Given the context, "I wish the world wasn't that way" means "I wish we didn't live in a world where people could unprofitably pour money into a market to grab market share to kill off competitors."
It's ironic because it's exactly what they have done in other markets, but they're not complaining about where they were successfully the aggressor, but instead where they are the victim of the tactic.
> I'm going to take these examples whenever someone asks "what's wrong with marketing? "
Doesn't this reflect more on society? I personally don't find the above examples to be evil, but it's interesting that these are the tactics needed to win in this world.
> The primary idea -- that a product will make the consumer's life better -- is what is being repackaged and resold over and over again.
I wish.
What’s being resold and repackaged is telling other people how to make money by telling other people how to tell other people how to make money by telling other people how to make money.
> your "ideal world" is actually (surprisingly) the world of free market capitalism
I don't think this is true. In this world, companies keep business ideas for themselves, so they can try to be first to market, which is more important than almost anything else (even to a large extent product quality). On the other hand, potential customers don't ever publish their needs, they just don't seem to know what they want until somebody tells it to them.
> a product, that is just good enough, in a deal, which is good only then, when noone is happy with it, but everyone can accept it.
I refuse to accept that is right, even though it is what seems to be happening everywhere. That's probably the root of my opinion. I'm a believer in the concept of making money through providing value to the customer.
Do consumers want it, or is it merely taking advantage of some more subconscious human behavior patterns. And if the latter, is this something that is bad for humankind?
It's like this because it is an overwhelming benefit to someone who is selling something. Not because it is necessarily overwhelmingly what people want.
Some other market outcomes I'm unhappy with: ad tracking, excessive plastic packaging, cheap goods - expensive repairs, all sodas are at least twice as sweet as they need to be.
When there are options, I choose otherwise. If an option I've come to rely on changes to be something I don't prefer - i'll raise a stink.
Which 'this' do you mean? There is the 'this' where other people buy stupid things (meaning 'smart' things, in the marketing terminology we've had foisted upon us), and there is the 'this' where I can't buy what I want. Phones and TVs are examples of both, to be sure; but, as I mentioned in the comment to which you are responding, these two phenomena seem different, though linked, and it's not clear to me that the former is inherently bad.
I took the less literal meaning of the statement, as more of a "do you have so little faith in your product's ability to compete in the open market" though perhaps I'm being too generous.
See, I really like markets, and I have a problem with phrases like:
> I like reading techcrunch, but would never pay for it.
Sounds to me a lot like Mitt Romney talking about how his wife has the most important job in the world, but she's essentially his unpaid housewife. Sounds hollow.
You are paying for techcrunch, by buying products advertised on it. It would be good for the finances of everyone in society to know exactly how much. If the product company could slice prices in half because their arms-race marketing budget is soaring, maybe you'd change your mind and pay techcrunch directly, so that you, techcrunch, and the R&D department of the product benefit, while marketing stops soaking up a large chunk of the money exchanged.
> So it comes down to this: If everyone is able to convince me that their product is a necessity, then I'll end up acquiring all of those products, but only some of them will be paid for.
Wait, you're saying 'only some of them will be paid for', even though you've been convinced all the products are 'a necessity'. A more succinct way of putting this, that I believe loses none of the intended meaning, is 'I want I want I want.' Of course, this behaviour is not to be blamed on you, poor consumer, for you live in an awful society which has bombarded -- yes, bombarded -- you with vile and shrill marketing in order to trick you into thinking you need it. The horror, the horror!
> On a more different level of thought, we as consumers rarely take a moment to think about the implications of creating a monopolistic monsters and how this relates to our future as a professionals or individuals.
I would paraphrase "rarely take a moment to think about" with "actively ignore" here. At least that is my experience with most people whenever I bring such topics up.
> "Now it’s like, just because it does what you want doesn’t mean it’s doing good."
I'm actually impressed that an 18 year old has this attitude and hasn't been swayed by the free-market fundamentalism so prevalent among the HN crowd.
Too many people treat as a truism the idea that if people are buying or using something provided by a company then that thing is obviously of great positive value to society and should be nurtured and grown.
It's an incredibly naive, irresponsible and socially and ecologically destructive viewpoint in my opinion.
I lived through the days where politicians, journalists, etc referred to what was "good for the public". I felt the shift to "good for the consumer" as it kicked in and took over, and I hated it both then and now - the change was deliberate and the outcome predictable.
Like many others that marketing/sales do to earn a quick buck while deteriorating the human condition even more. This is systemized abuse of human trust, and it makes society worse off.
It's ironic because it's exactly what they have done in other markets, but they're not complaining about where they were successfully the aggressor, but instead where they are the victim of the tactic.
reply