<p>I actually am very interested in product design & marketing.
But the side of the aisle that wants to improve offerings by incorporating what features are likely to be utilized in a way that is seamless, or at least easy to use.
I am not interested in products that appeal to our more sleazy sides.
I wouldn’t be interested in promoting or purchasing a product that caused hardship for others, or when even the whole reason for its existence as with the bloody Kent State sweatshirt, is because others died and a retailer found them suitable for exploitation.</p>
<p>Oh I agree, the Kent State shirt is utterly tasteless. </p>
<p>Though as a thought experiment, if Yoko Ono or Marina Abramovic had created that shirt and hung it in an art gallery and charged admission, it would be written up in the NYT and there would be lines out the door. </p>
<p>
I don’t think anyone objects to the “sophisticated taste tests” by themselves. Rather, there are two ethical quandaries that get people like me upset.</p>
<p>First, I draw a distinction between a conscious “want” and a chemical “need”. This is the Doritos thing - they weren’t trying to create a chip that tasted better (that being what the customer wanted) but rather they were trying to create a chip that specifically triggered the brain to want more regardless of taste or nutritional value. I think that crosses an ethical line.</p>
<p>Second, providing such an essential service as food should come with a moral obligation not to harm or endorse the harm of your customers. There are a wide variety of foods that should be “sometimes” foods that the food industry has snuck into “everyday” foods. Would we tolerate it if pharmaceutical companies said “we are going to add otherwise unnecessary things to your medication that make them mildly addictive and also adversely affect your health”? Heck no! But we let the food industry do it all the time, and again, I think that unconscionable.</p>
<p>
In art, as in all forms of communication, context is everything. Presented without context as casual clothing, the sweatshirt is offensive. Presented specifically as artistic commentary it might be enlightening - I say “might” because I am not an artist and don’t generally get modern art anyway.</p>
<p>Pizzagirl, “Marketing” tends to be the major/specialty of choice for many young women who think they need a business degree but aren’t interested in accounting or finance. I wish all of them would read the NYT article.</p>
<p>Uhhmmm… I have a BIG surprise for those girls (and boys, too). This is just to start… Easy-peasy second grade algebra kind of stuff, but it can get to differential equations, too :)</p>
<p><a href=“http://mme.wharton.upenn.edu/help/marketing_math_help.pdf”>http://mme.wharton.upenn.edu/help/marketing_math_help.pdf</a></p>