| ▲ | fairity 6 hours ago | |||||||||||||
The author keeps saying, over and over, that the reason this is a good bet is because "the downside is capped and the upside is asymmetric" as if that's some ground-breaking realization. Sorry, but obviously the downside is capped. The downside of virtually any marketing investment is capped at the cost of the media buy...And, the upside being "asymmetric" isn't some saving grace. What matters is the likelihood that you actually realize that asymmetric upside. And, nowhere in the article does he talk about Ro's estimated success likelihoods or actual outcomes. In short, he's basically saying: - I made a bet - It costs me something ("capped downside") - There's a potential payout ("asymmetric upside") - I have no idea whether this is positive expected value | ||||||||||||||
| ▲ | hvb2 4 hours ago | parent | next [-] | |||||||||||||
The downside isn't really capped as in most cases there's a big dev effort to prep for an event like that. Plus a lot of spend on the day of the event to deal with the surge. This can easily be in the millions as well, in direct cost as well as in opportunity cost | ||||||||||||||
| ▲ | hn_throwaway_99 5 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | |||||||||||||
This is also kinda wrong because the downside can be a lot more than your marketing spend if people really hate your ad. Just look what happened when Budweiser decided to send a personalized Bud Light can to a transgender person. For the Superbowl specifically, I can't imagine the "Search Party" ad helped Amazon sell more Rings. | ||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||