WampaLord posted:

Do you really want to claim the entire field of marketing is bunk?

Let me guess, you're one of those people who "isn't affected by advertising."

Tiny Brontosaurus posted:

Ok, show me the evidence for your claim that you didn't make any claims, you lying poo poo.

twodot posted:

(Or to the extent that I do, I'm claiming people are just making poo poo up, I have no way to demonstrate it other than saying "I think you are making poo poo up", and then watching pages of people complaining about me instead of just providing the evidence)

quote:

FOR THE FOURTH TIME, TWODOT: WHY DON'T YOU HAVE A JOURNAL SUBSCRIPTION? Cut out the middle-man instead of demanding people dig up studies for your loving idiot rear end.

Tiny Brontosaurus posted:

There's a reckoning coming in fast food though, hoo boy. I have proprietary information about how extremely hosed a major chain is, since they've already pulled the trigger on their last-resort plan to boost sales and don't have anywhere else to go.

twodot posted:

I mean do have a journal subscription, but I realize that's not what you're actually getting at. I'm asking people to dig up studies, because they are claiming to believe a thing. If they're claiming to believe a thing, they should already have evidence for that belief. If I go out looking for that evidence, I can very easily find flawed evidence. If I turn around and say "I found evidence that supports what you believe, but it has serious flaws and should be ignored" all they need to say is "That wasn't the evidence, keep looking". It's not productive for me to find bad evidence.

Tiny Brontosaurus posted:

There's a reckoning coming in fast food though, hoo boy. I have proprietary information about how extremely hosed a major chain is, since they've already pulled the trigger on their last-resort plan to boost sales and don't have anywhere else to go.

WampaLord posted:

Yea, I know, it's me, the one with the worthless Marketing degree

Tiny Brontosaurus posted:

OwlFancier posted:

What happened?

OwlFancier posted:

What happened?

Baronjutter posted:

Their long time spokesperson and reason their brand was seen as a "healthy alternative" liked to eat a little bit too fresh.
Kid sex. He had sex with kids.

twodot posted:

It's certainly possible to do good research in marketing. I just want Tiny Brontosaurus to choose between whether people are just telling stories or are representing a serious field of study that should have published papers to demonstrate its findings.

I specifically acknowledged I did make a claim:


I mean do have a journal subscription, but I realize that's not what you're actually getting at. I'm asking people to dig up studies, because they are claiming to believe a thing. If they're claiming to believe a thing, they should already have evidence for that belief. If I go out looking for that evidence, I can very easily find flawed evidence. If I turn around and say "I found evidence that supports what you believe, but it has serious flaws and should be ignored" all they need to say is "That wasn't the evidence, keep looking". It's not productive for me to find bad evidence. (edit: Where it is productive to demonstrate evidence that people are using is bad)

WampaLord posted:

Okay, let's take this scientifically. Your hypothesis here is that "Grocery stores do not put any effort into designing their layout to maximize profit?"

WampaLord posted:

Yea, I know, it's me, the one with the worthless Marketing degree

twodot posted:

As a degree holder, I can assure you I think all degrees are worthless.

twodot posted:

No, my hypothesis is that grocery stores put significant effort into designing their layout to maximize profit, but the people who run the stores, and the capitalists who own are structurally unfit to distinguish between real research, garbage research, and feel good intuitions, such that while they attempt to do so, they're doing so with rough correlations that at best work sometimes.

As a degree holder, I can assure you I think all degrees are worthless.

twodot posted:

No, my hypothesis is that grocery stores put significant effort into designing their layout to maximize profit, but the people who run the stores, and the capitalists who own are structurally unfit to distinguish between real research, garbage research, and feel good intuitions, such that while they attempt to do so, they're doing so with rough correlations that at best work sometimes.

OwlFancier posted:

As a holder of a worthless degree you really shouldn't project, just because you picked a stupid course doesn't mean everyone did.

WampaLord posted:

Do you think stores have maybe done testing of various layouts over the years and then analyzed that data? Keep in mind, I have access to none of this data, and I doubt it can be found online, but do you think it exists somewhere at Corporate HQ or not?

twodot posted:

You're reading the statement a little stronger than I intended. Worthwhile programs exist, it's just the degrees you get for completing programs are worthless at signaling whether the program was any good or if you learned anything from it.

twodot posted:

No, my hypothesis is that grocery stores put significant effort into designing their layout to maximize profit,

Uncle Jam posted:

If grocery store layout was such a science then how come the 6 stores I've been to in the past 3 months split among 2 corps have such completely different loving layouts? The milk is definitely all over the place including sometimes splitting up cow milk and soy milk.

Tiny Brontosaurus posted:

Cool, back up those claims with that journal subscription you claim to have.

WampaLord posted:

Do you think stores have maybe done testing of various layouts over the years and then analyzed that data? Keep in mind, I have access to none of this data, and I doubt it can be found online, but do you think it exists somewhere at Corporate HQ or not?

Tiny Brontosaurus posted:

Cool, back up those claims with that journal subscription you claim to have.

Noctone posted:

I hope it's McDonald's. I think we can all agree that place needs to die.

twodot posted:

What are you looking for specifically? Evidence that people in general aren't trained to handle statistical analysis? That grocery store managers specifically aren't?

I would expect the data to exist.

That's just my anecdotal experience that I know a lot of idiots with degrees, and a lot of smart people without degrees.

Tiny Brontosaurus posted:

What the dimwit brigade really can't grasp (hey Twodot, you've got a friend!) is that marketing science is about finding the most potent combination for each unique set of factors, not papering over an entire industry with One Objective Truth. Grocery stores are more similar than, say, restaurants, but there will be commonalities and differences because each location is not identical and neither is the customer base they serve.

ThisIsWhyTrumpWon posted:

Hopefully it's not Wendy's going down - they're the only nationwide chain with a edible burger.

Uncle Jam posted:

If grocery store layout was such a science then how come the 6 stores I've been to in the past 3 months split among 2 corps have such completely different loving layouts? The milk is definitely all over the place including sometimes splitting up cow milk and soy milk.

Nissin Cup Nudist posted:

I dont even know what you people are arguing about anymore


Its Olive Garden

MiddleOne posted:

Olive Garden dying is not secret ever since that activist investor got into the mix.

Baronjutter posted:

A big thing in grocery right now is consistency of layout between stores in a chain. For instance my local grocery store, to me, had a perfectly logical layout and I could be in and out extremely quickly, but apparently its layout didn't match the layout corporate wanted in its other stores, and they wanted it so that all the stores were as close to the same as possible so if you knew this chain's layout in one store you could navigate any other. It's a lot of work reorganizing that poo poo, even if it doesn't mean moving any shelves or fixtures, took them like a month to switch over and generated complaints for over a year.

There's all sorts of different schools of thought for how to exactly organize a supermarket, and often marketing can be at odds with efficiency/usability. Marketing wants people to spend more time in stores and go down more aisles, but actual shoppers want to shop quickly and efficiently and in a very busy supermarket they may prefer flow over linger time. Different sized stores carry different things for different exact demographics and markets so there's no perfect layout, but there's tons of science to help individual stores develop optimal layouts for their unique space and unique customer base.

Tiny Brontosaurus posted:

I'm looking for you to back up your claims with that journal subscription you claim to have, Twodot. If no one here may converse without being badgered to show ur cites then neither can you. Source every single claim you dare make or gently caress off forever, screechy-crab.

WampaLord posted:

Let me guess, you're one of those people who "isn't affected by advertising."

WampaLord posted:

Nothing you see in a store was put there by random chance. You have to pay for shelf space, for example, and shelf space at eye level costs more. That's just one of many many factors that goes into item placement.

Uncle Jam posted:

If grocery store layout was such a science then how come the 6 stores I've been to in the past 3 months split among 2 corps have such completely different loving layouts? The milk is definitely all over the place including sometimes splitting up cow milk and soy milk.

twodot posted:

We both agree advertising causes people to make either irrational or at least different choices, but you're arguing here business are only capable of making financially correct decisions, so if something costs more, it must be worth more? I'm willing to believe eye level shelf space costs more, I'd just like to see justification for that before I also believe grocery stores are charging exactly the right premium for eye level shelf space.

twodot posted:

There isn't any journal out there that will back up "twodot thinks degrees are worthless at signaling anything".

twodot posted:

Not all evidence comes from a journal.

Baronjutter posted:

A big thing in grocery right now is consistency of layout between stores in a chain. For instance my local grocery store, to me, had a perfectly logical layout and I could be in and out extremely quickly, but apparently its layout didn't match the layout corporate wanted in its other stores, and they wanted it so that all the stores were as close to the same as possible so if you knew this chain's layout in one store you could navigate any other. It's a lot of work reorganizing that poo poo, even if it doesn't mean moving any shelves or fixtures, took them like a month to switch over and generated complaints for over a year.

There's all sorts of different schools of thought for how to exactly organize a supermarket, and often marketing can be at odds with efficiency/usability. Marketing wants people to spend more time in stores and go down more aisles, but actual shoppers want to shop quickly and efficiently and in a very busy supermarket they may prefer flow over linger time. Different sized stores carry different things for different exact demographics and markets so there's no perfect layout, but there's tons of science to help individual stores develop optimal layouts for their unique space and unique customer base.

twodot posted:

you're arguing here business are only capable of making financially correct decisions

Nissin Cup Nudist posted:

Its Olive Garden

CmdrRiker posted:

Hi. Why is this such a big debate?

I'm scared.

WampaLord posted:

It should be blatantly obvious that it is an advantage to be more visible. This also ties in with branding, appearance of the packaging, etc, but this is just a basic fact that doesn't really need data to back up.

I'm not arguing every business decision is perfect, I'm arguing that there is more thought going into those decisions than you realize.

Tiny Brontosaurus posted:

Source your claims, Twodot. You didn't let anybody else slide with reasonable, factual explanations like "the information you're asking for is proprietary and someone would have to violate an NDA to give it to you" or "we're trying to have a conversation here you broke-brained moron," so neither do you. Fire up that subscription you're blatantly lying about having and find a PDF of Twodot's Awful Uninformed Opinions Quarterly.

Or gently caress off forever! That's also an option and one I'd really really really like you to take.

quote:

There's no big enough.

twodot posted:

Over the course of human history there's been way too many blatantly obvious things that turned out to be totally incorrect. I realize "things at eye level are easier to see, we should charge more for that space" is good enough for your average business, but it's not the sort of thing I'd expect from a person representing a field of study.

I did source my claim. I'm claiming to be an authority on whether I think degrees are worthless. That claim is free-standing, so like I said earlier it's totally fine with me if you want think I'm lying or whatever.

twodot posted:

Evidence about my internal state doesn't come from a journal, because I don't think the study of twodot's internal states is a serious field of study. Things that are serious fields of study should have journals with papers that back up their conclusions (also they should finish their conclusions).