Post by account_disabled on Feb 12, 2024 21:46:26 GMT -6
So they are cheaper but worse. Cheaper but worse doesn't sound very convincing, does it? This is what those in power think. They may identify a potential opportunity and may even pay lip service to the fact that they should pursue it, but ultimately, their financial incentives favor maintaining the status quo. Herein lies the dilemma. There is usually a small segment of the market that thinks a new service is good enough. but it solves their urgent need and they can afford it.
As they invest, it gets better and better, capturing more and more market opportunities, until it meets Tokelau Email List the core needs of even the high-end market while still being structurally cheaper. Money cascades to new entrants, leaving established companies in trouble. Let's get back to cheaper but worse innovations. To me, this sounds a lot like the idea of building a brand online. Let’s take a look at the details: The established way to build a brand for a generation is through mass-market TV advertising and other classic online spend. Spending upwards of $100 million is not uncommon. Yes, it’s cheaper to build your brand online, but it’s not as effective yet.
Existing brand builders pay lip service to digital, but when you look at their corporate structures, fee structures and financial incentives, you realize they would rather see TV get bigger than All this confusion of internet marketing. So I think brand marketing is going to be disrupted, and I don't think it's going to benefit big companies. Online First I call this whole phenomenon online first: the biggest brands of tomorrow will be built online. This is partly because the tools we can use to build brands online will get better and better, and partly because money will flow from TV to digital media.
As they invest, it gets better and better, capturing more and more market opportunities, until it meets Tokelau Email List the core needs of even the high-end market while still being structurally cheaper. Money cascades to new entrants, leaving established companies in trouble. Let's get back to cheaper but worse innovations. To me, this sounds a lot like the idea of building a brand online. Let’s take a look at the details: The established way to build a brand for a generation is through mass-market TV advertising and other classic online spend. Spending upwards of $100 million is not uncommon. Yes, it’s cheaper to build your brand online, but it’s not as effective yet.
Existing brand builders pay lip service to digital, but when you look at their corporate structures, fee structures and financial incentives, you realize they would rather see TV get bigger than All this confusion of internet marketing. So I think brand marketing is going to be disrupted, and I don't think it's going to benefit big companies. Online First I call this whole phenomenon online first: the biggest brands of tomorrow will be built online. This is partly because the tools we can use to build brands online will get better and better, and partly because money will flow from TV to digital media.