7.28.2017

Two things I saw on my walk around downtown Austin this morning....

This one is just... funny. 


This one made me stop and consider the painful irony. 
This shop creates marketing that celebrates the differences in 
women's bodies. They are proud to offer fashions for 
both petite and "plus" size women. 

The goal being to avoid shaming people with different body types.

Why then is the dress on the right, clearly intended for a larger sized person,
styled with a giant ice cream cone attached? 

Was someone sending a subconscious message?

Seems odd to me. 

Maybe next time put the ice cream cone right in the middle. 

Retail marketing is certainly replete with social minefields.

6 comments:

Mike Rosiak said...

I wanted to come back and comment on your "sunk cost" article from this morning, but it seems to have vanished. (Comments this morning were bringing up an error page.)

I think that most people misunderstand what a sunk cost is. I got my education about 20 years ago, from my company's chief accountant, as he and I were drafting a proposal to replace an aging computer system that had run out of gas. (I was the IT Director at the time.) When I pointed out the "value" of the existing hardware and software, he said it was a sunk cost, and we needn't, and shouldn't, consider it. His comment started me thinking, and eventually I internalized the idea that a sunk cost meant that it was unrecoverable, therefore had no value. This concept, when I remember to apply it, has since helped me in personal financial decisions.

And why do I stay with the m4/3 system? It's convenient. When I want to really fool around, my full frame camera is my old pal, the Canon AE-1 and a fast 50. Or my Yashica TLR. Or my Crown Graphic.

Kirk Tuck said...

Thanks Mike, I got carried away with my rationalization and, while I believe that the concept of the "Sunk Cost Fallacy" is a powerful benefit for our business minds it doesn't play well in mixed company comprised of hobbyists and working folk.

Thanks for the comment.

Steve Rice said...

Hi Kirk,
I had responded as well to the sunk cost post. I just recently heard the term on a big think YouTube video. One of her examples was reading a hundred pages of a book and finding it terrible, but continuing on to the end having already invested the time. What's funny is I showed my bibliophile wife the video, and she insisted that when you start a book, good or bad, you see it too the end.

Anyway, not much of a commenter but have enjoyed the blog for a while now.

Here's the link if anyone wants to watch it: https://youtu.be/vpnxd31y0Fo

Cheers,
Steve

Gato said...

Glad to see I'm not the only one who caught the sunk cost post. I saw it last night but was too tired to read thoroughly, came back and read it this morning, the it was gone when I tried to check for comments. Glad I caught it.

Regarding your post above, I was thinking specifically about how sunk cost might apply to a hobbyist like me -- about 99% retired from professional photography. It reinforced my recent decision to stop pretending what I do is a hobby business and treat it strictly as a hobby -- the business part is just not any fun anymore and the income is not enough to affect my lifestyle. So thanks for posting.

On a more mundane level, it also moved me to carry two boxes of obsolete studio flash equipment to the dumpster instead of worrying about if they might be of any value.

So thanks.

Alex said...

I liked reading that post and wish it back. "Sunk cost" applies to much more than only money spent.

Michael Ferron said...

I was downtown for the first time in a while Tuesday afternoon and saw that coffee sign but did not shoot it. What is weird though I did shoot that lip painting by the theaters on Congress. I can only say you have a great eye ;)