Kodak to stop making digital cameras

On Tue, 14 Feb 2012 17:58:03 -0500, nospam
wrote:

In article , Eric Stevens
wrote:

Lost text reinserted:

[Trevor wrote:

History shows many of them are. But capitalist consumerism is about creating
a market and supplying that market at the biggest possible profit you can
manage. Some companies manage very big profits indeed, and still have their
customers coming back for more. In that case both would appear to be happy,
and what I think is irrelevant to either of them..


Do you have examples where customers are not regulatory required to
patronize a provider?

Apple.

nonsense.

What are you saying is nonsense?

Is it that:-

.... Apple does not have very big profits?

.... Apple does not have their customers come back for more.

.... Apple's customers are regulatory[sic] required to patronize
Apple?

Regards,

Eric Stevens

On 2/14/12 7:32 PM, in article ,
"tony cooper" wrote:

On Tue, 14 Feb 2012 18:19:46 -0500, Alan Browne
wrote:

long ago, apple's ads used to appeal to existing apple customers. now
their ads attract new customers.

Prove it. Apple don't even need to advertise these days.

Apple don't? [sic] Yet, they spend over half a billion dollars a year
in advertising. Half a billion!


One half of one percent of their CASH. Big deal!

In article , Eric Stevens
wrote:

Do you have examples where customers are not regulatory required to
patronize a provider?

Apple.

nonsense.

What are you saying is nonsense?

Is it that:-

... Apple does not have very big profits?

not that.

... Apple does not have their customers come back for more.

not that either.

... Apple's customers are regulatory[sic] required to patronize
Apple?

that's what's nonsense.

there is absolutely no requirement whatsoever that buying an apple
product requires someone to further patronize apple. some do, but
that's by their own choice.

the only apple product that has a recurring charge is the iphone if
it's purchased with a 2 year contract and that recurring charge is to a
cellular carrier, not apple. an iphone can also be purchased without
any contract.

"Eric Stevens" wrote in message
...
"Reasonable price" has nothing to do with it! The biggest profits are
made by selling products at *unreasonable* prices to suckers.
Some companies can do that for decades. Others only a short time.

Where there are free markets there is ample room for suckers to learn
better as competitors provide alternatives.
Otherwise a lot of buying is emotionally driven which is why there is a
whole industry called "Advertising".


Exactly, and since the advertising costs must be added to the sale price,
it
just further proves "reasonable price" is not a prime requirement as was
suggested.

Of course its a prime requisite. But so too is knowing that the
product exists and what it's claimed to do.


As I said, it's *NOT* a prime requistite. Making a profit IS, however you
achieve it. MANY companies sell at "unreasonable" prices by clever
marketing, and many of those make bigger profits than if they sold at more
"reasonable" prices with a lower marketing budget. BUT plenty of companies
have products that are almost universally known throughout the world (Apple
and Microsoft come to mind) so advertsing is not necessary just for people
to know the product exists (hell Apple gets most of their promotion free
every time they release a new product, and Microsoft has a pretty small
advertising budget relative to income. They COULD sell at lower prices and
still make significant profits (instead of tens or hundreds of $Billions)
however they sell at what the market will bear and make the maximum profit
they can. That is the normal capitalist way, the consumer has two choices,
take it or leave it! But "reasonable" price has absolutely NOTHING to do
with it, unless you consider ANY price to be "reasonable". I simply don't
agree with THAT definition of "reasonable".

Trevor.

"tony cooper" wrote in message
...
You wouldn't be able, for example, to buy a bar of soap for 10 cents
if wasn't for advertising. Without the market for the brand of soap
created by advertising, and volume sales, a bar of soap would cost
several dollars.

What crap, the biggest selling (and cheapest, the two NOT being unrelated)
soap at most supermarkets these days are no-name brands that have never had
a dollar spent on advertising, because many people realise they can save
money on such products, by ignoring the heavily advertised alternatives. And
most people already know they want soap, creating that market was done a
century or two ago!

Trevor.

"nospam" wrote in message
...
sure they're aware of the iphone but their knowledge probably ends
there. they probably think all smartphones are pretty much the same.

And still wouldn't know any better after seeing an Apple advertisment.

Trevor.

"tony cooper" wrote in message
news
Apple don't? [sic] Yet, they spend over half a billion dollars a year
in advertising. Half a billion!
Not that I'm against that, though. The money puts bread on the table
of a lot of people down the chain. But, you have to wonder if they
don't need to spend the money why *they* think they do.


It's their marketing choice, spend more on advertising so they can sell at a
higher price. Every company makes a choice whether to spend more on
marketing and increase the price of goods, or vice versa. They do whatever
they THINK will make them the most profit, and often change strategies if
they aren't working. At the moment Apples strategy seems to be working for
them, but Reebok did the same thing once upon a time, and I don't hear much
about *them* these days. Even Nike seems to be advertising their overpriced
sports wear less than they once did. I'll bet their sales and profits are
down since the prices don't seem to have dropped much in my neck of the
woods!

Trevor.

In article , Trevor
wrote:

sure they're aware of the iphone but their knowledge probably ends
there. they probably think all smartphones are pretty much the same.

And still wouldn't know any better after seeing an Apple advertisment.

sure they would. the current iphone ads are about siri, which is not
available on android.

"tony cooper" wrote in message
...
Go down aisle in the store where the paper towels are and you will see
nationally advertised brands and also a "store brand". The store
brand will be priced lower than the nationally advertised brands, but
the nationally advertised brands will out-sell the store brand. The
store brand will be a nationally advertised national brand private
labeled for the store, but the branded product will outsell the
private labeled product.

Perhaps once upon a time, but not any more for products where there is
little, if any difference. For example all our milk here comes from the same
limited number of producers, and two supermarket brands *FAR* outsell all
other brands (dozens) combined now. For some products there still is
significant difference however, some of our supermarket breakfast cerials
and biscuits are total crap, but some are getting better, and the sales
getting bigger.


You won't buy a brand of paper towels because you saw an ad for paper
towels, but you will probably pick out a brand because you have been
exposed to that brand by ads over time. Mentally, you've become
convinced that that brand is going to be a product you will like.

Obviously you are speaking from your own personal experience which does not
apply to everyone.


Think about paper towels and name the first brand that comes to mind.
If you are in the US, that name will probably be "Bounty" (The better
picker-upper). It comes to mind because of ads, and that's an edge
for Bounty when it comes to you choosing a paper towel.

Haven't bought anything but supermarket home brands for many years.


Washing machine customers fall in two basic categories: people buying
a washing machine because they don't have one or because their old one
no longer works, and people buying a washing machine because their
present machine is not performing and they think it is about to go.

What do these people do? They scan the ads to see what stores are
having sales or what brands are on sale. The makers of the washing
machine furnish artwork and co-op advertising money to be in these
ads.

And many smarter ones look in the consumer magazine test reports and
customer satisfaction surveys, or look for similar information on-line now.


You may be an exception and go straight to some local appliance store,
or straight to Sears and their Kenmore brand, but most people are
going to first look at the ads.

Many people these days look first on-line for reviews and consumer forums.


There are some stores that carry and feature their own brand of
appliances. You won't see ads for that brand, but you will see ads
for that store. Whether they're advertising the features and benefits
of a washing machine brand, or advertising the features and benefits
of shopping at that chain of stores, they're advertising.

That's true, but irrelevant to specific items. For example our supermarkets
home brand milk cornered the retail milk supply market by simply dropping
the price, but their breakfast cerials don't sell as well despite being
lower price, because the quality has been crap in the past, something they
are still trying to live down. No amount of store advertising will change
that overnight.


A huge amount of advertising is simply ignored. Can you remember the last
five
advertisements you saw?

Most people can't, but advertisers don't rely on your ability to
recall their ads. They want to embed the brand in your mind. That's
why the same ad is repeated over and over.

Which turns many people off as well.


What celebrity appears in a camera ad? If you are in the US, you know
you know and that you know what the brand is. You may not pay
attention to the ad, but the brand and the message has been embedded
in your mind.

Only if you actually like that celebrity. Would have a ngative impact on me
knowing how much they are (over) paid for simply being a mouthpiece.


(Personally, I find the celebrity an annoying prat, but I use the
brand if not the part of the product line he features.)

I *might* use the brand DESPITE the ads, but never because of them!
(have no idea what brand you are referring to in this case however)

Trevor.

In article , Trevor
wrote:

Apple don't? [sic] Yet, they spend over half a billion dollars a year
in advertising. Half a billion!
Not that I'm against that, though. The money puts bread on the table
of a lot of people down the chain. But, you have to wonder if they
don't need to spend the money why *they* think they do.

It's their marketing choice, spend more on advertising so they can sell at a
higher price.

except apple doesn't sell at a higher price. their prices are
competitive for comparable products. in fact, other companies are
petitioning intel to subsidize cpus so that they can compete with apple
on ultrabooks:

http://www.digitimes.com/news/a20110803PD214.html

The sources pointed out that the new MacBook Airs are priced at about
US$999-1,599 with rather strong demand in the US; however, designing
an ultrabook based on Intel's technical suggestions will still be
unable to reduce the machine's price level to lower than the MacBook
Air's unless Intel is willing to reduce its prices, which already
account for one-third of the total cost. If Intel does reduce its
prices there is a chance for vendors to provide pricing below
US$1,000.

macs aren't their only products anymore. iphones are competitive with
other smartphones and competing tablets are comparable or even *more*
expensive than the ipad. for example, the hp touchpad was the same
price as the ipad before it was killed off. the playbook with a smaller
screen than the ipad was also the same price. not surprisingly, it also
failed.

Every company makes a choice whether to spend more on
marketing and increase the price of goods, or vice versa. They do whatever
they THINK will make them the most profit, and often change strategies if
they aren't working. At the moment Apples strategy seems to be working for
them, but Reebok did the same thing once upon a time, and I don't hear much
about *them* these days. Even Nike seems to be advertising their overpriced
sports wear less than they once did. I'll bet their sales and profits are
down since the prices don't seem to have dropped much in my neck of the
woods!

maybe because those products weren't any different than anything else.