h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

There's been a fair bit of guff spouted about advertising & marketing on here lately by people who I frankly thought would know better. Stuff like "advertisers & marketeers create new stuff for us to want".

Nonsense.

Marketeers identify a want and match the product to the want.
Advertisers tell the market of a company's products.

If there is no "want" for a product or service, no marketeer can help. They can attempt to create a want, but history is full of failed attempts. The Sinclair C5 anyone? Marketeers also provide routes for advertising – mags, newspapers etc. They also create brands. Brands are important because they engender confidence in the buyer.

Imagine a world with no advertising. You go down to the supermarket. Assuming you know where it is and you can recognise it when you find it. Once inside, you're faced with row upon row of identical grey cardboard boxes. How do you know what to buy? You shake the boxes, deduce the contents and pay for them. The total will be a bit of a surprise of course and once you get home you might be in for a disappointment. You'd switch on the telly, if you knew what a telly was and settle down with a cup of tea. Such a laborious task, all those leaves and pots and hot water and strainers. Wouldn't it be a good idea to put the leaves in a bag and make things easier. Why doesn't somebody tell the tea companies that?

Your car dies. You think it might be repairable, but where can you find someone to do such a thing. You decide to buy a new one and, after a few hours wandering around, you find a building with lots of cars outside. When you ask the man inside, he agrees to sell you a car. You tell him you want a small, economical car with a sunroof and lots of room in the back to put cardboard boxes in from the supermarket. Once you've explained what a supermarket is, he tells you nobody's ever asked for a car like that so the manufacturers don't make them. Thirty minutes later, you drive out in a shiny yellow school bus that was a bargain at £200,000 and the most economical and practical car ever invented. At least, that's what the salesman told you.

Advertisers inform the market.
Marketeers inform the manufacturers.

Without either, the market economy fails.

"Once inside, you're faced with row upon row of -*brightly coloured*- boxes. How do you know what to buy? You shake the boxes, deduce the contents and pay for them. The total will be a bit of a surprise of course and once you get home you might be in for a disappointment."

- my amended version of what I see, every day, in the supermarket.


Advertising makes very little difference in the pot-luck approach. I tend to avoid products that have to be advertised in order to sell, myself. Any product that relies on colours rather than a list of what the product actually does tends to feature lowly on my list.

It's a point of view. *shrug*

Well said.

You can bet all the people that complain about marketing and advertising go to particular supermarkets in their particular make and model of transport and buy branded or own-brand goods. I bet they watch a certain amount of commercial TV as well.

t.
h2g2 - because only the best conversation will do...

Marketing & Advertising are about increasing the amount of stuff people want to buy at a given price. The point I was making (for t'was I who should know better, readers) is that capitalism is all about ever-expanding markets, and that the 'necessities' of life in 100 years could well seem totally ridiculous to us.

I think the most annoying examples are in cosmetics. Your averagely-health chick from 1910 would have been relatively pleased with her appearance. So would your average Joe. I wonder how many average-looking women (most, by definition) are happy with their appearance today. They probably are better looking, in that they have glossier hair, fewer missing teeth, better skin, etc etc.

But now we 'need' teeth-whitening, plastic tits, hair extensions and fanny-tightening. The point being that the 'absolute' level of beauty may (or may not) have gone up (cos beauty tends to be a reflection of or at least correlated with health), but that doesn't matter.

It doesn't matter because people don't care about their 'absolute' level of looks, it's their *comparative* level they care about. Keeping up with the Joneses and all that. As such, in 2108 all the fantastically good-looking, white-toothed, pert-breasted and shiny-haired people probably won't be happier with their looks than your grannies were.

What's the point of all that then?

Exaggerations and hyperbolae SWL. If I want something I'll search for it, I don't need it shoved in my face, in my email, on every page, plastered all over walls.

If advertising were really about usefully describing a product in the right place for people who are looking for it then it would be a much smaller industry and I would have no issues with it.

No Bouncy - making a point. What's the point of manufacturers making something then not telling anyone about it? All information is good - it allows an informed choice. You may think there is too much, that's your opinion.

Pedro - There is barely a woman alive, now or in history, who is 100% happy with everything about their appearance. No doubt one will come along now to be contradictory, but the vast majority would change something about themselves. "fanny tightening" isn't an invention of the ad men. It's been around for centuries. Plastic boobs may be new, but do you think women haven't been using various methods to emphasise their charms over the years? Make-up is possibly one of the oldest of consumer goods and existed long before advertisers and marketeers.

The "want" was already there. Companies are manufacturing to satisfy that want. Advertisers are telling women their wants are being met. Marketeers are telling the manufacturers what to make to more adequately match the incredible variety of wants that women (and men) have for cosmetics.

Bouncy - where are you going to search for it then?

Yeah! Hang the advertisers! Burn them all!

As someone who works in marketing, I have to say that if it wasn't for the industry I work in, a fair few small businesses would have a much rougher time of it.

I personally find the excessive level of advertising and the kind of crap being marketed annoying, but I don't see advertising as *intrinsically* bad.

The other day, during a stroll I was forced to take by the friend I was with through a department store, I saw a toaster with a label pointing out triumphantly that it was 'Designed by Porsche'. I do not *want* Porsche to design my toaster. Why would I want it to be stylish? I want a toaster that blends in unobtrusively and toasts things when required.

Actually, there is obviously a huge variation in M&A. It's hard to equate a sign on a lamppost with the tie-ins in McDonalds for the latest Disney film.

As for creating new desires, I just realised I've always wanted hair gel which rebounds after I header a football. It would be handy if I didn't wash my hair. Luckily I don't have to use shampoo *and* conditioner, though...

There's a difference between advertising and marketing. With advertising you get an explicit message that in principle tells you something about a new product that you may not have known about before. But marketing is much trickier, it's about modifying our opinions about stuff without our even necessarily knowing about it. Now personally I would rather have neither advertising nor marketing, but while there may be some teensy little thing going for the former, there's absolutely no argument for the latter.

"If there is no "want" for a product or service, no marketeer can help."

This is just incorrect, and the fashion industry proves it. The 'industry' in 'fashion industry' require only that the 'fashion' must change regularly, so that new buying is required to keep up with it. Without the advertising and marketing, fashions would change, but they would change much slower.

I happen to have on my shelf a book by Edward Bernays, the 'father of public relations', who talks candidly about the work he was commissioned to do (1928):

"This problem arose, not long ago, when the velvet manufacturers were facing ruin because their product had long been out of fashion... It was determined [by Bernays] to substitute purpose for chance and to utilize the regular sources for fashion distribution and to influence the public from these sources. A velvet fashion service, openly supported by the manufacturers, was organized. Its first function was to establish contact with the Lyons manufactories and the Paris couturiers to discover what they were doing, to encourage them to act on behalf of velvet, and to help in the proper exploitation of their wares. An intelligent Parisian was enlisted in the work. He visited Lanvin and Worth, Agnes and Patou, and others and induced them to use velvet in their gowns and hats. It was he who arranged for the distinguished Countess This or Duchess That to wear the hat or the gown... The editors of the American magazines and fashion reporters of the American newspapers, likewise subjected to the actual (although created) circumstance, reflected it in their news, which, in turn, subjected the buyer and the consumer here to the same influences. The result was that what was at first a trickle of velvet became a flood."

Back to SWL...

"Imagine a world with no advertising."

Glorious! Freedom!

"Once inside, you're faced with row upon row of identical grey cardboard boxes."

???

"Wouldn't it be a good idea to put the leaves in a bag and make things easier. Why doesn't somebody tell the tea companies that?"

Teabags are one of the worst things ever brought to us by the evil world of marketing. Still, means there's more of the good stuff for people like me so maybe I shouldn't complain.

"Advertisers inform the market."

All they inform the market about is that a company has enough money to advertise. Nothing else.

Look, if advertising were really about spreading information they wouldn't be so underhand about it. They wouldn't create fake reviews of their products designed to look like disinterested analysis of the relative merits compared to other products, they wouldn't try to buy influence with popular people. Advertisers are in fact engaged in a war on information, to the point where it is almost impossible to get accurate information about which products are any good.

"All information is good - it allows an informed choice. You may think there is too much, that's your opinion."

Have you heard of the idea of a signal to noise ratio? Imagine you are listening to a concert at night, quietly on a really good hifi. Your neighbours return home from partying and put on some thumping bass music and start dancing in the flat above you. Someone outside returns home on their motorbike and leaves the engine idling with the sound dampeners removed just outside your window. Things are better now?

Fashion.

Ever noticed a strange thing that happens in schools. One day a kid wears the collar of his sports shirt tucked in. It just so happens that he's the cool kid. Before long other kids start doing the same thing. Eventually, loads of them are doing it (but not all). It happens all the time in schools. Could be a style of t-shirt, or a brand of shoes. Where was the advertising and marketing here? My wife's got a Radley handbag. It wasn't because of an advert. In fact, she's never seen an advert for Radley bags. But she'd seen other women with them and she wanted one. Where was the advertising & marketing here? (Ladies - what is the fascination with these bags?)

Your velvet story misses the point. People didn't want the velvet, they wanted to be part of the "cool club".

Advertising & marketing are entirely human (natural) actions. Even without advertisers and marketeers, we unconsciously do it.

<<"Once inside, you're faced with row upon row of identical grey cardboard boxes."

???>>

What else is all the information & pictures on the boxes but advertising?


<<"Advertisers inform the market."

All they inform the market about is that a company has enough money to advertise. Nothing else.>>

If your company makes a super widget, who's going to buy it unless you advertise?


I think a lot of the resentment about advertising comes about because of the nature of the beast. Advertising costs, a lot. To ensure the maximum return, it has to be a clear and comprehensible message to as many people as possible. That means playing to the lowest common denominator. For every advert that makes you go "Oh for Pete's sake", there's somebody saying "Oh".

"One day a kid wears the collar of his sports shirt tucked in. It just so happens that he's the cool kid. Before long other kids start doing the same thing."

Sure, I said that fashion develops on its own, but not so quickly and so regularly and so uniformly. I just looked up the "empire line" from wiki because it was the first fashion from yesteryear that came into my head (too much Jane Austen I guess), and it seemed to be in fashion for 30 years (1790-1820). Can you imagine something being in fashion for 30 years now?

"It wasn't because of an advert. In fact, she's never seen an advert for Radley bags. But she'd seen other women with them and she wanted one. Where was the advertising & marketing here?"

Influence doesn't have to be direct. That was one of the points about the velvet story.

"If your company makes a super widget, who's going to buy it unless you advertise?"

I take my super widget to a shop and say: here is a new super widget. It does better than existing super widgets, at a lower price. You can sell this super widget at a slightly lower price than the current super widgets on offer in your shop, and still make a bigger profit. This incentivises the shop keeper to stock your super widget, and from there customers will see this super widget next to the other less super widgets on the shelf, notice it is cheaper, and try it. If it doesn't work, they'll go back to the previous super widget.

"I think a lot of the resentment about advertising comes about because of the nature of the beast."

Surely a truism?

My objections to advertising are:

(1) I object to being harassed by it everywhere I go.
(2) I object to the way it distorts the economy, making competition weaker and making monopolies and oligopolies more likely.
(3) I object to the way it distorts culture. TV in particular is totally dependent on advertising, and has to reflect the interests of advertisers more than consumers.
(4) I object to the way it distorts politics. TV news and newspapers both rely on advertising for all or most of their income, and therefore they must report news in a way that is advertiser-friendly, rather than in a way that reflects truth. In turn, politicians rely on the good words of the news media.

In summary, I object to being verbally and visually assaulted everywhere I go, the negative effect of monopolies on the economy, the destruction of culture, and the distortion of politics away from democracy and towards one dollar one vote. I'd say that was a pretty good case against advertising.

And that's only the start...

<>

Ok - let's assume you go to a really good shop. First you have to make an appointment. With a buyer who's never heard of you, no track record with you and he's never heard of your super-widget. He may well see you, but it'll be a wait. While you wait, your production staff are idling their thumbs and you're paying them. On the day of the appointment you have to take a day off work and travel to the shop. You present your super-widget. You'd better be good, cos a bad presentation will kill a deal no matter how good the product. Anyway, the buyer buys it let's say. He'll only place a small order, cos he's no idea how this will go with his customers.

Look at the costs involved - staff wages, travel, a day's time. And all for a small order for one shop.

Far, far more cost-effective to write to a hundred shops and send them a sample. Even better, pay for an ad on the tv and get thousands of people approaching retailers asking for the super-widget. Retailers then know there's a demand. Place a 2nd ad in a trade journal and - Bob's your uncle.

Companies spend millions on advertising because it's cost effective. Not to advertise is business suicide. It doesn't make businesses weaker, it allows businesses to survive in a crowded market place.

You can't turn back the clock. If, in a wierd made-up world you could end marketing & advertising tomorrow, you certainly would end up with monopolies. Along with millions of job losses.

>>This is just incorrect, and the fashion industry proves it. The 'industry' in 'fashion industry' require only that the 'fashion' must change regularly, so that new buying is required to keep up with it. Without the advertising and marketing, fashions would change, but they would change much slower. <<

I think Dogster is absolutely correct here. Marketing creates markets where there should be none by persuading people to replace their perfectly good, but old, products with new fashionable ones. It was bad enough when it only applied to clothes, but it affects electronics, cars and even furniture. My bathroom is 3 years old and already starting to look dated compared to the wizzy new stuff being rammed down my throat on TV; at some point (assuming I actually gave a toss) I will be compelled to rip it out and replace it just to make it contemporary. It might be an inevitable consequence of consumerism, but it is NOT a good thing.

>> Companies spend millions on advertising because it's cost effective. Not to advertise is business suicide. <<

I've always been slightly disturbed how much effort goes into marketing in my own company. It's a necessary evil simply because all our competitors are doing it, and not to would indeed be suicide. But a huge proportion of the money we charge is essentially of no value to the customer. As everyone is doing it, it applies whoever the customer chooses to buy from. As our customers are mainly in the public sector, it is mainly taxpayers money.

Advertisers are getting desperate nowadays anyway. Product awareness is no longer an issue, you can simply Google it. If you want to compare competitors products, you can go to a comparison site. For many products advertising spend will give way to product quality - and we go back to the product selling itself. Advertising will then be restricted to low-value high-volume stuff and products where the buyer *can* be influenced directly, like fashion items and anti-aging creams.

You will note I am deliberately excluding passive 'information pull' mechanisms from the category of advertising. I don't see a website is not advertising, it's simply your presence in cyberspace.

If a website is advertising, then it's a much more acceptable form in my opinion.

If someone wants to shout vapid slogans all over their own space then that's fine. In fact its often quite useful - being able to locate say any nearby take-away of a particular type is much easier if they have a website. The problem occurs when it's everywhere in the public space (tacky, annoying), or intruding on my space.

There's another place where advertising is reasonable for the same reasons: down the side of search engine results.

SWL,

"Look at the costs involved - staff wages, travel, a day's time. And all for a small order for one shop."

Yeah, but people would find a way to adapt. Trade magazines (not paid for by advertising) for example.

The point is that advertising does provide information, but not a very good sort. The advertising 'signal' is very distorted.

People seem to find it very hard to imagine things being other than they are.

>Companies spend millions on advertising because it's cost effective.

I don't agree. Watch any number of adverts on television (car adverts in particular) and you can often see huge amounts of money being thrown at the screen for very little purpose. As a good example I saw a recent pi$$-take of a 4x4 ad on YouTube in which the ad in question had the 4x4 morphing into a robot spider, snake, alligator etc etc. Is this likely to actually sell any more of the vehicle in question given that the purpose of the advert was simply brand awareness and other adverts do the same job just by showing the vehicle belting cross-country whilst a gravelly voice insinuates how much of a man you are whilst driving it? I very much doubt it. Was it expensive and SFX heavy so the director can win themselves an industry award and/or become noticed in the industry? I suspect so. Huge companies put-aside massive budgets for advertising (because they can afford to rather than because they need to) and the advertising departments often completely go to town with this money for their own purposes. The important thing to remember is that they are doing so with our money - the costs of the company are visited on the consumer (hence the idea that ITV and C4 are "free to air" isn't actually true at all - they're paid for by advertisers who usually use money they obtained from us and the cost of their adverts goes back to the consumer).

Have you *any* idea how many cars get sold globally?

Take the Toyota Prius - one car maker, one model. So far Toyota have sold over a million of them. At a conservative average of £15,000 that's £1.5bn in sales. Do you think they spend 1% on average on advertising? Or 0.1%. Or 0.01%?

General Motors, another single manufacturer, sold nearly 9 million cars & trucks in 2004 alone. Toyota sell about 7 million a year.

The market is massive.

Take a walk through a market. Listen to all the traders shouting the prices of their wares. All the advertising in the world is just bigger traders shouting to a bigger market.

I think you missed the point. What I was saying was not that there's no point in vehicle manufacturers advertising but that there's no need for the expensive, showy adverts they often use because car/4x4 ads are little-more than brand awareness. Essentially, the companies hand over massive amounts of money to their advertising wing who throw it at advert directors who use it to show off and win awards. As adverts they make as much impact as any.

There are other examples like this where a company has decided to spend millions on an advert that's as effective (often less so) than that of their rivals; it's not about "cost-effectiveness" but about money-bloated corporations throwing millions about and wannabe film-directors exploiting that.