Lumifer comments on Marketing Rationality - Less Wrong
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (220)
I was also unimpressed by the T-shirts. It's just... I think it's easier to move from "bad shirts" to "good shirts" than from "no shirts" to "good shirts". It's just a different bitmap to print.
(My personal preference about shirts is "less is better". I would like to have a T-shirt only saying "LessWrong.com", and even that with smaller letters, not across the whole body. And preferably not a cheap looking shirt; not being white would probably be a good start.)
Generally, what I would really like is something between the Intentional Insights approach, and what we are doing now. Something between "hey, I'm selling something! look here! look here! gimme your money and I will teach you the secret!" and "uhm, I'm sitting here in the corner, bumbling something silently, please continue to ignore me, we are just a small group of nerds". And no, the difference is not between "taking money" and "not taking money"; CFAR lessons aren't free either.
Seems to me that nerds have the well-known bias of "too much talking, no action". That's not a reason to go exactly the opposite way. It's just... admirable what a single dedicated person can do.
I think quite the reverse. Inertia is a thing and bad shirts are "we already have them".
Making some shirts is a low-effort endeavour -- just throw the design at CafePress or Zazzle and you're done.
I prefer the experimental approach, of experimenting and then figuring out better ways to do things. This is how the most successful startups work.
Besides, we are doing new t-shirts now based on the feedback. Your thoughts on these two options would be helpful 1 and 2.
For this you need a way to measure and assess outcomes. What is the metric that you are using to figure out what's "better"?
Feedback from aspiring rationalists :-)