3 ms·

I've received poor value because I've paid more for the same thing. I disagree with this completely. Did you buy it because price wasn't important to you and

I've received poor value because I've paid more for the same thing. I disagree with this completely. Did you buy it because price wasn't important to you and it was on a more convenient shelf? General Mills paid for that shelf space out of their marketing budget, so the added value was convenience. Did you buy it because your kid likes the cartoon bee and wouldn't eat any other cereal? Then the added value was entertainment. This is the same value you get when you buy a movie ticket. What about when someone buys shoes from Gucci as opposed to loafers from Kmart? The consumer is paying for the marketing, without question. But they're getting something for their money - self esteem, status, etc.

gnoway 11y ago
Honestly, this reads like an argument from an advertiser trying to justify their purpose. Where a box is on the shelf - at least in every supermarket I've visited - has no effect on the convenience of the product. So that's a stretch. I don't have kids but I am aware of the phenomenon of children making choices that an adult would not make. I won't assert that I would never buy my kid the cereal s/he wanted because it was marketed to them, but I will suggest that the value of entertainment gets canceled out by my feeling like a bad parent in that situation. Maybe I'm just bitter because my parents wouldn't buy me the fancy-box cereal. Finally, I think Gucci is in the image business, which I agree is heavily dependent on advertising to sell the image. Without advertising it wouldn't surprise me if Gucci didn't exist. If your self-worth is tied up in what shoes you wear then I agree, advertising has added value here.