The Instigator
Chandan_Trehan
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Merrit
Con (against)
Winning
8 Points

Marketers are not catering to the needs, instead they are creating some new needs

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 2 votes the winner is...
Merrit
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 7/30/2013 Category: Economics
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,125 times Debate No: 36165
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (1)
Votes (2)

 

Chandan_Trehan

Pro

Marketers, create an untrue hype about things most of which have very little to do with the real problems that the product aims to address. Consider the latest adds that have successfully managed to convince the audience that perhaps drinking one kind of carbonated drink really determines your standards, thinking process and personality!
How can one kind of drink prove one to have an impressive personality or an unimpressive personality? I would rather say it really shows that the people have fallen a clear victim to the classical prank by the marketers, backed by the ambition to fool people to buy in their stuff!
Another example is the perfume advertisement that says women are more impressed by applying it! In fact it goes a step beyond that a seemingly unattractive guy gets too many girls pouncing on him just because he has applied that particular brand of perfume! Really, grow up buddy! who are they trying to prove a fool here! women, who would run after men only for the smell? That's more of a dogs thing to do! or the men? who think that women are such fools to run after such base ideas like smell!

Leave apart the ethics involved in the procedure, my question is has creativity come to an end? has all the " Out of Box" thinking gone for a toss? Marketers should aim at bringing out quality content to the people which clearly explains the reason why one should buy the product! unless of course, you too buy a perfume to impress the girl, who otherwise never spoke to you before!
Merrit

Con

I accept! I will be arguing that most marketers cater to the needs of consumers, and do not create new needs.

I liked this topic as I am interested in starting my own business in the future, and starting a business requires a lot of marketing. So I thought it would be a good idea to accept this debate. I wish Pro luck.

Rebuttals:

1) Let’s take this from the top. Pro states: "Marketers, create an untrue hype about things most of which have very little to do with the real problems that the product aims to address. Consider the latest adds that have successfully managed to convince the audience that perhaps drinking one kind of carbonated drink really determines your standards, thinking process and personality!"

Lets take the example provided of carbonated drinks. Take this Coca-Cola commercial:

While marketers do try to add personality, humor, etcetera into advertisements, they cater to the needs of consumers. For instance, people criticize soda because it is unhealthy. A healthier soda is a need (want) of consumers. In response to this need, Coca-Cola introduced low to no calorie sodas and assorted drinks. This is a direct response to the needs of consumers. Instead of introducing a problem, it is solving one.

2) Pro also states: “I would rather say it really shows that the people have fallen a clear victim to the classical prank by the marketers, backed by the ambition to fool people to buy in their stuff!

That’s how advertising works. If they said: “Buy our product. It’s good, it’s cheap.” No one would buy it. Also, companies’ goals are not to trick people into buying products. It’s to make money, provide jobs, and provide products.

3) Another thing Pro states is: “Another example is the perfume advertisement that says women are more impressed by applying it! In fact it goes a step beyond that a seemingly unattractive guy gets too many girls pouncing on him just because he has applied that particular brand of perfume! Really, grow up buddy! who are they trying to prove a fool here! women, who would run after men only for the smell??

While this is a strong argument, that is not to point of the advertisement. Consumers want good smelling cologne and perfume. They don’t want bad smelling perfume because that would simply be counterintuitive. Marketers are simply showing that their cologne smells good. They are advertising to the consumers want.

Arguments:

Marketers are essential to the success of a company. Without making their advertisements interesting or informative, people would not most likely not buy their products, and go for a different brand.

Thank you for setting up this debate. I wish you best of luck!




Debate Round No. 1
Chandan_Trehan

Pro

Chandan_Trehan forfeited this round.
Merrit

Con

I extend my arguments.
Debate Round No. 2
Chandan_Trehan

Pro

Chandan_Trehan forfeited this round.
Merrit

Con

I extend my arguments again.
Debate Round No. 3
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by RoyLatham 3 years ago
RoyLatham
Hyped claims about very similar products are unlikely to "create a market." The market for soft drinks or perfume is already there. The purpose is to increase market share by getting consumers to switch to the product being pushed. The method is to get consumers to look at or try the product in the hope they will like it better than what they now use. That's not creating a new market.

There are new markets. For example, smart phones were a new market a few years ago. In that case the goal was to convince customers that smart phones filled some unmet need. That worked. 3D television is an example of a new market that has not really worked. Ultimately, the consumer has to have to some unmet need.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by RoyLatham 3 years ago
RoyLatham
Chandan_TrehanMerritTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro forfeited, leaving Con's arguments unanswered. Too bad, it was a good topic. Pro was trying to prove a generality, that's tough without some kind of statistics or maybe expert opinion about the generality.
Vote Placed by Ragnar 3 years ago
Ragnar
Chandan_TrehanMerritTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: FF