The “Marketing Is Evil” Problem(sparktoro.com)
sparktoro.com
The “Marketing Is Evil” Problem
https://sparktoro.com/blog/the-marketing-is-evil-problem/
127 comments
Is it the Cloudflare checkbox you're talking about? It's just an aggressive DDoS protection.
Marketing is about making me spend money. All those examples he gave could have been solved with the person searching rather than being told. Bored? Find something to do. Hungry? Find something to eat. Marketing heavily favours large amounts of money and things with large amounts of money aren't humans and don't have morals. They no longer exist to offer you solutions to your problems. Mass marketing is evil. Targeted marketing is evil. Marketing as a term is a business term not a human term.
The problem is marketing influences our searching, even if we're not aware of it.
When you find something to eat at the farmer's market, your choice is largely influenced by the seller's marketing efforts: pricing, selection, her straw hat, or the fact that the best looking plump heirloom tomatoes are right in front of the stall. The farmer is telling you to buy her produce even before she speaks to you.
When you find something to eat at the farmer's market, your choice is largely influenced by the seller's marketing efforts: pricing, selection, her straw hat, or the fact that the best looking plump heirloom tomatoes are right in front of the stall. The farmer is telling you to buy her produce even before she speaks to you.
> Marketing is about making me spend money.
Making you? Or else what are they going to do to you?
Making you? Or else what are they going to do to you?
>things with large amounts of money aren't humans and don't have morals
"Dehumanize when it's trendy." This is billionairephobia, friend.
"Dehumanize when it's trendy." This is billionairephobia, friend.
That's ok, billionaires shouldn't exist (except that what would replace them would be worse).
If I gave you a billion dollars, do you believe that you would suddenly transform into an amoral non-human monster?
Of course not. There'd be a short window in which I could give most of that money away without endangering my soul.
not suddenly, but within a decade, yep
Why do you believe that?
And if you believe that, how are you so sure that it hasn't already happened? If you're a software developer making $100K annually, you are already in the global 1%. Should people like you exist? Have you signed any sort of giving pledge, as many billionaires have? https://givingpledge.org/
And if you believe that, how are you so sure that it hasn't already happened? If you're a software developer making $100K annually, you are already in the global 1%. Should people like you exist? Have you signed any sort of giving pledge, as many billionaires have? https://givingpledge.org/
That's a trick question, because the only way[¤] to amass enough wealth to become a billionaire, is to be amoral and callous in the first place.
[¤]Excepting the exceedingly rare few who win an exceedingly rare 1+ billion lottery prize.
[¤]Excepting the exceedingly rare few who win an exceedingly rare 1+ billion lottery prize.
If what you say is true, billionaires who inherit their money should also be among the most ethical. Is that what you believe?
Everyone who inherited that sort of wealth was brought up and raised by billionaires, they were literally brought up in that worldview from the day they were born.
There is no such thing as an ethical billionaire, that's the whole problem, that such wealth can only be amassed by unethical means.
There is no such thing as an ethical billionaire, that's the whole problem, that such wealth can only be amassed by unethical means.
Is there such a thing as an ethical thousandaire? Millionaire?
If you think there is, why can't there be ethical billionaires? An ethical billionaire is just an ethical millionaire who kept working to make the source of their income grow until it grew 1000x as large.
Big businesses are generally more ethical than little ones -- subject to more customer and regulatory scrutiny. It's much easier for a small business to get away with flouting environmental regulations or treating its employees harshly. (When's the last time the manager at a tiny roadside restaurant got fired for sexually harassing his employees?) This increased level of scrutiny means it is easier to bring to mind examples of unethical behavior by large businesses even if the actual rate is about the same. The media is biased to cover misdeeds by billionaires due to billionairephobia, the same way it is biased to cover misdeeds by Black people due to racism.
If you think there is, why can't there be ethical billionaires? An ethical billionaire is just an ethical millionaire who kept working to make the source of their income grow until it grew 1000x as large.
Big businesses are generally more ethical than little ones -- subject to more customer and regulatory scrutiny. It's much easier for a small business to get away with flouting environmental regulations or treating its employees harshly. (When's the last time the manager at a tiny roadside restaurant got fired for sexually harassing his employees?) This increased level of scrutiny means it is easier to bring to mind examples of unethical behavior by large businesses even if the actual rate is about the same. The media is biased to cover misdeeds by billionaires due to billionairephobia, the same way it is biased to cover misdeeds by Black people due to racism.
The only way to amass that sort of wealth is to exploit the labor of others.
There are countless examples.
Amazon warehouse employees not being allotted time to go to the bathroom, while Jeff Bezos buys a $165 million mansion in LA, not to mention the endemic underpayment and disregard for physical and mental stress.
Richard Branson forcing his employees on 8 weeks of unpaid leave, while he's sitting comfortably on a fortune that means he doesn't have to care.
Steve Jobs building the wealthiest company in the world and becoming a billionaire, while their subcontractors install suicide preventing nets on their factories.
Simply the fact that some people are amassing such wealth, while millions of people in the world starve and cannot access even basic education or healthcare. That alone makes being a billionaire unethical, by default.
> "The media is biased to cover misdeeds by billionaires due to billionairephobia, the same way it is biased to cover misdeeds by Black people due to racism."
Excuse me, but did you just compare literally the most privileged human beings to ever exist in all of history, to people who have been historically downtrodden and subjugated for hundreds of years due to their ethnicity?
The mind boggles at what a temporarily embarrassed billionaire can delude themselves into thinking.
There are countless examples.
Amazon warehouse employees not being allotted time to go to the bathroom, while Jeff Bezos buys a $165 million mansion in LA, not to mention the endemic underpayment and disregard for physical and mental stress.
Richard Branson forcing his employees on 8 weeks of unpaid leave, while he's sitting comfortably on a fortune that means he doesn't have to care.
Steve Jobs building the wealthiest company in the world and becoming a billionaire, while their subcontractors install suicide preventing nets on their factories.
Simply the fact that some people are amassing such wealth, while millions of people in the world starve and cannot access even basic education or healthcare. That alone makes being a billionaire unethical, by default.
> "The media is biased to cover misdeeds by billionaires due to billionairephobia, the same way it is biased to cover misdeeds by Black people due to racism."
Excuse me, but did you just compare literally the most privileged human beings to ever exist in all of history, to people who have been historically downtrodden and subjugated for hundreds of years due to their ethnicity?
The mind boggles at what a temporarily embarrassed billionaire can delude themselves into thinking.
"Excuse me, but did you just compare the number 1 to the number 1000 by pointing out that they are both positive integers?"
The point I am making is simple. There are approaching 3,000 billionaires worldwide. Suppose 90% are upstanding and 10% are unethical. That's 300 unethical billionaires. Suppose each unethical billionaire does just 1-2 unethical things per year, that is plenty of "unethical billionaire" stories for journalists to write about an unethical billionaire every day if they want.
You write: "The only way to amass that sort of wealth is to exploit the labor of others." Then you cite a few examples of billionaires behaving, in your view, unethically. That's very nice, but to prove your claim, you need to show that every billionaire has done this. You mentioned 3 billionaires. With about 3,000 worldwide, you are about 0.1% of the way there.
But the examples you've provided so far don't even pass the sniff test. Example:
"ABC News[47] and The Economist[48] both conducted comparisons, and found that although the number of workplace suicides at Foxconn was large in absolute terms, the suicide rate was actually lower than the overall suicide rate of China[49] or the United States."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foxconn_suicides#Analysis
>Simply the fact that some people are amassing such wealth, while millions of people in the world starve and cannot access even basic education or healthcare. That alone makes being a billionaire unethical, by default.
This argument only applies to billionaires who haven't signed the giving pledge. Those I will agree with you on. However, it would be highly unethical to tax away the wealth of those who have signed the Giving Pledge, in order to provide even more goodies for Americans who are already quite wealthy by global standards.
The point I am making is simple. There are approaching 3,000 billionaires worldwide. Suppose 90% are upstanding and 10% are unethical. That's 300 unethical billionaires. Suppose each unethical billionaire does just 1-2 unethical things per year, that is plenty of "unethical billionaire" stories for journalists to write about an unethical billionaire every day if they want.
You write: "The only way to amass that sort of wealth is to exploit the labor of others." Then you cite a few examples of billionaires behaving, in your view, unethically. That's very nice, but to prove your claim, you need to show that every billionaire has done this. You mentioned 3 billionaires. With about 3,000 worldwide, you are about 0.1% of the way there.
But the examples you've provided so far don't even pass the sniff test. Example:
"ABC News[47] and The Economist[48] both conducted comparisons, and found that although the number of workplace suicides at Foxconn was large in absolute terms, the suicide rate was actually lower than the overall suicide rate of China[49] or the United States."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foxconn_suicides#Analysis
>Simply the fact that some people are amassing such wealth, while millions of people in the world starve and cannot access even basic education or healthcare. That alone makes being a billionaire unethical, by default.
This argument only applies to billionaires who haven't signed the giving pledge. Those I will agree with you on. However, it would be highly unethical to tax away the wealth of those who have signed the Giving Pledge, in order to provide even more goodies for Americans who are already quite wealthy by global standards.
The giving pledge is blatant fraud, pure and simple. 0% of billionaires are upstanding, they are all exploiters and vultures.
The signees haven't even made any moves towards actually giving away a significant fraction of their wealth, their collective wealth has more than doubled over 10 years. Add to this that the majority of donations have been given to private foundations[¤], and that donations to charity are tax-deductible, means it really is no more than a giant tax scheme, under a thin veil of "charity".
[¤] Often family foundations, which pay salaries to family members of the donors and don't disclose where the donations actually go.
Once again, it is impossible to amass such wealth (a significant fraction of any country's GDP) and keep it, without extracting an extreme excess of value from the labor of others. You cannot become this rich by simply "working hard", you cannot amass such wealth through any kind of individual labor. It can only come from the mass exploitation of the labor of others, from not paying people the fair value of their labor.
Pretending to give away a tiny portion of that to charity, after the fact, is like putting a Hello Kitty band aid on a massive gaping chest wound. Ineffective at best, and in reality an abject insult.
The fact that we know that we could make the world better, by taxing corporations, capital gains and inheritances much higher, yet refuse to do so, is a scathing condemnation of the callous and inhumane nature of capitalism.
The signees haven't even made any moves towards actually giving away a significant fraction of their wealth, their collective wealth has more than doubled over 10 years. Add to this that the majority of donations have been given to private foundations[¤], and that donations to charity are tax-deductible, means it really is no more than a giant tax scheme, under a thin veil of "charity".
[¤] Often family foundations, which pay salaries to family members of the donors and don't disclose where the donations actually go.
Once again, it is impossible to amass such wealth (a significant fraction of any country's GDP) and keep it, without extracting an extreme excess of value from the labor of others. You cannot become this rich by simply "working hard", you cannot amass such wealth through any kind of individual labor. It can only come from the mass exploitation of the labor of others, from not paying people the fair value of their labor.
Pretending to give away a tiny portion of that to charity, after the fact, is like putting a Hello Kitty band aid on a massive gaping chest wound. Ineffective at best, and in reality an abject insult.
The fact that we know that we could make the world better, by taxing corporations, capital gains and inheritances much higher, yet refuse to do so, is a scathing condemnation of the callous and inhumane nature of capitalism.
The strength of your claims is vastly out of proportion to the strength of your evidence.
Remember all the furor over the Gates divorce because people were worried that it would impact their global health work and so on? I guess that was all bogus concern because the Gates Foundation is actually a giant tax scheme?
Remember all the furor over the Gates divorce because people were worried that it would impact their global health work and so on? I guess that was all bogus concern because the Gates Foundation is actually a giant tax scheme?
[deleted]
What did JK Rowling do that was unethical? How about Paul McCartney? Oprah?
Kept more money than they could ever possibly need while others starve.
Then you agree that "such wealth can only be amassed by unethical means" is not correct.
[deleted]
You've put words in my mouth. I think billionaires shouldn't exist because that level of wealth concentration represents a failure of the fair distribution of wealth through society, regardless of the moral standing of the individual.
Given the state of the system though, I think the only thing that could replace them would be something even less fair and more violent than what we have.
Given the state of the system though, I think the only thing that could replace them would be something even less fair and more violent than what we have.
The commenter is talking in general terms about [big, faceless] companies, hence “things” not “people” or “humans”
It looks like a billionairephobic dog whistle to me. Why is it necessary to emphasize that they aren't humans if what he means to refer to are corporations?
But here are some interesting stats for you. raspyberr thinks that "things with large amounts of money aren't humans and don't have morals". So let's consider the thing with the largest amount of money of all: the US federal government. The federal government's annual budget is almost 6 trillion, approximately 30 times that of Google Inc. Google gets 100% of its energy from renewable sources. The corresponding figure for the federal government is 10%. Shall we tax Google more? I'm not sure. Seems like we'd just transfer assets from a moderately amoral entity to one which is even more amoral.
But here are some interesting stats for you. raspyberr thinks that "things with large amounts of money aren't humans and don't have morals". So let's consider the thing with the largest amount of money of all: the US federal government. The federal government's annual budget is almost 6 trillion, approximately 30 times that of Google Inc. Google gets 100% of its energy from renewable sources. The corresponding figure for the federal government is 10%. Shall we tax Google more? I'm not sure. Seems like we'd just transfer assets from a moderately amoral entity to one which is even more amoral.
Well since this is spurring a conversation I should clarify my position. The person above was right. I was talking about corporations and companies. Billionaire humans are a seperate discussion but they aren't the marketing industry.
With regards to your second point, I don't really think you've said anything noteworthy. Governments aren't humans and don't have morals. They're processes. When they do mass marketing we call it propoganda and that word seems to have pretty negative connotations with it.
With regards to your second point, I don't really think you've said anything noteworthy. Governments aren't humans and don't have morals. They're processes. When they do mass marketing we call it propoganda and that word seems to have pretty negative connotations with it.
There is no problem here. Marketing is actually evil. Forced exposure to brands does not solve any problem that society has, and creates a lot of problems. Moreover, it distorts all search engine efforts that would actually solve the problem of people finding products. It is almost impossible today to look for a product in amazon or google without being bombarded and misled by useless "sponsored" shit.
Marketing is evil. It's a problem for people who are not in the marketing industry, and it could be argued that for those who are as well.
> If you’re marketing vape pens to teenagers, trying to convince consumers climate change is their problem, promoting vaccine misinformation, or designing dark patterns to mislead web users, stop. Your $#!^^y marketing is the problem. Your $#!^^y marketing is why people think all marketing is evil.
Exploiting weakness is Marketing #101, and deferring your moral compass to the needs of the client is Marketing #102, so I don't see any way that change will happen, in this respect.
Exploiting weakness is Marketing #101, and deferring your moral compass to the needs of the client is Marketing #102, so I don't see any way that change will happen, in this respect.
Exploitation at large scale is an ancient story. And it will end the same way colonialism and slavery ended. With a lot of drama.
> promoting vaccine misinformation
This is a worrying inclusion - are payed marketers doing this? To who's gain?
This is a worrying inclusion - are payed marketers doing this? To who's gain?
The entire trend was started by Andrew Wakefield, who was planning to roll out his own fake vaccine product. Almost everybody who actively attacks vaccines is selling something.
> Almost everybody who actively attacks vaccines is selling something
I'm going to see more evidence for that as I see the claim as extraordinary; there are plenty of convinced anti-vaxxers who promote this viewpoint without personal gain IMHO.
I'm going to see more evidence for that as I see the claim as extraordinary; there are plenty of convinced anti-vaxxers who promote this viewpoint without personal gain IMHO.
"Marketing isn’t inherently good or evil" in the same way bombs aren't inherently good or evil.
What about when charities engage in marketing to solve the dire needs of millions, are they being evil?
Bombs are used to mine stuff or build roads, they aren't evil either.
advertising/marketing is manipulative/evil
charities can appeal for help vs compete against other charities for the available $$$.
charities can appeal for help vs compete against other charities for the available $$$.
That's called marketing.
Marketing is evil because the entire point is to make us spend more for a worse product. That is the explicit goal of the profession. It costs a lot of money, and does not improve the actual quality of the product. Of course consumers will hate it.
That they often use sleazy methods to accomplish their goal is just another reason to dislike marketing.
That they often use sleazy methods to accomplish their goal is just another reason to dislike marketing.
Sometimes you miss out on amazing products at lower prices because they don't market themselves properly. Example: safety razors are cheaper and better than any Gillette razor you might buy but very few people use safety razors because they have fallen out of fashion. Why? Because they don't market their products anywhere.
>because they don't market themselves properly.
Safety razors are still being made by all of the major razor manufacturers. Its not that "they didn't market themselves properly" its that the companies that were making them decided its better to sell people a cheaper, shittier razor in an even shittier plastic frame for several dollars a piece rather than sell safety razor blades for 10c each. They intentionally don't market their safety razor products at all.
There are smaller companies that have started making them because there's a very small, niche market for safety razors. Perhaps some of them have issues marketing correctly, but the biggest issue is that they are competing with giant companies that thoroughly convinced the world that an inferior product is better decades before these tiny boutique companies ever existed.
Safety razors are still being made by all of the major razor manufacturers. Its not that "they didn't market themselves properly" its that the companies that were making them decided its better to sell people a cheaper, shittier razor in an even shittier plastic frame for several dollars a piece rather than sell safety razor blades for 10c each. They intentionally don't market their safety razor products at all.
There are smaller companies that have started making them because there's a very small, niche market for safety razors. Perhaps some of them have issues marketing correctly, but the biggest issue is that they are competing with giant companies that thoroughly convinced the world that an inferior product is better decades before these tiny boutique companies ever existed.
I'd say they have fallen out of fashion because they are harder to use, at least if you don't want to cut yourself.
Maybe I have been misled by people who was in turn misled by Gillette marketing, though. I must confess I haven't really tried them.
Maybe I have been misled by people who was in turn misled by Gillette marketing, though. I must confess I haven't really tried them.
A cartridge multi-blade razor lets you just jam it into your face and use pressure, it takes care of the angle due to the pivoting head, and there are glide rails on the sides that prevent you from digging the blades into your skin.
With an old-fashioned safety razor, you have to use a lighter touch to let it glide across the skin, and you have to keep the correct angle yourself. It does take a bit of practice, but unless you drag the blade sideways or put pressure on it, you won't be in any great danger of cutting yourself. Just go slow and don't try to shave long strokes in one go.
Safety razor handles come in a lot of different designs, and they vary by how much of the blade they expose and how steeply they angle it. Some people like the really aggressive designs to shave in one pass, but they also tend to grab at coarse beard hairs. I've had a Merkur HD for ages, and I think it's a good starting point. There's a nice heft to it, which feels reassuring.
With an old-fashioned safety razor, you have to use a lighter touch to let it glide across the skin, and you have to keep the correct angle yourself. It does take a bit of practice, but unless you drag the blade sideways or put pressure on it, you won't be in any great danger of cutting yourself. Just go slow and don't try to shave long strokes in one go.
Safety razor handles come in a lot of different designs, and they vary by how much of the blade they expose and how steeply they angle it. Some people like the really aggressive designs to shave in one pass, but they also tend to grab at coarse beard hairs. I've had a Merkur HD for ages, and I think it's a good starting point. There's a nice heft to it, which feels reassuring.
You just described a situation where marketers made people miss the good products by heavily marketing Gillette razors. Why do marketers market the overpriced products instead of the good ones? Because they do it for money, they don't do it to help you. So from a consumers point of view they are evil.
So we can agree that by absolute necessity a company needs to market its products and services due to competitors doing the same. Since, you know, you can't actually outlaw marketing, businesses have no choice to compete in this area.
Also, marketers don't work in a vacuum, they are hired by managers and business owners to create exposure and help create growth. Of course marketers work for money, we all do and very few us do work that actually help customers in a profoundly meaningful way no matter how we rationalize our work.
Also, marketers don't work in a vacuum, they are hired by managers and business owners to create exposure and help create growth. Of course marketers work for money, we all do and very few us do work that actually help customers in a profoundly meaningful way no matter how we rationalize our work.
You don't have the time to accurately judge every marketing campaign so assuming that all of them are manipulative and evil is reasonable. What do you suggest people would do instead?
None of your argument is that marketing isn't evil, just that it's necessary in this society or that other things are also evil. I agree.
An example of safety razors marketing themselves "properly" is Gillette, where the product became more expensive and of a lower quality, yet they dominate the market. Too much marketing by competitors is what's causing people to miss out on amazing products, not too little.
Another really great example which works exactly the same is shaving soap. Shaving soap is more environmentally friendly (because it doesn't require an aerosol can etc) lasts way longer and is therefore tons cheaper than shaving creme. It also actually gives you a better shave, which is why if you go to a barber and get a shave it's what they use. But the vast majority of people use shaving creme because that is marketed and shaving soap is not. As a student I had a bar of shaving soap that literally lasted me more than a year shaving every day. Presumably companies realised they can make a much better business by encouraging people to buy an inferior product with higher margins that doesn't last as long.
If you want to buy a house, how are you going to find out what is available and what they're like?
If your plumbing is leaking, how are you going to find out what plumbers are available nearby to fix it?
How are you going to determine which movie at the cineplex you prefer to see? How are you even going to find out what's playing at the cineplex? Or even if there is a cineplex and where it is?
If your plumbing is leaking, how are you going to find out what plumbers are available nearby to fix it?
How are you going to determine which movie at the cineplex you prefer to see? How are you even going to find out what's playing at the cineplex? Or even if there is a cineplex and where it is?
While posting a notice of a house for sale, publishing the yellow pages, or putting a sign outside your business with the name on it is marketing, it can be reasonably done by nonprofessional marketers.
It is the nonfunctional uses of marketing typically done by those in the profession I take issue with.
It is the nonfunctional uses of marketing typically done by those in the profession I take issue with.
It's absolutely marketing.
Try selling your house some time without doing any marketing. It won't sell, because nobody will even know it's for sale.
Try selling your house some time without doing any marketing. It won't sell, because nobody will even know it's for sale.
I said it is marketing, but your example if how it won't sell in a field dominated by marketing doesn't make the point you think it does.
Sometimes marketing tells me about a product that I didn't know existed, or tells me about a superior product to the one I'm currently buying.
And then you buy it, and the functionality that it claimed was completely misleading or doesn't work, and it was actually worse than the product you were previously buying.
Then you go back to the product you were previously buying, and it doesn't work any more because they had to cut costs to spend more on marketing.
Then you go back to the product you were previously buying, and it doesn't work any more because they had to cut costs to spend more on marketing.
I rarely buy a product without reading the reviews. In the long run, selling bad products is usually not a good way to make money. (Unless the government is subsidizing your industry, e.g. for-profit colleges.)
And competence of advertising usually correlates with product quality. That's why you're less likely to enter your credit card details in a website that looks like it was designed in 1998. Quality ads serve as an honest signal that the company is making enough money to pay for them. If they're making money, that means people are buying the product, and if they're buying the product, it probably isn't terrible.
And competence of advertising usually correlates with product quality. That's why you're less likely to enter your credit card details in a website that looks like it was designed in 1998. Quality ads serve as an honest signal that the company is making enough money to pay for them. If they're making money, that means people are buying the product, and if they're buying the product, it probably isn't terrible.
[deleted]
It's better to do absolutely nothing with your life than work in marketing.
The problem is not marketing. The problem is deceptive, invasive marketing. And unfortunately that the one I'm most exposed to : ads are invasive, green-washing is deceptive, lying on car fuel consumption is deceptive, selling me a good at how much I value it instead of how much it's worth is deceptive, selling stuff "because people buy them" is morally strange, etc.
So of course you need to make sure your product is known. But there's a way to do that...
So of course you need to make sure your product is known. But there's a way to do that...
I think the industry is in general in a race to the bottom for privacy. Sure, if a competitor gets information that you don't collect, he has an advantage. Others are forced to collect data as well.
The only safeguard would be sensible policy.
Problem is that politicians ask "big tech". Few of these companies have an interest of collecting less information. On the contrary, they would probably try to sell access to their data in the process.
I don't think advertisers would care too much about not being allowed to collect certain info as long as they can be sure their competitors are subjected to the same rules.
The only safeguard would be sensible policy.
Problem is that politicians ask "big tech". Few of these companies have an interest of collecting less information. On the contrary, they would probably try to sell access to their data in the process.
I don't think advertisers would care too much about not being allowed to collect certain info as long as they can be sure their competitors are subjected to the same rules.
> selling me a good at how much I value it
…after spending a substantial amount of R&D into how to brainwash you into artificially inflating your value estimation.
The deception is fractal, with makes it just so much harder to overcome.
…after spending a substantial amount of R&D into how to brainwash you into artificially inflating your value estimation.
The deception is fractal, with makes it just so much harder to overcome.
The problem is not marketing. The problem is deceptive, invasive marketing.
As soon as a customer has made a choice between two suppliers, then any marketing for the other one will be considered invasive. By definition it isn't wanted because the customer chose not to use that supplier. Consequently any marketing will always be seen as invasive by some people, unless the market is a monopoly, and therefore all marketing is problematic (or "evil").
As soon as a customer has made a choice between two suppliers, then any marketing for the other one will be considered invasive. By definition it isn't wanted because the customer chose not to use that supplier. Consequently any marketing will always be seen as invasive by some people, unless the market is a monopoly, and therefore all marketing is problematic (or "evil").
I would argue, that every kind of modern marketing basically boils down to 'evil' marketing. It is sadly the most successful kind of marketing, and thus corporations optimize for it.
Yeah, sure. But what I don't understand is why corporations do that. I mean, nowhere is it written that they must be evil. I can understand competition, the will to please the customer, etc. But why many big corps end up there, I don't get it. It's as if once a corp becomes big, the collection of its part loose its moral compass... Dunno... Any sociologist here ?
What is something worth if not the collective judgments of how much it’s valued by the buyers and sellers?
> But just because something is wonderful doesn’t mean anyone will find it. To earn customers you need awareness. To earn awareness, you need marketing.
If you believe this, then shouldn't marketing be equally accessible to everyone? Instead of the ones with the deepest pockets, and bidding for the best ad space?
If you believe this, then shouldn't marketing be equally accessible to everyone? Instead of the ones with the deepest pockets, and bidding for the best ad space?
If I started Sokoloff Cola today, I don’t see any reason that I should be granted as much ad reach as each of Coke and Pepsi.
Even in a more important arena, if I’m a minor party politician, I don’t see why I should get the same reach as the major parties.
Ad companies are vying for attention; ad space is a proxy at best.
Even in a more important arena, if I’m a minor party politician, I don’t see why I should get the same reach as the major parties.
Ad companies are vying for attention; ad space is a proxy at best.
> If I started Sokoloff Cola today, I don’t see any reason that I should be granted as much ad reach as each of Coke and Pepsi.
That is exactly how third party product comparisons and reviews works though. I don't think the world would be worse of if all product discoverability happened in such third party environments.
That is exactly how third party product comparisons and reviews works though. I don't think the world would be worse of if all product discoverability happened in such third party environments.
Are they obligated to review every product in a category? The few review sites that I follow don’t seem to cover anywhere near the full breadth of SKUs, but the N most popular, which would become self-fulfilling if this was the primary mode of discovery.
The people who care would go to more specialized third party sites that covers more stuff. It already happens today, and if we shifted resources from marketing to such efforts they would become more common and popular.
We might be thinking about a very different scale of problem.
Search “usb 16gb flash drive” on AliExpress. Who’s going to meaningfully review all those results?
If we (effectively) don’t allow new entrants, that seems like a massive giveaway to Sandisk, Samsung, Kingston, and the other existing players.
Search “usb 16gb flash drive” on AliExpress. Who’s going to meaningfully review all those results?
If we (effectively) don’t allow new entrants, that seems like a massive giveaway to Sandisk, Samsung, Kingston, and the other existing players.
I don't see how all those results are better of with Sandisk, Samsung etc constantly bombarding everyone with their marketing material. It isn't like you see ads for the small players here.
What are you seeing when you see those search results if not ads?
Sure it’s not a 30-second TV spot or 15 second pre-roll video, but there is money changing hands from the seller to AliExpress in exchange for that relationship (same as for Amazon, EBay, Etsy, Tindie, Newegg, etc...)
When you go into a grocery store and see Tide on the entrance end cap this week where Coke was last week: that’s a paid ad.
Sure it’s not a 30-second TV spot or 15 second pre-roll video, but there is money changing hands from the seller to AliExpress in exchange for that relationship (same as for Amazon, EBay, Etsy, Tindie, Newegg, etc...)
When you go into a grocery store and see Tide on the entrance end cap this week where Coke was last week: that’s a paid ad.
No they are not. Product listings are not marketing, now you are reaching at straws. Technically they could be considered marketing, yes, but in practice that isn't what people talk about when they discuss marketing. Bringing that up in a discussion about ethics of marketing is bad faith.
If I pay to place my product in a catalog (paper or online) where it will get exposure to shoppers who will hopefully buy it, what else would you call that expense if not marketing?
What you’re calling a bad faith argument is a straightforward use of standard business terminology as far as I can see. I’m not even bending the definition a little bit.
What you’re calling a bad faith argument is a straightforward use of standard business terminology as far as I can see. I’m not even bending the definition a little bit.
You can always go to the Sandisk website and browse their full catalog?
Of course I can go to the website of the biggest brand-name company I can think of and look through their catalog.
How does that help me learn about a new entrant to the flash drive market (or help them get me to see their catalog), though?
How does that help me learn about a new entrant to the flash drive market (or help them get me to see their catalog), though?
Elsewhere in this thread, people are complaining about ads for useless and inferior products. This problem would only get worse if we handed out ad space via lottery, since most products are useless/inferior. Selecting for deep pockets means selecting for products that people are actually paying money to buy, which serves as a basic quality filter.
Yeah but there might be better ways to filter the products we want to see advertised than by advertising-budget. In fact, the preferred filter could be different per user.
"Targeted advertising", in other words.
One doesn't follow from the other. Marketing isn't equally accessible because companies compete for the spaces in which marketing takes place, regardless if it's a highway billboard, a site banner or a Instagram post. The people who owned these spaces want to get the best possible ROI and that results in certain price points due to competition.
But there are more options if you think different from the way things are done now. For example, as a society we can say no to ads on billboards and require that all ads be in one place (e.g. a government-run website), and all advertising could be free. Some other mechanism could decide which ads are more important than others (e.g. review-based or some other method), because filtering based on marketing-budget is probably not the best way to go about it.
> Interestingly, almost no one argues that marketing by and for companies, products, people, causes they love (or whatever work they’re doing) is evil.
I don't believe this, likely he just made that up to make marketing look better.
> People outside the profession believe marketers have low standards of honesty. In their eyes, we’re willing to bend rules, manipulate, tell lies, mislead, and use their psychological weaknesses against them to get what we want.
Is there any evidence that these strategies aren't common in marketing?
I don't believe this, likely he just made that up to make marketing look better.
> People outside the profession believe marketers have low standards of honesty. In their eyes, we’re willing to bend rules, manipulate, tell lies, mislead, and use their psychological weaknesses against them to get what we want.
Is there any evidence that these strategies aren't common in marketing?
>I don't believe this, likely he just made that up to make marketing look better.
Can you find 3 examples written prior to today of people demonizing the marketing of products they love?
Can you find 3 examples written prior to today of people demonizing the marketing of products they love?
Charities you already donate to begging for money. Same with politicians doing the same. And as a sibling comment mentions, marketing for life saving drugs.
People "love" the first two enough to give them money, and hate being berated for more. People like the existence of the drugs, but don't want to think about them most of the time due to the discomfort almost everyone has of contemplating mortality.
People "love" the first two enough to give them money, and hate being berated for more. People like the existence of the drugs, but don't want to think about them most of the time due to the discomfort almost everyone has of contemplating mortality.
I don't love products. I buy and use them when I need them.
The notion that we should be emotionally invested with products, and attached to them, is right where things spiral downwards.
I have a suggestions wrt. "non-evil" marketing: How about we get rid of the emotionally subversive language and actually inform about products primarily?
The notion that we should be emotionally invested with products, and attached to them, is right where things spiral downwards.
I have a suggestions wrt. "non-evil" marketing: How about we get rid of the emotionally subversive language and actually inform about products primarily?
There is plenty. People hate drug advertisers, but I am pretty sure they think medical drugs are important etc.
https://healthcareglobal.com/procurement-and-supply-chain/da...
If you want more examples just search for it, isn't hard to find at all.
https://healthcareglobal.com/procurement-and-supply-chain/da...
If you want more examples just search for it, isn't hard to find at all.
I can't find 3 examples written prior to today of people demonizing the marketing of products they hate. Who collects critiques on specific marketing campaigns?
Marketing is not intrinsically evil but evil marketing is incentivized by (1) the existence of marketing companies, who have to market things just to continue existing, and (2) the existence of a million and one bullshit products whose only purpose is to make money because that's how we run our economy for some daft reason, and whose existence is predicated on persuading you to buy garbage with negative utility.
More broadly, the economy is designed to drive people to get you to pay for stuff, whether it personally enhances your life or not. This intrinsically predatory motivation favors the evil over the helpful.
More broadly, the economy is designed to drive people to get you to pay for stuff, whether it personally enhances your life or not. This intrinsically predatory motivation favors the evil over the helpful.
> But, 0.01% really are evil. They’re trying to mislead us. Or sell us something deeply problematic. Or convince us of something that could harm us or others.
Marketing is OK as long as it is on the product itself, and companies should be allowed to present their name and actual products at the buildings where they are sold.
The comments here lack so much nuance that if it wasn't HN, I would wonder if they were not made by a trolling farm.
A few years ago I created a SaaS product, and as a newcomer in the market, I was happy that (online) marketing existed so that people discovered what the advantages of my tool are compared to more established products that people already knew.
My question to you marketing-haters: what exactly are your suggestions here? Let people use only what they know? This doesn't incentivise innovation. Let an ideal unbiased search engine do the magic? One can argue that it is still marketing, but in the hands of someone else.
A few years ago I created a SaaS product, and as a newcomer in the market, I was happy that (online) marketing existed so that people discovered what the advantages of my tool are compared to more established products that people already knew.
My question to you marketing-haters: what exactly are your suggestions here? Let people use only what they know? This doesn't incentivise innovation. Let an ideal unbiased search engine do the magic? One can argue that it is still marketing, but in the hands of someone else.
My take on a solution: ban any statements from advertisement, that can not be fact checked directly. Same should apply to imagery - it must not imply anything beyond what is factually verifiable.
Marketing has a lot of facets. One of the things which has happened was that goods which were generic and mostly identical like flour and soap have gotten brand names and all kinds of artificial distinctions invented. That didn't help mankind.
A lot of marketing is simply based on exploiting people's feelings and encouraging them to desire something they don't really need.
A lot of marketing is simply based on exploiting people's feelings and encouraging them to desire something they don't really need.
I bet the majority of the less nuanced comments are made by people who have never worked in a business capacity let alone ran a business. Tell any small business owner that they must not do marketing and they will consider you utterly ignorant or insane.
You are just mixing up "The act of marketing" and "The marketing industry". People who think marketing is evil are talking about the marketing industry.
There are many alternatives to modern marketing, which is specifically made to manipulate you, through emotional, aspirational and fear-based psychology.
Word of mouth is probably the most powerful one. If someone you trust recommends you a specific app, that's better than any marketing campaign. Why do you think astroturfing exists?
If marketing was solely based on showing a product in an honest way and listing its properties and specifications, with no hyperbole and exaggeration, that would be something else. When was the last time that sort of advertising was the norm?
Advertising used to have lots of text extolling the features and benefits of the product in question, but that's too complicated. Now it's just bright flashy colors and vague allusions to power and capability. BMW has been running an ad on Youtube for a while now about a new electric model, and the voice-over basically says "there are so many reasons why car is great, it would be impossible to list them, just trust us and buy it", they're not even pretending to tell you about the product itself.
Marketing doesn't incentivize innovation, it tries to sell you an inferior product at a higher price.
Word of mouth is probably the most powerful one. If someone you trust recommends you a specific app, that's better than any marketing campaign. Why do you think astroturfing exists?
If marketing was solely based on showing a product in an honest way and listing its properties and specifications, with no hyperbole and exaggeration, that would be something else. When was the last time that sort of advertising was the norm?
Advertising used to have lots of text extolling the features and benefits of the product in question, but that's too complicated. Now it's just bright flashy colors and vague allusions to power and capability. BMW has been running an ad on Youtube for a while now about a new electric model, and the voice-over basically says "there are so many reasons why car is great, it would be impossible to list them, just trust us and buy it", they're not even pretending to tell you about the product itself.
Marketing doesn't incentivize innovation, it tries to sell you an inferior product at a higher price.
The act of marketing a good product isn't evil, but the marketing industry doesn't care about the quality of your product they will market whatever the highest bidder tells them to.
I believe that you only had to turn to marketing because the big established solutions continuously used marketing to remain big. If it weren't for online marketing, your access to market wouldn't have been by challenging the established brands with further marketing, but by providing extra value.
So your use of marketing ever only solved a problem established by marketing.
Which is good marketing for marketing, of course.
So your use of marketing ever only solved a problem established by marketing.
Which is good marketing for marketing, of course.
Well the first step is realising the problem then discussing a solution. The solution is difficult. There's a difference between a single person business trying to show themselves to people and a department of employees working on tiny incremental improvements to manipulate people. The issue, like many issues, isn't with the small but with the big. I don't have a solution. I don't think any one person could offer a whole complete solution. But I think spreading the idea is a good start. It gets more people talking about potential solutions.
I know that's not particularly helpful but surely you didn't expect an actual answer to a global-scale socioeconomic issue? Personally, I would focus on breaking up centralisation. People spread ideas through networks incredibly quickly. But then there are issues of paying off "influencers", "streamers", "reviewers" to give a fake idea of authentic acceptance.
We should also be careful in the actual question. I don't think many people on HN are against the idea of "marketing" i.e. getting some information across. That why in my original comment I said 'mass marketing' and 'targeted marketing'
I know that's not particularly helpful but surely you didn't expect an actual answer to a global-scale socioeconomic issue? Personally, I would focus on breaking up centralisation. People spread ideas through networks incredibly quickly. But then there are issues of paying off "influencers", "streamers", "reviewers" to give a fake idea of authentic acceptance.
We should also be careful in the actual question. I don't think many people on HN are against the idea of "marketing" i.e. getting some information across. That why in my original comment I said 'mass marketing' and 'targeted marketing'
Informing people about products is legitimate. Alas, marketing also incentivizes unethical behavior. I don't know if there is a true way to remove that incentive since the main meaningful metric for marketing is how much you sell.
I suspect that the negative responses come mainly from people who regard selling as something that other people do. I certainly thought that marketing was quite an easy thing to do before I set up my own business and built my own products and had to try things like Google ads, SEO rankings, cold calling, networking, content creation, making deals, and more. Painful.
The fact is that we cannot get away from selling. Going for an interview - tart up your CV and sell yourself. Going on a date - sell yourself. Want to convince a jury - sell your case. Wanting to upgrade your property - sell your house. Build a product or deliver a service - sell it: even if it is genuinely the best on the market that people should know about, you have to crack open the market and you will likely have to work against resistance.
The fact is that we cannot get away from selling. Going for an interview - tart up your CV and sell yourself. Going on a date - sell yourself. Want to convince a jury - sell your case. Wanting to upgrade your property - sell your house. Build a product or deliver a service - sell it: even if it is genuinely the best on the market that people should know about, you have to crack open the market and you will likely have to work against resistance.
Nobody thinks that informing people about your product is evil. That isn't what they are talking about when they say "marketing is evil". Thinking otherwise is just you guys not understanding people.
> My question to you marketing-haters: what exactly are your suggestions here?
I'm willing to compromise and agree that we don't have to ban all marketing. Let's maybe just ban billboards, product placement, sponsored messages, targeted messages, and most forms of in-public advertising, and see where that gets us.
I'm willing to compromise and agree that we don't have to ban all marketing. Let's maybe just ban billboards, product placement, sponsored messages, targeted messages, and most forms of in-public advertising, and see where that gets us.
"Remember, good marketing usually doesn’t feel like marketing at all!"
Yeah, that's my problem. Marketing is essentially all about manipulating my thoughts to benefit someone else. If you are deliberately trying to manipulate people without them realising, that can never be ethical.
Yeah, that's my problem. Marketing is essentially all about manipulating my thoughts to benefit someone else. If you are deliberately trying to manipulate people without them realising, that can never be ethical.
The only kind of people I've seen defending marketing are those who work in marketing.
I have a couple of highly educated friends working in the field and it's kind of sad watching them trying to defend and/or explain the need for the industry.
But they do have a point: if you have just one company "marketing products", the others are at disadvantage, so the net result is that you need some marketing in almost every industry to stay afloat.
This is not an acceptable excuse though. I'd rather have all marketing banned.
I have a couple of highly educated friends working in the field and it's kind of sad watching them trying to defend and/or explain the need for the industry.
But they do have a point: if you have just one company "marketing products", the others are at disadvantage, so the net result is that you need some marketing in almost every industry to stay afloat.
This is not an acceptable excuse though. I'd rather have all marketing banned.
Marketing the marketing. Good try but not.
I subscribe to Mopar Action magazine because it is full of ads promoting parts and accessories for my ancient Dodge.
How else am I supposed to find this stuff?
Many years ago, I'd buy Computer Shopper magazine because it had nothing but ads for computer parts and accessories.
Marketing is how buyers and sellers find each other. Buyers do marketing, too (hence "Wanted" ads). I get unsolicited offers in the mail to buy my house now and then. Employers looking to hire advertise.
I've talked with independent software developers now and then who had created a brilliant product, and lamented to me that nobody was buying it. I'd ask them what marketing they'd done, and they'd blanch and say marketing is evil and they didn't want to do it. Weeeelll, no marketing meant nobody knew about their brilliant product, and that's why nobody bought it. "Build it and they will come" is a stupid Hollywood myth.
How else am I supposed to find this stuff?
Many years ago, I'd buy Computer Shopper magazine because it had nothing but ads for computer parts and accessories.
Marketing is how buyers and sellers find each other. Buyers do marketing, too (hence "Wanted" ads). I get unsolicited offers in the mail to buy my house now and then. Employers looking to hire advertise.
I've talked with independent software developers now and then who had created a brilliant product, and lamented to me that nobody was buying it. I'd ask them what marketing they'd done, and they'd blanch and say marketing is evil and they didn't want to do it. Weeeelll, no marketing meant nobody knew about their brilliant product, and that's why nobody bought it. "Build it and they will come" is a stupid Hollywood myth.
The point is that you should assume everything they write is as close to a lie as they can get away with, that is what people mean when they say marketing is evil.
It's kinda tough to go through life assuming everyone is lying to you.
Not everyone, just marketing professionals.
A bit off-topic - has anyone an example of some marketing material which says something like our product is not good at XYZ, have a look at our competitors product ABC if XYZ is important to you? Because if you are actually interested in solving my problem I do not only have to know what you can do but also what you can not do. So even if your product does not support XYZ you can still help me solve my problem by suggesting a look at ABC. You see this sometimes in conference talks - which can certainly fall into the marketing category - but in general every product is always best in class, world leader with all the check marks in the comparison tables.
I see this in B2B marketing all the time when it's obvious that customers are doing an apples to oranges comparison when it comes to your products and those of a certain competitor. Example: your competitor sells basic desktop accounting software targeting small businesses while you target large corporations with a complex SaaS. You have to acknowledge the customer's comparison and you can even suggest your competitor's product to customers because those are customers that you cannot service anyways.
Sure, if a marketer is truly trying to help the consumer make informed decisions -- making an earnest attempt to help interested consumers find the product/service that's right for them -- then they'd be good, not evil.
This is, if a marketer:
1. is truly trying to help the target make the best decision, including going with a competitor or simply not buying anything;
2. won't even try to sink the target's attention unless they have good, informed reason to believe that the totality of their offer (including relevant costs, time, and effort) is expectedly a net positive for the target;
then they'd be good and not-evil.
That said, advertisers who seek to push products indiscriminately would be evil. The allegorical used-car-salesman who pushes a vehicle that they know to be worth less than they make it out to be, or seeks to trick the buyer into spending way more than they need to, is harming their target for their own self-interest; seems like simple predation.
That said, not all marketing is simple predation. For example, some offers are for legitimately useful products that a non-trivial portion of the target-audience could quite plausibly benefit from buying. Such marketing can have elements of good mixed into it, too.
This is, if a marketer:
1. is truly trying to help the target make the best decision, including going with a competitor or simply not buying anything;
2. won't even try to sink the target's attention unless they have good, informed reason to believe that the totality of their offer (including relevant costs, time, and effort) is expectedly a net positive for the target;
then they'd be good and not-evil.
That said, advertisers who seek to push products indiscriminately would be evil. The allegorical used-car-salesman who pushes a vehicle that they know to be worth less than they make it out to be, or seeks to trick the buyer into spending way more than they need to, is harming their target for their own self-interest; seems like simple predation.
That said, not all marketing is simple predation. For example, some offers are for legitimately useful products that a non-trivial portion of the target-audience could quite plausibly benefit from buying. Such marketing can have elements of good mixed into it, too.
> Bad marketing, either the evil, manipulative kind or the well-intentioned, but poor-performing kind, tends to leave a more memorable impression than the good, effective varieties.
What? The whole point of marketing is to memorable and leave an impression, thats what good effective marketing does. I dunno what the article is even trying to say.
What? The whole point of marketing is to memorable and leave an impression, thats what good effective marketing does. I dunno what the article is even trying to say.
Commenters here who are dying on this hill of “all marketing is evil” are forgetting that virtually all aspects of communicating _who_ created _what_ is a form of marketing being intentionally used by the creator. Does your laptop sport a logo? Does your favorite local coffee shop have a sign on its front door? Does your food come in hip colors with interesting typeface?
All of this is marketing and branding. When the author mentions the 9990 exposures to marketing, he’s likely referring to these that we all consciously rarely register or see. But it’s still marketing. Someone was probably paid to craft it.
I’m not gonna die on the hill of “marketing isn’t evil”; it absolutely can be. I’d argue though that marketing is more often than not an extension of the company’s ethos. If you find some piece of marketing to be questionable or evil, let that be a reflection on the company more than the practice of marketing.
After all, marketing is little more than paid, thoughtful, intentional opinion-sharing. Y’all are just marketing your anti-marketing sentiments for free.
All of this is marketing and branding. When the author mentions the 9990 exposures to marketing, he’s likely referring to these that we all consciously rarely register or see. But it’s still marketing. Someone was probably paid to craft it.
I’m not gonna die on the hill of “marketing isn’t evil”; it absolutely can be. I’d argue though that marketing is more often than not an extension of the company’s ethos. If you find some piece of marketing to be questionable or evil, let that be a reflection on the company more than the practice of marketing.
After all, marketing is little more than paid, thoughtful, intentional opinion-sharing. Y’all are just marketing your anti-marketing sentiments for free.
> After all, marketing is little more than paid, thoughtful, intentional opinion-sharing. Y’all are just marketing your anti-marketing sentiments for free.
Yeah, it'd be evil for a spammer to push posts without legitimate reason to believe that doing so would be beneficial to readers. I'd rather block anyone who'd so selfishly try to waste my time; their messages wouldn't be worth reading.
But that's not what a lot of folks do. Many try to make helpful comments that they suspect will help benefit readers. Maybe sometimes they're wrong, but on the whole, a competent community-member ought to generally write things that'd tend to be worth it for others to read.
Which is to say that, sure, we can frame discussions like this in terms of marketing -- even describing criticisms of marketing-practice as themselves being instances of marketing. But the moral there would be the observation that marketing CAN be good; not that much of it isn't evil.
To be fair to your position though: yes, if marketing's thoughtful enough to act in the target's best-interests, including not bothering people when it wouldn't be worth their time to consider a proposal and up-front about information that might steer consumers elsewhere, then, sure, it can be good. However, the concern's that marketers are often pushing products/services whenever they can, attempting to skew consumers' perceptions toward the decision to buy rather than attempting to help consumers make optimal decisions.
Yeah, it'd be evil for a spammer to push posts without legitimate reason to believe that doing so would be beneficial to readers. I'd rather block anyone who'd so selfishly try to waste my time; their messages wouldn't be worth reading.
But that's not what a lot of folks do. Many try to make helpful comments that they suspect will help benefit readers. Maybe sometimes they're wrong, but on the whole, a competent community-member ought to generally write things that'd tend to be worth it for others to read.
Which is to say that, sure, we can frame discussions like this in terms of marketing -- even describing criticisms of marketing-practice as themselves being instances of marketing. But the moral there would be the observation that marketing CAN be good; not that much of it isn't evil.
To be fair to your position though: yes, if marketing's thoughtful enough to act in the target's best-interests, including not bothering people when it wouldn't be worth their time to consider a proposal and up-front about information that might steer consumers elsewhere, then, sure, it can be good. However, the concern's that marketers are often pushing products/services whenever they can, attempting to skew consumers' perceptions toward the decision to buy rather than attempting to help consumers make optimal decisions.
> Y’all are just marketing your anti-marketing sentiments for free.
The fact that we aren't paid to do it makes all the difference. If anyone here was paid to spread certain views I'd call that evil as well.
The fact that we aren't paid to do it makes all the difference. If anyone here was paid to spread certain views I'd call that evil as well.
People here often confuse marketing for advertising and forget certain good aspects of marketing. In its most broadest sense, marketing is just the discovery of the optimal allocation of scarce resources. A professor writing grants and attending conferences to spread their work is really just marketing. Trying to determine what your customer actually wants is also marketing. The success of Amazon can be credited to the perfect solution to the marketing question, "how can an online store offer a superior experience to a physical store?" Bezos chose to start with books because there are more books in print than one can fit inside the largest physical store.
> A professor writing grants and attending conferences to spread their work is really just marketing
Right, but if a professor hired marketing professionals to handle those things for him I'd say that it is evil. And if science devolved into every professor hiring teams of marketing professionals in order to compete for grants I'd say that science would be much worse off than today. If you think that sounds ridiculous, why do you think that the scenario is totally fine in other parts of society?
Right, but if a professor hired marketing professionals to handle those things for him I'd say that it is evil. And if science devolved into every professor hiring teams of marketing professionals in order to compete for grants I'd say that science would be much worse off than today. If you think that sounds ridiculous, why do you think that the scenario is totally fine in other parts of society?
Actual "evil" marketer here... No really. That was my job title.
I've sold hundreds of millions of dollars worth of physical goods, most of it to people who frequent this site (or similar demographics).
Marketing is absolutely evil, but without it most of you wouldn't be making nearly as much as you do.
I've sold hundreds of millions of dollars worth of physical goods, most of it to people who frequent this site (or similar demographics).
Marketing is absolutely evil, but without it most of you wouldn't be making nearly as much as you do.
[deleted]
"To earn customers you need awareness. To earn awareness, you need marketing."
This simply isn't true, it ignores products becoming popular on the merit of their quality alone. Practically all open source software uses this method, even if it isn't sold, it competes with commercial software and often wins without any marketing.
I get that marketing comes in different forms, one could argue merit is a form of marketing, but that's not what the author is talking about.
Marketing tricks us into choosing products based on values other than their efficacy to get the job done, and as such is a bad thing, not to mention the raft of really bad side effects it brings with it.
This simply isn't true, it ignores products becoming popular on the merit of their quality alone. Practically all open source software uses this method, even if it isn't sold, it competes with commercial software and often wins without any marketing.
I get that marketing comes in different forms, one could argue merit is a form of marketing, but that's not what the author is talking about.
Marketing tricks us into choosing products based on values other than their efficacy to get the job done, and as such is a bad thing, not to mention the raft of really bad side effects it brings with it.
“There are huge advertising budgets only when there's no difference between the products. If the products really were different, people would buy the one that's better. Advertising teaches people not to trust their judgment. Advertising teaches people to be stupid.” Carl Sagan
For those who claims marketing does not influence them: you are kidding yourself. When I don't know the words to a song, I use the words from a Japanese TV commercial jingle I last heard 36 years ago.
Marketing suffers from that people's attention is a commons. People don't sell their attention, so marketers are free to grab it. And then the inevitable happens: because attention is limited and because it's free, the commons get destroyed. (look up tragedy of the commons!)
Destruction has many facets here: ad blindness, hate against marketing, ad blockers, stopping watching TV and movies, and so on.
Destruction has many facets here: ad blindness, hate against marketing, ad blockers, stopping watching TV and movies, and so on.
More sites seem to be implementing this nowadays. Is it justified on a blog? Surely we've lost the war if we have to manually verify that readers are genuinely humans.