|
Slanderer posted:I love being a perfectly rational machine, immune to outside influence. Ok yso you've got some mental problems. Mind giving your defense of "advertising is always performing well, unlike any other industry out there"?
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2015 23:39
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 2, 2024 17:03 |
|
|
Nintendo Kid posted:Ok yso you've got some mental problems. Mind giving your defense of "advertising is always performing well, unlike any other industry out there"?  No one ever made that assertion except for you, hahah
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2015 23:51
|
|
|
Slanderer posted:
Yes they did, when they said that "advertising isn't always done well or effective, in fact, it often isn't" is wrong.
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2015 00:00
|
|
|
Nintendo Kid posted:Yes they did, when they said that "advertising isn't always done well or effective, in fact, it often isn't" is wrong. Haha, what you actually said: Nintendo Kid posted:Not all brand advertising is bad, but most brand advertising is completely ineffective (just as most of most any other kind of advertising is). The sheer amount of advertising out there makes it that way Lmao, you're actually trying to rewrite history from 1 page ago. "uhhh well uhhhh when I said that "MOST ADVERTISING IS INEFFECTIVE" i actually meant "Well sir, some advertising is ineffective" so when they disagreed it proved my argument to be superior. Checkmate." edit:
Slanderer fucked around with this message at 00:19 on Nov 3, 2015 |
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2015 00:15
|
|
|
Nintendo Kid posted:Don't see why you're rushing the defend the idea that all marketing is working great, as he's trying to claim. When you say "most brand advertising is completely ineffective" do you mean to say COST effective?
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2015 00:36
|
|
|
Slanderer posted:Haha, what you actually said: It's weird how mad you are about true statements? stinkles1112 posted:When you say "most brand advertising is completely ineffective" do you mean to say COST effective? It's most certainly cost ineffective as well.
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2015 00:54
|
|
|
Nintendo Kid posted:It's weird how mad you are about true statements? Ok are you using "brand advertising" and "advertising" interchangeably? Because if not then I don't think those other guys are the ones making the extraordinary claims. It seems like brand advertising like Coke or Subway or whatever is pretty much effective just by definition. Like, once you observe it, it's worked, right? sit on my Facebook fucked around with this message at 00:58 on Nov 3, 2015 |
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2015 00:56
|
|
|
stinkles1112 posted:Ok are you using "brand advertising" and "advertising" interchangeably? Because if not then I don't think those other guys are the ones making the extraordinary claims. It seems like brand advertising like Coke or Subway or whatever is pretty much effective just by definition. Like, once you observe it, it's worked, right? If you observe say, RC Cola advertising and never ever buy it, because the Coke and Pepsi advertising consistently works better, can you really say the RC Cola advertising was effective? To say nothing of all the advertising that's out there everyday for brands we can't think of off the tops of our heads because they don't even reach the standards of RC Cola. You could say that just the fact you observed it meant it "worked"... but that's really just something you say when you're the one selling the advertising. In reality merely being noticed once isn't good enough, it doesn't mean it was effective, it doesn't mean it will ever inspire someone to buy said product.
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2015 01:06
|
|
|
I understand that but it's still a big leap to "most brand advertising is completely ineffective". You just illustrated that some works better than others, which is obviously true.
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2015 01:12
|
|
|
Advertising on the whole works. There is a reason why companies spend billions on it. As for success rates it's probably reasonable to assume that 50% or less pays off in the long run especially when you consider the high overall failure rate of businesses and products. I assume this is what Fishmech is picturing. Though you shouldn't necessarily associate product failure with advertising failure. Not sure why any of this matters.
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2015 01:26
|
|
|
stinkles1112 posted:I understand that but it's still a big leap to "most brand advertising is completely ineffective". The ones that work better than others make the others varying levels of ineffective, especially in product segments where there's multiple dominant brands and a smorgasbord of lesser ones. It's close to a zero-sum game.
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2015 01:34
|
|
|
Nintendo Kid posted:In reality merely being noticed once isn't good enough, it doesn't mean it was effective, it doesn't mean it will ever inspire someone to buy said product. Here's the thing: all of advertising isn't the same. Different campaigns are meant to do different things. If Bob's Appliances in Smalltown, USA is having a Labour Day Sale and wants locals to see he's got a new Maytag for $299.99, it's probably best for him to take out a full page newspaper ad and do some local TV (maybe some online retargeting if he's got the budget but hey) On the other end of the spectrum, there's things like medication. Cialis or Viagra, for instance. Right now it's unlikely you need a pill to help you get an erection, but if you suddenly started having trouble, tell me with a straight face that you wouldn't immediately think of Cialis and/or Viagra as possible aides. Sure, you'd go to your doctor and listen to what he has to say, etc etc but just imagine how many conversations doctors have that begin with, "Me and the misses have been having trouble...tell me about this cialis stuff I was seeing during the World Series" Funny enough, you're making the mistake a lot of small businesses make when they first start and don't budget anything for advertising in their business plan: you think that marketing isn't working when really your concept of how marketing works is inherently wrong. Most of the ads you see on TV aren't "direct response", they're there to burrow into your brain to be recalled when you need whatever is out there. If you see an ad and don't immediately call the number on the screen, that doesn't mean it didn't work. Tell me this, if you won a lawsuit that included a structured settlement, who would you go to?
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2015 01:42
|
|
|
Waffles Inc. posted:Here's the thing: all of advertising isn't the same. Different campaigns are meant to do different things. Yes I already know that. The fact is most of it simply never pans out. When you're at the point of saying "maybe we can sell this to you in 40 years so we should spend the money now" it's lunacy. Many of these things won't exist by then. There's going to be some dick pills with reduced side effects by the time I'm 70. If I won a lawsuit that included a structured settlement what do you mean who would I go to? I already had a lawyer in that case, dummy, why hire another one to get rooked on fees for making it a lump sum (which is presumably what you're talking about)?
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2015 01:58
|
|
|
Nintendo Kid posted:Yes I already know that. The fact is most of it simply never pans out. Haha cite some sources dweeb
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2015 02:00
|
|
|
Slanderer posted:Haha cite some sources dweeb Source: The fact that every company does not sell their product/service/etc at rates equal to how much they put into marketing. The fact that people tend to buy only one thing out of any given product category instead of buying everything advertised to them. How about you cite some sources that all advertising works for once? Again, you're making the extraordinary claim here.
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2015 02:05
|
|
|
Fishkid, think of advertising within a prisoners dilemma context. If you were anyone else, it would help you consolidate your stance with why you're wrong.
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2015 02:09
|
|
|
Nintendo Kid posted:Source: The fact that every company does not sell their product/service/etc at rates equal to how much they put into marketing. The fact that people tend to buy only one thing out of any given product category instead of buying everything advertised to them. Wow you just disproved advertising with PURE LOGIC, fascinating. Also, I haven't actually made any claims you colossal moron. Correction: I just made the claim that you are a colossal moron. Source.
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2015 02:10
|
|
|
Junkyard Poodle posted:Fishkid, think of advertising within a prisoners dilemma context. That is precisely why most advertising doesn't work, yes. Slanderer posted:Wow you just disproved advertising with PURE LOGIC, fascinating. Oh so you just want to whine? That's cool.
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2015 02:14
|
|
|
Nintendo Kid posted:That is precisely why most advertising doesn't work, yes. You silly. When competing to sell a competitive good, one needs to not lose market share. Advertising when your competitor is advertising is a way to ensure that you retain market share. How is retaining market share a failure? If you introduce a new product(novel or not) to a saturated market with established advertising, would one expect better sales by a) not advertising or b) advertising? Do you believe companies do not regularly look to marginal cost or advertising vs marginal benefit when they engage in advertising? Inasmuch they continue when it makes sense and stop when it doesn't?
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2015 02:32
|
|
|
Junkyard Poodle posted:You silly. When competing to sell a competitive good, one needs to not lose market share. Advertising when your competitor is advertising is a way to ensure that you retain market share. How is retaining market share a failure? Because tons of companies don't retain market share. Why do you people keep making the assumption that just because people are still paying for something, it's actually working?
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2015 02:35
|
|
|
Moxie, Faygo, and other regional soda brands must not have advertised at all, to have lost market share. Or maybe they're the only examples. Maybe there aren't brands that have shrunk from their initial position while still advertising.
|
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2015 03:04
|
|
|
[quote="Nintendo Kid" post="452244798"] Because tons of companies don't retain market share. Why do you people keep making the assumption that just because people are still paying for something, it's actually How many ways can a company loose market share? Many! One way is to not advertise when a perfect substitute does. Hth
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2015 03:15
|
|
Junkyard Poodle posted:How many ways can a company loose market share? Many! One way is to not advertise when a perfect substitute does. Hth Can National Beverage Corp., owners of LaCroix(c) sparkling water, Faygo(c) soda, Everfresh(c) juices, among others, meaningfully cut into Coke and Pepsi's market share, through marketing campaigns within their reach as a company? The answer may surprise you, HTH HTH HTH.
|
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2015 03:19
|
|
|
Effectronica posted:Can National Beverage Corp., owners of LaCroix(c) sparkling water, Faygo(c) soda, Everfresh(c) juices, among others, meaningfully cut into Coke and Pepsi's market share, through marketing campaigns within their reach as a company? The answer may surprise you, HTH HTH HTH. Effectronica posted:Can National Beverage Corp., owners of LaCroix(c) sparkling water, Faygo(c) soda, Everfresh(c) juices, among others, meaningfully cut into Coke and Pepsi's market share, through marketing campaigns within their reach as a company? The answer may surprise you, HTH HTH HTH. Yes I do. However, Coke & Pepsi have deeper moats that would need to be overcame such as consumers flavor profile, distribution channels and being in better position to dictate price. Hth Hth Hth Hth Hth Hth Hth
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2015 03:29
|
|
|
Junkyard Poodle posted:
That still doesn't mean advertising anyway is actually going to work! Advertising campaigns fail all the time. It's really really easy for them to fail too, especially when you're up against competitors that have very good advertising.
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2015 03:35
|
|
Junkyard Poodle posted:Yes I do. However, Coke & Pepsi have deeper moats that would need to be overcame such as consumers flavor profile, distribution channels and being in better position to dictate price. Hth Hth Hth Hth Hth Hth Hth You're very inept at quoting and writing coherently, and your view of business as battle would make me fear for anyone left in the wake of a takeover or merger if you weren't, at best, a frustrated desk jockey with delusions of grandeur. But you accept that marketing is secondary to other factors (some of them fairly bullshit, but never mind that). Well, you've surrendered, I guess, because that's the big idea being pushed by the "anti" side.
|
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2015 03:36
|
|
|
Effectronica posted:You're very inept at quoting and writing coherently, and your view of business as battle would make me fear for anyone left in the wake of a takeover or merger if you weren't, at best, a frustrated desk jockey with delusions of grandeur. But you accept that marketing is secondary to other factors (some of them fairly bullshit, but never mind that). Well, you've surrendered, I guess, because that's the big idea being pushed by the "anti" side. Zing! Well played. I actually jerk off for a living. Nintendo Kid posted:That still doesn't mean advertising anyway is actually going to work! Advertising campaigns fail all the time. It's really really easy for them to fail too, especially when you're up against competitors that have very good advertising. Advertising is not an end-all but to dismiss because most campaigns aren't independently significant is silly.
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2015 03:52
|
|
|
I am desperately trying not to get involved in this but it seems like this entire slapfight is because everybody is throwing around words like "many," "most" and "some."
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2015 03:57
|
|
|
Junkyard Poodle posted:
No one is saying "all advertising doesn't work". What is being said is that most doesn't, which is true, and why new advertising campaigns must constantly come out: few stay working long term even when they work short term.
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2015 04:03
|
|
|
page 3 had some good stuff but this one is a total loss how accurate is zip code targeting? that seems like the one thing that could finally matter to small biz
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2015 05:12
|
|
|
Nintendo Kid posted:No one is saying "all advertising doesn't work". What is being said is that most doesn't, which is true, and why new advertising campaigns must constantly come out: few stay working long term even when they work short term. As has been said, cite your sources. For example I could cite every one of your posts in this thread as evidence of someone who has minimal knowledge of and no personal experience of working within advertising. You're even tripping over yourself now. It works until it doesn't (much like everything in existence). So it works then? StabbinHobo posted:page 3 had some good stuff but this one is a total loss I've not personally used it, but I imagine it would be quite handy for localised stores who could run focused ads tailored for locality (think of a pizza store with an ad saying 15 minute delivery to [postcode]) . I've worked on some accounts with locality focused on the city/town they're in and have seen some crazy high conversion rates, especially on location based searches. Kin fucked around with this message at 08:38 on Nov 3, 2015 |
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2015 08:32
|
|
Kin posted:As has been said, cite your sources. For example I could cite every one of your posts in this thread as evidence of someone who has minimal knowledge of and no personal experience of working within advertising. Can I achieve a Triumph of the Will and dethrone Frito-Lay with my own, newly incorporated potato chip company, through advertising alone? Why or why not?
|
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2015 09:09
|
|
|
what percentage of advertising campaigns are successful, by type i think we need a pie chart here
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2015 09:57
|
|
|
I think a salient example here is tobacco. It's now known that in the short run tobacco advertising bans are enormously economically beneficial to big tobacco because you both aren't committed to a game theory arms race for coverage and market share - you just pocket what you would have spent as additional profit. On the other hand, the greatly reduced power of tobacco to be in the media almost certainly has contributed to its decline in developing countries. There's always an opportunity cost in not advertising balanced against an inefficiency of competing to the point of saturation.
|
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2015 10:16
|
|
|
I think that the basic issue is that while advertising is necessary for most businesses beyond very small and niche markets, there's not much it can do for most businesses beyond keeping them in the Red Queen's Race, because its ability to overcome factors like size and entrenchment is limited- it allows you to take advantage when the field opens, but most fields are, to continue the analogy, currently pretty closed.
|
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2015 10:22
|
|
Effectronica posted:I think that the basic issue is that while advertising is necessary for most businesses beyond very small and niche markets, there's not much it can do for most businesses beyond keeping them in the Red Queen's Race, because its ability to overcome factors like size and entrenchment is limited- it allows you to take advantage when the field opens, but most fields are, to continue the analogy, currently pretty closed. Even accepting that premise, it's still the difference between zero and nonzero chance to enter. Of course, when the field is not open, there is still market share to compete for. But yeah.
|
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2015 10:27
|
|
Disinterested posted:Even accepting that premise, it's still the difference between zero and nonzero chance to enter. Of course, when the field is not open, there is still market share to compete for. I mean, it allows you to establish yourself, and there are still areas where capital isn't intensive enough and the leaders aren't dominant enough to make marketing and advertising a huge deal, and also ones where there's still plenty of market share that's untapped. But yeah.
|
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2015 10:33
|
|
Effectronica posted:I mean, it allows you to establish yourself, and there are still areas where capital isn't intensive enough and the leaders aren't dominant enough to make marketing and advertising a huge deal, and also ones where there's still plenty of market share that's untapped. But yeah. I think we know that if Pepsi stopped advertising tomorrow people wouldn't stop drinking Pepsi that day, and Pepsi could declare a bigger dividend, but in the long run everyone but Pepsi is the winner. But yeah. It's a sine qua non for commercial success in virtually any level of a more open marketplace but that doesn't make it efficient as it scales. Especially if you take a broader definition of advertising like store openings and locations, positive media hype etc.
|
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2015 10:41
|
|
Disinterested posted:I think we know that if Pepsi stopped advertising tomorrow people wouldn't stop drinking Pepsi that day, and Pepsi could declare a bigger dividend, but in the long run everyone but Pepsi is the winner. I was actually thinking of industrial machinery and equipment, which is an industry where (from my somewhat-limited experience) taking out an ad is a big deal for a ordinary-sized business and even a medium-sized one still does much of its marketing via cold calling and word of mouth. Of course, there's not much space for ads for linear bearings or shaker tables, too.
|
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2015 10:53
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 2, 2024 17:03 |
|
|
Kin posted:As has been said, cite your sources. For example I could cite every one of your posts in this thread as evidence of someone who has minimal knowledge of and no personal experience of working within advertising. Cite your evidence that most or all of it works. The way business works shows that right now most of it doesn't succeed. No, silly marketing man, only good advertising works. That's not all advertising!
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2015 15:35
|
|