We all pay for brands spending money on marketing, which then pay various platforms allowing these services to be exposed as “free”.
But wouldn’t it be the same if these brands spent less on marketing, and platforms became paid? Is it all a make-believe game? In the end, is it only about brand discoverability?
In: 0
That is oversimplified. One brand may want to spend $1000 because they believe that will get them more than $1000 of additional profit. Another brand/product may only want to spend $100 on ads. What you’re advocating is that these are “lumped” together and spread out to all users as a subscription.
Why? In essence, the company that believes it should spend less on ads is being subsidized by the company that believes it is more optimal to spend more. How will the platform decide which company gets more exposure? (just do it “equal”?). This is economically sub-optimal.
If you want to eat $10 ice cream and I want to eat $1 ice cream, it makes no sense for both of us to be forced to eat $5.50 ice cream. Even though the total $ spent is the same – the total satisfaction is NOT.
Latest Answers