6 ms·

Be cautious about being so quick to dismiss a tool just because it's expensive. How much caution, expressed in dollar amounts is warranted? If you had the visi

• Cederfjard 6y ago
  Well that depends, right? If you’ve analyzed it thoroughly and come to the understanding that the ROI is poor and the budget would have been better spent elsewhere, then obviously you’re probably correct and someone else is not doing their job right. But if it’s more of a shallow, knee-jerk reaction like ”this much spent on EMAIL SIGNATURES!? This has to be a waste of money!”, then perhaps you’re wrong to jump to conclusions quite so fast. You haven’t really elaborated, so we don’t know which one it is.
  • dvtrn 6y ago
    I didn't think it was wise, nor really my place to elaborate on the specifics of my company's finances, beyond to express-as a ranking manager-my surprise at the costs incurred weighed against common indicators a bit more relevant to a wide audience such as HN.
    • shostack 6y ago
      So, I made a point about ROI, which could very well justify it in the broader marketing and business context. You haven't addressed that point. Instead you've just made some vague claim about something you have visibility into about cost incurred. Please elaborate as to why considering the return of the tool in question instead of just its cost is not relevant.
  • texasbigdata 6y ago
    DVTRN is right, even if with attribution every marketing initiative was worth undertaking cash is still constrained from a fixed standpoint so you have to force rank prioritize what to purchase.