Bang for your buck.

[reverse]

Bang for your buck.

 

Hi, I have just been studying economic theory.

Long story but “supply” and “demand” feature quite a lot.

Almost a “black art” according to some.

Funny thing… demand seems to be mostly psychological.

Sure part of it is “need” but part of it is merely “want”.

Sometimes consumers seem to act illogically.

That is until you think about it on the “bang for you buck” level.

 

If a situation can fire up pleasant brain chemicals.. you will move towards it.

Can it possibly be that simple? No, it’s way too easy.

 

Thoughts.?

[Phi for All]

Distinguishing between a need and a want is one step towards wisdom, imo. Recognizing that part of what drives your purchases is simply a desire to acquire marks a milestone in your maturity level.

 

I used to collect museum replica swords until I finally realized I was more excited by the prospect of shopping for my next one than I was when my current acquisition arrived. Shouldn't I have been more thrilled to receive something I'd been waiting for? But within a few days I was back with my nose in the catalog looking for what I wanted next.

 

And don't forget the power of persuasion. Part of the "bang" is how good it sounds to you. I've noticed in the US that calling something by a French-sounding word makes it more desirable. I've lost thousands of dollars to the word "gourmet". Regular coffee comes pre-ground in a steel can with a plastic lid. Gourmet coffee comes in a paper bag as whole beans you have to grind yourself and costs more than regular. And what is a "buffet"? It's a cafeteria where you pay more and serve yourself.

 

Pschologically, we often go out of our way to defend these types of purchases, more so than others. This tells me we probably know they're wrong and require justification. But those chemicals are hard to ignore.

[reverse]

Good point.

 

Collectors are an interesting market.

 

Usually the desire for the second sword would be less,

and the desire for a third sword would be even less, and so on….

Why?... because most of the needs and wants should be met by the first sword.

 

So, a possible explanation to "collector behavior" may be in correctly identifying the need.

 

The sword may simply be a false lead.

[sunspot]

Marketing attempts to increase desire with the hope one can be manipulated to express one's innate desire with their product. Since these are unnatural objects of desire, they don't work for long, requiring more doses (fanaticsm compensates doubt). Once the herd starts to move (fads) fear of being left behind (keeping up with the Jones) takes the place of desire, making one do what they originally thought was foolish.

[lrokwild]

Conflicting inner drives eventually lead us to what Brener described as compromised formations. Basically if you believe that our 2 biggest motives or drives as humans are aggression and sex then you will begin to see why nearly everything you read about, see on TV or hear about on the radio/music is somehow geared towards these to innate drives. So marketing simply needs to tempt people with either of these motives and people will unconsciously influence their conscious into feeling like they want or need a particular product or service.

 

Good old fashion brain wash

 

Notice how no advertisements are representing the norm but instead representing some sort of fantasy that most of us have had at one point or another.

 

For example.... these days people use good looking men or women dressed in practically nothing to sell the most ridiculous products or services.... why... because it appeals to our main drive.

 

The top selling books and movies are usually horror or action movies where the story is nothing but aggression/sex/and sadistic roles. Why? Because it appeals to one of our main drives.

 

Marketing is pretty simple if you get down to the psychology of it. Tempt people with what they desire the most.... fame, popularity, sex, and otherwise lavish life styles and more attractive bodies. "Normal" people usually try to hide some of these feelings because they are uncomfortable with them or they have otherwise grown up to believe that they are some how wrong or evil. Even if the person thinks they aren't susceptible to marketing banter, they unconsciously cant help themselves.

 

P.S. When Freud talked about aggression and sex he was also talking about many of the related drives such as love, lust, hate, envy, ect.

[reverse]

I thought Sigmund F had been hammered, for centering everything around sex.

 

I can see how in the animal world, power equals access to a mate.

 

But, with food for example...I just personally desire that taste...and am not aware of any process that connects my desire (for food), to the desire for sex.

 

Also, we spend the first part of our lives pre pubescent.

there - food seems to rule.

 

? thoughts?

[lrokwild]

A 100 years ago, how do you think you got your food? Did you go up to the deer and ask him for it?

 

And the desire to taste something signals the same pleasure centers of the brain that sex does...

[lrokwild]

I believe it was John Watson who first discovered that if you pair two things together you could condition the mind to associate the one thing with the other.

 

Example in Dogs: You ring a bell every time you feed a dog. Eventually all you need to do is ring the bell and the dog will automatically think he's about to get food and his mouth will start to produce extra saliva.

 

Example in Humans and Advertisements: You pair cigarettes with beautiful women/men, nice cars and big houses and eventually the bombardment of advertisements will condition the mind to associate these things together.

[Sayonara]

The dogs thing was Ivan Pavlov's "conditional reflex".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ivan_Pavlov

 

Iirc, Watson was something of a fan.

[reverse]

A 100 years ago' date=' how do you think you got your food? Did you go up to the deer and ask him for it?

 

And the desire to taste something signals the same pleasure centers of the brain that sex does...[/quote']

 

 

Huh?

 

I said that Siggy got hammered for the "sex" focus.

 

It's not my idea...but I thought it was generally accepted.

 

Isn't it faulty reasoning to say that "if sex relates to food, then sex = food".

 

It’s that sort of mistake that got Paris Hilton into trouble.

[Jarryd]

I think what the previous poster meant wasn't sex=food so much as sex= happy chemicals food= happy chemicals and these both stem from basic evolutionary drives to get energy and reproduce. I really see the mind as basically stimulus-response, so things like power, sex, food ect ect and other stimulus that are hardwired into us to have pleasurable responses will be what we seek. Speaking in that way however the body and mind can want sometimes unfavourable responses, such as pity, self-hate and anger.. were all slaves to our machine. Although somehow i don't think advertising cutting blades for people who crave pity is good marketing lol.

[reverse]

The mind craves negative type chemicals?

 

I never thought of that.

 

I think I know what you mean…

Like people wallowing in self pity…they feel comfortable there, because it’s more pleasant that the fear of taking a risk for happiness and getting disappointed..

 

Hmm.. relative positive-ness….I LIKE IT!

[lrokwild]

If you have ever watched "What The Bleep Do We Know?" it explains a bit about the body being addicted to negitve emotions, after years of wiring and re-wiring of the brains neuro receptors.