current offerings are far higher than an average person can afford. It’s questionable whether they’re even better for the environment than other cars. In fact, Tesla is so good at marketing that they’ve bamboozled the author and he doesn’t even realize it. Elon Musk knows the way to manipulate perceptions, and he’s very, very good at it.

conanbatt 8y ago
I think you make a big mistake in using the word 'inflated'. The joy of doing something is configured in our brains, and we enjoy that. Science has shown that we like and are willing to pay more for things merely on the brand. Its like saying that all kisses are the same, its inflated that you want it from a specific person!
- Snackchez 8y ago
  You might have slightly misconstrued the parent comment. To rework your idea: there's a spectrum for the quality of kisses. Some people figured out a way to convince you that their kisses are better than they actually are. Others are likely better, but they don't know how to market themselves, and thus don't get kissed as much.
  - braythwayt 8y ago
    The trouble is that a product delivers a complex set of values upon its user, and all-too-often, when someone sneers that it doesn’t have any value, that it’s “just marketing” conning its users, they are willfully ignoring the values that it confers. I have spent literally my entire adult life listening to people say that Apple products were inferior to PCs, going right back to the days when they’d explain that bit-mapped graphics were useless decoration, and that keyboard shortcuts were superior to mouse interactions, and so forth. It’s clearly true that for some users, in some use cases, a certain product does deliver less value than for others. But ignoring the fact that other people see the product’s values in other ways is a monumentally arrogant and unempathetic way to view humanity. Most people don’t buy caffiene by the milligram or whatever. The label on the bottle appeals to a desire to fit in with other people buying the same label, or to aspire to belonging to that tribe, and so forth. It amuses me that this even needs to be explained on Hacker News: Most people who participate in the threads do so for complex social reasons that are not particularly different than the reasons that some people buy Starbucks, some people buy from an indie shop, and some people hit the Timmie’s drive-through. —- Going back to kisses, consider a blind kiss test. I might say that of three kisses, B was better than A which was better than C. But if you tell me that the kiss from C involved Lauren Bacall... I would rank it higher than the other two immediately! There is no fraud or nonsense going on, I value the complex bundle of values around a kiss from Lauren Bacall higher than two “no-name” kisses even if they are functionally more pleasant in the moment.
    - tokipin 8y ago
      > Most people who participate in the threads do so for complex social reasons that are not particularly different than the reasons that some people buy Starbucks, some people buy from an indie shop, and some people hit the Timmie’s drive-through. To make a stronger statement, there is "actual" value, it's just that people are bad at describing it. Many people will go to Starbucks every day because "they like it" and that's about as good an explanation as you can get out of them. But they didn't just wake up one day and decide they were going to like Starbucks. For me personally, I like the consistency of Starbucks. If you order the same drink at two different stores you'll get the same drink. This isn't something that a large corporation like that does on accident. It requires a lot of effort to get that consistency. And it's just one of the many reasons someone will like Starbucks without recognizing it's one of the reasons. People similarly like Apple products for reasons that sound vague ("it's easier to use") but which are not an accident. Apple is highly vertically integrated to ensure many of those reasons. It's no coincidence that Tesla is also vertically integrated.
- amorphid 8y ago
  I usually buy brand name over generic stuff because it is quantifiably better to me in some way. Cereal that tastes better, garbage bag doesn't rip, etc.
  - Snackchez 8y ago
    I've found there are interesting exceptions out there: * Pringles are the worst kind of Pringles. In fact, No Name makes better Pringle type chips * Glossettes are also not as good as the Walmart brand glossette equivalent. I've been compiling a list with friends of such examples where the brand name product is objectively not as good as some knock off.
  - conanbatt 8y ago
    They are better because of the brand association, not in spite of it.
  - deleted 8y ago
    [deleted]
skybrian 8y ago
It seems important to you to prove that certain products are objectively bad, and the people who like them are somehow wrong to do so. Why? Tastes differ.
- paulcole 8y ago
  > Tesla is so good at marketing that they’ve bamboozled the author and he doesn’t even realize it. Just curious, do you disagree with this?
- milesvp 8y ago
  Nonsense! One of marketing's main purpose is to convince you that some thing is superior in some way regardless of whether or not it's objectively true (or even objectively provable). Tastes differ, but we're talking about marketing, and I tend agree with the parent post that Tesla's marketing around their cars is much better than the production quality or design of the cars.
- IAmGraydon 8y ago
  Why? Because I’m backing up the opinion that I presented. Or would you rather everyone makes statements without saying how they came to those conclusions? That said, I never claimed anyone was wrong - just taken advantage of. Your comment has me wondering if you own or commonly purchase one of the products I mentioned. You seem hurt.
  - skybrian 8y ago
    Okay, fair enough. But I think it's possible to show that the article isn't right without trying to also prove something else? I agree that people don't pick products based on their objective goodness. However, this doesn't mean they're picking objectively bad products or being "taken advantage of" either. Or at least not in these examples. Do you really want to say that one flavor or brand of beverage is objectively tastier than another, or that people shouldn't care about what it tastes like? Or maybe they just like the shape of the bottle. Is that wrong? Or take cars. There are a lot of objective measurements you can make, but no objective way to decide on how much these features should matter or whether they are worth the cost. Some people care about having better-than-usual acceleration or a more luxurious interior, and others don't. Some people care about fuel efficiency only to save money, others want to do their part to help save the environment even if it costs more. Some people buy cars based on the image they want to project. None of these things are objectively wrong. I'd reserve "being taken advantage of" for cases where people thought they were buying one thing and got another, not where they're making choices based on different goals. (No, I don't drink Red Bull or drive a Tesla.)

conanbatt 8y ago

I think you make a big mistake in using the word 'inflated'. The joy of doing something is configured in our brains, and we enjoy that. Science has shown that we like and are willing to pay more for things merely on the brand. Its like saying that all kisses are the same, its inflated that you want it from a specific person!

Snackchez 8y ago
You might have slightly misconstrued the parent comment. To rework your idea: there's a spectrum for the quality of kisses. Some people figured out a way to convince you that their kisses are better than they actually are. Others are likely better, but they don't know how to market themselves, and thus don't get kissed as much.
- braythwayt 8y ago
  The trouble is that a product delivers a complex set of values upon its user, and all-too-often, when someone sneers that it doesn’t have any value, that it’s “just marketing” conning its users, they are willfully ignoring the values that it confers. I have spent literally my entire adult life listening to people say that Apple products were inferior to PCs, going right back to the days when they’d explain that bit-mapped graphics were useless decoration, and that keyboard shortcuts were superior to mouse interactions, and so forth. It’s clearly true that for some users, in some use cases, a certain product does deliver less value than for others. But ignoring the fact that other people see the product’s values in other ways is a monumentally arrogant and unempathetic way to view humanity. Most people don’t buy caffiene by the milligram or whatever. The label on the bottle appeals to a desire to fit in with other people buying the same label, or to aspire to belonging to that tribe, and so forth. It amuses me that this even needs to be explained on Hacker News: Most people who participate in the threads do so for complex social reasons that are not particularly different than the reasons that some people buy Starbucks, some people buy from an indie shop, and some people hit the Timmie’s drive-through. —- Going back to kisses, consider a blind kiss test. I might say that of three kisses, B was better than A which was better than C. But if you tell me that the kiss from C involved Lauren Bacall... I would rank it higher than the other two immediately! There is no fraud or nonsense going on, I value the complex bundle of values around a kiss from Lauren Bacall higher than two “no-name” kisses even if they are functionally more pleasant in the moment.
  - tokipin 8y ago
    > Most people who participate in the threads do so for complex social reasons that are not particularly different than the reasons that some people buy Starbucks, some people buy from an indie shop, and some people hit the Timmie’s drive-through. To make a stronger statement, there is "actual" value, it's just that people are bad at describing it. Many people will go to Starbucks every day because "they like it" and that's about as good an explanation as you can get out of them. But they didn't just wake up one day and decide they were going to like Starbucks. For me personally, I like the consistency of Starbucks. If you order the same drink at two different stores you'll get the same drink. This isn't something that a large corporation like that does on accident. It requires a lot of effort to get that consistency. And it's just one of the many reasons someone will like Starbucks without recognizing it's one of the reasons. People similarly like Apple products for reasons that sound vague ("it's easier to use") but which are not an accident. Apple is highly vertically integrated to ensure many of those reasons. It's no coincidence that Tesla is also vertically integrated.
amorphid 8y ago
I usually buy brand name over generic stuff because it is quantifiably better to me in some way. Cereal that tastes better, garbage bag doesn't rip, etc.
- Snackchez 8y ago
  I've found there are interesting exceptions out there: * Pringles are the worst kind of Pringles. In fact, No Name makes better Pringle type chips * Glossettes are also not as good as the Walmart brand glossette equivalent. I've been compiling a list with friends of such examples where the brand name product is objectively not as good as some knock off.
- conanbatt 8y ago
  They are better because of the brand association, not in spite of it.
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]

skybrian 8y ago

It seems important to you to prove that certain products are objectively bad, and the people who like them are somehow wrong to do so. Why? Tastes differ.

paulcole 8y ago
> Tesla is so good at marketing that they’ve bamboozled the author and he doesn’t even realize it. Just curious, do you disagree with this?
milesvp 8y ago
Nonsense! One of marketing's main purpose is to convince you that some thing is superior in some way regardless of whether or not it's objectively true (or even objectively provable). Tastes differ, but we're talking about marketing, and I tend agree with the parent post that Tesla's marketing around their cars is much better than the production quality or design of the cars.
IAmGraydon 8y ago
Why? Because I’m backing up the opinion that I presented. Or would you rather everyone makes statements without saying how they came to those conclusions? That said, I never claimed anyone was wrong - just taken advantage of. Your comment has me wondering if you own or commonly purchase one of the products I mentioned. You seem hurt.
- skybrian 8y ago
  Okay, fair enough. But I think it's possible to show that the article isn't right without trying to also prove something else? I agree that people don't pick products based on their objective goodness. However, this doesn't mean they're picking objectively bad products or being "taken advantage of" either. Or at least not in these examples. Do you really want to say that one flavor or brand of beverage is objectively tastier than another, or that people shouldn't care about what it tastes like? Or maybe they just like the shape of the bottle. Is that wrong? Or take cars. There are a lot of objective measurements you can make, but no objective way to decide on how much these features should matter or whether they are worth the cost. Some people care about having better-than-usual acceleration or a more luxurious interior, and others don't. Some people care about fuel efficiency only to save money, others want to do their part to help save the environment even if it costs more. Some people buy cars based on the image they want to project. None of these things are objectively wrong. I'd reserve "being taken advantage of" for cases where people thought they were buying one thing and got another, not where they're making choices based on different goals. (No, I don't drink Red Bull or drive a Tesla.)