Malstrom won't allow it.

I emailed him one time, and he did respond on his blog.  However, he mostly dodged my point, and used incorrect data to back up one of his points.  I emailed him back saying he was wrong about the sales of the Zelda franchise, and gave evidence.  He never responded, and did not correct his blog.

Absolute last thing I need is to get tied up in an argument with a guy who makes them so one-sided

That's what he does, he neatly picks out "opponents" who aren't very well spoken or intelligent and takes their sillyness apart bit by bit. What a great man he is.

Are you two assuming Malstrom wrote that line?

Malstrom is an amusing contradiction at times. Particularly how he refuses to accept that basic concepts like disruption and Blue Ocean Strategy can apply to things outside of literal business. It's especially comical in light of the fact that he is notorious for using both outside of business context to explain social changes (and yet somehow cannot picture politicians using disruptive innovation or Blue Ocean Strategy in their campaigns).

Of course some of that can potentially be chalked up to the human tendency for change, but it all comes off as very schizophrenic when he can't even stay true to the very things he claims he believes. Particularly not when he'll flip-flop back and forth between stances (as he so often does on matters of applicability of business strategy outside of business).

Ultimately he's taught me far more about the importance of critical thinking and not taking everything I see at face value than he has about business strategy or Nintendo's moves in the market. What rare insight he provides is of a much more basic variety, as he's hopelessly closed-minded about a great deal of things that he himself seems to be unsure of his stance regarding.

"Particularly how he refuses to accept that basic concepts like disruption and Blue Ocean Strategy can apply to things outside of literal business."

He's basing that on the writers of those books saying they don't apply. So acting like it's just him shows you haven't read all he wrote.

No, I have read what he's written. I have not, however, seen evidence of his claims to that end (he seems rather mum about sharing his sources when he makes odd claims like that). Furthermore, he's only mentioned the author of the Innovator's Dilemma/Solution books having an issue with it; he's said nothing of Kim or Mauborgne complaining at all. Also, I point you again to the "think for yourself" lesson: just because someone says they never intended something to be applied or used a certain way doesn't mean they're automatically right. Christensen of all people should realize this given that he's the one who said something along the lines of "what the company thinks it is selling to the consumer is rarely what the consumer is actually buying from the company".

Me?  No.

Ail? Probably.

UncleScrooge said: And he actually thinks marketing isn't "brainwashing" people? How cute is that! That's like saying marketing doesn't influence people's behaviour, which it clearly does. Look at these very forums and tell me marketing can't brainwash people.

Ahhhhhhhhhhhhh, OK. I don't think you even know what brainwashing is.

Kults brainwash. Marketers persuade. Everything in marketing is about getting people to buy the product and keeping them as customers. To call it brainwashing would be the same as myself convincing you that honey is delicious.

Also, it it was true brainwashing, it's not very good. Marketing does not make a good product. Marketing works so long as the products is usable and meets the consumer's needs. Marketing tries to show you the need they fulfill. Look at an Allstate comercial. They always tell you how they have good plans to protect you. Their tag line is "Are you in good hands?" They are saying "Do you feel safe with your insurance. Well, buy ours and you will be." Marketing is just trying to convince you, not brainwashing you.

Smashchu2 said: UncleScrooge said: And he actually thinks marketing isn't "brainwashing" people? How cute is that! That's like saying marketing doesn't influence people's behaviour, which it clearly does. Look at these very forums and tell me marketing can't brainwash people. Ahhhhhhhhhhhhh, OK. I don't think you even know what brainwashing is. Kults brainwash. Marketers persuade. Everything in marketing is about getting people to buy the product and keeping them as customers. To call it brainwashing would be the same as myself convincing you that honey is delicious. Also, it it was true brainwashing, it's not very good. Marketing does not make a good product. Marketing works so long as the products is usable and meets the consumer's needs. Marketing tries to show you the need they fulfill. Look at an Allstate comercial. They always tell you how they have good plans to protect you. Their tag line is "Are you in good hands?" They are saying "Do you feel safe with your insurance. Well, buy ours and you will be." Marketing is just trying to convince you, not brainwashing you.

Now that sounded a slight bit insulting, don't you think? And why do you keep lecturing me about the most basic things in each of your replies? To use your analgoy, it would be the same if I told you that "honey is sweet. Yes, sweet. Very tasty. Yam-Yam" while we are discussing how too much sugar affects your heatlh.

I'm not going to write a 30 minutes post again to explain what I was talking about.

Edit: While we're at it: I was referring to Margaret Singer, Elisabeth Noelle-Neumann, the influence of opinion polls on public opinion, Mediacracy and so on. It's not about what your definition of brainwashing is. It's about what your definition of marketing is. And Malstrom was deliberately ignoring the broader sense of marketing and instead focused solely on the things that supported his argument.