If I were a marketing person I would also make genuine images look AI generated for the free publicity. Nothing gets attention like mistakes or fakes. The fact that they aren't actually fake means there is no downside for WS and team. I once spoke to a social media manager for a large brand and he said they intentionally put typos in posts on a semi regular basis and it always results in more post engagement (people correcting the typo).
Awesome site. You've probably come across it, but just in case you haven't. In the UK we have trolley.co.uk (plus app) which is handy. The barcode scanner I use a lot when I want to check if the branded product is a good price in the shop i'm standing in or if i'm getting ripped off. They have all products (I assume because online grocery shopping is bigger here?). Personally, I'm looking to start online shopping (new dad so time poor), it'd be great if I could build a shopping list and a site tell me which online grocer to order from for the best value, with basket price breakdown for each.
I wish someone made a social media site that has no news feed or any feed, like the facebook of old. Only get notifications and updates from actual people who you have friended. I genuinely think this would be popular, it wouldn't drive the engagement that the feeds and algos do but it would be a more wholesome experience the one we all bought into at the dawn of the social network, only for our friends to be swapped out for a constant drip of 'engaging' content.
A few years ago I went through digitising all my grandmothers old albums. The final picture was my grandfather on his deathbed, she stopped making any albums after even though she was only 60. She died 2 yrs later. This hit me hard.
Powerful read. My Dad was the sole survivor in a boating accident in the Med when I was about 3 yrs old. He doesn't really talk about it. This has helped me understand some of what he has gone through, esp the aftermath.
I suspected this practice and ran a very rudimentary test which concluded they were not doing such things. I made a playlist with Taylor Swift, Beyonce, Justin Bieber and then an equal amount of songs from obscure artists with fewer than 1000 followers (this was back when followers was the main popularity metric, now it's monthly streams). I then played the playlist on shuffle, expecting for the 'popular'/ expensive artists to be played less. I tallied each song for a day of listening (that's as much as I could take!) and the popular songs were played equally as frequently and the non- popular. Like I said, very rudimentary but didn't yield the result I was expecting.
Awesome, best of luck. I could see this in gadget mags esp around xmas, they often look for lower cost items to contrast the £500 phones and £1k laptops ;)
You could use the same argument for the scammer employee who gambles with your money to make a personal gain. You implicitly consent because you consent to the government prosecuting injustice and returning your misappropriated funds.
Isn't this literally what banks do? Take peoples deposits paying a minimal interest rate and then invest that money to earn a return higher than the interest rate they pay the customer (they actually will also borrow more money on the back of your deposit). So, when it's the bank doing it it's ok but a bank employee doing it independently for personal gain it's an issue.
The book deal aspect was interesting also. So, the guy profits and has a potentially lucrative book deal with minimal jail time.
Not any law ever passed. Speed limits for example, in fact most traffic laws. Contract law, banking law, property law, a lot of criminal law, for example theft, assault. In fact I think the argument can only be used on laws that ban things for sale or consumption.
I can report that since the Russian invasion of Ukraine the Pierogi ruskie is now Pierogi ukraiński. Or at least they are in my Wife's hometown of Ustka on the North coast. According to the article this is a more accurate description anyway.
I met my wife on eHarmony after a few unsuccessful years on the apps. We have been happily married for 3 years. eHarmony was far better than any app but I can only attribute that to the fact that it is a paid for service with no free option, everyone there has to pay and that means people are more engaged and serious about a relationship.
It occours to me that the incentives are skewed. If the dating apps do a great job they lose users. This means the apps will (conciously or not) be designed to keep users using and that means, not finding a suitable partner. Even worse they actually put features that will help you find a match behind a pay wall, even more incentive to tantilise you but not deliver.
It'd be interesting to see a service that you only pay once you're in a relationship with someone from the service. So the company only gets paid when they find good matches. It'd become really good at finding matches or die.
But you aren't actually taking peoples money, if you were, I agree you burn bridges and get a bad reputation, however it's very easy to rebrand and I'm not suggesting to do that for thousands of customers just enough to decide if it's worth building or not.
Cool idea, but ultimately it doesn't matter what I or anyone else thinks of your idea, it's about your customer. I'd say don't build a product but instead build a landing page with the 'product' for sale (get some design mock ups done) then try and sell it and see what happens. This is similar to what the article says about talking to users but instead bypasses any mistakes you might make and getting false positives. If people buy that's a great indication there is demand and you can then evaluate if you should build it or not.