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 541041
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[8]: Comment by ilovebeer
by ilovebeer on Mon 5th Nov 2012 17:42 UTC in reply to "RE[7]: Comment by ilovebeer"
ilovebeer
Member since:
2011-08-08

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.

Wrong. My points are not secrets. What I've been describing is commonplace, hence my use of "commonly used". Does it describe every single application or use case? No, of course not. But I'm not the one trying to shoehorn anything here, you are.

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 conversation is about advertising, not marketing. I guess you're one of the people you've described.

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

We're not talking about marketing.

Nobody has said advertising is ineffective. Obviously it is [i]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]

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.

You failed to answer my question. Why someone defaults to a particular product or service if often the result of convenience and/or preference... Not "programming". And, we are talking about advertising, not marketing.

Repeat after me:

MARKETING IS MORE THAN JUST ADVERTISING OR COMMERCIALS.

The more you mumble that, the more convinced I am that you don't actually know the difference between the two. A conversation about marketing is a different conversation and it's not one we're engaged in at the moment so, .... Repeat after me, "this conversation is about advertising, not marketing".

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.

To what degree people are predictable not only varies greatly but also depends on what you're attempting to predict. You not knowing that only shows how little you know about the subject.

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.

We aren't having a discussion about marketing so what are you talking about?

It's so ironic, or not, that the people cheerleading the idea that people are so easily programmable with no true individuality, ability to think and make decisions based on their own opinions & preferences, are the ones who are seemingly the most brainwashed and disconnected from their own identity. You would do yourself justice by learning about how people think & make decisions before trying to discuss this topic -- "Thinking, Fast and Slow" by Daniel Kahneman would be a great place to start.

At the very least you should try to grasp that human beings have the capacity to think for themselves, and make decisions based on their own opinions rather than what they're told/"programmed" to. That is reality afterall.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[9]: Comment by ilovebeer
by kwan_e on Mon 5th Nov 2012 23:09 in reply to "RE[8]: 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.

Wrong. My points are not secrets. What I've been describing is commonplace, hence my use of "commonly used". Does it describe every single application or use case? No, of course not. But I'm not the one trying to shoehorn anything here, you are.
"

You completely didn't understood the point at all. The point was that you can't claim advertising is simply not as effective, because to make that claim, all advertisements have to be of equal quality for comparison.

The fact that not all advertizing campaigns are successful doesn't negate anything about advertizing's effectiveness when done right.

"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 conversation is about advertising, not marketing. I guess you're one of the people you've described.
"

You guys use the word advertizing. But you obviously are veering towards marketing.

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

We're not talking about marketing.
"

Yet both contains techniques of suggestion and influence. You are being nitpicky without actually making any useful point.

You failed to answer my question. Why someone defaults to a particular product or service if often the result of convenience and/or preference... Not "programming". And, we are talking about advertising, not marketing.


I didn't say programming. SUGGESTION IS NOT PROGRAMMING.

Sorry if you think you're just talking about advertizing, but clearly it is ALL OF MARKETING that is required to get people to instinctually make a default decision. Stop trying to use words to narrowly define reality and start using words that describe reality.

And you are also wrong. People may reason to themselves that it's convenience and preference, but advertizing and marketing can still sway that - A LOT.

The more you mumble that, the more convinced I am that you don't actually know the difference between the two. A conversation about marketing is a different conversation and it's not one we're engaged in at the moment so, .... Repeat after me, "this conversation is about advertising, not marketing".


No, you're just splitting hairs and being nitpicky so you don't have an argument you simply can't defend from the facts.

It's so ironic, or not, that the people cheerleading the idea that people are so easily programmable with no true individuality, ability to think and make decisions based on their own opinions & preferences, are the ones who are seemingly the most brainwashed and disconnected from their own identity. You would do yourself justice by learning about how people think & make decisions before trying to discuss this topic -- "Thinking, Fast and Slow" by Daniel Kahneman would be a great place to start.

At the very least you should try to grasp that human beings have the capacity to think for themselves, and make decisions based on their own opinions rather than what they're told/"programmed" to. That is reality afterall.


Again this fucking strawman.

You don't have to be a complete zombie to be affected by marketing or advertizing.

Maybe it offends to find that humans are easily influenced and manipulated, but whatever you get offended by does not mean it's false.

You should read the science about how easy it is to predict people and how to suggest people do what others want. You completely dismissed my suggestion you look up Derren Brown simply because of a difference in words, but you would see how relevant it is if you weren't being intellectually dishonest.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[10]: Comment by ilovebeer
by ilovebeer on Tue 6th Nov 2012 01:03 in reply to "RE[9]: Comment by ilovebeer"
ilovebeer Member since:
2011-08-08

You completely didn't understood the point at all. The point was that you can't claim advertising is simply not as effective, because to make that claim, all advertisements have to be of equal quality for comparison.

First, I directly said the effectiveness of advertising varies greatly. I also said the level of influence and susceptibility of a person varies greatly as well. That is reality whether you like it or not.

The fact that not all advertizing campaigns are successful doesn't negate anything about advertizing's effectiveness when done right.

I'll pretend by "when done right" you mean the campaign successfully connects to it's target demographic. However, what you said doesn't actually mean anything at all. There will always be a success rate AND failure rate with any campaign. One typical way success is gauged in the advertising world is by comparing dollars spent vs. dollars earned. How often do you think the pendulum swings each way? I already know you have no clue because you don't actually know anything about this subject so now .

You guys use the word advertizing. But you obviously are veering towards marketing.

...No... You are trying to turn a conversation about advertising into something else, because you're confused and don't know the actual difference between the two.

Yet both contains techniques of suggestion and influence. You are being nitpicky without actually making any useful point.

Do you have any idea how ridiculous you look right now? So because two subjects may share some common bulletpoints, you can't distinguish between the two. You then proceed to call those who can, "nitpicky". Using your logic, you must also be unable to distinguish the difference between a laptop and a tablet, a car and a truck, ice and frozen yogurt, ...the list goes on forever. That's where your silly logic gets you.

You failed to answer my question. Why someone defaults to a particular product or service if often the result of convenience and/or preference... Not "programming". And, we are talking about advertising, not marketing.

I didn't say programming. SUGGESTION IS NOT PROGRAMMING.

Sorry if you think you're just talking about advertizing, but clearly it is ALL OF MARKETING that is required to get people to instinctually make a default decision. Stop trying to use words to narrowly define reality and start using words that describe reality.

I've got a better idea. How about you stop trying to pretend you know anything about this subject when it's so blatantly obvious that you don't. So far you haven't even been able to show you know the difference between advertising and marketing, much less have any real knowledge of how the two work, or the ability to answer what should be very simple questions about it.

And you are also wrong. People may reason to themselves that it's convenience and preference, but advertizing and marketing can still sway that - A LOT.

For people like you, probably. But what about people like me? Ask me why when going to buy a sandwich for lunch, most of the time I choose the closer of the two local sandwich shops. Is it because the closer one has better prices? No. Is it because the food tastes better? No. Is it because they're advertising has subconsciously programmed that as my default? No. The answer is because it's simply more convenient. My choice in this scenario is based the vast majority of the time on convenience, nothing else. Could any amount or type of advertising alter my decision? No. Is the same true for everyone? No, and I have already pointed this out. Your problem is that you seemingly believe the opposite is true for everyone, otherwise you wouldn't be trying to argue about it.

The more you mumble that, the more convinced I am that you don't actually know the difference between the two. A conversation about marketing is a different conversation and it's not one we're engaged in at the moment so, .... Repeat after me, "this conversation is about advertising, not marketing".


No, you're just splitting hairs and being nitpicky so you don't have an argument you simply can't defend from the facts.

The facts only support what I've said. It's neither my fault nor problem you can't distinguish between advertising and marketing, and as a result are making a fool of yourself. I would have a better discussion about this with my cat because the cat would recognize it's failure to communicate anything useful and walk away.

It's so ironic, or not, that the people cheerleading the idea that people are so easily programmable with no true individuality, ability to think and make decisions based on their own opinions & preferences, are the ones who are seemingly the most brainwashed and disconnected from their own identity. You would do yourself justice by learning about how people think & make decisions before trying to discuss this topic -- "Thinking, Fast and Slow" by Daniel Kahneman would be a great place to start.

At the very least you should try to grasp that human beings have the capacity to think for themselves, and make decisions based on their own opinions rather than what they're told/"programmed" to. That is reality afterall.


Again this fucking strawman.

You don't have to be a complete zombie to be affected by marketing or advertizing.

Maybe it offends to find that humans are easily influenced and manipulated, but whatever you get offended by does not mean it's false.

You should read the science about how easy it is to predict people and how to suggest people do what others want. You completely dismissed my suggestion you look up Derren Brown simply because of a difference in words, but you would see how relevant it is if you weren't being intellectually dishonest.

I know who Derren Brown is and I know what he does. I also know what he does works best on people who are easily manipulated and since you think he is your ace-in-the-hole, you must be one of those people.

Please, for your own sake, research psychology and human behavior like I did in college. I've already provided you with a great place to start in my recommendation. You can only gain by opening your eyes and obviously staying in the dark isn't getting you anywhere.

Reply Parent Score: 2