Hacker News Reader

Comment by shrikant | Hacker News Reader

The 'customer' in the anecdote doesn't really fall for the actual sales pitch, and makes his purchase solely to get rid of the salesman. So.. one is supposed to feel sorry for the guy who prioritises his immediate convenience over any future utility? Cry me a river.

Also, 'sales resistance' is hard to quantify. Does he not want to buy because the widget being sold carries no value to him? Or because he doesn't perceive any such value? Who's to say the 'older daughter' in the story wasn't Constance Keene?

View on HN

So.. one is supposed to feel sorry for the guy who prioritises his immediate convenience over any future utility?

No, for the resulting inefficiency of the economy as a whole. How you choose to divide the blame between salesman and customer is your own business, of course.

Who's to say the 'older daughter' in the story wasn't Constance Keene?

Statistics can say that with over 99% confidence.

No, for the resulting inefficiency of the economy as a whole. How you choose to divide the blame between salesman and customer is your own business, of course.

I don't see how this makes the economy inefficient. Could you elaborate? And in this particular analogy, the purchasing decision was clearly the buyer's, so the worst you could say about the seller was that he was pushy and obnoxious. I can't see why one would 'blame' him for the inefficient economy.

Statistics can say that with over 99% confidence.

That's disingenuous. What I meant was, based on the story of the pushy piano purveyor alone, without knowing what use was made of the instrument, you can't really say it was a useless purchase. Serendipity happens.

I don't see how this makes the economy inefficient. Could you elaborate?

Deals are supposed to create value. For example, if a house is worth $2M to the seller and $3M to the buyer, there's $1M potential surplus to be captured. A deal at $2.5M makes that makes that surplus real, in effect giving $500K to each. If a potential deal doesn't create net value - if the buyer doesn't receive enough benefit from the good, or the seller spends too much manufacturing it - the total wealth in the economy goes down as a result, even though the buyer OR the seller might win personally.

Serendipity happens.

Yes, and statistics can tell us what credence to assign to the chance of it happening. I certainly see no reason to assign 50% or similar credence to serendipity in the described case, or indeed any credence high enough to dominate the certain loss of value. Do you?

I agree with you, even though your opinion seems to be unpopular in this thread.

I read nothing about a gun being held to this poor old man who was obviously crippled by his lack of a back bone.

Why was this man talking to the salesman about a piano in the first place? He must have wondered into a piano store, thinking it was a travel agency in hopes of booking his summer vacation. But right at the moment he realized he had stumbled into the wrong store, the salesman caught him with his tractor beam and would not let this poor man leave.

I agree with most comments, there is something wrong with society, but I'm not so quick to judge the salesmen. Why not blame the guy shopping for a piano when what he really wanted was a vacation?

You took that literally ?

I'm not sure what you are referring to by 'that'?

(Anecdote: My dad ended up buying a set of the World Book encyclopaedias by a pushy salesman - ended up tremendously enriching my life over the next couple of years.)

I realise that anti-consumerism is viewed as a Good Thing, but some of the onus is on the consumer - his 'duty' is to think and buy. The producer will gladly cater to the second half of that, and manipulate the first bit to the fullest extent he can to enable the buying. This hardly makes the producer (and his agents) a 'bandit'.

The story about the salesman pushing the grand piano and a wall being knocked down into the bedroom to make room for it.

It was clearly meant tongue-in-cheek, or at least that is how I took it.

Of course nobody buys a piano because of a pushy salesman if their house can not accomodate it, but it is a nice analogy to describe some of the process that goes on when people buy stuff they don't need or have the ability to use.

Have a look at this for how far the 'salespeople' are willing to go:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hi63rXnuWbw

Oh. You took my response to the story literally? I was responding to the way in which the "hard-working professional man" was painted as a victim. Would you say uppity restaurants that focus more on the presentation of the food and the ambience than the bland quality of their fare are to be faulted for positioning themselves thusly? If people see fit to pay for the snob value, more power to them..

'Pester power' is a well-known soft spot exploited by marketing droids. Personally, I feel this is a shady trick. but IMO, this doesn't make them evil. Kids being a soft target is all the more reason to try and take a personal involvement in educating your kids, and not letting the ridiculously marketing-driven society do it for you. (not you personally, jacquesm..)

> I was responding to the way in which the "hard-working professional man" was painted as a victim.

Well, he is. He is pushed to buy something he neither wants nor needs but runs out of a will to resist. This happens every day at the doorsteps of tens of thousands of older people that get salespeople to visit them at their homes.

> Would you say uppity restaurants that focus more on the presentation of the food and the ambience than the bland quality of their fare are to be faulted for positioning themselves thusly?

I take it that they do not go door-to-door or have people standing in the street in front of their restaurant to push people in the doorway. If the choice is truly free then it's fine with me.

> If people see fit to pay for the snob value, more power to them..

We are in agreement on that.

> Personally, I feel this is a shady trick.

Personally, I feel it is criminal.

> but IMO, this doesn't make them evil.

And we disagree on that.

> Kids being a soft target is all the more reason to try and take a personal involvement in educating your kids, and not letting the ridiculously marketing-driven society do it for you.

As the proud father of a 15 year old son I could go on for days about the enormity of the assault on young impressionable minds. It goes so far that I feel some sympathy for those parents that eventually give up.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com