Hacker News Reader

A while back, the Guardian wrote a piece about their annual expo:

"Everyone is feeling good. Employees weave through the crowd with trays of probiotic juice. I decide I like the Goop expo. It is silly, but most of us seem to be in on the joke"

It's a fascinating read [1] and it seems that not all of the attendants wanted their ego stroked. Some just need a quirky, random excuse to dig in their coffers - I think.

Personally, I felt that the author's trying too hard to be satirical. The whole expo feels slimy; IV drips, oxygen sessions, colour-coded bracelets... it's New Age plus hippie plus hipster plus Paltrow probably cackling in the background.

[1] https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2017/jun/14/gwyneth...

> It is designed to filter through only clients who would think that stuff works. That's a bit like scammers claiming they are all from Nigeria. It's a counter intuitive bit but it's very important.

That's an interesting point I had never considered. I had often wondered why Nigeria was still mentioned even a decade ago. That it effectively filters out those that are likely to have heard of the scam or something like it, extending possibly even to online fraud in general, does effectively provide an explanation.

It's also the reason behind the poor orthography and other low-quality traits of such e-mails. They rather effectively filter out everyone who isn't gullible enough to be fooled, saving them a lot of time dealing with non-serious replies.

There's a paper discussing that theory at https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/research/publication/why-do-...

As in previous discussions on HN, I'd say it's not necessarily actually applicable to the "Nigerian emails", because even really gullible people have spam filters than kill 99% of that stuff these days, and there are more practical reasons for 419 spammers to need to acknowledge they're based in Nigeria than filtering responses, like their objective being to get people to send a Western Union payment to Nigeria (not to mention said scammers' tendency to sloppily betray their Nigerian-ness even if they've managed to obtain use of a Paypal account and have progressed to the more widely-believable and probably higher-yielding scam of pretending to be little old Scottish ladies with high value items to sell).

But I can definitely imagine using "homeopathic" for non-homeopathic "remedies" is a way of marketing specifically to people unconcerned with products' therapeutic effectiveness.

> couldn't resist preying on the insecurity and tell women their bodies are yucky

They aren't supposed to. You can't build an economic model based on individual free-will and self-determination, then suggest that corporations have some higher duty.

The mechanism for this is government regulation - If the government doesn't ban or regulate these type of products, the money's on the table for whoever will take it.

> you'd be surprised how different they are in private compared to their on screen persona

Actors shouldn't be fetishised the way they are; They literally earn more money, based on how mainstream-popular they are, so they have a lot of pressure on them to conform.

How does a liquor store take advantage of the poor? Because it sells an addictive product cheaper than a bar does?

I think they were saying that there can be an advantage to an industry that serves the "poor" market.

Because a handle of vodka is cheaper than a visit to the doctor and all the medications you need, and will make you forget about all your problems.

So someone who want to buy that vodka shouldn't be allowed to?

Because it's major market is disenfranchised poor, alcoholics, etc, not casual drinkers who appreciate the occasional taste of fine liquor.

Take advantage not in the sense that it doesn't provide them with the product, or sells it more expensively to them, but in the sense that it feeds on their problems.

I have not felt slimier than when when I was marketing a liquor brand and had the epiphany that 80/20 rule applies to it. If you look at the data, 80% of liquor is sold to people who drink 20 or more drinks a week.

We spent so much time on marketing to "Millennial postgrads" but that wasn't the consumer..

Yeah. Liquor consumption is crazy when you dig into the numbers.

From [slate](http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/medical_exa...), 11-drinks-per-week is the national average, but it's so top-loaded that hitting that average means you're in the top 20%.

And given the top 10% is more-than-10-per-day, given it's also on the sharp end of the curve, I kinda don't even want to know what the numbers are for the top 5% or 1%...

But does it create those Alcoholics?

If they raised their prices, they'd be critisised; If they lowered their prices, they'd be critisised.

Is the medical/insurance industry bad too? Don't all industries solve some problem?

The easy availability of liquor creates an environment where people are more likely to fall to alcoholism.

That's how I view the selling of a lot of unhealthy products - corporations creating a hostile environment, where you are more likely to succumb to your vices, for their profit. E.g. candy and chocolate placed at the checkout line.

But any business that refuses to do this, will lose money and fail to compete with those that do. Eventually, they'll get bought out by the company that does.

It's up to government to regulate this stuff - a business is supposed to maximise profit.

>It's up to government to regulate this stuff - a business is supposed to maximise profit.

In an amoralistic, profit driven dystopia, yes.

In actual human societies, businesses are also supposed (whether they are or not is another story) to be ethical and improve society.

And most of them pay lip service to that all the time, in their ads, promotional copy, motivational speeches to employees, etc.

> In an amoralistic, profit driven dystopia, yes.

Why? As stated, the government is supposed to regulate this stuff - that is partly why government exists.

And this is by design. When regulation is proposed, it can them be publicly debated - rather than leave those decisions to whoever runs a particular business.

> In actual human societies, businesses are also supposed (whether they are or not is another story) to be ethical and improve society.

Says who?

> And most of them pay lip service to that all the time, in their ads, promotional copy, motivational speeches to employees, etc.

Which is apparently what the consumer wants..

Notice how politicians tell the public what they want to hear? Well, the public too rarely take them to task. You get what you vote for..

>Is the medical/insurance industry bad too?

In numerous ways, yes.

>Don't all industries solve some problem?

No, some create one.

Look at what kind of liquor and at what prices is sold in poor neighborhoods vs. rich ones.

> And as if Hollywood and pop culture in general hasn't done enough damage, just couldn't resist preying on the insecurity and tell women their bodies are yucky. Someone evil there went through the use cases and the detailed analysis and decided that no matter how wealthy or successful, that's one thing they could tap into and monetize.

That shit's been going on for centuries man.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elixir_of_life

> you'd be surprised how different

Tell me more

I won't name them. One I had in mind is known to be a kind, gentle fatherly figure on screen. In reality they are an asshole.