I absolutely thought this would be an article on building just enough pesonality in user interfaces. I still think that would make an awesome article.
Minimum Viable Personality (2011)
51–60 of 102 posts
Re: Minimum Viable Personality (2011)
#52I love that marketing works, and that people want to believe in values, and will band together over those values. However lately, I've felt that especially in the US, values -- or more accurately -- symbols of values have become more important than actual tangible outcomes or functional real achievements. For people as individuals and as groups. I guess of course that I'm especially thinking about our politics and so…
The mortgage deduction is actually terrible...
Re: Minimum Viable Personality (2011)
#53I love that marketing works, and that people want to believe in values, and will band together over those values. However lately, I've felt that especially in the US, values -- or more accurately -- symbols of values have become more important than actual tangible outcomes or functional real achievements. For people as individuals and as groups. I guess of course that I'm especially thinking about our politics and so…
That's how you sell (influence/persuade) others to do something is by engaging their emotions - the stronger the better. Words are a tool like another other, can be used to empower others or create hatred...
Words are a tool like another other, can be used to empower others or create hatred...
In 2019, outrage has become the easiest emotion to exploit to achieve virality. One should always be asking: Does this media prioritize accuracy over virality, or is it the other way around?
Re: Minimum Viable Personality (2011)
#54I disagree that the world is full of products that work, and that most people want more "interesting" products. Maybe at a certain age when one is full of naivety, that is true. But at this point, I prefer products that are stable and work well, even if they are a bit "boring". This is not limited to tech: no amount of marketing is going to convince to prefer a thoughtless but glitzy cafe than a cozy one where I am m…
You're just not in the market for every single emotional appeal (nobody is) and you probably have somewhat of an "outsider" or "underdog" preference.
Different emotional appeals still work on you and are being exploited without you knowing. For example:
> ...a cozy one where I am made to feel comfortable through attention to detail
Re: Minimum Viable Personality (2011)
#55I love that marketing works, and that people want to believe in values, and will band together over those values. However lately, I've felt that especially in the US, values -- or more accurately -- symbols of values have become more important than actual tangible outcomes or functional real achievements. For people as individuals and as groups. I guess of course that I'm especially thinking about our politics and so…
The mortgage deduction is actually terrible...
Well, we can definitely debate over whether it produces the right incentives or is equitable. But it is certainly more equitable and useful relative to tax breaks for billionaires and corporations.
Re: Minimum Viable Personality (2011)
#56Earlier quoted context omitted.
you can bet your bottom dollar nobody would ever listen to someone from the other side and perhaps learn something. One problem with listening to the other side is that most people are so ridiculously misinformed about issues (on all sides), that listening to the average person of the other side is unlikely to make you learn something. You have to actively seek out the smartest people from the other side and listen t…
> You have to actively seek out the smartest people from the other side and listen to them, and that's a lot of work. Partly because the smartest people on the other side aren't the ones that the average person on the other side is listening to. They're lost in the noise, even for people on their own side.
I think there's truth to that; however, I wonder if there can also sometimes be a sort of "immune system" that protects people in a sub-culture from the bad parts of the group.
For example, when I move, I ask people at my old church if they recommend any churches in the new city. So I naturally end up insulated from any crazy churches that are there. On the other hand, someone who isn't already plugged into the "Christian network" is much more likely to be exposed to the crazy parts of the community.
Re: Minimum Viable Personality (2011)
#57I think that by "personality" he means "story". Like, a cool story that you can somehow attach to the product. So when people see the product they also think the story. And then they think, "woah, what a great product!". (But what they really mean is "woah, what a great story!") I see this in the art scene. It's like the art-piece isn't enough for people. They want an artist's statement. A philosophy. Who made it, wh…
> I see this in the art scene. It's like the art-piece isn't enough for people. They want an artist's statement. A philosophy. Who made it, why did they make it, where did they make it. Tell me the 20-chapter story of your heroic struggle from ugliness to beauty...
This is also becoming more common in the film scene. The Revenant is a recent and big example of the phenomenon. People liked to talk about the grueling filming process, how all the artists involved broke their backs to make this movie, and I think it seriously altered how the movie was perceived, changing a perfectly fine movie to something somehow transcendent.
Another, smaller, example is Ryan Gosling in La La Land. Some people made it a point that he learned to play the piano for the bits on screen.
It's as if the off-screen authenticity alters the on-screen authenticity. (Whether this is true or not is up for debate, and has been since method acting's inception, if not before.)
Re: Minimum Viable Personality (2011)
#58What are we doing to ourselves? If you were in the market for a new pair of shoes, what would be the sensible thing to do to get the best pair? Would you look at the glitzy ads, or would you try to choose something that is durable and comfortable for its price? Would you compare celebrity endorsements or spec sheets? There's no one in their right mind who would say the right way to buy a computer is to look at advert…
A lot of advertising isn’t intended to influence people to make a specific choice, it’s to keep the brand in mind as an option in the first place. For example: if you’re going to buy soda from the store, you’re more likely to buy Coke or Pepsi than to buy RC Cola. Why? Because until I reminded you just now, you didn’t even remember that RC Cola existed.
“Comparing specs and functionality” is exhausting, technical, and almost as prone to pointless marketing gimmickry, like the megahertz wars. And it’s usually not worth the effort. Many purchasing decisions aren’t necessary to optimize, and many of the ones that are can only be optimized subjectively—which shoes fit the best to your feet, which helmets fit the best to your head, which furniture looks and fits best in your home. If you’re buying a motorcycle, the technical specs can be the best on the market, but if it doesn’t physically fit your body it’s a bad motorcycle for you.
So if you’re building a personality and a brand around your company and products, does that mean you’re expecting your customers to make irrational decisions? No, you’re just trying to get attention, get into people’s heads, and make them remember that you’re an option. And when it is a deciding factor, most of the time it’s because all of the other factors are meaningless anyway. If you buy Nike because you want to be like LeBron James, and you’re at least satisfied with the shoes and whatnot themselves, odds are that wearing a slightly better designed Under Armor shoe won’t actually make you happier anyway.
Re: Minimum Viable Personality (2011)
#59I love that marketing works, and that people want to believe in values, and will band together over those values. However lately, I've felt that especially in the US, values -- or more accurately -- symbols of values have become more important than actual tangible outcomes or functional real achievements. For people as individuals and as groups. I guess of course that I'm especially thinking about our politics and so…
> Immigrants are not invading in hordes.
Subjectively, they are.
> Men at work are not harassing every female employee.
Subjectively, sexual harassment is extremely widespread.
> People are not trying to kick out elderly widows to turn the block into a shopping mall.
When I complain about my rent going up, it is of course much easier to make the case for the poor widow than myself.
> Your shoe is not going to make you a star athlete.
Of course. It's still going to make me feel like one, just a little bit.
> An immigrant is not knocking on the door to take your job -- that was decided decades ago.
Subjectively, he is. Even factually, as a laborer, immigration drives down my wages. That's basic economics. Of course there's nary a citizen left willing to work for as little as an illegal immigrant - but that's because those wages have been driven down already.
> For every policy you put in place to protect the imaginary elderly widow, you make it harder for 10 young people to have an affordable place to live.
Maybe, but doesn't everyone like elderly widows? Doesn't everyone hate those hipster millennials?
> Stop believing so much in symbols.
Never. Not in a million years.
Re: Minimum Viable Personality (2011)
#60Earlier quoted context omitted.
> This is good advice for how to make money. But bear in mind that, if you try to build a personality for your company, you are choosing something for your customers that you would never choose for yourself. Unfortunately, treating people like gullible children is a winning strategy. I can't think of any large company that treats their customers with decency and respect.
Interesting point, badpun. I think there's an assumption that generally a good company: "treats their customers with decency and respect." I wonder if one problem is that cultural/societal values change over time, and a company might not be keeping up with the times. And that may adversely impact the way a company is treating their customers. What do you think?
> I think there's an assumption that generally a good company: "treats their customers with decency and respect."
I disagree. Companies' are top-down in nature, so their values are set by their owners. Large companies are almost always owned by a multitide of entities (investors) that do not care about anything else than profits. In such case, maximizing profits is the only true value, and whatever else they might say is smokescreen.
On the other hand, if the company has a single person or a small number of people in charge, then, depending on the values of these people, company can care about other things than profit. However, large companies controlled by individuals and not mobs of investors are rare.
To summurize, the stock market is a mixed bag for me. It improves allocation of capital, but it also creates the disconnect between owners and their companies which makes the companies greedy and egotistical.