I agree with politics, but does media drive consumers? I believe so.
Have you ever seen that Arbys commercial the day before and you decide to go there for lunch?
Or how apple is so popular? It has a certain "look" minus the idea you pay an exorbitant amount of money to enter their world of overpriced goods and have to use only their goods? They seem to have done well with media.
Plus we don't know if media drives the you get generation because they are either to young to vote or too young to care.
Politics as a whole are media driven in the sense of slander and accusations towards their opponents. I don't know how many times I corrected people on how what they heard from FOX or CNN was wrong, and how actual research is important. Media only solidifies what people want to believe when it comes to politics. But when it comes to consumerism it can be used as a tool to garner attention that is positive.
In a nut shell. Media for politics are never used to decide on a candidate but to only belittle someone else for believing in the candidate of their choice. (Problem number 1 with politics, open minds are LONG GONE).
Media for marketing is 10000% effective. Which is a driver. Otherwise we wouldn't see TRILLIONS of dollars used on media driven marketing.
As I stand by my statement. Anytime a media source has a positive word to say for the GT program is a huge net gain for GT as this is a marketing based business. You are trying to market to 14-18 year old boys.
When I was growing up half naked women, booze, and way classes got me on board. If I was promised to have those 3 and basically a free degree while getting an easy C in a class I was SOLD.
Now you have to be savvy on marketing to these kids. As they watch all the Instagram and twitter videos. They watch more twitter and Instagram than they do basic TV/netflix/hulu. Kids live on their phones and computers now. Reason number 1 why Instagram started their own "TV" on their app.
All in all. Anytime an archrival player admits that we are doing something great is can ONLY be seen as a net gain for the program. We have had little to no attention for a while. Even when we won the orange bowl the city of Atlanta didn't care. Geoff Collins has been given the monumental task of making GT cool again to athletes. Something we haven't seen since the 07 class. We will get there, but it takes every little baby step of POSITIVE press, stats, fans, and players.
If we win 6-8 games this year I expect us to never lose more than 5 games in a season again under Collins. Starting 2021 I see us as a top 15 team...if we win 6+ games this year.
Positive media and positive talking about the team and attention on the program is good. Kids LOVE attention. They are all mostly little Prime Time Sanders. More attention we have, the more we are on ESPN prime time the more higher rated kids will want to come. Now all we have to do is WIN BABY WIN!
We still disagree. To take some of the points in order:
• "Or how apple is so popular? It has a certain "look" minus the idea you pay an exorbitant amount of money to enter their world of overpriced goods and have to use only their goods? They seem to have done well with media."
Yet Apple is a major argument against the position. Steve was famous for not paying any attention at all to his marketing folks. True, Apple has had some very good ads down through the years, but it's their
products that drive the company and those are driven by their design teams. Steve's motto - "We don't ship junk" - is why the company has succeeded. The ads and even Steve's famous "reality distortion field" were and are ephemeral. And, no, in fact, I haven't been anything but bothered by Arby's ads.
• "Politics as a whole are media driven in the sense of slander and accusations towards their opponents. I don't know how many times I corrected people on how what they heard from FOX or CNN was wrong, and how actual research is important. Media only solidifies what people want to believe when it comes to politics. But when it comes to consumerism it can be used as a tool to garner attention that is positive."
It is true that people tend to consume media that agree with their opinions and not just in politics. However, you'd be surprised at how little effect negative ads have on political opinions or, for that matter, anything else. Positive ads in politics and in regular business have similarly small effects. The billions (FIFY) of dollars spent on advertising is considered a raging success if it shifts consumers to increase soap sales by 1%. Again, it is the products - and their price, of course - that make the difference. Decisions about product lines are not media driven snd, if the company has sense, not driven by marketing either.
The rest of your post is about how important is for us to win games. No argument at all about that. A winning program and a new coach would generate a lot of attention, whether Randy McMichael thought it was cool or not. But thinking that our media presence is going to make a huge difference here is, I think, what's at the bottom of our argument. You think prospective athletes are driven by how cool we look and that will drive their decisions to come to Tech. I think they are driven by a) whether we are winning, b) whether they have the grades to get in, c) whether they find STEM or related degrees interesting, d) whether they think they can put in the effort to stay in school at Tech, e) whether they think they'll get a decent future out of a Tech degree, and f) whether they'll get a chance to try pro football if they pan out high enough. All we can do there is try to persuade them - here's where the marketing comes in - that they can do a to f. If
we don't ship junk we'll be able to do that. If we do, then all the media hype in Creation won't help.
