3 ms·
You're argument is flawed because someone is going to come along and say "$200 isn't enough to really test most advertising methods...I'd throaw at least $20,00
by giarc 6y ago
You're argument is flawed because someone is going to come along and say "$200 isn't enough to really test most advertising methods...I'd throaw at least $20,000-$100,000 on testing something." Then along comes Procter and Gamble and they say $10m-40m. It's all about scope and market size.
- bawolff 6y agoIs the market for music small? Was he testing in some specific genere, geographic region or other targeted group to justify the smaller budget? There comes a point where you need a minimum amount of money before you can tell if something is working. If you spent 10 cents on advertising, that would be pretty meaningless.