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 541011
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[5]: Comment by ilovebeer
by quackalist on Mon 5th Nov 2012 00:36 UTC 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[7]: Comment by ilovebeer
by kwan_e on Mon 5th Nov 2012 11:05 in reply to "RE[6]: Comment by ilovebeer"
kwan_e Member since:
2007-02-18

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.


If everyone used the same advertizing agency with the same advertizing team, then you'd have a point. But they don't, so you don't.

Another strawman that gets raised is that marketing and advertising is synonymous. THEY'RE NOT. Marketing includes a whole lot more than just advertizing.

Everyone, stop conflating the two.

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.


Go to Youtube and search "Derren Brown". You don't have to be a mindless zombie to be affected by marketing.

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)?


Yet how many people actually default to McDonalds instead of a competitor like Burger King? Most people don't actually consider eating from elsewhere. Again, commercials are just one part of marketing. The whole franchise "familiar appearance" across all McDonalds "restaurants" are part of marketing.

Repeat after me:

MARKETING IS MORE THAN JUST ADVERTISING OR COMMERCIALS.

it is none-the-less fact.


No it's not. It is not fact and the science shows otherwise. Humans are scarily predictable and malleable.

The only real reason why people oppose the MARKETING-NOT-JUST-ADVERTISING argument is because the think their desire that humans have a special dignity that makes the truth wrong.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[7]: Comment by ilovebeer
by zima on Fri 9th Nov 2012 19:59 in reply to "RE[6]: Comment by ilovebeer"
zima Member since:
2005-07-06

If people were so easily persuaded, as Thom, you, and few others suggest, you would see much small advertising budgets with much better results.

You overlook (purposefully?) one very important factor: advertising campaigns COMPETE with each other - for what is essentially a scarce "resource".

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.

Go through a list of cognitive biases. It's a fact that they represent our default daily mode of operation.
(and BTW, in the above quote you display at least three major cognitive biases - nicely done, for such a short quote)

Also, consider http://news.stanford.edu/pr/2008/pr-wine-011608.html
Or, more loosely related: despite our strong belief in "monolithic me", split-brain patients are almost unchanged (mostly just with "glitches"). There's also one very localised brain trauma, which results in people becoming completely blind ...without them realising it. Or actual research demonstrating that eyewitness identification is essentially barely better than chance - and yet look how often we trust and depend on it in very serious, life-deciding matters.
We have generally much weaker grip on ourselves than we like to think - that's one of the biases.

(now, I agree that the reach of marketing varies, is not total, and that other factors are also important especially with repeat purchases; but here and there you seem to go slightly too far the other direction / build strawmen)

Edited 2012-11-09 20:10 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 2