3 ms·
It's standard practice to offload truckloads of cash on marteking while you dominate the market. The purpose always is to stay on top. I personally think it sho
by collaborative 4y ago
It's standard practice to offload truckloads of cash on marteking while you dominate the market. The purpose always is to stay on top. I personally think it should be illegal to spend $1 on marketing for companies above a certain size
- elromulous 4y agoThe problem with this is that it's basically unenforceable. What counts as marketing? E.g. is sponsoring a charity event marketing?
- MichaelCollins 4y agoIf they plaster that charity event with their logo and name, then certainly yes. If it were really about charity and not advertising, they could do it as anonymously as a public corporation can, and not have the event plaster posters for the company everywhere.
- brigandish 4y agoIt's possible that the charities would get less money, probably a lot less money. That doesn't sound like a good trade off to me.
- collaborative 4y agoThere would always be companies donating to charities and advertising - just only the ones below the threshold. And the variety and number would be a lot more vibrant Word-of-mouth would actually be what the mega corps would aim for in this hypothetical system. They would be forced to treat customers super nice and actually lose money. Consumers would win and competition would improve. I propose the increased number of competitors would actually increase the donations made to charities. It just wouldn't all come from Coca Cola Corp and instead from hundreds of others
- brigandish 4y ago> There would always be companies donating to charities and advertising - just only the ones below the threshold Below the threshold of what? How does a company get word of mouth regarding its charitable donations if their contributions are anonymous?