> I've often tried to explain to marketeers at work that marketing to the wrong people will create negative sentiment and lower sales That's the same thing as

> I've often tried to explain to marketeers at work that marketing to the wrong people will create negative sentiment and lower sales That's the same thing as a marketer approaching a dev at work trying to explain that shit code will create poor product experience, negative sentiment and lower sales. What most people don't realize is that marketing isn't a input > output solution. That's not how people work. That's not how society works. No one wants to waste budget to reach the wrong people, because, just like on any other job - no one likes to do a bad job. Specially marketing/sales jobs have a direct measurable result. I know that a lot of IT people have a lot of difficulty understanding this, but that's part of some marketing roles, to deal with all stakeholders and try to explain it to them (when/if necessary - else they should just say: "How about you do your job well and don't worry about other's people job?"). When you understand that when Coca-Cola approaches you with a briefing to sell "happiness in a bottle" and that poses a media challenge, then you're one step closer to understand the difficulty of the task. Now, are there bad practices and bad professionals? Just like in any other job. So what's the difference? Well unlike many other jobs, the outcome of a bad advertising is seen by a lot of eye balls, because that's the end goal. A good analogy of a bad engineering job that received a lot of public attention and anger is for example the Boeing 737 Max Q. Or when ever there's a data leak from X company. Yet most poor/bad engineering jobs aren't noticeable to a large audience, aren't up for public scrutiny. To sum up: when people are affected by bad practices, they don't like it.