Advertising Inquest

I was looking at some competitor emails the other day (a practice which I highly recommend for any company by the way) and came across one which was too horrible to describe! It was by a competitor (who I won’t name) that is huge compared to my company and a true name within the industry. I was amazed that they could distribute a marketing piece that was so poorly done. After I thought about it a bit though, I realized that because of their history, and because they are practically a household name within the industry, that they didn’t necessarily need to rely as much on their marketing skills.  Though I obviously don’t know this for sure, I would imagine that they rely a great deal on the fact that their name is known by almost everyone (especially as my industry is one in which trust is very important). Given the choice between a known name and anonymous Company B, most consumers would probably go with the familiar. This is obviously the reason why “brand” should always be a part of any marketing campaign.

I did have a second though that maybe some of you could help me with. If you agree with the concept above, why do companies like Coke for example, who are one of the biggest household names in the world, still spend billions of dollars on advertising (did anyone see their very creative commercials shown during the Superbowl?) I would think that there is no way they can increase their brand recognition at this point. If you are Coke fan, you will probably always be a Coke fan and chose Coke over Pepsi forever. The product does not change, so why market to such a degree? Do they create these great ads simply so that their advertising executives can show off their talents??

I would love some input on this, and please feel free to tell me if I’m wrong!