Young organizations that want to succeed are usually unknown, so logically, they will beenfit from buying attention. If the leadership is product rather than marketing focused, engaging a professional firm is a sign of additional credibility isn’t it?
An alternative to paying for creditworthiness would be reputation within a small community. Seems like a breeding ground for collusion through an ‘old boys network’. Military bureaucracies are notorious for this kind of corruption, mutual participation in conflict as a way of developing cohesion keeps outsiders out, and motivates protecting insiders from outside scrutiny.
Buy my attention and hire the best auditors you can find, early please.
so logically, they will beenfit from buying attention.
Totally! I think I will add a section to the FAQ that’s something like “so are you saying all marketing spending is bad?”. Because I am really not centrally talking about “marketing”. Marketing is usually good! Getting information about your product out to more people who need to hear it genuinel increases your future returns and makes you legitimately a better investment target.
The thing I am talking about is marketing, or persuasion, or pressure, specifically targeted at the “creditworthiness” dimension. FTX Marketing that propagated the information that they are the most trustworthy cryptoexchange, Theranos media campaigns that tried to squash any doubt about their product working, Enron’s payouts to shareholders combined with the explicit assurance that future investors would receive the same, those are not straightforward marketing actions, they are expenditures narrowly aimed at increasing specifically creditworthiness, not increasing expected future realized returns. Marketing is usually the latter and so totally fine!
Yeah. For my taste your paragraph is still written on a slightly higher level abstraction than what is helpful for people who have never actually done any marketing of things before (i.e. says “The normal context of marketing is to pay someone to get information about your product out to potential buyers” but doesn’t follow up with “For instance, how big your product is, or what shops they can buy it in”). But it is just a matter of taste.
Young organizations that want to succeed are usually unknown, so logically, they will beenfit from buying attention. If the leadership is product rather than marketing focused, engaging a professional firm is a sign of additional credibility isn’t it?
An alternative to paying for creditworthiness would be reputation within a small community. Seems like a breeding ground for collusion through an ‘old boys network’. Military bureaucracies are notorious for this kind of corruption, mutual participation in conflict as a way of developing cohesion keeps outsiders out, and motivates protecting insiders from outside scrutiny.
Buy my attention and hire the best auditors you can find, early please.
Totally! I think I will add a section to the FAQ that’s something like “so are you saying all marketing spending is bad?”. Because I am really not centrally talking about “marketing”. Marketing is usually good! Getting information about your product out to more people who need to hear it genuinel increases your future returns and makes you legitimately a better investment target.
The thing I am talking about is marketing, or persuasion, or pressure, specifically targeted at the “creditworthiness” dimension. FTX Marketing that propagated the information that they are the most trustworthy cryptoexchange, Theranos media campaigns that tried to squash any doubt about their product working, Enron’s payouts to shareholders combined with the explicit assurance that future investors would receive the same, those are not straightforward marketing actions, they are expenditures narrowly aimed at increasing specifically creditworthiness, not increasing expected future realized returns. Marketing is usually the latter and so totally fine!
I think it would be helpful to list information that you can spread via marketing that isn’t about credit-wrothiness.
What problem your product is trying to solve
How much your product costs
What your product looks like
Who your product is for
These are all different from
The company is trustworthy and reliable
Did you read the relevant section of the FAQ I added? I could list more examples, but I feel like that section is relatively clear.
Yeah. For my taste your paragraph is still written on a slightly higher level abstraction than what is helpful for people who have never actually done any marketing of things before (i.e. says “The normal context of marketing is to pay someone to get information about your product out to potential buyers” but doesn’t follow up with “For instance, how big your product is, or what shops they can buy it in”). But it is just a matter of taste.