Comments on: Anthropology: now, cash prizes! http://cultureby.com/2006/08/anthropology_no.html This Blog Sits At the Intersection of Anthropology and Economics Wed, 08 Feb 2012 08:43:22 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: Mary Schmidt http://cultureby.com/2006/08/anthropology_no.html/comment-page-1#comment-4150 Mary Schmidt Wed, 30 Aug 2006 16:57:00 +0000 http://localhost/wp_culture/?p=640#comment-4150 "Efficient market" Isn't that an oxymoron? No, that's "effective market" No, wait a minute, that'd be "market intelligence." Oh, who knows...apparently the Shadow (and Grant) know. ;-) “Efficient market” Isn’t that an oxymoron? No, that’s “effective market” No, wait a minute, that’d be “market intelligence.” Oh, who knows…apparently the Shadow (and Grant) know. ;-)

]]> By: Tom Asacker http://cultureby.com/2006/08/anthropology_no.html/comment-page-1#comment-4149 Tom Asacker Tue, 29 Aug 2006 21:29:41 +0000 http://localhost/wp_culture/?p=640#comment-4149 Hehe . . . Steve, it's not speculative at all. Grant simply has knowledge unknown to the market. Hehe . . . Steve, it’s not speculative at all. Grant simply has knowledge unknown to the market.

]]> By: steve http://cultureby.com/2006/08/anthropology_no.html/comment-page-1#comment-4148 steve Tue, 29 Aug 2006 21:22:46 +0000 http://localhost/wp_culture/?p=640#comment-4148 There's this little thing called the theory of efficient markets...ah, what the hell, we indexers don't have as much fun as the speculative plungers. So find that Big Change! Just leave a little something in the safe portfolio. There’s this little thing called the theory of efficient markets…ah, what the hell, we indexers don’t have as much fun as the speculative plungers. So find that Big Change! Just leave a little something in the safe portfolio.

]]> By: Mary Schmidt http://cultureby.com/2006/08/anthropology_no.html/comment-page-1#comment-4147 Mary Schmidt Tue, 29 Aug 2006 10:32:49 +0000 http://localhost/wp_culture/?p=640#comment-4147 Well, I can't say much for your competition. Seems to me they're usually on par with a monkey and dart board. They focus so heavily on the numbers, they never think about little things like people and culture. There's a whole big world out there outside of the spreadsheet. Well, I can’t say much for your competition. Seems to me they’re usually on par with a monkey and dart board. They focus so heavily on the numbers, they never think about little things like people and culture. There’s a whole big world out there outside of the spreadsheet.

]]> By: deb murphy http://cultureby.com/2006/08/anthropology_no.html/comment-page-1#comment-4146 deb murphy Mon, 28 Aug 2006 18:02:09 +0000 http://localhost/wp_culture/?p=640#comment-4146 agree with dilys and want to add that the most important function is to enable the end-user/consumer to SIMULTANEOUSY perceive the problem and the "new" the solution. Cheesy infomercials work well, and sophisticated CPG tech offerings often do not. None of it works well if the end-use AND/OR the "helper" (the package, some signage, a retail employee) do not understand the problem. That's why Container Stores succeeds - their employees are trained to "pull out" the problem by probing and interviewing - by "caring" why the end-user is there in the first place. And that's why e tailing works so well - the end-user starts a search with a fairly well-formed idea of what the problem is (although as search engine optimization gets better and better, the end-user may be able to be less and less conscious of his/her need). In any case, this user is really not an end-user this user is a "beginning-user" - already sold. The threshold has been lowered (perhaps eliminated) by the would-be user; there is no more TPPA. Yes indeed make me want it, and make it easy for me to "get" why I need it. agree with dilys and want to add that the most important function is to enable the end-user/consumer to SIMULTANEOUSY perceive the problem and the “new” the solution. Cheesy infomercials work well, and sophisticated CPG tech offerings often do not. None of it works well if the end-use AND/OR the “helper” (the package, some signage, a retail employee) do not understand the problem. That’s why Container Stores succeeds – their employees are trained to “pull out” the problem by probing and interviewing – by “caring” why the end-user is there in the first place. And that’s why e tailing works so well – the end-user starts a search with a fairly well-formed idea of what the problem is (although as search engine optimization gets better and better, the end-user may be able to be less and less conscious of his/her need). In any case, this user is really not an end-user this user is a “beginning-user” – already sold. The threshold has been lowered (perhaps eliminated) by the would-be user; there is no more TPPA. Yes indeed make me want it, and make it easy for me to “get” why I need it.

]]> By: dilys http://cultureby.com/2006/08/anthropology_no.html/comment-page-1#comment-4145 dilys Mon, 28 Aug 2006 11:25:44 +0000 http://localhost/wp_culture/?p=640#comment-4145 As a Torpid Fellow associated with a private Laziness Institute, I'd like to restate the issue in the link. It's not just that "most potential users are afraid of new technologies, and they need a really great reason to change." In my own lifetime study of stasis, I would say the more valuable metric in product design is a short and gentle learning curve. *User-friendly* is crucial, not least because of the emotional overtones of ambiguity and frustration (creating the scenario of being orphaned with only an enigmatic inapplicable instruction pamphlet for company). Too many new possibilities are schoolmarmy "assignments." To tackle those requires an urgent and indisputable threat or need. No doubt there are different temperamental threshholds in this matter, but in general I believe this to be true for a large segment, even including optimizers. Make me want it, and *make it easy* (for the customer, not the provider). The latter purpose will reward ever-more-refined perceptual analysis, IMO. As a Torpid Fellow associated with a private Laziness Institute, I’d like to restate the issue in the link. It’s not just that “most potential users are afraid of new technologies, and they need a really great reason to change.”

In my own lifetime study of stasis, I would say the more valuable metric in product design is a short and gentle learning curve. *User-friendly* is crucial, not least because of the emotional overtones of ambiguity and frustration (creating the scenario of being orphaned with only an enigmatic inapplicable instruction pamphlet for company). Too many new possibilities are schoolmarmy “assignments.” To tackle those requires an urgent and indisputable threat or need.

No doubt there are different temperamental threshholds in this matter, but in general I believe this to be true for a large segment, even including optimizers.

Make me want it, and *make it easy* (for the customer, not the provider). The latter purpose will reward ever-more-refined perceptual analysis, IMO.

]]>