My point is that while to you, what you say is the truth, they could honestly think they are telling the truth, in that case its not likely but Isreal/palastine would be a better exmaple, the truth is amazingly hard to nail down.

Well, things change. Brands now are developed as much as anything else, image of a product changes all the time to target different demographics etc and reputations can be bought.

That's the belief that the marketing folks are selling; it keep them employed. In fact, ultimatly customers discover where quality lies...or where the marketers do. :-) The Internet accelerates this effect; see http://cluetrain.com

Ferinstance, do you think it's Bob Villa showing up on the TV that creates or preserves the quality reputation that Craftsman Tools has? He *does* keep the sales up, of course, by hyping new products. But the real reason for the success of that brand is that the tools actually *are* of reasonably high quality, and have been for many decades now. If they started making and selling crap, all the marketing in the world won't save the brand. And Sears would have lost an invaluable and irreplacable intangible asset.

Oh...wait....you folks don't *have* Sears Roebuck down there, do you...never mind.

Quote:

My point is that while to you, what you say is the truth, they could honestly think they are telling the truth...

Sure, it's *possible*. And monkeys could fly out of my butt, as Wayne used to say. And I'm sure that a fair number of them have gotten to a state where they don't *care* whether it's true, just to preserve their state of mind.

But you don' t really think that they *do* believe the hooey that they dish out, do you? This is an issue you might want to clarify before deciding on a career.

Of course not, thats why i posed another example.

Entirely true, but good marketing can easily make or break a product. First impressions count, and keeping market interest, nto to mention initially getting it is crucial.

You would be suprised at the amount of things that can be modified in our brains so as to supplant our "true" memories. For example: Adults were shown a picture of Disney World with Bugs Bunny in it. A signifigant number of the them later recalled seeing Bugs when they had visited Disney World as children. Our minds are incrediblly plastic which is why true is somewhat of an abstract. If you know you're lying then you're lying, but what if you truely believe that you are telling the truth?

Product promotion will create some initial sales. But for repeat business, the growth and nurturing of a reputation--a brand--is essential.

That's not something that happens by continually turning the crank on the media box, no matter how clever the ad agency is. If people don't have good experiences with your product and your customer service organization, they will eventually go elsewhere.

I"m not disagree with that but if people don't ehar about the product, if you don't associate an image with it sales are going to be slower. Take the newest radio station here, NovaFM. 2 weeks before they launched they started a huge advertising capigin with a series of very funny ads all over the city, they bough entire train stations worth of ads as well a a number of very cool paineted cars going roudn giving out freebies, the restul? Number 1 station after 6 weeks of operation. Of course the quality of the product had a role to play in that, but its getting that image in peoples minds, will to try it that helped propell it so quickly.

Image is essential, i mean why the hell does AOL keep growing? I don't think its quality of service, its what is percieved to give.

Is it Australia Online downunder?

Nope.

Quality percieved by the user is indeed the key. In the case of hard-core AOLers, they simply don't *know* what they're buying, and the product is designed to keep them that way.

hmmm... This looks like a generational difference of perspective. Unfortunately, Jags view is in ascendence so we'll have more and more "producers" concerned with perception over reallity. It could be a result of so much manufacturing going offshore and labels having little to do with who actually manufactures the items.

Maybe. But you'll find this total focus on image at the top of most large corporations too, most of whom are headed by ex-marketing folk, (who do an oh, so good job of selling *themselves*).

It actually explains a lot of the total bullshit you see from those organizations, too. A CEO doesn't have to have a real reputaion, just has to "build his brand" long enough to retire. With today's compensation packages that doesn't take long.

Of course, "image-based accounting" has gotten a lot of investor and regulator attention lately too. Funny how investors don't want to buy stock in a company that only "looks good" until the gloss wears off.

I seem to ahve been misinterpreted. If a company has a shithouse product, tis going to fail. But if it has a good product, good marketing will help it along. Yin and Yang of good business.

Like "new" Coke 17 years ago. ;)

Actually, the "new" Coke did a very good job distrracting people who liked the original formula from the fact that "classic" coke has a different formula (more corn syrup, less sugar=cheaper) from the original.

But the change in sweetener occurred well before new Coke was released.