I guess it’s an important part of advertising, and perhaps life in general, to be the best at something. Product A may be the best because it removes more dirt from dirty clothes than product B (assuming we’re talking washing powder). But what if product C does a job that’s 95% as good as A and you can only tell the difference under the microscope?
Sure, running the 100 m in 9.77 seconds is really impressive but where do you need to be in less than ten seconds that you couldn’t be in 15 or even 20. Getting back from the toilet before the ads finish just isn’t that important. It’s the same with driving. If you’re travelling 100 km, you can get there in an hour if you do the speed limit. But if you do 110 km/h, you get there just over five minutes earlier, and given that you usually fart around for at least that long at the petrol station choosing what kind of chips to buy for the drive, is it worth the $190 speeding fine?
Universities produce league tables that rank the top howevermany unis in the country/world… whatever. The uni that comes in at #1 lauds itself as being the best and the one that comes in at #200 somehow gains notoriety as being “the worst”. But they’re still all universities. You can still go and learn stuff and get a good job at the end of it. And you need to meet minimum standards to become a university, so while the difference between #1 and #200 is possibly remarkable, the difference between #1 and say #20, or the difference between #100 and #200 is probably miniscule, or superficial and not really worth worrying about. The guy that comes last in the 100 m final and runs a 10.07 is still a fucking fast runner.
I’ve been thinking about this today because this morning I had to park the car in a one-hour spot but didn’t have money to feed the meter for the full hour. I put in 50 cents to give me a few minutes while I went to get change. I needed $2 for the full hour. So I thought I’d buy a coffee and there was a café right in front of where I parked. I went in, looked at their menu and they wanted $3.20 for a long black.
Now I can go down the road from where I work and get an espresso long black for $2. It’s a decent cup of coffee. If it was caterer’s blend, instant powdered coffee, I’d pay maybe 20 cents (and even then, only if I had a pocket-full of 5-cent pieces I was looking to get rid of). I’d pay maybe $1 for a cup of good, freeze-dried instant coffee, just to cover the cost of the person heating the water and washing the spoon afterwards. But once you’re buying coffee from a real coffee machine, that’s the benchmark, the minimum standard. It’s all coffee. It’s better than drinking rubbish. Sure, some is slightly better than others, and if there’s value added (ie. if I’m drinking it in an aesthetically pleasing café, not a greasy spoon diner with lino floors) I’m fine with paying more because then I’m not just buying coffee, I’m paying for an experience.
But $3.20 for a takeaway? Sorry, it just can’t be that good that I’m going to pay that for a fancy cardboard cup with a lid (and let’s not even go into how much cheaper it should be when there’s no milk involved).
I walked down the road a bit and bought a pretty decent long black for $2.50 AND got to park my car.
Now I don’t like to plagiarise but I did draw up this little graphical representation of the experience, inspired by indexed.
