Marketing and And Advertising are Ant-Capitalist

[3point14]

This is an idea that's been kicking around in my head for a while, and, while I'm sure it's not new (or even only second hand) I thought I'd post it here and see it kicked around a bit (possibly into tiny little bits)

Capitalism & the free market economy works on a kind of 'survival of the fittest', the best product is the one that sells most because, well, it's the best.

Now it seems that it isn't the best product that is most likely to succeed, but the product with the best marketing/advertising campaign.

Surely when an inferior product can succeed over a superior one due solely to spin, then that runs contrary to the principles of a free market economy?

[fuelair]

Now, apply that new found knowledge to our current political process.

[3point14]

Now, apply that new found knowledge to our current political process.

No. That scares me. I'm going to run off to bury my head in more sand.

[tkingdoll]

I see. So marketing and advertising companies aren't allowed to operate in the free market? Those offering the best services (capable of selling more of your product for you) don't get the business because all of a sudden people have to buy every single brand on the market and do their own at-home comparisons? Cause, you know, that is not going to happen. Marketing and advertising exists solely because people don't want to buy every type of shampoo on the market and test them all. They want shortcuts. If you are a certain demographic and have certain priorities for your hair, then the advertising campaign targeted to you will likely influence your choice of shampoo.

Capitalism & the free market economy works on a kind of 'survival of the fittest', the best product is the one that sells most because, well, it's the best.

In your head, maybe. In the real world, capitalism and the free market economy works because people have free choice to buy based on whatever criteria they rank most important. Marketing and advertising taps into those priorities.

The other thing you've overlooked, is that in order to have the millions available for the sort of marketing campaign that would sell an inferior product over a superior one, you have to have made some money somewhere along the line. And you probably didn't do that by making an inferior product.

The last thing you've overlooked is that for the vast majority of goods, there is almost no difference in quality. One of 400 shampoos is the same as two of 400 shampoos. The only differentiator is the marketing, reflected in the packaging, descriptions, focus of what the product does, etc. If you WANT a free market, you HAVE to have marketing because otherwise there would be no way to compete with essentially identical products.

Give me examples of 'inferior' products which sell better than 'superior' rivals. Then define inferior. Then show me that the lesser-selling product is not profitable. Then show me that the company selling the lesser-selling product is not profitable. Evidence before assertion, in this case.

[3point14]

Easy tiger, it's just an idea I was kicking abou, I'm not about to start a revolution off the back of it!!

I see. So marketing and advertising companies aren't allowed to operate in the free market? Those offering the best services (capable of selling more of your product for you) don't get the business because all of a sudden people have to buy every single brand on the market and do their own at-home comparisons? Cause, you know, that is not going to happen. Marketing and advertising exists solely because people don't want to buy every type of shampoo on the market and test them all.

I was under the impression that marketing and advertising existed solely to attract buyers to a product. If they existed solely to inform the customer then I think (but cannot prove) that there would be fewer unclothed bodies (both male and female) in adverts and more information about the product itself. Most adverts I come into contact with have almost no product information in them. The way you word it makes it sound to me like a public service.

They want shortcuts. If you are a certain demographic and have certain priorities for your hair, then the advertising campaign targeted to you will likely influence your choice of shampoo.

Shampoo adverts seem to rely on extremely dubious scietific claims and (mainly) on celebrity endorsement - how does this help one choose the right shampoo?


In your head, maybe. In the real world, capitalism and the free market economy works because people have free choice to buy based on whatever criteria they rank most important. Marketing and advertising taps into those priorities.
I'm not denying that.

The other thing you've overlooked, is that in order to have the millions available for the sort of marketing campaign that would sell an inferior product over a superior one, you have to have made some money somewhere along the line. And you probably didn't do that by making an inferior product.

So the production of one good product guarantees that any subsequent products will be similarly a good idea and similarly well produced. My ZX spectrum ws brilliant, the QX was awful.


The last thing you've overlooked is that for the vast majority of goods, there is almost no difference in quality. One of 400 shampoos is the same as two of 400 shampoos. The only differentiator is the marketing, reflected in the packaging, descriptions, focus of what the product does, etc. If you WANT a free market, you HAVE to have marketing because otherwise there would be no way to compete with essentially identical products.

Word of mouth?

Give me examples of 'inferior' products which sell better than 'superior' rivals.
Betamax. Lots of MS products (according to lots of IT savvy people that I have talked to)

Then define inferior.
Tricky - less able to the job it was defined to do - heavuly dependant on which product we're talking about.
Then show me that the lesser-selling product is not profitable. Then show me that the company selling the lesser-selling product is not profitable. Evidence before assertion, in this case.
Not sure what you mean by this - could you rephrase?


It was only really meant as a topic of friendly discussion, maybe I've had a bad day, but I seem to have provoked a more emphatic response than I was expecting.

(Edited because my last point was crap and irrelevant.)

[firecoins]

marketing campaigns are indeed part of a market economy. A market economy is not survival of the fitest but survival of the profitable. As long as your profitable, your going to survive. You need not be the most profitable either. Just profiable.

[3point14]

marketing campaigns are indeed part of a market economy. A market economy is not survival of the fitest but survival of the profitable. As long as your profitable, your going to survive. You need not be the most profitable either. Just profiable.

Wouldn't we all be better off if it were survival of the fittest rather than survival of the profitable?

[Michael Redman]

Wouldn't we all be better off if it were survival of the fittest rather than survival of the profitable?We would be better off if the consumer could make purchases with full knowledge of the utility of all the options in the marketplace.

Advertising consists largely of misinformation, leading people to make decisions they wouldn't make if they knew the truth, which detracts from the utility they get from the money they spend in the marketplace.

The proper solution for this would be to penalize merchants for misleading the public to a degree greater than the profit they can acquire from doing so, returning their profit-seeking attention to offering the consumer maximum utility for their money.

Punishment could come in the form of lost sales by disgruntled consumers, or by direct action (fines, etc.). Either way, there needs to be an advocate for consumers, either government or an association, that can police the marketplace and check out the claims of the merchants. The market is far too large and complex to expect that consumers could check out each product themselves.

[tkingdoll]

Easy tiger, it's just an idea I was kicking abou, I'm not about to start a revolution off the back of it!!



I was under the impression that marketing and advertising existed solely to attract buyers to a product. If they existed solely to inform the customer then I think (but cannot prove) that there would be fewer unclothed bodies (both male and female) in adverts and more information about the product itself. Most adverts I come into contact with have almost no product information in them. The way you word it makes it sound to me like a public service.

I never said that marketing and advertising inform the customer. They inspire the customer. You understand that marketing is psychology? So if you want to sell something, you appeal to your target market using the things that that market finds appealing. Aspirational images are used because people want to be like the model, the millionaire, etc. So they buy the product that has the values that most match their own aspirations. And there are different brands for different aspirations. United Colours of Benetton, The Gap, French Connection - all different to each other and all inspiring brand loyalty from people who most identify with that brand's marketing.


Shampoo adverts seem to rely on extremely dubious scietific claims and (mainly) on celebrity endorsement - how does this help one choose the right shampoo?

That's my point. There is no 'right' shampoo. There is little actual difference, certainly within each end of the market. All cheap shampoos are the same as each other, all mid-price shampoos are the same as each other, all expensive shampoos are probably the same as the mid-price but in a more aspirational bottle. People want the shampoo which best suits the person they want to be, the hair they want to have, the 'wash and go' lifestyle they live, the 'I want the bottle to match my bathroom' priority. The only differentiator is the marketing, and people choose their shampoo based on, funnily enough, other factors than 'does it get my hair clean'. They ALL get your hair clean. That's a given. That's not what sells shampoo.


In your head, maybe. In the real world, capitalism and the free market economy works because people have free choice to buy based on whatever criteria they rank most important. Marketing and advertising taps into those priorities.


I'm not denying that.

Then I don't understand. Your OP stated that "capitalism & the free market economy works on a kind of 'survival of the fittest', the best product is the one that sells most because, well, it's the best." but now you are acknowledging that that's not true?


So the production of one good product guarantees that any subsequent products will be similarly a good idea and similarly well produced. My ZX spectrum ws brilliant, the QX was awful.

I never said any such thing. I said that if you have millions to spend on boosting an inferior product, you are likely to have made that money manufacturing a superior product somewhere along the line. That is implicitly acknowledging that a subsequent product may be inferior, the reverse of what you seem to have read into it.


Word of mouth?

Ha ha. Word of mouth marketing is important but if you relied only on that, no new product would ever be launched. Most people are not early adopters. If you can't inform people that there's a new product on the market (via marketing and advertising) then you won't sell enough of it for word to get round. And if the market is already saturated (e.g. shampoo) then you're completely screwed because there's no reason for anyone to buy your product at all.

Betamax. Lots of MS products (according to lots of IT savvy people that I have talked to)


You think that Betamax failed because the competition had better consumer marketing? That's not the case, not even close. If it was a case of 'VHS had more naked chicks in their adverts so people chose that format instead' then you'd have a point. That's not what happened.

Not sure what you mean by this - could you rephrase?

What I mean is, unless you can prove to me that the inferior product isn't also making money, then I don't see what the problem is. Coke outperforms Pepsi but both products are extremely profitable, despite Pepsi winning blind taste tests (and therefore being the 'superior' product). Pepsi would like a bigger market share but there is room for both, and several other cola brands.

It was only really meant as a topic of friendly discussion, maybe I've had a bad day, but I seem to have provoked a more emphatic response than I was expecting.


I didn't realise I was being unfriendly, I'm not sure how to disagree with your OP and not come across as...disagreeing. Sorry :(

I am emphatic on this topic because I'm knowledgeable about it and also because I disagree with your position :D

[fuelair]

I see. So marketing and advertising companies aren't allowed to operate in the free market? Those offering the best services (capable of selling more of your product for you) don't get the business because all of a sudden people have to buy every single brand on the market and do their own at-home comparisons? Cause, you know, that is not going to happen. Marketing and advertising exists solely because people don't want to buy every type of shampoo on the market and test them all. They want shortcuts. If you are a certain demographic and have certain priorities for your hair, then the advertising campaign targeted to you will likely influence your choice of shampoo.



In your head, maybe. In the real world, capitalism and the free market economy works because people have free choice to buy based on whatever criteria they rank most important. Marketing and advertising taps into those priorities.

The other thing you've overlooked, is that in order to have the millions available for the sort of marketing campaign that would sell an inferior product over a superior one, you have to have made some money somewhere along the line. And you probably didn't do that by making an inferior product.

The last thing you've overlooked is that for the vast majority of goods, there is almost no difference in quality. One of 400 shampoos is the same as two of 400 shampoos. The only differentiator is the marketing, reflected in the packaging, descriptions, focus of what the product does, etc. If you WANT a free market, you HAVE to have marketing because otherwise there would be no way to compete with essentially identical products.

Give me examples of 'inferior' products which sell better than 'superior' rivals. Then define inferior. Then show me that the lesser-selling product is not profitable. Then show me that the company selling the lesser-selling product is not profitable. Evidence before assertion, in this case.
Welcome in on this - I had a wild suspicion we would see you here pretty quickly!!:)

[tkingdoll]

Welcome in on this - I had a wild suspicion we would see you here pretty quickly!!:)

I'm delighted, we don't have enough of these sorts of debates. And there's only one topic in the world on which I'm an expert. I feel left out when the scientists are discussing homeopathy so it's fun to stretch my wings a little :D

[fuelair]

Re: Beta/VHS. Beta failed AT THE CONSUMER LEVEL largely because the head of Sony (and this is an approximate quote) said/believed "what would anyone need more than an hour of recording time for?" It was in the pro/prosumer field for quite a while though (Betacam, etc.).


Beta was far better than VHS in quality. One or two generations of VHS duping looked easily worse (more blur, more detail loss, more artifacts) than five generations of Beta. (and I am way familiar with duping and generational loss in it).

[tkingdoll]

Re: Beta/VHS. Beta failed AT THE CONSUMER LEVEL largely because the head of Sony (and this is an approximate quote) said/believed "what would anyone need more than an hour of recording time for?" It was in the pro/prosumer field for quite a while though (Betacam, etc.).


Beta was far better than VHS in quality. One or two generations of VHS duping looked easily worse (more blur, more detail loss, more artifacts) than five generations of Beta. (and I am way familiar with duping and generational loss in it).

Indeed. That's a strategic product decision by Sony and nothing to do with how the product was marketed to consumers. The recording time made it an inferior product overall. People didn't choose VHS because it had better adverts. Better adverts only generally win when there is little difference between the products.

[Wolfman]

Let me offer the following analogy:

3point14, you talk about a capitalistic economy in evolutionary terms, as "survival of the fittest". It is not entirely correct, but is close enough to be workable. So, let us examine the concept of "survival of the fittest".

In nature, we can see numerous examples of "marketing". Flowers show off brilliant colors in order to attract insect to pollinate them. Now, they could do away entirely with the colors, they could even produce more seeds, grow taller, and all around be a "better flower"...except for the fact that, without the "marketing" provided by those colors, far fewer would get pollinated, and be able to actually reproduce.

Or consider two peacocks. One is genetically superior, but his tail feathers are dirty and discolored. The other is genetically inferior, but his tail feathers are immaculate, displayed with prominent, bright colors. Which one will the peahen choose? The one with the better marketing.

"Survival of the fittest" is a complex interaction of many different factors. There are many, many companies out there who have made hamburgers, for example. But the idea that "the company that makes the best hamburger will win" is fundamentally flawed. Besides making a good hamburger, you have to let people know that you have a hamburger (if nobody knows about it, they won't buy it, regardless of how good it is)...and that is marketing. You also have to have competent management. You also have to have an effective business plan for growing and expanding your business. You also have to have an efficient supply chain, one that can grow and adjust with your company's growth. And you need a multitude of other things.

Take away any one of those things, and you are no longer "the fittest".

[tsg]

Capitalism & the free market economy works on a kind of 'survival of the fittest', the best product is the one that sells most because, well, it's the best.

I disagree with this. The "best product is the one that sells the most" is not the same as the best product in quality. In the first case, "best" is better defined as "meets the needs of the most consumers". That isn't always the best quality. VHS versus Beta is a perfect example. Few dispute that Beta had better video quality. The consumer favored the longer recording times available on VHS, and the lower quality was good enough for their purposes. I seem to remember, although I don't know how true it is, that Sony's desire to keep the format closed also led to a greater number of pre-recorded videos being available for VHS, which was also more important to the consumer than video quality.

To that end, marketing is completely compatible with capitalism since it, theoretically at least, is about finding out what the consumer wants.

Advertising, theoretically at least, is about making the consumer aware what products are available. I will not dispute that advertising has largely become a game of convincing people to buy crap they don't need or want, but the idea of advertising is also compatible with capitalism.

[Michael Redman]

In nature, we can see numerous examples of "marketing". Flowers show off brilliant colors in order to attract insect to pollinate them. Now, they could do away entirely with the colors, they could even produce more seeds, grow taller, and all around be a "better flower"...except for the fact that, without the "marketing" provided by those colors, far fewer would get pollinated, and be able to actually reproduce.

Buyers are the pollinators, merchants are the flowers. Sure, the displays may make the flowers more more successful, but that doesn't always translate into the pollinator getting what it's after. In fact, sometimes the flower has the pollinator for lunch.

So, you can talk about the survival of the "fittest", but the merchant is only half the equation. If the merchant profits by means that lower the buyer's utility, there is an economic loss, is there not?

[Tanstaafl]

I see. So marketing and advertising companies aren't allowed to operate in the free market? Those offering the best services (capable of selling more of your product for you) don't get the business because all of a sudden people have to buy every single brand on the market and do their own at-home comparisons? Cause, you know, that is not going to happen. Marketing and advertising exists solely because people don't want to buy every type of shampoo on the market and test them all. They want shortcuts. If you are a certain demographic and have certain priorities for your hair, then the advertising campaign targeted to you will likely influence your choice of shampoo.


Lots of good info in your post teek, but this one had me laughing. Advertising exists solely to save me the trouble of testing products? Come on now!

[JoeEllison]

You know what's anti-capitalist and anti-"free market"? "Free market capitalists", of course. :)

[JoeEllison]

Lots of good info in your post teek, but this one had me laughing. Advertising exists solely to save me the trouble of testing products? Come on now!

It is probably more accurate to say that advertising saves you the trouble of thinking about whether or not you need to test products.

[Tanstaafl]

They'd like to save me the trouble of thinking...

When you trim it down to there, I think you've got it nailed!

[Darat]

...snip...

That's my point. There is no 'right' shampoo. There is little actual difference, certainly within each end of the market. All cheap shampoos are the same as each other, all mid-price shampoos are the same as each other, all expensive shampoos are probably the same as the mid-price but in a more aspirational bottle. People want the shampoo which best suits the person they want to be, the hair they want to have, the 'wash and go' lifestyle they live, the 'I want the bottle to match my bathroom' priority. The only differentiator is the marketing, and people choose their shampoo based on, funnily enough, other factors than 'does it get my hair clean'. They ALL get your hair clean. That's a given. That's not what sells shampoo.

...snip...

Which is why as a general rule-of-thumb if you want to know which products are pretty much identical in terms of what they actually deliver just look to see what is heavily marketed.

General outstanding products or products which really are better than their competitors (generally) require relatively little "promotional marketing" beyond generating awareness. (I'm hiving off the research component of marketing when I say "promotional marketing".)

[tkingdoll]

Lots of good info in your post teek, but this one had me laughing. Advertising exists solely to save me the trouble of testing products? Come on now!

Well, that's not quite what I had in mind, perhaps it's better phrased as "that's why marketing and advertising came to exist". It's just differentiators, that's all. And those differentiators are ensdorsed by consumers precisely because they don't want to test every product available. If people did want to test every shampoo and buy it solely on the merits of performance, then consumer marketing wouldn't exist. You'd still have to market to stores to persuade them to stock 400 different shampoos in the first place, but as far as tapping into the psychology of Ms Shopper, you wouldn't need it.

But of course, no-one has the time, money or inclination to test every type of shampoo. They want someone to market the shampoo in such a way that it saves them the bother. "this one is organic. I'm into organic, it reflects my lifestyle and values, so I'll buy it and feel good about my choice". Because that mentality exists, marketing and advertising exist. Some people think it's the other way round, that the marketing creates the mentality. This is not the case. Markets existed before marketing. Those who first started to differentiate their products found that they sold more. Then market segmentation appeared, in which you market specifically to the type of person most likely to buy your product. We get what we want. If we didn't want it, we'd reject it. Marketing just taps into basic psychology. Some would say "exploits" it. I generally ask those people if they own an iPod. They usually do.

[Wolfman]

Buyers are the pollinators, merchants are the flowers. Sure, the displays may make the flowers more more successful, but that doesn't always translate into the pollinator getting what it's after. In fact, sometimes the flower has the pollinator for lunch.

So, you can talk about the survival of the "fittest", but the merchant is only half the equation. If the merchant profits by means that lower the buyer's utility, there is an economic loss, is there not?
The problem here is with the assumption that it is somehow lowering the buyer's utility. In the case of the pollinators, brightly colored flowers mean that they can expend less energy in finding their targets; and therefore can visit more flowers; which results in more flowers reproducing; which results in more food for the pollinators.

In regards to humans, there's an additional factor -- and here, I have to invoke Maslow. If one is at the lower end of Maslow's hierarchy, and the focus is simply on survival, then marketing is going to have much less impact (a person in poverty is far less likely to spend a lot of money on a product that they can get cheaper elsewhere). But as one works their way towards the top of the hierarchy, one's needs change. Besides issues of the actual quality of the product itself, there are issues of convenience, issues of status, etc.

Why do people pay hundreds/thousands of dollars for a Gucci handbag, when they could buy another handbag that does everything a Gucci does (perhaps even more)? Because they are paying for the perceived status that the bag gives to them. The person who sells a ten dollar handbag is selling a handbag. The person who sells an eight hundred dollar Gucci handbag is selling status.

If you have a monopoly, and a product for which there is high demand, then marketing is not necessary.

If you have market competition, then you must be sure not only that people know about your product, but that they perceive your product as being better or more desirable than that of the competition.

You are right -- it is survival of the fittest. Which, in a competitive capitalist economy, includes the fittest marketers.

[tkingdoll]

They'd like to save me the trouble of thinking...

When you trim it down to there, I think you've got it nailed!

Sometimes. And sometimes not. Look to yourself - do you think about what you buy? Or, why do you choose JREF forum over, say Skeptic Society, Skeptical Community, etc? You are unlikely to be constantly thinking about why you make the choices you do, but I'm sure you exercise free will. Just because you haven't analysed a choice, it doesn't mean you were hoodwinked.

You probably didn't mean to imply it, but in case you did, I will mention that it's a common misconception that advertising can make you do something against your will. That would be impressive and also illegal. All it can do is tap into what's already in your and make you aware of a new product. Whether you choose to buy it or not is up to you.

On that topic, though, that is why advertising to kids can be an ethical minefield. Kids aren't responsible or aware enough to know that they're being marketed to, and are not in control of their desires (kids will live on McDonalds and chocolate if allowed) and so it's unfair (cruel?) to tap into those aspirations excessively.

[Michael Redman]

The problem here is with the assumption that it is somehow lowering the buyer's utility. Marketing that misinforms the buyer does lower utility, just as the pitcher plant's marketing lowers the utility of the poor suckers that buy it.

Misinforming the consumer is a valuable strategy to enhance the fitness of merchants, but that doesn't mean it's good for the market.

[Earthborn]

"this one is organic. I'm into organic, it reflects my lifestyle and values, so I'll buy it and feel good about my choice".In which case the person has likely fallen for a blatant lie.

Some people think it's the other way round, that the marketing creates the mentality. This is not the case. Markets existed before marketing.I don't think there is any evidence that "markets existed before marketing". That's a bit like claiming that chicken eggs existed before chickens... Both developed together.
Even if markets existed before marketing, I don't see how that in any way disproves that marketing creates the mentality. Marketing certainly existed before many of the people who come into contact with it now. And if for the hypothetical people who have existed before marketing, marketing has cultivated such a mentality in them.

All it can do is tap into what's already in your and make you aware of a new product. Whether you choose to buy it or not is up to you.It is surprisingly common for marketing people to justify what they do with claims of libertarian free will (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarianism_%28metaphysics%29). For people who have a more naturalistic view of human psychology, the distinction between "tapping into what's already in your mind and make you aware of a new product" and "directly influencing what people buy" is entirely meaningless.

Kids aren't responsible or aware enough to know that they're being marketed to, and are not in control of their desires (kids will live on McDonalds and chocolate if allowed) and so it's unfair (cruel?) to tap into those aspirations excessively.Is there some test that measures "responsible or aware" people "that they're marketed to" ? I doubt it. Where is the evidence that children are not while adults are?

[tkingdoll]

In which case the person has likely fallen for a blatant lie.

Not at all. The shampoo IS organic. If that makes you feel good about using it, good luck to you. You do understand that organic shampoo exists because people asked for it? It's extremely rare that a product is created without an existing demand. You don't decide what to make and hope people buy it, you ask people what they want to buy and you make it. Sometimes new technology comes along which messes with the formula a bit, but people still have to want the emerging new product.



I don't think there is any evidence that "markets existed before marketing". That's a bit like claiming that chicken eggs existed before chickens... Both developed together.
Even if markets existed before marketing, I don't see how that in any way disproves that marketing creates the mentality. Marketing certainly existed before many of the people who come into contact with it now. And if for the hypothetical people who have existed before marketing, marketing has cultivated such a mentality in them.



There's plenty of evidence for it. The first trade predates the first adverts by some time. The first products predates the first purpose-made packaging. Trade predates printing.



It is surprisingly common for marketing people to justify what they do with claims of libertarian free will (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarianism_%28metaphysics%29). For people who have a more naturalistic view of human psychology, the distinction between "tapping into what's already in your mind and make you aware of a new product" and "directly influencing what people buy" is entirely meaningless.



I don't know any marketeer who claims libertarian free will. I don't know any marketeers who has ever justified the field that way. Have you got some cites? I'd be interested to read them. In the UK, the word libertarianism is quite alien.

What do you mean by 'what they do'? Have you some preconceived notion of what marketing is? A lot of people have. I used the example in an earlier post, "Why do you use this forum rather than Skeptic Society or Skeptical Community?". Marketing is simply a differentiator. People like to choose based on attributes most closely matching their own aspirations. Sometimes marketing is manipulative and cynical, but then sometimes so is law, politics, accountancy, plumbing, pole dancing and chemistry. Every trade, every discipline has it's good side and bad side. But if marketing could make people buy stuff, then everyone would buy everything ever marketed. And every segmented marketing campaign would have a 100% response rate instead of the usual 2%. Or we'd all buy every single new product that emerges. And that doesn't happen. And different people respond to different types of marketing, so there's not one 'gullible' type of person to whom we can market and everyone else is outside of that. People look at the choices available to them and they make their buying decision. Would you prefer there was only one type of shampoo?



Is there some test that measures "responsible or aware" people "that they're marketed to" ? I doubt it. Where is the evidence that children are not while adults are?

When was the last time you cried because you saw an advert for a chocolate bar that your mother wouldn't buy for you?

One last question - do you own an iPod?

[ImaginalDisc]

Not at all. The shampoo IS organic. If that makes you feel good about using it, good luck to you. You do understand that organic shampoo exists because people asked for it? It's extremely rare that a product is created without an existing demand. You don't decide what to make and hope people buy it, you ask people what they want to buy and you make it. Sometimes new technology comes along which messes with the formula a bit, but people still have to want the emerging new product.


I will apply this idea directly to my forehead.

[tkingdoll]

I will apply this idea directly to my forehead.

Placebo effect can be bought and sold like aspirin, that's for sure. I personally disagree with the marketing of dubious medical products. I think that much is clear from my work in skepticism. However, just because some people market snake oil, it doesn't mean that all marketing is bad any more than it means all products are bad. Most people like it. They like the products, they like the ads, they like to try new things or to be loyal to a brand.

A recent study of magazine readers asked them to choose ten pages which best represented themselves. On average, three of the ten pages were adverts. Why do you think that is?

Check out the competition (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=94807#competition) that arthwollipot just won - a classic marketing technique. Is that a bad thing for the forum to have done?

[hodgy]

What a great thread - subject expertise brushing aside ignorant and unfounded objection with easy aplomb... :)

[hodgy]

Sorry 3.14, I don't want to cause offence with that comment but I don't think you really thought it through. I hope, on reflection, that you can see Teek's pragmatic logic.

[Wolfman]

Marketing that misinforms the buyer does lower utility, just as the pitcher plant's marketing lowers the utility of the poor suckers that buy it.

Misinforming the consumer is a valuable strategy to enhance the fitness of merchants, but that doesn't mean it's good for the market.
Michael,

I'm not quite sure of what point you are trying to make here. "Survival of the fittest" has nothing whatsoever to do with "what is good for everyone else". Lions eat antelopes to survive...that's good for the lions, but not so good for the antelopes being devoured.

If you would like to make a case for companies that have not used marketing that have "survived" or "grown" better than companies that do use marketing, I'd love to see and discuss such examples. Personally, I cannot think of any strong examples of this, which would lead me to conclude that, in business terms, effective marketing is an inseparable aspect of "survival of the fittest".

You seem to consider marketing to be "bad". Just as, I'm sure, an antelope (if it were ascribed anthropomorphic sentiments) would consider lions to be "bad". But unless you can provide actual, real-world examples to bolster your case, I'd say that our experience of a capitalistic economy indicates that marketing is an inseparable and indispensible part of "survival of the fittest", when discussing business entities.

[3point14]

Not properly awake yet, will respond when I'm awake enough to read big words, but had to respond to this.

I didn't realise I was being unfriendly, I'm not sure how to disagree with your OP and not come across as...disagreeing. Sorry :(


My unreserved apologies, yesterday was 'one of those days' and I think I may have been just a teeensy bit (read: very) hyper-sensitive.


I am emphatic on this topic because I'm knowledgeable about it and also because I disagree with your position :D

Why do always seem to run into knowledgable people round here? I mean, it's not so bad when they agree with me... :)


(ETA - ph, and could some kind person with the power please fix my post title?)

[3point14]

Sorry 3.14, I don't want to cause offence with that comment but I don't think you really thought it through. I hope, on reflection, that you can see Teek's pragmatic logic.

Oh, none taken. I never claimed to have thought it through, it's just something that's been vaguely knocking around in my brain, and I thought I'd see how well it held together when kicked around the room a bit by someone or someones more knowledgable than I. I could have spent a long time thinking it through before I posted, but then I might not have posted it, and what fun would that be? :)


The reason I bring things up here, far more often than not, is not because it's an idea I emphatically subscribe to, but because it's an idea that I think might be worth talking over (even if only to be able to dismiss it), and that I might learn something in the process from those more knowledgable than I. Having brought this up, I now have a little more knowledge than I did yesterday, and that can't be a bad thng.

I'm still wishing I hadn't been quite so spikey yesterday though.

[Earthborn]

Have you some preconceived notion of what marketing is?Quite possibly. the way I see it, a manufacturer has a product he wants to sell more of, and hires a marketing firm in the expectation that a marketing campaign will sell more of the product. If the product is sold more, the marketing firm is happy to take the credit, but if the product is't sold more it isn't going to admit failure. Instead it will blame the consumer's "free will".

It is the marketers job to convince people to buy more of the product. In my view it either succeeds or fails at doing that. "Free will" doesn't enter into it.

I don't know any marketeers who has ever justified the field that way. Have you got some cites?Sure, here are some:
You are unlikely to be constantly thinking about why you make the choices you do, but I'm sure you exercise free will.

All it can do is tap into what's already in your and make you aware of a new product. Whether you choose to buy it or not is up to you.

We get what we want. If we didn't want it, we'd reject it.All this supposes that prior to people being aware of a new product, they already have a 'want' and this 'want' cannot be manipulated. It supposes that people have a free will immune to outside influence that is the first cause of the chain of events leading people to buy something. That is the concept of "libertarian free will".

It is a philosphical concept that does not directly have much to do with the political philosophy of Libertarianism, though many political Libertarians believe in it. The concept is also common among fundamentalist christians who use it to solve the problem of why God made Adam and Eve in such a way that they would disobey him if He didn't want that to happen. The concept of "Free Will" is introduced to take away the blame from God and put it entirely on Adam and Eve. Similarly, marketers use the concept of "Free Will" to take away the blame for a failed marketing campaign and put it entirely in the consumers, even though the marketers job was to convince the consumers to behave in a specific way and failed.

But if marketing could make people buy stuff, then everyone would buy everything ever marketed.I'm not saying that marketing can reliably make people buy stuff, I'm saying that it's job. And it is rather lousy at doing its job.

When was the last time you cried because you saw an advert for a chocolate bar that your mother wouldn't buy for you?I don't think I ever did, but I was rather unusual as a child. I also don't think it is relevant to what I said. If marketing can so easily manipulate children, what evidence is there that it doesn't work on adults? I'm not convinced that marketing can reliably manipulate children or adults.

One last question - do you own an iPod?No, I don't.

Trade predates printing.Before the first sale was made, the first salesman had to persuade the first client to buy something, wouldn't you say? And isn't that what marketing is; trying to persuade people to buy?

[3point14]

Before the first sale was made, the first salesman had to persuade the first client to buy something, wouldn't you say? And isn't that what marketing is; trying to persuade people to buy?

What if the first sale was initiated by an eager buyer propositioning a reluctant seller?

[Soapy Sam]

[QUOTE]T People want the shampoo which best suits the person they want to be, the hair they want to have, the 'wash and go' lifestyle they live, the 'I want the bottle to match my bathroom' priority. The only differentiator is the marketing, and people choose their shampoo based on, funnily enough, other factors than 'does it get my hair clean'. They ALL get your hair clean. That's a given. That's not what sells shampoo.[/QUOTE=Teek]

I'm reading this thread because I thought ants were communists and ant capitalism seemed intriguing, but my attention was caught by the disturbing news that other people do not routinely decant their shampoo. I use a Waterford Crystal decanter for mine. One has an image to maintain, even when naked and dripping in one's shower. The shampoo itself comes from Azko Nobel, I believe. One's butler buys it, naturally.

[69dodge]

Would you prefer there was only one type of shampoo?


If all shampoo is basically the same anyway, yes.

If various types of shampoo differ, I'd prefer to be told what the actual differences are, rather than be told whatever each shampoo manufacturer thinks is most likely to persuade me to spend the most money on its products.

One last question - do you own an iPod?


No, I happen not to.

But suppose I did. Where are you going with this? You might convince me that, though I claim to dislike advertising, I was nevertheless duped by advertising into buying one, but I don't see how you could convince me that this is a good thing. For me, that is. Of course it's good for Apple.

[ImaginalDisc]

A recent study of magazine readers asked them to choose ten pages which best represented themselves. On average, three of the ten pages were adverts. Why do you think that is?


Because articles and photos within articles seek to explain, tell a story, or convince, rather than depict an idealized reality? Comparing full page pictures with adverts is probably a better control. Did anyone select columns of text?

[Michael Redman]

Michael,

I'm not quite sure of what point you are trying to make here.

The OP suggested that marketing, as far as it misinforms the buyer and causes purchases of inferior products, is bad for the market.

The responses to the OP have declared that marketing is great for the seller, even if it is deceptive. Of course, the OP said that as well, so that doesn't really add anything. However, for some reason, several people here seem to be taking the position that pointing out the economic harm of misinformation in the market place is exactly the same as declaring that all marketing is bad. That simply doesn't follow.

My point is: The OP is correct. Good for the seller does not necessarily translate to good for the market. Advertising that misleads the buyer into purchase decision that the buyer would not make if properly informed do, indeed, hurt the market.

[hgc]

Wouldn't we all be better off if it were survival of the fittest rather than survival of the profitable?


But that's the whole point. In markets, the most profitable (or some close variant of that concept) are the most fit, by definition.

I don't honestly know what else you could mean by fittest. If you are talking about some measure of quality, how better to measure it than in the market? No matter how you slice it, value of goods and services are not intrinsic. Value is determined when parties come together in agreement of fair exchange of goods and services for some consideration. The price they set when they strike a deal determines value at that time and place. Marketing and advertising influence that process by helping to determine what Products to Place where for what Price and Promoted by what means (4 P's of Marketing).

[tkingdoll]

Quite possibly. the way I see it, a manufacturer has a product he wants to sell more of, and hires a marketing firm in the expectation that a marketing campaign will sell more of the product. If the product is sold more, the marketing firm is happy to take the credit, but if the product is't sold more it isn't going to admit failure. Instead it will blame the consumer's "free will".

Yes, you have misunderstood what marketing is. You are mostly talking about advertising campaigns, most of which are conceived by advertising agencies, not marketing agencies. But it's interesting that you think marketing is something that happens after the product is made. That's simply not the case. Marketing will tell you if there is a market for your product before you've even drawn up the manufacturing plan. Marketing will tell you what colour it should be when you finally do make it. Marketing will tell you how many to make and which parts of the country to concentrate the initial shipments in. Marketing will tell you how that product will fit in with the overall image of your business and therefore affect its overall growth. Marketing will tell you how quickly to release a newer version of the product and what colour that one should be. I don't think you mean marketing at all. I think you mean advertising, which is just a small part of marketing.


It is the marketers job to convince people to buy more of the product. In my view it either succeeds or fails at doing that. "Free will" doesn't enter into it.

So you have absolutely no choice in whether or not to buy that can of Pepsi? The advert MADE you buy it?


Sure, here are some:
All this supposes that prior to people being aware of a new product, they already have a 'want' and this 'want' cannot be manipulated. It supposes that people have a free will immune to outside influence that is the first cause of the chain of events leading people to buy something. That is the concept of "libertarian free will".


Please show me where in my own sentences I've used the word 'Libertarian' - it's simply absurd to suggest that I hold with a philosophy that you are defining.



It is a philosphical concept that does not directly have much to do with the political philosophy of Libertarianism, though many political Libertarians believe in it. The concept is also common among fundamentalist christians who use it to solve the problem of why God made Adam and Eve in such a way that they would disobey him if He didn't want that to happen. The concept of "Free Will" is introduced to take away the blame from God and put it entirely on Adam and Eve. Similarly, marketers use the concept of "Free Will" to take away the blame for a failed marketing campaign and put it entirely in the consumers, even though the marketers job was to convince the consumers to behave in a specific way and failed.



At this point it becomes clear that you have no understanding of marketing. I have NEVER heard a marketing company or markeeter take the credit when a campaign succeeds but blame 'free will' of the consumer when it fails. Never. The entire industry would go down the tubes if that happened. Marketing is all about ROI, about accountability, about proof. If a marketeer cannot justify an action in terms of ROI, then it doesn't happen. No-one has the budget for guessing games. When a campaign fails, marketeers know exactly why, in retrospect (sometimes it's not the fault of the marketing, but a distribution issue, or customer service failure, or other variable). Expensive product launches are bookended with expensive market research to make sure that lessons are learned from both successes and failures. I assure you that if, for example, an advertising company tried to say "yeah, our idea was brilliant but the potential customers were exercising free will and didn't buy it", they'd be laughed out of the room.

It's this simple:

1) An advert shows a product in a certain light, appealing to certain values
2) You see the advert and you are disposed to trying the product. This may be because your own values match those of the product, or because it made you laugh, or because you feel nostalgic, or some other trigger. Or it may be simply because you like to try new things.
3) You decide to buy the product or not. This is what I mean by 'free will'. You can keep your Libertarian thing, I have no idea how that's relevant to anything. Adam and Eve??

There's no great conspiracy, no amazing impossible psychological manipulation (and as I said, such things [like subliminal advertising], if possible [which it is not], would be illegal [which it is]. There's just "this advert made me feel favourably disposed towards this product, therefore I may buy it". However, plenty of people like the ads but don't buy the product. As I mentioned, there is no ad campaign in the world that has 100% response.


I'm not saying that marketing can reliably make people buy stuff, I'm saying that it's job. And it is rather lousy at doing its job.

How is it lousy at it? Assuming you mean advertising rather than marketing, yes it is the function of advertising to increase sales, as well as brand loyalty, brand awareness, and various other things. Most of the increase is down to awareness, some of it is down to the triggers I mentioned earlier, some of it is simply reminding people that the last time they had a can of Pepsi, they enjoyed it. If they remember that, they might buy another one. Marketing works. I assure you. Advertising also works, but less predictably. This is because it has to be constantly innovating and creative, otherwise people get bored. Sometimes a film is a flop for the same reason.



I don't think I ever did, but I was rather unusual as a child. I also don't think it is relevant to what I said. If marketing can so easily manipulate children, what evidence is there that it doesn't work on adults? I'm not convinced that marketing can reliably manipulate children or adults.



I'm confused. I thought you were saying marketing manipulates people into buying things. Now you're saying it doesn't?

No, I don't.

That's what I mean by free will, again. You've seen the iPod ads. You've seen the sleek product design and the 'intuitive' interface and controls, but you have chosen not to buy one. Like millions of others. More people don't own iPods than do. The people who do were not brainwashed. They were not tortured. They liked what they saw and made a decision. You make them all the time. You're making one by posting on this forum instead of another one. This forum is quite well marketed. It has a celebrity figurehead, nice branding, advertising campaigns with incentives, excellent brand attributes which appeal to a niche market, cross-promotional activity, merchandise with logos, and so on. Is that a bad thing?

Before the first sale was made, the first salesman had to persuade the first client to buy something, wouldn't you say? And isn't that what marketing is; trying to persuade people to buy?

No, that's direct sales. Marketing isn't sales. A salesman isn't a marketeer. A salesman probably hasn't run a market research campaign in his life, done any statistical analysis, run a focus group, created a brand strategy, developed a style guide, integrated media campaign or above- and below-the-line strategy. He uses his charm and charisma to sell the products already developed by marketing.

Before the first sale was made, the first customer wanted the product that the salesman had. Did the salesman create the want by showing the customer something that the customer previously didn't know existed? Possibly. Did the customer weigh up his new want against the cost of the item and decide that he wanted the item more than he wanted the money (or turnip) he paid for it? Yes. And face-to-face sales can be high-pressure environments. When simply looking at an advert, that pressure doesn't exist. It's not interactive. The information goes in and you make your choice the next time that product is in front of you. You either buy or you don't. Given the average response rates to advertising campaigns versus reach, most people don't but enough to do pay for the campaign and the other costs, plus a profit, over time. The fact that well-marketed products turn a profit is proof that marketing works.

How often do you buy something that you didn't actually want?

[Esperdome]

Before the first sale was made, the first salesman had to persuade the first client to buy something, wouldn't you say? And isn't that what marketing is; trying to persuade people to buy?

If there is any truth to what the oldest profession is, she might have been a saleswoman.

What if the first sale was initiated by an eager buyer propositioning a reluctant seller?

I rest my case. :D

[Esperdome]

Marketing is part of the survival of the fittest, it is the peacock's tailfeathers.

We want to be seduced into buying things and enjoy the buying process more the more we were seduced. This is why they say sex sells.

Very rarely can a product get by on quality alone, and even then they could do much better with a little marketing. The reputation of the product can be used to market it.

[UserGoogol]

We would be better off if the consumer could make purchases with full knowledge of the utility of all the options in the marketplace.

Advertising consists largely of misinformation, leading people to make decisions they wouldn't make if they knew the truth, which detracts from the utility they get from the money they spend in the marketplace.

Although I do think that advertising distorts the market to some degree, that's really not true. A very large amount of advertising isn't about hard facts, but rather to project some sort of "coolness" onto the product, or promote brand awareness or whatever. To say that these ads misinform people is therefore not quite right, because they don't provide information of any kind. To a point, it might promote people to act outright irrationally, but to another significant degree, ads may actually add value to their products by giving people warm fuzzies of "I'm eating at a cool restaurant, yay!" when they consume their product.

[tkingdoll]

Although I do think that advertising distorts the market to some degree, that's really not true. A very large amount of advertising isn't about hard facts, but rather to project some sort of "coolness" onto the product, or promote brand awareness or whatever. To say that these ads misinform people is therefore not quite right, because they don't provide information of any kind. To a point, it might promote people to act outright irrationally, but to another significant degree, ads may actually add value to their products by giving people warm fuzzies of "I'm eating at a cool restaurant, yay!" when they consume their product.

You're 99% correct. But, some adverts do lie; those using unscrupulous claims are breaking the law, and in the UK at least it is to be avoided because having the ASA ban your ad before anyone has had a chance to see it means you've wasted a heck of a lot of money. Industry peers will report each other as often, or even more often, than consumers do. The big ASA smackdowns recently, involving spurious claims about mascara and car emissions respectively, were both reported by other companies in the beauty and auto industries.

There are very strict guidelines about what you can and can't claim. The general rule of thumb is; don't make a claim you can't substantiate. Unfortunately, as I said earlier, there are crooks in every business and sometimes lies get told. Usually those lies are discovered and punished, but sometimes it's too late and the company has made a lot of money already. Frustrating, but it's not a reflection on the entire discipline of marketing, just a blot on the face of advertising. Most adverts don't make factual claims. Some aren't allowed to make certain factual claims even if they're true. In the UK, it is now illegal for a car advertisement to make any claims about the speed capability of the vehicle. That's why car adverts have become abstract, focusing on 'va va voom' [Renault] and 'zoom zoom zoom' [Mazda]. Advertising is more tightly controlled than the public realise but companies will always try and push the boundaries and sadly some resort to stretching the truth, which cannot be condoned. Ads are banned at least weekly. Some slip through the net. If you see an ad making an inaccurate claim I recommend you report it.

[Segnosaur]

Give me examples of 'inferior' products which sell better than 'superior' rivals.
Betamax.

Others have already discussed how Betamax may have had some superior features, but at the time, was inferior to VHS in some areas that consumers considered important (mostly recording time).

Lots of MS products (according to lots of IT savvy people that I have talked to)

Don't know if this exactly counts as a case of 'marketing beating quality'.

Much of Microsoft's success has very little to do with 'advertising'. Its success has mostly to do with a combination of:
- Inertia (i.e. difficult if not impossible for many users to change operating systems/software once they've been implemented)
- Vertical integration (They can easily include copies of Word/IE along with Windows)
- Some borderline illegal practices (such as forcing manufacturers to include Windows only on their computers)
- Dumb luck (that they had the early versions of DOS picked up by IBM in the first place)

Even when Microsoft DOES engage in strong marketing (such as the release of XP and/or Vista), they get very few initial sales... most people end up getting the new operating system when they get their existing computer replaced (i.e. they don't make a concious decision.)

[3point14]

Lots of fair points, and I think I was guilty of lumping marketing and advertising together, where one is really a subset of the other.

My examples of products that failed due to advertising despite being a better product were clearly bobbins (not least due to the fact that 'better' is difficult to define')

I still have a vague idea that we might all be better off without adverts. Or at least without adverts as they exist now. Then again, I have a major problem with the modern world's 'Style over Substance'* attitude, and how it seems that image is far more important than results. Perhaps I have a misconception there too.


(*thank you 2020)

[tkingdoll]

Lots of fair points, and I think I was guilty of lumping marketing and advertising together, where one is really a subset of the other.



It happens all the time. I often say "if marketing includes the art of communicating, how come no-one outside of marketing knows what it is?" :D

I still have a vague idea that we might all be better off without adverts. Or at least without adverts as they exist now. Then again, I have a major problem with the modern world's 'Style over Substance'* attitude, and how it seems that image is far more important than results. Perhaps I have a misconception there too.

It's really, really hard to say, because there are no models of a rich economy without advertising. Where there is disposable income, there are companies competing to get it. Where companies compete, especially where there is little difference between their products, there are adverts. What's the actual difference between Coke and Pepsi? Not a fat lot except the marketing. And getting people to spend their disposal income appears to be essential to a healthy economy.

I think peer pressure is basic human nature, and that drives most of the style over substance mentality. We want people to like us so we buy things that will get us liked, laid, lucky, whatever. It half works and half doesn't. Buying Lynx (Axe) deodorant probably won't get you laid in itself. However, having BO will certainly put off the opposite sex and Lynx does smell nice. It also suggests certain other things - if a guy has taken the time to think about how he smells, then he's fastidious, he cares about hygiene, he is interested in detail, he's thoughtful. These are attractive qualities. Lynx deodorant can become a shortcut for 'my kind of guy'. At the other end of the scale, owning a Porsche will absolutely get you laid, no questions asked.

I too lament that image is sometimes more important than results. Perhaps Western society is shallow. I don't know what the measures of 'shallow' are, though. Happiness? Is your average Londoner happier than your average Dinka? Health? Life expectancy? Love? I'm always reluctant to condemn Western society as shallow when there are so many opportunities for anyone prepared to work hard, and so much altruism for those unable to. Owning an iPod is important to Joe Brown of London, but a tribesman of the Dinka living in a Kenyan refugee camp also wants one (we know this through the accounts of refugees). The difference is, he'll never be able to afford one. But the basic psychology is the same for both men, so I think advertising is an inevitable product of any society, given enough time.

Personally, I'm glad I have the luxury of consumer choice. I like to try a new shampoo, I like to buy pretty bottles of things for my bathroom, and I hate the thought of one type of everything. DIS IS YOUR GOVERNMENT-APPROVED SHAMPOO! YOU VIL USE ONLY ZIS SHAMPOO! :D

[Michael Redman]

You're 99% correct. But, some adverts do lie; those using unscrupulous claims are breaking the law, and in the UK at least it is to be avoided because having the ASA ban your ad before anyone has had a chance to see it means you've wasted a heck of a lot of money.So ads have to be preapproved? That's interesting. In the US, a scheme of prior restraint would likely be unconstitutional. We're left with spotty, complaint-based enforcement, often well after the damage has been done.

[tkingdoll]

Very rarely can a product get by on quality alone, and even then they could do much better with a little marketing. The reputation of the product can be used to market it.

And there is a well documented plateux, past which a company cannot grow or escape from a slump without marketing.

An excellent example is the pizza chain Pizza Express. Starting with one restaurant in 1965, they never advertised. But the restaurant was so good, its reputation grew big enough to be sold as a franchise. None of the franchises ever advertised. Word of mouth was enough. For 36 years.

And then...Pizza Express simply couldn't grow any bigger. Word of mouth can get you your initial growth and even sustain it, but it can't get you into the league of Pizza Hut. And when something happens to threaten the previously-sustained customer base (in Pizza Express's case, the July 11th bombings), then you can't get it back simply by waiting for word to spread again. You'd be bankrupt before that happens. So in 2001 they launched their first ever ad campaign (costing £1million) and it worked.

[tkingdoll]

So ads have to be preapproved? That's interesting. In the US, a scheme of prior restraint would likely be unconstitutional. We're left with spotty, complaint-based enforcement, often well after the damage has been done.

Hmmm, not exactly, no. Certain types of ads are taken on ASA advisement, or independent advisement, but mostly they get pulled before too much damage has been done simply because of the way ad campaigns are planned. You usually run print or poster ads first, before TV, to test response. And the penetration of those is far lower than TV. But generally it's complaint-based, same as the USA. But if you're going to spend millions on a campaign, you don't want it banned. So normally you'd ask the ASA or independent consultant first.

But there are very strict codes of conduct and as I said, if an advertiser tries to push the boundaries then they're being unscrupulous. I wish it didn't happen but it does. Advertisers can get hefty fines, though.

ETA: Doh, forgot about BACC. Happily, TV advertising is not my area of speciality :D

[Darat]

So ads have to be preapproved? That's interesting. In the US, a scheme of prior restraint would likely be unconstitutional. We're left with spotty, complaint-based enforcement, often well after the damage has been done.


It depends on the medium, for instance for national TV broadcaster there are such bodies as the BACC: http://www.bacc.org.uk/bacc/what_we_do/FAQ.htm

[69dodge]

It's really, really hard to say, because there are no models of a rich economy without advertising. Where there is disposable income, there are companies competing to get it. Where companies compete, especially where there is little difference between their products, there are adverts.


Isn't advertising a waste in such a situation?

If neither company advertises, or if both companies advertise equally well, the outcome is more or less the same: some people will buy one product and some will buy the other. Except that in one case, time and money have been wasted on advertising.

Collusion between companies to keep prices high is illegal because it's better for the companies but worse for consumers. But why don't companies collude to avoid advertising? That would be better for them and for consumers.

Spend the saved money on making the product better!

Personally, I'm glad I have the luxury of consumer choice. I like to try a new shampoo, I like to buy pretty bottles of things for my bathroom, and I hate the thought of one type of everything. DIS IS YOUR GOVERNMENT-APPROVED SHAMPOO! YOU VIL USE ONLY ZIS SHAMPOO! :D


I don't get it. If you know that the new shampoo is essentially the same as the old shampoo, only marketed differently, why would you care which one you use?