3 ms·

I've gone through probably 300 slide decks from various industries that explicitly state that 'consumers in x demographic sector will need to be re-educated abo

by ABCLAW 5y ago

I've gone through probably 300 slide decks from various industries that explicitly state that 'consumers in x demographic sector will need to be re-educated about the value of [something they didn't want]'. I've seen it in regards to premium breads, in-app purchases, crude oil solvent levels, public infrastructure features, clothing, etc. This isn't a new thing. Sometimes you just spend money to fabricate culture when it isn't on your side. >There isn't one person deciding what gets produced. Is this really an appropriate standard for examining whether or not an organization can push culture rather than merely adapt to it?

crazygringo 5y ago
Well sure every company is trying to convince customers their thing is best. That's just marketing. But different companies can be trying to convince things that are totally opposed to each other too. It's still not monolithic. (Regardless of whether it's "one person" or not, it was just an illustration.) At the end of the day it's still customers buying what they like from a range of companies that are all competing with each other, some succeeding and some failing.
- ABCLAW 5y ago
  Not really. All companies that make bags may be pulling consumers in different directions with respect to which style of bags they should purchase, but all will pull in the direction of "purchase bags". You can zoom out from bags to fashion, and the same idea repeats itself. Consumer consumption itself is the unified cultural zeitgeist. That's the issue - in some areas it'll spur innovation, but in others it is an obviously wasteful use of limited resources and time.
  - crazygringo 5y ago
    I think you're having a different conversation? I was arguing that fashion trends are ultimately driven by consumers, not by companies (as GP was arguing). Consumers aren't blindly buying whatever's for sale. Whether people are purchasing more than they need, or whether that's wasteful, is a totally orthogonal conversation. But pretty sure most women need bags. And a lot of guys use backpacks too. They're not some artificial need invented by companies.
    - TeMPOraL 5y ago
      > Consumers aren't blindly buying whatever's for sale. But of course they are. This is the case not just in fashion, but pretty much everywhere (and particularly visible wrt. hardware and software). Consumers are given a bit of a choice to get completely confused by it, but ultimately they pick something from what's for sale. They can't just go and say, "I want these trousers, except cut like these other ones, and with the color from that dress" - much like they can't go and say "I want a phone like this new iPhone, but with my damn headphone jack back". Not without spending 1-2 orders of magnitude more money. What this means for our discussion is, it's vendors who set the trends, because they choose what is available for purchase at scale.
      - crazygringo 5y ago
        You're missing the point which is that vendors are making the products they think people will buy. Vendors aren't arbitrarily setting "trends", they aren't inventing things in a vacuum. They literally do market research, interview consumers, figure out what people want, and then try to give that to them. Of course any single individual doesn't always get exactly what they want (the pair of pants, the phone but with a headphone jack), but collectively we do trend strongly towards that. Manufacturers aren't perfect, they don't always get it maximally correct, but they're generally trying their best, because, you know, competition.
        ABCLAW 5y ago
        >Vendors aren't arbitrarily setting "trends" You're right in that trends aren't arbitrary, but you've jumped from that idea to the idea that consumer needs are the reason. That's not the case. A large proportion of the time the reason why a particular trend is set isn't 'consumers want this'. It's 'the commodities to make this product are going to be particularly cheap this season - so margins should be healthy'. The McRib is a great example. As a crystal clear example, do you think any consumer in their right mind wants their products shrinkflated? Do you think misleading packaging is based on satisfying consumer desires, or manipulating them? The competition is for dollars, not for goodwill.

by ABCLAW 5y ago

crazygringo 5y ago

Well sure every company is trying to convince customers their thing is best. That's just marketing. But different companies can be trying to convince things that are totally opposed to each other too. It's still not monolithic. (Regardless of whether it's "one person" or not, it was just an illustration.) At the end of the day it's still customers buying what they like from a range of companies that are all competing with each other, some succeeding and some failing.

ABCLAW 5y ago
Not really. All companies that make bags may be pulling consumers in different directions with respect to which style of bags they should purchase, but all will pull in the direction of "purchase bags". You can zoom out from bags to fashion, and the same idea repeats itself. Consumer consumption itself is the unified cultural zeitgeist. That's the issue - in some areas it'll spur innovation, but in others it is an obviously wasteful use of limited resources and time.
- crazygringo 5y ago
  I think you're having a different conversation? I was arguing that fashion trends are ultimately driven by consumers, not by companies (as GP was arguing). Consumers aren't blindly buying whatever's for sale. Whether people are purchasing more than they need, or whether that's wasteful, is a totally orthogonal conversation. But pretty sure most women need bags. And a lot of guys use backpacks too. They're not some artificial need invented by companies.
  - TeMPOraL 5y ago
    > Consumers aren't blindly buying whatever's for sale. But of course they are. This is the case not just in fashion, but pretty much everywhere (and particularly visible wrt. hardware and software). Consumers are given a bit of a choice to get completely confused by it, but ultimately they pick something from what's for sale. They can't just go and say, "I want these trousers, except cut like these other ones, and with the color from that dress" - much like they can't go and say "I want a phone like this new iPhone, but with my damn headphone jack back". Not without spending 1-2 orders of magnitude more money. What this means for our discussion is, it's vendors who set the trends, because they choose what is available for purchase at scale.
    - crazygringo 5y ago
      You're missing the point which is that vendors are making the products they think people will buy. Vendors aren't arbitrarily setting "trends", they aren't inventing things in a vacuum. They literally do market research, interview consumers, figure out what people want, and then try to give that to them. Of course any single individual doesn't always get exactly what they want (the pair of pants, the phone but with a headphone jack), but collectively we do trend strongly towards that. Manufacturers aren't perfect, they don't always get it maximally correct, but they're generally trying their best, because, you know, competition.
      - ABCLAW 5y ago
        >Vendors aren't arbitrarily setting "trends" You're right in that trends aren't arbitrary, but you've jumped from that idea to the idea that consumer needs are the reason. That's not the case. A large proportion of the time the reason why a particular trend is set isn't 'consumers want this'. It's 'the commodities to make this product are going to be particularly cheap this season - so margins should be healthy'. The McRib is a great example. As a crystal clear example, do you think any consumer in their right mind wants their products shrinkflated? Do you think misleading packaging is based on satisfying consumer desires, or manipulating them? The competition is for dollars, not for goodwill.