Hacker News Reader

Comment by zyb09 | Hacker News Reader

Man, that video, typical marketing bullshit. First scene shows a guy writing on a typewriter, next scene shows someone hanging up Polaroid pictures. Seriously? Show me why this app is useful and why I need it, instead of trying to lull me into a world that doesn't exist.

View on HN

That's literally the entire point of this type of visual marketing: to help you envision a fantasy world that's attainable with a particular product.

Apple, BMW, Chanel, etc, all do it.

Yeah, I used to love the iPod adverts with the hip, trendy silhouette dancing away. Then you would see the average user on the train. Spotty, not especially attractive, and definitely not cool. But I guess that image wouldn't sell much.

This funny/true infographic about iPad marketing vs usage comes to mind: http://thedoghousediaries.com/5608

iPhone commericals have gotten creepy - everyone staring off into their silent screen..

Fortunately not as creepy as the competition.

I would say that Apple's advertising has become far more relatable recently. Most people can relate to a christmas event with a detached kid, or calling home to Facetime with their family. Granted, the people are unrealistically good looking and well dressed, but it's far more down to earth than this Facebook piece. I found the overly-hip nature of the characters in this extremely un-relatable. I could feel the jealously and dislike inside me. I know that's horrible, and I suppressed it like a good social being, but it was there. Advertising shouldn't create those kinds of feelings. I don't know what the trick is to avoiding them, but many successful advertisers do.

"I could see the SQL injection happening; I pretended it wasn't happening, like a good developer, but it was there. Website users shouldn't create those kinds of problems. I don't know what the trick is to avoiding them, but many of users do".

Er, you totally read that wrong. Switch the terms "developer" and "user" in your analogy.

I don't think I misread it; I was poking at you to illustrate that your internal feelings of jealousy and anger are not the responsibility of the advertiser to avoid triggering, and suppressing them is not "being a good person" (or a 'bad' person), it's "covering over a problem you have and pretending it's not a problem hoping it will go away".

Correctly functioning (neither judged as good or bad) humans don't get angry and jealous at seeing imaginary people's imaginary success, or real people's real success for that matter.

> your internal feelings of jealousy and anger are not the responsibility of the advertiser to avoid triggering.

They kind of are. I mean, for most other jobs, you're right--your emotions are your own responsibility. But advertising (inasmuch as it's more than simply "getting the word out") is all about harnessing peoples' irrationalities in profitable ways. And that means avoiding triggering irrationalities and biases people have that might scare them away from buying what you're selling.

For example, the last thing you want to show in a computer ad is a picture of the machine with an IDE open. Because IDEs are intimidating to a lot of people, reminding them of skills they lack ("I'm not good with computers.") And "intimidated" is not a buying mood.

(Also, as an aside, I'm not sure in which sense you meant "you," but to be sure, I wasn't the poster you first replied to.)

It's worth noting that the person you're replying to wasn't me. I don't mind being poked fun of. I often do it myself :)

Framing this as a "responsibility" is the wrong way to look at it. If an advertisement makes a significant number of people feel negative emotions, it won't be effective, and what good is ineffective advertising? Who cares who's right, wrong, good, or bad? Much less who is responsible?

I'm a flawed person. I openly accept that. I don't think my emotions in this situation are unique though, and I don't think they're basis to refer to someone as incorrectly functioning. It's what we do with those emotions that make us "correctly functioning" or not.

It'd be better if that world was not set in the 70s. Polaroid and typewriters? Who the hell has even seen them in person?

I have!

But then, I'm in my 30s, so admittedly I'm pretty antediluvian.

Erm, people who were alive in the seventies, maybe?

Have you really never laid eyes on a typewriter?

I have only seen a typewriter and used it once; and that was because it was my fathers and he wanted to show it off to me. I have never, ever, ever seen one in public.

We had an electric typewriter in my house for years even after we got our first computer, and only got rid of it recently. So sad :[

You can still use typewriters in the "modern" age http://www.usbtypewriter.com/

lots of people, surprisingly...

But what you're describing is "brand advertising". This approach is specifically for things people already use and already understand. If you are trying to sell a new experience people haven't had before, you do have to tell them what that experience is.

>Show me why this app is useful and why I need it

Advertising hasn't worked that way in almost a hundred years. It's simply vastly less effective than selling an identity.

The real secret is, it works even if you hate hipsters. In fact, they know you hate hipsters, and that's why they're in the ad.

http://thelastpsychiatrist.com/2010/11/advertisings_collater...

Still, I didn't make it through the video, and then I came here to find the most highly voted echoed my own thoughts about it.

It makes me think that they missed the mark.

Are you sure you're the mark (i.e., their target audience)?

The point is, the ad is not aimed at your conscious mind. How you think you feel about it after watching isn't really relevant.

That was an interesting read, thanks. Do you know where else I can read about how ads works?

Well, TLP has a number of posts on the subject. Beware that he drinks a lot of rum though, and some of his posts are more lucid than others. These are good:

http://thelastpsychiatrist.com/2011/11/luxury_branding_the_f...

http://thelastpsychiatrist.com/2013/05/dove.html

http://thelastpsychiatrist.com/2013/09/real_men_want_to_drin...

Otherwise there's this documentary, with a more historical (and less rum-soaked) take on the subject:

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

Thank you!

I've been meaning to watch The Century of the Self for months, will definitely check out.

I agree. Its become almost formulaic: cue hipster/light-hearted/playful music, show several emotionally engaging images with over-the-top DOF blur, narrate about how some mundane product that sucks us away from "real life" activities is tied to making the world a better, more engaging place.

I think your "sucks us away from real life" complaint has become formulaic. https://twitter.com/HistoryInPics/status/428802773313134592/...

What's not anti-social about that picture?

The point is that human nature rarely changes. But people always want something to blame.

I knew what your photo would be before I clicked on it, and thus your defense is also 'formulaic'. One photo meme doesn't adequately counter the massive psychosocial influence of technology, good AND bad.

Hey, that photo was from today. Gimme some cred

That photo was on reddit months ago.

True :)

If this were an Apple ad your response would be how beautiful, eloquent, heartfelt and touching the ad is.

Since it is Facebook and they are of course evil, it is obviously terrible.

I'd actually be more inclined to like Facebook than Apple, for whatever that is worth. I have nothing against Facebook, just this style of commercial. :)

Fair enough. ;)

I know I'm not adding anything of value with this remark of mine, other than give my acclaim to what you said.

However, I've long wanted to describe what you just said but haven't sat down to pull the right language from the recesses of my brain to describe how annoying these formulaic montages have become.

So, thanks for doing it on my behalf.

All tech companies/startups are starting to look the same. Maybe the same marketing/ad company has a contract with the entire valley?

Edit: Changed "Silicon Valley" to tech...since this common feel is more about the latest trends, than geographical boundaries. Though the joke no longer makes sense.

> All tech companies/startups are starting to look the same.

I think it's more that they are just starting to advertise the same way that all other companies do. More and more they're evoking emotional responses from the ads' viewers, rather than listing technical features and productivity measures.

Apple was probably one of the first, really. Look at the early Macintosh ads: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zCL1c8JCepg

I, for one, thought the video was pretty well done. If I had a Facebook account that I frequented, I would certainly be interested. Hell, it makes me a little envious of people who have genuinely interesting things pop up on their Walls (do such people exist?).

Yes. Agree with this. At some point, though, I feel the same about everything...

Queue up someone commenting that their feed doesn't look anything like the polish of a feed in a Facebook ad. :)

Right here. Couldn't help but think it as I watched. It seems like facebook has tweaked sharing algorithms, and I'm getting a lot more memes from pages my friends "liked" and updates from people I don't know, interacting with my friends. Not to mention pictures of food, dogs, and other stuff that I should be a little more active in culling.

If they have smart integration with news sources / blogs (they showed BBC and the Atlantic I think) that could show me news that matches my interest but isn't spammy, this could be a reversal for them; I might not go to Facebook for friends, and Twitter for news/ more intellectual stuff.

Also, why do these videos always use a 'shakycam' effect? It's clearly a cinematographic choice, they can afford a camera stand or a steadycam. Do they really feel the need to give the impression that each scene was shot on a handheld camera by some stalker hiding in the room?

I think the idea is that it feels more human. It feels more like a home video - you feel that there is a real person behind the camera, and real people (not actors) in front of the camera.

Interesting fact: they wanted to go for this effect in Firefly, but the camera guy they had was so good that his freehanded shots looked like steadycam shots anyway.

I got as far as the Polaroid pictures before I closed the window with an annoyed sigh and went here, hoping that someone had described what the app (or whatever it was) did. Then I read your comment, which was the most upvoted one, and had to laugh. Glad to see I'm not the only one.

I don't think you can get away with this type of marketing when you're a little know startup. Perhaps because the Facebook name is there they can, because that's made me interested enough to sit through the video. Otherwise, just tell people what you do in a few seconds.

I disagree. A startup's goal is to share their mission and product in a way that is shareable. A pitch video that is pure product features is nothing more than boring advertising.

These ads want to sound like Don Draper wrote them.

Don't start working in marketing.

Marketing is not about features or why you need to use that specific application. It is eliciting emotions. It is selling feelings.

But... Hipsters...

yes? I here

plus i already use pulse. one a year , and the HTC sense thing

It's marketing. You'd be surprised how less often informative works vs. emotional.

I know it's just tv but Don Draper's monologue on the Kodak Carousel is a great example of this. It was a powerful emotional appeal with very little information about the product.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com