How an Ad Campaign Made Lesbians Fall in Love with Subaru
priceonomics.com
priceonomics.com
I feel like this is such an important lesson in business. It's better to be loved by few and hated by many than to try to please everyone... because everyone has different needs and wants, conventional wisdom says that your target market can't just be "everyone". Even toothbrushes have different price points, colors, and positioning.
As far as I'm concerned, the Jury's still out on whether SpaceX is actually doing anything interesting. I mean, lifting things into orbit at cheaper rates is useful, but there's no evidence of anything game-changing yet.
Don't get me wrong, what they're doing is hugely impressive and the nerd in me thinks it's amazing. But making a difference in a way that (to go back up the chain) gets people upset? I don't think SpaceX has got close to that.
Getting there is pretty hard too, even if you're in earth orbit.
What about the speed at which they are managing to implement new designs - that seems much better than some of the existing players in that space.
Anyway, according to the theory when the much cheaper but worse technology gains momentum, it gets better and better, until it's serving the high-end needs even better than the original technology and at a lower cost.
Let's skip a few steps and assume they've achieved that. That's an important innovation, it changes the economics, will allow SpaceX to drop prices and potentially grow the market substantially.
All of that would be amazing and a huge achievement but it would not push the frontier, it only brings in money that can be used for projects that do that. I would argue that for this reason it's not game-changing, it's incremental progress that enables further innovation that could be game-changing.
This summons up most issues:
The genetic fallacy (also known as the fallacy of origins or fallacy of virtue[1]) is a fallacy of irrelevance where a conclusion is suggested based solely on someone's or something's history, origin, or source rather than its current meaning or context. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_fallacy
Which itself was probably a marketing ploy to try and portray Musk as doing things out of the kindness of his heart.
Boeing of course been one of the partners in ULA a direct SpaceX competitor[0].
[0] https://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/summary.php?cid=N000...
What's sad is that they don't even pretend anymore, it's absolutely and completely blatant and rigged.
The business of "coding" is primarily a defence against the haters. Being outed is now very rarely fatal in the West, but it used to be more dangerous (and is still far more dangerous for trans people). So the LGBT community had to live by an almost steganographic system of linguistic (qv Polari), sartorial and cultural markers.
Boycotts are generally tremendously ineffective
Usually: yes. But there are exceptions.Nestlé still feels the aftershocks of the boycott about its despicable marketing practices of hawking baby formula to mothers unfit to use it in a proper way instead of breastfeeding their kids.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nestl%C3%A9_boycott
The boycott started in 1977 and actually did have an effect on how baby formula is marketed nowadays after they initially didn't give much of a shit.
Granted. When you as a company are directly responsible for the death of thousands of infants then a boycott is easier to pull off than when Walt Disney prohibits selfie sticks in its theme parks.
Just one counter example that boycotts can be effective if the circumstances are right.
But that goes exactly against for example what ms is doing. It's making windows for 'everyone' while pissing-off privacy-conscious and freedom-conscious people in the process. Yet it's still at the 'top of the game'.
What am I missing?
You're probably over-estimating the number of privacy-conscious and freedom-conscious people in the general public, who mainly use Windows, Android and Facebook. Windows is arguably the least privacy-invasive of those. https://blog.torproject.org/blog/mission-impossible-hardenin...
Further, in tables of probably dubious merit (but all we have), Microsoft generally comes out as one of the most admired and most ethical companies. http://blogs.microsoft.com/on-the-issues/2015/03/09/microsof...
Windows is openly-licensed to OEMs (just sign up on the website) and available at retail. You are free to build your own Windows PC or even start your own PC manufacturing company. Windows source code is available on application ;-)
> Microsoft generally comes out as one of the most admired and most ethical companies http://blogs.microsoft.com/on-the-issues/2015/03/09/microsof...
https://www.quora.com/How-did-Microsoft-become-the-worlds-mo...
In all seriousness, I'm supposed to believe that someone who has released a system like win10 is ethical? They made their goals clear with this one.
Perhaps they don't spill the oil in the ocean or make dubious financial schemes like those banks, but that's not enough for me, sorry.
> Windows source code is available on application ;-)
Same way intel ME source is probably available somewhere to someone, doesn't mean they shouldn't be burned down to the ground for inventing it.
Well, I use Android, but it basically has no privacy. I ought to be bothered enough to install Cyanogenmod, but I haven't....
> someone who has released a system like win10 is ethical
I don't see why not. It's a mobile operating system and in my opinion the privacy issues have been ridiculously overblown. I don't use Chrome, and I do use Ghostery and uBlock Origin and a few other things, but I have no problems using my Windows 10 set-up with Basic telemetry.
Windows 10 is already being rolled out by the US Defense Department (for the increased security), and almost all global companies are going to move to it in the 2020s.
https://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/library/mt577208%28v=vs....
Software freedom is something that only a minority of the open source people are interested in and that's overall not a large group to begin with.
It's that people don't understand what information is available about them, and what sacrifices they have to make to ensure privacy.
Should they begin to understand that on a large scale, they would then begin to care about privacy.
Put differently, for any n, it's better that n% of people love you flat out, than everybody loves you n%. But for large enough ns, either is very lucrative.
Subaru n=2, Microsoft n=40, or something like that.
End commercial.
Obviously AWD with new snow tires will let you cut through just about anything. I mean it felt like driving a tank sometimes, it's amazing. And that was a sedan - I can't imagine how easy that much be in an SUV or Jeep.
I've also driven FWD compacts with snow tires and experience was worlds better than AWD with regular tires. If AWD + snow tires is 100/100, FWD + snow tires is 90 and AWD + regular tires is 50. My point is that AWD isn't all it's cracked up to be, even with feet of snow on the ground.
And just because it's standard doesn't mean you're not paying a couple thousand dollars for it like everyone else - it just means you don't have the option not to.
And OT: I never understood this "smart people like $CONSUMER_PRODUCT" mentality. Different products fit different use cases. I wouldn't drive a BMW Z4 in Augusta, Maine just like I wouldn't drive a Subaru Forester in San Diego.
The day after a big snowstorm is pretty rough here thanks to lake effect, but I just pop on 4WD and plow through it, while praying that some idiot doesn't slide into me.
AWD means you can accelerate better in the snow and become un-stuck easier. If you want to stop sooner and slip less, snow tires make the real difference, not AWD.
There's a reason snow tires are mandatory in Iceland (illegal to not have them) from November onwards.
Possibly not at all easier. SUV usually has bit more clearance than sedan. And possibly more suspension travel and overall weight. End of the day SUV vs. AWD sedan difference is almost insignificant.
Real off-road cars also have differential locks and reduction gears. While they usually don't weight that much (relatively). Now you have real advantage, as you can approach any tricky spot with incredible amount of quaranteed torque and slow speed.
What I'm sayin is that if you drive on a swamp off-road car is 100/100, SUV is 60 and AWD sedan is like 50.
And AWD! It comes with something called 'traction control' which in Iowa means, pulling out of a parking lot onto a snow-covered street, it starts vibrating the drive and you drift across the lanes like one of those little football players in the vibrating football game. How is this supposed to be a good thing? You can punch a button to 'turn it off' but other than displaying a message that its disabled, it still happens. So major fail there. I can drive on snow; have for 40 years. I don't need some Engineers broken idea of how to 'help me' drive.
And AWD is essentially a differential? So at no time are all four wheels gripping the road and clawing my way through the snow and drifts. Like 4WD does. So again, a big step down.
And finally, they put a smarmy stupid badge on the back, 'pze' which apparently means "Partial Zero Emissions". What kind of double-speak is that! It offends me, and embarrasses me to have it on the car.
I could go on, but I'll summarize. No, not a Subaru fan.
It was a challenge to get a 2.5i without the turbo but with the 5-speed manual, apparently the target demographics want automatic transmissions or high-strung engines. It perfectly fit with my life of young kids, upstate NY winters, and carting around stuff. It was more fuel and space efficient than the Honda Pilot we owned prior. It was almost unstoppable in snow with the right tires and smooth use of the throttle. It carried more than the VW's we had over the years.
I wrote letters when they announced the boxer diesel engine, http://www.boxerdiesel.com/, asking them to import it to the USA and once got a polite response that they were looking into it. Buyers like me are still waiting.
Sadly my wife didn't like the seats or interior and we couldn't beat the fuel economy of a Toyota Prius when we were driving several hundred miles per week. I wasn't a fan of the engine compartment (changing plugs and coils was okay for three of the four, the fourth was awful) but I didn't have problems with head gaskets, etc. that I've heard about.
The prior policy was that you could be asked if you were gay or lesbian by the command chain and dishonorably discharged for answering in the affirmative. An untruthful answer would get you time in the brig for lying, then you'd be dishonorably discharged.
> In this case, it’s heartening that the origins of lesbians’ stereotypical affinity for Subarus is not a cynical marketing campaign, but a progressive one. In a sense, all Subaru did was notice a group of customers and create ads for them. But that was a big deal. Subaru's ad campaign acknowledged a group that often felt unwelcome and invisible.
I don't think that the two views are contradictory. In a capitalist society, political power comes with integration into consumerism, marketing, and all the rest; and vice versa. Market power is a potent way to push a political agenda.
Maybe a company believes in your cause more than its bottom line. Maybe a politician cares more about you than about winning their next election. If you're campaigning to change society, the difference isn't really material. It can change your tactics a bit, but allies are allies no matter their motivation.
> The washing up from breakfast lay on the table; there was so much of it because, for Gregor's father, breakfast was the most important meal of the day and he would stretch it out for several hours as he sat reading a number of different newspapers.
But then again, I guess it would have never become such a common phrase through Kafka alone. Funny would be if the above formulation only appeared in post 1944 translations.
I agree, with freedom of choice and competition, the burden falls on the consumers to choose what they support. In other words, voters vote with their ballots. Consumers vote with their dollars, both are very important in a democratic society.
"Love, it's what makes a Subaru a Subaru"
I'd hear that slogan as a sponsorship message on public radio and more recently I think I heard it on a commercial TV ad and I'd reply "no, standard all wheel drive is what makes it a Subaru."
Still, snark aside, it's struck me as a sort of hippie-dippy slogan for an international auto company and it's made me wonder what they are going for.
That said, they have had a reputation for decent vehicles.
Also, I'm a hacker four wheel drive owner outdoor enthusiast, so I'll be discovering a penchant for medicine and a couple other interesting things about myself soon enough, I suppose. Come to think of it I do have first aid in the Jeep...
Heaps of these people love their Subarus so it might be less of the case that hackers love the car and more that hackers love getting outdoors and therefore love the car. I know I love mine.
I've noticed that too with running/cycling. Even as far back as high school, it always seemed like the kids stronger in science/math did cross country and track in higher proportions compared to other sports.
Isn't it mandatory to have a first aid kit in your car?
Me neither. Maybe it's the power of suggestion, but I see subtle and unsubtle references all over that ad now that it's been pointed out to me. It's all artfully vague, but added up make a strong hint: One guy's shirt is half-open. The two men look at each other with their lips slightly tensed. Their small car runs opposite to the large train (reference to against mainstream). There's a slack toy that pops up when the passenger manipulates it with his hand.
This ad seems so subtle, that I have no idea what makes it gay-friendly? Is it because there are two men driving around? Can anyone point out what I'm missing?
"Heterosexuals who saw those two just assumed they were friends or roommates, whereas the gay community assumed they were boyfriends." - Robert Klara of Adweek, quoted here: http://www.npr.org/2014/06/29/326524942/advertisers-come-out...
> "Yeah that’s fine. We did that in Canada years ago"They're dependable, easy enough to work on, and all-wheel drive (fuck snow and ice). They are as 'American made' as you can get anymore. They're perfect for conservative US farmers.
They do have some very fun to drive models though and the build quality is very decent.