Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Strategies & Market Trends : Gorilla and King Portfolio Candidates -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: mauser96 who wrote (24546)	5/11/2000 2:38:00 PM
From: Mike Buckley	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 54805

Luke, You're right that it's unusual, maybe never happened, that a component brand has taken on the strength of a device brand to the degree of Intel's microprocessors. A QCOM ad campaign saying CDMA was better would be met by another saying exactly the same thing for GSM or whatever.The end result might be consumer confusion, with only marginal benefit for QCOM. Consumers are unlikely to spend hours learning the differences between various technologies. I agree with those possibilities. Right now the problem is that when a customer has a bad experience with TDMA as an example, most customers don't know there is a viable alternative worth trying. The ad campaign would alert the customers to the fact that there ARE differences in quality and that CDMA often results in better quality than TDMA. Hardly any customers can explain the technological difference between an AM radio signal and an FM signal, but they all know why they prefer the latter if given the choice -- because it sounds better. I think that point can be made in advertising without confusing the consumer because there truly is a differentiation in product. (If there weren't, I wouldn't be an investor.) Of course I'm sure the very clever management of QCOM has already considered this issue. At the annual shareholders' meeting, the point was made by an audience member that more marketing should be done to establish the brand name and, if I remember correctly, Intel was used as an example. One of the panel members taking questions (can't remember who) responded that they hear that comment quite often from other people on the management team and that it isn't falling on deaf ears. I'm less sure than you that I'm right Which means there is a greater probability that you're right and I'm wrong. :) --Mike Buckley

To: mauser96 who wrote (24546)	5/11/2000 3:21:00 PM
From: chaz	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 54805

Lucius: - A QCOM ad campaign saying CDMA was better would be met by another saying exactly the same thing for GSM or whatever. This is mistaken thinking. In the first place, you don't spend ad dollars telling consumers your product is "better"...you tell them what yours does and you don't even mention "better" or hint at comparisons. To do so does invite exactly the he said/she said senario you suggest. Instead, forget the competition...just tell them what your product's benefits are. Sum it up quickly: CDMA wireless technology delivers the crystal clear conversations you expect, much longer battery life, and no matter where you take the phone, calls that go through until you end them. Be sure your next phone has Qualcomm inside. Think it can't work...think asprin. Bayer is no better chemically or otherwise than St. Joseph or any other brand. But Bayer charges more, and outsells the competitors. It's been that way for years. Your mother knew Bayer. Please don't tell me it costs too much to advertise well. Chaz