Vitaliy wrote:

> Who are these bleating "average users", who are competent enough to use a 
> computer, but too dumb to resist the FUD? Certainly not you, or users on 
> this list, or members of your family?

Everyone falls prey to some extent to FUD.  It's unavoidable.  Humans 
are set up that way.

Ask the folks that publish "negative" political campaign ads what their 
REAL numbers are in polls versus when they run "positive" ones.

We're wired to have emotional responses, and to REMEMBER those 
responses, to NEGATIVE things -- survival of the fittest type stuff -- 
in a much stronger (the so-called "reptilian brain") way than positive 
things.

It's been proven time and time again, telling someone "Don't vote for 
that guy, he's dangerous!"  Works far better than, "Vote for this guy 
because he's better."

Sad, but normal.

> Following your line of reasoning, around the same time Graham Bell too 
> "manipulated the market" with his telephone (which also needed an 
> infrastructure).

Well, he did jerk around the patent system to profit from a natural 
monopoly, similar to MS, but I digress... (GRIN)... Now we have 
"deregulation" in our telephone system here in the U.S. which has led to 
three major players, and a "race to the bottom" as far as quality of 
technology, and quality of service.  We got what we asked for.

(When you can run a national ad campaign with a cellular phone tech 
saying "Can you hear me now?  Good!" and people are still willing to buy 
that low level of quality and LAUGH at the commercials, that's just sad. 
  Many friends in the cellular industry used to joke that the commercial 
was just a documentary on the amount of money/time/effort spent on real 
test gear by Verizon, back when they started that ad campaign.  No 
spectrum analyzers, dedicated channel test gear, etc... just some 
dumb-ass with a phone asking if someone could "hear him now" was pretty 
accurate.)

> Google has manipulated the search engine market -- by creating a better 
> search engine.

Has anyone else noticed it's not QUITE as good as it once was, lately?

Some people are really gaming their system to get really irrelevant and 
stupid stuff to show up as the top results for searches that are quite 
unrelated.

> The point is, you cannot make people buy something against their will, no 
> matter how much you spend on marketing. Otherwise, there would be ads on TV, 
> selling pink mini-skirts to Hell's Angels.

Oh yes you can.  Making it ILLEGAL not to buy something gets the 
majority to buy.

(Automotive insurance would be a good example in most areas of the world.)

> "Hi. Billy Mays here, for Pink Mini Skirts for Hell's Angels...."

Heh heh... that guy is set for a lifetime of $19.95 offers on late night 
TV.  Not such a bad gig, since they probably pay him pretty well.

His voice is so damn attention-getting, it's amazing.

Nate
-- 
http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist