|
|
Post by mannmade on Dec 9, 2016 12:42:11 GMT -5
"... The less obvious - advertising doesn't have the bang it used to have in decades past so just simply getting the word out doesn't equate to sales. ..."
Regarding the above portion of your post, just my own opinion that it is not that simple. I would add the following observations; advertising platforms have evolved from 3 Broadcast Networks from which most mass media content was consumed other than print mags and papers to a whole range of distribution systems including;more than 3 broadcast networks, plus the addition of cable, satellite, digital/online, mobile, social media, delivery systems and hardware beyond televisions to computers, phones, video billboards, Out of Home Screens, etc... And let's not forget that all of this is also now done in other languages like Spanish.
And the consumer has changed, they will no longer take the word of the Marlboro Man at face value... The consumer is much more educated with all of this information now available immediately wth google and a smart phone.
My point is we still live in a consumer based economy that is fueled in large part by demand created from advertising and marketing but the advertisers and marketers also have to be more educated and smarter. And that is why a Super Bowl Ad is not the simple straight forward approach it might once have been for a product like AFREZZA.
|
|
|
|
Post by peppy on Dec 9, 2016 13:07:49 GMT -5
I look at it this way.
Thank goodness MNKD didn't get any crazy ideas like a superbowl add.
For the Money on a super bowl add, MNKD could have _______________________________________. (Fill in the blank.)
example: the money MNKD saved by not placing a superbowl add,
Allowed MNKD to Make a deal with ______. (Damon Dash?)
"I use Afrezza technosphere insulin and I feel good.
No more shots, Free to be me."
example: for the money MNKD could order a dreamboat mobile for fairs, and additionally have a rep visit all hospital new product person with product information.
|
|
|
|
Post by swanybuaya on Dec 9, 2016 13:13:20 GMT -5
But with football ratings in crash mode (e.g. “Monday Night Football” ratings are down 20% this year), it may be an overestimate of the actual audience. Still, safe to say that it would reach many 10s of millions of viewers. The crash was because of the election. Numbers are up since then. Plus, I hate to say it but, if the Dallas Cowboys make the Super Bowl it will be the biggest (American) audience ever in Super Bowl history. Last years Super Bowl was estimated at 112 million U.S. viewers (3rd biggest audience ever for Super Bowl). |
|
|
|
Post by bradleysbest on Dec 9, 2016 13:24:05 GMT -5
Spend the money (if practicable) on commercials during the NFL Conference championship games. 2 games would mean more bang for the buck!
|
|
|
|
Post by mnkdfann on Dec 9, 2016 13:52:05 GMT -5
But with football ratings in crash mode (e.g. “Monday Night Football” ratings are down 20% this year), it may be an overestimate of the actual audience. Still, safe to say that it would reach many 10s of millions of viewers. The crash was because of the election. Numbers are up since then. Plus, I hate to say it but, if the Dallas Cowboys make the Super Bowl it will be the biggest (American) audience ever in Super Bowl history. Last years Super Bowl was estimated at 112 million U.S. viewers (3rd biggest audience ever for Super Bowl). My main point (which you omitted in the cut and paste) was that the audience has never been close to a billion, let alone billions. So you are evidently in agreement with me on that. FWIW, the election excuse is one that many do not buy. This week's Monday Night football pulled in the second worst ratings of the season. And that was post-election! (About this year's bowl ratings, you may be right ... we'll just have to wait and see. All I can say is that they have been pretty stagnant for the last 5 years. Stable, but not increasing in any sizable way ... certainly not like they did a decade or two ago.) www.breitbart.com/sports/2016/12/08/monday-night-football-proves-nfl-ratings-drop-not-affected-elections/NFL ratings deniers from Roger Goodell all the way to CBS CEO Les Moonves blame the presidential election in general, and Donald Trump in particular when pressed on why NFL ratings have fallen to a point halfway between nowhere and goodbye. While this feeble talking point is easily disproved in any number of ways, this week’s edition of Monday Night Football actually makes the case nicely. On Monday night, the New York Jets hosted the Indianapolis Colts in a game that only close family relatives, paid employees, and masochists could have enjoyed. In terms of ratings, the game didn’t draw flies. It pulled a 6.0 overnight rating, the second worst rating of any Monday Night Football game this year. The only other MNF game this year to do worse was the late September matchup between the Falcons and the Saints. That game drew a 5.7 overnight rating. Why does that matter? It matters because that late September game between Atlanta and New Orleans occurred on the same night as a presidential debate. So, here we have a direct apples to apples comparison of how a primetime NFL game performed by itself with no other major sports or political competition, versus how a primetime MNF game performed when forced to share the evening with Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump. The amazing, incredible, Earth-shattering difference between the two is three-tenths of a percent. |
|
|
|
Post by peppy on Dec 9, 2016 13:57:42 GMT -5
we are all on our computers maybe the TV in the background.
|
|
|
|
Post by babaoriley on Dec 9, 2016 15:01:15 GMT -5
The obvious - advertising puts out the company message/product in front of potential clients. As people become aware of the product, the potential for sales goes up. If nobody knows about it, who's going to buy it?! The less obvious - advertising doesn't have the bang it used to have in decades past so just simply getting the word out doesn't equate to sales. The mystery: More than a few hundred people (current users/script count) know about afrezza, no? At the very least, the thousands or so of diabetics that participated in the many trials over the years, clearly they know about the product. The docs that attended the two/three ADA's since afrezza has been approved, clearly they know about it. All the people that followed exubera likely knew about afrezza as there was a lot of buzz about both when exubera was approved by the FDA. There's 2600 members on this board - clearly they know about it. Anyone who has ever read a MF, AF, or SA article on mnkd knows about it. All the participants in the adcom process including the 24 or so medical professionals - they all know about it. So - here's my point - if at least thousands upon thousands know about it, why are sales where they are now after two years? Is it because "nobody knows about it" or is it because of something(s) else? IMO, the answer is it's because it's something else, and, if that's true then it's not in mnkd's best interest at this point to spend much needed money on ads and marketing. What needs to be solved is why the thousands upon thousands that DO know about afrezza aren't all on it right now. I've always said, if you can't take care of a dollar you can't take care of a million of them. MNKD needs to solve why they can't sell to those that already know of afrezza. Advertising to more people won't solve the problem they currently face - why are those diabetics that DO know about afrezza not buying into the mnkd story?! I follow (but not post on) diabetic forums. What I've noticed is a lack of interest in learning how to handle afrezza (overload of process and the idea of learning yet another new process is just to much to handle), a concern over lungs, concern over costs and lack of coverage, and a lack of support from their endo. I have no doubt that the competition is doing whatever they can to keep afrezza under lock and key. How is mnkd to deal with all that? It's not as simple as doing more advertising. And regardless of what management says (their words are useless at this point), the numbers all around are dismal and showing no signs of making a meaningful turn, imo. So how does mnkd solve the underlying problems?! It won't be through advertising. Agree with your points! What is your (or anyone else's) theory on how the heck the stock manages to do relatively well when the above is obvious to non-mnkd lovers (mnkd lovers are broke, so they can't be seen as supporting the price in any material way). |
|
|
|
Post by mnkdfann on Dec 9, 2016 17:04:10 GMT -5
To play Devil's advocate, MNKD will soon have that oh so sweet RLS milestone payment burning a whole in its pocket! It's like free money! Might as well spend it on a Superbowl commercial. That worked for pets.com, right? Go big or go home! youtu.be/d6WdI_l0tCk |
|
|
|
Post by cretin11 on Dec 9, 2016 17:12:28 GMT -5
To play Devil's advocate, MNKD will soon have that oh so sweet RLS milestone payment burning a whole in its pocket! It's like free money! Might as well spend it on a Superbowl commercial. That worked for pets.com, right? Go big or go home! youtu.be/d6WdI_l0tCkI'm guessing that milestone payment won't be enough for a 30 second spot. |
|
|
|
Post by swanybuaya on Dec 10, 2016 18:05:42 GMT -5
The crash was because of the election. Numbers are up since then. Plus, I hate to say it but, if the Dallas Cowboys make the Super Bowl it will be the biggest (American) audience ever in Super Bowl history. Last years Super Bowl was estimated at 112 million U.S. viewers (3rd biggest audience ever for Super Bowl). My main point (which you omitted in the cut and paste) was that the audience has never been close to a billion, let alone billions. So you are evidently in agreement with me on that. FWIW, the election excuse is one that many do not buy. This week's Monday Night football pulled in the second worst ratings of the season. And that was post-election! (About this year's bowl ratings, you may be right ... we'll just have to wait and see. All I can say is that they have been pretty stagnant for the last 5 years. Stable, but not increasing in any sizable way ... certainly not like they did a decade or two ago.) www.breitbart.com/sports/2016/12/08/monday-night-football-proves-nfl-ratings-drop-not-affected-elections/NFL ratings deniers from Roger Goodell all the way to CBS CEO Les Moonves blame the presidential election in general, and Donald Trump in particular when pressed on why NFL ratings have fallen to a point halfway between nowhere and goodbye. While this feeble talking point is easily disproved in any number of ways, this week’s edition of Monday Night Football actually makes the case nicely. On Monday night, the New York Jets hosted the Indianapolis Colts in a game that only close family relatives, paid employees, and masochists could have enjoyed. In terms of ratings, the game didn’t draw flies. It pulled a 6.0 overnight rating, the second worst rating of any Monday Night Football game this year. The only other MNF game this year to do worse was the late September matchup between the Falcons and the Saints. That game drew a 5.7 overnight rating. Why does that matter? It matters because that late September game between Atlanta and New Orleans occurred on the same night as a presidential debate. So, here we have a direct apples to apples comparison of how a primetime NFL game performed by itself with no other major sports or political competition, versus how a primetime MNF game performed when forced to share the evening with Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump. The amazing, incredible, Earth-shattering difference between the two is three-tenths of a percent. Only thing I was pointing out was the ratings decline and Super Bowl audience in America. International audience whether billions or millions doesn't apply to ad spots in this country. And way to cherry pick your stats to support your argument. |
|
|
|
Post by mnkdfann on Dec 10, 2016 19:21:53 GMT -5
Sigh.
"International audience whether billions or millions doesn't apply to ad spots in this country."
Of course. That just strengthens my main point.
"And way to cherry pick your stats to support your argument."
Not sure what you think was cherry picked, but whatever. Ratings are generally down this year (so far) no matter how you look at it. I gave you a couple of sourced numbers, but pretty much every relevant statistic and everyone who objectively studied the issue is saying the same thing.
At least I gave a reference and actual numbers, whereas you merely spouted an unfounded opinion.
|
|
|
|
Post by swanybuaya on Dec 13, 2016 2:11:51 GMT -5
Sigh. "International audience whether billions or millions doesn't apply to ad spots in this country." Of course. That just strengthens my main point. "And way to cherry pick your stats to support your argument." Not sure what you think was cherry picked, but whatever. Ratings are generally down this year (so far) no matter how you look at it. I gave you a couple of sourced numbers, but pretty much every relevant statistic and everyone who objectively studied the issue is saying the same thing. At least I gave a reference and actual numbers, whereas you merely spouted an unfounded opinion. My objection to your original post was about the football ratings in crash mode and I tried to put that in perspective with the election. That's all. I work in broadcast television, currently with Fox Sports. I follow sports ratings daily. I don't spout unfoundedly, just didn't have time to wrangle stats for our debate. Here is a timely tweet from Michael Mulvihill, Senior VP Fox media about NFL ratings |
|
