https://people.mozilla.org/~faaborg/files/20090521-firefoxIc...
(Page 26)
https://people.mozilla.org/~faaborg/files/20090521-firefoxIc...
(Page 26)
> When investors, clients, or media visited the company, some scientists would be asked to run experiments on cool-looking machines or use liquid nitrogen to dramatic effect — even if it had nothing to do with their work, a former employee says.
> It was all to create an appearance of a hardworking lab, even though it distracted from the actual research that needed to be done, former employees said.
http://www.businessinsider.com/hampton-creek-ceo-complaints-...
It seemed like they were doing something truly revolutionary with the potential to drastically reduce human consumption of eggs. (This can only be a good thing for anyone with a concern for animal welfare.)
The article suggests their core product is just mayonnaise made with an already-commonplace vegan food additive. They outsourced the development of it, and don't even understand the science of how it works.
Is there a new generation of entrepreneurs who have realised their path to riches is to found a PR machine masquerading as a tech company?
...Yes.
I wouldnt call it "new" or a "generation" but rather there are always those who can get by with hype and no substance. Nothing new but the amount of people doing it goes through boom and bust cycles like everything else.
Call it snake oil? Probably, but at least a multi billion dollar brand can answer the question "Why does the swirl look like that?".
And only $1 million? That was _cheap_!
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/pepsis-nonsensical-logo-redesign...
Lately, it seems he's been brought aboard by BlackBerry and it's interesting how their instagram page shows the slow change from normal looking ads to just weird abstract black and white crap. [2]
1. http://www.cbsnews.com/news/in-blow-to-arnell-tropicana-drop...
I'd loved to have seen this presentation, and in particular a recording of the Pepsi exec's faces as they decide it's safer to go with the consensus of the group rather than to speak up.
Still pretty amusing though. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poe's_law in action.
Sometimes the agencies throw these dud concepts in there to push you to select one of the better concepts they spent more time on. Which makes you wonder what the other concepts were that didn't make it for the new Uber icon.
But in all seriousness, how do people even get away with shit like this?
It reminds me of an article posted here a month ago[0]. Some juicy quotes: [1].
I've read reports with analyses that were blatantly wrong from a statistic or technical perspective, I've had discussions about the value of 'meta keywords' and whatnot where google itself refuted their arguments. And the most 'effective' experts I found were only so because they'd do all sorts of shady things like set up blogs for link juice.
On the other hand, I have met plenty of people with deep knowledge of SEO and social media, but very few of them called themselves primarily experts in this area. Usually they'd be web developers/designers, or small creative studios, or just have some unsexy job description working for a big company.
bduerst says it's typical. Are marketting professionals all high?
http://www.wired.com/2016/02/the-inside-story-behind-ubers-c...
Kalanick jumps the shark.
Translation: "I don't know anything about this, but I believe it is important, so I want it to be done right... and I somehow think I am the person to do that." This is why we all repair our own cars using hammers and pliers.
https://medium.com/@localweb/forward-slash-the-story-of-how-...
Worth reading for the "Tri-Venn Diabrand"
The last page is particularly awful. Not only does it contain a glaring scientific error ("1 light year = 671 million miles per hour"), but it's completely meaningless from a branding perspective. I mean, what does "dimensionalize exponentially" even mean?