sarahcpr - Latest Comments in General

Re: Email is So Fall 2007

falicon — Mon, 07 Jul 2008 20:00:48 -0000

what is this "talk face to face" thing you mention? I've never heard of it :)

Re: Email is So Fall 2007

sarahcpr — Mon, 07 Jul 2008 19:47:13 -0000

I don't think people are so obsessed with social networks that they're trying to look for them everywhere....so much as the things that try to recreate them online (such as Facebook and MySpace) seem to fall short in so many ways. I guess I'm kind of obsessed with wondering what, if anything, can truly replicate our social network in a seamless way. Maybe that thing doesn't exist - maybe because we all use these communication tools so differently based on our own personal situations - like you said.

Re: Email is So Fall 2007

longzero — Mon, 07 Jul 2008 19:29:53 -0000

I think people are obsessed with social networks by trying to look for it everywhere. Email was never meant to be a social network. Email is just like sending a letter via plane, except that the mail doesn't travel on a plane.

It's simple and personal to call or text a friend to say something quickly, However, on the web, while browsing, average users still share websites and things like YouTube videos among friends by sending the URL via email, even though the share feature is right there built in the website.

Likewise, so many Facebook users don't even know they can post items, thus sharing with all their friends at once.

Indeed, many ideas are being developped, that do certain things better than email does, but email isn't going anywhere. Like I said, email is like sending a letter.

In my case, I have family on the other side of the planet, syncing with timezone to chat online is rather troublesome and traditional is long, so email is the way to go.

Re: Famous People

Gulopine — Wed, 02 Jul 2008 19:51:25 -0000

As for recognition, I think even the way you stated it, it still fits within my definition. You obviously wouldn't be willing to pay for anything that doesn't exist, but simply knowing that it does exist (or getting a promise that it will exist) may be enough to convince you. Awareness is definitely a huge part of marketing -- probably the most fundamental aspect -- but it still fits into the simple definition.

Motivation is a tricky one, and one I hadn't really planned on commenting on, but it's another really good point. When I have more time to go on about my economic theories, I typically bring up infomercials as a prime example of altering people's willingness to spend, and motivation is a key part of it.

On the surface, there's the obvious "WOW!" factor of infomercials to draw people in, and it also helps inhibit their rational though processes (do I really *need* my vacuum to suck up ball bearings?). Then, they appeal to cost-consciousness: a consumer might not be willing to spend $300, but they can easily afford 5 easy payments of $59.95.

Perhaps most intriguing is the "call now" offer. You know the one: "Call within the next [10|20|30] minutes, and we'll throw in [an extra shammy|a set of steak knives|the Dial-o-matic food slicer -- a $60 value] absolutely free!" This is aimed squarely at motivation, because while you may be willing to pay those 5 easy payments, there's little incentive to do so right away.

By making a "call now" offer, they attempt to introduce an *unwillingness* to wait, which helps prevent people from forgetting all about the offer in a day or two. Of course, this is also a tactic to subdue rational thought, because faced with a countdown, people abandon those things that take extra time. Unfortunately, logic is often the first to go.

That's why I say the formula extends well beyond simple monetary terms. There are a great many forms of "payment" and often multiple forms enter into a single transaction. In your Hancock example, marketing is a way of making sure you devote ("pay") enough headspace to remembering to go see it once [the crowds die down|your friends can go with you|whatever your reasons are].

I'll admit, that's stretching the axiom a bit far, and it requires an open mind, but I think it's still valid, even at these lengths.

Re: Famous People

sarahcpr — Wed, 02 Jul 2008 19:25:11 -0000

Tangents are good! Heck I wasn't even going to post this cuz I thought it might be too random, and now I'm glad I did!

Yeah, I think if marketing brings awareness to highly potential buyers, it's doing it's basic job. The type of marketing that actually makes you want something so badly for some intangible reason (aspirational qualities, perhaps), is the type can manipulate the amount that someone is willing to pay into a price that's much higher than it's worth - now that's exceptional marketing.

Then again a good product can market itself, and perhaps get people to want it just because everyone else wants it. Heh, bringing it back to my original point, there are many people I initially followed on Twitter, just because everyone else was :-)

Re: Famous People

falicon — Wed, 02 Jul 2008 18:50:23 -0000

I know this is a tangent to the overall topic but I think marketing boils down to a couple more things than just "Yeah, I'd definitely say marketing is nothing more than the practice of altering how much someone's willing to pay for something"...most notable in my mind is:

1. recognition (ie. marketing helps people to know about a product). You might be more than willing to pay a kazillion dollars for something if you just knew it existed.

2. motivation (ie. marketing helps people take action). It's sort of related to your observation about price, but I still say there are plenty of times when someone wants something, and thinks it's a fair price...but still doesn't act (yet)...for example I believe I know the movie Hancock is out, and I think it's worth the price, and I even want to see it...but I haven't yet...without proper marketing I could easily forget about my desire to see it and never end up going...

By no means am I a marketing experet, but to me it's a fine mix of 'product and need recognition', 'price perception', 'motivation to act', and probably a whole bunch of other things I don't even realize!

Just my two cents.

Re: Famous People

Gulopine — Wed, 02 Jul 2008 17:38:14 -0000

Yeah, I'd definitely say marketing is nothing more than the practice of altering how much someone's willing to pay for something. Not that it's not an impressive task, of course, because there's a lot that goes into that kind of manipulation, but that's really all it is.

For what it's worth, I don't have an economics degree or anything, I just like to observe the world around me. I grew up around flea markets, where nearly everything is negotiable, so my first exposure to economics at an early age was much closer to bartering, which obviously influenced the way I see things.

I've actually found that axiom to be true for other types of transactions, too. If I were to consider your blog a product, and my attention as currency, for instance, it's easy to see correlations where you have to supply content I'm interested in for me to bother paying attention (note the phrase, "*paying* attention"). Conversely, in order to change your posting habits, my readership would have to be important to you.

The same goes for how much time, energy and resources we're willing to invest in making and cultivating relationships. It affects who we're willing to make friends with, how far we're willing to go to keep that friendship, what types of activities we're willing to engage in, etc.

In this Web 2.0 world, relationships are a commodity in and of themselves, and every new social network wants to get at them. But, as you well know ,one of the biggest backlashes right now is that people getting less and less *willing* to migrate all of their hard-earned relationships to Yet Another Social Network.

Sites have to pay time, money, energy and in some cases, market share, in order to make that transition easier, thus adjusting our willingness to sign up. But again, their willingness to do all that depends on how valuable they feel our relationships are to their business model.

That's why my rule doesn't contain the words "buyer", "seller", "producer" or "consumer": it always goes both ways. It's really a fascinating way to see the world.

Re: Famous People

sarahcpr — Wed, 02 Jul 2008 17:19:00 -0000

Nice response. You'd think with a degree in economics I would have seen that connection, but yours is a new perspective for me.

It's your last statement, "The amount someone is willing to pay for something is governed by a combination of a great many things, most of which can be manipulated very easily" that really gets me. The idea that you can easily manipulate something into being worth so much more than it inherently is - is fascinating. But I guess that's what we call really good marketing.

Re: Famous People

Gulopine — Wed, 02 Jul 2008 17:09:59 -0000

I generally boil economics down to a single, simple axiom: something is worth exactly what someone is willing to pay for it. That was the basis of bartering in the old days, and I believe it holds just as true today as it ever did.

In the world of collectibles, it's easy to see. Bartering and trading are practiced regularly, as well as highly fluctuating prices based on the inventories and demands of both buyers and sellers. The value of an item can only be evaluated in the context of a full transaction, where both parties are willing to part with something.

When it comes to celebrity, many people are willing to pay nearly anything to own a "piece" of their favorite icon. But the fact that some people have that willingness doesn't give an item an inherent worth for the rest of us.

I personally couldn't care less about The King's cotton balls, so a $10 price tag wouldn't even be worth it for me. Of course, I know people who would pay a lot more for it, so I'd be willing to part with $10 on the promise of a much higher resale to a specific individual.

It's the same reason different markets can charge different prices for the same products, and why supply and demand is such a predictable corollary. The amount someone is willing to pay for something is governed by a combination of a great many things, most of which can be manipulated very easily.

Re: Famous People

sarahcpr — Wed, 02 Jul 2008 16:57:23 -0000

Twittering of course! And then Twitter broke...

Re: Famous People

Long Nguyen — Wed, 02 Jul 2008 16:55:04 -0000

LOL. Brought by procrastination. What were you doing right before you wrote this?