5 ms·

What strikes me as food for thought is the stupidity and wickedness of the riots. I understand the rage if you own one of the few winning tickets of a lottery a

by Udik 6y ago

What strikes me as food for thought is the stupidity and wickedness of the riots. I understand the rage if you own one of the few winning tickets of a lottery and the organization doesn't want to pay out. But in this case they knew that it had to be a mistake, as they all had the winning ticket. Were they really thinking that Pepsi should pay $40k to each and all of them because they all possessed the same identical plastic cap? Would they not realize that receiving all almost $20 was a larger collective gain? And more in general, how do you govern a country where the population exhibits this kind of inability to see the larger picture and the point of view of the opponents in a dispute?

klyrs 6y ago
Ask that about Canadians, who trashed Vancouver when the Canucks lost a damned hockey game.
netsharc 6y ago
You have to imagine people in poverty and a sum that is not only poverty-ending, but probably allowing you to live in relative luxury, probably allowing you to start a business to have a better source of income. Assuming you're an American not living in a leaky tin-roofed cardboard box in 2020, sure, for you $40,000 is not that sum of money, but in early 1990's Philipphines it probably was...
- Udik 6y ago
  You can simply multiply that sum by 100 or 1000 and ask yourself how would you react if the same happened to you. In this order: 1) you buy several Pepsi 2) you discover you won 40 million 3) you discover everyone else won 40 million 4) it is explained to you that there was a mistake and you can get 100 dollars as a refund. 5) you start burning cars and throwing bombs together with all the others because each really really wants his 40 million. Do you think you would go from 4 to 5? Do you think your society would work if it contained a large percentage of people who would go from 4 to 5? That's what I was trying to point out.
  - netsharc 6y ago
    No you can't multiply it by a number and say it's comparable... If I don't win 40 million, I'll still have a warm apartment, a well paid job, a car, electronic toys, and a vague plan of a leisure trip to Iceland after this whole pandemic blows over. Once in a while I'll say "Fuck, at one point I thought I was a multi-millionaire, but it was a mistake!", and I'd be able to distract myself by, I don't know, playing Xbox or going out drinking overpriced cocktails with friends. Meanwhile a lot of the Filipinos probably thought they'd get to no longer live in a cardboard box in a slum, no longer wear ratty clothes, worrying about work and food... And we don't know how many rioted, presumably many cried quietly after having their dreams quashed..
    - Udik 6y ago
      Yeah, ok. So what did they want? Pepsi Cola paying $40k to every person in the country? Really?
      - imtringued 6y ago
        There is no way to make them happy. Pepsi clearly didn't have $32B. The only conclusion you can make from this situation is that these people clearly didn't want to be happy.
      - netsharc 6y ago
        I'm sorry they weren't all clear-headed zen monks who could accept the loss of their presumed liberation from poverty (in some minds maybe even a return to poverty?) without releasing any anger. If only the whole world was like you right, I'd bet it'd be an easier to place to govern, right?
triceratops 6y ago
> stupidity and wickedness of the riots. There was indeed stupidity and wickedness but it started with Pepsi, when they ran an unlicensed lottery and then fucked it up. By advertising the $40k prize for the winning number and then reneging on the prize, Pepsi engaged in false advertising, and breaking a contract. If they ever pulled that in the US they'd face a hefty FTC penalty (or at least would have done at the time; today, who knows?) > Would they not realize that receiving all almost $20 was a larger collective gain? You come off as out of touch and insensitive with that comment. A "larger collective gain" means fuck-all to people living in abject poverty. Each of the winners, in their mind, lost $38,980 - more money than they could hope to save up in a lifetime. In poor countries the competition for everything is cutthroat and there's often no collective "national spirit". People will help their friends, neighbors and family and that's about it. Why don't you tell me how you'd feel if you won a $100 million lotto jackpot (after playing for years) and then 2 days later someone told you "oopsies our bad, here's $200."
- Udik 6y ago
  > Each of the winners, in their mind, lost $38,980 - more money than they could hope to save up in a lifetime. Yes. Then as soon as they meet all the people that have made the exact same win they must realise something is wrong, right? > Why don't you tell me how you'd feel if you won a $100 million lotto jackpot (after playing for years) and then 2 days later someone told you "oopsies our bad, here's $200." Sure. I'd feel enraged, but once I'd discovered that everyone else won the same lotto jackpot it would be totally clear it was a mistake and it makes no sense at all to claim it. I'd be happy to have the jackpot divided in equal parts among all those who bought the winning ticket (the alternative being having a new ticket issued for free and a new turn played- so much less chances to gain anything).
  - triceratops 6y ago
    It's more likely that the "winners" would sue the lotto company for false advertising, breach of contract, and mental distress, and force a much larger settlement - possibly 1000x what was offered ($200k in my example). They might even force the company into bankruptcy. But that option isn't available to poor people in places like the Philippines. The "multiple winners" thing "makes no sense" to you because you're looking at it from Pepsi's perspective. Not from the perspective of someone who thought their life was going to be transformed, and now it's not. Their thought process is more like "It's not my problem if the people running the lottery screwed up. I won fair and square according to the rules that were set out. They have to pay and that's that." Pepsi marketed the heck out of this thing, gained a ton of market share, and would stand to make lots of money even after their ultimate $20 million bill. But instead they reneged on a contract by blaming it on a technical error. I don't understand why you're so eager to let them off the hook for this - don't contracts mean anything? > the alternative being having a new ticket issued for free There are plenty of other alternatives actually, all the way to "Pepsi actually pays the $32 billion, in installments". But that's not realistic - they'd probably just exit the Philippines market instead. Here's a more realistic alternative that might have gone over better: Pepsi says, "We get that a lot of you bought Pepsi because of this promotion and we feel terrible. To make it right, we're upping the prize pot to equal all of our sales in the Philippines this year. After all, the only reason we made most of those sales was because of the prize, so we're gonna forfeit those."

by Udik 6y ago

klyrs 6y ago

Ask that about Canadians, who trashed Vancouver when the Canucks lost a damned hockey game.

netsharc 6y ago

You have to imagine people in poverty and a sum that is not only poverty-ending, but probably allowing you to live in relative luxury, probably allowing you to start a business to have a better source of income. Assuming you're an American not living in a leaky tin-roofed cardboard box in 2020, sure, for you $40,000 is not that sum of money, but in early 1990's Philipphines it probably was...

Udik 6y ago
You can simply multiply that sum by 100 or 1000 and ask yourself how would you react if the same happened to you. In this order: 1) you buy several Pepsi 2) you discover you won 40 million 3) you discover everyone else won 40 million 4) it is explained to you that there was a mistake and you can get 100 dollars as a refund. 5) you start burning cars and throwing bombs together with all the others because each really really wants his 40 million. Do you think you would go from 4 to 5? Do you think your society would work if it contained a large percentage of people who would go from 4 to 5? That's what I was trying to point out.
- netsharc 6y ago
  No you can't multiply it by a number and say it's comparable... If I don't win 40 million, I'll still have a warm apartment, a well paid job, a car, electronic toys, and a vague plan of a leisure trip to Iceland after this whole pandemic blows over. Once in a while I'll say "Fuck, at one point I thought I was a multi-millionaire, but it was a mistake!", and I'd be able to distract myself by, I don't know, playing Xbox or going out drinking overpriced cocktails with friends. Meanwhile a lot of the Filipinos probably thought they'd get to no longer live in a cardboard box in a slum, no longer wear ratty clothes, worrying about work and food... And we don't know how many rioted, presumably many cried quietly after having their dreams quashed..
  - Udik 6y ago
    Yeah, ok. So what did they want? Pepsi Cola paying $40k to every person in the country? Really?
    - imtringued 6y ago
      There is no way to make them happy. Pepsi clearly didn't have $32B. The only conclusion you can make from this situation is that these people clearly didn't want to be happy.
    - netsharc 6y ago
      I'm sorry they weren't all clear-headed zen monks who could accept the loss of their presumed liberation from poverty (in some minds maybe even a return to poverty?) without releasing any anger. If only the whole world was like you right, I'd bet it'd be an easier to place to govern, right?

triceratops 6y ago

> stupidity and wickedness of the riots. There was indeed stupidity and wickedness but it started with Pepsi, when they ran an unlicensed lottery and then fucked it up. By advertising the $40k prize for the winning number and then reneging on the prize, Pepsi engaged in false advertising, and breaking a contract. If they ever pulled that in the US they'd face a hefty FTC penalty (or at least would have done at the time; today, who knows?) > Would they not realize that receiving all almost $20 was a larger collective gain? You come off as out of touch and insensitive with that comment. A "larger collective gain" means fuck-all to people living in abject poverty. Each of the winners, in their mind, lost $38,980 - more money than they could hope to save up in a lifetime. In poor countries the competition for everything is cutthroat and there's often no collective "national spirit". People will help their friends, neighbors and family and that's about it. Why don't you tell me how you'd feel if you won a $100 million lotto jackpot (after playing for years) and then 2 days later someone told you "oopsies our bad, here's $200."

Udik 6y ago
> Each of the winners, in their mind, lost $38,980 - more money than they could hope to save up in a lifetime. Yes. Then as soon as they meet all the people that have made the exact same win they must realise something is wrong, right? > Why don't you tell me how you'd feel if you won a $100 million lotto jackpot (after playing for years) and then 2 days later someone told you "oopsies our bad, here's $200." Sure. I'd feel enraged, but once I'd discovered that everyone else won the same lotto jackpot it would be totally clear it was a mistake and it makes no sense at all to claim it. I'd be happy to have the jackpot divided in equal parts among all those who bought the winning ticket (the alternative being having a new ticket issued for free and a new turn played- so much less chances to gain anything).
- triceratops 6y ago
  It's more likely that the "winners" would sue the lotto company for false advertising, breach of contract, and mental distress, and force a much larger settlement - possibly 1000x what was offered ($200k in my example). They might even force the company into bankruptcy. But that option isn't available to poor people in places like the Philippines. The "multiple winners" thing "makes no sense" to you because you're looking at it from Pepsi's perspective. Not from the perspective of someone who thought their life was going to be transformed, and now it's not. Their thought process is more like "It's not my problem if the people running the lottery screwed up. I won fair and square according to the rules that were set out. They have to pay and that's that." Pepsi marketed the heck out of this thing, gained a ton of market share, and would stand to make lots of money even after their ultimate $20 million bill. But instead they reneged on a contract by blaming it on a technical error. I don't understand why you're so eager to let them off the hook for this - don't contracts mean anything? > the alternative being having a new ticket issued for free There are plenty of other alternatives actually, all the way to "Pepsi actually pays the $32 billion, in installments". But that's not realistic - they'd probably just exit the Philippines market instead. Here's a more realistic alternative that might have gone over better: Pepsi says, "We get that a lot of you bought Pepsi because of this promotion and we feel terrible. To make it right, we're upping the prize pot to equal all of our sales in the Philippines this year. After all, the only reason we made most of those sales was because of the prize, so we're gonna forfeit those."