6 ms·

Because in the end if ads are not effective, you won't be getting money from the advertisers anymore. Marketers can't know in advance which marketing channels w

Because in the end if ads are not effective, you won't be getting money from the advertisers anymore. Marketers can't know in advance which marketing channels will work - so they kinda carpet bomb with their campaigns. However once they start getting data, they sure as hell kill of the channels that don't work. Unethical behavior does not scale in business, no matter how much your calculations rationalize it. In the end people just go away from sleazy businesses. GM and Ford might tell you a story about it and millions of others short term profit oriented businesses also. Theres only so much bullshit you can pile up before your reputation catches on to you.

mtts 15y ago
As much as I'd like to think you're right, you're probably wrong. The advertising industry is making very real money, which gives people an incentive to keep it going even though it delivers close to nothing. Why do people buy Coca Cola? Is it because of the tremendously expensive advertisements they put out or is it because the stuff is ubiquitous, tastes fairly good and is usually not surrounded by a lot of competing products at the places where it's sold? Don't believe me? What about if you're in a restaurant that sells only Pepsi. Do you leave the restaurant in search of another that sells Coca-Cola? Most people probably don't, thereby proving that all the so-called "positive emotions" advertisements instill in consumers do absolutely nothing when the time comes to make purchase. Theoretically, yes, in a situation where you can choose either Pepsi or Coca-Cola for (roughly) the same price, Coca-Cola's advertising campain may have an effect, but such situations are exceedingly rare. In most purchasing decisions there are variables that have much more significance than the advertising history of the products. So ads are, probably, not effective. And despite this fact, there has been an industry selling them for over a century and that industry has been getting richer and richer, thereby proving that you can perfectly well build a business on scamming people and keeping it up indefinitely. You do, however, have to keep playing around with some superficial parameters of your business model to keep it convincing. Which is exactly what Google is doing here. (btw, I use - and love - Google's services, but never in my life have I clicked one of their ads or even looked at one for more than a split second)
- JanezStupar 15y ago
  I was talking of marketing in general. Advertising is only a single branch of marketing. And its obvious that Coca-Cola's marketing has been waaay better than Pepsi's. And also I believe that Pepsi is quite comfortable in its #2 position. As is Burger King in its own. Don't forget, that second biggest player in a huge market is usually still a friggin big behemoth. And that for Pepsi and BK being #2 is a core business strategy. Less upside, but also less downside. These companies basically use their bigger competitors as a hedge against market change.
  - mtts 15y ago
    Ok. I guess I was confused because the grand parent talked about advertising (Google's targeted ads). Marketing in general, I agree, has some non-bullshit aspects to it. Not many, though. But certainly the marketing that causes Coca Cola to be sold in way, way more places than Pepsi has been very effective.
- colomon 15y ago
  Errr.... you have occasionally been in convenience stores and supermarkets, yes? Restaurants that serve both Coke and Pepsi are rare, yes, but stores where you can buy either are an everyday thing for most of us...
  - mtts 15y ago
    I'm guessing here, but I don't think the bulk of cola purchases are made in convenience stores and supermarkets.
    - smackfu 15y ago
      Given how precious space is in supermarkets, and how companies pay for prominent placement, the whole side of the aisle devoted to soda at mine inclines me to disagree.
      - mtts 15y ago
tokenadult 15y ago
The classic statement on advertising is attributed to John Wanamaker (1838 - 1922), a businessman who pioneered department stores in the United States: "Half the money I spend on advertising is wasted; the trouble is I don't know which half." As long as tools to analyze which advertising money works and which doesn't in an overall advertising campaign leave room for hand-waving, merchants will spend too much on the advertising arms race.

mtts 15y ago

As much as I'd like to think you're right, you're probably wrong. The advertising industry is making very real money, which gives people an incentive to keep it going even though it delivers close to nothing. Why do people buy Coca Cola? Is it because of the tremendously expensive advertisements they put out or is it because the stuff is ubiquitous, tastes fairly good and is usually not surrounded by a lot of competing products at the places where it's sold? Don't believe me? What about if you're in a restaurant that sells only Pepsi. Do you leave the restaurant in search of another that sells Coca-Cola? Most people probably don't, thereby proving that all the so-called "positive emotions" advertisements instill in consumers do absolutely nothing when the time comes to make purchase. Theoretically, yes, in a situation where you can choose either Pepsi or Coca-Cola for (roughly) the same price, Coca-Cola's advertising campain may have an effect, but such situations are exceedingly rare. In most purchasing decisions there are variables that have much more significance than the advertising history of the products. So ads are, probably, not effective. And despite this fact, there has been an industry selling them for over a century and that industry has been getting richer and richer, thereby proving that you can perfectly well build a business on scamming people and keeping it up indefinitely. You do, however, have to keep playing around with some superficial parameters of your business model to keep it convincing. Which is exactly what Google is doing here. (btw, I use - and love - Google's services, but never in my life have I clicked one of their ads or even looked at one for more than a split second)

JanezStupar 15y ago
I was talking of marketing in general. Advertising is only a single branch of marketing. And its obvious that Coca-Cola's marketing has been waaay better than Pepsi's. And also I believe that Pepsi is quite comfortable in its #2 position. As is Burger King in its own. Don't forget, that second biggest player in a huge market is usually still a friggin big behemoth. And that for Pepsi and BK being #2 is a core business strategy. Less upside, but also less downside. These companies basically use their bigger competitors as a hedge against market change.
- mtts 15y ago
  Ok. I guess I was confused because the grand parent talked about advertising (Google's targeted ads). Marketing in general, I agree, has some non-bullshit aspects to it. Not many, though. But certainly the marketing that causes Coca Cola to be sold in way, way more places than Pepsi has been very effective.
colomon 15y ago
Errr.... you have occasionally been in convenience stores and supermarkets, yes? Restaurants that serve both Coke and Pepsi are rare, yes, but stores where you can buy either are an everyday thing for most of us...
- mtts 15y ago
  I'm guessing here, but I don't think the bulk of cola purchases are made in convenience stores and supermarkets.
  - smackfu 15y ago
    Given how precious space is in supermarkets, and how companies pay for prominent placement, the whole side of the aisle devoted to soda at mine inclines me to disagree.
    - mtts 15y ago

tokenadult 15y ago

The classic statement on advertising is attributed to John Wanamaker (1838 - 1922), a businessman who pioneered department stores in the United States: "Half the money I spend on advertising is wasted; the trouble is I don't know which half." As long as tools to analyze which advertising money works and which doesn't in an overall advertising campaign leave room for hand-waving, merchants will spend too much on the advertising arms race.