[justjico]

100% Agree. It’s like saying Coca-Cola is not a marketing company, they sell beverages. Or Apple is not a “design” company, they sell hardware. sigh

[ucaetano]

> It’s like saying Coca-Cola is not a marketing company, they sell beverages.

They don't even sell beverages. Their (mostly) independently-owned bottlers do!

[mywittyname]

>Coca-Cola is not a marketing company,

I never agreed with this mentality. Advertisement is Coke's cost center; it's not what they sell. They sell licensing rights to soft drinks: that's what makes them money.

Advertisement is a cost of having a customer facing brand. Should P&G and Unilever be considered advertisement companies?

[jeremyjh]

> Should P&G and Unilever be considered advertisement companies?

Absolutely. The value of their businesses are entirely based on the brands that they have built, and those brands are built by advertising. Making food to stuff in the boxes is just a cost of building a successful brand.

[lojack]

But the brand itself doesn’t make them money. That doesn’t mean it isn’t valuable or even that it isn’t their biggest asset. What makes them money is people buying their product.

[heedlessly2]

Apple is a design company.

Foxconn, Qualcomm, and Samsung make their hardware.

Cognizan and InfoSys develop some of their software too.

[baybal2]

You can fairly say that Coca cola is a packaging company.