Buying shampoo: A cautionary tale about the failure of marketing | Hacker News Reader

Buying shampoo: A cautionary tale about the failure of marketing

andyrutledge.com

11 pointsbouncingsoul17 comments

I think it's funny that the marketing is the product now and not even the material inside?

Ever look at the back of a generic equivalent of a shampoo now? You see something like this (and read carefully):

This product is not manufactured or distributed by BigCorp, distributors of BigBrand Shampoo"

Okay, so I'm guessing BigCorp doesn't even make their own shampoo anymore either. It's all made in the same plant and everyone just brands it what they want.

A consumer who is proud that he can run on autopilot through a store, guided by brand association rather than rational thought? And proud of it? We have truly entered the next phase of consumerism.

I don't think it's about autopilot so much as (shampoo) brands missing a market. As a student, I'm an extremely scrupulous grocery shopper. I compare every item by price per unit, and ignore the pretty pictures on the label because I know they are faked anyway.

When I'm shopping for shampoo, I feel just like the guy in the article. My heuristic now is to buy the largest, plainest looking bottle. But I still have to wade through dozens of bottles of specialty shampoos before I can find one that I want. ("Dry Hair" -- do I have dry hair? I don't know. It doesn't feel wet. "Natural Shine"? Is shiny hair natural?)

Hair is naturally shiny if it is not dry.

If you just don't care - and it seems to me that when the OP makes purchasing decisions, he just doesn't care about a range of things - then all the marketing in the world won't help. I mean, if you don't take notice of the bottle from whence you apply stuff directly to your head several times a week, are you really going to take more notice to the same bottle on television or in a magazine?

The shampoo aisle looks different if you have long hair.

I'm surprised he knew what brands of running shoes or tomato sauce he wanted. Confronted with a selection of functionally identical boxes at the supermarket or shoe store, I frequently stand stymied for several minutes.

Eventually I realize that there is no efficient choice possible on the basis of packaging, and resort to making selections by unit price--or choosing a randomly distributed sample in hopes of remembering the results.

Why is that surprising? I'm sure we tend to have very strong recall when it comes to positive brand associations. Good shoes make your feet comfortable. Good tomato sauce tastes good (yum!). Shampoo, um, cleans your hair. You'd probably be really aware of the brand if you had a dandruff problem, or something similar, though.

I'm sure you know what brand of computer you're using right now or, if you built your own, what brand of CPU, video card, RAM and hard drive you installed in it.

For me, I can tell you without a moment's hesitation that I use the following brands for the listed product categories:

Laptop: Apple

Phone: Apple

Shoes: Puma

Jeans: Diesel

Pasta sauce: Newman's Own

But, with shampoo: beats me, whatever was on sale at Costco.

Interestingly, in 3 out of 4 aforementioned known brands, I almost always shop in their branded stores for their products. (on a related note: I'd love to find a Paul Newman-branded grocery store. that would be killer).

If you have been a consumer long enough you realize certain brands tend to cater to your interests. In the case of shoes, there used to be a very very clear trend- Nike fit my feet how I wanted and fit what I wanted in a shoe. Now there is another trend to replace that one, as Nike shoes stopped matching what I wanted. Puma fills that category now.

It helps if you have a clear idea of what you want. I, for example, like extremely minimal shoes. Think like a ballet slipper, except a little more sturdy so it can put up with rocks and concrete and stuff.

For tomato sauce, I use the ingredients list to differentiate.

Which is also something you might want to consider when buying Shampoo.

I think we're interpreting this wrongly - this sounds like a piece of satire about consumerism and how marketing companies see their job and consumers. "Marketing trumps product quality, consumers operate solely on impulse, are insecure and clueless and don't care about price. It's Marketing's job to tell consumers what they need, without us they are lost!"

I look at ads to know what products are available (i.e. not at all), and then always buy the store's own brand. I can never tell the difference from usage, and its way cheaper

When I shop for shampoo I look for two things: unscented, cheap as possible.

What cares what brand it is?

caring what brand it is helps when you have a hundred different kinds of shampoo to pick from. So me. I care what brand.

That said, all I want from the brand is to know they make decent shampoo that does the job without poisoning me, and offer unscented cheap shampoo. Their brand is simply a way for me to identify an easily locatable subset of shampoo that I can trust will posses a bottle meeting my desires.

I wonder if he's ever tried to buy orange juice.

Tropicana branding disaster: http://www.underconsideration.com/brandnew/archives/pepsi_ta... and http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/23/business/media/23adcol.htm...

Reply on news.ycombinator.com