Earlier quoted context omitted.
>I'm often unconvinced with arguments like "marketing is about fulfilling a customer's needs" or "adding efficiency to the market". This product is actually an ideal case for marketing, because most people weren't aware that a product like this existed. The best ads notify you about something you genuinely want to buy. What you're really complaining about is astroturfing , not marketing. The more dubious sort of mark…
> There are a lot of old consumer brands, and there are a lot of brands known for junk, but there aren't a lot of old consumer brands that are known for junk. This is why repeatedly buying old consumer brands and then turning them to junk is so insanely profitable. It takes years or decades for consumers to realize that a trusted brand is junk. The consumer never knows that the corporation that turned their brand to…
I wonder if such acquirers tend to reduce marketing spend? This could make sense, if they're operating on a shorter time horizon. Seems a little silly to try to both accumulate and spend down brand equity at the same time.
If so, lack of advertising could be a handy indicator of dropping product quality ;-)