4 ms·

The casino outcome is a zero-sum game. Quite different from social network advertising, where an advertiser "catching" a consumer with a relevant ad, is win-wi

The casino outcome is a zero-sum game. Quite different from social network advertising, where an advertiser "catching" a consumer with a relevant ad, is win-win.

mrkramer 6y ago
But who says you need product or service you buy. Many people buy compulsively. There is a reason why companies hire psychologists and psychiatrists to create ads.
- rock_hard 6y ago
  You are generalizing edge cases There is no data that supports your arguments of this being a mainstream issue
  - mrkramer 6y ago
    Drugs are not mainstream issue but yet War on Drugs is raging for the last 50 years.
  - eropple 6y ago
    Valve has an open role for a psychologist right now to devise experiments--and their experimental population is their userbase. Efficient market hypothesis and all that: they gonna hire these people if it doesn't work? Where's their IRB?
sova 6y ago
The house wins in a casino. The advertiser and the house win in a social network. They do not appear all that different from the perspective of the consumer. But I can understand the viewpoint that if a consumer is introduced to something useful they had a need for, but did not otherwise know how to fulfill, it could be seen as a "win-win." Some purchases are, indeed, satisfaction fulfilments, or full-circles on unmet satisfaction flows; while some fish will find themselves in a new and excellent aquarium [to stretch the analogy], not all fish delight in being caught. It depends on perspective: that of the platform owner, that of the advertiser, and that of the consumer, for what the [relative] benefit is. I still maintain that they are strikingly similar business models. One could argue that the dopamine rush one gets from playing slots is relevant and also a "win-win." If the distinction is in the end result (useful product or service versus transient dopamine rush) then your statement makes much sense, but aside from that I see no striking difference between the operation of these businesses.
pdq 6y ago
Casinos are a zero-sum game, in a similar vein as the insurance market. The house wins for both products (ie casinos and insurance providers). Buyers wager a small amount of money, hoping to either win a large amount (casino), or to pay off a claim/catastrophe (insurance). Aside, casinos provides short-term fun for consumers. A small percentage are large winners, virtually all lose money, and a small percentage become addicted and lose a ton of money. See also options and futures markets.
- Shivetya 6y ago
  Many people don't realize both are regulated to limit the potential to exploit their markets. Odds are set on games of chance (slots) and with regards to insurance most have a set maximum percentage they can have profit with rest having to be refunded (this may not be true in all states but is in mine).
ac29 6y ago
Getting a compulsive shopper to buy another cute top seems about as useful to them as a smoker being convinced to switch to a new brand.

The casino outcome is a zero-sum game. Quite different from social network advertising, where an advertiser "catching" a consumer with a relevant ad, is win-win.

mrkramer 6y ago

But who says you need product or service you buy. Many people buy compulsively. There is a reason why companies hire psychologists and psychiatrists to create ads.

rock_hard 6y ago
You are generalizing edge cases There is no data that supports your arguments of this being a mainstream issue
- mrkramer 6y ago
  Drugs are not mainstream issue but yet War on Drugs is raging for the last 50 years.
- eropple 6y ago
  Valve has an open role for a psychologist right now to devise experiments--and their experimental population is their userbase. Efficient market hypothesis and all that: they gonna hire these people if it doesn't work? Where's their IRB?

sova 6y ago

The house wins in a casino. The advertiser and the house win in a social network. They do not appear all that different from the perspective of the consumer. But I can understand the viewpoint that if a consumer is introduced to something useful they had a need for, but did not otherwise know how to fulfill, it could be seen as a "win-win." Some purchases are, indeed, satisfaction fulfilments, or full-circles on unmet satisfaction flows; while some fish will find themselves in a new and excellent aquarium [to stretch the analogy], not all fish delight in being caught. It depends on perspective: that of the platform owner, that of the advertiser, and that of the consumer, for what the [relative] benefit is. I still maintain that they are strikingly similar business models. One could argue that the dopamine rush one gets from playing slots is relevant and also a "win-win." If the distinction is in the end result (useful product or service versus transient dopamine rush) then your statement makes much sense, but aside from that I see no striking difference between the operation of these businesses.

pdq 6y ago

Casinos are a zero-sum game, in a similar vein as the insurance market. The house wins for both products (ie casinos and insurance providers). Buyers wager a small amount of money, hoping to either win a large amount (casino), or to pay off a claim/catastrophe (insurance). Aside, casinos provides short-term fun for consumers. A small percentage are large winners, virtually all lose money, and a small percentage become addicted and lose a ton of money. See also options and futures markets.

Shivetya 6y ago
Many people don't realize both are regulated to limit the potential to exploit their markets. Odds are set on games of chance (slots) and with regards to insurance most have a set maximum percentage they can have profit with rest having to be refunded (this may not be true in all states but is in mine).

ac29 6y ago

Getting a compulsive shopper to buy another cute top seems about as useful to them as a smoker being convinced to switch to a new brand.