As was foretold, we've added advertisements to the forums! If you have questions, or if you encounter any bugs, please visit this thread: https://forums.penny-arcade.com/discussion/240191/forum-advertisement-faq-and-reports-thread/
Is it in corporations' best interest to have dumb customers?
Perpetual
Registered User regular
Registered User regular
You know those conspiracy theories that go along the lines of "corporations don't want public education to improve because educated customers are less likely to buy the shit they produce" or whatever.
Is this really true?
Do educated customers really lead to less revenue for most corporations out there?
Or does it lead to customers who are more likely to participate, share, improve, and find creative ways to use your product?
I don't believe one way or the other - I just want to start an open discussion.
Is this really true?
Do educated customers really lead to less revenue for most corporations out there?
Or does it lead to customers who are more likely to participate, share, improve, and find creative ways to use your product?
I don't believe one way or the other - I just want to start an open discussion.
Perpetual on
0
Posts
They sold a backwards robe and idiot america bought it up.
Can you please elaborate?
They are for dumb people
Also, I've been wanting to get a snuggie. Those things look cool.
I'd say they don't want the customer to be generally stupid, but they might want them to be stupid when it comes to marketing.
Like, someone could tell you they think a car is sexy and they want to buy it, but they couldn't tell you specifically why, because a lot of what makes an attractive product is done by designers that spend their entire lives learning the minutiae of product design.
Same for advertising. Someone might see, say, a poster done by Apple for the iPod and it'll make them want to buy it because it makes it look cool. Never mind the precise balancing of white space, choosing of fonts (though Apple in particular seems to just slap Helvetica on everything), placement of colors and contrasts, etc. that goes into making these things visually appealing.
I'd like to hear an explanation for this?
Also, I think it is definitely in corporations best interest to have dumb customers. Ultimately most things corporations try and sell us we don't need, and they are more likely to be able to convince a dumb person, and keep a dumb person buying their stuff.
A good rule of thumb would be: good for corporations, bad for people.
High street stores routinely hawk hugely expensive extended warranties for items that don't have a value or failure rate that comes close to justifying them.
In the UK there's been a massive crackdown on them, and they've got a lot cheaper, but they still tend to be way, way, more expensive than third party warranties obtained independently of the actual store.
This. It couldn't matter less to businesses what your IQ is or how many digits you can memorize or what you got on the SAT, but they definitely benefit if you don't apply critical thinking in your daily life (IE purchasing decisions).
It has been said in this thread that there also is a very specific way of selling things that make you look "smart" and "educated" *cough* Apple *cough* and without a doubt smart and educated people, who should know better, still fall for that kind of crap.
My guess would be that it is simply much easier to sell things to an uneducated crowd than to an educated and sceptical one.
And Disney World is nowhere in sight.
My mother had me diagnose her computer to see why it's so slow; she's got like 1998 / 1999 PC parts running Windows XP (a friend of her's built the computer and gave it to her). I told her she needs to buy a new computer, even one on the cheap, for it to not be a piece of crap and that's all there is to it. And the internet connection needs to be something not dialup for that aspect to be faster.
Rush Limbaugh pitches this software to "make your computer faster" which claims to remove spyware, etc. She didn't understand what the hell it was meant to do, she just heard this thing that COULD be wrong with computers and figured that's what was going on. And despite her son's words and diagnosis about what the fuck was wrong, she trusted Rush Limbaugh.
The software made her computer even more of a piece of shit, and she's still shocked about how her internet is slow.
Is that what you mean? :evil:
Not even Wal-Mart would have a competitve advantage if consumers lacked critical-thinking skills. Wal-Mart has the lowest prices, it takes some analysis to see that this is true.
This whole thread makes me mad.
One could argue that that's a doomed business model though, since the Internet makes it so ridiculously easy to find amazing amounts of information and product reviews.
So if your company is still relying on keeping people uninformed in order to keep selling their products, then they are fucked.
Why does it make you mad?
And from my perspective, I'd rather buy a quality product from Costco that's going to cost slightly more, but last way longer or work way more effectively, than the ultra-cheap crap that Wal-Mart sells.
They cater to people who only want to buy stuff as cheap as possible without thinking about other factors though. Admittedly, I don't know if Wal-Mart sells decent quality products but I doubt it. A person who considers other factors (Is it Fair Trade? Does it last a long while?) too while looking for stuff to buy would probably stay away from them.
And Disney World is nowhere in sight.
uninformed customers make it more difficult to operate and manage a business, not less. i wish all of my customers were perfectly informed.
So, I'd say that corps don't necessarily care if a consumer is smart or dumb, but they might benefit by keeping consumers uninformed of certain facts.
It depends on the product, big products sure, but think about something like Monster Cables, they still sell for far more then they are worth because most people don't research AV cables, they research the TV they bought.
Or Gamestops policy on used games...
And Disney World is nowhere in sight.
Not always. My dad makes a killing off those. The Macs he buys don't seem to last long in his house (he thinks humidity may be an issue) and Apple has lost its shirt repairing and replacing his computers.
I gladly paid for two years of extended warranty for my laptop.
Something in my desktop computer asplodes? No problem, I can buy replacement parts and plop in myself.
My laptop screen breaks? Yeah, that's a brand new laptop purchase if there's no warranty.
And some people are struggling and can't afford to consider social implications. Or have decided that they save money at Wal-Mart and volunteer at a charity. Or they just really like money so they are going to be cheap, and would rather get a gym membership than run outside.
The reason why the thread makes me mad is that it strikes me as dumping on people who work. There's a certain trend in society where other wise good-hearted people accuse, critize or demean hard-working people in corporations. Or people who are just going about their life.
(Would rant more, at work)
I've done the same thing for my iPhone. Four iPhones in one year? You bet your silly goose that I'm going to purchase the $60 extended warranty for another year.
Interestingly enough, after the Payment Protection Insurance debacle in the UK it is actually illegal for a business regulated by the Financial Services Authority to sell someone something that does not benefit them in any way. It's interesting to imagine a world where that was the case for all consumer products.
There would be a hell of a lot less products, that's for sure.
And Disney World is nowhere in sight.
To be honest most of these have more to do with superstition that with being informed. Most homeopaths just don't believe in anything else.
And Disney World is nowhere in sight.
What products provide no benefit?
I mean... Homeopathy you could argue. Certain pills you put into your gas-tank to make it "more effecient" maybe. Exercise machines that jiggle flab.
Hmmm... I like this idea.
The problem is deciding who gets to decide "homeopathy provides no benefit." Also creating a black-market for ginseng.
It probably wouldn't work for physical products, since you'd always at the very least be exchanging money for a physical thing, and it could be said that a person now having a thing they didn't have before is a benefit.
The PPI thing was credit companies selling insurance to cover payments that borrowers couldn't afford to make if their circumstances changed (became unemployed, etc.) but the policies were frequently set up in such a way that it was impossible to ever meet the eligibility requirements to claim. So people were literally paying money for no benefit.