Asymmetrical Information

A few days earlier, Josh Marshall offered these insights concerning the Iraqi crisis:

“We can't just send a quarter million drops back and forth to the Gulf a couple times a year. It's easy for him but it'll eventually bleed us dry.

Eventually, we'd just have to say, 'Okay, this is lame. We're going to have to settle this once and for all.' Folks like Polloi, certainly the hawks in the administration, and possibly now Colin Powell too, think we're already at that point. And I'm not at all certain they're wrong. “

“But if we've made the decision that Saddam is a longterm threat to the region and that we have to remove him, maybe it's no time like the present.”

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/jan0304.html#0128031019am

I think it’s safe to say that the Neo-Liberal intellectuals are starting to climb on board. Oh well, Saddam Hussein will still have Noam Chomsky, Michael Moore, and Susan “I’m such a serious person” Sarandon on his side.

I think I goofed up. The above comments definitely do not belong on this thread. Sorry about that. I deserve fifty lashes with a wet noodle.

You could look at it the reverse way--if you're spendthrift enough to pony up $30 for Salon premium, what are the odds you'll ever accumulate enough money for a Benz?

Or, if you've spent all your money on a Mercedes, you couldn't afford Salon Premium.

Utility-maximizing individuals can still value MBs more than substituable goods, while not valuing Salon above substituable goods, i.e. think that an E-class is "worth it" while a premium subscription to Salon isn't.

I know that even if I could afford a tricked-out S-class or a G500, I wouldn't buy a Salon Premium subscription.

Of course, my 300D cost $1300, and delivers a lot more value than $30/yr for Salon...

Possibly the Mercedes owner accumulated that money through a lifetime of being really cheap... That's too cynical, but in my experience, rich people that earned their wealth love bargains and won't part with a dollar until they are sure they are getting full value for it. Not stingy, but careful. Their heirs might be profligate with unearned wealth, but then (short of a Kennedy-sized trust fund) they won't be buying Mercedes for too long.

So my question about the Mercedes ad isn't whether it will reach people who have the money - some percentage of the audience will have it - but why there's any expectation that those ads will make a bit of difference to those careful, canny rich folks. It's not like anyone hasn't heard of Mercedes-Benz before. The rich won't buy a car because they see an ad, they'll buy one because they need a car - and they'll probably check out every dealership in 30 miles before choosing.

But the real target for those ads isn't people who can easily afford a Mercedes. It's the fools that can almost afford one, and want to look richer than they are.

Is this the first time this particular advertising model has been used?

I hadn't come across it in this way before.

“The rich won't buy a car because they see an ad, they'll buy one because they need a car..”

I’m sorry but this is patently false. Although there are always legitimate debates over the effectiveness of particular forms of advertising---it still is undeniably necessary if an auto company wishes to increase its sales. The rich are presumably among the better educated of our society. Yet, even these exalted folks can be swayed by a fantastic ad campaign. John Kenneth Galbraith exaggerated the power of the advertiser. You are making the exact opposite mistake.

Comments are Closed.