Other than generic store brands, I haven't seen a toothpaste brand for sale that didn't advertise, so it isn't a really a fair or informative question.
I don't see a point except "everybody is doing it". While I don't agree with the person you are responding to, I don't think this is really evidence to the contrary or says anything much about the value of advertising.
Why do you think only brands with advertising make it on the store shelf?
Or why doesn't one of the marketed brands stop the advertising? If it doesn't affect sales, it's a useless expense, and any profit maximizing entity would cut it.
To me, the obvious answer is that advertising does work. Without it people don't by your product that much, and you get replaced on the store shelves by brands that produce sales.
Also note that the store brands are being advertised when the store markets itself. They're not unadvertised.
Google won the search engine market because it was objectively better and thus spread through word of mouth. The first time I saw Google run actual ads was when they pushed Chrome hard.
Facebook also spread mostly through word of mouth and only started doing ads when its public image deteriorated.
(Side-note: I'm in Germany, so this is about German ad campaigns. Also I have had adblockers for a long time, so when I say "they run ads", I mostly mean TV, print and billboards.)
You just described two companies that became the ad channels, so they certainly are a bit of an exception. Even Apple, who has the most word-of-mouth viral product line in all history, used advertisements from the beginning.
Tesla might not have advertisements on TV or radio, but it is not a coincidence that luxury malls have prime parking dedicated to Tesla chargers, that they have prominent show rooms and that their CEO is always getting in the news.
Not really. There could be multiple possible reasons why everyone is advertising. Everyone buying ads does not necessarily prove that ads work. I personally think they do, but that is not any proof.
That's interesting. You could imagine these kind of brands can make a name for themselves by not participating in the vulgar ad rat race, and that would appeal to the sophisticated target group.
Then again, when I google tom's of maine advertising, I get many hits saying the opposite, like
Most of those brands are owned by larger companies now. Tom's is primarily owned by Comgate-Palmolive. Jason is part of Hain-Celestial.
I doubt it's financially feasible to advertise on TV for the sales they expect in their niche. I'm not sure if it's the best way to reach people interested in natural toothpaste. I don't know whether consumers would think they stand out for not advertising, but it's possible that some customers prefer a a less known brand for some sort of feeling of exclusivity.
Well there’s your comparison. The store brands are chemically basically identical to the brand names. But their market share is relatively low. So the advertising must do something.
I didn't make the claim it didn't. I was just reacting to that particular rhetorical question.
On this subject, though, there is more at play than just advertising. First is availability; smaller stores won't have a private label option available at all, so some chink of the market is not open to them.
Second is quality; this is not as much an issue with OTC pharmaceuticals since it's all about the active ingredient, but for products where more than just the active ingredient matters (like flavor or consistency) there is sometimes a quality difference. There definitely is with food.
That said, I frequently buy store brands over name brands. I also buy some "name brands" that I have never seen an advertisement for.
