2nd May 2005, 4:06 PM
Ryan Wrote:Gee, I guess all those years working in retail and actually selling this shit didn't teach me a thing about marketing. Imagine that.
Now, I'll admit that there are sub-markets, but that's not the point. The broad point is the IMPORTANT point. These subgroups merely exist so that the corporate entity on the whole can get a leg-up on their competitors. That's why I don't buy the bullshit Nintendo spews about creating their own market niche and not competing with Sony and MS. They are quite in competition. They have to do it in unorthodox ways because the avenue of gaming consoles is one Nintendo will never control again. Now, Nintendo's subsystems work well enough that the company turns a profit and their supposed lack of competitive fire is accepted at face value, but don't you think for a minute that Nintendo wouldn't go guns forward if they had a legitimate opportunity to unseat Sony from their perch, even if it seems like they really don't care anymore... I think that's more a result of a sense of futility than anything. The point is, you're making these sub-divisions of the process out to be the most important, but it's only one piece of the puzzle. Take football for an analogy. One team gains more yardage, more first downs and causes more turnovers than their opponent. This opponent scores more points than the first. Which one wins the game? The object is not simply to find a niche and control it, but to use these niches to boost the company as a whole. That's why the broad viewpoint is quite important here. It's why Nintendo controls so many niches and yet is in last place in the console race.
What you're saying is correct, but that's not what I have been talking about this entire time. If you've just skimmed through the post and read DJ's and ABF's responses then I can see why you'd think that this is what I'm talking about, but your points are completely irrelevant to my entire argument.
Ryan Wrote:Oh, give me a break, professor. Just because you took a class or two doesn't make you the eminent authority on anything. Much of marketing and its workings is based on common sense. I'm quite sure that you've taken more English and Writing courses than I have, and I'm also quite sure I am a better writer than you are, despite not taking any such classes in high school. All I have to do is remember that you consider Emperor Palpatine a well-written, deep character and I don't doubt for a minute that I can do better, and have done better, without even thinking.
Sometimes you really just need to swallow your pride, taste defeat, and brush your teeth. You often end up in arguments where it's you against the world, and the frequency of them suggests that you may not be the know-it-all you think you are.
I have more knowledge about marketing and business than anyone here seems to have, and yes believe it or not school can be educational, even if something is largely about common sense. But in this case, what I have been trying to explain, is purely technical and irrelevant to my opinions on marketing, and the technical matter is very much dependent upon how much you have learned in this subject.
And for the record, I've only taken one creative writing class before. But that does not make you the authority on good writing. Being able to write and being a good judge of writing are not the same thing. Spielberg's opinions on movies are not authoritative, for example. His opinion certainly commands some respect, but then again you're not exactly a famous writer. ;)
DJ Wrote:OB1, "psychic networks" and "wholistic healers" have managed to sucker the money out of people using nothing but terrible logic and outright falsities. They know how to get people to pay for their stuff, yes, but absolutely none of what they do can be considered logical, much less moral. Just because they can TRICK people doesn't mean they are going about it logically. And yes, I'm aware your argument is really about what sorts of people will buy different things, not really about the advertising itself, but that's the thing. It's not just EVERY SINGLE PERSON HERE that considers PC games in the same market as the rest of games, it's a LOT of people. As you said, the majority determines the market. If the majority of people who play games, casual gamers, consider PC games and console games the same market, then I guess it's so.
But wait, maybe you mean it's not that they THINK it, but that they ACT on it by actually buying the products. I can see that, but they don't have to actually BUY every single system to prove the point. They just have to get to a point where they must make a choice, either console system or PC. By your standards, the Gamecube is a seperate market from the PS2. It's not AS seperated as the PC is from consoles in general, but it's as meaningless a seperation as that.
DJ, just because a lot of ignorant people believe one thing doesn't make it true.
And thanks again for showing that you've completely missed the point.