NiKKoM said:
Onyxmeth said:
NiKKoM said:
Ugh let me explain it simple.. It's not crap.. I'll give you an example how this list works...
A company Like Coca Cola wants to have a contest where you can win videogames consoles.. They would want to attract the right people with the right prices.. Cause the Brand Value is Low of the Playstation we as an Ad company wouldn't advice them to use the Playstation brand.. we would say: Use the Wii or DS cause their Brand Value is high making it faster for consumer to buy your product to enter the contest.... We wouldn't say Playstation 2 cause that's outdated and over...
|
If the PS3 brand is 16x lower(in dollar amount) than the 360 brand, then why do sales not even remotely reflect that? Is the PS3 selling in spite of a dwindling brand name, or is the 360 not selling as well as it's brand value would imply? I just don't get what is being measured to come to the conclusions they have, because sales seem to not be a factor.
|
... Porsche doesn't sell much in comparison Ford.. But Porsche has a higher Brand Value.. It's cooler, hipper, you want to be associated with Porsche much more then with Ford.. not only in the eyes of the consumers but also for other companies..
|
If Porsche was similarly priced to Ford, it probably would sell more though. It's the 60K difference in price that keeps people from buying Porsches. I don't see how that reflects two similarly priced, similarly speced consoles that share 90% of their libraries. I can understand 360 being a stronger brand overall, but how can it be 16x stronger in dollar amount and sales not even remotely reflect that? So again I ask, "Is the PS3 selling in spite of a dwindling brand name, or is the 360 not selling as well as it's brand value would imply?".
