Corona wants to create the image that it's the beer for cool, relaxed dudes. We all know that there's nothing inherent to Corona that makes it the beer for cool, relaxed dudes. But through mass advertising they've created a widely shared cultural connotation for that brand. If I show up to a party with a six-pack of Corona, I'm projecting a clear message to everyone there that I'm a cool, relaxed dude. (Or at least style myself that way.) If I was going for sophisticated, adventure-lover I might show up with Dos Equis instead. And most everyone in America would understand.
For this type of marketing, hyper-targeted advertising defeats the purpose. You don't just want to reach the target customers. You want everyone in the broader culture to understand what your brand stands for. It's why mass reach advertising, like Super Bowl commercials or Times Square billboards command such hefty premiums. I watch a beer commercial at Super Bowl half time, and not only do I know that I've seen that commercial. but I know everybody else will too.
Beer is a bad example these days because microbrews have taken over and the consensus has become fractured: Moose Drool is big where I live, but it likely doesn't exist where you are. Buying a macro means you're out-of-touch, no matter what kinds of ads InBev is putting out for it these days.
On the contrary, most are going to see you as the guy who brought bad beer because he's susceptible to aspirational advertising.
The most common kind of party is littered with brands - clothing, cars, purses, phones, jewelry, acessories, make up...
Just one example: Molekule
It's direct mail and it's nothing new. It was annoying decades ago, it's even more annoying now, because it's better-targeted, to the point it's effectively surveillance. Carpet-bombing advertising is brand advertising: It's somewhat annoying, but it doesn't track you.
FB adds are expensive because people click on them. They click on them because they are useful. They are also minimally intrusive: just scroll past, no click to close, no have to watch, no site ruining banners.
I for one, actually like FB ads: they show things I may want or need, often with a discount or some other benefit.
Old marketing was carpetbombing, which meant only those with B-52 sized budgets could dominate. It was also deeply entwined with centralized high-volume distribution models, aligning the interests of big manufactures and big retailers.
Today’s marketing is precision bombing. You just need the right explosion in the right place. Likewise, internet distribution enables the economics of small manufacturers and small retailers (shopify/amz third-party).
Which is why big advertisers have done relatively poorly with internet ads. Their prior campaigns worked, not so much because they or the product were good, but because they could silence small competitors. Because retailers could only carry a limited amount of products they would favor the big mfgs who could provide bulk orders. Consumers just went for them because they had no other choice.
Today small player’s can advertise to narrow niches where rates are low. Likewise consumers can access products that better suit their specific needs/wants. What this means is that FB doesn’t really need or depend on big budget advertisers. Mark knows this.