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?
>Product market segmentation is a very reasonable thing to do. Why do people make it out like a bad thing?
Because most of us would rather pay a price that mostly reflects costs + some reasonable profit, not some artificially created segment, not fuel extravagant profits, not pay for future research, not pay for the company to have cash reserves, etc etc.
In many industries, the customer will feel punished for using the product - the opposite of what I'd want, as someone proud of the value their product provides.
Therefore disagree, depending on the existing mentality in the niche.
> 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.
> Why can't we have a consumer organization that protects us from having to buy stuff that we don't want.
You don't have to buy stuff you don't want.
You just can't buy the stuff you do want without it being bundled with stuff you don't want - the manufacturers have decided there's no market for it.
Evidently it's more profitable to persuade a large fraction of people that they are “consumers”, whose lives are a series of branded commercial experiences, than it is to cater to the unlucrative number of people who object.
>If a product finds some customers (maybe ultimately unsatisfied, or disappointed, or gaslighted customers), there must be a need that the product is filling.
Well, I'm a believer in an objective world in which not all needs are equal.
I can accept that which need is important or not can be difficult to ascertain. But I also hold that in many, if not most, cases, it's very easy.
Despite the cult of the individual and the reverence with which subjective taste is held, I'd go on record to say that some (most) people have buy products that fulfill irrelevant non-needs.
For an easy to agree with (but real) example, heroin addicts ands Milli Vanilli listeners both buy products that "fill a need". The question is more whether they should.
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.
> The only way to not be bothered by stuff like this as a consumer is to not consume anything.
It's not very clear, from the above sentence, that you exclude consumption of creative works. In any case, how do you draw a distinction between consumerism and consuming certain works?
So the ends justify the means if people are okay with it?
reply