Yes. The problem with marketing people is it's hard to tell which ones are full of shit and which ones aren't...becuase they both sound the same.
As a result, once the market of successfully marketing products and services has reached equilibrium, marketing specialists are no longer competing and being selected for being better at selling marketable items—they are competing and being selected for being better at selling their own services to executives up to C-level.
It's easier to optimise the ability to sell one particular service to a known and relatively homogeneous audience than to optimise the ability to sell any arbitrary product or service to a broad and infinitely diverse population. Hence for instance the truism of "no publicity is bad publicity". What better way for the marketing crowd to evade the negative consequences of unsuccessful, controversial or even broadly hated campaigns?
Now I'm not saying that all successful marketing specialists follow this pattern. What I'm saying is that they are no longer at an advantage with regards to the bullshit sellers.
In an internal marketing department? Much less true. You still need people who are good at presenting and working with internal clients, but that is more based on communication skills then selling.
This is especially problematic when you are not a marketer and hope to hire a marketer or marketing agency. The good ones, bad ones, and nefarious ones will all sound pretty much the same.
The best advice I can give if you are looking for marketing help is to find a trusted advisor. The second best is to trust the one who tells you hard truths. You will hate it when they say your product won’t sell at the volume you want in the current form, but most marketers develop a sixth sense for what will and won’t sell and often have some ways to estimate demand for a particular niche or industry.
Most agencies won’t tell you that your product won’t sell because no one likes to hear that. It actually shows a lot of honesty and directness to tell a client that it won’t work.
Also, I think there is incentive for agencies to say a product will sell (other than people don't like hearing it). It's a lot easier to spend $100K if I'm gonna get back $500K in sales than if I'm just gonna get back $50K.
The vast majority of marketers just know how to show activity but have no idea how to track, optimize and actually convert clients. Let alone find creative ways that are not just "test more ads" and "create more content".
Even simply tracking ROI across the marketing/sales funnel is too much to ask
The vast majority don't have the patience to listen to what's going on under the hood. They don't have the background in math, in coding, in economics to make sound decisions amid the oceans of bullshit. And it's not reasonable to expect them to be competent in all required fields before dipping their toe in.
The tech is what interests me* - I have no significant stake in any of them.* When I try to tell people [very rarely] about block lattice such as Nano, people don't believe me.*
They say I sound like a marketer when I claim that it processes transactions in under a second with no fees.*
If I try to talk about how important decentralization is, people claim that BTC is the most decentralized (!!). Bag holders will bullshit til the day things break completely.
... I'd love to fix all this, but when I talk about it - *.
* - I sound like a marketer.
... That's really nice to hear, thank you :)
And for those of us that do have backgrounds in every one of these fields, we notice the abuse of formal industry terms with crypto-exclusive definitions that weaken the economic structure or flat out fabricate fantasy.
Cryptocurrencies are a great idea for a more mature civilization. We are not that civilization.
I don't claim that it's perfect, but it is better than most every alternative with a higher market cap - and I find that very interesting in the context of marketing.
Think about how absurd it is to claim that high fees are a feature and not a bug.
Really think about it. It's so obviously upside down.
Now think of the eco impact from mining - also often claimed as a feature rather than a bug. Real damage is being done with this nonsense.
People only take these claims seriously out of ignorance, deluged by the loud repeated claims of BTC maxis and bag holders. That was kinda the whole point of my post.
Btw - shilling? Really? No lies were told, or false claims made. You are really helping prove my earlier points though.
Consensus matters, we can't just keep switching this tech. Going from BTC to ETH made sense, because BTC is too primitive & its community doesn't want to change that.
Ether will have low fees too, when it scales. See "The Limits to Blockchain Scalability" https://vitalik.ca/general/2021/05/23/scaling.html
Block lattice > block chain; the numbers don't lie. Ether was and is interesting, but it is outdated.
There are other DAGs that allow for coding, so please don't make a comparison to Nano which doesn't try to be an Ethereum competitor.
Yes, consensus matters. that's why I gave "first mover" such importance in my comment. However, the tech limitations are growing every day. People can't keep burning crude all the time; and solar gets cheaper and more prevalent by the day - wait, I made this analogy already. Well, it still holds.
Why? Why not keep switching until you find something that doesn't suck? Because a bunch of speculators who were buying in with hopes of owning the entire financial system of the future are going to be ruined?
One I know likened crypto to selling art... 99% bullshit and the 1% is arguable
Found your answer.