Hacker News Reader

Comment by amelius | Hacker News Reader

> But just because something is wonderful doesn’t mean anyone will find it. To earn customers you need awareness. To earn awareness, you need marketing.

If you believe this, then shouldn't marketing be equally accessible to everyone? Instead of the ones with the deepest pockets, and bidding for the best ad space?

View on HN

One doesn't follow from the other. Marketing isn't equally accessible because companies compete for the spaces in which marketing takes place, regardless if it's a highway billboard, a site banner or a Instagram post. The people who owned these spaces want to get the best possible ROI and that results in certain price points due to competition.

But there are more options if you think different from the way things are done now. For example, as a society we can say no to ads on billboards and require that all ads be in one place (e.g. a government-run website), and all advertising could be free. Some other mechanism could decide which ads are more important than others (e.g. review-based or some other method), because filtering based on marketing-budget is probably not the best way to go about it.

Elsewhere in this thread, people are complaining about ads for useless and inferior products. This problem would only get worse if we handed out ad space via lottery, since most products are useless/inferior. Selecting for deep pockets means selecting for products that people are actually paying money to buy, which serves as a basic quality filter.

Yeah but there might be better ways to filter the products we want to see advertised than by advertising-budget. In fact, the preferred filter could be different per user.

"Targeted advertising", in other words.

If I started Sokoloff Cola today, I don’t see any reason that I should be granted as much ad reach as each of Coke and Pepsi.

Even in a more important arena, if I’m a minor party politician, I don’t see why I should get the same reach as the major parties.

Ad companies are vying for attention; ad space is a proxy at best.

> If I started Sokoloff Cola today, I don’t see any reason that I should be granted as much ad reach as each of Coke and Pepsi.

That is exactly how third party product comparisons and reviews works though. I don't think the world would be worse of if all product discoverability happened in such third party environments.

Are they obligated to review every product in a category? The few review sites that I follow don’t seem to cover anywhere near the full breadth of SKUs, but the N most popular, which would become self-fulfilling if this was the primary mode of discovery.

The people who care would go to more specialized third party sites that covers more stuff. It already happens today, and if we shifted resources from marketing to such efforts they would become more common and popular.

We might be thinking about a very different scale of problem.

Search “usb 16gb flash drive” on AliExpress. Who’s going to meaningfully review all those results?

If we (effectively) don’t allow new entrants, that seems like a massive giveaway to Sandisk, Samsung, Kingston, and the other existing players.

I don't see how all those results are better of with Sandisk, Samsung etc constantly bombarding everyone with their marketing material. It isn't like you see ads for the small players here.

What are you seeing when you see those search results if not ads?

Sure it’s not a 30-second TV spot or 15 second pre-roll video, but there is money changing hands from the seller to AliExpress in exchange for that relationship (same as for Amazon, EBay, Etsy, Tindie, Newegg, etc...)

When you go into a grocery store and see Tide on the entrance end cap this week where Coke was last week: that’s a paid ad.

No they are not. Product listings are not marketing, now you are reaching at straws. Technically they could be considered marketing, yes, but in practice that isn't what people talk about when they discuss marketing. Bringing that up in a discussion about ethics of marketing is bad faith.

If I pay to place my product in a catalog (paper or online) where it will get exposure to shoppers who will hopefully buy it, what else would you call that expense if not marketing?

What you’re calling a bad faith argument is a straightforward use of standard business terminology as far as I can see. I’m not even bending the definition a little bit.

You can always go to the Sandisk website and browse their full catalog?

Of course I can go to the website of the biggest brand-name company I can think of and look through their catalog.

How does that help me learn about a new entrant to the flash drive market (or help them get me to see their catalog), though?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com