"The paper investigates the effects that consumer-perceived sender expense and effort might have on brand perceptions. More specifically, it extends the marketing signal literature to advertising by including both sender expense and effort, and by including both positive and negative effects. A quantitative analysis of 4,000 consumers’ perceptions of creativity-award winning, effectiveness-award winning and non-award winning advertisements finds that advertisements with higher-than-average perceived expense and effort have positive impacts on brand attitudes, brand interest and word-of-mouth (WOM), while advertisements with lower-than-average perceived expense have corresponding negative impacts."
"The statistical explanation of Double Jeopardy is that it is a selection effect. This depends on the fact that brand share depends largely on mental and physical availability, rather than differentiated appeals of different brands. And for marketers this is pretty important, we wouldn’t get Double Jeopardy if brands were highly differentiated appealing to different segments of the market. Since we do see Double Jeopardy all over the place that suggests that real-world differentiation is pretty mild. Mental and physical availability must be a much bigger story than differentiation. That’s a very important insight."
"In 2001, my co-workers at PayPal and I would often get lunch on Castro Street in Mountain View, Calif. We had our pick of restaurants, starting with obvious categories like Indian, sushi and burgers. There were more options once we settled on a type: North Indian or South Indian, cheaper or fancier, and so on. In contrast to the competitive local restaurant market, PayPal was then the only email-based payments company in the world. We employed fewer people than the restaurants on Castro Street did, but our business was much more valuable than all those restaurants combined. Starting a new South Indian restaurant is a really hard way to make money. If you lose sight of competitive reality and focus on trivial differentiating factors—maybe you think your naan is superior because of your great-grandmother’s recipe—your business is unlikely to survive."
- More recently, there’s been the militant atheism espoused by the likes of writer-raconteur Christopher Hitchens, who died in 2011, and evolutionary biologist Richard Dawkins, who once told a crowd to “ridicule” and “mock” people of faith. Mere believers are low-hanging fruit for Dawkins. He also regularly takes swipes at survivors (be it of child abuse or sexual assault), people with Down syndrome, you name it.
- But there may be a parting of the waters. Last week author and neuroscientist Sam Harris’s Waking Up: A Guide to Spirituality without Religion was published. Harris is one of the so-called four horsemen of new atheism, along with Hitchens, Dawkins, and philosopher Daniel Dennett. Though Harris doesn’t believe in a supreme power, he is advocating for spirituality, “boundless love” and a belief that “there is more to understanding the human condition than science and secular culture generally admit.”