On Fri, 21 Sep 2007 07:37:55 -0700, Too_Many_Tools
wrote:

On Sep 19, 3:17 pm, Kurt Ullman wrote:
In article ,

Ignoramus29233 wrote:
This looks at it backwards. The "cost of marketing" is the expense of
the company and how you allocate it (to all items, to corporate
overhead, etc), is arbitrary.

Not always, or even often. While some of it may "squishy" a lot of the
difference can be seen in things like no advertising budget needed, many
fewer sales people (don't need to go to schmooz every hardware store,
just the one or two biggies.

Due to advertising, the company can charge more for branded product,
and thus it is normally the case.

There is a definite premium that the brandname can often get that
isn't an issue with store brands. But even then, you have to defend the
brand name and that can be expensive.

The case of cheap versus expensive "poisoned"pet foods turning out to
be the same food from the same factory is an example where the
consumer was paying only for a name while the producer laughed all the
way to the bank.

They aren't laughing now.

Saving a few cents on QA has cost them plenty.

I wonder if the CEO's compensation will suffer?

TMT

No, we've established that they only get credit for the good stuff -
there minions heads wsill roll, but they get the full Monte paycheck.