Revenue Management...Evil?

Intended for constructive conversations. Exhibits of polarizing tribalism will be deleted.
Farm_or
Posts: 412
Joined: Thu Nov 10, 2016 8:57 am
Contact:

Re: Revenue Management...Evil?

Post by Farm_or »

It's a fact of a free society and a free enterprise that there are millions of people finding ways to help you spend money. At best, there are a couple who would help you save it.

At it's core, selling is a play on insecurity. The message is always "buy my product and you will finally be fulfilled". The answer for that? Self fulfillment.

SustainableHappiness
Posts: 266
Joined: Tue Jun 28, 2016 6:39 pm

Re: Revenue Management...Evil?

Post by SustainableHappiness »

Riggerjack wrote:
Tue Apr 25, 2017 5:59 pm
The other side of this is how effective you believe this to be.
The effectiveness is quantifiable -> 2% increase in revenue, 7% increase in operating profits...High EBITDA growth and revenue growth consistently.
Regardless of whether or not it is moral, it is very effective, because most marketers assume The Consumer is unaware and most marketers are right.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/greatspecu ... b94a887cf9

http://www.investopedia.com/stock-analy ... ep-ko.aspx

Toska2
Posts: 420
Joined: Fri Nov 20, 2015 8:51 pm

Re: Revenue Management...Evil?

Post by Toska2 »

I'm with Farm_or.

Revenue Management is the least evil part of marketing. Prices and weights are quantifiable. Playing on human emotions and attached basic needs (love, happiness, locus of control) is where the real evil is at. "Have it your way" is a good example. A false choice best. At worst, overpaying for garbage.

ducknalddon
Posts: 249
Joined: Fri May 20, 2016 5:55 am

Re: Revenue Management...Evil?

Post by ducknalddon »

It's an interesting contradiction, most people here are pretty good at resisting marketing and PR yet much of the work (and education) that we are involved in requires marketing and PR. Thank goodness for cognitive dissonance.

Riggerjack
Posts: 3180
Joined: Thu Jul 14, 2011 3:09 am

Re: Revenue Management...Evil?

Post by Riggerjack »

Every difference is quantifiable, far fewer are attributable. 2.6% increase in revenue from 2011 to 2016... What else was going on then?

I'm not saying marketing has no effect. I'm saying there is an entire profession dedicated to claiming credit for every improvement, and nobody pushing the other side of that story. I can make a pretty good case that all of that gain was a result of an improved economy, and that marketing games have held the company back from what should have been a bigger gain. Taleb would call 2% improvement in those years noise, and urge you not to be fooled by randomness.

But the fact is, nobody knows, but there is a group poised to claim credit. A group full of self proclaimed persuasion oriented people. Up to you how much you buy of what they sell.

ThisDinosaur
Posts: 997
Joined: Fri Jul 17, 2015 9:31 am

Re: Revenue Management...Evil?

Post by ThisDinosaur »

Riggerjack, that view changes nothing except *who* is being deceived. The job itself is still embroiled in meaningless bullshit.

SustainableHappiness, you go to this job because they pay you. Not because you are changing the world. If you were a cat burglar or a hit man, you might have a real moral dilemma. Instead, you go to meetings where people discuss how to make a buck fifty more on a can of diabetes water. Not exactly Martin Shkreli. You are not your job. You are not the car you drive. You are not your fucking khakis. Take the paycheck and don't spend it on soda.

Riggerjack
Posts: 3180
Joined: Thu Jul 14, 2011 3:09 am

Re: Revenue Management...Evil?

Post by Riggerjack »

Riggerjack, that view changes nothing except *who* is being deceived.
Who is being deceived is the critical issue here. The OP was full of guilt over being part of the deception. This changes if the OP realizes who is deceived...

Spartan_Warrior
Posts: 1659
Joined: Fri Dec 02, 2011 1:24 am

Re: Revenue Management...Evil?

Post by Spartan_Warrior »

Some commenters seem to be under the impression that this manipulative practice only happens to "non-necessities", like soda and chips, and that it's therefore morally permissible. Whereas I assumed these were just examples and that such practices, while perhaps more often applied to those items, are by no means exclusive to junk food and vice items that corporations are benevolently protecting us from ( :lol: ). Rather, I assume that corporations pull this same crap whenever and wherever they can on any kind of product from flour and rice to baby diapers and toothpaste. Maybe I'm wrong. @SustainableHappiness, perhaps you could shed some light on this point.

Locked