|
The best food for Millenials is Soylent. Add in an option to buy it with bitcoin(as if there already wasn't one) and rake in the money. Maybe even make some buzzfeed 'listicle' about how soylent's the new craze or childhood cartoon characters eating soylent and you've got yourself a campaign.
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2015 16:15
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 13, 2024 00:57 |
|
|
Postal Parcel posted:The best food for Millenials is Soylent. Add in an option to buy it with bitcoin(as if there already wasn't one) and rake in the money. Maybe even make some buzzfeed 'listicle' about how soylent's the new craze or childhood cartoon characters eating soylent and you've got yourself a campaign. Is there a fat-free sugar-free low-sodium variety?  Also, the next step will be a Lifehack YouTube video on DIY soylent.
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2015 16:22
|
|
|
death .cab for qt posted:I'm glad that McDonald's did their careful millenial marketing research. Now all my friends and I drive the extra block to Taco Bell or Burger King to buy things for a dollar instead of a buck fifty. The reason the dollar menu is going away is that poo poo gets more expensive with time. Ground beef is more expensive than it used to be, the ingredients for the cheese are more expensive than it used to be, etc. Either you keep a dollar menu and watch it shrink as the things that used to be profitable to sell for a dollar become more expensive (Like, the double cheeseburger used to be on the dollar menu, but they replaced it with the McDouble, which is the same thing but with one slice of cheese instead of two), or you abandon the pleasing marketing hook of the dollar menu and go to a $1.50 menu, or whatever. It's got nothing to do with the loving millenials, it's got to do with inflation: http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2013/10/why-mcdonalds-killed-the-dollar-menu-in-1-chart/280778/
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2015 17:13
|
|
|
Phanatic posted:The reason the dollar menu is going away is that poo poo gets more expensive with time. Ground beef is more expensive than it used to be, the ingredients for the cheese are more expensive than it used to be, etc. Either you keep a dollar menu and watch it shrink as the things that used to be profitable to sell for a dollar become more expensive (Like, the double cheeseburger used to be on the dollar menu, but they replaced it with the McDouble, which is the same thing but with one slice of cheese instead of two), or you abandon the pleasing marketing hook of the dollar menu and go to a $1.50 menu, or whatever. And national weather patterns. Beef and its byproducts were predicted to go up after 2012 as the drought started to get real bad. We had a glut of beef in the market due to a higher slaughter rate as farmers couldn't keep as many going. And now we're continuing to see the effects. It's pretty interesting.
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2015 17:48
|
|
|
It was only in 1991 with the Broadcasting Act 1990 - one of the last pieces of Thatcherite "deregulate everything" legislation - that the responsibility of collecting the licence fee went from the government to the BBC. Whilst the BBC collects it it still goes to the governments consolidated fund, then to the Department of Culture, Media & Sport, who then decide how much of it goes back to the BBC, how much of it goes to the broadcasting infrastructure, how much goes to Channel 4 (also state-owned but seemingly "self reliant") etc. It is one of the great scams of our country that despite everything to do with public broadcasting having been introduced by and legislated for by the government they've still managed to convince everyone that if anything goes wrong it must be the BBCs fault. To put it in simpler terms, the government tells the BBC what to do and if that turns out to be the wrong decision then the BBC get the blame for doing it, not the government for instructing it. Sure, the government pays lip service to television licence "reform" every now and then, most notably in 2013(?) when they introduced legislation to decriminalise non-payment of the TV licence. It was only a one-line whip on that vote because they'd already instructed the House of Lords to knock it back again anyway, so now it'll bounce around between the two houses for eternity, never actually becoming anything close to a law. Naturally, this was blamed on the BBC. Broadcasting law can only be reformed through the House of Commons, not through Dear Terry Wogan, Why should I have to pay for Top Gear? Regards, duckmaster.
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2015 19:00
|
|
|
Super Waffle posted:Speaking as an American, I really like BBC shows and I don't want them to go away If you want to chip in for my tv licence and do your part to keep the BBC as wasteful and indulgent as it is today, feel free.
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2015 19:29
|
|
|
Time was the BBC knew it was owned by the British taxpayer and if you rang them up they would send you tapes of any shows you wanted because you'd already paid for them. Now they're the most expensive dvds on the shelves.
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2015 19:35
|
|
|
obviously the solution to this is more privatization!!!!!!!!!!
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2015 19:40
|
|
|
Privatization does generally seem to be a good way to generate good television shows.
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2015 19:46
|
|
|
Phanatic posted:Privatization does generally seem to be a good way to generate good television shows. gently caress your good shows, I want more Doctor Who.
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2015 20:01
|
|
|
Phanatic posted:Privatization does generally seem to be a good way to generate good television shows. Privatization also gave us ABC's insanely racist sitcom lineup. I'm not even sure how Black Attack and Those Kooky Gooks got greenlit, but privatized production has proven time and time again that bad ideas aren't the sole property of publicly-funded TV. Fur20 has a new favorite as of 20:09 on Jun 1, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2015 20:07
|
|
|
The White Dragon posted:Privatization also gave us ABC's insanely racist sitcom lineup. I'm not even sure how Black Attack and Those Kooky Gooks got greenlit, but privatized production has proven time and time again that bad ideas aren't the sole property of publicly-funded TV. The free market is good at snuffing out universally hated poo poo. Tax-payer funded drivel soldiers on if a few higher ups like the sound of it.
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2015 20:11
|
|
|
IDGAF if TV is privatized or gov't funded, I just want all my favorite shows to be released online an entire season at a time like House of Cards (US).
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2015 20:19
|
|
|
Thank god the free market produces an unending supply of lovely reality television, I'd hate if one of those was replaced by something educational or artful. If there's one thing this thread has proven, it's that corporations have no idea what you like but by god they're going to sell something to someone.
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2015 22:05
|
|
|
Radio Help posted:I'm only mad cuz I'm jealous of your free air pumps dude You guys need to move to Connecticut then, because all gas stations are required by law to provide free air. That doesn't stop them from being scummy about it and trying to charge at the air compressor, but every compressor has to say that you can go in and get free air. Just gotta walk in and ask the clerk to turn on the air for you.
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2015 22:40
|
|
|
The White Dragon posted:Privatization also gave us ABC's insanely racist sitcom lineup. I'm not even sure how Black Attack and Those Kooky Gooks got greenlit, but privatized production has proven time and time again that bad ideas aren't the sole property of publicly-funded TV. I didn't say that "privitization can't produce utter crap," and TV programming definitely follows Sturgeon's Law. There are entire channels that somehow manage to persist without for years having seemingly a single program worth watching (TLC in particular seems to be a bottomless cesspool of reality shovelware). But, during a point in time where there's an unprecedented number of seriously loving excellent shows in pretty much any genre you'd care to name, the notion that public funding for broadcasting is necessary to produce good television is somewhat tone-deaf. There are plenty of lovely movies being made, too, but nobody's clamoring that we should charge people license fees so a government agency can turn out some feature films.
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2015 23:06
|
|
|
Phanatic posted:The reason the dollar menu is going away is that poo poo gets more expensive with time. Ground beef is more expensive than it used to be, the ingredients for the cheese are more expensive than it used to be, etc. Either you keep a dollar menu and watch it shrink as the things that used to be profitable to sell for a dollar become more expensive (Like, the double cheeseburger used to be on the dollar menu, but they replaced it with the McDouble, which is the same thing but with one slice of cheese instead of two), or you abandon the pleasing marketing hook of the dollar menu and go to a $1.50 menu, or whatever. over under on someone blaming the fast food workers wanting a living wage for the cost increase?
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2015 23:13
|
|
|
The White Dragon posted:Privatization also gave us ABC's insanely racist sitcom lineup. I'm not even sure how Black Attack and Those Kooky Gooks got greenlit, but privatized production has proven time and time again that bad ideas aren't the sole property of publicly-funded TV. Assuming "Those Kooky Gooks" (what the gently caress is wrong with you, by the way?) is Fresh Off the Boat, it's probably more racist against white people (namely Floridians) than Asians. It's not an Asian minstrel show, and I'm glad that Asian Americans can finally have their own show instead of being second fiddle.
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2015 23:17
|
|
|
Phanatic posted:I didn't say that "privitization can't produce utter crap," and TV programming definitely follows Sturgeon's Law. There are entire channels that somehow manage to persist without for years having seemingly a single program worth watching (TLC in particular seems to be a bottomless cesspool of reality shovelware). Possibly one of the worst examples you could have picked - TLC was originally a publicly-funded channel that was then a non-profit independent private channel, then started sliding down into poo poo almost immediately after it got bought by Discovery Communications. GrandpaPants posted:Assuming "Those Kooky Gooks" (what the gently caress is wrong with you, by the way?) is Fresh Off the Boat, it's probably more racist against white people (namely Floridians) than Asians. It's not an Asian minstrel show, and I'm glad that Asian Americans can finally have their own show instead of being second fiddle. Part of the problem is that most of the commercials about it that I've seen seem to play up the "come laugh at Asian stereotypes" angle, and if it weren't based on an autobiography there would have been a lot more outcry over it from that alone.
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2015 23:21
|
|
|
Kugyou no Tenshi posted:Possibly one of the worst examples you could have picked - TLC was originally a publicly-funded channel that was then a non-profit independent private channel, then started sliding down into poo poo almost immediately after it got bought by Discovery Communications. TLC was privatized in *1980*, prior to which it was called the Appalachian Community Service Network and was viewed by approximately nobody. You're absolutely right that Discovery Communications wound up breaking all its legs but hasn't had the heart to just drag it behind the barn and shoot it, but any good programming that anyone remembers being shown on it was when it was a privately-run channel.
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2015 23:38
|
|
|
Mr. Gibbycrumbles posted:You're thinking of Misophonia, not ASMR This is from way too long ago, but holy poo poo, is this why certain kinds of singing (a capella performances, kids' voices) make my stomach turn and tears build up behind my eyes? (Not in an "Oh this is so beautiful, it's bringing tears to my eyes" way, in an "Oh dear God I can't take this, why am I about to cry, please please stop" way.) I'd always just thought I was some kind of real-world Captain Planet villain/evil caricature because I can't stand the sound of children singing. This is better.
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2015 23:45
|
|
|
Kugyou no Tenshi posted:Part of the problem is that most of the commercials about it that I've seen seem to play up the "come laugh at Asian stereotypes" angle, and if it weren't based on an autobiography there would have been a lot more outcry over it from that alone. I just watched a couple trailers for it and to me it just looks like an Asian The Wonder Years. I only laughed at one joke and that was about a guy from Boston. Whether it's a racist show or not, it looks painfully unfunny.
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2015 23:49
|
|
|
Karma Monkey posted:I just watched a couple trailers for it and to me it just looks like an Asian The Wonder Years. I only laughed at one joke and that was about a guy from Boston. Whether it's a racist show or not, it looks painfully unfunny. Well, it IS on ABC.
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2015 23:52
|
|
|
GrandpaPants posted:Assuming "Those Kooky Gooks" (what the gently caress is wrong with you, by the way?) is Fresh Off the Boat, it's probably more racist against white people (namely Floridians) than Asians. It's not an Asian minstrel show, and I'm glad that Asian Americans can finally have their own show instead of being second fiddle. I've seen half an episode, and I agree. The TV/film checklist for Asian characters says that they must be a dry cleaner owner, doctor, scientist/computer hacker, or martial arts expert. And males may never ever be the love interest That show doesn't really seem to conform in that way.
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2015 23:53
|
|
|
Phanatic posted:TLC was privatized in *1980*, prior to which it was called the Appalachian Community Service Network and was viewed by approximately nobody. You're absolutely right that Discovery Communications wound up breaking all its legs but hasn't had the heart to just drag it behind the barn and shoot it, but any good programming that anyone remembers being shown on it was when it was a privately-run channel. Privately-run non-profit. Considering that most of the argument has been (as far as I can tell) not about privatization in general but specifically about profit-seeking commercial enterprise, TLC is the exact counterargument to "profit-based television produces better content".
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2015 23:57
|
|
|
Big Mad Drongo posted:I think a big part of the problem is no one knows how to properly define what a Millennial is; I've seen the birth dates range from 1977 to 2014 (the latter being about baby food and defined current babies as the last of the Millennials), though most are from 1980-2000 or so. This is an interesting post and you should write more about your job.
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2015 01:06
|
|
|
Kugyou no Tenshi posted:Part of the problem is that most of the commercials about it that I've seen seem to play up the "come laugh at Asian stereotypes" angle, and if it weren't based on an autobiography there would have been a lot more outcry over it from that alone. I've only seen the commercials, but those gave me the impression that the show is 1950s racist. At no point did the ads ever give me the impression that it was gonna be anything other than the made-up title I called it.
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2015 02:05
|
|
|
Big Mad Drongo posted:Combing through food-oriented Millennial research is a major part of my job, and the dirty secret is this: no one knows what the hell Millennials want. The most common response is they want high quality, they want cheap, they want socially responsible and they want personalized all at once. Which is pretty useless information for a company, because they might as well be asking for a unicorn in terms of how easy* it is to hit all those buttons simultaneously. The usual result is that terrible Campbell's ad campaign earlier in the thread. I think that question can be easily answered without millions of dollars in demographics research, but the answer is just as oblique as the question: "don't feed us obvious poison, don't pander to us, and PS we know enough about marketing to know that you're bad at your job." It's really hard to effectively use psychological sleight of hand in ads when you've been using that style since before most millennials were born. But then again I lionize the bygone days when you could just show a picture of a thing with "IT'S GOOD!" in huge lettering underneath it and call it a day. Radio Help has a new favorite as of 02:30 on Jun 2, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2015 02:28
|
|
|
Phanatic posted:But, during a point in time where there's an unprecedented number of seriously loving excellent shows in pretty much any genre you'd care to name, the notion that public funding for broadcasting is necessary to produce good television is somewhat tone-deaf. There are plenty of lovely movies being made, too, but nobody's clamoring that we should charge people license fees so a government agency can turn out some feature films.
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2015 04:21
|
|
|
Radio Help posted:I think that question can be easily answered without millions of dollars in demographics research, but the answer is just as oblique as the question: "don't feed us obvious poison, don't pander to us, and PS we know enough about marketing to know that you're bad at your job." It's really hard to effectively use psychological sleight of hand in ads when you've been using that style since before most millennials were born. But then again I lionize the bygone days when you could just show a picture of a thing with "IT'S GOOD!" in huge lettering underneath it and call it a day. On the other hand it has given some of the most hilarious marketing failures in decades along with an entire genre of viral fads that are completely meaningless but that millennials become obsessed about (Kony 2012 for example). The Campbells soup campaign was essentially the best example of what ad execs and marketing "experts" think about the youngest generations. A bunch of hip quirky buzzwords, indie sounding quotes, and people taking selfies and making duck lips is enough to capture that market.
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2015 04:34
|
|
|
I think the real issue is that (at least in my area) millenials abhor big companies and see them as a necessary evil when it comes to food. They don't want to eat campbells/pizza hut/McDonalds they do it because you can't eat at the local Banh-Mi place every single day. And they don't like being called out as a separate entity and marketed towards. They do really like nostalgia and working class ethos tho, so I guess if you want to market food to millenials step one is looking at the last fifteen years of PBR marketing.
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2015 04:36
|
|
|
I recently saw "Olives to Go" advertised. Gotta make olives the hip young food that you gotta get on the go. It was so "what the gently caress" to me. David Cross has a great bit about pandering companies in his HBO special.
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2015 04:59
|
|
|
I keep seeing this ad on TV on the rare times I watch something life. It's so cringingly bad. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XBoJWyLHLNY Didn't anyone stop to think "You know, maybe we shouldn't have her flash roughly a billion dollars worth of jewlery while asking for donations?"
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2015 05:07
|
|
|
Enos Shenk posted:I keep seeing this ad on TV on the rare times I watch something life. It's so cringingly bad. Well a wise philosopher did say once not to be fooled by the rocks that she's got because she's still she's still Jenny from the block. It shits me that I can remember that and yet not remember the name of the console I'm supposed to be connecting to.
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2015 05:49
|
|
|
I'm honestly kind of confused why big companies are so bad at advertising to millennials since I'm one of them (born 1990) and going into graphic design and advertising was a really popular choice when I went to college (it's what I went for and there were a lot of us). They should have a huge pool of actual millennials to pull from to make ads catering to their own generation, but they still manage to gently caress it up most of the time.
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2015 08:24
|
|
|
Big Mad Drongo posted:I think a big part of the problem is no one knows how to properly define what a Millennial is; I've seen the birth dates range from 1977 to 2014 (the latter being about baby food and defined current babies as the last of the Millennials), though most are from 1980-2000 or so. What I keep seeing from marketing in general is not just a matter of not knowing what millenials want but rather failing to understand that millenials are loving broke. It doesn't matter what anybody does at this point. Millenials just flat out have less spending power. "We did X and millenials are not buying from us so obviously X does not appeal to them" means gently caress all if they can't afford anything. How many people in their mid to late 20's have 6 digits of student loans and are making minimum wage or slightly above? Good luck convincing that demographic to spend money on anything, ever.
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2015 09:07
|
|
|
Turfahurf posted:I'm honestly kind of confused why big companies are so bad at advertising to millennials since I'm one of them (born 1990) and going into graphic design and advertising was a really popular choice when I went to college (it's what I went for and there were a lot of us). They should have a huge pool of actual millennials to pull from to make ads catering to their own generation, but they still manage to gently caress it up most of the time. What makes you think millenials would be better at marketing to themselves? What makes you think they aren't the ones already doing a lot of it?
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2015 09:37
|
|
|
Turfahurf posted:I'm honestly kind of confused why big companies are so bad at advertising to millennials since I'm one of them (born 1990) and going into graphic design and advertising was a really popular choice when I went to college (it's what I went for and there were a lot of us). They should have a huge pool of actual millennials to pull from to make ads catering to their own generation, but they still manage to gently caress it up most of the time. In 40 years if marketing still exist as it does today (maybe because a few people will manage to figure out how to redefine the concept in the age of information) the last decade or so of ads and marketing will be held up as testaments to a dying empire oblivious to its own failings and marching steadfastly towards a cliff. As with most major aspects of business, it doesn't matter how many young people they hire the ones in power are old,entrenched, incapable of shifting to rapidly changing market environments, and simply latch on to the newest "hot thing" without any idea of what, why, or how, simply hoping it'll make money. Video games are a good example, many big name companies started dumping money into MMOs and "freemium" games because they saw the success of things like WoW and Farmville and simply assumed "oh, all we need is to drop 10-20 million in this and we'll make out like bandits!" and completely failed to understand that those games were the exception not the rule. SquareEnix had one of its best years in 2013/14 yet posted losses (due to other reasons) and blamed their consoles games for "under-performing" despite them all being massive successes and making a shitton of money.
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2015 09:56
|
|
|
Video games are weird because the pricepoint hasn't really changed in 20 years. And the weird psychology of buying video games, like I'll go pay 10bux to see a bad movie, but I won't even spend $2 on a game I don't like. Video games are forced to be successful because they have pretty massive overhead and if they don't succeed, welp. Halo 3 spent something like 60 million dollars on advertising.
darkhand has a new favorite as of 10:48 on Jun 2, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2015 10:44
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 13, 2024 00:57 |
|
|
pentyne posted:SquareEnix had one of its best years in 2013/14 yet posted losses (due to other reasons) and blamed their consoles games for "under-performing" despite them all being massive successes and making a shitton of money. That seemed like a misunderstanding of their own products to me. They (and I believe this is the direct development side of S-E, so the guys behind Final Fantasy but not people like Eidos) said this year they were focusing more on the mobile market because the console market was 'too crowded', but the real reason is most likely just because of the games. Most of S-E's mobile offerings are either ports of or mechanically in-keeping with their classic and well-regarded games, and are typically very well-received. Meanwhile, most of their console offerings are abandoning the actual RPG elements of their flagship RPG franchise. Of course, the very idea that the console market is 'too crowded' in their case is ludicrous, given the genre in question. RPGs are going very strongly on both the 3DS and (I believe) phones, with several very successful franchises going on. Meanwhile on the console market, FFXV is competing with one game this year for the JRPG crowd.
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2015 11:37
|
|
