The Reality Distortion Field, finally, has been located - Page 2

Interesting - reminds me of an article on Bose I read not long ago, that said something along the lines of what Guttenberg was recently writing about for cnet (that people don't want flat/perfect sound), and Bose sells products by making its customers feel smart without going overboard and burying them in specifications that get in the way of that. The writer also made a point about standing out in the marketplace by selling a product people want to buy, not a product that is the best for people to buy, if that distinction makes sense.

I think that's basically to the point here as well - you have to give the people what they want, but they don't always want what is best for them (or their situation), or even know how to figure out what is the best for them in a given situation. And the companies that figure out how to tap into that are usually the ones that make a lot of money and upset people who "know better" (people who feel (whether they can or not isn't the issue) they can better fulfill their own needs better than anyone else can). And those people usually shop elsewhere (brands/companies/etc that either cater to that, or that just don't care either way (this could be brands that don't bother to market, or brands that aren't interested in home/consumer users, or used equipment, or whatever)).

The study reminds me of other ideas I've seen that divide people into "maximizers" and "satisfiers." A maximizer looks for the absolute best choice out of a series of options; a satisfier looks for an option that is simply "good enough." The interesting thing about the division is that maximizers seem less happy about their choice after they make it. 

Interesting. Is this along the lines of "chasing the dragon?"

I think it might be because the maximizers can see the flaws of the product, even if they made an informed decision, whereas the satisfiers have already accepted that their product has flaws. Also, I think you're right with the chasing the dragon thing, obob. There's no such thing as perfection. It's a lot easier to make peace with that fact when you're not actively seeking it.

I'm wondering if this isn't culturally/socially controlled though - in other words (and not to go back to another thread...), would it be fair to assume that people who fit into the "maximizer" or similar groups don't believe this argument to be true? Or are they just kidding themselves?

I think they're susceptible to getting caught up in the fight forward to diminishing returns. If you're realistic, you know that at some point the delta between what you perceive as perfection and perfection itself becomes imperceivable, and that's when it's time to stop and accept whatever it is you've found so far. That's why objectively checking yourself is so important. Because if you're not realistic, you'll convince yourself that you can spot differences that are humanly impossible to register, and you'll keep searching long after you could have happily settled down and just enjoyed yourself.

I think it may be, in part, a cultural/social thing, but I have a hunch that it could be tied to personal temperament. A person who is "reactive" may be concerned with reducing the stress of failure. This could lead someone to prefer to invest more time in trying to find the perfect or maximal choice rather than one that would suffice. 

 

In the right context (say making the optimum choice for building a safe bridge or making a predictive model of a tropical storm) the attempt to maximize a choice would likely be judged as beneficial  to the outcome; however, the same strategy in picking peanut butter at the store may simply not be beneficial or appropriate.

I think JE has a good point here. Like anything else, the extremes are always where you don't want to be. I don't think there's anything wrong with wanting to get the best thing you can, so long as the outcome is worth the effort put into it. On some level we'd all be hypocrites if we said anything else since we're members of a headphone enthusiast forum, where much of the discussion is about getting the best value for the money, and searching around for information for a while before purchasing is the norm. Music is a very important part of our lives, so it has a big impact whether or not we enjoy our headphones.

 

But peanut butter? Definitely a waste of your life if it's an hour long decision, or if you search around on the Internet about peanut butter the same way we do for headphones. I like me some good peanut butter. But I won't lose too much sleep if the Jif just doesn't taste as good today....

Anyone else seen the Simpsons where Mr Burns has to buy ketchup?

Many years ago, Larry Ellison (Oracle founder, b-b-billionaire and all-around whack-job lunatic) stood in front of the Oracle conference and said something to the effect of: Oracle sells 60% of what people ask for and 100% of what people need.

Now think about that for a second - that is about as egotistical a statement as I have ever heard - and perfectly fits with the Larry Ellison persona. It's hard to believe anyone with that kind of mindset could run a successful company, but I guess it worked for him. It's probably not too different from what marketing dweebs do every day - just without the sugar coating. It does make me stop and think - am I in the 60% or the 40%??

That reminds me a little bit of the guy in charge of PepsiCo's decision to market a watered-down (literally) version of Tropicana. If you've ever seen Trop50 in stores, that's what it is: 42% orange juice (they picked an excellent number, at least), with the rest rounded out with water.

 

Apparently some people add water to their OJ (I'd never heard of this prior to this story). So this guy (his name is Massimo D’Amore) said, "They themselves [the customers] add water before drinking OJ. So why not add the water ourselves and charge for it?" Later in the same interview he said, “We have lost perspective here on the primary reason we are in business, which is to make money.”

 

I don't actually disagree with that second assertion. At the root of it, that is why virtually all businesses exist, whether we like to think about it that way or not. I just think it's pretty astounding that he would come right out and say that, and also that he would basically say that "We think customers are so dumb they'll buy our pretty, repackaged, watered-down OJ and pay us extra for the privilege."

 

Hopefully nobody buys this stuff, not because I think Pepsi should be punished for taking this attitude, but because it's got to be a poor value proposition. Unfortunately, if it turns out that people do buy it then that means you really can give people 42% of what it says on the package and charge them 100% for it and they'll be happy.

Ive never heard of Tropicana50.  I will talk about the watered juice point, as a parent of a 4 year old.  There are actually two main reasons people water down juice.

 

1. To save money, because a young kid probably won't notice.

2. To avoid sugaring up the kid, because kids are hyper enough.

 

This could make tropicana 50 a winning proposition to the parents only if you are out later, want to give your kid juice for some odd reason, and want them to still fall asleep soon.  However by calling it tropicana50 and cutting it with water they have created a beverage with half the calories.  Which opens it to a whole new audience of health conscious, self righteous dieters that wish to avoid any sort of "processed" drink.     

 

Plus they can now claim.... "The all natural tropicana taste you love with half the calories!"   Creating the illusion of added value.

 

So is it actually about reaching their normal audience or expanding product appeal on the cheap?  If they sell it at a slight discount people will buy it because who pays attention to labels when it is on "sale".