Linked by Thom Holwerda on Sat 3rd Nov 2012 01:11 UTC, submitted by Panajev
Apple "Earlier this week Apple fired Scott Forstall, the architect of its iOS platform, and handed his duties over to the company's chief industrial designer, Jonathan Ive. Ive and Forstall had an infamously chilly working relationship, and one of their biggest disagreements was over the role of so-called 'skeuomorphic' design in Apple's products. Forstall, like his mentor Steve Jobs, favored it; Ive disliked it. To many observers, Forstall's forced exit looks like a vindication of Ive's stance. But if he wants to continue Apple's enviable trend of innovation, he'd be a fool to throw the baby of skeuomorphism out with Forstall's bathwater." Hoped for a thorough article on the benefits of skeuomorphism - got the age-old and intrinsically invalid excuse 'because it sells'. Windows isn't he best desktop operating system because it sells so well. Lady Gaga isn't the best artist because she sells a lot of records. This argument is never valid, has zero value, and adds nothing to what should be an interesting discussion.
Thread beginning with comment 541010
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[4]: Comment by ilovebeer
by galvanash on Mon 5th Nov 2012 00:17 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Comment by ilovebeer"
galvanash
Member since:
2006-01-25

Everybody who claims this has no idea how advertising works. Your behaviour is, in fact, motivated by boatloads of advertising.


I hate this argument. Three or four people on this board have tried this one on me and I still don't buy it. It's not because there is no truth to it, its because it is often used as supporting evidence for a completely different claim - that certain products are successful solely because of marketing, or that people believe certain things because they are brain washed by marketing.

That somehow, merely as a 3rd party observer, someone can actually tell another person why they bought a product - to the point they will actually tell the person they are wrong when they try to explain why... "Im sorry, but you are just confused - the product you like is actually shitty and you are just a sheep".

This whole thread of discussion started because one guy said that people who bought Windows did it because they like it. Others contend that because people are motivated by marketing than that explains why they do things (i.e. they are sheep). Im not saying you are making this argument directly, but you brought the "everyone is affected by marketing" into this...

The two things can both be true at the same time, and in fact I would contend that "I like it" is ultimately way more important than marketing - and the two concepts are not necessarily related to each other.

What I see is that people who don't like a certain product simply use this argument to explain why other people buy it. Lady Gaga sucks, therefore her success can only be explained by marketing. Windows suck, therefore its success can only be explained by marketing.

I put forth a different hypothesis - not everyone likes the same things. People are willing to ignore some deficiencies in a product when it makes up for them in other ways. Everything is a tradeoff, and a consumers opinion of a product is made up of more than just the advertising budget of the manufacturer...

Some people like Fiona Apple and the Gilmore Girls - I have no idea why ;) But I certainly won't try to tell them it is because they are in fact being influenced subconsciously by marketing.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[5]: Comment by ilovebeer
by quackalist on Mon 5th Nov 2012 00:36 in reply to "RE[4]: Comment by ilovebeer"
quackalist Member since:
2007-08-27

Strange, the huge amount of monies expended on advertising which is almost impossible to avoid in some form or another and yet almost everyone says has little effect on them. Have my doubts.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[6]: Comment by ilovebeer
by galvanash on Mon 5th Nov 2012 00:57 in reply to "RE[5]: Comment by ilovebeer"
galvanash Member since:
2006-01-25

Strange, the huge amount of monies expended on advertising which is almost impossible to avoid in some form or another and yet almost everyone says has little effect on them. Have my doubts.


I think advertising has a dramatic effect on influencing someone to buy a product. It may even influence them once they have the product and are trying to decide if they are really happy with it or not (i.e. it influences what features they do or don't consider important). But ultimately, they decide they are either happy with their purchase or not.

If they go back to the same company a 2nd and 3rd time and continue to be happy with the results... I argue at that point marketing is much less of a factor, they buy again because of past experience.

The reason I made an issue over it is because the reasons someone becomes a repeat customer are personal - it coud be price/value, it could be build quality, it could be ease of use, hell - it could be practically anything really. But what usually isn't any longer is marketing... So saying "people buy Windows because they like it" is a perfectly accurate statement, because it is obviously limited to those who have used it before (otherwise they wouldn't be capable of liking it).

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[6]: Comment by ilovebeer
by ilovebeer on Mon 5th Nov 2012 03:47 in reply to "RE[5]: Comment by ilovebeer"
ilovebeer Member since:
2011-08-08

Strange, the huge amount of monies expended on advertising which is almost impossible to avoid in some form or another and yet almost everyone says has little effect on them. Have my doubts.

Again, there's a reason why mind-boggling amounts of money are spent on advertising, and why you get smoothered with it practically everywhere. The reason is because advertising is simply not nearly effective as people like Thom claim, hence the `spray & pray` techniques commonly used in advertising campaigns.

And again, people do have minds of their own. The vast majority of the population are not mindless zombies. Most of the time they're perfectly capable of deciding what they want and what they need. If people were so easily persuaded, as Thom, you, and few others suggest, you would see much small advertising budgets with much better results.

Nobody has said advertising is ineffective. Obviously it is to some degree. But, the degree to which people are influenced & make decisions based on advertising varies greatly. Are you the type who see's a commercial for McDonalds chicken nuggets and then goes and buys them? Or could you watch a million of those commercials and never go buy them because you simply don't want to or don't like them? Do "you" like burgers because you're told you like them, or because you actually do like them (what a crazy concept to grasp)?

I guess for people who are easily influenced, it's easy to think others are the same way. It appears that the fact people may not be so easily influenced seems truly alien to you & Thom. No matter how alien it may seem through your eyes, it is none-the-less fact.

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[5]: Comment by ilovebeer
by kwan_e on Mon 5th Nov 2012 08:25 in reply to "RE[4]: Comment by ilovebeer"
kwan_e Member since:
2007-02-18

I hate this argument. Three or four people on this board have tried this one on me and I still don't buy it. It's not because there is no truth to it, its because it is often used as supporting evidence for a completely different claim - that certain products are successful solely because of marketing, or that people believe certain things because they are brain washed by marketing.


You don't buy it because you've completely mischaracterized the argument into nothing but a strawman. No surprises there.

I have yet to see anyone, including speaking for myself, argue that it's SOLELY because of advertizing.

Try again, and try not to misrepresent anyone's argument as you are prone to do.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[6]: Comment by ilovebeer
by galvanash on Tue 6th Nov 2012 04:41 in reply to "RE[5]: Comment by ilovebeer"
galvanash Member since:
2006-01-25

Im not terribly interested in another pointless debate with you on this. Ill just add the following:

You said this in a previous debate on this very subject:

The initial question was why Apple is so successful beyond what is normally expected. My argument that the DIFFERENCE between what is normally expected and Apple's actual success IS about marketing in one form or another.


Fine. You did not say solely - but you did imply that it is the most significant difference between Apple and it's competitors.

And I would argue that the DIFFERENCE is NOT about marketing, it is about people ultimately liking the product they get (and therefore becoming repeat customers and buying again). Over half of all iphones purchased are bought by people who have owned one before...

You are entitled to your opinion of course, but in my opinion a repeat purchase rate of over 50% over 5 generations of the same product indicates that there are other factors involved. In the case of Windows (and Apple to a degree), the repeat purchase rate can certainly be viewed as skewed by network effects and other forms of purchase pressure - there are a lot of things that effect the products success or failure, and they are not all marketing or advertising related.

Anyone saying "I bought it because I like it" are by definition repeat purchasers, as such marketing and advertising may have played a significant role in their first purchase, but attributing significant weight to it on the 2nd purchase is foolish - there are other factors that are more significant.

In other words, yes, marketing and advertising can convince people they want something they may not have wanted otherwise. Once they have it, however, if they want more or better of it and spend money to get it - well there is something else going on and pretending it is "just marketing" is silly.

Reply Parent Score: 2