That's a stupid contest. We know electric cars consume no petrolium/gas. What's the point? We already have the technology, we just need them on the market!

While this article did not state it, I think the auto xprize is for a company that will SELL THE CAR TO CONSUMERS which is what you both want .

I applaud those X-prize guys...helping to give a swift kick in the seat of the pants of two areas I wish to see more technological development in: Space vehicles & Automotive efficiency.

I read in a Buisnessweek article that some of the priliminary goals were:

1. Sell 1,000 vehicles (first one to this goal)
2. 100 mpg or better
3. Must use a combustible (cannot be straight up AC/DC)

This was preliminary, hats off to these guys for spurring innovation.

I'd like to see this vehicle come of this project:

1. Low coefficient of drag (.25 or better)
2. Low weight (sub 2,800lbs)
3. Low friction turbo diesel (1.0L I-4, VGT)
4. Accessories powered by exhaust heat recovery
5. Brown gas injection (via hydrolisis)
6. 6 or 7 speed manual transmission
7. Low rolling resistance, Carbon Fiber rims, aluminum used for drive shafts and axels.
8. Light hybrid using compressed air for energy storage.

Lou, you state the EXACT reason why you don't want to do this with an EV. It can be done with a typical civic/corolla and therefore no innovation springs forth...doing it with an ICE will force innovation in reducing parasitic losses in accessories, reducing frictional losses in the driveline, reducing weight, reducing coefficient of drag, etc...AND at the end of the day; guess what? You can now put your EV drivetrain into a much, much, MUCH more efficient platform than you would have had if you stuck with a civic EV conversion.

John- you can buy carbon fiber rims right now for street motorcycles and race cars. I don't personally have the desire for 18+ inch rims or to spend $5000+ on rims though.

And it's ironic that you'd mention New Coke. Some theorize that the whole point of that exercise was to reinforce the traditional brand by making people nostalgic for Original Coke. Seems to have worked, if that were really the intent.

So, it's an example of pumping up demand when the "natural" consumer demand for the product was waning.

And it's ironic that you'd mention New Coke. Some theorize that the whole point of that exercise was to reinforce the traditional brand by making people nostalgic for Original Coke. Seems to have worked, if that were really the intent.

A couple weeks ago on the History Channel was a program called American Eats. This particular show was devoted to soft drinks. One segment was on New Coke. The company developed the new forumla and taste tested it. The new formula won by large margins over the old. So with that market research in hand, the company decided to make the change.

The reaction of the public at large is well known. But the lesson is still that you can't tell your customers what they want. You have to listen to them.

The market can change very fast, as US automakers are learning.

That said, it doesn't mean that consumer preferences don't matter, but rather that the proposition that "the customer is king" is completely invalidated by the existence of the massive marketing industry. If people simply knew what they wanted it, and communicated it to suppliers, then there'd be no need to convince them of anything, create desires, and so forth.

Just look at something like bottled water - a thousand times more expensive than tap water, and many times no better (or worse) than that same tap water. But marketing is what makes people override reason and then desire such a thing.

The number of such examples are countless.

Again, I have to agree with Joseph W.. His arguments have been solid time after time. The SUV is another point in which mass marketing and fad and trend that are driving consumers' purchasing decision, and not actual needs. The more fuel-efficient station wagon would serve the needs just fine, but no, everyone must have a gas-guzzling in-your-face styled SUV that's built like a brick and prone to flipping over, a machine that in fact is less safe than the more efficient machines that it replaces, while constitutes a public menace should one got hit sideway by the shoulder-height bumper.

ziv,
One do not drink as much bottled water as much as one consumes gasoline. I am not so stupid as to buy bottled water for $1.30, but, rather, I distill my own water for pennies a gallon using night-time electricity, and reuse the water bottle in order to save the environment from toxic industrial wastes. Reverse-osmosis water purification system is even more energy efficient can be set up at home also, should one needs more potable water. Big Oil's major guilt is in their control of governments world wide in order to squash development of renewable energy and energy efficiency development.

The huge amount spent on marketing is much more driven by competition than by the fact that demand would collapse without it.

Really? So when you see some little "must have" gadget that gets advertised constantly, then eventually ends up being unused in millions of homes, this is some "natural consumer demand" which drove production of that product?

Your assertions that marketing appeals to emotions has nothing to do with the hypothesis which I am countering. Of course it appeals to emotions. That's pretty much the whole point. The original argument made was that consumers drive production, not the other way around. The fact that marketers exploit human psychology is axiomatic. That's precisely the point.

The huge amount spent on marketing is much more driven by competition than by the fact that demand would collapse without it.

Oh, I think that's a very tenuous proposition. No way to test it, either, is there?

Big oil doesn't control governments

It controls the biggest one.

A lot of food we buy ends up unused in the garbage can. That doesn't mean we don't need food.

Uh... OK. You still aren't addressing the core point that demand doesn't somehow naturally originate from consumers 100% of the time and therefore marketing has no purpose. This is what was originally asserted - the "customer is king" proposition. The fact that people don't eat some of their food also has absolutely nothing to do with the example I raised. In the food case, you're talking about something people need, otherwise they will DIE. Same can't be said about the latest ab cruncher or little chopper/dicer/magic device available for five easy payments of 19.99 plus shipping and handling.

My hypothesis is the following: marketing can not sell things that people don't want.

Well, your hypothesis flies directly in the face of the entire marketing industry and in a way is relying on circular logic. Wants can most certainly be created. Like I said, do you think that Joe Consumer sits around and says to himself, "I very much want this specific iteration of a bizarre ab crunching device". No. Someone creates that device then convinces Joe Consumer that his life will be a miserable failure without said device.

I was merely trying to convey my opinion that marketing is not as powerful as you appear to think.

Let me make this clear, since it seems to be not getting through.

The proposition first put forward is thus:
"You make a product and tell the public 'you WILL buy this'. That's not the way the market works. A company telling their customers what they should buy is a surefire way to go out of business. Because a competitor will pop up and tell something the public wants and get rich."

So, Cervus was asserting that "the market works" in such a way that marketing has no effect whatsoever, and that successful companies merely respond to what people actually want.

Refuting that extreme and illogical position does not then mean that I believe "marketing is all-powerful". But to deny that marketing creates desires for things that weren't naturally existing flies in the face of all logic and experience, and I've given plenty of examples to support this.

"Yes, I still do think that marketing can not create a demand, although on the surface it very much looks like it does have the power to do so."

Come on. $220 billion spent annually in the US on marketing and you think that all that is simply for... what? A good salesman can sell space heaters in Hell.

Do you have any familiarity with the direct marketing industry? Essentially a piece of direct mail almost always has four components (in the order given):
1) Benefit/message
2) Offer
3) Guarantee/deadline/special bonus
4) Call to action

Essentially the idea is to capture someone's attention with the supposed benefit, putting forth the offer, making it seem like you're getting a "deal", and putting a sense of urgency to it.

Now, if people really wanted that specific thing, why would the marketer try to short-circuit rational consideration and try to compel people to buy right away? Why does a channel like QVC even exist?

Here's some links for you to peruse:
one
two
three

Of course people have wants and needs that are then responded to by "the market" or producers. That's obvious. But to assert that there's all there is to ignore how marketing works and what its intent is.