[FoRK] Re: The Solution
fork at bitfurnace.com
Sun May 29 16:39:05 PDT 2005
Jeff Bone wrote:
> On May 29, 2005, at 5:58 PM, Damien Morton wrote:
>> So why draw a line at all. Lets not make business investment in the
>> wholesale changing of minds on the same level as business investment
>> in capital plant or r&d. Lets encourage business to serve markets
>> rather than create them.
> BTW, I didn't really recognize until the third or fourth re-read that
> you're actually being semi-serious, here. I'd say that warrants a
> semi-serious reaction...
Thanks for the consideration.
> Let's dig in. What, exactly, are we proposing, here? "Marketing" is
> an easy whipping boy, particularly for techies who, like most of us,
> have experienced the totally overwhelming anti-cluon zone that seems to
> exude from certain "marketing" types. Problem is, "marketing" is a
> very ambiguous concept --- even (sadly, perhaps usually) to its own
Im proposing that spending on "marketing", being any form of promotion,
dissemination of messages, persuasion, and so forth, from businesses,
should not be eligible as a business deduction, i.e. tax-free. It is not
tax-free when I call you up to tell you about this fantastic gizmo I
just discovered, so why should it be tax free for a business to do so.
Im also talking about PR and other insidious forms of meme
dissemination. All of those things should be taxed like any other form
of non-productive discretionary spending.
> There's a scientific side to marketing, one that studies such things as
> the diffusion of memes and the adoption of new "technologies." Are we
> suggesting that we ban that, for fear that such understanding might be
In general, the "best" products need little or no marketing. Everyone
just knows when they come across a quality product, and when they do,
they recommend them to their freinds. No marketing required here.
Marketing is the science of putting lipstick on pigs.
As an aside, I read in some marketing journal the other day that the
best measure of the growth potential of any business service or product
is the answer to one single question: "would you recommend this
product/service to your freinds".
> Or are we simply talking about advertising? If so, I guess we should
> be ready to also relinquish Google, free television, and a whole host
> of other things. (Come to think of it, that might improve television.
> But regardless it's going to massively reduce our choices in media,
> among other things.)
Im talking about advertising too. But Im not talking about a
prohibition, simply the use of tax law to discourage it, much in the
same way that tax law is used to discourage smoking.
> I just don't think the cost of putting up with advertising outweighs
> the benefits. And ideologically, I'm not sure it's sound to try to ban
> it: that action presupposes that people are incapable of making up
> their own minds in the presence of marketing / advertising "data."
Im not an absolutist in that sense, I merely observe that the goal of
most marketing is to circumvent the free will that people would
otherwise excersise. And it works - if it didnt, there would be no
marketing. But thats not to say that people arent capable of resisting
marketing, to a greater or lesser extent, but certainly not completely so.
> Perhaps I'm a pollyanna, but I like to believe that people are smarter
> than that.
> Despite all evidence to the contrary.
More information about the FoRK