Slashdot Mirror
Toys For The Rich To Cultivate Product Popularity
ChipGuy writes "Newsweek is reporting on a new elitist club called the Silicon Valley 100, an exclusive group of venture capitalists and entrepreneurs like Marc Andressen, Esther Dyson, Chris Shipley, and Ross Mayfield. The Schwag Set will get a lot of free stuff which they will either recommend or not, to unsuspecting masses. Dan Gillmor thinks 'it is oddly creepy', and urges people on this list to 'bow out of this exercise entirely.' Om Malik says it ironic that 'the first product being offered is a shitter! What Crap!'"
Just what the rich need... more stuff for free. How about giving the products to random Joes on the street with the requirement of getting a review from them on it?
I wonder if one of the invitees responded with this Groucho quote:
I refuse to join any club which would have me as a member.
As any PBS junkie knows, there is a market for everyday people willing to hawk a merchant's wares. What is disturbing is that it appears such people are in no short supply.
Word of mouth is the best form of advertising. What bothers me is that characters that push agendas under the guise of neutrality are becoming more prevalent all the time.
Here's hoping that one of the community's most revered icons never sells out.
Unfortunately it doesn't work like that in the real world. What actually happens is that the money goes to the institutions rather than the individual. The so-called sandstone or elite type of institutions get the bulk of the money based partly on who they are. I am not saying this is the only criteria, but it is certainly a part of the process. I work in the system, I am a researcher, I apply for grants, I have seen the process in action. Even the people who work at these type of places admit that this occurs.
"They looked deep into my soul and assigned me a number based on the order in which I joined"
If you think about it, what logic in there is giving a false good review for a bribe, if the bribe is a free version of the product you don't like very much?
The potential promise of getting yet more free evaluation stuff you don't like?
> the world works in a hierarchical fashion not because it can but because in fact this works well
...
> But it costs too much to identify these folks
What you have actually demonstrated here is that capitalism implies hierarchial structure. This is neither new nor particularly insightful; it is an elementary tenet of anarchism that capitalism is the cause of this. That doesn't mean it works well, it just means that capitalist societies will inevitably do it. It's a demonstration of why capitalism sucks.
Indeed, the high reputations of those on the list is what makes the whole thing so nasty. Bill Gates was just bragging about this kind of cheesy scheme in a BBC interview:
He was talking about the media center, the one that blew up on him in public with dismal sales. News flash, Bill, it has to work for people to say they like it.
I don't know if this M$NBC article is tied to that effort, but it is the lowest form of "influence" purchase I've seen yet. Microsoft has always pursued this strategy to one extent or another, giving product to people who they think will be influential. In the past, they pushed product onto business schools and other places that might not know better. That was low but fair enough. This effort, where the recipients are identified before receiving anything combines that game with another one, falsely attributing approval or endorsements. It takes the "smart people use M$" lie to a personal level and that's reprehensible.
It's not a spiff to a salesman or product to a writer, they are trying to hijack other people's reputations in an effort to push buggy crap. The company that gave us the "Apple Switcher" and forged letters to representatives is not above such things. If there's anything Microsoft is an innovator with, it's astroturf. We shall see where this goes, but where it comes from is clear.
Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.