channonyarrow (![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
channonyarrow) wrote2008-02-26 10:39 am
channonyarrow) wrote2008-02-26 10:39 am
Entry tags:
No, wait, I'm appalled
I'm fond of the Socratic method.
Q: What does the term "best-seller" mean?
A: It depends on the context, but generally speaking is used to mean something so wildly popular (and therefore financially lucrative) that it is out-selling its competitors. It generally refers to brands or, at best, titles - bear in mind that authors and/or series and/or artists are also seen as brands - that do better than all others in terms of sales. Not actual sales, but more are in stock.
You may or may not know this, but the New York Times best-seller list of books is based not on actual sales, nor even on actual sales - returns, but on sales to book buyers. If you can convince a book buyer to buy umpty jillion copies of a book, even if that book is The Fine Art Of Gardening In The Dark, it will be a best seller.
Hence, how OJ Simpson had a bestseller that was rejected flatly when the book was revealed to be what it was. The buyers were convinced, based on the marketing they received, that this was the must-have book of the decade, and they bought in huge numbers. Then the title, subject, and ploy were revealed, and the book went down like a two dollar whore.
Returning to the main plot, this is relevant only because best-sellers imply a category that is sold specifically for leisure, to me. One does not, conventionally, speak of a best-selling politician (not their book, their politics). Nor does one speak of a best-selling natural disaster, even though it might have kicked the ass of all other natural disasters that year. Best-selling gasoline? Possibly, but then, it's the brand that is selling, because realistically, given the fact that my car will continue to function on any kind of gas, from Chevron to Arco, that I care to put in it, the brand is "where I choose to spend my money", not "the product I have evaluated as being the best for my needs" or even "what I really, really want when I feel like buying gas". Best-selling jewelry? Same as gas.
Q: What does "a brand" mean?
A: If you're me, it means "where I am getting screwed". I am not Naomi Klein, and I have, in fact, never finished No Logo. I do not make sure that all my clothing is brandless, nor do I prefer to buy a no-name toaster versus an Oster toaster. I try to remain current on what is and what is not an effective brand (ie, you couldn't make me buy a Jaguar, but I'll take the Volkswagen, thanks, or the Honda) but I do not seek to be brandless. I would also clarify that by saying that I seek to not be branded, but I am the person who just spent $50 on a DKNY trench coat sans belt and slightly too small because it was made of awesome. And if you would like to argue with me about that, you can go right ahead. I'll be over here petting my trench coat, which is made of something like sueded silk, I swear to god. Also, it was quarter price.
But brands are, by and large, not as good as they could be. James Patterson, author of many bestsellers (provided you use the term "author" loosely) is a bestselling brand. Danielle Steel, ditto. Stephen King, John Grisham, R.A. Salvatore, Laurell K. Hamilton, all brands.
I say this because I love. Read many of their books without knowing who the author is (and how fucking much money they make oh my god) and then tell me whether you find that book as good as the best book you've ever read. If you have any kind of reading vocabulary, you probably won't. And if you do, who am I to judge? I read Janet Evanovich, despite her books defining formulaic and her, personally, not deserving a single cent of my money, since I don't like to provide for outright divas to be divas.
But a brand (remember, I said "this is where I get screwed") a brand is a guarantee of consistency. Is Starbucks the best coffee out there? Hell no. But if I order a grande white mocha no whip in Starbucks it pretty much doesn't matter if I'm standing in the US, in England, or in China. What I receive should, based on what I've ordered, be exactly the same drink in all places, and that's comforting when you're away from home.
That still doesn't make it good coffee, at least to me. That makes it consistent coffee, and I find that a lot of brands do exactly that - they aim for below excellence because it is easier to keep it consistent and because it fits better into the profit margin. I get what I expect, and what I expect is that consistency is better than excellence.
So riddle me this, Riddler. Er, young Plato.
From here:Prozac does not work, say scientists.
In the first paragraph Prozac is described as a bestselling antidepressant.
Never mind all the rest of my issues with the article. Never mind that I really think that antidepressants in this country are used as a cure-all rather than as a tool and that neurochemistry (and the brain in general) are too poorly understood to be wandering around throwing fluoxetine at it. Never mind that I have had a negative experience on prescribed medication and now wander the earth refusing to take any medication except ibuprofen. Never mind the fact that this article is the first charge to prove me right. All of that is either already said or for another day.
My horror, and my point, is around the fact that prozac is a bestseller.
Stop and think about that. Stop and think about the fact that this drug has become a brand, and that, apparently, all antidepressants have become brands, if prozac is able to outsell them all.
And brands don't have to work, they only have to sell.
Stop and think about that. About what we have done and are doing, about what we allow and what we will buy and where the end of this is, because it ain't here, ladies and gentlemen. We are medicating ourselves - voluntarily! - with something that doesn't work, but sells well.
Go us.
Q: What does the term "best-seller" mean?
A: It depends on the context, but generally speaking is used to mean something so wildly popular (and therefore financially lucrative) that it is out-selling its competitors. It generally refers to brands or, at best, titles - bear in mind that authors and/or series and/or artists are also seen as brands - that do better than all others in terms of sales. Not actual sales, but more are in stock.
You may or may not know this, but the New York Times best-seller list of books is based not on actual sales, nor even on actual sales - returns, but on sales to book buyers. If you can convince a book buyer to buy umpty jillion copies of a book, even if that book is The Fine Art Of Gardening In The Dark, it will be a best seller.
Hence, how OJ Simpson had a bestseller that was rejected flatly when the book was revealed to be what it was. The buyers were convinced, based on the marketing they received, that this was the must-have book of the decade, and they bought in huge numbers. Then the title, subject, and ploy were revealed, and the book went down like a two dollar whore.
Returning to the main plot, this is relevant only because best-sellers imply a category that is sold specifically for leisure, to me. One does not, conventionally, speak of a best-selling politician (not their book, their politics). Nor does one speak of a best-selling natural disaster, even though it might have kicked the ass of all other natural disasters that year. Best-selling gasoline? Possibly, but then, it's the brand that is selling, because realistically, given the fact that my car will continue to function on any kind of gas, from Chevron to Arco, that I care to put in it, the brand is "where I choose to spend my money", not "the product I have evaluated as being the best for my needs" or even "what I really, really want when I feel like buying gas". Best-selling jewelry? Same as gas.
Q: What does "a brand" mean?
A: If you're me, it means "where I am getting screwed". I am not Naomi Klein, and I have, in fact, never finished No Logo. I do not make sure that all my clothing is brandless, nor do I prefer to buy a no-name toaster versus an Oster toaster. I try to remain current on what is and what is not an effective brand (ie, you couldn't make me buy a Jaguar, but I'll take the Volkswagen, thanks, or the Honda) but I do not seek to be brandless. I would also clarify that by saying that I seek to not be branded, but I am the person who just spent $50 on a DKNY trench coat sans belt and slightly too small because it was made of awesome. And if you would like to argue with me about that, you can go right ahead. I'll be over here petting my trench coat, which is made of something like sueded silk, I swear to god. Also, it was quarter price.
But brands are, by and large, not as good as they could be. James Patterson, author of many bestsellers (provided you use the term "author" loosely) is a bestselling brand. Danielle Steel, ditto. Stephen King, John Grisham, R.A. Salvatore, Laurell K. Hamilton, all brands.
I say this because I love. Read many of their books without knowing who the author is (and how fucking much money they make oh my god) and then tell me whether you find that book as good as the best book you've ever read. If you have any kind of reading vocabulary, you probably won't. And if you do, who am I to judge? I read Janet Evanovich, despite her books defining formulaic and her, personally, not deserving a single cent of my money, since I don't like to provide for outright divas to be divas.
But a brand (remember, I said "this is where I get screwed") a brand is a guarantee of consistency. Is Starbucks the best coffee out there? Hell no. But if I order a grande white mocha no whip in Starbucks it pretty much doesn't matter if I'm standing in the US, in England, or in China. What I receive should, based on what I've ordered, be exactly the same drink in all places, and that's comforting when you're away from home.
That still doesn't make it good coffee, at least to me. That makes it consistent coffee, and I find that a lot of brands do exactly that - they aim for below excellence because it is easier to keep it consistent and because it fits better into the profit margin. I get what I expect, and what I expect is that consistency is better than excellence.
So riddle me this, Riddler. Er, young Plato.
From here:Prozac does not work, say scientists.
In the first paragraph Prozac is described as a bestselling antidepressant.
Never mind all the rest of my issues with the article. Never mind that I really think that antidepressants in this country are used as a cure-all rather than as a tool and that neurochemistry (and the brain in general) are too poorly understood to be wandering around throwing fluoxetine at it. Never mind that I have had a negative experience on prescribed medication and now wander the earth refusing to take any medication except ibuprofen. Never mind the fact that this article is the first charge to prove me right. All of that is either already said or for another day.
My horror, and my point, is around the fact that prozac is a bestseller.
Stop and think about that. Stop and think about the fact that this drug has become a brand, and that, apparently, all antidepressants have become brands, if prozac is able to outsell them all.
And brands don't have to work, they only have to sell.
Stop and think about that. About what we have done and are doing, about what we allow and what we will buy and where the end of this is, because it ain't here, ladies and gentlemen. We are medicating ourselves - voluntarily! - with something that doesn't work, but sells well.
Go us.
Nicely Put
My favorite insight into the matter came from my friend Lynne, who asked while discussing the matter, "You want to know which ones to combine for the best hallucinations?".
no subject
no subject
no subject
no subject
no subject
Also, I laughed out loud at the "when we're too lazy to do so by actually taking care of ourselves."
(I also used to take Prozac in my early teenage years...)
no subject
no subject
I am pretty horrified by the branding of anything, though.
no subject
After bouncing on and off SSRI's for a couple years I finally found the CAUSE of the deperession and stopped them immeadiately after finally talking to a therapist.
I really think there may be some truth to the theory that the Pharm. Cos. want us to not get well, but continue treating the problem. A Shame that, but then again the Hippocratic oath is no longer required by med schools. First, Do no harm....
YIS,
WRI
no subject
Total agreement - the nature of the brand is to make money, and the purchase model is the repeat consumer. It doesn't matter whether it's gas or coffee or guns or meds - everyone wants you to buy more. So much hate for the repeat consumer purchase model.
I'm always glad to hear that people found out and treated the problem rather than just medicating themselves!
no subject
no subject
I don't know how it is there, but it's definitely prescribed wrongly here. Here, it's the repeat consumer purchase model, not the medical model of, you know, solving the problem of depression.
no subject