31–40 of 499 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
He'd made the same jokes in speeches several times before, and it had gone down well with the audience. Presumably he just didn't consider the possibility that the press would think it worth making a story out of.
Interesting; what was difference about this audience? Or was it just a slow news day this time?
What I don't understand, is how it wasn't immediately apparent this stuff was junk? You couldn't possibly think that it was equal in quality to much more expensive competitors. I guess it's just the case of not being real, until someone says it.
I think the more interesting lesson to learn from this was how Ratner was able to deal and cope with the public embarrassment following the mishap. It reminds me of this TED talk where Jon Ronson talks about how public shaming has gone out of control with the advent of social media: https://www.ted.com/talks/jon_ronson_what_happens_when_onlin...
Being a multi-millionaire probably helped a bit, too...
What were the effects it had on the company? They just mention the stock tanking which, by itself, is pretty meaningless. I'm assuming people stopped buying the stuff? Secondly, why did it have any effect? Who would change their practices because of this? It really rams home how deeply brands are integrated into our understanding of value. How depressing.
It became a national joke in the UK. Nobody would be seen dead going into one of their stores or giving their jewellery as a gift. It basically put them out of business : https://www.theguardian.com/business/2014/aug/22/gerald-ratn...
> so why did he do it? This is the most interesting question, which the article doesn't answer.
Ratner just got complacent and forgot he was on a hot mic.
It's funny how people will paint being honest as a gaffe. The original gaffe was selling people crap and not telling them it's crap.
I think the more interesting lesson to learn from this was how Ratner was able to deal and cope with the public embarrassment following the mishap. It reminds me of this TED talk where Jon Ronson talks about how public shaming has gone out of control with the advent of social media: https://www.ted.com/talks/jon_ronson_what_happens_when_onlin...
Actually, the best "public shaming" talk I've seen are the ones given by Monica Lewinsky. When you consider that Monica Lewinsky was 22 years old during the time of the scandal, a lot of the stuff going on was simply outside of her control. Seeing things from her perspective is pretty interesting, to say the least: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yq7Eh6JTKIg John Oliver starts the discussion, but there is a Lewinsky…
https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2018/02/monica-lewinsky-in-t...
Article mentions that they had to change their name to "The Signet Group" ... the now parent company of Zales/Kay/Jared. I'd be interested to learn more about that transition https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Signet_Jewelers
What kind of jewelry did people think they were getting for a few quid?
Of course, everyone who bought it already knew it was crap. It's the same thing for buying $15K engagement rings. Everyone knows it's a stupid use of money and that the rings have no value. Same goes for clothing, cars, and many other things. These types of products succeed because of a shared delusion. Take fashion for instance. Everyone believes some clothes are more fashionable than others. The way you dress says…
Psychology has a definition named the halo effect and it's very real. A person definitely gains advantages in society when they appear more attractive than less attractive. Naturally people associate good health with attractiveness and it's hard wired in us for finding a healthy mate compared to an unhealthy mate. Good choice of clothing for the frame of a person can enhance personal features and make a person look better than if wearing something less fitting. So there is some benefit & gain that can be made with understanding fashion of clothes as a real benefit. Is the advantage based on a delusion of a person being more healthy than another? Sure, but it isn't because people intentionally have a delusion about one shirt looking better than another.