Imagine a world without advertising executives

[Andy1976]

If nobody has them, then it would be a level playing field, and the people with the best product and services would do best, rather than those with the fanciest advertising.

 

What a tragedy that would be!

 

It doesn't work though.

 

How does a new, small company get known, other than by marketing. Having started a small company, I can tell you that it's essential, otherwise I'd be sat here on my own doing nothing, as no one would know I existed.

 

Some industries have no option but to use advertising and marketing to get clients/customers.

[L00b]

Sadly I'm all too aware of the shocking fact that The City of London is at the very heart of the network of offshore secrecy jurisdictions commonly known as tax havens.

So, a question now if you permit, to help me answer your own question in your OP: who proposes what in that respect at the GE, and what is your recommendation?

[onewheeldave]

 

If nobody has them, then it would be a level playing field, and the people with the best product and services would do best, rather than those with the fanciest advertising.

 

Absolutely true. Marketing and advertising are leech industries that give nothing to society and are effectively a tax on all the organisations they 'work' for.

 

Presumably the company you work for employs a marketing or sales team of some description, no different to telemarketers or PR specialists? How well do you think your company would do without them?

 

Not well, but, only because we live in a world where companies are now obliged to spend between 10-40% of their profit on marketing.

 

As Hairyloon points out above, if there were no marketing, then it would be a level playing field where service and quality would determine a companies success.

 

It doesn't work though.

 

How does a new, small company get known, other than by marketing. Having started a small company, I can tell you that it's essential, otherwise I'd be sat here on my own doing nothing, as no one would know I existed.

 

Some industries have no option but to use advertising and marketing to get clients/customers.

 

Actually, pretty much ALL industries have no option but to use advertising and marketing to get clients/customers.

 

These leech industries have become compulsory for a company to succeed.

 

The most logical thing to do is to acknowledge that marketing/advertising are leech industries and then ban them.

 

(To head off the apologists before they start- yes, actually, it CAN be done, as the bans on tobacco marketing have shown).

 

Then instigate some form of tax so that the 10-40% of each companies annual profit that currently goes to the marketing leeches, is redirected to health and social care.

 

The only negative would be that those currently 'working' in marketing/advertising would have to find proper jobs.

 

The positives would be vast, not only freeing up all that currently wasted money, but also resulting in an economy where a companies sales would be directly related to the quality of product/service they offer, rather than how adept they are at shoveling cash into the right marketing services trough.

[Andy1976]

As Hairyloon points out above, if there were no marketing, then it would be a level playing field where service and quality would determine a companies success.

 

 

Could I clarify please - are you saying get rid of marketing companies (which I'd be fine with) or ban companies from advertising/marketing themselves? I assume the former, which is fine, but wanted to check.

[L00b]

<rant against marketing services>

So, let's say you are Mr Nike, in competition with Mr Adidas.

 

Now, given two substantially identical products (a pair of trainers), with substantially identical characteristics, level of quality and price/performance, and retailing for the same price...

 

...how do you ensure customers buy yours instead of Mr Adidas, so you can trouser that profit instead of Mr Adidas?

[onewheeldave]

Could I clarify please - are you saying get rid of marketing companies (which I'd be fine with) or ban companies from advertising/marketing themselves? I assume the former, which is fine, but wanted to check.

Before I answer that, could you clarify this-

 

Given the absence of marketing companies, what would 'companies advertising/marketing themselves' consist of?

 

---------- Post added 12-05-2017 at 09:24 ----------

 

So, let's say you are Mr Nike, in competition with Mr Adidas.

 

Now, given two substantially identical products (a pair of trainers), with substantially identical characteristics, level of quality and price/performance, and retailing for the same price...

 

...how do you ensure customers buy yours instead of Mr Adidas, so you can trouser that profit instead of Mr Adidas?

 

I'd suggest improving the quality of the product.

 

I'm not sure what your issue is, do you prefer the current model where one company would simply pay more for better marketing?

Edited May 12, 2017 by onewheeldave

[Andy1976]

Before I answer that, could you clarify this-

 

Given the absence of marketing companies, what would 'companies from advertising/marketing themselves' consist of?

 

So, typically, someone in the firm would put adverts in papers, online, sponsor stuff, press releases etc, and get the name out that way. Rather than pay some outsourced marketing company, someone in the company does their own advertising.

 

Are we allowing that?

[Obelix]

Absolutely true. Marketing and advertising are leech industries that give nothing to society

 

So tell me then how I would have discovered that things such as derailler gears existed when my local rather crappy bike shop sold nothing but Sturmey-Archers?

 

I found out from advertising in magazines. You think advertising is bad? Why?

[L00b]

I'd suggest improving the quality of the product.

That has a cost, which impacts the profit level.

 

Commonsensically, during product design, that quality drive and associated cost usually stops just shy of the point of ever diminishing returns for the market segment targeted by the particular product: it's pointless injecting Aston Martin levels of quality (engineering, materials, <...>) in a Dacia, because people in the market for a Dacia are unwilling to pay Aston Martin prices for a Dacia. Your profit level just takes the hit for the 'redundant' quality.

 

Since man was man, the vast majority of people and business buy a price first and foremost, therefore doing so (putting in 'more quality than needed') is a business choice: you can go for volume (lower quality, cheaper, sell lots) or niche (higher quality, premium, sell few), but you can rarely ever do both (higher quality, cheaper) profitably.

I'm not sure what your issue is, do you prefer the current model where one company would simply pay more for better marketing?

My issue is your oversimplified worldview, which suggests that you haven't got much commercial experience

 

More and/or better marketing, of its own, never guarantees success, long term or otherwise.

 

Building and then maintaining a strong association of product (and/or service) quality and value with the mark affixed to that product/service, does.

 

'Marketing' (self or via agencies) is just for shouting about that association on the rooftops around a crowded market.

Edited May 12, 2017 by L00b

[onewheeldave]

So, typically, someone in the firm would put adverts in papers, online, sponsor stuff, press releases etc, and get the name out that way. Rather than pay some outsourced marketing company, someone in the company does their own advertising.

 

Are we allowing that?

 

Obviously there's a thin line between informative media articles and advertising.