1. Skip to navigation
  2. Skip to content
  3. Skip to sidebar
Source link: http://archive.mises.org/17197/roy-sutherland-on-the-praxeology-of-marketing/

Rory Sutherland on the Praxeology of Marketing

June 5, 2011 by

This is, very truly, one of the most interesting lectures I’ve ever heard. Perhaps it is not surprising that he draws from Misesian praxeology:

{ 14 comments }

El Tonno June 5, 2011 at 12:20 pm

Well Hawing is just trolling as usual but this one is pretty cool.

“This is, very truly, one of the most interesting lectures I’ve ever heard.”

I sense an experiment in marketing, but I can’t quite put my finger on it.

Micah June 5, 2011 at 9:36 pm

This was pretty cool.

Mike D. June 6, 2011 at 3:02 am

Shreddies – great example of how people think – Democrat Shreddies and Republican Shreddies, and Bipartisan Shreddies.

Bruce Koerber June 6, 2011 at 5:11 pm

Thanks for the thought-provoking video. It is great that Ludwig von Mises is reaching more audiences.

Rory Sutherland June 6, 2011 at 6:43 pm

You have no idea how flattered I am to receive a mention on this blog! And you have no idea how starved we are of Austrian thinking here in the UK.

Ludwig truly one of very few economists properly to understand marketing and advertising.

Best wishes, Rory.

Fussdepp June 7, 2011 at 10:10 am

Rory !Rory ! Rooory! Well- mostly used for Rory Gallagher but see: learned something – a trade off! And the other one : Does humour belong into economics ? As in does it belong into music …or politics …or ….thinking…..Thank you.

Clare Krishan June 7, 2011 at 10:56 am

Indeed this clip in itself is a splendid example of gratuitous waste: Ogilvy grants us the privilege of sharing at low cost the same insights that their regular hi-flying clients have paid proportionately exceedingly-higher sums for (exclusive access seated in the Frankfurt venue).

Now consider Mr Sutherland’s wisdom on the economic challenge of increased consumer power (my emphasis) to such actors in this business sector …. “In a sentence I’d say media has gone from being scarce to over-abundant. Twenty years ago an advertiser could reach an astoundingly big audience even with extraordinarily bad programming. A show like 3-2-1 with Ted Rogers on ITV reached 16 million people. With the exception of a major sporting event or the occasional royal wedding, that doesn’t happen today and it will never happen again. Elvis has left the building. While this is bad news for advertisers who are looking for reach, there is a trade-off; the fact that you were watching 3-2-1 didn’t tell advertisers much more about you than the fact that you had a pulse. Today, what someone is watching or which websites they visit tells us something about them, which makes reaching self-selecting niches much easier and allows advertising to be contextually relevant. Now as audiences splinter across hundreds of channels and the Web, he continues, advertisers are forced to ‘earn’ attention rather than merely buy it. A large budget no longer guarantees attention, which is a threat to companies who relied on media spend alone to monopolize the conversation. Consumer attention is now far more ‘voluntary’ than it was in the television age. Not only are people browsing the web or gaming or on social networking sites, they also have more power to avoid advertising that doesn’t interest them altogether .”

n.b. prescience of interview, dated pre-monetary collapse http://news.sky.com/skynews/Home/Sky-News-Archive/Article/20080641295035 ie technology has thrown a wrench in the works for bad actors who have relied on privileged access to the easy-money spigot to secure market dominance of their moribund value propositions

Inspector Ketchup June 7, 2011 at 10:50 pm

Very interesting presentation. So, if I want to sell a product, I must not treat my product as having intrinsic value, I must appeal to people’s subjectivity, emotions and minds and make it so that people will find my product valuable and if they don’t necessarily find interest in acquiring my product, I must find ways to make them find value at talking to others about my product.

pussum207 June 9, 2011 at 8:00 am

Not to shallow, but is that an ascot he’s wearing?

pussum207 June 9, 2011 at 8:00 am

Not to be shallow, but is that an ascot he’s wearing?

Rory Sutherland June 9, 2011 at 6:03 pm

It is. Or a cravat, as we call it here.

pussum207 June 10, 2011 at 1:45 pm

Thanks Rory. I’ve always been fond of ascots. My dad wore them for about nine hundred years. In fact, I believe I have some of his somewhere. Are they making a bit of a comeback in the UK or are you fighting a lone battle for sartorial sophistication and diversity? BTW, I really enjoyed your talk.

Note to Jeffrey Tucker: a Mises ascot? combined in a box set with some martini glasses?

Rory Sutherland June 10, 2011 at 2:11 pm

A lone battle mostly, though they are still popular in India and Pakistan.

I would definitely buy a Mises Ascot, boxed with almost anything, actually.

Can anyone date the photograph of LvM here in a spectacular double-breasted chalkstripe? I had wondered whether it testified to the amazing quality of pre-Anschluss Viennese tailoring, but it is probably American, judging by his age when it was taken.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Ludwig_von_Mises.jpg

pussum207 June 10, 2011 at 3:14 pm

That photograph appears on page 923 of Jorg Guido Hulsmannn’s biography of Mises. The caption indicates that it was taken in Mises’ New York apartment in the 1950s.

David

Comments on this entry are closed.

Previous post:

Next post: