5 ms·
> Oh, it's not wrong, just embarrassing as a human being. ;) Care to explain why? I buy Tylenol branded acetaminophen. Granted, I only buy one bottle every th
by maratd 14y ago
> Oh, it's not wrong, just embarrassing as a human being. ;)
Care to explain why?
I buy Tylenol branded acetaminophen. Granted, I only buy one bottle every three years or so, but I'm perfectly fine spending a few dollars more. While acetaminophen is acetaminophen, when I buy Tylenol, I'm buying into their quality control and the experience that has come with that company, over many years. It's worth a few dollars to me to make sure that I'm getting what I'm buying and nothing more.
Do explain how brand loyalty is "embarrassing" to humanity.
- andrewflnr 14y agoIt may feel like it's safer, but personally, I doubt it. You're paying mostly for a feeling, and that's somewhat irrational. Medicine is a relatively good place for paranoia though, and for feeling safe. Most brand loyalty is even sillier. Don't get me started about designer clothing.
- Fargren 14y agoI can't think of anything I where I don't pay for a feeling. I could live in a closet and eat the bare minimum to survive, but I like to feel cozy and feel that my food is tasty.
- maratd 14y ago> Most brand loyalty is even sillier. This makes no sense to me. If I have a good experience with a company, then any subsequent experience is far more likely to be good than a random selection? The entire point behind brands is consistent experience.
- UVB-76 14y agoIf we're being pedantic, that's inductive reasoning. See the problem of induction [1]; you cannot justify any inference about future experiences of a product based on past experiences of it alone. Brand loyalty is broader and can potentially be justified. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Problem_of_induction https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Problem_of_induction
- eru 14y agoInduction works mostly fine in practice.
- andrewflnr 14y agoIt mostly doesn't result in catastrophe. That doesn't mean it produces optimal results.