Comments by "" (@TheDavidlloydjones) on "Tom Nicholas"
channel.
-
1
-
@Otzkar
Yes. But.
There are two examples which support your thesis, the honesty of the Quakers, as exemplified by Quaker Oats, and the trustworthiness of kashrut, as shown, unusually, by Hershey's chocolate.
The Quaker Oats people first got rich by refusing to negotiate prices back before the American Revolution. They said, first to themselves, then sotto voce to the public, "It is a lie to say the price is so-and-so when in fact you're willing to sell for a lower price. We're just going to say what our selling price is and that's that." People believed them, and made note of the fact that they didn't have to waste time haggling. Sales up. profits up. Prices? Exactly sideways.
Kashrut? Is kosher better? Well, yes, or no, or maybe. Kosher killing of beeves, which has been copies, centuries ago by Moslems, is less unmerciful than the ancient alternatives. The ban on pork was certainly wise before modern verterinary medicine, and still makes sense today in tropical climates. Other than those examples, it's pretty much of a wash, imho. Your moleage may differ. Anyway, about 70% of everything out there is kosher, whether it has a heksher on it or not.
The counter-examples, Otzkar, are legion. The fact is, volume production makes things cheaper. Henry Ford was right -- but not quite as right as he thought once Alfred P. Sloan came along and rationalized General Motors -- with its rainbow of different colored cars (using fast-drying paint pioneered by, General Motors again, Charles Kettering.) {The long and interesting Ford story also involves two or three brilliant engineers on his staff, and any number of stupid mistakes. But they're not central to this, very important, advertising story.}
Long story short: Net net, over the whole economy, advertising pays for itself. But. So does Consumers Digest.
What you say here, Otzkar, is a good precautionary thought. It's not a sound rule.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1