>Now the submission unfortunately doesn't define what it means by marketing, but I don't think it's talking about pricing or the decision where you sell a product. Kinda have to read between the lines, but it's probably talking about promotional content about the product. Definitely not pricing or the location where you choose to make a product available for purchase.
Well I was replying to a user that said he was not significantly affected by marketing, because he does things like sorting products by "cheapest" and reads the product ingredients. I simply said that those decisions are made purposefully and are not random. It's a way to position products.
A product it's cheap because it was designed that way. It won't lose value over time dropping the price tiers until it reaches the price with almost 0% margin, rendering it into a great deal that simply followed some natural event of dropping price while retaining it's value.
About the main article I simply said that we should be aware that "promotional content" is everywhere, and relying on the illusion that "the marketing never catch me, I use adblockers" is just that, an illusion. That probably won't even make them wonder they are actually being promoted to. Flagging content as promotion is the exception, not the rule.
> Well I was replying to a user that said he was not significantly affected by marketing, because he does things like sorting products by "cheapest" and reads the product ingredients. I simply said that those decisions are made purposefully and are not random. It's a way to position products.
If I read Jensson's comment in the context of this article and the comment they were replying to, then I think they are saying that they are not affected much by promotional marketing material. Coming out of the bushes to say that the things they care about (ingredients, price, store) is also marketing (for a sufficiently wide definition of marketing) isn't adding any insight. It feels like deliberately missing the point just to argue for the sake of arguing.
Well I didn't read it like that, neither I think it makes sense to have that interpretation.
It's pretty straight forward, second sentence: My first instinct whenever I see something in an ad or something being marketed is to assume it is a scam and just move on
Then he goes on about his buying habits and said that "Companies hates people like me, they would rather I not see their ads since it is just a dud anyway.", so for me it was pretty clear he was talking about marketing in general, then he went more specifically about ads.
I simply said that pricing, packaging and placement are examples of marketing tools used to position products and services. This has been in text books since the 60's. A product listing is literally being marketed to, per definition.
So I really don't understand how this is missing the point, or how I'm deliberately missing it by pointing some marketing tools used in the Marketing Mix.
Well I was replying to a user that said he was not significantly affected by marketing, because he does things like sorting products by "cheapest" and reads the product ingredients. I simply said that those decisions are made purposefully and are not random. It's a way to position products.
A product it's cheap because it was designed that way. It won't lose value over time dropping the price tiers until it reaches the price with almost 0% margin, rendering it into a great deal that simply followed some natural event of dropping price while retaining it's value.
About the main article I simply said that we should be aware that "promotional content" is everywhere, and relying on the illusion that "the marketing never catch me, I use adblockers" is just that, an illusion. That probably won't even make them wonder they are actually being promoted to. Flagging content as promotion is the exception, not the rule.