diedan

I'm feeling a bit nautical and in the mood for some minstrels, for which the cure is always, always The Decemberists. And now this: The xx - Crystalised ...For the minimalist in all of us.

It's also just an incredibly alienating movie, both in that it's kind of love it/hate it, but also the film, itself, tends to alienate the viewer into a silent parade through various wastelands. You're in his head, but you have no idea what's going on. To me, it felt like a modern take on Aguirre: The Wrath of God (which I haven't seen in years...), which is maybe why I was so psyched about it. I love the Herzog. Plus, it's so beautiful in it's ugliness that it just kept me ensnared the entire time I watched it.

Yes, extensively. I don't know the whole history of the thing, but from what I know, I'm pretty sure they underestimated consumers' brand loyalty and the emotional rejection they'd feel if their favorite product was changed. Anyone can feel free to correct me, though.

Cute and hilarious: http://www.bite.ca/pages/inceptionmouse/

Always kills thread. (Avatar too indescribable?)

What's really fascinating is that I've done blind taste tests with a current product and a test product and at the end we ask a preference question. Afterwards, you reveal that the test product is brand x but changed and ask how likely you would be to purchase it. There's always a percentage of people who straight up preferred the test product in the taste test but then say they "probably" or "definitely wouldn't buy" the test product simply because their beloved product was changed. People like consistency and have strong emotional ties to brands (depending on the product). Alienation analysis is incredible. It's the whole "New Coke" debacle, etc.

@slithy toves: I love old crazy books. The best I had was a 1909 biography of John Dee, the 16th century Queen's court magician who went on some ridiculous trek for the philosopher's stone, helped "discover" the Enochian script, basically had an insane life. Sadly, the dog I had at the time got a hold of it and completely tore it apart... Edit: Oh, and a few weeks ago I was out in Santa Monica, so some of my family and I went out to The Huntington where they had this library exhibit with TONS of old science books, stuff from Kepler, Brahe, old 13th century texts that were translations of Euclid, etc. It was absolutely incredible.

This is why I dropped out of the conversation. I work with sensory science, not marketing. Everything I know is hearsay or bickering between departments. Good luck Yantelope. I'm bailing!

No idea. I really just look at taste tests and people's reactions to the food. I don't really actually deal with the marketing side directly if at all. Or sales/production info.

@Yantelope: Exactly. Now if you excuse me, I have to go look at some data so you lowly peons can eat some goddamn new and improved cereal.

Psssh...trying? I'd say succeeding. I'm really, really nice to my employees, though!

Simon says poop

Look who's talking.

I call it greed simply because I want. more. money. I'm really a bad person to be having this conversation with seeing as I'm in middle to upper management and more often than not can understand why the "higher ups" do what they do. I'm kind of one of them.

Haunt haunt haunt

I know, I know. I was just trying to distract the target away from my job. I'm totes down with marketing and the goings-on of advertising. I think at this point in our access to information, one can only blame the oneself for being duped into purchasing things that one doesn't want. We have way too much access to peer reviews, etc., to be easily manipulated by a fancy logo. (Although, when I saw the new Pepsi logo, I literally stopped mid-step and stared at it for a good minute or so. That thing is goddamn gorgeous.)

And such is capitalism...

Ah. Fair enough. More often than not, my job entails actually making food better. When companies want to make food cheaper, it's extremely risky and not one they move on unless they're absolutely sure it can be done without consumers noticing. The problem with the industry is that it needs to exist (people have to eat), and yet the budgets are shrinking and forcing companies to cut back (the majority of the budget goes to marketing instead of the actual quality of food). So food companies need to cut costs and they prey upon suppliers. But the food companies aren't going to make a move unless they find someone who can produce at parity with or statistically better than what they already have, so it's up to suppliers to cut costs if they can't cut quality, which unfortunately comes at the expense of jobs sometimes. Honestly, I'd put the brunt of the blame on the culture we've built up around marketing and advertising more than the food or food companies themselves. That's where the budget goes because that's what makes money. It's all kind of fucked up and weird, but I just do the studies we're given.

Uhhh...probably not? Unless somehow you work for a supplier that a large food company decided to stop using because they were too expensive. And even then I just supply the data!

Oh gods noooooo! I work in research though! Research! Although it's typically for evil food companies to make their crap product cheaper so they can make more money... ...so I guess transitive consumer rapist? Goddamnit.

Nope, guess again. In fairness, you are a magic magic pony right now. Edit: Bryan H posted before I could reveal my brilliant investigative skills.

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

I was going to post this as soon as I opened the thread; favorite commercial of all time.