Reddit reviews Why We Buy: The Science of Shopping--Updated and Revised for the Internet, the Global Consumer, and Beyond

Paco Underhill, mad scientist of retail science recommends as few mirrors as possible, because mirrors disctract shoppers, and can break a shopper's concentration. That is why they are often hidden in dressing room areas and not out on the floor. I can't speak to the stores that you were in, but you are correct, in general mirrors are actually disappearing from many retail stores.

Why We Buy: The Science of Shopping--Updated and Revised for the Internet, the Global Consumer, and Beyond by Paco Underhill
http://www.amazon.com/Why-We-Buy-Shopping-Updated-Internet/dp/1416595244

There's a fantastic book on this topic named Why We Buy.

Here's a book about it. The author owns a business that studies how people shop and then implements plans to get them to buy more. Why We Buy https://www.amazon.com/Why-We-Buy-Shopping-Updated-Internet/dp/1416595244/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1485965941&sr=8-1&keywords=why+we+buy

Have you read Why We Buy? You will love it, if this is how you feel about shopping. Paco Underhill invented the science of studying people as they buy, why they respond to things like this. Funny funny book. It was assigned reading for my master's Consumer Behavior class.

There's actually a good book about this phenomenon called [Why We Buy]
(http://www.amazon.com/gp/aw/d/1416595244).

Oh no, I took that as anecdotal. And I will say off the top of my head, Why We Buy by Paco Underhill is a really interesting read about retail marketing/psychology. It's probably a little borderline for a lot of people reading this thread since some of it is about following shoppers around in a very spyish manner for behavioral research, but it is really interesting nonetheless for anyone regardless of profession. I'd suggest it.

> Not a single company cares what a consumer wants.

I think this is your overall thesis and the base of your argument. Don't get me wrong, any company's first motive is always profit. But if a company doesn't deliver the experience they promised to their customers, they aren't going to last very long before a superior competitor takes their place. This is more easily observed in tech industries since the rise and fall happens so quickly but the consequences of bad marketing are inescapable regardless of industry (inb4 comcast).

> They built up ★$ based on this italian authentic espresso/coffee house model. Once they cemented a reputation with the actual service, marketing took over. Get rid of employee training, get ride of benefits, maximizes advertisements and store design to emphasize the perception of what ★$'s is. It has little to to with substance now, it's about showmanship.

The positioning of starbucks changed in the consumer's mind. This mind sound like a load of horse crap but this is the process marketers go through, try to figure out where you are in the consumers' minds, be more like that and hope it works out. If it sounds superficial, it's because it is. It's nothing like a science, it would be better compared to art. You sometimes just have to feel out the right move to make and go for it. Starbucks realized fewer customers cared about the quality of their coffee, and more cared about the free wifi and cozy locations with nice decor where they could meet people. That's the value of starbucks now, so that's what they ran with. Does it suck for everyone that liked the old starbucks? Of course, but there are thousands of other coffee shops (at least where I am) that do the authentic coffee experience thing with more attention to detail than Starbucks ever could at its current scale. You may call it doubling back on his word (which it is, admittedly) but I would call it adapting to a changing market. As you said, the bottom line is showing profit to the shareholders.

>Very few people NEED a smart phone, but it has become as ubiquitous as car keys. Why? Because we are hairless apes that like shiny things. That is what marketing is about.

Other than hairless apes, we are also incredibly dependent on social interaction and iPhones offered a way to satisfy that need.

A popular mantra is that marketers "create needs" but in reality they just find needs and people later realize they have them.

>I've taken enough psychology and philosophy courses to have a pretty good understanding of the human psyche.

By the way, I didn't mean to call your credentials into question I was just trying to get a feel for your background. Although I would suggest that you look further into the difference between psychology and organizational behavior. There is a huge difference between what one human will do and what a group of humans will do, might interest you to read Why we Buy which delves into market research and all that. It's actually fascinating how in-depth researchers will go to ensure that the maximum amount of product is moved.

>I like the noble idea that marketers are there to help a consumer, but I've never seen any evidence of this.

Well it's not quite that noble. Their main focus is still on making profit. But the end goal is to have both the company and the consumer profit. That way the customer is more likely to come back for more. It's just like bartering with more steps and numbers in between, no one's trying to screw anyone over (for the most part) they're just trying to find a purpose and something to do that works, and if that thing is selling overpriced coffee or smartphones or whatever, as long as everyone's happy I can't find an issue with it.

>People will find the goods they need, they don't require assistance in that. Marketing is to sell you stuff you didn't need.

If you're talking about satisfying the bottom of Maslow's hierarchy of needs then yeah, but humans get more and more complicated as they satisfy more and more needs. People might not know they wanted instagram but that little notification that someone they care about liked their post might bring their day from terrible to great.

It's easy to say all that shit is superficial, and if you're still struggling to eat then yes, it's not something that should be worried about. But increasingly we have a growing population of lost, worried people who don't know what to do with themselves and who don't understand why they feel bad. Advertisements and the discovery of new things that could lighten your day can be a little blessing of a distraction for someone with very little other purpose in their life.

And it doesn't have to get that dark. Sometimes you're walking down the street feeling a little peckish and then you see a big sign for pretzels and you think "yes that would hit the spot!" And you get one and if it's good, it's a positive experience and you're distracted a little longer by that happiness.

Also, since I have a feeling this argument is coming, I'm not arguing that distracting yourself from finding the truth and your purpose in life is a good thing, and taken to the extreme it could be devastating. But you can't spend your entire life trying to find your purpose every waking second because you'd go insane. Distractions can ease that little feeling of depression and anxiety that some people feel is only a few bad days away from creeping back.

>Cheers! Thanks for indulging my asinine debate.

You as well, and I don't think it's asinine, I think it's something a lot of people are thinking about but not talking about and it may become an issue in the upcoming years as the line between government and business becomes more and more blurred, and I think it's important we try to establish a precedent sooner than later.

Why We Buy ,a retail bible.
The Knack ,real life advice.
Good luck!