Jobs

As some of the regulars here are probably already aware I’m in my final year of school atm, getting round to that horrible time of year where we have to choose courses....
So I thought before I did anything else I’d call on the millennia or so pool of experience that this place represents...

Firstly, can anything this of a non government-diplomatic corps job that is primarily about interaction of foreign powers. Basically International Studies as a job..... And while I’m posting, any other advise etc?

Originally posted by jaguar
Firstly, can anything this of a non government-diplomatic corps job that is primarily about interaction of foriegn powers. Basicly International Studies as a job..... and while i'm posting, any other advise etc?

Could you clarify this a bit? I'm not sure I understand what you're saying here.

Jag, kindly run your post through a spell-checker, repost it, and I'm sure some of us would be happy to offer advice to you. :)

Originally posted by juju

Could you clarify this a bit? I'm not sure I understand what you're saying here.

The way I read it, he wants to work in international affairs without acttually having to be a government employee. Probably some think-tankish job with an NGO along the lines of Amnesty International or The Breton Woods Project.

I'm suggesting cryptology.

Journalism.

Kuala Lumpru, Idnonesia -

Msulims aer revoltign followign teh Americna boming of Afgahnistan. It apperas that I am goign ot get my assk icked so thsi emali will hvae to be shrot.

-- Jagura in Indonesai

:)

repaired to readability.
Foriegn affairs as a job, analysis work? Anything like that exist in business? I thought about journo but after talking to about 8 the general consensus was DON'T DO JOUNRALISM - the hours suck, the work sucks, its usually very boring and dead end. I was thinking more pure business anyway.

crypto? ewww maths ;)

From your posts it seems to me you'd be interested in www.Greenpeace.org.au. That involvement might be a satisfying vocation or avocation.

*laughz i'm a member but its not a job.

This will collide with the greeny in you but what about oil exploration?

Jag, what about one of the UN agencies?

Here's a career assessment analysis online for FREE.

Originally posted by jaguar
Foriegn affairs as a job, analysis work? Anything like that exist in business? I thought about journo but after talking to about 8 the general consensus was DON'T DO JOUNRALISM - the hours suck, the work sucks, its usually very boring and dead end. I was thinking more pure business anyway.

To me, this sounds like a communications director / department also called Public Relations, the Press Secratary, or what political advisors such a James Carvel do for politicians. Some call them spin doctors - to take a complex issue into sound bytes - and the massive amount of time and money spent to do just that.

Others call it advertising. Or lobbying. At least that is how I read the RFI.

Originally posted by tw
Some call them spin doctors - to take a complex issue into sound bytes ...

Perfect. :-)

=p
Yea at the moment i'm looking at PR/Marketing, things like brand identity building etc. Be interesting work, might to a double in Psychology/Marketing.

But that's evil.

Don't see why =)
All depends on the context.

"The ends justify the means", right?

what the fuck does that have to do with the price of tea in China. By context i was refering to who you were doing it for and what thier aim of it was.

lol... I think they're serious about believing PR/Marketing folk to be evil.


Whenever I think of PR folk, I think of Jedi Mind Tricks.

"This music is not shit. It is good. You love it."

If corporations and countries were willing to just tell the truth, why would they need entire departments hanging around just for spin control? I suppose it could be used for good, but most of us here are probably too cynical to think of such cases.

If corporations and countries were willing to just tell the truth, why would they need entire departments hanging around just for spin control? I suppose it could be used for good, but most of us here are probably too cynical to think of such cases.

Everyhting has a spin on it, every article you read, every brochure, pamphlet, newspaper article, eveyone has their own agenda.

Lieberman's law:
Everybody lies, but it doesn't matter since nobody
listens.

Maggie still doesn't make an sense, whatever framework i put that comment into. Evil? I don't see why - who hasen't used events out of thier control to thier advantage? Its merely an extresion of that - this is business, who's going to leave anything to chance? Brandname dev? Whats wrong with that? Tere is good anbad in everything, all depends whether you're doing it for Phillip Morris or CocaCola.

Originally posted by jaguar
There is good anbad in everything, all depends whether you're doing it for Phillip Morris or CocaCola.

Don't see that much of a difference. One rots your lungs, one rots your teeth. They are both trying to sell us things that aren't good for us for the sake of the dollar. It doesn't really matter though, whatever job you take by the very definition is exploitive in some sense, thats the nature of captialism. While I'm no big fan it would sure be nice to get a job... Talk about wrong year to graduate. Personally, I have degrees in Chemistry and Cognitive Science (a somewhat rare combo I would think) and I don't see jobs anywhere. Anybody doing computational linguistics out there? Semiotics? Cognitive Social Science? Maybe I'll just skip out on my loans and go join Rainbow tour for a few years...

Originally posted by spinningfetus

Personally, I have degrees in Chemistry and Cognitive Science (a somewhat rare combo I would think) and I don't see jobs anywhere.

Combining skills somewhere like WINS Foundation

http://www.winsfoundation.org/

Here is the first lesson they teach you in Marketing:

<b><i>perception = reality</i></b>

They teach this to make marketing people less uncomfortable at what they do, but rarely do you see the face of evil show itself so directly.

Originally posted by spinningfetus


Don't see that much of a difference. One rots your lungs, one rots your teeth. They are both trying to sell us things that aren't good for us for the sake of the dollar.

And then there's the militant ascetics, such as the Center for Science in the Public Interest, who are trying to sell you on why everything that tastes good is bad for you. Or do you think those guys don't have marketing departments? Heck, even people who rail against modern marketing have marketing departments.

I drink plenty of Coke. My teeth are fine.

(tobacco, OTOH, really is bad for you :-) )

But what's that Coke doing to your esophagus?

Of course, few things in life are black-and-white. I have Acid Reflux (GERD), and sodas are bad for me if I drink them too often or if I'm not taking my medication. But y'know what's just as hard on my pipes, and probably worse? Good ol' seemingly-healthy organic fresh-squeezed Florida orange juice. I forget which company came out with packaged "low acid" juice, but it's a godsend.

The bottom line is, if you're in PR, you are a liar. It is your business to lie. Whether or not this is acceptable depends on your morals.

Originally posted by juju
The bottom line is, if you're in PR, you are a liar. It is your business to lie. Whether or not this is acceptable depends on your morals.

Once again it the perception of the lying that counts... Most people are willing to accept that in certain situations and circumstances lying can in fact be more moral than telling the truth. Its a matter of perspective....

Originally posted by jaguar
Maggie still doesn't make an sense, whatever framework i put that comment into.

I''d paraphrase that as "Jag doesn't get what Maggie's saying within any framework he can think of".

I said "The ends justifiy the means" as an ironic comment on your "It depends on the context", which I took as assertion that spin-doctoring is noble when done in service of a noble cause. As if it doesn't matter if you promote a false idea if it's done in the interest of a cause you consider good.

The problem with that kind of moral relativism is that it puts your personal judgement as to what is "good" above the value of the truth, which allows people to judge for *themselves* what is good.

There's a large grey area between spin-doctoring and outright lying...and a lot of folks don't know when to stop. When you study argumentation (if your major will be foreign affairs I do hope you get to take a forensics class) you'll hear about "slippery slopes".

That's how we get to flacks and pols making statements like "That statement is now inoperative." (which was how a Nixonian flack chose to say "We got caught lying about that so we don't stand behind what we said anymore") and other gems like Clinton's "It depends on what the meaning of the word "is" is. If the -- if he -- if "is" means "is and never has been," that is not -- that is one thing. If it means there is none, that was a completely true statement.", apparently intending to convey that he meant to say that he wasn't actually screwing Monica *while* testifying. The "is" in question was in fact the one in the question "Is the statement you made in the past actually true?"

SpinnigFetus, even though one can pose hypotheticals in which telling a lie is preferable to telling the truth, that doesn't say anything about the ethics of lying in general, much less the practicality of it. "Lying to other people is your business, but I'll tell you this: once a man gets a reputation as a liar, he might as well be struck dumb, for people do not listen to the wind." -- Col. Baslim to his adopted son in Heinlien's "Citizen of the Galaxy"


(edited to change "Spin" to "SpinningFetus" at the beginning of the last paragraph, after realizing that in a post about "spindoctoring" it might be unclear that I was actually addressing SpinningFetus)

"I won't fail if my intentions are good."--Perry Farrell

The road to hell is paved with good intentions -- Samuel Johnson

Man i'm up against the wall now aren't I.
OK lets see how i can play this one out.

If everythign has a spin on it, which noone has denied, wouldn't the spin wnet your way? The truth is purported to be told by so many, yet so many of them contradict each other. Odd about that. 'Truth', for such a simple concept is stunningly difficult to track down, two people might have and beleive entirely different 'turths' , even when you do find the 'truth' its often not the whole truth, which is reality means its not the truth. When you're responsible for a multibillion dollar organisation wouldn't you want the 'truth' to be yours - not the guy that wants to bring you down becase of his agenda? Whether either be 'right' or 'wrong' ?

The bottom line is, if you're in PR, you are a liar. It is your business to lie. Whether or not this is acceptable depends on your morals.

Or to tell the truth? WHo does tell the truth? The media? Fat fucking chance? Your local political activists incorperated? Don't think so.

As for UTs - all business is exploitative, do you remember the long, long thread months ago i did with dham and a few others about exactly that? ;) That one was fun.

which I took as assertion that spin-doctoring is noble when done in service of a noble cause.

Well it wasen't

perception = reality

Personally i'd word it Your perception is your reality. Reality is subjective afterall. I honestly don't see the evil in that statement.

At the end of the day the case is i can write that kidna stuff well (straight A+s for years) and can bullshit well, waht ebtter palce is there to work? At the moment i might do advertising (graphics based) @ uni, or i might do Media & Communications or International studies, we'll see i guess. Depends how ahrd the moral weight of cellar starts crashing down on me ;)

Originally posted by MaggieL

When you study argumentation (if your major will be foreign affairs I do hope you get to take a forensics class) you'll hear about "slippery slopes".

That's how we get to flacks and pols making statements like "That statement is now inoperative." (which was how a Nixonian flack chose to say "We got caught lying about that so we don't stand behind what we said anymore") and other gems like Clinton's "It depends on what the meaning of the word "is" is. If the -- if he -- if "is" means "is and never has been," that is not -- that is one thing. If it means there is none, that was a completely true statement.", apparently intending to convey that he meant to say that he wasn't actually screwing Monica *while* testifying. The "is" in question was in fact the one in the question "Is the statement you made in the past actually true?"

SpinnigFetus, even though one can pose hypotheticals in which telling a lie is preferable to telling the truth, that doesn't say anything about the ethics of lying in general, much less the practicality of it. "Lying to other people is your business, but I'll tell you this: once a man gets a reputation as a liar, he might as well be struck dumb, for people do not listen to the wind." -- Col. Baslim to his adopted son in Heinlien's "Citizen of the Galaxy"

Ok, to start with: Spin is a product of language; there is ambiguity built into the structure of it at several different levels. (This is the reason that building a NLP is so difficult) This abiguity can be manipulated so that a phrase may mean denotatively something that is completely true, while its connotative meaning may give the public a different meaning all together that would in fact be contrary to the facts. Is that lying? In spirit I would say yes, but in the strictest sense it isn't, meaning isn't static so there can never be absolute truth conveyed through linguistic means. It isn't possible. It is this design feature of language that gives the hacks thier ammo. Polotitions are dishonest by nature, spin is just a loophole that they exploit like any loophole in a legislative sense.

Ethics are an interesting can o' worms. Personally, I feel that everybody lives by some standards. These are something that each person must arrive at by themselves and aren't something that I feel that I can cast judgement on. The other side to this the ethics of our society which basically boil down to do whatever you can get away with. It is kind of sad, but again at the same time this is what western thought has been moving towards for centuries so maybe that is just the way things are supposed to be; from a social Darwinistic view if the thought process were unsustainable sooner or later it would cease to be. This is also true from the practicality stand point. We have a president who lied repeatedly about drunk driving charges before the election, got called out on it before the election, and still is our honored commander in chief today. I think television and especially digital special effects have altered our peception of things like reality and truth to such a degree that the defintions that were in place fifteen or twenty years ago are no longer applicable. Again that isn't to say that there aren't any defintions they are just different.

Originally posted by spinningfetus
The other side to this the ethics of our society which basically boil down to do whatever you can get away with. It is kind of sad, but again at the same time this is what western thought has been moving towards for centuries so maybe that is just the way things are supposed to be; from a social Darwinistic view...

I wouldn't form an opinion of the ethical norms of "western thought" based on what the "polotitions" do. (No matter how much air time they get.) Corporate managements right now are watching their stock prices go flat as the market realizes that a lot of accounting practices over the last ten years have been that "listening to the wind" that Colonel Baslim was tralking about.

Ethical norms are quite a bit above "what you can get away with", although, that said, it must still be recognized that you *can* get away with what you can get away with, by definition.

Thankyou spinningfetus for thoughly mudding the waters after me so that the calls of 'morality!, truth!, ethics!' are so thoughly lost in the turbulance they are unlocatable ;)
You're also entirely correct.

Ethical norms are quite a bit above "what you can get away with", although, that said, it must still be recognized that you *can* get away with what you can get away with, by definition.

You honestly beleive that? In business? Ethical norms are *above* what is required? In a public owned business driven by stock price?

Originally posted by jaguar
In a public owned business driven by stock price?

What else could it be driven by? public service? If you think that I've got some great real estate deals for you...

Originally posted by MaggieL


I wouldn't form an opinion of the ethical norms of "western thought" based on what the "polotitions" do. (No matter how much air time they get.)

Neither would I... I would however use them to illustrate a point...

Originally posted by spinningfetus

I think television and especially digital special effects have altered our peception of things like reality and truth to such a degree that the defintions that were in place fifteen or twenty years ago are no longer applicable.

Having actually been around twenty years ago, I gotta say I don't think the general perceptions of reality and truth changed as much over that timespan as you seem to think they did.

In fact, my own view is that these technical advances serve to *illustrate* the importance of bearing honest witness rather than making that notion obsolete or even significantly different from what it was. After all, twenty years ago was only 1982....when you were five years old. Isn't it more likely that what's changed over that timespan was more your *own* perception of things like "reality" and "truth"? C'mon, it's not like everybody's gone "oooh, we have CGI movies and VR and Photoshop now, so the underpinings of world are totally different, there is no truth and reality is completely relative."

BS is still BS, and it still smells.

Originally posted by spinningfetus


Neither would I... I would however use them to illustrate a point...

The point being that pols lie? That's not exactly a new emerging trend.

Pols (and US Presidents in particular) have been getting caught peddling hooey for centuries...it's just that you have to get out of school and into the real world before you realize that; it's not featured in the history texts.

Originally posted by MaggieL

The point being that pols lie? That's not exactly a new emerging trend.

Pols (and US Presidents in particular) have been getting caught peddling hooey for centuries...it's just that you have to get out of school and into the real world before you realize that; it's not featured in the history texts.

Thanks, I had no idea... The point that I was trying to make is in the culture of mass media one now has the tools to lie to millions of people at a time. Back in the day lying had to take place on a more or less face to face basis (yes I'm aware of the existance of newspapers prior to my birth) whereas now the tools for disseminating media have destroyed the adage seeing is believing. I'm not so naive as to think this is something that has happened overnight nor so naive to think that I am always being told the truth. I think you think I'm arguing for something I'm not; I believe in personal responsibility but that is it. I refuse to hold someone else up to my scale of values in the same manner that I won't acknowledge being held up to someone elses. In otherwords, to protect myself I won't trust everyone else to tell the truth but at the same time I am going to be as honest as is possible in dealing with the outside world as well as with myself. I also think that many people confuse truth with accuracy; two people could give differect answers about a shared event and still both be answering truthfully, that is where perspective comes into play. There is a myth out there that goes by the name of objectivity. It is a fairy tale to young science students by thier professors. Everything we percieve is mediated by our minds and therefore no account of reality can be truely accurate, and it can only be truthful in the sense of a single person relaying their perceptions without consciously altering the account.

I ran across this comic and found it somehow appropriate to the thread:

<img src="http://est.rbma.com/content/Rhymes_with_Orange">

Originally posted by LordSludge
I ran across this comic and found it somehow appropriate to the thread:

<img src="http://est.rbma.com/content/Rhymes_with_Orange">

Maybe you wanna try that again. :)

Jag,
Use your powers for good. You're too creative and alive to be gobbled up by corporate marketing. Or maybe you could be a double agent. Join the creative resistance! Adbusters

Strange... I see the comic in both my posting and my quoted posting. Is anybody else having problems seeing this?

It does have a weird reference: there's no file extension, although IE6 says it's a .GIF

Sludge - hold CTRL and click the refresh button on your toolbar. You'll force a reload and probably get the 404 image.

If you intentionally misrepresent the truth in order to deceive people, even if your answer is technically true, you're a liar.

Some people intentionally manipulate language in order to deceive people. Even if this isn't officially lying in your book because it's 'technically true', it's still morally wrong, at least in book.

Scale should be taken into account, of course. I wouldn't condemn anyone for stealing cookies.

Ah, sorry bout that; looks like they disallow direct linking to the picture. Hopefully this link will work:
http://www.greenvilleonline.com/entertain/comics/rhymes.htm

How about this one?


[SIZE=3]"Lies make baby Jesus cry!"[/SIZE]

Eh, I don't need an omnipotent deity to tell me that deception is wrong.

Originally posted by juju
Eh, I don't need an omnipotent deity to tell me that deception is wrong.

Todd Flanders?? ;)

Yes, he is my god. Isn't he yours?

Originally posted by spinningfetus
The point that I was trying to make is in the culture of mass media one now has the tools to lie to millions of people at a time.

Still, there's nothing *new* about that:...
"Ours is the first age in which many thousands of the best-trained individual minds have made it a full-time business to get inside the collective public mind. To get inside in order to manipulate, exploit, control is the object now. And to generate heat not light is the intention..." Marshall McLuhan in <i>The Mechanical Bride</i>

That paragraph was written <i>fifty-one years ago</i>...does that count as "back in the day"? :-)

[two people could give differect answers about a shared event and still both be answering truthfully

Sure they could, and it's a relativistic universe.

But that's a nearly Clintonian quibble. When a tobacco company runs magazine ads depicting doctors telling you how *safe* Brand X smokes are, it's not because of the Heisenberg Principle or because the company is operating in an accelerated frame of reference, or even because they just see things differently from how I do.

They're *lying*...*they* don't actually belive what they're saying.

<...snip...>
When a tobacco company runs magazine ads depicting doctors telling you how *safe* Brand X smokes are, it's not because of the Heisenberg Principle or because the company is operating in an accelerated frame of reference, or even because they just see things differently from how I do.

They're *lying*...*they* don't actually belive what they're saying.

Probably true, but people have an amazing, even sickening tendency to believe their own bullshit. People believe what they want to believe, however ridiculous.

I would like to point out that the internet provides an alternative conduit of reporting that wasn't available 15 years ago. It's becoming harder and harder to maintain lies with the availability of cheap, global reporting that the internet enables.

people have an amazing, even sickening tendency to believe their own bullshit

Do you really believe that? ;)

I can see Jag as an Aussie spin doctor.

http://www.ananova.com/news/story/sm_543023.html?menu=

My favourite line in the news item is:

"Video cameras record some of the ingress and egress from the main entrance and the rear entrance,"

That paragraph was written fifty-one years ago...does that count as "back in the day"? :-)

No, TV was already around and large circulation mags and newpapers already had national audiences. Also notice he said first age, it was the beginning. What we are seeing now is the maturation of the culture it has borne.

Originally posted by MaggieL

They're *lying*...*they* don't actually belive what they're saying.

If they don't believe what they're saying then they are lying by the definition that I gave, thanks for the illustration. ;)

Originally posted by LordSludge

I would like to point out that the internet provides an alternative conduit of reporting that wasn't available 15 years ago. It's becoming harder and harder to maintain lies with the availability of cheap, global reporting that the internet enables.

In a way the internet actually makes things worse than before because it supplies the perveyors of the lies with the same cop out as the cigarette warning labels gave the tobacco companies for so long; there is a choice, that is true BUT internet is an active tool; you have to do something to get something. That little bit of effort is much more than a large percentage of teh population is willing to put forth for thier information. TV on the otherhand is passive, when you are in a passive mode like that it is much easier to just accept what is said. Since there is a choice the broadcasters now have license to say whatever they want cause hey people can check if they want. But how many really do?

I've created a 4 page monster!!!!

What else could it be driven by? public service?

Small private compaines can be driven by these things, yes. Hell i've run an import company here just to undercut the otehr bastards for the sake of friends with little cash to spare. I'm not saying all private business are, or that all small businesses are, or that all public companes aren't (the concept for a green powerbloc/fund on the stockmarket ain't new) either though.

They're *lying*...*they* don't actually belive what they're saying.

Prove it. Go on, try. I'm sure they are but that is my point.

Spin doctor ain't my interest, it simple is a little too much of an ethical minefield, i'm more intered in adveriting and brandname development. Which is also an ethical minefield but more fun
;)

Some people intentionally manipulate language in order to deceive people. Even if this isn't officially lying in your book because it's 'technically true', it's still morally wrong, at least in book.

Oh man that is walking on thin ice!!! EVERY word has connotations, whether you call a fight a disagreement, a brawl, a battle or a punch-up they all have different connotations depending on which spin you want to put on it - thats not marketing, we learn that in english for crying out loud!


Warch - already but it, fantasic mag ;)
Hell, wanna know what i'm doing for my next graphics folio?

Makatashi Heavy Industries (MHI) is a Japanese based weapons manufacturer started 15 years ago. MHI specialise in light to medium personal defence pistols and submachine guns. Their proven reliability under pressure and low price has made them a favourite of organised crime groups and street gangs the world over. Realising the potential brand name value they wish to follow in the footsteps of companies such as Echo Unlimited and Fubu and mass-sell street-gang culture.

The currant stuff i'm drafting up is a stylised pic of a homie type dode in a hoodie pointing a pistol with the text
.45cal X 30 @ 450FPS - put a sting in your tail

Originally posted by jaguar

Prove it. Go on, try. I'm sure they are but that is my point.

If you and I both know they are, why should I try to prove it? What *is* your point? That they have an excuse? That they can't be *proven* guilty? Once again the lowest common denominator is "what you can get away with".

Spin doctor ain't my interest, it simple is a little too much of an ethical minefield, i'm more intered in adveriting and brandname development. Which is also an ethical minefield but more fun

Now *there's* a distinction without a difference.

"Brandname development", what a choice euphemism.

Originally a *brand* was the trademark that connected a products to the reputation of its maker. The idea that a brand should be "developed" is pure hokum....reputations are things that should be *earned* rather than forged or manufactured though propiganda.

If you and I both know they are, why should I try to prove it? What *is* your point? That they have an excuse? That they can't be *proven* guilty? Once again the lowest common denominator is "what you can get away with".

My point is that while to you, what you say is the truth, they could honestly think they are telling the truth, in that case its not likely but Isreal/palastine would be a better exmaple, the truth is amazingly hard to nail down.

Originally a *brand* was the trademark that connected a products to the reputation of its maker. The idea that a brand should be "developed" is pure hokum....reputations are things that should be *earned* rather than forged or manufactured though propiganda.

Well, things change. Brands now are developed as much as anything else, image of a product changes all the time to target different demographics etc and reputations can be bought.

Originally posted by jaguar
Well, things change. Brands now are developed as much as anything else, image of a product changes all the time to target different demographics etc and reputations can be bought.

That's the belief that the marketing folks are selling; it keep them employed. In fact, ultimatly customers discover where quality lies...or where the marketers do. :-) The Internet accelerates this effect; see http://cluetrain.com

Ferinstance, do you think it's Bob Villa showing up on the TV that creates or preserves the quality reputation that Craftsman Tools has? He *does* keep the sales up, of course, by hyping new products. But the real reason for the success of that brand is that the tools actually *are* of reasonably high quality, and have been for many decades now. If they started making and selling crap, all the marketing in the world won't save the brand. And Sears would have lost an invaluable and irreplacable intangible asset.

Oh...wait....you folks don't *have* Sears Roebuck down there, do you...never mind.

My point is that while to you, what you say is the truth, they could honestly think they are telling the truth...

Sure, it's *possible*. And monkeys could fly out of my butt, as Wayne used to say. And I'm sure that a fair number of them have gotten to a state where they don't *care* whether it's true, just to preserve their state of mind.

But you don' t really think that they *do* believe the hooey that they dish out, do you? This is an issue you might want to clarify before deciding on a career.

Of course not, thats why i posed another example.

Ferinstance, do you think it's Bob Villa showing up on the TV that creates or preserves the quality reputation that Craftsman Tools has? He *does* keep the sales up, of course, by hyping new products. But the real reason for the success of that brand is that the tools actually *are* of reasonably high quality, and have been for many decades now. If they started making and selling crap, all the marketing in the world won't save the brand. And Sears would have lost an invaluable and irreplacable intangible asset.

Entirely true, but good marketing can easily make or break a product. First impressions count, and keeping market interest, nto to mention initially getting it is crucial.

Originally posted by MaggieL
But you don' t really think that they *do* believe the hooey that they dish out, do you? This is an issue you might want to clarify before deciding on a career.

You would be suprised at the amount of things that can be modified in our brains so as to supplant our "true" memories. For example: Adults were shown a picture of Disney World with Bugs Bunny in it. A signifigant number of the them later recalled seeing Bugs when they had visited Disney World as children. Our minds are incrediblly plastic which is why true is somewhat of an abstract. If you know you're lying then you're lying, but what if you truely believe that you are telling the truth?

Originally posted by jaguar
Of course not, thats why i posed another example.
Entirely true, but good marketing can easily make or break a product. First impressions count, and keeping market interest, nto to mention initially getting it is crucial.

Product promotion will create some initial sales. But for repeat business, the growth and nurturing of a reputation--a brand--is essential.

That's not something that happens by continually turning the crank on the media box, no matter how clever the ad agency is. If people don't have good experiences with your product and your customer service organization, they will eventually go elsewhere.

I"m not disagree with that but if people don't ehar about the product, if you don't associate an image with it sales are going to be slower. Take the newest radio station here, NovaFM. 2 weeks before they launched they started a huge advertising capigin with a series of very funny ads all over the city, they bough entire train stations worth of ads as well a a number of very cool paineted cars going roudn giving out freebies, the restul? Number 1 station after 6 weeks of operation. Of course the quality of the product had a role to play in that, but its getting that image in peoples minds, will to try it that helped propell it so quickly.

Image is essential, i mean why the hell does AOL keep growing? I don't think its quality of service, its what is percieved to give.

Is it Australia Online downunder?

Nope.

Originally posted by jaguar

Image is essential, i mean why the hell does AOL keep growing? I don't think its quality of service, its what is percieved to give.

Quality percieved by the user is indeed the key. In the case of hard-core AOLers, they simply don't *know* what they're buying, and the product is designed to keep them that way.

hmmm... This looks like a generational difference of perspective. Unfortunately, Jags view is in ascendence so we'll have more and more "producers" concerned with perception over reallity. It could be a result of so much manufacturing going offshore and labels having little to do with who actually manufactures the items.

Originally posted by Griff
This looks like a generational difference of perspective.

Maybe. But you'll find this total focus on image at the top of most large corporations too, most of whom are headed by ex-marketing folk, (who do an oh, so good job of selling *themselves*).

It actually explains a lot of the total bullshit you see from those organizations, too. A CEO doesn't have to have a real reputaion, just has to "build his brand" long enough to retire. With today's compensation packages that doesn't take long.

Of course, "image-based accounting" has gotten a lot of investor and regulator attention lately too. Funny how investors don't want to buy stock in a company that only "looks good" until the gloss wears off.

I seem to ahve been misinterpreted. If a company has a shithouse product, tis going to fail. But if it has a good product, good marketing will help it along. Yin and Yang of good business.

Originally posted by jaguar
I seem to ahve been misinterpreted. If a company has a shithouse product, tis going to fail

Like "new" Coke 17 years ago. ;)

Originally posted by sycamore


Like "new" Coke 17 years ago. ;)

Actually, the "new" Coke did a very good job distrracting people who liked the original formula from the fact that "classic" coke has a different formula (more corn syrup, less sugar=cheaper) from the original.

Originally posted by MaggieL
Actually, the "new" Coke did a very good job distrracting people who liked the original formula from the fact that "classic" coke has a different formula (more corn syrup, less sugar=cheaper) from the original.

But the change in sweetener occurred well before new Coke was released.

Nonetheless, the controversy and confusion propped up Coke; they'd been having a market-share problem ever since they started gradually replacing sugar with corn syrup. When the smoke cleared, the US product was still 100% corn syrup, rather than sugar, which it had been prior to 1980.

I remember this as I was working at a 7-11 at the time. I saved a case of the "old" Coke and taste-tested it against the "new" Coke. I preferred the original. Then after they came back out with the Classic Coke, I tested them again and the two Cokes didn't quite taste the same. I savored the original case until it was gone.

Brian

Originally posted by BrianR
I remember this as I was working at a 7-11 at the time. I saved a case of the "old" Coke and taste-tested it against the "new" Coke. I preferred the original. Then after they came back out with the Classic Coke, I tested them again and the two Cokes didn't quite taste the same. I savored the original case until it was gone.

How long did you have that case of original? I imagine it would have become flat after a while.

Word on the street has it that kosher Coke and Coke sold in EU are still made with sugar rather than corn syrup. Can anyone confirm?

It lasted (a teenager) about three weeks.

And Coke will keep for about a year if unopened and refrigerated. Or so.

I miss the "Good Old Days". Also, I'm officially old.

Brian "eh, sonny?"

Originally posted by MaggieL
Word on the street has it that kosher Coke and Coke sold in EU are still made with sugar rather than corn syrup. Can anyone confirm?

I couldn't find anything official on the Coca-Cola site, but apparently, it is made specially to be kosher for Passover.

Kosher for Passover coke is no longer made -- unfortunatly, the particular council of rabbis which objected to corn syrup has dropped its objection.

It's still theoretically up to the bottlers, but corn syrup is far cheaper. Want sugared coke? Convince Al Queda to take out Archer-Daniels-Midland.

Originally posted by russotto

It's still theoretically up to the bottlers, but corn syrup is far cheaper.

Coke is pretty adamant publically that the bottlers have no leeway in the formulation of the syrup....if there's a sugar vs. corn syrup option they're keeping pretty mum about it.

Want sugared coke? Convince Al Queda to take out Archer-Daniels-Midland.

I hardly think Al Queda is gong to do something to encourage the production of Kosher-for-Passover Coke. :-)

Unfortunately opencola.com has gotten completely distracted from their core mission by some silly distributed search engine nonsense. I guess that's what happens when you pick up $13 mil in VC backing: you lose sight of what's truly important. :O)

You're thinking that would be a perfect domain name for the open source soda movement?

John S. Pemberton's syrup recipe just wants to be free.

Originally posted by Nic Name
You're thinking that would be a perfect domain name for the open source soda movement?

Well, the opencola folks actually *did* have a formula published on the site at one time, and canned opencola was being hawked at the site too. I guess the VC guys decided it was either undignified or dangerous.

We'll just have to settle for:

http://home.kc.rr.com/laestrygon/cocacola/formula.htm

Of course *that's* copyrighted...

Softdrink

#!/usr/bin/perl open CAN, "excitedly"; join ($can, $mouth); while ($colaRemaining > 0) {if ($reallyThirsty) {$chug;} else {$sip};} dumpIN_RECYCLING_BOX;IN_RECYCLING_BOX;

openCola™ marks the first time that open-source licensing has ever been applied to a consumer product. OpenCola is canning the code, so to speak, and will be shipping this sooper dooper gnu soda in the late spring or early summer of 2000. We're expecting more tabs to be popped than at Woodstock ;->

http://web.archive.org/web/20010215011920/www.opencola.com/schwag/softdrink.html

Nope, it's too old to be copyrighted.

chmod 777 coke.recipe

Originally posted by Nic Name

http://web.archive.org/web/20010215011920/www.opencola.com/schwag/softdrink.html

Yeah, I was there too...looking for the ortiginal site, the one they had before they got the opencola domain. I could have sworn they actually did publish a real formula early on, too. But my recollection is that I read about it on Slashdot, and the only Slashdot article I've found already had folks finding syntax in the errors in the perl script, so perhaps I've misremebered.

I think what happened was as soon as they had enough VC money to hire a lawyer, the lawyer talked them out of publishing a real formula. Don't try this at home...