Date: Thu, 06 Feb 2003 02:14:45
A friend from the east coast forwards this item on automobile marketing.
Indeed, my car (a Taurus of the 1996-1999 oval-oid redesign) has been
described as being ugly as a "grinning catfish"--yet the gasoline-only
version has the same overall appearance as my alt-fuel model, but the
general observation Adams suggests about cleaner cars seems to apply to
some extent.
Of course, purists among the group would say we shouldn't have cars at all.
I confess that I bike to work only 8-9 months of the year and use either
bus, car-to-bus, or sometimes (on rare occasions) car-only to work during
the winter. Well, I also have a house that rates in the second-highest
Energy Star classification while Barrett's house probably leaks like a
Badger goalie, ummm, I mean a sieve. (Personally, as someone who finds
goalie his favourite position to play, I do not participate in the whole
sieve, sieve, sieve chant, but, sadly, the Badgers record this year speaks
for itself even if it's not all the goalie's fault--it rarely is.)
It probably all evens out. So there! :-)
Anyway... here it is:
=================================================
>Date: Wed, 05 Feb 2003 19:41:27 -0400
>Subject: Death by Marketing
>From: Jeffrey Pinhey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>To: Robert Paolino <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>X-Spam-Rating: 0.0000000000%
>
>Death by Marketing (by Scott Adams, DILBERT Author)
>------------------
>
>Did you ever wonder why fuel-efficient cars are always designed to
>look like lunch boxes or deodorant cans? I'm no expert on car
>design, but it seems to me that an attractive "shape" wouldn't cost
>a manufacturer extra. So why are all the cars that are friendly to
>the environment practically bristling with the subliminal message
>"DORK ON BOARD"?
>
>Answer: Marketing!
>
>Carmakers want to discourage people from buying cars that have high
>gas mileage and low profit margins. If you're foolish enough to
>cross them and buy a planet-saver anyway, automakers are going to
>exact some revenge by making sure you have no chance whatsoever of
>procreating.
>
>Normally I would applaud the spunky -- dare I say Dogbertian? --
>attitude of the world's carmakers. But these aren't normal times.
>There's a school of thought that if we use less fuel, we'll be
>safer from terrorist threats.
>
>I'm not convinced that oil is the problem. I'm pretty sure we could
>fly over the Middle East and drop bags of money and they'd still
>want to kill us for blocking the view. But I digress.
>
>The point is that carmakers could easily make a fuel-efficient
>hybrid car that looks great and doesn't cost more to manufacture
>than an ugly one. However, thanks to marketing, that ain't gonna
>happen.
>
>And so, as I have often predicted, marketing will be the death of
>us all. Our only hope is that our pollution kills the terrorists.
>
>====================================
Bob Paolino
"Something like this makes you think, 'Oh yeah.
This _IS_ rocket science.' "
--Kristen Fortson, NASA payload specialist
( ) ASCII ribbon campaign
X against HTML e-mail
/ \
_______________________________________________
Bikies mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.danenet.org/mailman/listinfo/bikies
