5 ms·

I'm not sure, but I think from a marketing perspective, you do not want to write "No" anywhere. I might be wrong, and I'd love if someone with knowledge in this

I'm not sure, but I think from a marketing perspective, you do not want to write "No" anywhere. I might be wrong, and I'd love if someone with knowledge in this area could answer. It's something I recall from the back of my mind...

Timwi 3y ago
Being a marketing tactic makes it more scummy, not less.
JoshTriplett 3y ago
Dishonesty and subterfuge are bad marketing tactics.
- switchbak 3y ago
  Marketing to developers is also decidedly different than for non devs. We've been baited and switched, and screwed over a million times (thanks Google). It takes a lot of trust building to get me to trust any organization. I especially don't trust free shit if I don't have access and control of the future of the code. Even then it's not a sure thing.
- newswasboring 3y ago
  Is it though? Seems to me that most marketing today is subterfuge.
  - thomastjeffery 3y ago
    Is most marketing good? I don't think so.
    - newswasboring 3y ago
      I don't know what you are calling "good". That is a super loaded word. I would say it is effective though. The baseline evidence for that is how much money gets spent in that industry, I guess.
      - thomastjeffery 3y ago
        > The baseline evidence for that is how much money gets spent in that industry, I guess. I can't imagine a clearer example of circular reasoning. I can lift exactly as much weight as I decide to put on the barbell.
        newswasboring 3y ago
        While I see your point, please note people actually spending money don't just look at how much money is in the industry. They have internal metrics and can track performance of individual marketing campaigns. I called it a baseline argument because I'm not a marketing expert so this it the only real KPI __I__ understand.
        thomastjeffery 3y ago
        My argument is that you are not alone: people in the industry don't have much else to go on either. Marketing performance is an incredibly confoundable variable. For example, I have heard one commercial at least 5 times in the last week: advertising open positions at McDonald's. Part of that very commercial stated that, "1 in 8 people have worked at a McDonald's." I am literally one of those people! How could anyone possibly measure the effectiveness of that commercial? Is it even meant to be effective at all? The overwhelming majority of advertising I see is from "household name brands". The notion I have heard is that the goal is not to introduce themselves to new customers, or even drive more traffic to their brand: it's to keep their status as a "household name". Do they do this because it is effective, or because they are simply big enough to afford it?
      - JoshTriplett 3y ago
        > I would say it is effective though. Really depends on your metrics. Very little of it builds long-term trust that didn't already exist. Much of it abuses long-term trust. See the discussion on https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35590734 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35590734

Timwi 3y ago

Being a marketing tactic makes it more scummy, not less.

JoshTriplett 3y ago

Dishonesty and subterfuge are bad marketing tactics.

switchbak 3y ago
Marketing to developers is also decidedly different than for non devs. We've been baited and switched, and screwed over a million times (thanks Google). It takes a lot of trust building to get me to trust any organization. I especially don't trust free shit if I don't have access and control of the future of the code. Even then it's not a sure thing.
newswasboring 3y ago
Is it though? Seems to me that most marketing today is subterfuge.
- thomastjeffery 3y ago
  Is most marketing good? I don't think so.
  - newswasboring 3y ago
    I don't know what you are calling "good". That is a super loaded word. I would say it is effective though. The baseline evidence for that is how much money gets spent in that industry, I guess.
    - thomastjeffery 3y ago
      > The baseline evidence for that is how much money gets spent in that industry, I guess. I can't imagine a clearer example of circular reasoning. I can lift exactly as much weight as I decide to put on the barbell.
      - newswasboring 3y ago
        While I see your point, please note people actually spending money don't just look at how much money is in the industry. They have internal metrics and can track performance of individual marketing campaigns. I called it a baseline argument because I'm not a marketing expert so this it the only real KPI __I__ understand.
        thomastjeffery 3y ago
        My argument is that you are not alone: people in the industry don't have much else to go on either. Marketing performance is an incredibly confoundable variable. For example, I have heard one commercial at least 5 times in the last week: advertising open positions at McDonald's. Part of that very commercial stated that, "1 in 8 people have worked at a McDonald's." I am literally one of those people! How could anyone possibly measure the effectiveness of that commercial? Is it even meant to be effective at all? The overwhelming majority of advertising I see is from "household name brands". The notion I have heard is that the goal is not to introduce themselves to new customers, or even drive more traffic to their brand: it's to keep their status as a "household name". Do they do this because it is effective, or because they are simply big enough to afford it?
    - JoshTriplett 3y ago
      > I would say it is effective though. Really depends on your metrics. Very little of it builds long-term trust that didn't already exist. Much of it abuses long-term trust. See the discussion on https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35590734 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35590734