A question for all you marketing types-does advertising have anything to do with the quality of a product?
The reason for my interest-I always research any product that I am contemplating buying-I figure a few minutes on the Net, or in the library can save me lots of headaches down the road. Anyway-take tires-there are many good brands (like Michelin)that advertise heavily, and their products are acknowledged to be pretty good. What about the “off brands”-like Cooper Tires? I’ve purchased Coopers for years, and never had a problem-and, they sell for considerably less! Now, we all know that advertising is expensive-I’ve developed a theory that says that smaller firms (which can’t afford $1,000,000/minute Superbowl advertising) put their money into product quality-and, they are able to sell for less!
I’ve had the same experience with other products-of course, not all off brands are good-some are really lousy and of low quality.
My question-has anyone studied this issue-are highly advertised brands really better than the competition-or, just more expensive?
I suspect there is only a weak correlation, if any - you can certainly find shitty products which advertise heavily, but some good products advertising heavily also.
A pet theory of mine: when you have a product or service that is advertised heavily by all major vendors, that is often a sign that the product or service has become heavily commoditized with very little real difference between the vendors. For instance, banks are advertising their asses off right now, and I perceive very little difference between, say, Wells Fargo and BofA.
egkelly,
It really depends on the products. With things like tires, advertising is going to do absolutely nothing for the consumer. The information you really want about a product like that are the detailed technical specifications that are not going to be communicated in advertising. Advertising for such products does achieve broader brand recognition, but that’s not going to do anything for you, the end-user.
With more complicated businesses, advertising does help the consumer. Consider Microsoft. There are a billion and twelve applications designed by four hundred and fifty-two developers to run on a WinTel platform. This is good for the consumer (duh). Why did those developers choose the platform that they did? Because of the brand recognition that Microsoft has achieved. The developers perceive a broad customer base because of Microsoft’s advertising campaigns. The end-users recognize the many alliances with Microsoft as a result of all the inter-vendor marketing.
To take this even further, consider Microsoft employees. Microsoft is able to attract and selectively employ some of the best employees available as a result of their brand. Thus, the product improves as a result of advertising of the product. Creepy, isn’t it?
BTW
In case it wasn’t obvious, the numbers I used in discussing developers were plucked from my posterior and have no basis in reality.
No theres none. Advertising is part of the marketing of a product. This has nothing to do with its quality, as marketers don’t design, produce, service, or provide customer support for the products.
I think what you’re hinting at is: are wealthy companies who can advertise better/bigger/more than others with smaller budgets better at producing product? Of course not wealthier does not mean better, as corporations can get loans, have many money-producing holdings, a variety of product lines, and receive corportate welfare/sweetheart deals. The larger scale the corporation and its market share the easier it is to receive large loans, use abusive market practices, and produce a crappy product. I’m thinking Microsoft here.
A richer company, who can advertise more, is not necessarily a fitter one as there’s many ways to make revenue, the least of which is producing a quality product.
Try Consumer Reports, not advertising.
Many moons ago Consumer Reports was embarrassed when the Firestone radials they favorably reviewed turned into a hazard later.
I recall a PBS pledge packet mention that TV advertising in 1993 cost every man, woman and child in the U.S. approx. $41 a year to view “free” TV programming.
Advertising in its purest form simply tells the public that the product is available. The very first newspaper in the U. S. (Public Occurances both Here and Abroad) carried a paid announcement that a farmer had corn for sale. That’s about as pure as it gets.
Okay, after that blather…the question was “Does advertising have anything to do with the quality of the product?”
No!
How could it?
I’ve written copy and produced spots for abominable products I personally wouldn’t spend a plug nickle for.
And before you say it I’ll already agree with it…WHORE!
Suppose I produce a product which has consumer-unobservable quality variations. Two sorts of companies might exist in this market:
one sells a variable quality product for a low price.
the other sells a constant quality product at a higher price
How does the second company sell its product and not get undercut by the first? By investing in reputation. An expensive advertising campaign signals “we’re going to be around for a long time, so we can’t afford to rip you off”.
I’m not suggesting that this is all that is involved in advertising, just showing that even if advertising were not at all informative about the price or obvious qualities, it still can benefit consumers.
picmr