Tnx bro

Lies again? Vigrx Plus

Christopher Bunnell shoot

Harvard course

@@herogebrial is there a playlist?

care to explain?

1 year later, so am i.

Entertainment. Same as movies, TV, radio, porn, clubs and drugs.

Pokemon Go isn't really a problem in the normal sense, but it solves some Maslow's Hierarchy of needs problems, which was included in the video. Social, recognition and growth are "solved" I'd say.

Tracey cheah I think in the end they were able to do a few things. First they filled the users needs better. They also had better focus on customer segments and partners. Think about zynga, and ad the revenue models.

All businesses can sound like a "con" because everyone has DIFFERENT needs and what is VALUE to some, may not be for others. That's why it's important for a business to niche down and find your "target market and audience". Most businesses fail because they don't do that and just market to EVERYONE, which is essentially marketing to no one. Years ago there was a multi-million dollar $ product called the "Pet Rock"! And it was literally just a ROCK, yet it was marketed perfectly and sold millions. If you want a "Pet Rock" just go to your back yard and pick up a rock and call it your pet, all 100% free. But, millions of people saw value in the "pet rock" because they purchased it.

@@ChristoMac welp youtube deleted my original comment through shitty coding. great response. it didn't apply but your thoughts are appreciated. value doesn't really matter. your pet rock example is good but doesn't apply. people who bought pet rocks knew what they were getting and only had a bit of buyer's remorse. in my response i used the word con to be mild mannered. i suspect the party is guilty of criminal fraud, and possibly defamation. he is promising a service by claiming to compete with people providing a service, and saying that the service wont be provided. savy people might catch onto that, but most i suspect wont. it would be like the pet rock company saying "rock not included" or "package not included". which inferentially means you just send them a check and they don't do anything. don't get me wrong, cutting overhead is great, but the moment you cross from consideration (mutual debt) into gift giving with only one party knowing it is gift giving, and that party not being the one giving the gift... sounds like a con.

@@ChristoMac here is a bit of a case which might help. for example most people buy starbucks even though mcdonalds/seatles best is prefered in taste tests and is graded to be of higher quality and expected to cost more. economic reasoning would presume that as quality increases, demand would increase; and as price falls, demand would increase. but it doesn't. people do irrational practices all the time, and a fair portion of them are for social posturing. pet rocks, the iconic starbucks cup, expensive brand name clothing, they are all attempts to individualistically express social proof. attempts to present oneself as valuable by surrounding oneself with expensive unnecessary things (peacocking). this was a different type of circumstance. need was found and a competitor said in effect "what if we didn't do that" and presented it as a pure cost savings for the same thing, when it really isn't the same thing. it would be like "why don't you go to your back yard, pick up a rock, and send us money".

@@morthim Okay, I absolutely understand what you are saying! I agree totally with you 100%, I completely misinterpreted your original post. I also appreciate you taking the time to explain it to me as well. I just learned an entirely new way of looking at the big picture, thank you!