3 ms·

> The quality work/better marketing tradeoff is all about making someone money by providing negative real-world value to others I don't think a blanket put-dow

> The quality work/better marketing tradeoff is all about making someone money by providing negative real-world value to others I don't think a blanket put-down of all marketing as negative value is really true. Of course there are instances where marketing is dishonest or harmful, but by and large, how do you expect people to discover goods and services if there isn't someone who's willing to pay for the cost of dissemination of information, whether it's a marketer, or Google's search algorithm, or the consumer?

TeMPOraL 10y ago
I think bringing up marketing-as-information-dissemination is a red herring, because it's only a small fraction of the whole thing. The cost of telling people about a product/service should obviously be paid by the product/service provider - but we've solved that thing with a printing press, in the form of yellow pages and newspaper classifieds. Google's costs per company indexed are probably even cheaper. Marketing is by and large about gaming the way people select goods and services, so that you can sell more regardless of the quality of your offerings, or of whether the client actually needs it.
- smallnamespace 10y ago
  > Marketing is by and large about gaming the way people select goods and services, so that you can sell more regardless of the quality of your offerings, or of whether the client actually needs it. That may be the objective function of the marketer or salesperson, but it doesn't follow that marketing itself is a simple net transfer of wealth from consumers to producers. > I think bringing up marketing-as-information-dissemination is a red herring, because it's only a small fraction of the whole thing. The marketer is not paying to move bits to a consumer, the marketer is paying for the consumer's attention, which is much more limited than our ability to move bits around. Do you have an alternative fair and equitable way of allocating that scarce resource? For example, if we went with your suggestion and restricted marketing to only classifieds and other forms of print advertising, then we would expect the cost of placing ads there to skyrocket as everyone competes for scarce space. Also, the same risks of manipulation and dishonesty apply just as well there: https://www.google.com/search?q=snake+oil+ad&espv=2&biw=1440&bih=776&tbm=isch&imgil=cs5GzwK1uMiPfM%253A%253B65Wvj1AGRDBRLM%253Bhttp%25253A%25252F%25252Fjoshuaspodek.com%25252Fcognitive-behavioral-therapy-problems-2%25252Fsnake-oil-ad&source=iu&pf=m&fir=cs5GzwK1uMiPfM%253A%252C65Wvj1AGRDBRLM%252C_&usg=__xO5TOMKIJt1tQpw_QQu0nkNEVS8%3D&ved=0ahUKEwiTt_q69v3OAhUBR2MKHTUoDFAQyjcIKQ&ei=vWHQV9PkAYGOjQO10LCABQ#imgrc=cs5GzwK1uMiPfM%3A https://www.google.com/search?q=snake+oil+ad&espv=2&biw=1440...
  - TeMPOraL 10y ago
    > Do you have an alternative fair and equitable way of allocating that scarce resource? Yes. Not allocating it. What you call trying to "allocate" consumer's attention is, from the point of view of a consumer, people purposefully attempting to distract you from living your life in order to extract money from you. In all other contexts of life we would call such people "assholes". Classifieds have the benefit of consumers paying attention only when they want to pay attention. Time is the most precious thing we have in life. Attempts to take it away from other people should be treated more seriously, IMO. It's never just one marketer - they're competing for attention just as they would compete for classified space.
    - smallnamespace 10y ago
      > Not allocating it. I'm not sure what you mean by not allocating it. Even if we restricted all advertising to classifieds, we still need to decide whose ads get shown, how many pages they get, etc.. That's what I mean by allocation. And that would still be subject to the problems you identified: the advertiser might be dishonest, they might not have the consumer's best interests at heart, etc. As for how to achieve this objective--have the government rigorously define advertising and ban it in all forms? That just shifts power from advertisers to bureaucrats then, with all the risks of regulatory capture that implies. Let me pose the question in a different way: let's say there are a hundred different kinds of toothpaste. There is a cost to figuring out which kind is the best kind(s), and then letting everyone know the ordering. Who does the work of figuring that out, and then how do they get compensated for that work? Advertising and marketing is one possible answer by creating a signalling equilibrium (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Signalling_(economics)#Introductory_questions https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Signalling_(economics)#Introdu...): all else being equal, the better toothpaste should have access to a larger marketing budget. If consumers know this, then seeing someone's ad is actually a (perhaps weak) signal of quality. There are also other models, like Amazon reviews; but there are plenty of ways to game that system, and you're really depending on Amazon to police it effectively. Or you can actually pay someone to review products, like the Consumer Reports model, where you only get access if you pay up. But each of these models has a tradeoff; Consumer Reports works best when everyone subscribes, but then as it becomes more popular, producers will be tempted to buy them off; Amazon reviews are subject to bandwagoning and cheating; classic marketing is expensive (in time and cost) and unreliable.

TeMPOraL 10y ago

I think bringing up marketing-as-information-dissemination is a red herring, because it's only a small fraction of the whole thing. The cost of telling people about a product/service should obviously be paid by the product/service provider - but we've solved that thing with a printing press, in the form of yellow pages and newspaper classifieds. Google's costs per company indexed are probably even cheaper. Marketing is by and large about gaming the way people select goods and services, so that you can sell more regardless of the quality of your offerings, or of whether the client actually needs it.

smallnamespace 10y ago
> Marketing is by and large about gaming the way people select goods and services, so that you can sell more regardless of the quality of your offerings, or of whether the client actually needs it. That may be the objective function of the marketer or salesperson, but it doesn't follow that marketing itself is a simple net transfer of wealth from consumers to producers. > I think bringing up marketing-as-information-dissemination is a red herring, because it's only a small fraction of the whole thing. The marketer is not paying to move bits to a consumer, the marketer is paying for the consumer's attention, which is much more limited than our ability to move bits around. Do you have an alternative fair and equitable way of allocating that scarce resource? For example, if we went with your suggestion and restricted marketing to only classifieds and other forms of print advertising, then we would expect the cost of placing ads there to skyrocket as everyone competes for scarce space. Also, the same risks of manipulation and dishonesty apply just as well there: https://www.google.com/search?q=snake+oil+ad&espv=2&biw=1440&bih=776&tbm=isch&imgil=cs5GzwK1uMiPfM%253A%253B65Wvj1AGRDBRLM%253Bhttp%25253A%25252F%25252Fjoshuaspodek.com%25252Fcognitive-behavioral-therapy-problems-2%25252Fsnake-oil-ad&source=iu&pf=m&fir=cs5GzwK1uMiPfM%253A%252C65Wvj1AGRDBRLM%252C_&usg=__xO5TOMKIJt1tQpw_QQu0nkNEVS8%3D&ved=0ahUKEwiTt_q69v3OAhUBR2MKHTUoDFAQyjcIKQ&ei=vWHQV9PkAYGOjQO10LCABQ#imgrc=cs5GzwK1uMiPfM%3A https://www.google.com/search?q=snake+oil+ad&espv=2&biw=1440...
- TeMPOraL 10y ago
  > Do you have an alternative fair and equitable way of allocating that scarce resource? Yes. Not allocating it. What you call trying to "allocate" consumer's attention is, from the point of view of a consumer, people purposefully attempting to distract you from living your life in order to extract money from you. In all other contexts of life we would call such people "assholes". Classifieds have the benefit of consumers paying attention only when they want to pay attention. Time is the most precious thing we have in life. Attempts to take it away from other people should be treated more seriously, IMO. It's never just one marketer - they're competing for attention just as they would compete for classified space.
  - smallnamespace 10y ago
    > Not allocating it. I'm not sure what you mean by not allocating it. Even if we restricted all advertising to classifieds, we still need to decide whose ads get shown, how many pages they get, etc.. That's what I mean by allocation. And that would still be subject to the problems you identified: the advertiser might be dishonest, they might not have the consumer's best interests at heart, etc. As for how to achieve this objective--have the government rigorously define advertising and ban it in all forms? That just shifts power from advertisers to bureaucrats then, with all the risks of regulatory capture that implies. Let me pose the question in a different way: let's say there are a hundred different kinds of toothpaste. There is a cost to figuring out which kind is the best kind(s), and then letting everyone know the ordering. Who does the work of figuring that out, and then how do they get compensated for that work? Advertising and marketing is one possible answer by creating a signalling equilibrium (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Signalling_(economics)#Introductory_questions https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Signalling_(economics)#Introdu...): all else being equal, the better toothpaste should have access to a larger marketing budget. If consumers know this, then seeing someone's ad is actually a (perhaps weak) signal of quality. There are also other models, like Amazon reviews; but there are plenty of ways to game that system, and you're really depending on Amazon to police it effectively. Or you can actually pay someone to review products, like the Consumer Reports model, where you only get access if you pay up. But each of these models has a tradeoff; Consumer Reports works best when everyone subscribes, but then as it becomes more popular, producers will be tempted to buy them off; Amazon reviews are subject to bandwagoning and cheating; classic marketing is expensive (in time and cost) and unreliable.