If the advertisement had just said that Sony Vaio is available in different flavours or colours, that would be sufficient. I don't need Kareena Kapoor doing a strip-tease to make me buy that product. No IDIOT buys a laptop (or for that matter, electronic gadgets like these) because it is endorsed by a popular personality.
It is still a wonder why advertising agencies (and the companies) believe that star endorsement is still a selling point for these kind of products? Why waste huge amount of money on a person (for doing cat walking and displaying the product) when people buy that product out of respect and performance of the brand?
Is there a Financial clause by which money spent on advertising can be shown as an 'Expense' (or 'loss') and claimed deduction from paying tax? Not sure.
People don't remember who endorsed Sony Vaio 10 years from now. They will still look towards 'SONY' for its legacy, usability, pricing and features.
No comments:
Post a Comment