More Market Failures - Pringles

#152
#152
MG1968 said:
marketing, from my limited understanding of it, works because it convinces you that product x is better than product y, thus the consumer buys it. This is true whether the product is a tangible good or an idea. In the several months, dozens of topics, and hundreds of posts, you have failed to convince anybody that what you peddle is the superior product.

therefore, you're a marketing failure, not even Proctor and Gamble can save you, but they will continue profit nicely from Pringles.
Click to expand...

Well, what the hell is going on then here. Not exactly telling us the handling on the Mitsubishi Miata beats the hell out of Nissan:

article-1353778-0D0BDC61000005DC-166_634x356.jpg


Why is Bob Dole trying to flog a Dodge Dart?

370561902_831f1cdd00_o.jpg

PS - I did something on purpose there....
 
#153
#153
utgibbs said:
Well, what the hell is going on then here. Not exactly telling us the handling on the Mitsubishi Miata beats the hell out of Nissan:


Why is Bob Dole trying to flog a Dodge Dart?

PS - I did something on purpose there....
Click to expand...

actually, it just proves that you're full of carp and that I'm right about you.

Game, Set, Match

your failure is massive, Grasshopper.
 
#155
#155
Actually the foundation of marketing is at the heart of market efficiency - it is simply the philosophy of assessing customer needs and shaping the organization's offers to best meet those needs. It is the mechanism that keeps an organization focused on providing superior value to the market. Proper marketing is not getting people to buy stuff they don't need; it is understanding customer needs and helping the organization meet those needs better than competitors can.

Gibbs you are making the common mistake of equating marketing and advertising campaigns. They are distinct both conceptually and tactically.
 
#157
#157
Free exchange creates wealth (for both parties) and marketing facilitates exchange, therefore marketing is an efficient use of resources.
 
#158
#158
utgibbs said:
Well, as I've asked many times, help me.
Click to expand...

I explained it above but you ignored it or don't understand it. I've seen you mangle concepts such as demand, exchange, markets, market failures, incentives and marketing; it's not worth the typing.
 
#159
#159
volinbham said:
I explained it above but you ignored it or don't understand it. I've seen you mangle concepts such as demand, exchange, markets, market failures, incentives and marketing; it's not worth the typing.
Click to expand...

mix in about 4 hackneyed phrases, bourgeois and capital and you have the entire repertoire. It only fits so many topics poorly. The rest it simply can't handle at all.
 
#161
#161
hndog609 said:
Explaining Advertising and Marketing Concepts to the Masses
Click to expand...


that helps some but still treats marketing as communication tactics. It is much more and at the core it is about identifying which customers you'd like to engage in exchange with, uncovering their needs and wants as well as their current and future options (competition) and using that info to craft an organizational offering that will better meet their needs than the competition will. The goal is to create mutually beneficial and ongoing exchange.

What Gibbs has suggested with the Kettle Chips example is the polar opposite. In his view the company decides itself what to produce then dupes the masses into buying it via tactics that border on mind control.

The common thread in Gibbs back yard is that people are too dumb to think for themselves and some enlightened dictators (to channel Thomas Friedman) are needed to make the decisions for them.
 
#163
#163
volinbham said:
that helps some but still treats marketing as communication tactics. It is much more and at the core it is about identifying which customers you'd like to engage in exchange with, uncovering their needs and wants as well as their current and future options (competition) and using that info to craft an organizational offering that will better meet their needs than the competition will. The goal is to create mutually beneficial and ongoing exchange.

What Gibbs has suggested with the Kettle Chips example is the polar opposite. In his view the company decides itself what to produce then dupes the masses into buying it via tactics that border on mind control.

The common thread in Gibbs back yard is that people are too dumb to think for themselves and some enlightened dictators (to channel Thomas Friedman) are needed to make the decisions for them.
Click to expand...
I'm with you. I'm much more of the mind that marketing is about aligning customer needs / wants with your organization's products and it can be attacked from both sides.
 
#165
#165
volinbham said:
that helps some but still treats marketing as communication tactics. It is much more and at the core it is about identifying which customers you'd like to engage in exchange with, uncovering their needs and wants as well as their current and future options (competition) and using that info to craft an organizational offering that will better meet their needs than the competition will. The goal is to create mutually beneficial and ongoing exchange.

What Gibbs has suggested with the Kettle Chips example is the polar opposite. In his view the company decides itself what to produce then dupes the masses into buying it via tactics that border on mind control.

The common thread in Gibbs back yard is that people are too dumb to think for themselves and some enlightened dictators (to channel Thomas Friedman) are needed to make the decisions for them.
Click to expand...

In truth I didn't really do more than pull up the link and the first little bit seemed to be germane to the discussion. Actually anything with "to the masses" in the title is going to be simplified by definition.

As to the rest of it I agree...the idea that people who happen to like Kettle's offerings (or anyone's other than Pringles) can only be explained by UTG's views on marketing are terribly flawed. Actually he jumped the shark right out of the gate working from the premise that what he saw as a clearly superior product (Pringles) actually made it so. Obviously it just got worse from there.

Actually I can't immediately recall ever seeing any Kettle advertising...ever. I was prowling Krogers and thought the New York Cheddar looked intriguing so I bought some. Now, short of Pringles coming out with a campaign that has Victoria Secret models hand feeding me and allowing me to lick the crumbs out of their cleavage, there is no flavor of Pringle I'd choose first over Kettle's offerings. (with the aforementioned caveat of expecting some rough going where Pringles packaging, not actual product, does have an advantage)

As an interesting aside the people that own Kettle, Diamond Foods, puchased Pringles off of P&G earlier this year.
 
#168
#168
hndog609 said:
As to the rest of it I agree...the idea that people who happen to like Kettle's offerings (or anyone's other than Pringles) can only be explained by UTG's views on marketing are terribly flawed. Actually he jumped the shark right out of the gate working from the premise that what he saw as a clearly superior product (Pringles) actually made it so. Obviously it just got worse from there.
Click to expand...

This is the same way all his arguments go.
 
#169
#169
volinbham said:
I explained it above but you ignored it or don't understand it. I've seen you mangle concepts such as demand, exchange, markets, market failures, incentives and marketing; it's not worth the typing.
Click to expand...

Maybe I wasn't specific enough.

Tell me how a marketing strategy evetually leads to Darth Vader boy.

Unfortunately, what has been discovered is that the most bourgeois among you mangle these concepts.

The biggest catch-out was my verbatim recitation of Kenneth Arrow and the rush to dogpile with "you don't know what you are talking about." Got to admit, that was a good one on my part.

Truly - if marketing develops strategies on what 34 - 48 year olds truly need - how does the message to the public become Darth Vader boy?
 
#170
#170
volinbham said:
that helps some but still treats marketing as communication tactics. It is much more and at the core it is about identifying which customers you'd like to engage in exchange with, uncovering their needs and wants as well as their current and future options (competition) and using that info to craft an organizational offering that will better meet their needs than the competition will. The goal is to create mutually beneficial and ongoing exchange.

What Gibbs has suggested with the Kettle Chips example is the polar opposite. In his view the company decides itself what to produce then dupes the masses into buying it via tactics that border on mind control.

The common thread in Gibbs back yard is that people are too dumb to think for themselves and some enlightened dictators (to channel Thomas Friedman) are needed to make the decisions for them.
Click to expand...

I hit Quote on your "I'm not going to type it" before reading further. However, this actually demonstrates the relevance of my above post.

If marketing searches out and finds what the public wants, and then helps business to craft those products competitively, why does it rarely communicate that to the the public? Where does the "efficient" marketing strategy which is grounded in so much good science, diligent research, and effective public screening, lead to the messaging of Darth Vader boy?

In fact, you have turned it on its head again. It is not ME who thinks the public is too dumb (it is I who want authentic democracy, it is I who believe in an authentically informed public), but it is EXACTLY the disconnect between the managerial class marketing strategists and the messaging to the buying public that not only assumes they are dupes, but then does everything in its power to prove it.

We can talk about what really happens at corporations as well, about product development, and the like later.
 
#171
#171
Really having a tough time figuring out why a car company trying to target young families would use a cute kid dressed as one of the most popular characters of all time to emphasize their remote startup feature. That's a real mystery.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
Last edited:
#172
#172
kptvol said:
Really having a tough time figuring out why a car company trying to target young families would use a cut kid dresses as one of the most popular characters of all time to emphasize their remote startup feature. That's a real mystery.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
Click to expand...

Don't bother. He's using the classic stupid purchaser theory that presumes a need for governmental intervention. It's sad as hell, but replete with further misuse of class warfare idiocy.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
#173
#173
kptvol said:
Really having a tough time figuring out why a car company trying to target young families would use a cute kid dressed as one of the most popular characters of all time to emphasize their remote startup feature. That's a real mystery.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
Click to expand...
:)
 
#174
#174
Pringles are formed from the crumbs of other chips. Jus the thought of it not being a sliced potato is sick. It's like the particle board of chips. YUMMY!
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top