From an Austrian perspective:
http://youtube.com/watch?v=mMOPj6-4nDU
They screwed over and humiliated a bunch of individual customers, for the sake of generating higher sales through using the footage in an ad campaign.
Will this work? Yes or no?
Please keep in mind, I’m not asking for a value judgment, but rather, “Will the ad campaign have the effect that they intend?”
Thats the best commercial I have seen in a long while.
Nathyn, I am not interested in your answer.
oh! but wait!
Mises: “The tricks and artifices of advertising are available to the seller of the better product no less than to the seller of the poorer product. But only the former enjoys the advantage derived from the better quality of his product.” -Human Action p. 318; p. 321
Nathyn, your opinion is of no interest to me and I am not interested in your answer.
Yes, you’ve stated this several times now in all of my most recent posts.
Assuming it is true, repeating it is an annoying distraction.
“The tricks and artifices of advertising,” precisely what is Mises talking about, might I ask?
Also, Mises’ claim is demonstratably false.
Proof: For anyone here without large amounts of capital (especially any small business owners), please, put forth an ad campaign that can compete with Burger King’s or that of any large business.
You believe the assertion, “If a lie is told frequently enough, it becomes truth,” when it comes to government. You also seem to have a love affair with propaganda. And yet despite this, you deny the possibility that this may be a problem in markets?
There is no unambiguous answer to your question from an Austrian perspective. A marketing campaign is an entrepreneurial endeavor that may or may not be successful but abstract economic theory cannot provide an answer. It depends on how consumers actually respond to it. That’s like asking “From a Keynesian perspective will consumers prefer red Ipods to white Ipods”.
If Austrians’ are so uncertain and incapable of making economic predictions, then what grounds do they have to make any claims about the effects of government or market anarchism?
It seems you discuss causation, but ignore implied effect. This allows you to construct a school of economics which contradicts the evidence.
You then characterize this as (to paraphrase) “an objection to logical positivism and radical empiricism.”
One of my all-time favorite forms of entertainment is practical jokes being played on people. So I see this humor as entertainment.
Yea, I think it’ll have the intended effect. I know for one, it make me realize I can’t take for granted that the Whopper will always be there. It made mre realize I’d gotten lazy in my appreciation. It also clearly illustrated, eschewing simulated reactions for real-world reactions, that others are also passionate about the Whopper, especially when that Whopper is apparently no longer an option. It’s kinda like having a pretend funeral for your mom. Seeing her in the casket can make you appreciate her more.
But, it might be a trial balloon. You know the other charbroiled joint, Hardee’s, changed their burgers. Maybe Burger King’s intended effect is not propagandist in nature, “You love the Whopper!”, but rather is informational, “If Whopper sales don’t increase by X amount due to this campaign, we will modify our menu, e.g., eliminate the Whopper.” Wouldn’t it be rather ironic if we all thought they were playing jokes on the customers in the commercials when really the joke is on us? They really ARE going to drop the Whopper.
BK, what’s yo intentions, bro???
(Robber with gun pointed at victim)
Robber: Give me your money!
Victim: No, it’s mine!
Robber: Well, I’m going to spend it in a good way and it’ll improve yours and everyone elses lives.
Victim: But it’s MY money.
Robber: Yea, but how will YOU spend it? Are you going to spend it more wisely than me?
Victim: I don’t know how I’m going to spend but I plan to spend it however I please.
Robber: But what if I spend it more wisely? Can you predict how much wiser my spending will be?
Victim: Uh, no?
Robber: Then how can you object to my spending your money?
Victim: Oh yea, good point. Hmmmm
(Victim hands over money)
Also, the Whopper is a dietary hazard. Removing it from the market would tend to decrease healthcare costs. I suggest to you that the Whopper’s $2.00 price tag most likely incurs a healthcare cost upon society at around twice that. For every $2 of societal wealth allocated to the Whopper another $4 is eventually allocated to healthcare. I buy non-instant rice in bulk. The cost is roughly 3-4 cents per serving. Compare this to the $2 or $3 Whopper and concomitant healthcare costs! But then again, if the Whopper leads to premature death, this would protect the environment from man since early death tends to exert a downwardly on lifespans. Shorter lifespans means less opportunity for man to destroy the planet.
I see pros and cons on each side. So I guess I’m still undecided…
They need those people’s consent to use them in the commercial. So those people were neither screwed over nor humiliated.
So what is your solution Nathyn? People have already answered your query, including the fact that consent was needed (or else BK can be sued).
It is easy to mindlessly critisize, but what are your solutions? (Although I think there is no problem to fix, since there’s nothing wrong with this imo).
Let’s assume that BK really did do this without consensus (which they didn’t), would your solution be intervention by the government? In one move you gove the government power to decide how to advertise, and in the next move the government will take away your freedom of speech. It’s happening right now in Europe and America.
Besides, if we give the government power over who’s Ads are legal or not, then you can expect the bigger companies to bribe officials. Which would actually distort the market incredibly. Nothing is perfect, but if your solution is totalitarian control over the public media, which it is from the way you write, then you might aswell just give up now and call yourself a foolish collectivist, leading the bandwagon to totalitarianism.
If someone was insulted, they can sue BK, and the government doesn’t need to interfere in any way, so leave it alone. If you think the people in BK are bad, why do you assume that those in government would be any better? Because we elected them? Well where do you think politicians come from? The people! This is the best a democracy can do, and you sir are very naive to think otherwise.
Nathyn you are a funny, funny person. I am not sure if it is some personal aspiration of yours to somehow convince all of us of the “invalidity” of Austrian Economics and further, the free market. Of all posts I commonly see yours are perhaps the most comical. I do not normally revert to ad hominem remarks but you leave no choice. When I first saw some of your remarks I thought, “Hey, this guy isn’t convinced of Austrian Economics but he’s clearly interested in a rational debate, so I, like so many others already have, provided substantive and concise arguments to the sometimes absurd and nonsensical propositions made by yourself.” Your responses typically miss all counterpoints and, like your propositions, are typically characterized by an incoherent and incomprehensible manner. I’m not sure if you’re living in some fantasy world where the only thing that registers in your mind is some inner voice perpetually reminding you that “the Austrians are wrong and it is my duty to prove it!!” Perhaps if your arguments were precise, coherent, and logical, I, as others, would be glad to debate you. There have been, and there are, men far more capable of supporting and arguing for the points which you continue to constantly regurgitate, yet even they have never come close to shaking the foundation of Austrian Economics. Do you consider yourself more capable or somehow different? I should think not. I will give you this; I think you’re useful so far as you keep us on our feet. Indeed, it would be preferable that the arguments were atleast adequately defended but nonetheless, it provides a means by which many of us can articulate our thoughts.
I suppose I see you as the robber in the marketplace. When people become too complacent, it is the robber and his nefarious acts that remind them to be vigilant and careful. Now I wouldn’t regard Austrians as complacent, but I think it conveys the point. If only you were a more skillful robber!!
Austrians are perfectly capable of making economic predictions only they realize that as economists their predictions can only be qualitative. For example “if the government increases the money supply, prices will be higher (or at the very least not lower) than otherwise”. Insofar as an economist tries to predict future economic data in quantitative terms he is making that prediction based on his understanding of peoples future valuations (which cannot be deduced by economic theory).
I would argue that in order to correctly interpret the evidence requires a coherent theory. For example, if we observe a luxury tax on yachts followed by an increase in the quantity of yachts sold, it would be foolish to conclude that the tax caused the larger quantity sold.
Who would deny it? Its a problem related to human action and understanding though, not so does not just occur in markets. In fact, I’d say it occurs far, far more frequently in politics, where people who have been slighted or lied to have no recourse. In markets, deception typically earns a business some customers who may never return, and possible even a nasty, viral video on YouTube (something which all execs fear).
As for whether the campaign will be successful or not, thats really beyond the scope of any school of economics.
So, the inability to absolutely predict the outcome of marketing plan X is proof that Austrian Economics is not valid? How rational. Of course, you are kind of shooting yourself in the foot, since the whole point of Austrian Economics is that the lack of information makes these kinds of predictions impossible.
I know Nathyn is baiting the forum and I don’t have anything against that (lack of intellectual opposition is deptrimental to a community), but logic of this calibre is just annoying. So do try to improve your game.
While I’m flattered at the attention, I’m going to ask you to not quote me out of context as your signature line.
Why do I say out of context? Because it’s clear what you’re intending to do with it, and that intention is different from my intention in writing it. Indeed, Austrian economics is not synonymous with freedom. In philosophy of language, we say that synonymous words can be exchanged without change of meaning. Clearly, though, it is one thing to say “Austrian economics teaches that value is subjective” and another to say “Freedom teaches that value is subjective.” In another sense, Austrian economics is value-free. As Roderick Long points out, medicine can teach you how to live, but not whether or not life is worth living. Similarly, Mises says, economics can teach what steps you must take to have a prosperous nation, but not whether or not prosperity is desirable. Libertarianism, on the other hand, states a specific valuable goal. Of course, Austrian economics is an important part of the study of liberty, because of its insights into the workings of a free economy, and because it demonstrates that welfare is not improved through statism. That is not a reason to oppose statism, though, unless you add the value of being concerned about welfare. So, yes, it is true that Austrian economics and freedom are not synonymous.
Quoted without context, though, it’s clear that you’re using it to make it seem as if I had said something else. You are trying to make your point that “freedom” does not mean or imply free markets, and you are trying to use my name in doing it. That is why I object. I don’t believe in IP, so I have no control over my words, but I do at least ask you not to use my name.
Anyone care to make a quick reply to Nathyn’s comment, in the form of a script/dialogue/play, etc? I feel some creative juices flowing. I almost posted an exchange between a rapist and a husbad and the rapist’s demands for the husband’s wife. Unfortunately, it wasn’t all that good. I think the premise of the statement is endlessly addressable. Does anyone feel enlightened by it?
Ah, don’t worry about it J Alan. It’s probably good for your reputation if Nathyn impugns you. Also, I’ve posted TONS of drivel and contradiction. I see nothing wrong with ‘thinking outloud’ and working thru things w/ your fellow man, even if this labor, these words, are all here in their wretched glory. In fact, maybe I’ll look up some of my own idiocy and quote it. You could always add Nathyn’s sig as your sig and then supply a link to the context.
Because they got fame and fortune instead of a Whopper? Wait a minute, they were only kidding about the Whopper. So they got fame, fortune AND a Whopper.
Fame, fortune and Whopper, all for the sake of selling more Whoppers! Outrageous!
So you bait us with words like ‘screw over’, ‘humiliate’ and other implied ‘value judgements’ and we’re not allowed the same luxury? Now I REALLY feel screwed and humiliated!
From a marketing perspective, (this is not an economic issue after all) I bet the ad will have short term success.
That kind of advertising is about retention, people already know what whoppers are. Plus, it mimics the reality/ambush television that is in fashion.