> he had raised an additional $1.6 million for his canned-water startup
It's always blowing my mind that smart/rich people invest time/energy/money in such useless ventures. On one hand everyone knows we're fucking the planet big time with mindless production/consumption, on the other hand you can spend $21.99 on 6L of water, in alu cans ... sweet sweet ""progress"" I guess.
"It's always blowing my mind that smart/rich people invest time/energy/money in such useless ventures"
Consider that they are trying to make money, and from that premise, they are not 'useless ventures'.
All food products are commodities: even cola, energy drinks.
Coca Cola, RedBull are by far and away brands more than they are 'good products'.
Evian water sells for 30% more than unbranded water, that's the power of brand.
From a certain perspective, of course it's useless, because it's just branded water obviously, it's in a way offensive to our sensibilities ... but it's smart.
The brand is pretty good. It's a little risky but it almost makes sense.
In restaurants, they charge you more for branded water, and they make you feel like a dolt for drinking 'tap water'. They make a lot of money selling it.
This is the 'bar' equivalent: you can drink 'tap water' like a broke school kid or have a can of 'liquid death' while your bros drink up. Then you don't look like 'sissy' (or choose your own term if that offends the sensibilities). Obviously it's ridiculous, but that's what consumerism is.
I saw this in the news yesterday and immediately flagged it to my marketing friends. It's not a stupid idea.
In terms of making money from empty marketing, come what may, it probably isn't a stupid idea.
In a world that's creaking under extreme pressure from climate, species and forest loss, and so on, it's an utterly reckless and stupid idea. That we have to learn to walk away from.
Quite happy to be the uncool kid (a stretch at my age, but hey) drinking tap water, ta. :)
On the basis of a very fast skim and the conclusion, their grounds appear to apply to 99% of agriculture. I'd have to give up eating.
"However, the tea industry has a high impact on the environment. While being monoculture, it is hub a particular type of fauna, it is ecologically friendly, that is, not harmful to the environment, absorbs greenhouse gases, and supports tea-tourism. However, it also raises certain concerns, including the huge use of pesticides and irrational use of chemical fertilizers."
No idea how it compares to coffee, coke, canned water or anything really, but the conclusion implies it may be one of the least-worst options.
If it turns out tea was worse than other beverage options, yes I would. We've already made significant changes, and expect to make more - from choice and mandated before my time here is done. :)
Giving up tea presumably would mean giving up something the poster presumably finds pleasurable. Drinking tap water instead of bottled has no such trade off. There's a big difference between asking people to live like monks and asking them to not consume things that give them little to no value.
How is that not relevant? If making money is part of my ethics, which is for many people (including me) are, then the answer to your original question, is yes it is ethical.
I'm not asking if morality is subjective, I'm asking how to reconcile a difference between two moralities. Pointing out that people think differently on such matters is not only obvious, it is something I had to assume before even asking the question.
What were you hoping to achieve with your comment?
Your entire comment history is filled with the same "I don't have to answer to anybody" style of argument. You were not simply trying to answer my question. You didn't even bother to try to understand it. You're on some kind of craven ideological power trip.
Mostly what I'm trying to do is convey to some commenters here what seems to be a common lack of understanding in tech (maybe a good thing) as to how and why people buy goods and services.
When one understand this, one understands why it's a 'good' business plan.
Also - we - all of us - are woefully unaware of how poignant and powerful all of this is. It works on all of us and 100% of the consumer goods we buy - and even many 'tech goods' are brand and aspirationaly oriented.
Tech is full of ridiculous fads and memes; when I go to tech conferences we play a game of 'count the allbirds' (shoes) as kind of a joke.
But even for actual tech products: Google, FB, Snapchat, Apple (obviously), MS, to some extent Twitter - those are heavy brands, even if they weren't derived from a bunch of marketing people ... 'Do No Evil' ended up being an important lynchpin of Google branding efforts. Way way back in about the year 2000, Google was running ads on NPR and their ethos and manner was presented ultimately as quite different than other tech companies. It was part of their messaging, however authentic.
So - no, I would not want to do this business, I would not want to support it, and I hope I never buy this ridiculous water. But I know my snowboarding brother and his friends will ...
If you start with the assumption that 100% of purchases are aspirational, it is no surprise that you reach this conclusion. But I will seriously question that assumption, simply because there are many other reasons to purchase a product. The vast majority of purchases I make are decided by distribution, not marketing. You seem to be measuring things in such a way as to never see the difference.
While branded water does sell for more, if you look closely you discover that bottled water buyers are not nearly as brand loyal as other drink buyers are (most cola drinkers have tried both Coke and Pepsi and can tell the difference, most water buyers have likewise tried off brands and been unable to tell the difference). Store brand water sells very well in general.
I bought four cheap water bottles from supermarket, one for work, one for home office, one for bedroom and a spare.
Drinking bottled water in the UK is insane, we have some of the best water in the world and people spend a pound on something they could get out the tap basically free.
Did you know that aluminum cans have a plastic liner?
Plastic bottles are made from a plastic that can be recycled into carpets and other synthetic materials fairly well. Plastic pollution comes largely from lower grades of plastic (think plastic bags, etc) that break apart into smaller pieces that filter feeders eat
I wouldn't worry about the plastic liner, TBH. Afaik this plastic lining is burned off/removed when recycling the aluminum. Unlike plastic, and like steel, aluminum is very economical to recycle, so it mostly is and has been for decades.
Aluminium its not economical to recycle at all. It takes a lot of energy to recycle it, which is done only because processing bauxites is even more expensive.
Buy a metal/glass bottle and fill it yourself. It's the most convenient / least polluting way to go. Depending on where you live some bottles might be consigned and reused (I know they do it that way in berlin)
It's "reduce, reuse, recycle" for a reason, "reduce" has a much bigger impact then "recycle".
From an investment point of view, smart/rich people that invest in start ups know a large percentage of them fail [1]. The idea is to invest smaller amounts in a bunch of crazy ideas in hopes that one of them--for reasons you may not fully understand--succeeds and covers the losses of the others.
Anecdotally: you could argue that a car that drives itself is outlandish, or rentable electric scooters is stupid, or X other idea is ridiculous, but those smart/rich investors are still making money at the end of the day.
Sure, if you judge things depending on how much money you can get in the least amount of time it makes sense.
The question is: when do we stop being ok with subsidising instant profit by selling our future well being ?
Would you trade one of your lung for a 5$ bill ? No, well that's what we're doing right now.
They are not selling water. They are selling an image and an aspiration: tap water is for boring, conventional, cheap people. 'Liquid Death' is for progressive bros to drink at the bar while their buddies drink up. 'Skate or die + Organic'. (Obviously this is ridiculous, rationally, but this is how consumers (including us) act).
Bars would much rather sell you branded water than give you free tap water, just as restaurants do.
Why is this weird? You can buy water in glass bottles, plastic bottles and paper containers around the world. Why not in a can with a cool logo/slogan?
On the other hand if they're going to drink a can of something, it might as well be plain water. Much healthier and more environmentally friendly than pretty much anything else you could put in it.
One example of a "weird thing" is to be a recovering alcoholic who wants to occasionally have a more ornate or interesting non-alcoholic beverage in their hand in social settings.
If you gave me a choice between a plastic Fiji bottle and a metal can with a badass skull on it, I'm choosing the badass skull. That "weird thing in your brain" is a lifestyle choice, and we make them all the time. How weird is it that someone might choose a translucent purple pen over a plain white pen? It makes no difference really, but some people prefer one over the other.
You consume branded aspirational products essentially every day.
Almost all consumer products have integrated aspirational messaging that induces you (and I mean you, me, everyone else) to pay significantly more then we would otherwise.
Most people's clothing, for example, goes far beyond cost/utility/comfort.
The 'gullible' people are those who think they are not susceptible to this, and don't act on these impulses.
Almost thinks they are not susceptible to marketing, and almost everyone actually is.
Who's claiming marketing immunity? There's status signaling, and there's gullibility. Wearing quality shoes that also look nice is worth paying extra, but paying extra for the packaging of water indistinguishable from that of a cheap filter is plain gullibility.
Buying designer tap water might be status signaling, but it's just because the other gullible people consider it a status signal.
Props to the author for trying to generate clicks through false controversy, but the attempt falls flat. They keep mentioning how this product is a form of toxic masculinity or part of a boys' club, even comparing it to other products clearly marketed to men. But this product is only marketed to straight-edge punk or metal people, which is not in any way exclusively male. I'm kind of embarrassed for the author, as what they're implying (only men can be straight-edge or punk) is so obviously sexist. I actually know more women than men that are into skulls and death imagery, and more women who don't drink or smoke.
I cannot express how much I detest this phrase or the similarly vile German equivalent 'Gutmensch'. Turning the good impetus or empathy into something negative is just evil. One should really rethink the use of the term.
Not to say the 'toxic masculinity' is not a terrible term as well since it can easily be misunderstood as (any) masculinity being toxic -- not just exaggerated, testosterone-overcharged masculinity.
It can easily be "misunderstood" by people arguing in bad faith, but that's true of any term; "toxic masculinity" remains a useful phrase for referring to a particular set of beliefs and behaviours.
As is "Social Justice Warrior". Both terms were created to identify certain behaviors and categorize them in a negative light. You can't praise one while condemning the other.
"Turning the good impetus or empathy into something negative is just evil. One should really rethink the use of the term."
Consider that people commonly wag their fingers and take the moral high ground from their armchairs because it's easy, or they want click bait. It's very common.
This article is the perfect example: rejecting a water brand aimed at the punk style because it's 'toxically masculine' is utterly ridiculous.
And FYI 'toxic masculinity' is a bigoted, cis-phobic and misandrist concept to begin with - let alone discussing serious issues such as sexual assault, we're talking about water for gosh sakes.
The world is full of people building an identity of being 'holier than though' it's why actors/actresses build a public image and brand often by supporting some specific cause that they ostensibly 'care' about. 'Saying you care' about something is basically meaningless, what matters are those who 'do something' about it.
Famous leaders, business leaders, politicians - all are caught in a game of having to appear moral, which is why the end up usually talking far beyond their material, real claims to making the world a better place.
Everyone wins a few social points by seeming moral, or righteous, and it's just too easy to find something arbitrary somewhere and condemn it for some arbitrary reason.
We're talking about water.
Edit: if we're going to take a legit run at this brand it could be with regards to packaging, or the blatantly ridiculous nature of branding H20 (... even thought it will probably work!)
No worse than Voss, Fiji, or Mountain Valley Spring. Looks like they're going to sell it for similar prices, too. Article title is a bit inflammatory, but there's massively overpriced spring water out there already.
Too cool? I sense some judgement here. As someone who had never enjoyed alcohol and technically a tech bro, my rejection to alcohol is nothing about the image it presents, just I didn't like the drink. Is this weird？
Have you seen a picture of the product? The judgement has nothing to do with people being teetotal. The product is marketed at people who want to look like their drinking Some kind of ‘radical’ beer.
There is sometimes judgment/pressure if you don't drink unfortunately, but it seems to be getting more rare. Most people are respectful though (same goes for a lot of my H1B buddies who don't eat meat).
Once I got past the black screen that forces me to disable my ad block, I then get presented with a survey I have to take in order to be able to read the article.
I like how the author is mad about water while canned beer which is produced consumed in much larger quantities is totally fine. Getting beer-drinkers to switch to water via marketing would be a huge win and it's an effort that should be applauded.
76 comments
[ 2.9 ms ] story [ 136 ms ] threadIt's always blowing my mind that smart/rich people invest time/energy/money in such useless ventures. On one hand everyone knows we're fucking the planet big time with mindless production/consumption, on the other hand you can spend $21.99 on 6L of water, in alu cans ... sweet sweet ""progress"" I guess.
Consider that they are trying to make money, and from that premise, they are not 'useless ventures'.
All food products are commodities: even cola, energy drinks.
Coca Cola, RedBull are by far and away brands more than they are 'good products'.
Evian water sells for 30% more than unbranded water, that's the power of brand.
From a certain perspective, of course it's useless, because it's just branded water obviously, it's in a way offensive to our sensibilities ... but it's smart.
The brand is pretty good. It's a little risky but it almost makes sense.
In restaurants, they charge you more for branded water, and they make you feel like a dolt for drinking 'tap water'. They make a lot of money selling it.
This is the 'bar' equivalent: you can drink 'tap water' like a broke school kid or have a can of 'liquid death' while your bros drink up. Then you don't look like 'sissy' (or choose your own term if that offends the sensibilities). Obviously it's ridiculous, but that's what consumerism is.
I saw this in the news yesterday and immediately flagged it to my marketing friends. It's not a stupid idea.
In a world that's creaking under extreme pressure from climate, species and forest loss, and so on, it's an utterly reckless and stupid idea. That we have to learn to walk away from.
Quite happy to be the uncool kid (a stretch at my age, but hey) drinking tap water, ta. :)
(Making some assumptions from your username ;)
https://oxfordre.com/environmentalscience/view/10.1093/acref...
"However, the tea industry has a high impact on the environment. While being monoculture, it is hub a particular type of fauna, it is ecologically friendly, that is, not harmful to the environment, absorbs greenhouse gases, and supports tea-tourism. However, it also raises certain concerns, including the huge use of pesticides and irrational use of chemical fertilizers."
No idea how it compares to coffee, coke, canned water or anything really, but the conclusion implies it may be one of the least-worst options.
If it turns out tea was worse than other beverage options, yes I would. We've already made significant changes, and expect to make more - from choice and mandated before my time here is done. :)
What were you hoping to achieve with your comment?
>how to reconcile a difference between two moralities
What is there to reconcile? I simply do whatever I personally think its ethical.
>What were you hoping to achieve with your comment
Simply answering your question
We all agree it's kind of dumb, pragmatically.
Mostly what I'm trying to do is convey to some commenters here what seems to be a common lack of understanding in tech (maybe a good thing) as to how and why people buy goods and services.
When one understand this, one understands why it's a 'good' business plan.
Also - we - all of us - are woefully unaware of how poignant and powerful all of this is. It works on all of us and 100% of the consumer goods we buy - and even many 'tech goods' are brand and aspirationaly oriented.
Tech is full of ridiculous fads and memes; when I go to tech conferences we play a game of 'count the allbirds' (shoes) as kind of a joke.
But even for actual tech products: Google, FB, Snapchat, Apple (obviously), MS, to some extent Twitter - those are heavy brands, even if they weren't derived from a bunch of marketing people ... 'Do No Evil' ended up being an important lynchpin of Google branding efforts. Way way back in about the year 2000, Google was running ads on NPR and their ethos and manner was presented ultimately as quite different than other tech companies. It was part of their messaging, however authentic.
So - no, I would not want to do this business, I would not want to support it, and I hope I never buy this ridiculous water. But I know my snowboarding brother and his friends will ...
Reduce, reuse, recycle. In that order
Drinking bottled water in the UK is insane, we have some of the best water in the world and people spend a pound on something they could get out the tap basically free.
It still boggles my mind that people continue buying water bottles where tap water is totally ok (and in some case, better than bottled water).
Plastic bottles are made from a plastic that can be recycled into carpets and other synthetic materials fairly well. Plastic pollution comes largely from lower grades of plastic (think plastic bags, etc) that break apart into smaller pieces that filter feeders eat
If it's lower grade, is there something better than can be used?
Aw man :(
[1] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28429887
It's "reduce, reuse, recycle" for a reason, "reduce" has a much bigger impact then "recycle".
Anecdotally: you could argue that a car that drives itself is outlandish, or rentable electric scooters is stupid, or X other idea is ridiculous, but those smart/rich investors are still making money at the end of the day.
[1] https://www.forbes.com/sites/neilpatel/2015/01/16/90-of-star...
Would you trade one of your lung for a 5$ bill ? No, well that's what we're doing right now.
Bars would much rather sell you branded water than give you free tap water, just as restaurants do.
Plus you can't re-seal cans.
Almost all consumer products have integrated aspirational messaging that induces you (and I mean you, me, everyone else) to pay significantly more then we would otherwise.
Most people's clothing, for example, goes far beyond cost/utility/comfort.
The 'gullible' people are those who think they are not susceptible to this, and don't act on these impulses.
Almost thinks they are not susceptible to marketing, and almost everyone actually is.
Buying designer tap water might be status signaling, but it's just because the other gullible people consider it a status signal.
I cannot express how much I detest this phrase or the similarly vile German equivalent 'Gutmensch'. Turning the good impetus or empathy into something negative is just evil. One should really rethink the use of the term.
Not to say the 'toxic masculinity' is not a terrible term as well since it can easily be misunderstood as (any) masculinity being toxic -- not just exaggerated, testosterone-overcharged masculinity.
Consider that people commonly wag their fingers and take the moral high ground from their armchairs because it's easy, or they want click bait. It's very common.
This article is the perfect example: rejecting a water brand aimed at the punk style because it's 'toxically masculine' is utterly ridiculous.
And FYI 'toxic masculinity' is a bigoted, cis-phobic and misandrist concept to begin with - let alone discussing serious issues such as sexual assault, we're talking about water for gosh sakes.
The world is full of people building an identity of being 'holier than though' it's why actors/actresses build a public image and brand often by supporting some specific cause that they ostensibly 'care' about. 'Saying you care' about something is basically meaningless, what matters are those who 'do something' about it.
Famous leaders, business leaders, politicians - all are caught in a game of having to appear moral, which is why the end up usually talking far beyond their material, real claims to making the world a better place.
Everyone wins a few social points by seeming moral, or righteous, and it's just too easy to find something arbitrary somewhere and condemn it for some arbitrary reason.
We're talking about water.
Edit: if we're going to take a legit run at this brand it could be with regards to packaging, or the blatantly ridiculous nature of branding H20 (... even thought it will probably work!)
"Private browsing detected. In order to continue browsing The Gazette in private mode please login".
> Inspect element: delete
Anyway, the posters point was that they thought the tite was looking down on non-drinkers. I think they were ust looking down on this product.
Considering it's an article complaining about "toxic masculinity" (phrase used in the article), that sure seems like one incredibly toxic title.
No thanks.
https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/behindtheoverlay/l... / https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/behind_the_ov...