Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!cbmvax!jesup
From: jesup@cbmvax.UUCP (Randell Jesup)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga
Subject: Re: "Units sold" numbers?
Message-ID: <4193@cbmvax.UUCP>
Date: 7 Jul 88 02:21:14 GMT
References: <2899@tekig5.TEK.COM> <4142@cbmvax.UUCP> <12323@sunybcs.UUCP> 
Reply-To: jesup@cbmvax.UUCP (Randell Jesup)
Organization: Commodore Technology, West Chester, PA
Lines: 25

In article  mp1u+@andrew.cmu.edu (Michael Portuesi) writes:
>>     A  group of tech types  would  be  much more able to design ads that
>> appeal to tech type buyers than Ad company types who probally have Macs
>> anyway.
>
>I disagree.  I don't think a group of techies would do as well at reaching a
>computer-novice public as well as a good ad agency with people actually trained
>to do this sort of stuff.  To suggest that we can do a better job of designing
>advertisements than those who spend their lives doing it is pretty presumptuous
>and underestimates the difficulties involved in producing effective advertising.

	The problem with the advertising types is that a lot of them can't
tell the difference between a computer and a toaster.  If they're very, very
good, then they could probably advertise it well.  Unfortunately, most of
them aren't that good, and do a poor job.  I've seen some really horrible
ads/promotional material out of some pretty big-name agencies (some of whom
also work for C=).  I've also seen some very good stuff (the apple ads, the
old IBM (chaplin) ads, the old C= "your kid won't go to..." ads - which was
annoying to techies, but well done for the avg. public.)

	The best possible thing is a USER who is also an advertising guy.  A
true techie runs the risk of producing ads that only interest techies.

-- 
Randell Jesup, Commodore Engineering {uunet|rutgers|allegra}!cbmvax!jesup