smellycat

They're also terrible at pulling off astroturfing. To the point where I look at their attempts and wonder if an individual would have a case of being misled. For a company that I assume has a world class legal team, things often look sloppy and I wonder how much of it is done in the name of "being the disruption brand." ::washes mouth out::

At no point did I say this should be outlawed. But as a society, we should look at these types of "innovations" and question whether it's actually providing benefit to the longterm, wellbeing of our people and our ability to function together collectively.

This doesn't take into account the value of forced social interaction. Seeing a human at the grocery, exercising patience if the line is a little longer than I would perhaps like, being forced to engage in conversation with my neighbor...There is a value to these social behaviors and value to how they shape psychological development. I worry about the world where everything is catered to Me and I, and I can go about my life without interacting with the people I'm forced to share space with.

In business school (I know, shudder, I went to biz school), there's a pretty textbook formula of "[Product/Service] does [what's unique about the product/service] to [competitive advantage/how it's solving the problem]." It's simple, but it's actually much harder to do than you'd think. When you nail it, it's incredibly compelling.

After you build a draft, you have to ask, "Is anyone out there already saying this? Do they have our [what's unique] or [how it's problem solving]? If so, you need to either keep workshopping and thinking about what's truly unique to your product, and if the problem you're trying to solve is 1) actually a problem or 2) a thought-out solution.

If you're really struggling to answer those questions or come up with a unique statement, it's a good indicator that your product/concept may not be viable.