Re: [NYT] First public mention of ad-filtering proxies

Dave Long (
Thu, 17 Jun 1999 19:46:14 -0700

> Now, they desperately want some "stuff" for their money. Ineffable
> "status" is a kind of "stuff" at the extreme levels, but on average,
> the price difference between Generic Corn Flakes and Kellogg's Corn
> Flakes with K-sentials is about the upper bound of how much that
> "choice" is worth. Suppose it's as high as 10%.
> Mind you, this implies your average consumer is too stupid to realize
> your product consists of .9 stuff and .1 advertising for every unit
> of generic goods.

Is it as low as 10%? The Coca-Cola Company manages to have larger "selling,
administrative, and general expenses" than their "cost of goods sold". P&G
are somewhat more reassuring; they seem to hold "marketing, research, and
administrative" to around half of "cost of products sold". Kellog falls
somewhere in between. I find it difficult to believe these companies go
through enough staplers and sticky pads for G&A to be much of these figures;
somebody please tell me if they aren't a reasonable proxy for advertising vs.
stuff ratios.

According to the BEA's NIPA tables[1], food ranks just behind housing and
medical care in personal expenditures. Housing is expensive enough that
advertising/transaction fees are probably nominal, but medical care might
prove to be another low-stuff area.

Any FoRKs with suggestions for methodology, or pointers to previous studies?
I'm curious as to what the stuff ratio may be for the personal expenditure


[1] <>