Quote: But still marketing = cost.....
I guess we could look at that statement two ways.
Let's say that a wonderful product was being manufactured that would fit your need perfectly, however you have never heard of it and don't know anything about it, who makes it, what are it's good qualities, how it would fill your needs, and to top it off the company who makes it doesn't tell anyone about it, what are the chances that you will purchase that item?
But on the other hand, this same very fine product is sitting on a local dealers shelf and you see ads for it in newspapers, magazines and Ashton Kutcher gets all giddy about having one of them in a TV ad. Now, under which scenario would you be more likely to be able to purchase this particular item?
How much did
not marketing the product cost in the first scenario and how much did marketing cost in the second scenario?
Given, that under the first scenario, the company didn't sell the very good item that they spent millions to develop, so all that development money, manufacturing money was wasted.
But under the second scenario, the company was able to spread the marketing cost, development cost and manufacturing cost over millions of units sold? All because they made their potential customers aware that the product (that fit their needs perfectly) was available and could be purchased. And they did this through
"Marketing". Did marketing cost the company or did it pay the company?