I suspect the Ring mass surveillance ads are the same thing.
Car companies do this too. Frequently expensive cars are advertised to people who could never buy them. The ad makes them associate it with luxury. That helps rich people associate it with luxury because luxury is often based on a social consensus.
Maybe all ads are made to sell you things, but the thing being solid is always an idea. Sometimes that idea isn't as simple as "go buy this now"
- Feb–Mar 2022 (before full production/marketing stoppage): RosIndex reported that 94.3% knew the Coca-Cola brand.
- 2023 (roughly a year after global brands stopped producing in Russia): 88.6% of consumers knew the Coca-Cola brand.
5.7% drop in recognition in one year translates to billions of losses if scaled to US market. So yes, Coca Cola has to constantly run ads.
I have follow-up questions but they'll be much better if there's a source we can talk around.
Literally the first result of a google search for
"RosIndex" coca cola brand recognition in russia
So I have questions, but can we start with the source?
Veblen goods are status symbols, and something can't confer status if nobody else knows they're supposed to be awed by how expensive it is.
> Who is the buyer?
With your tax money. With your votes.
They're there not to sell you a plane directly but to make you happy with the money spent. To make you excited about the machines.
Think of it as a political ad, not a sales ad
Go to this website[0], type in your zipcode, and write a letter or email to the address provided.
It may also help reading this[2]
[0] https://www.congress.gov/members/find-your-member
[1] https://www.house.gov/representatives/find-your-representati...
The best way to invest "against" the F-35 is to put money in companies like Embraer and Saab, which have put up a strong fight on the export market.
FWIW, the Super Tucano and Gripen are more "morally acceptable" in that they are not power-gap level planes. The F-35 was basically designed from the ground-up to molest denied airspace and violate every rule of diplomatic exchange. The Super Tucano is useless outside COIN operations, and the Gripen is decidedly a defensive fighter and not a strike fighter.
I certainly didn't vote for that Duckworth (D) kept voting for surveillance. (KOSA, EARNIT, etc)
Either way, fundamentally your vote is not supposed to be more powerful than anyone else's (even if that does happen...): and it is a (representative) democracy.
It would be a bad government if asdff's votes got to overrule everyone else's. Your favored candidate can lose. But the best thing to do is convince others to rally behind your candidate and your ideas.
Mind you, you can also write your congress critter. It's a bit more effective than writing to random people on the internet.
Who do you know who is currently sitting in a seat of massive power in the US Government, watches TV and says things like, "I need to have that! Why do we not have that already? It will project strength, and all the best governments project strength at every opportunity!"
Even if it only moves the needle on 2-3 sales every decade, the ROI is probably great.
3,000lbs of avgas is only a few thousand dollars, you can run a formation flight for less than $15,000 plus maintenance. Cynically speaking, that's a bit of a steal when you've got the private sector paying millions for a 30-second ad spot.
https://www.af.mil/News/Article-Display/Article/4384084/air-...
Caveat: A non-trivial number of air assets are currently stationed or assigned on the other side of the world right now.
Citation: I used to be involved with flyovers.
Using a few planes for a fly-by, particularly of anything other than B2, wouldn’t possibly “give away” any info.