[waarior]

No or minimal marketing is generally needed if the product is clearly superior. The problem is that such superiority will be short-lived--how short depends on the product and industry obviously--as the competition strives to catch up and surpass.


The best example I can think of is a sporting goods company that basically revolutionized its industry with a new technology, carbon. The company sponsored no pros and had minimal, basically zero advertising. Yet the product was so much better than anything else available that word of mouth, recommendations from store owners, and favorable press coverage made marketing unnecessary. The product was so good pros from other brands would buy the items and then dye them to make it look like their companies product.

As technology progressed though the edge slowly dwindled and now basically all the products from the leading companies, most of which are high quality, are basically interchangeable. Thus marketing grows much more important to distinguish the product.

I would imagine this is the case with most industries but I'm no business expert.

Thinking of industries like the shoe industry there is definitely quality differences between products aimed at the high/middle/ and low end markets but within a price range the quality seems to be relatively similar. Marketing serves to distinguish a brand.

Personally, I could never tell the difference between top-end cleats from shoe companies. Some of my teammates would swear by company A's, or B's, or C's, product but I never really bought the argument and was happy with whatever we were supplied with in a given year. They all seemed to perform for me.