7 ms·
It would be kind of interesting to require companies to limit marketing budgets to half of R&D, or whatever. The obvious objection is that this will result in
by bee_rider 1y ago
It would be kind of interesting to require companies to limit marketing budgets to half of R&D, or whatever.
The obvious objection is that this will result in inflated research budgets and maybe marketing-adjacent research (like benchmarking). But actually, more benchmarking could be good. Or maybe they’ll inflate their research budgets by dropping money into basic research.
- nineplay 1y agoTo what end? Companies spend $X on marketing to make $X + $Y. If you force them to reduce $X than assuming they don't come up with creative financial workarounds, you've just made them make less money. What has this accomplished for the betterment of anyone?
- Marsymars 1y ago> To what end? Companies spend $X on marketing to make $X + $Y. I expect that in many cases this is only true because the advertising market is competitive - you can’t advertise less, or you’ll lose market share to your competitors. But if everyone is prohibited from advertising cars, is the total market for cars really going to shrink? And if it does, is that actually a net negative for society?
- bee_rider 1y agoI don’t think that is the model they use, it is too over-simplified to say anything. Anyway, marketing is a useless overhead in our society for the most part. Especially in the case of medical products, where you go talk to a professional, a doctor, who can recommend the ones you actually need. “To what end,” my goal is to at least pin it to something that might have useful side effects, R&D.