> What if I replace "Bryan" with "Charles Manson"? And this is why I have no respect for "marketing".
The trivial reply to your point is, What if I took {engineering / science topic} and replaced it with {weapon}? And this is why I have no respect for "engineering."
I think scientists and engineers should learn how to be great marketers because we need to reach people where they are. Not where we'd like them to be.
If you still feel viscerally icked out, then it's worth remembering, dosis sola facit venenum — only the dose makes the poison.
No, because I wouldn't make a blanket statement of "if some fraction of people like <some technology>, then it clearly must be good" because it's an absurd statement to make. It takes away all nuance and conversation. It forces a one-perspective narrative and that's exactly why marketing and marketers-in-the-modern-sense are shit. (btw I'll gladly stand with my conviction and hypocrisy whilst you go stand with advertisers)
> What if I replace "Bryan" with "Charles Manson"? And this is why I have no respect for "marketing".
The trivial reply to your point is, What if I took {engineering / science topic} and replaced it with {weapon}? And this is why I have no respect for "engineering."
I think scientists and engineers should learn how to be great marketers because we need to reach people where they are. Not where we'd like them to be.
If you still feel viscerally icked out, then it's worth remembering, dosis sola facit venenum — only the dose makes the poison.
No, because I wouldn't make a blanket statement of "if some fraction of people like <some technology>, then it clearly must be good" because it's an absurd statement to make. It takes away all nuance and conversation. It forces a one-perspective narrative and that's exactly why marketing and marketers-in-the-modern-sense are shit. (btw I'll gladly stand with my conviction and hypocrisy whilst you go stand with advertisers)