When I worked in Al Khobbar in Saudi everyone used to go to the Sahara burger bar for a Double Double and fries to go - and they didn't advertise.
On BBC, something to look forward to "How artificial intelligence may be making you buy things"
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-54522442
Sponsorship and advertising are very different things.
Sponsorship is more about brand recognition and often a company will get things in return.
Say sponsoring man utd. You get lots of exposure but for sure you also get things like corporate days for clients and staff rewards.
You take a client to the man u/chelsea game on full hospitality you would expect business back!
Not really because I don’t rely solely on them. It’s them plus user reviews and research. Anybody that buys anything based purely off an advert or professional review is a marketeers wet dream.
But you still react to adverts - yes you may still research and ultimately choose a brand or product that aligns with your personality but by advertising, the brand owners do what they can to make you see them even though ultimately you may choose another. But they don’t care, they want market share and profit, not necessarily total market dominance.
If it wasn’t working, it wouldn’t be everywhere. But it is, so it is
Or just throw ads for ponchos at women age 35-59 who like Gin. That works well.
Evidently it did as you know a group I’m on Facebook that fits a majority of that audience were targeted by it.
Things like coke work by constantly re-enforcing their brand message and values in your subconcious. In the summer they show ice cold coke on a hot summers day, looking all refreshing, an image which lodges in your brain. Then, when you’re hot, and you nip to the shop and you’re standing in front of the fridge things, you’re more likely to buy coke then pepsi.
The 80s First Time Advert is indelibly printed on my subconscious after seeing it every time we went to the cinema. All those cool American kids looked amazing when I was about 12....
There are adverts?
the stealth Greggs ones on here are really hard to screen out.
Think about all the big companies spending millions on it. Don’t you think that at least one exec in their king history would have had the idea to sit down and actually analyse wether or not it was worth spending all that money?
Answer: of course they do, they do it all the time. They have whole departments dedicated to analysing exactly what works and what doesn’t and how much return they get on their investment in different ad channels.
But these departments are invested in proving their value and quite possibly in keeping a job year round. To take seasonal examples like selling XMAS trees or fireworks (if only) or ferrero rocher?
To use the two examples in the OP I have to speculate that if Pepsi and Burgery King didn't advertise and Coke and McDo also just stopped would it change their sales significantly compared to what they spend?
In other words is their advertising not at least driven by their main rivals?
I'm reminded of the Nescafe Gold Blend ads that were very expensive BUT successful apparently at driving sales but it turned out there main "rival" was Nescafe regular.... so the same company then spent more on trying to steal back sales from itself?
I can basically print money by advertising HebTroCo smartly on Facebook. The amount I spend directly relates to sales it will generate. I dial it up and down depending on how much we want to sell.
With all due respect you're not Coke or McDo....
From a budget POV I actually checked it out and learned it existed so that post that cost nowt but your time may work.
Speaking personally though if I'd seen it on FB I'd have just dismissed it but if I'd actually noticed it I'd have added it to the list of companies I'd rather avoid.
Mentally I regard anything on FB as a possible/probable scam.... I'm probably wrong most of the time but life's too short.
The ones that make me wonder are big global business to business brand advertising on TV.
IBM did a TV campaign 15 odd years ago, for servers and blades, one of the cabinets in the campaign (but not in the catalogue) had a Perspex shark fin on top. Resellers were screaming at IBM to send a load of the fins out, as that is what customers were asking for. As in ‘I want the one with the fin!’
To use the two examples in the OP I have to speculate that if Pepsi and Burgery King didn’t advertise and Coke and McDo also just stopped would it change their sales significantly compared to what they spend?
No. Look at the tobacco industry, around the time advertising was banned, they all became more profitable as the loss in revenue was offset by the massive reduction in advertising spend. Not a great long term strategy though.
Most things I purchase are as a result of asking endless questions on here or finding user and professional reviews for the product(s) I’m looking at.
Right - but when you ask questions on here, why do we answer the way we do? Most of the time it's 'well I bought X and it's great'. People are generally predisposed to like the shiny new expensive thing they just spent money on (to help them feel better about the expense), so why did they buy it in the first place? Advertising has an effect even *after* someone buys something. It helps cement a positive view of the thing so they might go on to recommend it to someone else. Same for the 'reviews' that people post.
Sponsorship is more about brand recognition
This. When I went shopping for cars, I had to make a shortlist because there are just too many choices. I test drove Ford, VW and Honda. So the question Toyota are asking is: why did I shortlist those three and not Toyota?
Frequently people just pick three or four off the top of their head. And it's the top of peoples heads where brands want to be, and that's where brand recognition through sponsorship comes in. For example, if I wanted a manly shampoo, I'd probably think of Dove for Men or maybe Alpecin. They both sponsored sporting events I've watched.
I see how my 4 year old reacts to advertising. It's frightening. As adults we don't tend to react with the same overt Wow! but it (advertising) hits the same buttons we are just muted where as a year old is open and honest.
Advertising works differently on adults because we have more experience. For kids, most stuff is new.
PS get Netflix - no ads! Our kids hardly see ads for toys and stuff, and it's great.
Molgrips
People are generally predisposed to like the shiny new expensive thing they just spent money on (to help them feel better about the expense), so why did they buy it in the first place?
Well... bikes and maybe cars or even food or drink?
Frequently people just pick three or four off the top of their head. And it’s the top of peoples heads where brands want to be, and that’s where brand recognition through sponsorship comes in. For example, if I wanted a manly shampoo, I’d probably think of Dove for Men or maybe Alpecin. They both sponsored sporting events I’ve watched.
See I just don't get this... shampoo is just shampoo?
I couldn't even tell you what shampoo I have without checking as it's just whatever was cheapest (and doesn't contain any wheat or oats). If I'm in a rush or don't have my glasses I'll probably just choose one I've had before simply to avoid allergens or the one with the shortest list of ingredients.
If I run out of shampoo I'll just use soap anyway...
I've heard of both of those brands but have no idea what they'd look like.
On the other hand I'd probably be more influenced by advertising for a shower. We have and water and 4.5bar so I need to research electric showers and that's easier starting with the "short list". [In reality I tend to ring my mate but otherwise]
See I just don’t get this… shampoo is just shampoo?
To you, yes. That's why supermarkets make own-brand shampoo and sell it for less - for people like you.
Advertising works differently on adults because we have more experience. For kids, most stuff is new.
I think its under lying the same switches but the advertising just takes different routes to flick them.
PS get Netflix – no ads! Our kids hardly see ads for toys and stuff, and it’s great.
They also don't do much in the way of advertising their shows, which really annoys my brother as his job is basically adverts / trailers for TV shows! Streaming has collapsed the market for such work as they just don't do anywhere near as much as traditional on-air channels do.
To you, yes. That’s why supermarkets make own-brand shampoo and sell it for less – for people like you
Even that stuff will have had teams of marketeers working on the design, shape, colour of the product and shelf positioning etc...
A great book on the subject is
https://www.waterstones.com/book/the-hidden-persuaders/vance-packard/9780978843106
Marketing for things like McDonalds and Coke aren't targeting new customers with the majority of their adverts, it's subliminal messaging to those who're already susceptible. A certain type of smartly targeted advert will be created for a new product aimed at a new customer, the rest is just maintenance/revenue increase from an existing base.
@brant - does the majority of your marketing derived sales from facebook come from new customers, repeat customers and/or friends of existing customers? Can you get the data that shows the links?
To you, yes. That’s why supermarkets make own-brand shampoo and sell it for less – for people like you.
As far as I know though I don't remember seeing an advert for home brand shampoo or paracetamol (etc. etc.).. but presumably enough people buy them without ??
As a rule of thumb I just assume if a brand wants to charge more then they not only charge more but then have to spend extra on advertising so its a double hit and if you buy that brand you are quite probably paying to be deceived. ["in tests 9/10 ...."] with some (at least in the UK but not US) disclaimer that the sample was only 40 customers who even responded and they were paid/bribed to.
If you look at tightly controlled products such as medicines you can even check they came off the same production line yet they are 5-6 times the price.
I like a shiny bike like most of us... but that's got some "value" other than being put in a cupboard or shower. I'm struggling to see how someone derives value/pleasure etc. from buying a brand of paracetemol at 5-6x the price.
I’m struggling to see how someone derives value/pleasure etc. from buying a brand of paracetemol at 5-6x the price.
On the other hand, virtue signalling on a forum can give you an immense amount of pleasure, can't it? 🙂
It's worth noting that marketing and advertising aren't the same thing. So you proudly buy own-brand shampoo, say - but who do you think makes it? Asda don't. So a shampoo company is still getting your cash one way or the other.
@brant – does the majority of your marketing derived sales from facebook come from new customers, repeat customers and/or friends of existing customers? Can you get the data that shows the links?
Fb ads mostly targeting new customers.
Organic fb and mailchimp gets existing customers back in the loop with new product launches and restocks which has been our push this year. So fairly different from Coke.
See I just don’t get this… shampoo is just shampoo?
To you, yes. That’s why supermarkets make own-brand shampoo and sell it for less – for people like you.
This is going in exactly the same trajectory as the original TJ post when he flatly refused to accept an argument based around buying habits of washing up liquid 🙂
I’m struggling to see how someone derives value/pleasure etc. from buying a brand of paracetemol at 5-6x the price.
But the advertising for premium pain killers doesn't tell yhe consumer they will get value or pleasure, rather that they will get FAST RESULTS, straight at the TARGET OF PAIN. FAST!
(BTW, I always buy the cheap pain killers on the bottom shelf at the supermarket, hidden away to make them harder to find over their more expensive equivalents)...
There was a comedian, I forget who, who did a bit on adverts for thrush treatment, not understanding who they were aiming at. Was it the 'that looks like a good product, I will seek it out next time I go shopping' crowd, or the people sat there itching away desperate for someone to release a product to cure them, but not enough to go to a doctor...
They made it sound funnier than I have, obvs.
molgrips
On the other hand, virtue signalling on a forum can give you an immense amount of pleasure, can’t it? 🙂
It’s worth noting that marketing and advertising aren’t the same thing. So you proudly buy own-brand shampoo, say – but who do you think makes it? Asda don’t. So a shampoo company is still getting your cash one way or the other.
It's just a simple spend less on shampoo and more on bike stuff. (Or whatever else gives anyone pleasure be it collecting train numbers or stamps or buying cool tools)
marketing and advertising aren’t the same thing
I'm not disagreeing... hence why "basics, economy" etc. grab my attention on the shelves.
I call that marketing not advertising though .... and it's just got to get me to buy the Asda one when I'm in Asda instead of waiting till I get to Tesco or wherever that might be 5p cheaper or not.
If you want to bring up virtue signalling then save the money and buy a sandwich for the homeless outside or pay for them to get a bed for the night.
jondoh
But the advertising for premium pain killers doesn’t tell yhe consumer they will get value or pleasure, rather that they will get FAST RESULTS, straight at the TARGET OF PAIN. FAST!
(BTW, I always buy the cheap pain killers on the bottom shelf at the supermarket, hidden away to make them harder to find over their more expensive equivalents)…
Right ... so this is what struck me once in the US.
Some brand of tylenol was claiming the competition had a bunch of unpleasant side effects.. which of course are simply the generic side effects of tylenol/paracetomol...
This struck me as particularly nasty (given the potential for death) as it's implying whatever the brand was doesn't ....
but who do you think makes it? Asda don’t. So a shampoo company is still getting your cash one way or the other.
Why do I care? Principally I only care about cost/convenience... my assumption is "a shampoo company make it" but why would I pay more... and subsidiary to that why would I pay EVEN more to have it advertised.
Right … so this is what struck me once in the US.
Some brand of tylenol was claiming the competition had a bunch of unpleasant side effects.. which of course are simply the generic side effects of tylenol/paracetomol…This struck me as particularly nasty (given the potential for death) as it’s implying whatever the brand was doesn’t ….
Not sure what your point is here? Are you saying they advertised (falsely)? that the competitor product was dangerous and that people should buy their product instead?
Not sure what your point is here? Are you saying they advertised (falsely)? that the competitor product was dangerous and that people should buy their product instead?
No they advertised truthfully the competitor brands were dangerous... they just failed to mention theirs was exactly the same product and just as dangerous.
If this is "our shampoo stings your eyes less" it's maybe not important... if the product is likely to shut down your kidneys and liver then I'd say that omission is shocking.
It's perhaps like the injecting bleach vs whatever .... did Trump say bleach? (Farage says not and argues it's important) or does it matter if the end product is some stupid/trusting people drinking or injecting household disinfectants?
Right … so this is what struck me once in the US.
They US has a lot of 'attack ads', where the ad is principally attacking a competitor rather than promoting something. Just seems to be a cultural thing (1st amendment related).
See I just don’t get this… shampoo is just shampoo?
Have you not been paying attention to 'the science bit'?
You should do
Because you're worth it
footflaps
They US has a lot of ‘attack ads’, where the ad is principally attacking a competitor rather than promoting something. Just seems to be a cultural thing (1st amendment related).
Oh, agreed....It's just the first shocking example I remember.
I guess the thing is Americans don't notice because they became so used to them?
However I think perhaps what it did was make me more aware of our own cultural things in advertising and how deceptive they are so I just assume the claims are false or deceptive.
Like 9/10 cats or some percent of readers etc. always seem to have some caveat... and if you can be bothered to look into then "based on a sample of 47 responses" which then goes to "who were responding to be put into our prize draw"... TBH I respond better to "Value shampoo, its cheap and it washes your hair"
Have you not been paying attention to ‘the science bit’?
You should do
Because you’re worth it
LOL, yep and equally proceramide something must be good... sounds very sciency...
Just going to mention HebTroCo here to see if I suddenly get ads.
Adverts put me off things.online I think they are a scam and never click on them.if it's a user posting a deal on here that's different.i like to search and research things so I prefer seo online
Very trusting of you to assume all users on here are (a) human and (b) entirely independent
I'm also looking at you, Facebook of the 50% bot accounts.
trumpton
Adverts put me off things.online I think they are a scam and never click on them
Me too (especially FB/social media) and I think we are in a growing market segment.
It's actually put me off companies I already use/buy seeing social media ads.
It's not that I think they are ALL scams...but it's checking them out takes time/energy etc. and placing a probably perfectly good product next to "Stay at home Mum from <near your IP> earns 50k a month working from home" or "this one little trick will replace hair, make your skin soft".... doesn't exactly inspire me.
Adverts put me off things.online
Nothing worse than obtrusive or irritating adverts on the web (or radio, Spotify for that matter). Really pisses me off and makes companies stick in my memory. Not in a good way, in the “I remember this from that irritating advert. No way am I giving them my business” sort of way.
Your scaring me what do mean you are looking at me. I am going to kill all the bots or use tor lol.i don't mind stw getting my data if it helps them
As a small business owner I have today used Facebook ads for the first time.
My website was only operational since mid October and getting a very low numbers of hits. I’ve done a Facebook ad today and number of hits has gone up 800% so far. I know some people won’t like it, but it’s one way to drum up some interest. Also hoping it will help with getting closer to the first page on google search. We’re so far down I gave up trying to find the site without putting the actual name in!!
I know some people won’t like it, but it’s one way to drum up some interest.
If it works and you get a decent return for your investment, then it's a good thing surely.
I don't get all the hate for FB, if you don't like it, don't use it.
H8ers gonna h8.
I don’t get all the hate for FB, if you don’t like it, don’t use it.
Couldn’t agree more. See quite a few posts on here about how bad it is. I used it for a short period about two years ago as it made gym life easier at the time. Other than that I had no use for it so got rid when I returned to my natural lazy, exercise averse state. Nice and simple.
I take notice of sponsored mtb videos and always see who supported it as well as sponsered events and the clothing presenters use.for example Mercedes sponsor the uci dh and have a corner named after them.red bull as well as monster energy just put so much into many sports.sponsers on mtb videos are often embedded somewhere or maybe at the end.i wouldn't see stw ads as they are probably targeted at gravel bike riders.
I also like LIngs nuke
red bull as well as monster energy just put so much into many sports
Red Bull is an events company that markets itself with drinks... not the other way around. If you see their name on an event - its their event, not an event they sponsored. Its how they earn their money not how they spend it
