"We are dedicated to revolutionizing mobility with innovative products that give people the freedom to do what they love by enhancing their mobility. "
It's one thing when founders claim to be revolutionizing this or that when in fact some major changes are afoot. For example, Zuck can make some lofty claims in terms of 'connecting people'.
But when people make some random thing that's been around for a while, in some niche category and then hustle us with this 'revolutionizing mobility' rubbish ... it instantly hurts credibility so much I wonder why it is that it even works, how are most people not turned off by this kind of stuff immediately?
From that sentence forward, I assume this is about the credibility of a Ronco late-night infomercial something or other.
Edit: I should note the rest of the article seems highly authentic. Maybe dropping the 'we're changing the world' narrative would tighten up the messaging, that said, maybe that kind of stuff works on regular folks.
I don't think it is people being disingenuous as much as just saying what they think they are supposed to say.
It's been drilled in to people that unless you are changing the world with your business, it's not worth doing.
I think something like, "Discovering innovative products to make difficult tasks easier." is an honorable and worthwhile pursuit as a business. But everyone wants to be the next gates or jobs.
So to summarise, people think they are supposed to tell bare faced lies?
Making difficult tasks easier is a much more laudable goal than revolutionising everything. Many things don't need overthrowing and replacing with a different regime. Wording intentional. :)
Thankfully we have Advertising Standards that require all ads to be "Legal, Decent, Honest and Truthful" or the ads can be banned. All sanctions are published and often end up reported in the news. More serious breaches can be referred up the chain for fines.
Surprisingly this is industry self regulation, at least in the UK, that mostly works OK. It applies to internet claims, ads and websites too.
Actually, I'm in UK, I can't recall exactly what but the other day I read advertising copy and thought "the ASA have completely given up then". They're pretty toothless it seems. Other places definitely have it worse.
When practised one does get to spot the key phrasing used to "lie within the regulations", the doublespeak like how people felt this or that our something appeared to be better or more lustrous when [paid] users were asked.
I have in the past, the response was (paraphrasing) "the company pinky promise not to do it again so we're not going to do anything else".
One time was a "travel to X for only £Y" and when I checked the actually cost was at least double the advertised price, there was no such ticket available. Not even under limited availability.
I've seen the same thing since, but not checked if it was the same (train) company.
If Ferrara tried to make health claims or tried to market to under 16's they'd be regulated. Here's one example where they were found to be complying with the code after complaints were made: https://www.asa.org.uk/rulings/ferrero-uk-ltd-a18-444638.htm...
I tend to agree that it's probably some boilerplate vision/summary statement they came up with a few years ago because you have to have one. Maybe it's better than low balling or boring people.
> [...overblown marketing rhetoric...] instantly hurts credibility so much I wonder why it is that it even works, how are most people not turned off by this kind of stuff immediately?
Only a very small fraction of people hear that kind of "revolutionizing your life" message and get turned off to the point of rejecting the vendor completely. And only a small fraction will hear that drivel and actually believe it.
Most folks, I think, just ignore the lofty claims and accept that that's the kind of BS one hears in advertisements and they set their expectations accordingly.
Does it work better than making honest realistic claims (eg "This product is, at best, marginally better than a regular portable dolly and you probably don't even need it.")? I think that marketing folks have something to say about that, that's their job after all. It doesn't matter what you (or I or many people on HN) think.
The comparison to Zuck with this thing is laughable. Is this device slurping ALL your activities regardless of if you want it or not? Is this device and its creators trying to scam you into accepting app updates so they can further spy on you?
Is this device capable of ANY spying?
NOPE.
What this device SHOULD have is a fitbit which measures how many steps you have used it on - validating its existence. Period.
It's one thing when founders claim to be revolutionizing this or that when in fact some major changes are afoot. For example, Zuck can make some lofty claims in terms of 'connecting people'.
But when people make some random thing that's been around for a while, in some niche category and then hustle us with this 'revolutionizing mobility' rubbish ... it instantly hurts credibility so much I wonder why it is that it even works, how are most people not turned off by this kind of stuff immediately?
From that sentence forward, I assume this is about the credibility of a Ronco late-night infomercial something or other.
Edit: I should note the rest of the article seems highly authentic. Maybe dropping the 'we're changing the world' narrative would tighten up the messaging, that said, maybe that kind of stuff works on regular folks.