Imagine a world without advertising executives

[the_bloke]

How does your tech review magazine or online site survive without advertising?

[onewheeldave]

How does your tech review magazine or online site survive without advertising?

 

At the moment, it couldn't. Due to the prevalence of marketing such sites can't financially survive without spending 10-40% of their profit on marketing.

 

Virtually no business can get off the ground or survive without spending 10-40% of it's profit on marketing.

 

If marketing were to be banned, obviously things will be very different.

 

Produce and services will still sell, no doubt about it, because people need them- they need food, clothes, services etc.

 

That world will be so different from ours, that it's impossible to predict how companies will 'get ahead of the competition'.

 

It'll be about providing what people really want, rather than paying marketing companies to persuade them that they want what you're selling.

 

But buying, and therefore selling, will continue.

 

And some of that 10-40% of every businesses profit currently going to marketing organisations, will be available for things like the health service and social funds.

 

And the world will be a more honest place.

[Staunton]

And a world without carers, without nurses, without ambulance crews?

[Phanerothyme]

Try and imagine a country without ambulance crews, without nurses, without carers.

 

Now think of a world without telemarketers, PR consultants or corporate lobbyists!

 

What kind of country do you want to wake up to on 9 June? A place in which public spirit is valued or a place where hype and greed is triumphant?

 

You'll all get wiped out by a virulent infection caught off a dirty telephone.

 

You may mock us Golgafrinchan B Ark passengers, but you still need us.

 

---------- Post added 13-05-2017 at 01:21 ----------

 

Yeah, I buy a lot of stuff from the pound shop- low quality, but does the job cheap.

 

What's bad is when marketing (scientifically shown to be very effective) leads to consumers buying low quality products that they've been deceived by marketing ploys, into thinking it's high quality.

 

When it's things like mobile phones, contracts, broadband etc, that deception can cause a lot of misery.

 

When it's the NHS buying low quality pharmaceutical products presented as high quality, then it's devastating.

 

I think once you have a market, you have marketing. You don't get one without the other, it really is that simple.

 

From the literal market - people with barrows yelling their wares, to 'the market' i.e. the global market economy, if you have wares and you want to sell them (which you do, remember), then you're going to be hard pressed doing that when your hands are cuffed behind your back, there's gaffer tape over your mouth and you're bundled into a ditch in East Lincolnshire (metaphorically speaking), non?

 

Do away with marketing? Fine. Now, do away with the market? Tricky.

 

Not impossible, but tricky. Interested to hear how you'd do that.

 

---------- Post added 13-05-2017 at 01:23 ----------

 

And a world without carers, without nurses, without ambulance crews?

It's not a zero sum game, you can have both.

Edited May 13, 2017 by Phanerothyme

[onewheeldave]

I think once you have a market, you have marketing. You don't get one without the other, it really is that simple.

 

From the literal market - people with barrows yelling their wares, to 'the market' i.e. the global market economy, if you have wares and you want to sell them (which you do, remember), then you're going to be hard pressed doing that when your hands are cuffed behind your back, there's gaffer tape over your mouth and you're bundled into a ditch in East Lincolnshire (metaphorically speaking), non?

 

Do away with marketing? Fine. Now, do away with the market? Tricky.

 

Not impossible, but tricky. Interested to hear how you'd do that.

By banning marketing and advertising companies.

 

You argue above that if you have a market, you have marketing.

 

I've shown in previous posts that there will always be a market (people will continue to buy food, goods, services regardless of whether marketing companies exist).

 

I disagree with you that what will remain after a ban on marketing/advertising companies are banned will be 'marketing'.

 

But either way, the first step is to ban marketing and advertising companies.

 

Even if, as you claim, marketing will continue, at least the following will cease-

 

businesses having to pay 10-40% of their profit to marketing companies just to survive (money which could otherwise be redirected to health services and social funds).

[RollingJ]

One problem with the last line of your argument, onewheeldave - that 10-40% belongs to the company, so could not be 'redirected' as you claim, unless somehow, the goverment could (mis)appropriate it.

[onewheeldave]

One problem with the last line of your argument, onewheeldave - that 10-40% belongs to the company, so could not be 'redirected' as you claim, unless somehow, the goverment could (mis)appropriate it.

 

Yes, the government could, should, and would appropriate a portion of it.

 

After all, the government making the decision, and, implementing, a ban on marketing organisations, is going to save all businesses what is currently, in effect, a tax (10-40% of their profits) going to said marketing companies.

 

And, when it comes to social and health needs, we are in desperate need of funds that aren't going to come from anywhere else.

 

Do you realise the amount of money being talked about here? 10-40% of every businesses profits.

 

It's vast, and all going to what is IMO, a leech industry that is based largely on manipulation and deceit, to produce adverts and campaigns to 'persuade' consumers to spend money on products, not just on the basis of said products quality, but, more on the effectiveness of the marketing.

 

Try and run a business without paying that 10-40% of your profit to the marketing organisations- you will almost certainly fail.

 

What a waste of money that could be used for health and social provision, at a time when it's never been more needed.

[Obelix]

In your opinion yes.

 

Youve provided no proof whatsover its bad. That it is a leech. Or that your alternative is feasible.

 

So how about addressing that and the points made by others

[carosio]

 

businesses having to pay 10-40% of their profit to marketing companies just to survive (money which could otherwise be redirected to health services and social funds).

 

So if they can't invest in marketing/advertising, most businesses will either fail, be unable to grow or even start which means they'll be little or no profits to re-direct anywhere.

[the_bloke]

At the moment, it couldn't. Due to the prevalence of marketing such sites can't financially survive without spending 10-40% of their profit on marketing.

 

No, I meant the other side of the coin. Most magazines and certainly nearly all review websites only exist because they earn money from displaying adverts. Without adverts, your review sites won't exist. So now you have a product that can't be advertised and review sites don't exist in order to highlight the product to the end consumer. So again, how is this product sold?

 

This forum only exists due to adverts by the way. Ban marketing and SF wouldn't exist either.