Marketing buzzwords

[Darth Wong]

I saw a beautiful quote on Tom's Hardware today:

At every product launch, the two market leaders in the 3D chip segment (NVIDIA and ATi) always serve up the same standard fare for the press: there's a lot of noise from the manufacturers about new technologies while they bandy about a dizzying array of technical terms that they invented themselves. "Fast food" and "very hard to swallow" are really the only terms to describe it. You're soon brought down to earth only weeks later, when the product makes its way to the test labs. The first drivers usually come laced with a portion of bugs - the classic teething problems that go hand in hand with quick product cycles. While it all seems quite savory at first, a nasty aftertaste soon sets in when it becomes clear that only a few of the many new features can actually be used in practice. In fact, the only morsel left on the plate is merely the performance gain over the previous model.

This is, of course, standard marketing fare: invent buzzwords, try to sell them to the consumer as must-have "features", and then quietly instruct your salespeople to incessantly denigrate the competition for not having them, even if they're nothing but vapour, your own implementation of a widely used technique, or parlour tricks of such narrow applicability that they're essentially useless.

It's not just the computer people who do it; marketers in all industries do it. Why, for example, do we care whether one manufacturer's car has a "VORTEC" V6 engine instead of a "regular" V6 engine? Shouldn't we simply be comparing measured results such as horsepower and torque curves, or fuel economy?

It occurs to me that Trekkies do this a lot. Their ships are superior, we are told, because they have "ablative armour, regenerative multi-phase shielding, transphasic torpedoes", etc., and SW ships don't. Comparisons of observed firepower (against inert objects such as asteroids, to remove uncontrolled variables), travel speed, etc. are shunned at all costs, in favour of buzzword marketing.

I've asked this kind of question before, so I'll try it again: does anyone have any ideas which logic fallacy would best describe this well-worn trick?

[Wicked Pilot]

I like to call it the "shampoo fallacy." Anybody who has seen shampoo comercials on TV can tell why.

[SirNitram]

Form over function.

Who cares how it works! Look! It has go faster stripes! Don't look at the specs, no, that's bad!

[RayCav of ASVS]

BTW, a "VORTEC" engine is just one brand's particular name for their DOHC engines (I think it's either Honda or Ford products). It's not fundamentally different from any other DOHC engine.

Toyota's VVT engine, on the other hand, is. I don't know what it is exactly, rather that it isn't a SOHC, DOHC, or pushrod. Actually, I think it may be the most advanced of the four.

Now first of all, the most basic configuration is the pushrod engine. Only GM domestic products use these anymore (note that their foreign brands, such as Saab, as well as Saturn use SOHC and DOHC engines). I believe they have a fuel mileage penalty, which is why most people switched, but they can get as much bang for the buck performance wise, and they are a breeze to maintain.

SOHC and DOHC engines are what most people use. Like I said, I think they have better fuel economy than pushrods and as good of performance, but more complicated. DOHC tends to be reserved for smaller and performanc engines.

Like I said, Toyota's VVT engine is the most advanced, and I think it has the best fuel mileage, but is the most complex. Not to mention Toyota has a patent on the design.

I would also like to add that I am by no means a car expert, so the above is just the best speculation that I can offer. For true experts, visit the message forums at www.caranddriver.com

And yes I am aware that this is off-topic, sorry

[Master of Ossus]

I call it the "toothpaste fallacy." The idea is that if a buzzword could apply to a toothpaste without difficulty, then it is a worthless buzzword.

There are also other buzzwords that cannot really apply to toothpastes, but they are equally stupid. For instance, one of the things my AP Chemistry teacher told us to do on the test back in Junior year (yes, this is the bad Chem teacher) told us that whatever question we were asked about the properties of atoms, we were to talk about the Effective Nuclear, or the Atomic Shielding Effect, or both. They were just buzzwords, and most atomic phenomena can be explained simply through other terms, but they were her buzzwords, and so everybody had to use them.

[RayCav of ASVS]

I call it the "toothpaste fallacy." The idea is that if a buzzword could apply to a toothpaste without difficulty, then it is a worthless buzzword.

There are also other buzzwords that cannot really apply to toothpastes, but they are equally stupid. For instance, one of the things my AP Chemistry teacher told us to do on the test back in Junior year (yes, this is the bad Chem teacher) told us that whatever question we were asked about the properties of atoms, we were to talk about the Effective Nuclear, or the Atomic Shielding Effect, or both. They were just buzzwords, and most atomic phenomena can be explained simply through other terms, but they were her buzzwords, and so everybody had to use them.

Presenting, new from Colgate, Atomic Toothpaste!

It possesses Effective Nuclear energy, best exploiting Atomic Sheilding Effect, to give your teeth that minty, glowing neon green, radioactive clean feeling!

[Stuart Mackey]

I saw a beautiful quote on Tom's Hardware today:
snip
This is, of course, standard marketing fare: invent buzzwords, try to sell them to the consumer as must-have "features", and then quietly instruct your salespeople to incessantly denigrate the competition for not having them, even if they're nothing but vapour, your own implementation of a widely used technique, or parlour tricks of such narrow applicability that they're essentially useless.

It's not just the computer people who do it; marketers in all industries do it. Why, for example, do we care whether one manufacturer's car has a "VORTEC" V6 engine instead of a "regular" V6 engine? Shouldn't we simply be comparing measured results such as horsepower and torque curves, or fuel economy?

It occurs to me that Trekkies do this a lot. Their ships are superior, we are told, because they have "ablative armour, regenerative multi-phase shielding, transphasic torpedoes", etc., and SW ships don't. Comparisons of observed firepower (against inert objects such as asteroids, to remove uncontrolled variables), travel speed, etc. are shunned at all costs, in favour of buzzword marketing.

I've asked this kind of question before, so I'll try it again: does anyone have any ideas which logic fallacy would best describe this well-worn trick?

I remember a few years ago there was a big thing about a particular bit of a cars engine, I forget what, that all the car sellers were harping on about. I was interested in this, so I asked my father, a former mechanic, what the big deal was about, and he said
"Its marketing, nothing more, what they are on about has been common since 1908".

[Admiral Valdemar]

I call it Star Trek fallacy.

I swear, if they put "Quantum" infront of MacLeans toothpaste one day, everyone will buy it.

[Master of Ossus]

I call it the "toothpaste fallacy." The idea is that if a buzzword could apply to a toothpaste without difficulty, then it is a worthless buzzword.

There are also other buzzwords that cannot really apply to toothpastes, but they are equally stupid. For instance, one of the things my AP Chemistry teacher told us to do on the test back in Junior year (yes, this is the bad Chem teacher) told us that whatever question we were asked about the properties of atoms, we were to talk about the Effective Nuclear, or the Atomic Shielding Effect, or both. They were just buzzwords, and most atomic phenomena can be explained simply through other terms, but they were her buzzwords, and so everybody had to use them.

Presenting, new from Colgate, Atomic Toothpaste!

It possesses Effective Nuclear energy, best exploiting Atomic Sheilding Effect, to give your teeth that minty, glowing neon green, radioactive clean feeling!

Hmmm.... Maybe it does work!

[Master of Ossus]

I call it Star Trek fallacy.

I swear, if they put "Quantum" infront of MacLeans toothpaste one day, everyone will buy it.

Incidentally, has anyone figured out what photons have to do with photon torpedoes? They seem to be simple M/AM weapons, to me.

BTW, does anyone know what Quantum torpedoes do that's different from photon torpedoes? They just seemed to change color on us, and I think they looked a little bigger.

[RedImperator]

BTW, does anyone know what Quantum torpedoes do that's different from photon torpedoes? They just seemed to change color on us, and I think they looked a little bigger.

Nobody seems to know. Even Graham Kennedy, oh he of many numbers and little evidence, admitted it just looks like they changed the color.

[Pablo Sanchez]

Nobody seems to know. Even Graham Kennedy, oh he of many numbers and little evidence, admitted it just looks like they changed the color.

http://daltonator.net/fuq/search.php?au ... 5to%25blue

From a fairly long time ago, IIRC just after the Star Trek TMs were revealed as pure conjecture.

[Asst. Asst. Lt. Cmdr. Smi]

I'd simply call it the "buzzword fallacy". The names of ST weapons sound cooler, like a buzzword, so they must be better.

[TrailerParkJawa]

Presenting, new from Colgate, Atomic Toothpaste!

It possesses Effective Nuclear energy, best exploiting Atomic Sheilding Effect, to give your teeth that minty, glowing neon green, radioactive clean feeling!

LOL! Thats funny.

Just don't sell this to the people that believe flouride is a communist plot.
Might make em angry!

[EmperorChrostas the Cruel]

To RayCav, and others:

Toyota's VVT, means Variable Valve Timing. I don't know how many gearheads there are in here, vs computer heads, but this is the deal. Ignition timing has been variable, via manual on older cars, (Vintage) and vacuum controled, (vacuum advaced) for a long tome. It is now computer controled. Retarding ignition timing produces more torque, (and less horsepower) at lower RPMs, and advancing the ignition timing produces more horsepower, at the expence of torque, at higher RPMs. This matches the power curve, to the needs. Torque off the line, at lower speeds, and more horsepower at higher speeds. Torque is twisting power, reguardless of speed, like a spring, or steam piston. Horsepower is the amount of torque produced in a given time period. More horsepower, with lower torque, is a total of more energy output, but with less mechanical advantage. (Leverage)This is better at the "top end" More torque, but less total energy being produced in a given time period, is better for the "hole shot," or accelleration from 0 MPH. (or KPH for you metrics)
The valve timing can also be advanced, or retarded to put the power curve, to match the gearing of the car. Up until recently, this could only be done by advancing, or retarding the camshaft, relative to the crankshaft. This was done when the engine was apart, and could only be changed by tearing the engine apart, and physicaly moving the cam gear one tooth clockwise, or counter clockwise at a time.
VVT, is an active system, that advances, or retards valve timing, like ignition timing, to meet the power output, with the needs of the moment.
Combining this with fuel injection, and computer controles for all three systems, and the engine is much more efficient at producing power at ANY given RPM, or engine load. Net result, more horspower, more torque, and smoother running.
For future reference, using solenoids, instead of camshfts, to controle valve lift, duration, and timing, promises to give ever greater power. This would be because by using computer controled solenoid actuators instead of cams, lifters, pushrods, and or rocker arms, is the same as having an infinite number of cams, and variable valve timing, each setting best suited to the needs of the moment. This also gives you more NET engine power output, because the engine is not using energy to open the valves, (against powerful springs) or move any of the other valvetrain parts.(requiring energy input)
Result: Best possible power, less parsitic power loss, and lowest emisions.

VVT is not a new technology, or unique to Toyota. Only new to mass produced cars.( Like supercharging, and fuel injection, which were around in aircraft engines, in WWII!) It is expensive, because it is relativly new, (less than 10 years, but only in Indy cars) and requires a much more complicated connection between the crank, and the cam. (As opposed to a simple belt, or chain with tensioner. Or a direct gear to gear connection.)More parts, = more money.

However, VVT is a new feature, (only available in the last 2-3 years on ANY production cars) that is NOT on any car that doesn't brag about it.
Ferrari, Mitsubishi, and Honda all have engines with this feature.

It is a significant improvement, worthy of bragging about.

In this case, VVT is NOT a buzzword.

[Lusankya]

YVAN EHT NIOJ

such a catchy chorus...

[XPViking]

The "lemming" fallacy or the "smoke and mirrors" fallacy.

XPViking

[RayCav of ASVS]

About the VVT thing: I said I was not an expert and even conceded that what I wrote was pure conjecture based on what I knew, and even provided a link to guys who DID know.

[RedImperator]

YVAN EHT NIOJ

such a catchy chorus...

Heh. That was a pretty funny element of a pretty substandard episode. You a Simpsons fan, Lusankya?

In regards to buzzwords, I work in a pharmeceuticals warehouse right now, and down in the over the counter section, you see tons of crap with amusing buzzwords. My favorite are the Dr. Scholls magnetic shoe inserts, "Now with bipolar technology!" As if somehow had Dr. Scholls had been manufacturing unipolar magnets before, they'd still be in the shoe-insert business. Leading the list of quack products I've found, however, are Nature's Best Gelatin Dietary Suppliments. They're pills made of pure gelatin, the same stuff they make medicine capsules out of (you can actually buy empty gelatin capsules, but these definitely weren't the same thing). On the back of the bottle, there was a "Nutrition Facts" label listing only "Gelatin" with an * for the % recomended daily value. Condoms are good for buzzwords, too. "Ultra thin for better sensation" is a good one (the difference between ultra-thin and regular is mesured in microns). There's tons of ineffectual old wives' remedies with cheaper and more effective synthetic replacements labelled "all natural", as if I'd prefer a delicious shot of mineral oil to a tasteless Ex-Lax tablet I can dry swallow in an emergency. Plus I think every non-toxic plant in this hemisphere (and some of the toxic ones, too) up to and including skunk cabbage and crabgrass have been pacakged as an "herbal dietary suppliment". All in all, it's much more fun than that boring, stodgy RX section, where all the products have been approved by the FDA and have been demonstrated to have some actual measurable effect on human health.

[RayCav of ASVS]

What Simpsons episode was that?

[Master of Ossus]

That was the one when Bart and his friends became a boy-band. The one with Lt. Smash, and guest-starring 'N Sync (sp).

[Nick]

I've asked this kind of question before, so I'll try it again: does anyone have any ideas which logic fallacy would best describe this well-worn trick?

My personal inclination would be to view it as a form of 'style over substance' fallacy.

In this case, the 'style' is the marketing buzzwords used to describe something and the 'substance' is the genuine performance benefits (or lack thereof) delivered by the underlying technology.

To puncture the fallacy: figure out what technology/process/whatever the buzzword is referring to. Figure out if that underlying thing is actually unique to the product being considered (e.g. If RayCav is correct that Vortec is just a buzzword for a dual-overheard cam engine, then it makes no difference whether the engine is described as Vortec or DHOC). And then figure out what improvements that underlying technology really provides.

Alternatively, forget all of the above and just look at the performance figures (such as engine power curves, graphics card benchmark results, etc).

For many marketers, there often isn't any real substantial difference (certainly not one that matters to the casual user) - so style is all they have to work with.

[Raxmei]

This reminds me of the scene in Matt Ruff's Sewer, Gas, & Electric in which marketing trainees are asked which one of the identical brands of toothpaste is the best.

[Lusankya]

A bit of one, but trouble is, I always have sport practice when the simpsons is on.

[RedImperator]

A bit of one, but trouble is, I always have sport practice when the simpsons is on.

You poor dear. You should get your priorities straight and quit sport to get your Simpsons time in. Failing that, they've released the first two seasons on DVD. I think they eventually plan on releasing them all. Every episode has optional commentary from Matt Groening and others, too. My friends and I like to get together and drink all day and watch the Simpsons. This opposed to studying or helping save the earth or getting exercise or something.