1. better product wins
I never formally studied marketing, but I read some books about
marketing, among them "The 22 Immutable Laws of Marketing" by Al Ries
and Jack Trout. At first I was impressed by this book, before I spent
much time thinking about it. After reading it over and over, and parts
of it many times, and pondering it, I came to the conclusion that this
book contains probably more crap, page for page, than any other book
I ever read. Especially chapter 4, The Law Of Perception.
It was at this time that I said "to hell with books about marketing"
if this is the kind of crap they are full of, and I decided to do my
own thinking on the subject. Poor as my own thinking is, it can't be worse
than this kind of crap.
As I said in a previous message, my theory of marketing is:
Rule 1. Between unequal products, the better one wins.
Rule 2. Between equal products, the first one wins.
The word "better" in rule 1 has to be properly understood.
It means better for the customer's purposes. Different customers have
different purposes. And their purposes are not necessarily what the
creator of the product thinks their purposes ought to be.
Obviously these rules assume that a product is advertised enough so that
people know of its existence, and is accessible so people can get it if
they want it, and is not prohibited by law.
Al Ries and Jack Trout believe that whether a product wins has nothing
to do with quality of the product.
ADVERTISING:
Can an inferior product be successfully advertised so that it wins over
the superior product, thereby invalidating Rule 1 ?
David Ogilvy was probably almost the ultimate guru on the subject of
advertising. He speaks from experience as a professional advertiser.
He says that if he puts his mind to it, he can write an advertisement
that will sell an inferior product. Once. As soon as people find out
that it is an inferior product, they stop buying it. In fact the more
money is spent advertising the inferior product, the quicker people
find out that it is inferior and the quicker they stop buying it.
Therefore his policy was to advertise only the best products.
Not even the great master of advertising, David Ogilvy, Himself, could
violate my rule number one.
MICROSOFT:
Can rule number 1 be violated by means of enough market-domination,
such as Microsoft has?
No. Not even Microsoft can violate rule number one, keeping in mind
a proper understanding of the word "better".
( BTW, Microsoft spends something like half a billion a year finding out
what people want. This fact demonstrates that Microsoft understands the
meaning of the word "better" in rule number one. )
As evidence that even Microsoft can't win with inferior products, I offer:
http://www.independent.org/tii/news/990921/IBD.html
Jerry Story
2. Re: better product wins
2 words: Betamax and VHS
Thomas Parslow (PatRat) ICQ #:26359483
Rat Software
http://www.rat-software.com/
Please leave quoted text in place when replying
3. Re: better product wins
- Posted by kwibus at ZONNET.NL
Jul 02, 2001
One question: Who is president of the U.S.A. at the moment?
U.C.? That proofs you wrong!
----- Original Message -----
From: <jstory at freenet.edmonton.ab.ca>
To: "EUforum" <EUforum at topica.com>
Subject: better product wins
> >
> >
> snip <
4. Re: better product wins
- Posted by irvm at ellijay.com
Jul 02, 2001
----- Original Message -----
From: <jstory at freenet.edmonton.ab.ca>
> ADVERTISING:
> Can an inferior product be successfully advertised so that it wins over
> the superior product, thereby invalidating Rule 1 ?
Ever eat a Big Mac?
I rest my case,
Irv
5. Re: better product wins
Jerry,
----- Original Message -----
From: <jstory at freenet.edmonton.ab.ca>
To: "EUforum" <EUforum at topica.com>
Subject: better product wins
> As I said in a previous message, my theory of marketing is:
>
> Rule 1. Between unequal products, the better one wins.
> Rule 2. Between equal products, the first one wins.
Sorry -have to disagree. Even Mr Spock once said that logic is not the end
but the beginning of the road to wisdom. You're selling reason to people who
think it's a good buy when dog food is 50% off, even if they don't have a
dog.
> The word "better" in rule 1 has to be properly understood.
> It means better for the customer's purposes. Different customers have
> different purposes. And their purposes are not necessarily what the
> creator of the product thinks their purposes ought to be.
Usually, it means better as the customer has been led to believe is
profitable and fulfilling, preferably under the impression that it was
her/his own great idea. This is not incompatible with good products, but
neither is it related.
> Obviously these rules assume that a product is advertised enough so that
> people know of its existence, and is accessible so people can get it if
> they want it, and is not prohibited by law.
You mean, like drugs?
> Al Ries and Jack Trout believe that whether a product wins has nothing
> to do with quality of the product.
This is called 'positioning', quite the rage these days. Theory goes that it
doesn't matter how good the product is, or even what it is or does, but if
enough idiots have brand and logo stamped repeatedly into their willing
brains (a mark is born every day, not really a new notion), enough products
will sell regardless their qualities, usefulness and even price. Why do you
think most marketing these days is aimed at children and preteens?
> ADVERTISING:
> Can an inferior product be successfully advertised so that it wins over
> the superior product, thereby invalidating Rule 1 ?
> David Ogilvy was probably almost the ultimate guru on the subject of
> advertising. He speaks from experience as a professional advertiser.
> He says that if he puts his mind to it, he can write an advertisement
> that will sell an inferior product. Once. As soon as people find out
> that it is an inferior product, they stop buying it. In fact the more
> money is spent advertising the inferior product, the quicker people
> find out that it is inferior and the quicker they stop buying it.
> Therefore his policy was to advertise only the best products.
> Not even the great master of advertising, David Ogilvy, Himself, could
> violate my rule number one.
David Ogilvy may be a moral guy, or maybe he just has made his pile already
and can afford to look moral. Before people realize the product's inferior
and stop buying it, you have the replacement ready and 'positioned' in their
minds. Does anyone ever really investigate what's new in a 'New formula!'
detergent?
> MICROSOFT:
> Can rule number 1 be violated by means of enough market-domination,
> such as Microsoft has?
> No. Not even Microsoft can violate rule number one, keeping in mind
> a proper understanding of the word "better".
> ( BTW, Microsoft spends something like half a billion a year finding out
> what people want. This fact demonstrates that Microsoft understands the
> meaning of the word "better" in rule number one. )
Do you really think you can assert that, seeing that a huge majority of the
world's PC users have at most a vague idea that other OSs and application
suites exist, most of them not as pretty (read, good) as Microsoft's? What
Microsoft has done is an excellent job of convincing everyone that there's
no alternative, unless you're a freaky weirdo geeky nerd. I have no
intention to spend a single buck on Office 2000, when my (free) StarOffice
5.2 can read all 2000 formats perfectly well. How many people do you think
I've convinced? Do you really think that Windows is better than Linux or
Solaris? That Word is better than WordPerfect or StarWriter? Mind you, I'm
not taking sides, just pointing out that 99% of the users haven't even had
the chance to compare, so how could they choose the better one?
> As evidence that even Microsoft can't win with inferior products, I
offer:
>
> http://www.independent.org/tii/news/990921/IBD.html
>
>
> Jerry Story
Sorry, it has moved. What was it?
Gerardo
PS. Cheer up. These are the good old times you're gonna miss twenty years
from now. 
6. Re: better product wins
- Posted by irvm at ellijay.com
Jul 03, 2001
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: <jstory at freenet.edmonton.ab.ca>
> To: "EUforum" <EUforum at topica.com>
> Sent: Monday, July 02, 2001 1:19 PM
> Subject: better product wins
>
> > As I said in a previous message, my theory of marketing is:
> >
> > Rule 1. Between unequal products, the better one wins.
> > Rule 2. Between equal products, the first one wins.
>
That's a nice theory. If you want a look at reality, rent a copy of "A Man
and His Dream",
by Francis Ford Coppola. It's basically the story of someone who created a
much better
product, the first of its kind (about 30 years ahead of the competition).
After you see the
video, see if you still think those rules apply.
Regards,
Irv
7. Re: better product wins
--On Monday, July 02, 2001 10:19 AM -0600 jstory at freenet.edmonton.ab.ca
wrote:
>
>
> I never formally studied marketing, but I read some books about
> marketing, among them "The 22 Immutable Laws of Marketing" by Al Ries
> and Jack Trout. At first I was impressed by this book, before I spent
> much time thinking about it. After reading it over and over, and parts
> of it many times, and pondering it, I came to the conclusion that this
> book contains probably more crap, page for page, than any other book
> I ever read. Especially chapter 4, The Law Of Perception.
> It was at this time that I said "to hell with books about marketing"
> if this is the kind of crap they are full of, and I decided to do my
> own thinking on the subject. Poor as my own thinking is, it can't be worse
> than this kind of crap.
>
> As I said in a previous message, my theory of marketing is:
>
> Rule 1. Between unequal products, the better one wins.
> Rule 2. Between equal products, the first one wins.
>
> The word "better" in rule 1 has to be properly understood.
> It means better for the customer's purposes. Different customers have
> different purposes. And their purposes are not necessarily what the
> creator of the product thinks their purposes ought to be.
>
> Obviously these rules assume that a product is advertised enough so that
> people know of its existence, and is accessible so people can get it if
> they want it, and is not prohibited by law.
>
> Al Ries and Jack Trout believe that whether a product wins has nothing
> to do with quality of the product.
>
> ADVERTISING:
> Can an inferior product be successfully advertised so that it wins over
> the superior product, thereby invalidating Rule 1 ?
> David Ogilvy was probably almost the ultimate guru on the subject of
> advertising. He speaks from experience as a professional advertiser.
> He says that if he puts his mind to it, he can write an advertisement
> that will sell an inferior product. Once. As soon as people find out
> that it is an inferior product, they stop buying it. In fact the more
> money is spent advertising the inferior product, the quicker people
> find out that it is inferior and the quicker they stop buying it.
> Therefore his policy was to advertise only the best products.
> Not even the great master of advertising, David Ogilvy, Himself, could
> violate my rule number one.
>
> MICROSOFT:
> Can rule number 1 be violated by means of enough market-domination,
> such as Microsoft has?
> No. Not even Microsoft can violate rule number one, keeping in mind
> a proper understanding of the word "better".
> ( BTW, Microsoft spends something like half a billion a year finding out
> what people want. This fact demonstrates that Microsoft understands the
> meaning of the word "better" in rule number one. )
> As evidence that even Microsoft can't win with inferior products, I
> offer:
>
> http://www.independent.org/tii/news/990921/IBD.html
>
>
> Jerry Story
>
>
<snip>
>
>
8. Re: better product wins
There are just too many examples of inferior products 'winning' that people
have already pointed out, that show your laws to be wrong. People have
already mentioned the Tucker automobile, Beta tapes, George W. Bush
(jokingly), and a few more.
Here are some others: Nagra and Stellavox. Most of you have probably
never heard of either, but Nagra has been the world standard in film
production recording for decades. Stellavox made a better, smaller,
easier-to-use product. So why have even most people in the film industry
never heard of Stellavox, whereas everyone has heard of/uses Nagra?
Because Nagra won a big military contract, and thereby prospered.
Stellavox was not yet established enough to be able to deliver the
quantities needed. Nagra continues to be dominant to this day, and
Stellavox is all but forgotten. It is not that Nagra is bad--it is
absolutely excellent. But Stellavox was a better product.
That is but one example. There are just too many factors, including the
most powerful, "It's who you know", to be so naive as to think that a
better product will always win.
It is interesting reading the discussions on Euphoria, regarding
open-sourcing it, etc. I sense that many are getting frustrated, and
reaching a sort of critical mass. On the other hand, Rob Craig doesn't
seem too rushed at all, and is willing to be patient, and watch Euphoria
gain momentum more slowly than many of the users would like.
Open-source doesn't necessarily mean no money. As anyone in IT knows, the
up-front costs for most items, be they hardware or software are minor
compared to the maintenance and improvement of those products. Red-Hat
does quite well SUPPORTING free software, and also makes some money by
putting it in a box. Other companies make a good living SUPPORTING Linux,
Apache, BIND, content-management systems, and other open-source projects.
But a programming language? It seems only O'Reilly and other publishers,
and progammers make money off of an open-source programming language. But
who else does? I'm eager to hear how anyone would think RDS could bring in
profits were they to open-source Euphoria. Obviously Rob would be the
first guy O'Reilly called if they wanted a book on the subject... Rob could
probably charge more for any programming he does, were that book to come
out, and Euphoria to go mainstream. Any other ideas? I can't think of too
many.
Regards,
Ted
--On Monday, July 02, 2001 10:19 AM -0600 jstory at freenet.edmonton.ab.ca
wrote:
>
>
> I never formally studied marketing, but I read some books about
> marketing, among them "The 22 Immutable Laws of Marketing" by Al Ries
> and Jack Trout. At first I was impressed by this book, before I spent
> much time thinking about it. After reading it over and over, and parts
> of it many times, and pondering it, I came to the conclusion that this
> book contains probably more crap, page for page, than any other book
> I ever read. Especially chapter 4, The Law Of Perception.
> It was at this time that I said "to hell with books about marketing"
> if this is the kind of crap they are full of, and I decided to do my
> own thinking on the subject. Poor as my own thinking is, it can't be worse
> than this kind of crap.
>
> As I said in a previous message, my theory of marketing is:
>
> Rule 1. Between unequal products, the better one wins.
> Rule 2. Between equal products, the first one wins.
>
> The word "better" in rule 1 has to be properly understood.
> It means better for the customer's purposes. Different customers have
> different purposes. And their purposes are not necessarily what the
> creator of the product thinks their purposes ought to be.
>
> Obviously these rules assume that a product is advertised enough so that
> people know of its existence, and is accessible so people can get it if
> they want it, and is not prohibited by law.
>
> Al Ries and Jack Trout believe that whether a product wins has nothing
> to do with quality of the product.
>
> ADVERTISING:
> Can an inferior product be successfully advertised so that it wins over
> the superior product, thereby invalidating Rule 1 ?
> David Ogilvy was probably almost the ultimate guru on the subject of
> advertising. He speaks from experience as a professional advertiser.
> He says that if he puts his mind to it, he can write an advertisement
> that will sell an inferior product. Once. As soon as people find out
> that it is an inferior product, they stop buying it. In fact the more
> money is spent advertising the inferior product, the quicker people
> find out that it is inferior and the quicker they stop buying it.
> Therefore his policy was to advertise only the best products.
> Not even the great master of advertising, David Ogilvy, Himself, could
> violate my rule number one.
>
> MICROSOFT:
> Can rule number 1 be violated by means of enough market-domination,
> such as Microsoft has?
> No. Not even Microsoft can violate rule number one, keeping in mind
> a proper understanding of the word "better".
> ( BTW, Microsoft spends something like half a billion a year finding out
> what people want. This fact demonstrates that Microsoft understands the
> meaning of the word "better" in rule number one. )
> As evidence that even Microsoft can't win with inferior products, I
> offer:
>
> http://www.independent.org/tii/news/990921/IBD.html
>
>
> Jerry Story
>
>
<snip>
>
>
