Dec
14
An Unsolicited Email Defense, from Pam Van Giessen
December 14, 2006 |
I've been on Victor's wonderful lists for some years now and regularly read disparaging comments about promotion and marketing of this or that product, service, etc. as if the very act of promoting one's goods or services is in and of itself evil and denigrating. How do specs imagine that things are sold? By magic? Do you think that the stocks in the companies you trade would be worth anything if these firms and their affiliates didn't do all they could to promote their goods and services in the most cost efficient and results-oriented fashion? Do you really think that things get sold on advertising placed in declining newspaper and magazine circulations? Why wouldn't one turn to the internet, be it email or banner ads or whatever, where that is clearly where the action is? Or should goods and services not be promoted but sold only on the basis of gatekeeper reviews in these (declining circulation) vehicles? Should GE not promote their light bulbs or refrigerators actively but only in-store (by buying product placement shelf space) or through vetted reviewers such as Consumer Reports? Do you really want a world where gatekeepers determine what is promoted to you, and then tell you what to think about it? I don't — keep those spam mails coming from Nieman Marcus and zappos.com!. One would like it if only the best rose to the top, magically, with no promotion (of course, then your newspaper subscription would cost a lot more, and you'd pay for all tv, including local stations or your tax dollars would support such, or the Amazon discount wouldn't be as generous) but all firms would save a bundle in time and money. But this is not reality and it's never been the case. In time, the best survive but in the short run the best promoter wins (and the two are not mutually exclusive). Promotion is necessary and I'll go as far as to say it's not even a necessary evil. Promotion is good and long live promotion. With the internet it is an increasingly level playing field that anyone can join. People are inundated daily with messages from the stop sign on the way to work to the song in their head. They have a million things to do and see and read. The most effective promotion is not magazine or newspaper or whatever advertising (and I would suggest that it is ultimately the least effective because we've conditioned ourselves to ignore it) but promotion that reaches out and touches you. It may touch you by repetition, it may touch you personally, it may touch you by its outrageous message. But it must touch you, and often more than once. If you got the message the first time and responded, great, it was a message you were open to. But millions of other people might not have received the original message, or may not have been open to it at that moment. Jim Cramer is brilliant for his keen sense of promotion. Whether you buy what he is selling or not, millions adore the manner in which he delivers. Madonna is not the most talented singer in the room but she packaged herself in a way that reached out and touched people personally. She and Jim Cramer got our attention; the only difference is how they did it, but it was, at heart, extremely self-promotional. Before them there have been no shortage of savvy and aggressive direct mail marketers who have achieved great success by such promotions. The best promotion will hit you over the head like a Jim Cramer commercial, a Madonna sex video, or a repetitive email message. The best promotion is the personal touch. GE trying to sell you a fridge will lead to 0 sales which is why they bring in celebrity stand ins. Sony trying to sell the Justin Timberlake album will get 0 sales which is why Justin gets out there and self-promotes. The 'tude that the good and worthy (or successful) shouldn't promote because it is beneath them or tacky is exactly the attitude that has the libertarian party ranking somewhere below the Green party and Ralph Nader. No promotion = no attention and that is a ticket to failure for anyone or any business trying to sell something. I can well imagine any number of dead artists who achieved "success" after the fact who would love the opportunity to come back and have another go at the promotion thing. Even the rich and famous promote, and heartily. How do you think they got so rich and famous? By hiding? Whether Madonna or Tom Cruise or 'insert famous hedge fund manager names here', they all promote.
Comments
Archives
- January 2026
- December 2025
- November 2025
- October 2025
- September 2025
- August 2025
- July 2025
- June 2025
- May 2025
- April 2025
- March 2025
- February 2025
- January 2025
- December 2024
- November 2024
- October 2024
- September 2024
- August 2024
- July 2024
- June 2024
- May 2024
- April 2024
- March 2024
- February 2024
- January 2024
- December 2023
- November 2023
- October 2023
- September 2023
- August 2023
- July 2023
- June 2023
- May 2023
- April 2023
- March 2023
- February 2023
- January 2023
- December 2022
- November 2022
- October 2022
- September 2022
- August 2022
- July 2022
- June 2022
- May 2022
- April 2022
- March 2022
- February 2022
- January 2022
- December 2021
- November 2021
- October 2021
- September 2021
- August 2021
- July 2021
- June 2021
- May 2021
- April 2021
- March 2021
- February 2021
- January 2021
- December 2020
- November 2020
- October 2020
- September 2020
- August 2020
- July 2020
- June 2020
- May 2020
- April 2020
- March 2020
- February 2020
- January 2020
- December 2019
- November 2019
- October 2019
- September 2019
- August 2019
- July 2019
- June 2019
- May 2019
- April 2019
- March 2019
- February 2019
- January 2019
- December 2018
- November 2018
- October 2018
- September 2018
- August 2018
- July 2018
- June 2018
- May 2018
- April 2018
- March 2018
- February 2018
- January 2018
- December 2017
- November 2017
- October 2017
- September 2017
- August 2017
- July 2017
- June 2017
- May 2017
- April 2017
- March 2017
- February 2017
- January 2017
- December 2016
- November 2016
- October 2016
- September 2016
- August 2016
- July 2016
- June 2016
- May 2016
- April 2016
- March 2016
- February 2016
- January 2016
- December 2015
- November 2015
- October 2015
- September 2015
- August 2015
- July 2015
- June 2015
- May 2015
- April 2015
- March 2015
- February 2015
- January 2015
- December 2014
- November 2014
- October 2014
- September 2014
- August 2014
- July 2014
- June 2014
- May 2014
- April 2014
- March 2014
- February 2014
- January 2014
- December 2013
- November 2013
- October 2013
- September 2013
- August 2013
- July 2013
- June 2013
- May 2013
- April 2013
- March 2013
- February 2013
- January 2013
- December 2012
- November 2012
- October 2012
- September 2012
- August 2012
- July 2012
- June 2012
- May 2012
- April 2012
- March 2012
- February 2012
- January 2012
- December 2011
- November 2011
- October 2011
- September 2011
- August 2011
- July 2011
- June 2011
- May 2011
- April 2011
- March 2011
- February 2011
- January 2011
- December 2010
- November 2010
- October 2010
- September 2010
- August 2010
- July 2010
- June 2010
- May 2010
- April 2010
- March 2010
- February 2010
- January 2010
- December 2009
- November 2009
- October 2009
- September 2009
- August 2009
- July 2009
- June 2009
- May 2009
- April 2009
- March 2009
- February 2009
- January 2009
- December 2008
- November 2008
- October 2008
- September 2008
- August 2008
- July 2008
- June 2008
- May 2008
- April 2008
- March 2008
- February 2008
- January 2008
- December 2007
- November 2007
- October 2007
- September 2007
- August 2007
- July 2007
- June 2007
- May 2007
- April 2007
- March 2007
- February 2007
- January 2007
- December 2006
- November 2006
- October 2006
- September 2006
- August 2006
- Older Archives
Resources & Links
- The Letters Prize
- Pre-2007 Victor Niederhoffer Posts
- Vic’s NYC Junto
- Reading List
- Programming in 60 Seconds
- The Objectivist Center
- Foundation for Economic Education
- Tigerchess
- Dick Sears' G.T. Index
- Pre-2007 Daily Speculations
- Laurel & Vics' Worldly Investor Articles