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