|
|
|
|
|
by jacquesm
4384 days ago
|
|
Ok, Let me be more explicit: Typically marketing is used to put more expensive inferior products in the hands of more people rather than cheaper, higher quality products in the hands of more people. So in that example value is destroyed, which is a ton easier (and much more likely) as a result of marketing than creating value (even if it is possible it likely is not going to happen, those that engage in marketing are rarely philanthropists). |
|
Why is value much more likely to be destroyed as a result of marketing? Per unit of product I can see that this is the case as some of the value must be spent on marketing, but if more product is sold than would have been otherwise extra value can be created overall.
Engineers are also not philanthropists. I don't see what difference this makes