Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

How Snapchat Built a Business by Confusing Olds

bloomberg.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 57 posts

Re: How Snapchat Built a Business by Confusing Olds

#31

Post by bsder »

macscam wrote: post #2

what is 'olds'? old people? Why would any business grow by confusing them?

It doesn't. Snapchat doesn't confuse me in the slightest in spite of being an "old". I actually laugh at "youngs" because I can run rings around them on any tech they use.

Snapchat does what tweenage girls want. Because the girls are on it, the guys are on it.

Those girls age (hopefully before they), get pregnant, give birth to another set of tweenage girls and another "hip" service takes its place.

Cue Elton John singing "Circle of Life".

As for why a fat, old record producer cares: tweenage girls are the only demographic spending any discretionary money (from the wallets of the "olds", natch). Everybody else is tapped out or doesn't give a damn or both.

Re: How Snapchat Built a Business by Confusing Olds

#32

Post by indignation35 »

macscam wrote: post #2

what is 'olds'? old people? Why would any business grow by confusing them?

There's a website called AutoAdmit (or Xoxohth) that was big in the 2000s where a lot of the more educated trolls congregated. Adjectives were "nouned" for derogatory use: poors, olds, fats, and dumbs. (OK, we didn't invent "the poors". We just revived that horrible phrase because part of the trolling was pretending to be rich and "prestigious" and generally trying to be the biggest asshole on the Internet. Unfortunately, some people took it too far and became assholes in real life.)

Never did I (now an "old") think that I'd see that kind of shit, used without irony, in the mainstream press. It's a stupid usage. I'd be offended if I cared, but mostly I find people who use it to be uneducated and silly.

For those who are unaware, Xoxohth/AutoAdmit is like Hacker News for lawyers, but with passive-aggression replaced by active aggression, and with the racism more overt. I wouldn't go there. It's ugly and a big waste of time.

Re: How Snapchat Built a Business by Confusing Olds

#33

Post by indignation35 »

kmfrk wrote: post #9
macscam wrote: post #2

what is 'olds'? old people? Why would any business grow by confusing them?

"Olds" is a coy term by "millennials" who wanted the older generations who invented and keep using the term to get a taste of their own medicine. As far as keeping out "olds", look at what Tinder did by demanding a premium from 30+ users: http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/tinder-charging-people-30-t... .

"Olds" is a coy term by "millennials" who wanted the older generations who invented and keep using the term to get a taste of their own medicine.

No. It comes from Autoadmit/Xoxohth, which is like Hacker News for East Coast lawyers in "biglaw" (although I doubt that most XO posters actually made biglaw). In the mid-2000s, it developed a robust troll culture and people brought back the archaic (Dickens Era) usage, "poors". This led into the nouning of other adjectives to describe people in a derogatory way: in addition to poors, fats, dumbs, olds.

Most of us, in the early days, were relatively normal people with trolling habits. We weren't actually assholes; we were just pretending to be "prestigious" shitheads on the Internet. However, the gray-hat trolls eventually left when some actual assholes (black hat trolls) started getting in the game.

It's a stupid usage and I'm rather disgusted that people would use it without irony. Using "poors" and "fats" and "olds", unless you're making fun of the American upper class, doesn't make you hip and it certainly doesn't make you "prestigious". It makes you an idiot with subpar grammar.

Re: How Snapchat Built a Business by Confusing Olds

#34

Post by oldmanjay »

nl wrote: post #18
oldmanjay wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Are you seriously doubting the premise that people mature as they get older? Biology bestowed the high horse here. I don't mean this as dismissively as it may sound, but it seems possible you'll figure this out in a personal sense over the coming years.

Maturity does not imply richer social interaction. I can make a good argument for the opposite: as one matures one stops caring as much.

Well, it's an argument. I certainly don't know to call it good, and it doesn't match my experiences in any way. Perhaps you have access to a hidden cache of deep teens that I, as an old, wouldn't understand.

Re: How Snapchat Built a Business by Confusing Olds

#35

Post by nl »

oldmanjay wrote: post #34
nl wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Maturity does not imply richer social interaction. I can make a good argument for the opposite: as one matures one stops caring as much.

Well, it's an argument. I certainly don't know to call it good, and it doesn't match my experiences in any way. Perhaps you have access to a hidden cache of deep teens that I, as an old, wouldn't understand.

To me "richer" implies more complex, with more subtle features - not "deeper" in any intellectual sense.

As an older person, I really find it difficult to care if a particular friend didn't like an Instagram pic I posted. I really don't care how quickly they liked it and I don't even know which of my Facebook friends don't follow me on Instagram. They are all social interactions that add complexity and richness to the experience, and I don't pay attention to any of them.

Re: How Snapchat Built a Business by Confusing Olds

#36

Post by nl »

dinkumthinkum wrote: post #29
yomly wrote: post #10

For the non-believers of Snapchat, here is where I think its value lies: For the past 50 years brand strategy has largely been (fairly) well characterised. Conventional wisdom in the industry did well enough for brands like McDonald's and Coca Cola to expand across the world and capture generations of customers. This is in part due to an incremental pace of innovation in how customers have consumed media in this time…

Is there any real evidence that these kids don't watch any tv and only do snapchat and watch makeup gurus on YouTube? I know it's fun to say but I mean what about reality? ....

Yes. http://nypost.com/2015/02/16/millenials-ditching-their-tv-se...

Re: How Snapchat Built a Business by Confusing Olds

#37

Post by at-fates-hands »

arbuge wrote: post #27
yomly wrote: post #10

For the non-believers of Snapchat, here is where I think its value lies: For the past 50 years brand strategy has largely been (fairly) well characterised. Conventional wisdom in the industry did well enough for brands like McDonald's and Coca Cola to expand across the world and capture generations of customers. This is in part due to an incremental pace of innovation in how customers have consumed media in this time…

>> I chose McDonald's and Coke as brands as they are two good examples of previously invincible global brands that are now showing significant decline. Not sure about Coke but McDonald's is doing pretty well these days. Its stock recently hit an all-time high and is one of the best performers this year, following their success with all-day breakfast.

Coke is doing just fine. I travel a LOT and I would say Coke is the preferred brand in probably 85% of the hotels and restaurants I visit. I still bring along a 12-pack of Mt. Dew because so many places only have Coke products and its frustrating to have to drink flat fountain coke.

Re: How Snapchat Built a Business by Confusing Olds

#39

Post by cbd1984 »

nightski wrote: post #4
Animats wrote: post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because brand preferences are locked in by the mid 20s, or at least many major brand managers think that.

I think it's far more likely that Snapchat is a very shallow experience. It's common sense that adults wouldn't be the target market. Adults generally prefer richer interactions.

> Adults generally prefer richer interactions.

I suppose that's why TV is now the province of the 50+ set.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/business/wp/2014/09/05/t...

Re: How Snapchat Built a Business by Confusing Olds

#40

Post by incarnate »

at-fates-hands wrote: post #37
arbuge wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>> I chose McDonald's and Coke as brands as they are two good examples of previously invincible global brands that are now showing significant decline. Not sure about Coke but McDonald's is doing pretty well these days. Its stock recently hit an all-time high and is one of the best performers this year, following their success with all-day breakfast.

Coke is doing just fine. I travel a LOT and I would say Coke is the preferred brand in probably 85% of the hotels and restaurants I visit. I still bring along a 12-pack of Mt. Dew because so many places only have Coke products and its frustrating to have to drink flat fountain coke.

Not to mention Coke's portfolio is far broader than fizzy drinks - bottled water, juice, and energy drinks [0].

Coca-Cola Amatil in Australia has even started making beer and cider [1]

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Coca-Cola_brands [1] http://ausfoodnews.com.au/2014/01/13/coca-cola-amatil-launch...

Post reply on HN