Re: It's an ad, ad, ad world

From: Robin Faichney (
Date: Tue Jul 10 2001 - 12:53:55 BST

  • Next message: Kenneth Van Oost: "Re: Music !!"

    Received: by id OAA14195 (8.6.9/5.3[ref] for from; Tue, 10 Jul 2001 14:35:38 +0100
    Date: Tue, 10 Jul 2001 12:53:55 +0100
    Subject: Re: It's an ad, ad, ad world
    Message-ID: <>
    References: <>
    Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
    Content-Disposition: inline
    User-Agent: Mutt/1.3.15i
    In-Reply-To: <>; from on Tue, Jul 10, 2001 at 11:00:12AM +0100
    From: Robin Faichney <>
    X-RBL-Warning: ( is listed by
    Precedence: bulk

    On Tue, Jul 10, 2001 at 11:00:12AM +0100, Vincent Campbell wrote:
    > Maybe there's something memetic about the increasing ubiquity of
    > advertising- it's extent outweighs its (demonstrable) impact so what's
    > driving its spread?

    I operate a one-man business, and advertising is extremely important
    to me. And cost-effectiveness is essential -- if I pay more for an
    ad than it brings in, I suffer. So I try to monitor effectiveness,
    by asking clients where they saw the phone number, counting totals,
    and comparing with ad cost.

    Generally speaking, the bigger the business, the more systematic its
    methods. There can be no doubt about the fact that all successful
    businesses constantly monitor advertising cost-effectiveness, and cull
    the less effective ads and ad-types. So what I want to know is: where's
    the evidence that the extent of advertising outweighs its impact?

    "The distinction between mind and matter is in the mind, not in matter."
    Robin Faichney -- Inside Information --

    =============================================================== This was distributed via the memetics list associated with the Journal of Memetics - Evolutionary Models of Information Transmission For information about the journal and the list (e.g. unsubscribing) see:

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue Jul 10 2001 - 14:39:41 BST