4 ms·

I'm not an MBA, but I'm a marketer. It's not about being related or not, it's about building familiarity. Their name will be reaching millions with an extremel

I'm not an MBA, but I'm a marketer. It's not about being related or not, it's about building familiarity. Their name will be reaching millions with an extremely high frequency, and this is how you build your space in people's minds. Basically crypto.com wants to breakthrough crypto folks and go mainstream, just like any other service (Mastercard, VISA, Robinhood, etc). This sort of things helps you to achieve this goal. It might take years, decades, but that's one way to build a brand. >you’ll never see Hermes arena or Porsche stadium Maybe because Hermes and Porsche don't want to go mainstream But it wouldn't surprise me if they had branded a race-track in Dubai. I can give you an example, in my country Apple used to buy outdoors (yeah, outdoor advertising) next to Rolex outdoors. I doubt I've ever seen an Apple ad online. >And of course you’ll never get metrics to prove that even a single sale was generated from this. It’s pure ego. This is the problem of current day marketing, like people think that if you can't measure then it didn't happen... or that branding it's voodoo/scam that marketers built to bleed businesses out of cash... when in reality marketing and advertising is part of the reason why you have global brands, even before we could measure any direct engagement like we can today. Proctor & Gamble, Unilever, Mars, Coke, pretty much any big car manufacturer, were built via this sort of activities that you couldn't measure direct sales from. Don't underestimate it. It's not ego, or faith. You just think that a human behavior (the action to click) represents the only relationship we have with what we perceive as reality - this is farm from the truth. We're not that shallow.

ComputerGuru 5y ago
Thanks for the explanation. I can certainly see how it would benefit certain brands that need to break into the common lingo. But once you’re already there, surely there’s no point? Who hasn’t heard of Chase, PetCo (if they have an animal), AT&T, Minute Maid, Coors, Miller, and most of the rest?
- libertine 5y ago
  >But once you’re already there, surely there’s no point? The problem here is that we have to keep reminding people if you want to remain relevant and on top of their minds. For example, you might have some positive emotions towards some brand from your childhood, but you're not constantly recalling it. Even if you had a positive experience with such brand, if you haven't heard of it in years you just forget it, or others take their place. You might recognize that brand if you happen to see it in the right context, but that's too much effort. We have too much going on with our lives to care. That's why Coca-Cola advertises with Santa every single year since 1931. Because they want to guarantee that in "(...) the most wonderful time of the year (...)", they're there. They're the happiness brand, that's what they sell you. And maybe, just maybe, you might choose them, over the thousands of options, for your family dinner, simply because of what they represent. Try to picture a supermarket (for the sake of a concept, since it's easier to visualize than ecommerce) - it's a fucking jungle, and we have to make choices every time we go there. Any nudge in the direction of your brand is a bias that people will have when they make a decision, a lot of times unconsciously. It's an expensive game, because you have to build it up and maintain it. Else you risk someone else taking your place. It worked very well in the past because a lot of those brands had a large "share of voice" in a time when attention was focused on few media (mostly TV). In this case, Crypto.com will be in the news just for this announcement, that's already free coverage. Then in every single game/show, people will hear and see them. They'll experience a range of emotions there. They'll grow accustomed to crypto.com, it will become familiar. It won't be the thing your nerd friend keeps talking about when you meet him, it'll just be there. And then maybe when someone wants to choose a crypto service, MAYBE, they'll default to crypto.com instead of other services that might look "shady" in comparison to the guys that have an arena with their name - those guys are more real than the rest. They must be trustworthy right?

ComputerGuru 5y ago

Thanks for the explanation. I can certainly see how it would benefit certain brands that need to break into the common lingo. But once you’re already there, surely there’s no point? Who hasn’t heard of Chase, PetCo (if they have an animal), AT&T, Minute Maid, Coors, Miller, and most of the rest?

libertine 5y ago
>But once you’re already there, surely there’s no point? The problem here is that we have to keep reminding people if you want to remain relevant and on top of their minds. For example, you might have some positive emotions towards some brand from your childhood, but you're not constantly recalling it. Even if you had a positive experience with such brand, if you haven't heard of it in years you just forget it, or others take their place. You might recognize that brand if you happen to see it in the right context, but that's too much effort. We have too much going on with our lives to care. That's why Coca-Cola advertises with Santa every single year since 1931. Because they want to guarantee that in "(...) the most wonderful time of the year (...)", they're there. They're the happiness brand, that's what they sell you. And maybe, just maybe, you might choose them, over the thousands of options, for your family dinner, simply because of what they represent. Try to picture a supermarket (for the sake of a concept, since it's easier to visualize than ecommerce) - it's a fucking jungle, and we have to make choices every time we go there. Any nudge in the direction of your brand is a bias that people will have when they make a decision, a lot of times unconsciously. It's an expensive game, because you have to build it up and maintain it. Else you risk someone else taking your place. It worked very well in the past because a lot of those brands had a large "share of voice" in a time when attention was focused on few media (mostly TV). In this case, Crypto.com will be in the news just for this announcement, that's already free coverage. Then in every single game/show, people will hear and see them. They'll experience a range of emotions there. They'll grow accustomed to crypto.com, it will become familiar. It won't be the thing your nerd friend keeps talking about when you meet him, it'll just be there. And then maybe when someone wants to choose a crypto service, MAYBE, they'll default to crypto.com instead of other services that might look "shady" in comparison to the guys that have an arena with their name - those guys are more real than the rest. They must be trustworthy right?