Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Dannyalcatraz" data-source="post: 4923563" data-attributes="member: 19675">What wrong conclusion?How does one measure and quantify the "objective betterness" of 4Ed vs 3Ed? To which I responded that it is indeed a faux pas from a marketing perspective to suggest that "4E is an improvement over 3Ed."Its not that making the effort is the problem- like many others, I was fine with the advent of 4Ed as an idea.  I appreciated the effort- I just didn't care for the game's design in reality.  I'm currently waiting to see what 5Ed looks like, and will be similarly optimistic and hopeful when 6, 7, and 8Ed revisions get announced in their time.Its the argumentative and authoritarian tone of that assertion- 4Ed>3Ed- as a matter of fact that is the problem.  4Ed isn't better, its different.  And continuing to assert 4Ed>3Ed as fact doesn't do WotC's marketing plan any good...nor this thread.No.  Not at all.  That, in fact, is one of the primary ways of differentiating your product from the product of a competitor.Yes they do, but they do so with caution and precision if they do it right.Done poorly, not only do you damage sales of the product you're rolling out, but you risk damaging sales of entire product lines that may be related to that product.And how this is done varies from product to product.The American auto industry is currently criticizing their own past products in their ad campaigns...because historically speaking, they have been producing lower quality products than European and Japanese competitors.  They're able to criticize themselves now because they've substantially closed the quality gap on many models, and they need to let the buying public know this.  That's a selling point.However, you won't see an insulation manufacturer talking about how their older products contained a lot of asbestos, and now they don't.  The closest they'll get is saying their new stuff is asbestos-free...not that it used to contain the cancer-inducing fiber.The tobacco companies only mention the cancer link because they have to.Some advertising does make subjective claims.  And if one company makes a bold subjective claim that is objectively testable, you can bet that the competition will trot out commercials that show evidence to the contrary.  That's how the whole Coke & Pepsi "taste test" advertising campaigns got started...which resulted in the creation of New Coke.But an amazing amount of advertising is based on quantifiable data.  The 2 main ways of competing in a market are with quality or price.  Most advertising on price is obviously fact based.  Something is either cheaper or not.Quality gets more difficult.  Depending on each product, certain characteristics are going to be objectively quantifiable and some will be subjective- known in the field as "fluff" or "puff" language.But even the objectively quantifiable may be measured in many ways- and which way matters differently to different consumers. No- that's not what I'm saying at all.  I'm saying that its extremely bad advertising practice to criticize your own product on subjective grounds, not that advertisers never use subjective statements. Snapple's current campaign subtly compares their new products to their old.  "The best stuff on Earth just got better." is the tag-line."The best stuff on Earth" is clearly subjective.  Its called "puff" or "adspeak" in the biz.  But its also not a claim that can be objectively challenged...because its simply too vague.  Its also their original tagline."just got better" isn't.  Why?  Because the "better" is referring to the quality of their new ingredients- fresher produce, better QC, and other objectively verifiable facts underly that claim...and they're only really explicitly emphasizing the quality of their ingredients.It is obliquely critical of their own product, to be sure.  But its done properly.  They're not ticking off, point by point, how Snapple 2009 is better than Snapple 1999, and that the 1999 stuff wasn't good at all.  Their ads just call out they're using superior ingredients to what they did in the past.Subjective how?How are patches for bugs, conflicts etc. not objectively better?  How is it subjective that a claiming its good that a MMORPG gets a size increase due to a patch?Smoother graphics?  That can be verified by direct comparison.Realistic & challenging AI?  You mean that its not objectively discernible that a new AIs for Commandos acts more like RW Commandos?And no...patches are NOT promoted.  Expansions are, on occasion, but not patches.Do they get released?  Yes.  Do they get announced to the people who bought the software?  Yes.Do gaming or computer magazines talk about the patches?   Sure.But did WoW have Ozzy & Mr T talk on TV about the latest patch?  No.  Patches are like FAQ updates.  The word gets out, but its not part of the advertising budget.</blockquote>

Verification