Marketing can influence buyer decisions in a variety of ways. But you’re basically arguing that the presence of a marketing effort is the thing that causes consumers to take action. And it isn’t.
McDonald’s markets a ton. Probably more than any other fast food restaurant. So by your logic, where the size of the marketing effort equates to adoption rates, we all must have had McDonald’s for lunch.
But that didn’t happen, because the factors influencing “what’s for lunch” are multivariate.
Did you have access to a McDonald’s? Did you have money for McDonald’s? Was there another option that was better than McDonald’s? Did a friend of yours recently get sick at a McDonald’s? Heck, do you even like McDonald’s?
If your three friends ate at McDonald’s a week ago and all got sick, you probably wouldn’t be eating there today - no matter how much McDonald’s markets.
I’m not saying that marketing has no point. Companies need marketing to make consumers aware of their product, its features, benefits, etc. But it’s silly to think that the size of a marketing effort directly correlates with the number of customers who actually buy a product.
