Maybe she’s born with it. Maybe it’s Maybelline. Maybe the second line has to be sung in such a sweet voice because the underlying consumerist message is so ugly. The first line is whispered, like gossip, something women are known to do all the time; it’s actually genetically selected for by evolution. Maybe she’s born with that butt. Maybe it’s plastic surgery.
Posts tagged with marketing
Eros and Magic in the Renaissance took magic seriously as a system of psychological manipulation that used the cravings and desires of its target—the “eros” of the title—to shape human behavior. It suggested on that basis that modern advertising, which does exactly this, is simply the current form of magic, and that contemporary Western nations are “magician states” governed by the magical manipulation of public consensus.
None of these ideas were new. [Ioan] Culianu got most of them from the same place he got much of his magical training, the writings of the renegade Dominican sorcerer Giordano Bruno, who ended a colorful career by being burnt at the stake for heresy in 1600. Bruno’s writings on magic describe magic in much the same way Culianu did, as a system of manipulation that casts out lures for nonrational desires.
You know what I notice when I watch street performers?
Besides the feats of superb human achievement, I mean.
I notice the way they handle crowds. The way they maximise their take for the same performance.
- The first principle it seems like they’ve learned is that a crowd attracts a crowd. If you can tell jokes or tease audience members or otherwise keep people drawn in and interested long enough to stand around and see what’s about to happen (see Ramit Sethi’s “dark secrets of long text” or “weight loss — just one more tip”) then more people will want to see “What’s everybody looking at? That must be interesting.”
- Of course, the larger the crowd, the larger the payoff—regardless of the skill or entertainment value of the performance per se.
- The second principle it seems they do is to make the audience value the trick. If you’re going to ride a 10-foot unicycle and juggle torches at the same time,
you don’t just hop up and do it. You first pretend like it’s really hard for you to do some smaller trick, like riding a 4-foot unicycle.
After the audience has seen you struggle to get on and ride about, then they’ve realised how difficult it would be for them to do even the easiest version of unicyclery. Then you let on that you were just kidding and start doing some fancy tricks on the 4-foot unicycle, showing how smooth you are at it. A slow build until the final big trick—probably related to Kahneman’s findings on pain rememberance—will leave the audience with a better rememberance of the act and greater willingness to pay.
- Draw attention to yourself.
Obviously. No one’s going to pay you any heed if you’re just being normal.
- Ask for the money.
Actually demand that people give you money. Make them admit this was pretty f***ing fantastic and they should, in fact, give you a few quid each. Don’t let people sneak off or if they do then publicly shame them. If you can make a “chute” where people exit in single file through just one way-out and it passes by the donation hat—or if you can put donation hats or smiling collection agents at every one of the finite exits—again you’ll increase your take, for the exact same performance.
The economics of this part aren’t hard to understand: people have just received something for free and they may be able to excuse themselves for getting an eyeful without reaching into the pocket.
Not only do these successful street performers really have their economics down, they undermine the frequently repeated business advice or economic viewpoints “Work hard and you will succeed”.
According to this professional you need to be wily to survive in the real world (3:30), to keep your head above water (5:50):
We can measure the success of these street performers by their paycheques and we can measure their hard work by the fact that they perform impossibly hard feats.
Talent doesn’t sell itself. Skill doesn’t sell itself. Value doesn’t sell itself. Beauty sometimes sells it self, but not for the maximum profit that could be achieved by branding it well or tying it to something else that’s being sold.
That’s why when people equate hard work with money, I don’t see it.
#CollegeMajors4Liberals Class Warfare - syllabus includes denigration of hard-working rich people and lionizing of lazy takers.— Ryan Patrick (@Amabonovella)
You could easily do all of the training to
- ride a 10-foot unicycle
- swallow fire
- contort yourself into a pretzel
- trick people with legerdemain and psychological distraction
- prove the twin primes conjecture
and never make any money from it.
Some people create a lot of value without receiving a reward.
And some people receive a lot of reward without creating value.
Some people realise that becoming the CEO of a $30B company doesn’t actually require a technical college degree; it requires doing a lot of other stuff, trust in background being necessary but the background itself not being necessary.
We could argue philosophically about the definition of “value" and of "work”, but the street performers make it clear that you can do something really hard, be excellent at it, and make drastically more or less money—not based on your talent or skill, but based on your ability to extract dinero from a situation.
Perception is reality. Any beer drinker who is surprised that Guinness has a unique and excellent taste and PBR tastes exactly like Budweiser needs to switch to Guinness because your taste is objectively awful.
That’s why Guinness’ branding is a seal with a ball and Budweiser needs to use bikini babes.
There’s something much deeper going on here, though: a fundamental problem with utility theory and hence, with economic theory. Kahneman & Tversky pointed out that it’s wrong to think of preferences as being read off of a master list. But not only are they constructed in the elicitation process, they’re constructed before as well. You’re looking at experimental proof.
I tried to write about this before in the context of the famous Pepsi/Coke fMRI experiment, but it’s too hard. I want to tie in sardonic Don Draper quips, the invention of diamonds, and my own experiences of my desires and wants and dreams being formed by outside (and therefore, sinister?) forces rather than from truly “within me” — whatever that might mean. Why do I want what I (think I) want? Even Doug Hofstadter treads tenderly around the topics of free will and one’s own true desires and self-determination and such.
I have no idea what my subconscious wants— Cameron Guthire (@thiscameron)
Even though I feel that these things all belong together, I don’t understand it all well enough to put forward a thesis explaining the inchoatia. But even with just the few experimental examples we have, it’s clear that desires can be manufactured, and that there’s a lot of money to be made in doing so. So just with that basic knowledge the Lagrangian model of utility that underlies all of the Edgeworth boxes, welfare theorems, and so on is missing a crucial quality. Namely, &sym;1% of the global economy is spent on making people want things. That doesn’t bear on “utilitarian” products like oil, shipping, … but it definitely bears on aspiration and retail. I’m talking about circularity in the definition of value. If you can logic that one out, let us know.
[I]t is … anachronistic to apply the term artist with its modern connotation to Leonardo [da Vinci]. Artists in the sense that we understand and use the word, meaning practitioner of fine art, didn’t exist in Leonardo’s time. It would be more appropriate to use the word artisan in its meaning of craftsman or skilled hand worker.
In the historical literature ∃ a perfectly good term to describe Leonardo and his ilk, Renaissance artist-engineer, whereby one can actually drop the term Renaissance as this profession already existed in the High Middle Ages before the Renaissance is considered to have begun.
[T]he artist-engineers were … regarded as menials. An artist-engineer was expected to be a practical mathematician, surveyor, architect, cartographer, landscape gardener, designer and constructor of scientific and technical instruments, designer of war engines and supervisor of their construction, designers of masks, pageants, parades and other public entertainments oh and an artist.
The … polymath … that everybody raves about when discussing Leonardo … actually … perfectly normal … any Renaissance artist-engineer—the only difference being that Leonardo was better at nearly all of them than most of his rivals.
As far as his dissections and anatomical drawings are concerned these belong to the standard training of a Renaissance artist-engineer—the major difference here being that Leonardo appears to have carried these exercises further than his contemporaries and his anatomical sketches have survived whereas those of the other Renaissance artists have not.
Having denied Leonardo the title of artist I think it is only fair to point out that it was the generation to which Leonardo belonged who were the first to become recognised as artists rather than craftsmen and in fact it has been claimed that Raphael was the first artist in the modern sense of the word….
[an exhibition on da Vinci] emphasises the few occasions where Leonardo drew something new or unexpected whilst ignoring the vast number of scientifically normal or often incorrect drawings, thereby creating the impression that his anatomical drawings were much more revolutionary than they in reality were. Also whilst the drawings published by Vesalius in his De fabrica in 1543, i.e. a couple of decades after Leonardo’s death, are possibly not quite as good artistically, as those done by Leonardo, they are medically much more advanced.
[I]t is incorrect, anachronistic and ahistorical to call anybody a scientist who lived and worked before 1834 when the term was first coined by William Whewell. It fact it is dodgy using it for people before about 1870 when the term [scientist] first really came into common usage.