Speaker Hall of Fame

[kexodusc]

Hi Spacedeckman,
Actually I am aware of that fact...but my post was factually correct (if I do say so myself ) and I didn't make a mistake. Check again - I said Coke is one of "the worst advertisers of all time in terms of generating new sales"
Key words being "new sales" as in market growth....market share retention is another subject.
But for generating new sales, consider: New Coke, OK Cola, Coke 2, C2, Vanilla Coke, Cherry Coke, etc...disasters (though some enjoyed brief short term success)

Geoffcin:
I appreciate your efforst to moderate, but there is more than enough interest in the continuation of the "side discussion" this thread has evolved into. Since we all seem to be respectful still (no name calling yet), I would respectfully ask that this be allowed to continue without interruption...these forums are, afterall, here for us, and it's not like we're preventing other people from posting with respect to the original thread title. What's the wost thing that could happen?
Thanks...

[spacedeckman]

I will grant you the "growth" aspect. C2, New Coke, etc prove that unconditonally. Not only were they bad products, they were poorly thought out, and poorly advertised. Proof the company is in a defensive posture rather than offensive. In their position, they really can't grow within the category much more, since there isn't enough room in the category. Advertising for them is like an investment "stop loss" order.

Okay, you argued your point. I will give you an A- and a half for the post.

[kexodusc]

Okay, you argued your point. I will give you an A- and a half for the post.

A - and a half???? Woo hoo!!! Too bad you weren't my IMC prof at OU (Boomer Sooner!!!)


I've always thought Pepsi's been on the right track. They've used the same model/pop-star formula to sell their product for decades. If you're ever in Atlanta, go to the Coke Museum...amazing piece of Americana, and you can try out New Coke, which actually tastes better than Coke Classic according to all research (and my own opinion)...proof that superiority doesn't always sell either!!!
Cheers!

[spacedeckman]

they still use sugar, not corn sweetener.

I still maintain that New Coke was just a way to allow more corn sweetener in the old stuff, and pass it off. Old Coke was destined to return, but if they could have had two brands, one tasting more like Pepsi (sweeter, less carbonation) and the original that was now much cheaper to produce, they would have won. They got half, and still won.

[Geoffcin]

Geoffcin:
I appreciate your efforst to moderate, but there is more than enough interest in the continuation of the "side discussion" this thread has evolved into. Since we all seem to be respectful still (no name calling yet), I would respectfully ask that this be allowed to continue without interruption...these forums are, afterall, here for us, and it's not like we're preventing other people from posting with respect to the original thread title. What's the wost thing that could happen?
Thanks...

The thread is about Speakers. It's in the Speaker Forum. To post about the marketing models that Coke or Pepsi uses is far off topic and belongs in another forum

No one want's you to stop your thread, just move it to a more appropriate forum.

Unfortunalty the worst thing that could happen when a thread gets hijacked, has already. The thread has lost any member interest in the original "Speaker hall of fame" topic.

[spacedeckman]

It was just getting interesting.

[topspeed]

Since my thread has been completely derailed now, let me just push it right off the cliff while we're at it:

I've got two words for you RGA:
Prove It
You've made a lot of bold claims, most likely from such reliable sources as Peter Q and your a$$. If you want to take the entire audio industry to task for not doing things Peter's way, let's see some proof. B&W uses Tweeter On Top placement for marketing, eh? It has nothing to do with proper dispersion and time alignment as they purport? Maybe you're right, it's all a sham. Give me a link and prove it.

While you're at it, you state their engineers have been given orders to rank aesthetics over sound quality. OK, prove it.

You state B&W engineers think AN speakers sound better but are helpless to do anything about it. Prove it. (No links to AA threads with Peter stating such. If you're going to do that, you might as well include links from the tobacco industry telling us that cigarettes are safe )

Finally, you boldly claim that recording studios don't choose speakers because they are the best tool for the job. In fact, you imply they give it no thought at all, just whatever makes noise should do. Fine. Prove it.

If you would consider, if just for a moment, that you don't have golden ears (gasp!) and everyone will hear just as you do, then you might not catch so much heat. Believe it or not, not everyone will agree with you and Peter that AN's way is the only way. To think such is simply naive. I respect your right to preach about your favorite company but before you make sweeping generalizations and slander everyone else, you'd better have the facts to back it up.