johnnyboy wrote:More business idiocy from Chris....where does one start?
cdd wrote:Oh it's just the whole morals of it... it's similar to cybersquatting, if you will.
Explain. Elaborate. How is marketing similar to stealing someone's online copyright and identity?
I think you misunderstood: I'm not referring to marketing there, I'm referring to the practice of buying up and reselling "golden numbers".
The world is not a moral place, as we have both agreed. However, I do not view marketing as particularly immoral. In fact, it forces companies to be honest in most respects. It's easy to pick up the phone and check out the competiition.
Indeed, and marketing IS strictly regulated. I accept that marketing can be legit. Many, however, take it to extremes... have you seen this
viscious Bush campaign ad (see if you see the subliminal message)? By the way, I wonder if subliminal advertising actually works(ed)... but that's a different kettle of fish altogether. I also detest the eyesores that are billboards, plastered all around our town centres.
You view using freephone numbers as somehow underhanded - you have not properly explained why,
I don't believe I said they were underhanded - I think it was a slightly tongue-in-cheek comment about how lots of return numbers were free and that they must be desperate for business. We both agree that freephone numbers are another way to entice customers, what we don't agree on is the bigger picture of marketing as a whole.
I'm not entirely sure what field of marketing you're involved in -- and perhaps your organisation is more reputable. From what I can see it even seems to be helping marketers abide by the laws laid out by the TPS. However many aren't, I'm sure you'll agree.
cdd wrote:A point which I acknowledged in the previous thread, for few people are able to create a unique product and those unique products that are created are immediately remarketed and resold. I'm not saying it doesn't work, I'm saying it's unfortunate; the fact that companies need to spend millions communicating these amazing advantages of their company is ridiculous when you consider that consumers would easily be made aware of "true" benefits.
How are Vodafone, 3, O2, Orange and T-Mobile meant to run as businesses competing against each other if they don't spend the money to inform potential customers of what they believe makes their network better than the others?
What do you consider a "true" benefit? Surely a true benefit is something which a customer is happy paying for at the given price when that decision has not been forced upon them?
EXACTLY. There is so little between these companies that any benefit makes people willing to choose one company over another. It's the aggressive marketing which makes a difference. I assume you're aware of BA's little habit of calling Virgin's best clients and offering then special deals to switch?
cdd wrote:Indeed; I assume you'll soon be saying that you only advertise to those who will be interested? Frankly I'm not entirely sure that's any better; just another way to cut costs down while keeping revenue up. Maybe I should repeat at this point that I'm not saying it doesn't work, I'm just saying that I feel it's immoral and unfortunate?
Advertising keeps my costs down. Same for any business. If I can steal a march over my competitors and it costs, say, £20 for a lead, it's worth it. I benefit, the customer benefits, my customer's customers benefit.
That, of course, is true; if advertising didn't result in ultimate gain then companes wouldn't do it. I don't feel that makes it any more moral to those bombarded with such ads.
cdd wrote:I'm not so sure "these men" do provide a better or cheaper service. Microsoft advertise much more than other companies but their service is argubly no better.
Of course they do. They are in competition with dozens, if not hundreds of companies, for business. Any firm which does not compete for business dies. I think most sensible people whose heads are not stuck up their arses could agree that Microsoft is not a typical example.
But let's put it this way: If nobody advertised, if advertising was illegal, people would simply use other methods to determine which brand was best. Agreed, Microsoft isn't a typical example, EVERY business advertises even if it's just putting a placement in the Yellow Pages. In a world where other companies use marketing it is a fair argument that not to do so would be suicidal for the company, the reason why it has escalated to such levels. And I suppose you could argue that, in businesses, cometing companies have to adopt a stragety which gets the most customers, and that, of course, would be the type of marketing which gets the most customers; hence, the billboards, mailshots, circulars, that we have to put up with. It doesn't seem right,therefore, that consumers have to bear the burden of this.
And in Ebeneezer's quotation, I was referring to the traditional type with free reponse numbers (this conversation's gone a full circle now!) rather than the 0906 things you get these days.
