Re:New antibody attacks 99% of HIV strains
by brianwawok on Sunday September 24, 2017 @08:39AM
(#15324458)
Except your example doesnt work. If coke and pepsi didn't advertise, more people would drink RC Cola and Faygo and fruit juice. Drinks are not a duopoly.
Re:New antibody attacks 99% of HIV strains
by philwelch on Sunday September 24, 2017 @01:29PM
(#15325617)
It’s a simplified example, but there is a point where cola-wars advertising turns into a negative sum game while still remaining the optimal strategy for each individual player. Coke and Pepsi can beat the smaller brands through distribution alone anyway.
Not necessarily. Advertising is often a negative-sum game. To give a simplified, quasi-hypothetical example, if neither Coke nor Pepsi advertised, they would still have very similar market shares and revenues. But then Pepsi realizes they can spend $1MM advertising to swing $1.25MM of revenue from Coke, and Coke spends $1MM to swing $1.25MM revenue back, and now both companies are $1MM in the hole for no gain. In this case, everyone—Coke, Pepsi, and the consumer—is better off if the government just banned soda advertising. Well, maybe not the ad agencies, TV networks, and celebrity sponsors, but there’s still a net economic loss to society.
Lots of drug advertising is of this useless, competitive type. If no one advertised erection drugs, people would just go to the doctor and take whatever was prescribed to them. But if Cialis blankets the airwaves, they can swing market share from Viagra.