Are you Marketing to ME?

By Shamus Posted Saturday Sep 16, 2006

Filed under: Pictures 10 comments

Advertisements are not written with the engineer in mind. I know this. Marketing – particularly the marketing of personal care products – is aimed at people who care about image. Ads are for people who will buy something not based on what they think of the product, but based on what they think other people think of a product. They are for people who can be hooked by clever slogans, soothing words, nice images, and who recoil at the cruel, hard world of numbers and quantifiable properties. You know, normal people.

If someone is selling perfume, they don’t bother telling you it smells good. They show you people who they hope you will envy or desire to emulate, and then imply that they use the given perfume. Engineers are all but immune to this sort of thing because a) Who cares what that moody idiot uses? and b) Why should I expect the same results? Plus: c) while we’re at it, just what sort of results are we talking about here? How does this increase my chances of mating with another person as compared to smelling like regular B.O.? How much will this improve my odds? How were those numbers obtained, and what was the error margin of the study?

No, marketing to engineers and mathematicians is mostly a waste of time. Better to aim your salesmanship at their friends, spouses, and coworkers and hope your product is purchased as a gift on their behalf. Given the way engineers tend to smell, this is actually a pretty safe bet.

I know all of this, but I still get incredulous when I read the idiotic things I see on packaging. I get irritated and defensive, as if someone wrote them for me. What do you mean? Do you actually expect me to believe this stuff? You think I’m an idiot or something?

Case in point:

Suave Conditioner

Suave hair goop. Haircare has now advanced so far that you need a PHD in Molecular Biology just to get your hair wet. Shampoo, PH-balancing conditioner, oily / dry correctional post-conditioner rinse, super-hold gel, and let us not forget that towering nemesis of the ozone layer, hairspray. (And let us not speak of the complex chemistry set they sell you if you plan on changing your hair color!) Whatever this is, the back of the bottle has this to teach me:

Suave Conditioner – Costs less than more expensive brands!

Translation: This product does X, and costs less than products which cost more. Of course it costs less than more expensive brands. It would be impossible for it to be otherwise! It reminds me of this old post from Steven: A blurb which sounds nice but contains no information.

But I suppose that’s better than simple nonsense:

A box of off-brand generic band-aids.

Seems harmless enough. But when we look closer:

A box of off-brand generic band-aids.

What exactly is “family protection”, and how would it differ from the other forms of protection offered by other types of band-aids? Are these designed to be worn by more than one person at a time?

And my favorite sort of blurb: The herbal paradise utopian new-age eco-spiritual sales pitch:

Some sort of herbal thing. Stuff.

Go deeper into a world of botanical bliss and unleash the power of your naturally beautiful hair. This luxurious conditioner, blended with 100% organic botanicals will take your hair to a place it’s never been before.

This one paragraph is a deep, bountiful source of untapped insanity. This reads less like a sales pitch for shampoo and more like an invitation to join a cult. Fully deconstructing this and holding each bit of sophistry up to the cold light of reason would take ten pages, but my favorite bit is this: “will take your hair to a place it’s never been before”. So, I guess it’s like the U.S.S. Enterprise of shampoo? Scotty! Three to beam down, plus my hair!

 


 

Adobe Hackrobat

By Shamus Posted Friday Sep 15, 2006

Filed under: Rants 3 comments

A long time ago I gave an example of how people use PDFs when they shouldn’t. Later I followed up with a bit about how Adobe Acrobat is a grotesque resource hog that makes Jabba the Hutt look like Jenny Craig. Now to complete the trilogy we have this slashdot story about various security flaws within either PDF files or Acrobat. Like so many Slashdot stories, it has these frustrating gaps in the piece so that the users can read the whole thing and still come away with enough diverging interpretations to get a really good flame war rolling. A key quote:

After reading the article I am not sure if this is an Adobe Reader problem or a PDF problem. Every example cites an Adobe product, but the “hacker” said, “I do not really consider these attacks as vulnerabilities within Adobe. It is more exploiting features supported by the product that were never designed for this.” Translation?

Ok, so is this a fundamental flaw in the design of PDFs or poor implementation on the part of Adobe? By saying “features supported by the product” it leaves open the view that PDFs are inherently flawed and Adobe just followed the spec. I doubt this, but the story isn’t clear enough.

Either way, it sucks and does little to improve my opinion of the PDF format. There are a very small slice of people who need it and use it well, and an army of imbeciles who misuse the thing on a grand scale.

 


 

DM of the Rings V:
First Encounter

By Shamus Posted Friday Sep 15, 2006

Filed under: DM of the Rings 36 comments

Lord of the Rings, D&D campaign, The Fellowship needs a cleric, Nine Nazgul, Beastiary, Boo-Ya, Eat It KNAVE

Remember: That which does not kill you was simply not permitted to do so for the purposes of the plot.

 


 

Wiki Authors

By Shamus Posted Thursday Sep 14, 2006

Filed under: Links 0 comments

Mark has a great post that links to an article talking about who edits and writes for Wikipedia. This is something I’ve always been curious about. Who writes all this stuff and keeps it working smooth?

When you put it all together, the story become clear: an outsider makes one edit to add a chunk of information, then insiders make several edits tweaking and reformatting it. In addition, insiders rack up thousands of edits doing things like changing the name of a category across the entire site — the kind of thing only insiders deeply care about. As a result, insiders account for the vast majority of the edits. But it’s the outsiders who provide nearly all of the content.

And when you think about it, this makes perfect sense. Writing an encyclopedia is hard. To do anywhere near a decent job, you have to know a great deal of information about an incredibly wide variety of subjects. Writing so much text is difficult, but doing all the background research seems impossible.

On the other hand, everyone has a bunch of obscure things that, for one reason or another, they’ve come to know well. So they share them, clicking the edit link and adding a paragraph or two to Wikipedia. At the same time, a small number of people have become particularly involved in Wikipedia itself, learning its policies and special syntax, and spending their time tweaking the contributions of everybody else.

Mark has a few other interesting points and links to add to this if you’re inclined to read the whole thing.

 


 

Rainbow

By Shamus Posted Thursday Sep 14, 2006

Filed under: Pictures 3 comments

Looking out my window this morning, I see the sun is shining right through a rainstorm at us. It’s one of those lazy rainstorms with great big droplets that catch the light and look like diamonds coming down.

Sunshine and Rain

I’m standing on the porch snapping this picture when my wife comes out and suggests that since we see rainbows out front in the evening, then early in the morning this situation ought to make rainbows out back. I do the forehead slap thing and dash back through the house. Sure enough:

Early-morning rainbow

Then my wife takes the camera and ventures out to get a better angle that is less obscured by trees. She manages to get this shot:

Double Rainbow!!

If you look closely, you can see this is a double rainbow. This one is not nearly as spectacular as the last double rainbow I saw, but the pictures came out much better this time.

UPDATE: This rainbow lasted quite a while. It was still going when I looked out half an hour later. In fact, it was even stronger. Heather has more rainbow pictures at her site. Also a picture of a duck.

 


 

Arcane Secrets

By Shamus Posted Wednesday Sep 13, 2006

Filed under: Random 3 comments

To answer the question from yesterday as to how long it would take the googlebot to find my new catchphrase. Answer: Almost exactly 24 hours.

 


 

Agreeable and Neurotic

By Shamus Posted Wednesday Sep 13, 2006

Filed under: Personal 4 comments

My Personality

Neuroticism

60

Extraversion

5

Openness To Experience

21

Agreeableness

94

Conscientiousness

51



Test Yourself Compare Yourself View Full Report

Xanga, Piczo and MySpace Layouts by Pulseware Survey Software

You are introverted, reserved, and quiet with a preference for solitude and solitary activities. Your socializing tends to be restricted to a few close friends. Stressful and frustrating situations can often be upsetting to you, but you are sometimes able to get over these feelings and cope with these situations. As a practical person you like to think in plain and simple terms. Others describe you as down-to-earth, practical, and conservative. You have a strong interest in others’ needs and well-being. You are pleasant, sympathetic, and cooperative. You are reasonably reliable, organized, and self-controlled.

I don’t at all care for the way they mixed the concept of “conservative” personality with “conservative” political leanings. Laying aside the fact that our conservative / liberal labels are totally bent at this point, I don’t think the political conservatives are in any way related to conservative (as in, careful, wary, resistant to change) personalities. For example, one question is, “Tend to vote for non-conservative political candidates”, which would include all non-conservatives, from communists to anarcho-capitalists. There is a huge spectrum of beliefs in there, why pick on one particular group? [rehtorical question] I suspect this one teaches us more about the personality of the test maker as opposed to the test taker.

Hat Tip: FuzzyGeek