> But the marketing team quickly discovered that none of the people threatening a boycott had ever bought a Subaru. Some of them had even misspelled “Subaru.”
I feel like this is such an important lesson in business. It's better to be loved by few and hated by many than to try to please everyone... because everyone has different needs and wants, conventional wisdom says that your target market can't just be "everyone". Even toothbrushes have different price points, colors, and positioning.
I had seen this, but I guess I was so taken aback at seeing Elon Musk's reaction that that I missed another interesting aspect. The American astronauts are calling out against the "commercialization of space". The same astronauts that were used as a propaganda tools against the communists.
As far as I'm concerned, the Jury's still out on whether SpaceX is actually doing anything interesting. I mean, lifting things into orbit at cheaper rates is useful, but there's no evidence of anything game-changing yet.
From the history of business it seems to me that many/most of the great innovations are making things a lot cheaper and convenient. Cars weren't transformational when only a few rich people could afford them. So depending on how successful SpaceX is at "lighting things into orbit cheaper", yes, I think they might actually be doing something interesting.
The responses here are pretty much on the money, but just to expand on my original remark: yes, you're right that just achieving their goals might be transformative. However, that would require someone to come up with a use for the tech that is outside of what's already being achieved. SpaceX's _goals_ are nowhere near the level of tech required to have a sustainable human presence anywhere other than earth, or even put more interesting objects on other planets. And to date we're still talking about costs out of the reach of many nations, never mind companies.
Don't get me wrong, what they're doing is hugely impressive and the nerd in me thinks it's amazing. But making a difference in a way that (to go back up the chain) gets people upset? I don't think SpaceX has got close to that.
Elon said (at the MIT lecture) that reducing launch costs by 99% was what was needed to colonize Mars with humans, so that's the goal. I have no idea what you think their goal is, but it doesn't appear to be the same.
Okay, I wasn't aware of that, but _he's wrong_. There's a lot of problems required to colonize Mars they're not even working on. The ISS is, but to date no-one's really got any idea what to do about the fact that that people's health deteriorates massively in a few months out of our gravity well.
Getting there is pretty hard too, even if you're in earth orbit.
Ah, I get you, but as I say, it kind of feels like he's working on the easiest part of the problem. Not that it's particularly easy by any normal measure.
When Clayton Christensen came up with the concept of "disruptive innovation" it originally referred to a specific phenomenon. Normal innovation is when the large firms servicing a market make incremental improvements to their products, when those products already serve the market needs very well but at high cost. A disruptive innovation is when you can service some of the needs of the market with a worse product which is dramatically cheaper. Nowadays, people refer to disruption for anything and everything, but SpaceX could be an example of this classical definition. I say "could be" because I'm not totally sure that SpaceX's service is or was worse than other launch companies in a technical sense.
Anyway, according to the theory when the much cheaper but worse technology gains momentum, it gets better and better, until it's serving the high-end needs even better than the original technology and at a lower cost.
Getting first stages of rockets that completed actual missions both in LEO and GTO to land safely both on ground and on water doesn't count as game-changing?
Landing the first stage is impressive but actually useful only in so far as it allows you to reuse it. SpaceX has yet to show that they can actually reuse the first stage. It will take longer still to show that they can do it reliably.
Let's skip a few steps and assume they've achieved that. That's an important innovation, it changes the economics, will allow SpaceX to drop prices and potentially grow the market substantially.
All of that would be amazing and a huge achievement but it would not push the frontier, it only brings in money that can be used for projects that do that. I would argue that for this reason it's not game-changing, it's incremental progress that enables further innovation that could be game-changing.
To be fair it was an Anti-Obama stances more then an anti-SpaceX stance.
This summons up most issues:
The genetic fallacy (also known as the fallacy of origins or fallacy of virtue[1]) is a fallacy of irrelevance where a conclusion is suggested based solely on someone's or something's history, origin, or source rather than its current meaning or context. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_fallacy
Boycotts are generally tremendously ineffective because either people wouldn't buy the thing in the first place or care insufficiently to check the long list of things that should be boycotted for various reasons.
The business of "coding" is primarily a defence against the haters. Being outed is now very rarely fatal in the West, but it used to be more dangerous (and is still far more dangerous for trans people). So the LGBT community had to live by an almost steganographic system of linguistic (qv Polari), sartorial and cultural markers.
Nestlé still feels the aftershocks of the boycott about its despicable marketing practices of hawking baby formula to mothers unfit to use it in a proper way instead of breastfeeding their kids.
The boycott started in 1977 and actually did have an effect on how baby formula is marketed nowadays after they initially didn't give much of a shit.
Granted. When you as a company are directly responsible for the death of thousands of infants then a boycott is easier to pull off than when Walt Disney prohibits selfie sticks in its theme parks.
Just one counter example that boycotts can be effective if the circumstances are right.
> It's better to be loved by few and hated by many than to try to please everyone...
But that goes exactly against for example what ms is doing. It's making windows for 'everyone' while pissing-off privacy-conscious and freedom-conscious people in the process. Yet it's still at the 'top of the game'.
You're probably over-estimating the number of privacy-conscious and freedom-conscious people in the general public, who mainly use Windows, Android and Facebook. Windows is arguably the least privacy-invasive of those.
https://blog.torproject.org/blog/mission-impossible-hardenin...
Windows is openly-licensed to OEMs (just sign up on the website) and available at retail. You are free to build your own Windows PC or even start your own PC manufacturing company. Windows source code is available on application ;-)
While I do agree that Android has privacy problem, it's probably the best mobile choice in regards to those factors right now (since everything else is closed as much as possible).
> it's probably the best mobile choice in regards to those factors right now
Well, I use Android, but it basically has no privacy. I ought to be bothered enough to install Cyanogenmod, but I haven't....
> someone who has released a system like win10 is ethical
I don't see why not. It's a mobile operating system and in my opinion the privacy issues have been ridiculously overblown. I don't use Chrome, and I do use Ghostery and uBlock Origin and a few other things, but I have no problems using my Windows 10 set-up with Basic telemetry.
Windows 10 is already being rolled out by the US Defense Department (for the increased security), and almost all global companies are going to move to it in the 2020s.
People don't care about privacy, even quite a few people actually in tech don't care about it that much. There are even post-privacy people who are, at least to some degree, opposed to it.
Software freedom is something that only a minority of the open source people are interested in and that's overall not a large group to begin with.
It's still better, obviously, to suceed in pleasing (almost) everyone. It's just very very hard.
Put differently, for any n, it's better that n% of people love you flat out, than everybody loves you n%. But for large enough ns, either is very lucrative.
Subaru n=2, Microsoft n=40, or something like that.
Is there significant overlap between these "privacy-conscious" people you speak of and 8 of your closest tech geek friends who frequent Slashdot? Because if yes, then MS has nothing to worry about.
As an 18 - 34 year old man and recent Subaru owner, I can only reason that it's not just that lesbians are (intelligently) into Subarus, it's that everyone else is an idiot about what cars they buy. Subaru means AWD! Furthermore, the Subaru Impreza is the only compact sedan on the market in its price range that comes with AWD standard - the only car you can buy where you receive a nice, small, fuel-efficient, new vehicle with AWD for the price of a compact - 18000 to 28000. AWD is a huge value-add, not just for outdoorsy types but for anyone who lives in a region with unpredictable weather, like New England or the Pacific Northwest. It's no wonder Subarus depreciate slower than other vehicles. Anyway, count me among the satisfied non-LGBT owners of a Subaru.
I've lived in the upper mid-Atlantic/almost-but-not-quite-New England area my entire life. I've driven just about every combination of AWD, FWD and RWD with summer, all-purpose and winter tires.
Obviously AWD with new snow tires will let you cut through just about anything. I mean it felt like driving a tank sometimes, it's amazing. And that was a sedan - I can't imagine how easy that much be in an SUV or Jeep.
I've also driven FWD compacts with snow tires and experience was worlds better than AWD with regular tires. If AWD + snow tires is 100/100, FWD + snow tires is 90 and AWD + regular tires is 50. My point is that AWD isn't all it's cracked up to be, even with feet of snow on the ground.
And just because it's standard doesn't mean you're not paying a couple thousand dollars for it like everyone else - it just means you don't have the option not to.
And OT: I never understood this "smart people like $CONSUMER_PRODUCT" mentality. Different products fit different use cases. I wouldn't drive a BMW Z4 in Augusta, Maine just like I wouldn't drive a Subaru Forester in San Diego.
I live in Michigan and drive a 4WD Jeep Patriot (standard tires). There's a lot of things to dislike about it (underpowered, chintzy cabin, etc), but one thing I can say with 100% confidence is that when traction control is enabled it stays absolutely glued to the road at all times. It's actually kind of shocking some of the things you can do while maintaining control, and it's really important to keep the old adage in mind - the difference between 2WD and 4WD is about 20 feet of chain.
The day after a big snowstorm is pretty rough here thanks to lake effect, but I just pop on 4WD and plow through it, while praying that some idiot doesn't slide into me.
100% agree with this (New Hampshire native). Snow tires on an FWD are far better than regular tires on AWD.
AWD means you can accelerate better in the snow and become un-stuck easier. If you want to stop sooner and slip less, snow tires make the real difference, not AWD.
There's a reason snow tires are mandatory in Iceland (illegal to not have them) from November onwards.
>I can't imagine how easy that much be in an SUV or Jeep.
Possibly not at all easier. SUV usually has bit more clearance than sedan. And possibly more suspension travel and overall weight. End of the day SUV vs. AWD sedan difference is almost insignificant.
Real off-road cars also have differential locks and reduction gears. While they usually don't weight that much (relatively). Now you have real advantage, as you can approach any tricky spot with incredible amount of quaranteed torque and slow speed.
What I'm sayin is that if you drive on a swamp off-road car is 100/100, SUV is 60 and AWD sedan is like 50.
When I say everyone else is an idiot about what cars they buy I'm being hyperbolic and also joking, so no offense intended. There are plenty of excellent cars and excellent car-based experiences to be had. AWD cars that I've owned (in my experience), not just Subaru, just feel like they grip the road much better than at least the FWD cars I've driven. But maybe my experience is illusory. Also, here in New England AWD has saved me from being trapped in a driveway or on an ice patch more times than I care to admit.
I've driven 4WD and AWD and 4WD is the clear winner. When my wife replaced our old GMC Jimmy (a terrible car in most respects) that had 4WD with a Forester with AWD, I didn't feel pride or love or satisfaction. I felt I had been short-changed. It cost too much, has fairly low gas mileage (26MPG), is small and cramped. I'm 6'4" and while there's headroom aplenty (ok that part is pretty nice) the legroom is middling to poor.
And AWD! It comes with something called 'traction control' which in Iowa means, pulling out of a parking lot onto a snow-covered street, it starts vibrating the drive and you drift across the lanes like one of those little football players in the vibrating football game. How is this supposed to be a good thing? You can punch a button to 'turn it off' but other than displaying a message that its disabled, it still happens. So major fail there. I can drive on snow; have for 40 years. I don't need some Engineers broken idea of how to 'help me' drive.
And AWD is essentially a differential? So at no time are all four wheels gripping the road and clawing my way through the snow and drifts. Like 4WD does. So again, a big step down.
And finally, they put a smarmy stupid badge on the back, 'pze' which apparently means "Partial Zero Emissions". What kind of double-speak is that! It offends me, and embarrasses me to have it on the car.
I could go on, but I'll summarize. No, not a Subaru fan.
I've never driven a Jimmy, but my brother had an S10. And it didn't get anywhere close to 26 mpg. And many factory 4wd vehicles don't have locking differentials at the front and rear, although granted the transfer case doesn't have a differential in it. So you still don't have all four wheels gripping the road. If your unlucky, you'll have one tire in the front spinning, and one in the rear.
MJM46 here (this is not a cl ad... it's a paean to my car) and I loved my Subaru Outback wagon.
It was a challenge to get a 2.5i without the turbo but with the 5-speed manual, apparently the target demographics want automatic transmissions or high-strung engines. It perfectly fit with my life of young kids, upstate NY winters, and carting around stuff. It was more fuel and space efficient than the Honda Pilot we owned prior. It was almost unstoppable in snow with the right tires and smooth use of the throttle. It carried more than the VW's we had over the years.
I wrote letters when they announced the boxer diesel engine, http://www.boxerdiesel.com/, asking them to import it to the USA and once got a polite response that they were looking into it. Buyers like me are still waiting.
Sadly my wife didn't like the seats or interior and we couldn't beat the fuel economy of a Toyota Prius when we were driving several hundred miles per week. I wasn't a fan of the engine compartment (changing plugs and coils was okay for three of the four, the fourth was awful) but I didn't have problems with head gaskets, etc. that I've heard about.
Cars are almost always an emotional purchase. I don't think everyone else are idiots for not getting a Subaru, it probably means something about the car did not resonate with them. For me, it was the lack of luxury features. I am also from the south where AWD is not needed as much. The Subaru WRX is a great car though.
I live in Canada, AWD is great to get you out of a bind, to get going from a stopped position, it does absolutely nothing to stop or control the car (actually it adds weight so is a bit worse for stopping). I have an AWD car and a regular one, I needed AWD maybe once or twice in several years, I think is a bit overrated.
Don't ask, don't tell was actually a step forward for the LGBT community, and it's really not surprising it took a Democrat to force it down the military's throat.
The prior policy was that you could be asked if you were gay or lesbian by the command chain and dishonorably discharged for answering in the affirmative. An untruthful answer would get you time in the brig for lying, then you'd be dishonorably discharged.
> There’s a tendency to view companies’ involvement in causes as greedy ploys. This author feels that way, especially given the cynicism-inducing conclusions of previous Priceonomics investigations. Looking into the history of engagement rings led us to marketers who made up the tradition to sell more diamonds. Searching out the origins of the phrase “Breakfast is the most important meal of the day” revealed that it’s a 1944 ad campaign designed to sell more breakfast cereal.
> In this case, it’s heartening that the origins of lesbians’ stereotypical affinity for Subarus is not a cynical marketing campaign, but a progressive one. In a sense, all Subaru did was notice a group of customers and create ads for them. But that was a big deal. Subaru's ad campaign acknowledged a group that often felt unwelcome and invisible.
I don't think that the two views are contradictory. In a capitalist society, political power comes with integration into consumerism, marketing, and all the rest; and vice versa. Market power is a potent way to push a political agenda.
Maybe a company believes in your cause more than its bottom line. Maybe a politician cares more about you than about winning their next election. If you're campaigning to change society, the difference isn't really material. It can change your tactics a bit, but allies are allies no matter their motivation.
I always assumed the breakfast phrase had its origin in Kafka's Metamorphosis:
> The washing up from breakfast lay on the table; there was so much of it because, for Gregor's father, breakfast was the most important meal of the day and he would stretch it out for several hours as he sat reading a number of different newspapers.
But then again, I guess it would have never become such a common phrase through Kafka alone. Funny would be if the above formulation only appeared in post 1944 translations.
> I don't think that the two views are contradictory.
I agree, with freedom of choice and competition, the burden falls on the consumers to choose what they support. In other words, voters vote with their ballots. Consumers vote with their dollars, both are very important in a democratic society.
That's really interesting. I never knew about the Subaru-lesbian connection. I remember the "da-da-da" VW ad and has no idea about its gay friendly-ness. Great article. Thanks for posting.
Around the late 90s we started to notice the steady growth of subarus at the REI in berkeley. At some point we called them lesbarus because it was obvious but I never realized that the campaign was running all the way back then.
I'm sort of curious about the motivation behind their current slogan which I only started hearing over the past year or so:
"Love, it's what makes a Subaru a Subaru"
I'd hear that slogan as a sponsorship message on public radio and more recently I think I heard it on a commercial TV ad and I'd reply "no, standard all wheel drive is what makes it a Subaru."
Still, snark aside, it's struck me as a sort of hippie-dippy slogan for an international auto company and it's made me wonder what they are going for.
It's a complete stereotype, but for years I've gone to various folk music festivals (dating back to the mid/late 90s). Those festivals that had obvious lesbian audiences, lots of subarus around.
That said, they have had a reputation for decent vehicles.
I had no idea hackers were so into all wheel drive, at least at the time. The article's exploration of the main topic was of course fascinating (and full of perspective), but that little nugget of information was equally thought-provoking to me. Understanding and appreciating the engineering, maybe? I'm genuinely intrigued by that.
Also, I'm a hacker four wheel drive owner outdoor enthusiast, so I'll be discovering a penchant for medicine and a couple other interesting things about myself soon enough, I suppose. Come to think of it I do have first aid in the Jeep...
This is merely anecdotal and definitely tangential, but I've noticed a strong trend between programmers and common outdoors activities (camping, kayaking, etc) during my time in tech. I've always assumed it was just a means of getting as far away from the work environment as physically possible. While they will of course have more technical hobbies, they also seem to like to fill their time with just about anything that's outside or at least doesn't involve them in front of a screen. When I was in WA, home brewing beer was also extremely popular.
The proportion of technical degrees in members of every university mountaineering club I've ever been in/met has always been ridiculously high. The same seems to be also true for climbers/cavers/ski-mo people I've met outside of uni. I think you're right that there must be something in the mind set that encourages those sorts of pursuit. I've always put it down to a combination of preferring individual pursuits over team sports and a love of discovery.
Heaps of these people love their Subarus so it might be less of the case that hackers love the car and more that hackers love getting outdoors and therefore love the car. I know I love mine.
I've noticed that too with running/cycling. Even as far back as high school, it always seemed like the kids stronger in science/math did cross country and track in higher proportions compared to other sports.
Me neither. Maybe it's the power of suggestion, but I see subtle and unsubtle references all over that ad now that it's been pointed out to me. It's all artfully vague, but added up make a strong hint: One guy's shirt is half-open. The two men look at each other with their lips slightly tensed. Their small car runs opposite to the large train (reference to against mainstream). There's a slack toy that pops up when the passenger manipulates it with his hand.
> This famous Volkswagen ad, which was perceived as gay-friendly, is incredibly subtle. (video clip ~3/4 down page)
This ad seems so subtle, that I have no idea what makes it gay-friendly? Is it because there are two men driving around? Can anyone point out what I'm missing?
There are two men who don't look to be related to one another. They make a mutual decision about an item of furniture. They're comfortable being silent with each other. There are no outward signs of especial masculinity.
The farmers are also a niche for Subaru in the US. In the very, very, very rural Midwest area I reside, there is a substantial, and surprising number of Subaru Outbacks and Foresters. It's not uncommon to drive past small-town diners here and see a parking lot full of equal parts Ford/Chevy trucks and Subaru cars.
They're dependable, easy enough to work on, and all-wheel drive (fuck snow and ice). They are as 'American made' as you can get anymore. They're perfect for conservative US farmers.
I'm a little surprised their five niche groups didn't include the tuner/racer enthusiast community, the mid 90's was right when Colin McCrae and Subaru were peaking on the World Rally scene.
Pricing might play a part there. A base WRX starts at $26K. The STI goes up to $35K. The Honda Civic starts at $18K. If you're on a limited budget, your base vehicle needs to be cheap enough so that you still have funds left over for the upgrades.
My friends in autocross and doing track days buy used Mazda Miatas. I'm told that Mazda got the "feel" just right and the handling is excellent with a few upgrades and the cars are cheap[er] to buy and run. I haven't (yet) but I did wring a few rural miles out of a stock 1999 ragtop my wife's friend owned and it was a fun car.
While I'd guess the number of actual racers is tiny the number of posers seemed pretty big, I was in college at the time and knew a few guys who had Subarus.
I feel like this is such an important lesson in business. It's better to be loved by few and hated by many than to try to please everyone... because everyone has different needs and wants, conventional wisdom says that your target market can't just be "everyone". Even toothbrushes have different price points, colors, and positioning.