Comment by ItsMe000001 | Hacker News Reader

Comment by ItsMe000001 | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

Of course it is, that's the whole point? Those guys get the deals, OPs point. So if you measure success by their individual success it's a tautology. However, hoe is it for the rest of society? I would claim it is not so clear. There is quite a bit of "success is when you are successful" in a lot of arguments I see around such topics, where the assumptions directly lead to the outcome followed by a "Q.E.D.".

For example, "Rich people deserve to be rich because they showed the ability to accumulate wealth." - Well, that was easy...

Or another one "good enough" products are good enough because they are bought. Investing any more, e.g. into making a software have less bugs, or an electronic device, or anything, last longer, are useless, or the market would already have provided that outcome. What a nice and easy circular argument. Imagine Gillette produced razors that last ten years, including blades. Very bad for them! Would it be bad for the mankind overall? If you believe in "the market" then yes, it would be bad for mankind. You can take any other product and company, incl. all the "lemon market" stuff. If the market prevents you from voluntarily doing better (because you will be outcompeted) it must be what is good for everyone or the market would not have produced that outcome, Q.E.D.

I think that while the skill is obviously extremely valuable, also to society, what you can get with it is too much. It always leads to optimal outcomes if you already believe it does (because "market", magic word).

Just like in biochemistry a reaction can be enzyme-limited or substrate-limited, i.e. the path is too hard or there is not enough supply, I think the rewards for being well-connected are oversized because we don't have an issue with too few people desiring to be well-connected, but that the path is hard. Paying more does nothing to how hard it is to become well connected, and increasing the desirability of being well-connected doesn't do anything either.

I see your point, and it’s an interesting issue. Do marketing and managerial skill add real value to a product/service, or are they at best a necessary evil?

I think there is a strong case to be made that they add value. One issue they solve is simply the communication of the existence and value of said product in an increasingly crowded and noisy world.

To take everyone’s favorite example, look how Apple has consistently worked on their image and marketing, and how that expense and effort serves as a signaling mechanism to consumer purchasers of very complex products. Of course, Apple delivers the goods, consistently, and has built up a symbiotic system of communication and technology.

The two big differentiators Apple has used are there focus on design and user experience. It’s not hard to see how these areas of attention blur into the boundaries of marketing, customer service, and product development.

There’s something I think of as “coherence” in created things. When it’s achieved, to end user it might seem like nothing, because the effort put into the subtle aspects of the creation become “invisible.”

If you’ve ever attempted doing something even as simple as writing marketing copy, the difficulty of bringing focus, clarity, and effectiveness quickly hits you in the face.

A company that can execute these “non-technical” skills well is at least a good bet for executing the technical apsects as well.

Can anyone think of counter examples? Companies that talk a good game, set up outstanding business structures, and then consistently deliver rubbish?

Edit: your comment about the contined existence of merely adequate products, wouldn’t you say that there is a real issue of cost? A company could dramatically reduce bugs in software putting more testing into the product, hiring better engineers, but if people don’t want to pay the price, the product is not “better.”

There is a fundamental issue in economics, which is how to “value” things. Price is used as a proxy, because it’s inherently quantifiable, and the alternatives lead to highly contentious differences of opinion.

The price of most things is a function of labor cost + materials + location where it's made + admin + delivery.

In a perfect world, admin and delivery are nearly 0, the warehouse where it's made is once again as cheap as possible, and the materials and labor will decrease over time as more and more laborers acquire the skills necessary to make the product. This is why drone pilot income is rapidly plumetting, along with database administrators and so on.

Knowing this reality, major corporations and the government have colluded together to "regulate" and "standardize" many industries, as well as creating many burdensome and time consuming processes for all businesses (accounting, HR, compliance).

This admin cruft is the very secret sauce that keeps monopolies and oligopolies alive, while killing innovation and price competition. Essentially, this is the American health care system.

Sales is just part of that cruft. There's a reason I don't need a sales guy to buy a solar panel-- I just need customer support at the most.

>The price of most things is a function of labor cost + materials + location where it's made + admin + delivery.

Sorry, but you are wrong. The price of a good is not a function of these. Price is a function of demand and supply. And demand and supply are in turn also a function of price.

For example, you cannot demand a salary based on the cost of your education. The market will decide what is the value of your labour.

Also, if you try to find a job in a saturated job market, you will understand the importance of "Sales". If you can't market yourself you wont find a job in a high-supply labor market however qualified you might be.

In a nutshell I think those who think Sales is "cruft" are the those who had it easy all their life, and who never had to compete with 100 guys half their skill.

> Price is a function of demand and supply.

As someone who has set prices in a small business, that is not true.

Please don't take the simple - and simplistic - models used in trying to study an incredibly complex world as if they are reality.

You get some useful results from the Bohr model of the Atom - that doesn't mean it's "true" or "reality". It's a model. As some STEM professor (might have been physics) once said to the new students: If you want "truth" you are in the wrong lecture, philosophy is down the hall on the right.

So you get some useful results from assuming that this is what determines price, so that you are able to create a model. That does not mean that that's "how it is". The more closely you look the less it is true.

I actually don't disagree with you. You describe the system as it is, and I describe the system as I desire it to be.

Humanity should not have to waste its time going through the dog and pony show of every company and every vendor.

Wherever possible, goods and services SHOULD be commodities that are interchangeable. A rune platebody will always be a rune platebody from the grand exchange, no matter who is selling it in Runescape.

Obviously there will be edge cases for custom products and services, that's totally fine. But imagine buying a water bottle or choosing antivirus software after being subjected to 8 different sales guys and their "funnels".

No thanks! Let's bring PRICE as close to COST as possible.

> Do marketing and managerial skill add real value to a product/service, or are they at best a necessary evil?

That was not what I said - at all! Of course it adds value. Reading through it, it seems you entire reply is premised on something I did not even remotely say?

I edited the post and added a new last paragraph.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com