Replies

People often buy into generic ideals - that is why commercials often work. They are flashy, make bold claims, and so people build a relationship with the brand over time and come to believe the claims. They don't bother researching it, no time and no interest.

Give you an example with a friend of mine, which he figured out and told me about later:

He was at a discount store and was going to buy some batteries. They were packaged in a different package then he had ever seen and the battery covers were like christmas wrapping. He was going to put them back as they seemed 'cheap' and he preferred duracell.

After reading over the back of the package he found out that is what they were. Lower price, holiday coverings, and he figured that because of that they were not as good as his favorite.

We later discussed at length (we are geeks, and can spend hours talking about phone book ads). What if they were not duracell, should he have bought them anyway and see if they lasted as long? Had he only used the one brand out of branding and not investigating, thus creating a biased view of companies that did not have the advertising budget? etc and so on.

People read a lot into things that does not exist. Politics is like a religion in this and other ways. People take things on faith. No one needs to say how they will do something with concrete plans - the product has built in loyalty so folks believe that candidate X will do it.

Kerry tells people what they want to hear, bush usually tells them what they should hear - real information (not always). WE need to do a better job of expecting more from the candidates for the job. Better 'technical' interviews, demand more details, and demand they shelve pretty rhetoric for detailed information.

The problem is more us - we allow them to get away with it for fear our product will lose, which to some invalidates their views and mindset. We need to move beyond parties and demand a more scientific analysis of plans and ideas, then make a decision based on that.