Companies that believe their products are that good, they completely rely on consumers recommending them to each other.
They sign an official statement in which they declare never to spend money on advertising. They can have a website with the specs of their products, they just don't pay anyone to link to the website.
On a special website, there will be a list with these companies. If anyone can prove that a company on the list did pay for an advertisement, they are taken of the list and will never be put back on it.
In fact, we can already start here. You can nominate a company for the list and make a link to it. Only if you believe they are good.-- rrr, Jan 05 2003 Manufactum http://www.manufactum.co.ukmailorder of top quality things [rrr, Oct 04 2004] Criterion http://www.criterionco.com/mailorder of top quality DVD releases [rrr, Oct 04 2004, last modified Oct 21 2004] NO-AD Sunblock http://www.no-ad.com/ [krelnik, Oct 04 2004, last modified Oct 21 2004] Moonshine Wiping Gel http://www.halfbake...ww.moonshinegel.comA true baker if I ever met one, Ed Putman does not, as far as I know take out ads... [dbsousa, Oct 04 2004] Moonshine Wiping Gel http://www.halfbake...ea/www.moonshinegelA true baker if I ever met one, Ed Putman does not, as far as I know take out ads... [dbsousa, Oct 21 2004] [jutta]'s link brings up a good point: what constitutes advertising? Is it just paid placements (TV ads, billboards, etc) or does it include any method used to promote the product, such as straight P.R.? What about sponsoring a show on public radio or TV (which usually results in them mentioning your name & slogan)?-- krelnik, Jan 06 2003 I would suggest that companies can try their best to get free publicity in the press. We then have to rely on the professionalism of journalists to filter out uninteresting stories. A good product that does what it promises is news I would say.
Sponsoring in general is fine I guess. Just like product placement. As long as the event or story is not influenced in any way.
I have no problems with a Bond-like hero in a Hollywood-plot pointing a rocketlauncher at a huge bill board advertising beer and shooting it to dust and the beer company paying for it.
It's all upto the journalists and writers what story they want to write and whether or not the brandname or product is mentioned.
Sponsoring of events or sportspeople is like advertising if the brandname/logo is shown. They pay for the attention, wrong.
Sponsoring just by donating money because it's a good cause and being mentioned somewhere on a list with credits 'made possible thanks to...' is sympathetic and not advertisting. The list with credits is hidden and only read if you are really interested.
What would you suggest?-- rrr, Jan 06 2003 Hi Ian!
I would really like to make the distinction between paying for getting attention and getting it otherwise. The first corrupts, is annoying and usually uninteresting.-- rrr, Jan 06 2003 <cliche> A terrible thing happens without advertising... nothing! </cliche>
I don't work in advertising, but I'm all for it. I'm not the devil. Advertising is a necessary evil. Too many good products/TV channels/books/ideas fail because of a lack of advertising revenue and/or awareness.
Sadly, you can't overestimate the awareness of the generally unaware public when it comes to launching new products or services.-- kpx, Jan 06 2003 kpx, I am terribly sorry, but I have to disagree with you on good stuff that fails because the advertising is not good.
It's the other way round. Really bad products dominate certain markets because of their marketing. Their marketing is better than their products. Because they have a huge marketshare, they can lower their prices. With lower prices, they can expand their marketshare, etc.
It's based on capital, not on merits. And it's getting worse and worse. The barriers for entry on any market are getting higher and higher because startups can't afford the marketing. The dotcom era as the exception.
The 'unaware' public should inform themselves if they don't know what to buy. Ask someone you know. Or just stay home and wait a little with buying things. Do some research, read, compare, ask friends or other users on the net. That's the trend already.-- rrr, Jan 06 2003 Sponsoring and advertising are both forms of promotion. At least with sponsoring someone not directly connected with the advertising industry benefits, so there is a form of altruism, albeit self-serving! The difference is:Advertising - you pay me to write "His Name's Ian" on my car.Sponsoring - you pay me the running expenses of my car, on condition that I write "His Name's Ian" on the sunstrip.
PS Hi. My name's Ian. Now sue me.-- egbert, Jan 06 2003 Yes, waugsqueke, products fail despite advertising. I am not saying that people start buying *because* a product is advertised. I am saying that there are products sold far less because there is little or no advertising for it. Very good products even. I am *not* saying people are being brainwashed with advertising. They simply don't have check and doublecheck the claims for the advertised products because they don't have the time to do so. So advertisers *buy* a little of their time by spoon feeding relaxing entertainment, or even essential serious information, with advertising sandwiched in it.
And your second point, companies don't do anything for getting on this list. Let alone *pay* for it, consumers nominate them for the list. It's just good old free publicity for their merits. Much like a good newspaper review. Nothing wrong with that. Impossible to buy, only something you get for free when you do your work well, when you make good products people trust. In that sense, the list is a kind of 'integrity index' also. Your turn.-- rrr, Jan 06 2003 People as a generalisation are more likely to talk about something if its crap than if its great. I'd give you some quotes but that requires stealing stuff from work.-- kaz, Jan 06 2003 Yes Kaz, it's true. If it's great, they just buy it. I talk far less computers than those who use Windows. I feel isolated often, nothing to complain. When a Windows related discussion starts I go get the drinks. And when I return it's still going on. I only have the weather and politics to talk about then. With fellow Mac users we talk only about release dates and how to get the money to buy the new Macs...-- rrr, Jan 07 2003 I think that you're barking up the wrong tree with this one, rrr. To my mind there's nothing wrong, per se, with advertising your product. After all, if you don't put your name on the can how are people going to know who made it? No, the real problem is with the spurious, misleading or often downright false claims made in adverts. "Coca Cola. It's a fizzy drink!" [Ben Elton]-- DrBob, Jan 07 2003 [waugs], I know of at least one company that refuses to advertise, preferring instead to spend its "advertising budget" on distributor's bonuses. This company relies solely on personal recommendation for its sales.
And yes, advertising is a means for disseminating information, but it is also a very powerful persuasive medium.
[Drbob], I turn "spot the fib" into a family game whenever the adverts come on.-- egbert, Jan 07 2003 DrBob, putting your name on a product is fine with me. I am barking at paying massmedia to get attention from people who have no explicit a priori interest in your message. That kind of persuasion you can 'buy' is corrupting and it lacks integrity too often. But most of all it starts a dynamic with more negative than positive consequences. At best there is a slight positive influence on the economy.-- rrr, Jan 07 2003 I think the bigger picture is that advertising is a lifeblood for many services. The revenue generated from running ads is how the vast majority of the world's TV and magazines get funded (to use the popular example). The more advertising revenue, the more money available for better programs/articles. Very few companies have a blackhearted egomaniac sitting in the CEO chair, shovelling money into their greedy maws. Except British Airways. Everyone's just trying to earn a living.-- kpx, Jan 07 2003 Yes, waugsqueke, this is clearly an anti-advertising rant. To quote Angus Deayton: "Well spotted". But it's more. It's also an idea to operationalise such a rant. It's most of all the latter and the rant is implicit. It doesn't take a genius to distill the rant from it. Which doesn't mean that geniuses can't become obsessed with proving that it is a rant.-- rrr, Jan 07 2003 Yes, kpx. Advertising is a lifeblood for many services. But what happens if the advertising revenue dwindles? Prices for the product go up and sponsoring, product placement, etc. increases.
There will be less products targeted to the lowest common denominator and more targeted at selected audiences (with money to spend for information and entertainment).
The book- and DVDmarket for example will not suffer, but television will. HBO, Canal+ and public broadcasting will not. There is very little we lose, there is a lot to gain.-- rrr, Jan 07 2003 [waugs], yes it works extremely well, the company is extremely successful and very well known.
I'm having trouble reconciling your statement that to shun advertising is a foolish business model with you implying that there is no persuasive element to advertising. Perhaps you would clarify?-- egbert, Jan 08 2003 Well [rrr] I have to give you a croissant for effort.
I'd also like to add that my parents don't advertise their business. Nevertheless they pretty much have to turn away customers these days.
That Scott guy is weird..-- madradish, Jan 08 2003 As far as I am aware, they have never paid for advertising to the public. They do produce promotional literature, videos etc for distributors' use, and they have a website. It is, I believe, the American way (clue).-- egbert, Jan 08 2003 Why ask the company to do something you can do yourself? Dont buy anything you see advertised. Or only respond to the type of advertising you want more of. That is the system now and it works fine. We get exactly what we subsidize.-- xint, Aug 13 2003 random, halfbakery