h a l f b a k e r yGet half a life.
add, search, annotate, link, view, overview, recent, by name, random
news, help, about, links, report a problem
browse anonymously,
or get an account
and write.
register,
|
|
|
Free classic books reprinted typeset in a font that has McDonald's M's and Special K's and so forth.
Could frequently update the sponsored letters and print using POD technology. In fact when you go to pick up your free book the "price" could be answering a few questions so the printer could select
the sponsored letters that represent companies you're likely to be most interested in, and print you out a book with targeted advertising, which could also be based on the genre of book, a bit like adsense.
From the sponsor's point of view it can't be completely ignored the way a full-page ad can, and from the reader's point of view it might not be that obtrusive, kind of subliminal.
(Tangent) Hobson's Choice
http://en.wikipedia...iki/Hobson's_choice
means "Take this, or none", not "Choose between two flavors of crap". [jutta, Jun 21 2007]
[link]
|
| |
"brandboy"... no kidding? |
|
| |
//kind of subliminal// or kind of f*cking annoying. |
|
| |
I'm not sure it's the sort of brand awareness people want to achieve - promoting your product/service/company to a cheap as free product isn't necessarily going to raise its profile. |
|
| |
The two-bit already-scraping the bottom of the human gene-pool companies like Pepsi, CocaCola, McDonalds, Adidas, Nike i.e. shit food, beverage and clothing companies (SFBACC) might see some advantages - this would allow them to further raise their profile among the poor, destitute and uneducated by providing this target demographic with hyper-branded classical literature - which, is of course their target market - since this is the case, perhaps comic books, political or religious pamphlets might be more amenable? |
|
| |
<general rant>
Has anyone else noticed that it's only the really low-end shit that gets "branded"? Cerial, fizzy drinks, dog food, plastic razors, low-end sprays, cosmetics, shampoos and soaps, detergents etc. It's all stuff that costs next to nothing to make, (therefore) easy to mark up to such an extent, that it warrants glossy advertisement campaigns to convince consumers to purchase brand x instead of brand y - it's Hobson's choice. In other words, stuff that relies on a "brand" to shift it, is very rarely worth buying.
</general rant> |
|
| |
Sorry, I hate advertising with a passion and would rather buy the book full price than have to deal with this sort of BS. |
|
| |
//Has anyone else noticed that it's only the really low-end shit that gets "branded"?// |
|
| |
Effectively proven false by label whores wearing Gucci, Bergdorf, Burberry, Prada, etc. or men wearing Breitlings, Rolexes, driving Porsches (or wearing $300 Porsche sunglasses), etc. |
|
| |
Low-end shit doesn't necessarily mean low-end price. That's why branding is so important a tool. |
|
| |
But you prove my point, Police sunglasses are cheaply made and fall apart just as easily as a 99p pair from down the market (I know, because I fell for it myself) |
|
| |
Wearing a Breitling or Rolex (especially the newer, utterly tasteless mega-bling versions) makes you look like someone who wants to say "I have more money than imagination". The older, original watches those companies made - before they established a brand - were great pieces of machenery, designed and built to perform a specific task. Today, these same brands produce lower quality, mass-produced versions and rely on their brand image, rather than quality product, to bring in the cash. It's simple economics. |
|
| |
Burberry and all those other clothing people produce their tat in far-east sweatshops, creating low-quality products, purchased by eejits who are too stupid to know the difference between quality and a 'label'. Someone who buys a pair of Porsche sunglasses is evidently an idiot, or someone who wants to impress other idiots. |
|
| |
It's all low-end shit - it's just being sold as 'premium brand' - hence my point - stuff that needs a brand behind it to sell (or to justify the inflated price) is probably not worth buying. |
|
| |
what [zen_tom] said, but without the demure understatement |
|
| |
[zen-tom], well put. In the US, financial class has been used to supplant a non-existent social class strutcure. Thus the more money one has, the higher their status. In that context low-end is cheap or poor. But I would have to argue that in a consumption based society, all products are branded. |
|
| |
Agreed, all products are branded - but some products rely on their brand in order for them to sell. Brown fizzy drink just doesn't sell as well as the magically more attractive Coke. But stripping away all the hype, it's still just brown fizzy drink. Some brands are hyped more than the products they sell. |
|
| |
Re Hobson's - yep I know, I was looking up that exact same article earlier today as I wrestled with the correctness of including the phrase. Somehow I figured nobody would notice! But I do like the directness of your definition (something the wiki article lacks) |
|
| |
an economist would probably put it something like: |
|
| |
product cost = manufacturing cost + brand cost |
|
| |
(as competition increases, so too does brand cost) |
|
| |
competition = market size/product complexity |
|
| |
So if the market is big there’s plenty of competition, but if the product is difficult to manufacture this decreases the competition. |
|
| |
If brand cost increases too much the market fragments into cheap skates and brand whores. |
|
| |
Brands aren't good or bad, it's just economics. |
|
| |
Coke=good, pepsi=bad. Buffalo=bad, Balabushka=good. Jupiler=bad, Westvleteren=good. Spijker=good, Opel=bad. Choose the wrong brand and you are a bad, bad, sad person. Why not join the good brands, you know you want to. |
|
| |
// Brands aren't good or bad, it's just economics. // But is economics good or bad? Or is "we must bow to economic inevitability" just a euphemistic way of saying "democracy is meaningless, we've all got to do just exactly what the rich tell us to do"? |
|
| |
Remember The Golden Rule - don't they just - the ones with the gold make the rules. |
|
| |
[zeno] I am proud to say that I only know what three of your listed brands are. Coke, Pepsi, and Opel. The others I have never heard of. |
|
| |
Oh, and I deny a thesis of this entire thread. Not all purchased products are branded. I usually buy coffee that is marked with no more than its country of origin. I buy vegetables that are identified only by variety (there are some branded tomatoes, but that is an exception.) I buy rice, beans, and other dry goods that not identified other than by type. I know that my market has meat poultry and seafood that has no distinguishing marks beyond species and body part . So not everything is branded. |
|
| |
That sounded sarcastic - it wasn't. |
|
| |
[GC}, I only recognise the first 2. |
|
| |
Therefore, I presume that Opel-Vauxhall=0 |
|
| |
None of my business, but, if you don't mind me asking, where are you from Treon? |
|
| |
//where are you from Treon?// |
|
| |
looks like Treon lives in the US (see his idea "IV medical records"; he's planning on voting for Hillary) |
|
| |
You lost me at the title. [-] |
|
| |