There’s a reason many big corporations have pulled out of online advertisment and focus on print/radio/TV/sponsorships instead: The effectiveness of online advertisment can be measured and it sucks royally.
The whole concept of marketing is just a huge game of “the emperor’s new clothes”. Nobody wants to be blamed if they stop doing marketing and it turns out to actually do have an effect, even if everyone secretly knows it’s garbage.
Some of them are ok, but none of them would make a list of “best board games”.
Tbh, marketing is mostly just a scam to funnel money to marketing people.
So many people think board games are just not something they like. And if you ask them what they played before, it’s always any combination of Monopoly, Scrabble, Clue, Trivial Pursuit, Risk or the Game of Life.
If you look at the list of the top 20 best selling games of all time (https://moneyinc.com/highest-selling-board-games-of-all-time/), all of them are somewhere between terrible, bad and lower end of mediocre.
It shows that capitalism will market anything, even critique against capitalism.
It’s the board game equivalent of people buying Che Guevara T-shirts at Primark.
I got way too many versions of Monopoly gifted over the years and all of them ended up on our local second hand app.
I don’t know why you’d gift anyone Monopoly. I mean, everyone who wanted to have a copy already has one, but apparently people with no creativity still gift them.
That’s just nuts.
Seriously, Monopoly is one of the worst games in existence.
But that’s expected, since the game it cloned was actually two games, the one was like the current Monopoly, the other one had a property tax system and that one was so balanced that the game never ended. Both games were not made to be played for fun, but to show how different taxation systems lead to different outcomes. They were serious, non-fun games on purpose.
Damn, thanks for the insight. I just read the wiki article and the source claiming the marketing budget of that game, because I couldn’t believe it, and the name Niantic was somewhere in there, so I figured Niantic did what Niantic does. Apparently, it’s not even that.
It’s ridiculous, seriously. Monopoly is a horrible game in it self, and I thought everyone and their dog was already sick of it, but I guess I’m just projecting.
Or pumping the equivalent of the GDP of Samoa into the marketing of some stupid mobile game version of this really bad board game really does something.
Yeah, that’s clearly just spam, likely created by a bot. Didn’t even bother trying to make it match the community it was posted in.
Yeah, they don’t know how to make door rebates. They don’t even have that in their actual house doors leading to the road. And we over here even have them on toilet doors.
Toilets shouldn’t be high humidity environments (that’s what ventilation is there for) and gap-less doors don’t need to rub at all.
That’s what this European high tech that seems to be virtually unknown in the US is for: door rebates.
Really? That’s what I’d expect even in a run-down public toilet in a train station over here in Austria.
Even if you copy the Mona Lisa down to the subatomic level, the original would still be seen as a one of a kind thing and would be vastly more valuable than the copy.
Because it’s not about the physical object.
It’s about the hope that it can be, one day, sold for more money than it was bought for. The same thing happens every day with all sorts of things where the price vastly outpaces the utility of the thing.
If you buy milk, you buy it to drink/eat/use it. So you pay for its utility. A litre of milk is worth its nutritional value. There’s no speculation or anything like that going on, and thus, the price is pretty low and pretty stable.
If you buy valueables (art, diamonds, stock, crypto, NFTs, …) the object itself is usually not useful or at least not nearly as useful as its price. Yes, there are some technical applications where you need gold or diamonds, but if that was the only thing they are used for, they’d be much, much cheaper. Art, stock, crypto, NFTs, stamps, and many similar things, on the other hand, have little to no direct utility. Nobody would buy the Mona Lisa because they have an empty bit of wall in their living room that would benefit from a bit of art as decoration.
These things, which are inherently worthless (if they were priced by their utility). The only reason for them to be “worth” a lot is the expectation that someone else will pay more for it in the future, for the sole purpose of finding someone else who’ll do the same.
It’s just a morensocially accepted form of gambling, nothing else.
And for that, it doesn’t matter if the thing being sold is a link to some picture of a bored monkey, a piece of paper with some paint on it, a banana ducttaped to a wall, or some shiny rock.
It’s the same with anything that had a value that goes beyond pure utility.
It’s not hard to make a functionally identical copy of the Mona Lisa, indistinguishable by anyone apart from the most highly skilled forgery experts.
And yet the Mona Lisa is still incredibly valuable and considered a one-of-a-kind, same as diamonds in the OP.
All of that value is based on the greater fool theory: the theory that if I pay a lot of money for it, I think I will find a greater fool later on who will pay even more for it. And that fool believes the same thing until the charade eventually collapses.
Or someone with enough criminal energy to legally get what they want.
In that case, woosh me. Just wanted to make sure nobody takes that as an actual advice.
With me too, my employer has to start worrying once I put my current position into my linkedin profile.
You might not. Finance and wikipedia does.