4 ms·

Previously, people in India did not have access to washing powder [...] Now they have access to washing powder, which improves hygiene. What an awful example.

Previously, people in India did not have access to washing powder [...] Now they have access to washing powder, which improves hygiene. What an awful example. Before washing powder, people used a bar of wash soap: cheaper, more convenient, purpose-designed and doesn't come in single-use packages encouraging you to use more than you need. (Wash soap also does a much better job than any powder I have tried when hand-washing, although YMMV.) This sounds like a classic case of a large corporation's marketing department convincing people to buy a product that is more expensive and no better (and possibly worse) than what they currently have. For the definitive example of this, see Nestle http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nestl%C3%A9_boycott#The_baby_milk_issue http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nestl%C3%A9_boycott#The_baby_mi...

Confusion 15y ago
I don't think an explanation involving 'YMMV' and 'sounds like' is a sufficient support for your opening statement that it is 'an awful example'. They have simply entered a market with a competing product. Unless you have evidence that their product is inferior to competing solutions and that they know it, but intend to overcome that problem by outmarketing the competition, then you really don't have any support for your position. Nestle has nothing to do with it until then.
- deleted 15y ago
  [deleted]
- waitwhat 15y ago
  You're being ridiculous. I don't have access to Unilever's internal marketing materials, and I doubt that you do either.
  - Confusion 15y ago
    You're the one accusing them of immoral behavior. I'm only relaying what I've heard an employee tell and I assume good faith: they changed their product such that it would be suitable for a new market and a nice side effect is that the product becomes available at all (which is nice because it improves matters). I have no stake in this and will readily revise my ideas, but not based on an unsupported accusation.
    - waitwhat 15y ago
      (They're amoral, if anything.) which is nice because it improves matters But you haven't actually demonstrated that it improves anything, you simply asserted it without proof. And this is not something that can just be assumed to be true, because the pre-existing solution really is very good.

Confusion 15y ago

I don't think an explanation involving 'YMMV' and 'sounds like' is a sufficient support for your opening statement that it is 'an awful example'. They have simply entered a market with a competing product. Unless you have evidence that their product is inferior to competing solutions and that they know it, but intend to overcome that problem by outmarketing the competition, then you really don't have any support for your position. Nestle has nothing to do with it until then.

deleted 15y ago
[deleted]
waitwhat 15y ago
You're being ridiculous. I don't have access to Unilever's internal marketing materials, and I doubt that you do either.
- Confusion 15y ago
  You're the one accusing them of immoral behavior. I'm only relaying what I've heard an employee tell and I assume good faith: they changed their product such that it would be suitable for a new market and a nice side effect is that the product becomes available at all (which is nice because it improves matters). I have no stake in this and will readily revise my ideas, but not based on an unsupported accusation.
  - waitwhat 15y ago
    (They're amoral, if anything.) which is nice because it improves matters But you haven't actually demonstrated that it improves anything, you simply asserted it without proof. And this is not something that can just be assumed to be true, because the pre-existing solution really is very good.