Advertising to horny people is hilariously effective.
Its why some companies are so effective at selling Veblen goods to status seekers.
When I was growing up, I got abercrombie/american eagle because it was cool to girls. Today teens get Apple/Nike products.
Not that any of these actually change your status, but the marketers were able to sell that idea/feeling.
As an adult, you see people buying/leasing Tesla's or more expensive cars to do the same thing.
People desperate for social acceptance, which leads to girls, will pay anything. I get it, I used to spend half my time looking for girls before I got married. (other half of my time school, presumably so I could always get a gold digger if need be.)
Can you tell I was ugly growing up? (Lift weights my pals, it changed everything)
-some girl to her girlfriends, somewhere, probably...
> freelance designer
The first article reads like a parody.
Being rejected by someone who lets brand-loyalty to billion dollar companies dictate their dating preferences isn't even 'a blessing in disguise'. It's just a plain and simple blessing.
Android or Iphone shows wealth? A $1000 dollar purchase for something you use daily is supposed to be expensive?
But when you are in poverty or lower-middle class, $1000 is a lot of money.
It just doesnt have the same meaning when you have money. I imagine the dating world has a bunch of things like this because you meet people of different classes.
The mystery to me is why a guy's reaction to it would be "damn I wish I had an iPhone so that girl would like me" and not "I'm glad I don't have an iPhone so I can weed out these nutjobs".
And just like hiring where there are great employers with silly hiring practices there are great partners with silly filtering rules. And you can cut yourself off from a large part of the market or play the game.
Unlike the potential employer or partner I'm not going to use a silly filter as my filter.
But that aside, your entire analogy is based on the idea that you need to "win" iPhone Girl. What makes her worth winning, and why doesn't she need to win you?
You're allowed to have criteria too. One of mine is that I won't be with someone who has poor judgement. It's the reason I don't date women who are into astrology, or choose their partners based on the brand of their phone.
To use your analogy, iPhone Girl is a job that pays $30K a year while demanding 70 hours per week. That's not good enough for me, I don't care how nice her campus is.
If you can't easily afford an iphone or Audi, someone who can lease an audi and have a payment plan on an iphone looks like they have money.
Where once you make 6 figures, these seem like just another car/phone. Heck, when you buy cheap veblen goods like an Audi/iphone, it makes you look like you are compensating for your lack of income. Even 250k cars are barely impressive to a 6 fig earner because they can afford it too.
To a 6 fig earner, a hyundai and android are just the best tools for the job.
No, I won't elaborate on it, but the difference in conversion rates between ads of a sexual nature (or even the slightest innuendo of sex) and literally anything else is a huge fucking cliff... and the places where you can even run those ads are super limited.
If all it took was working out, I promise you it was your self esteem. Though I agree that exercise definitely boosts your mood and anyone who is out of shape should try it.
But also when I got older, I looked more masculine.
If you escape spending at LVMH you'll spend it on cars, indie brands or ascetic holidays. Keep going and your money will go towards pseudo-educational leisure activities that make a social statement like submarine exploration or building web apps in Ocaml.
Are you serious? Because wow that's off by a few megaparsecs...
A lot of people don't have enough disposable income to get them adequate amounts of food. Kids making toys out of garbage, just to have a toy. To share.
The hypothesis about status signalling is more difficult because many individuals acquire status by rejecting conventional status objects. Many people respect Socrates, AOC and Gandhi in large part because of their modest lifestyles. It's possible to describe their behaviour as buying status via the opportunity cost of other consumption, but I worry the opportunity cost approach makes my theory too overpowered to the point of being unfalsifiable.
I'm doing the opposite of status signaling. I'm hiding my wealth. I don't need people to know I just bought an expensive computer or 3D printer. Heck, that makes me a target.
It also alienates friends who are insecure. I already ran into this when I graduated college, got a real job, and my blue collar high school friends got weird about it.
Heck, I knew I was going to be very well off. When I had my home built, I made sure the front-most peak of the house was on the first floor rather than the second floor. I didn't want my home to appear grand.
My status is being FIRE in my 30s.
But probably not status related and more security related.
Your pet hypothesis, has yet to be confirmed only after that, will it be a theory.
The idea that people buy Tesla to be seen, is just a complete generalization. I own one because it’s the funnest car I’ve ever owned by a long shot. I keep it polished clean constantly, not so other people see it as nice, but because I prefer how a clean car looks TO ME rather than a dirty car.
I only buy Apple products because I love how they work and how they look and how they feel. TO ME. I could give a rats ass what other people think of me while I use Apple products.