AirwaySim

Reports and Requests => Bug reports => Topic started by: LemonButt on August 13, 2012, 10:54:30 PM

Title: Marketing Costs
Post by: LemonButt on August 13, 2012, 10:54:30 PM
Sami--please check out my airline in MT7.  I cancelled a marketing campaign 6 game weeks ago with a CI of 70, reducing my marketing costs about 20%, and my CI has remained constant for 6+ weeks now.  Unless there is a factor I'm ignorant of, my CI should be going down, but it has actually fluctuated between 69.5 and 70.5--actually rising slightly despite the reduced expenditure.  I think something might be broken :(  Check out the CI graph and marketing expenditure graph and you'll see the reduction in week 24 of 1997.
Title: Re: Marketing Costs
Post by: Sami on August 13, 2012, 10:55:48 PM
Nothing has changed there recently.

However, there's a possibility that you were "over marketing" with that additional campaign. Putting "endlessly" more money is not always effective (though that is the main principle).
Title: Re: Marketing Costs
Post by: LemonButt on August 13, 2012, 11:11:01 PM
Would it not be possible to achieve a 100 CI by just throwing extra money at marketing?  I plateaued at 70 due to the marketing campaign I cancelled, so it shouldn't be a matter of "over marketing" and not achieving maximum possible CI if that is what you're implying.
Title: Re: Marketing Costs
Post by: Sanabas on August 13, 2012, 11:29:23 PM
It seems like there are thresholds. x marketing to slowly reach a threshold, but then x+y to get it moving beyond that threshold. If you were just below x+y before, and are just above x now, that'd explain why you stayed at the 70 threshold both times. So you can always keep pouring in money and eventually reach 100, or whatever lower target you have. But you'll possibly be pouring in more money than you need to.
Title: Re: Marketing Costs
Post by: LemonButt on August 13, 2012, 11:45:35 PM
The inset graph is marketing costs, which I've compressed to try and match up the dots on the graph for the weeks.  Marketing costs went up (due to adding routes/destinations) and you can see where I cancelled the campaign on week 24 and marketing costs took a dive.  The campaign I cancelled has been active for 12+ months, so it's not like it was a fresh campaign that I just haven't benefited from yet.  The last dot isn't even with the others because the week isn't over so the full costs haven't been incurred yet.  "Overmarketing" just doesn't make sense for this...
Title: Re: Marketing Costs
Post by: Sanabas on August 13, 2012, 11:55:25 PM
Yeah, where you're at now is less per week than where you were at start of graph, but you're now stalled at 70, not 60. Could be that maintaining a threshold you've reached is easier than actually getting to that threshold. Which sort of makes sense from a RL perspective, you just have to keep people who already know about you interested, not go out and find new people. but not sure if it works that way ingame.

Actually, where you're at at start of marketing graph is only Week 1 97, which was still stalled at 70 on CI graph. What does marketing graph look like back at week 30 or so of 96, when you left 60 threshold and headed for 70?
Title: Re: Marketing Costs
Post by: LemonButt on August 14, 2012, 01:07:19 AM
It was virtually the same the weeks prior.  I adjusted and dropped a couple routes so it was slightly higher the weeks prior, but the campaigns were all the same.
Title: Re: Marketing Costs
Post by: Sanabas on August 14, 2012, 01:10:58 AM
It's really weird that you went from plateaued at 60 to moving towards 70 without adding campaigns then.
Title: Re: Marketing Costs
Post by: LemonButt on August 14, 2012, 02:04:41 AM
It's really weird that you went from plateaued at 60 to moving towards 70 without adding campaigns then.

No--I did add campaigns, but nothing different than from when I was at the 70 level in terms of cost (I didn't articulate that as well as I should have).  I had the same costs at 60 as I did for 70 because enough time had not elapsed to get to the next plateau.
Title: Re: Marketing Costs
Post by: Sanabas on August 14, 2012, 02:23:00 AM
OK, I am really confused. Looking at your CI graph, you were plateaued at 60 from May until early July of 96. From that, I'd guess you added a new campaign in lat June/early July, so around week 26 or so of 96. That was enough to start you climbing, up to a CI of 70, where you plateaued again. So from week 26 until week week 36, you had steady CI growth.

If the week 28 '97 marketing costs are more than the week 22 '96 marketing costs, then that'd make sense. Added enough to reach 70 plateau, were still at enough to reach 70 plateau despite the 20% decrease.

But if the week 28 '97 costs (good for staying at 70) are lower than the week 22 '96 costs (good for 60, not good enough to move towards 70), then that's weird. If you didn't add a campaign back around week 26 of 96, then that's even weirder.
Title: Re: Marketing Costs
Post by: brique on August 14, 2012, 03:25:33 AM
mustn't forget effects of cancelations/punctuality : the underlying trend may still be upwards, but punctuality penalties seem to knock you back quicker than spending pushes you up...
Title: Re: Marketing Costs
Post by: LemonButt on August 15, 2012, 02:30:12 AM
Marketing is still flat at 70.  I just cut another campaign (approx 10%) to see what happens...
Title: Re: Marketing Costs
Post by: EsquireFlyer on August 15, 2012, 02:57:36 AM
No--I did add campaigns, but nothing different than from when I was at the 70 level in terms of cost (I didn't articulate that as well as I should have).  I had the same costs at 60 as I did for 70 because enough time had not elapsed to get to the next plateau.

There is a multi-campaign bonus (although there is not "supposed" to be) where spending the same amount across several campaigns somehow helps your CI more than 1 big campaign for the same price does.
Title: Re: Marketing Costs
Post by: TPMP on September 20, 2012, 08:07:14 PM
I think I may be spending more money then I need to after having read this thread. I have a total of 5 campaigns with an expenditure of around 800k in total. Two of my campaigns are to my base city, two are to my base country and one is for my state. I assume I'm just wasting my money by having two of the same campaings with lots of money? My CI is 63 and not really increasing that much at all. :-\
Title: Re: Marketing Costs
Post by: exchlbg on September 20, 2012, 08:51:28 PM
Seems you will have to spend even more to have a rise. It´s not the total amount, but the % of income you use for marketing to make that CI move.
Title: Re: Marketing Costs
Post by: Airbus101 on September 21, 2012, 12:04:12 AM
Seems you will have to spend even more to have a rise. It´s not the total amount, but the % of income you use for marketing to make that CI move.



I have noticed this as well, and accept it as truth (the bold part)
Title: Re: Marketing Costs
Post by: LemonButt on September 21, 2012, 12:06:12 AM
My CI was around 22-25 in NAC and as I upgraded my fleet to aircraft it rose to 30 without any additional expenditure.  I tried doubling my marketing expenditure, but CI didn't budge so I cancelled it.  It seems the factors involved are a lot more sensitive than they used to be.
Title: Re: Marketing Costs
Post by: exchlbg on September 21, 2012, 02:44:45 AM
Aircraft age and condition influence CI,too. And in the "lower parts" of CI world it´s easier to make it climb. But the higher you get, the more difficult it is to keep climbing.
Title: Re: Marketing Costs
Post by: serginhoalmeida on October 11, 2012, 09:32:20 PM
This is my case.


I had 3 marketing campaign in Whole World with Newspapers-Radio-Billboards, each was $4.3 million, totaling $12.9 million a week.

My company image was climbing 0.15 per week and has been since when had 85 of image, until it reaches 100 last game week.

So I did the following, I added a single campaign in Whole World with Newspapers-Television-Radio-Billboards at a price of $12.2 million a week.

And canceled the other 3 old campaigns which cost me $ 6 million to cancel, but okay, I thought, saving $ 0.7 million a week in 7 weeks I've overcome this loss.

But the image of my company dropped from 100 to 99.20 in just 3 days.

Right now I have 5 campaigns (one $12.2 million and the four other very small), totaling $14.1 million per week and my image keeps falling, is 98.26.

Result: instead of saving $0.7 million per week, I spent $6 million to cancel and so far I'm spending $1.2 million more than before every week. This is disheartening.

Everybody says that no matter what kind of campaign, only the amount of money that makes the difference, so can someone explain this to me??
Title: Re: Marketing Costs
Post by: exchlbg on October 12, 2012, 09:30:53 AM
I wish I could. Maybe cancelling a campaign  has a likely influence on CI like firing staff ? Just wait a little longer, it might rise again after the hit.
Title: Re: Marketing Costs
Post by: brique on October 12, 2012, 10:17:05 AM
Useful to remember that while spending pushes CI up, other factors will push it down : cancel/punctuality rates can really hurt CI if they get out of hand : certain regions have winter weather issues causing high cancels for that reason : age/maint issues on your fleet can cause a rise in cancels : so, worth keeping an eye on if CI starts wobbling.

other thing : Route-specific campaigns also seem to push CI up : so, if you have a batch of those end, CI may drop back a bit.

My own experience of cancelling marketing is that it always seems to take a higher spend to get back any falls: after 9/11 I reduced marketing budget to keep the books balanced, CI dropped 20 points very fast : re-introducing the former % spend has only regained 10 points, where it has stalled since.
Title: Re: Marketing Costs
Post by: Curse on October 12, 2012, 11:29:41 AM
I think I'm a bit nearer to my idea of what the problem is.


Since I started AWS I felt it's always a good move to start many campaigns early. With these "starters" I was able to go up to CI 100 with only four campaigns.

Deleting the existing and adding one or two big instead always decreased my CI. My CI also decreased when I added a big one, waited a week to establish it and delete the old ones after.


In my current game I had three CI drops. From CI 97, from CI 95 and from CI 92. I never touched the marketing panel since the fourth campaign was installed years bevor and although my airline expanded massively, I think I will make it to CI 100 (again) with this. And I know if I delete one of them and add a much bigger one, the result would be a massive decrease.



So, I'm not the only one with exactly this thoughts and experiences. There must be somewhere a glitch in the algorithm or whatever, either old campaigns aren't less effective when the airline growths or new ones aren't effective enough.

I could imagine this to be a feature like "an old campaing makes people know exactly it's the campaing of airline XY while a new campaing needs to establish itself with more money", but honestly this would be an odd feature.
Title: Re: Marketing Costs
Post by: brique on October 12, 2012, 12:08:49 PM
Interesting thoughts on the 'old campaign' being more effective angle : made me think along these lines : When you start your campaigns at game-start : you get more bang-per-buck as your company is so small, so your early CI growth comes rather cheaply : as you grow, the marketing budget grows too until your marketing spend hits the 'stall point' for that level of spend.

So, if you cancel a campaign, perhaps you lose that 'cheap' CI you got early on, when you were smaller, and getting it back means spending at the higher level needed now your company is so much bigger for that level of CI. Its a % thing, and the same % of a bigger company is a lot more $$$ of spend per CI point now, than when you first 'earned' them...

As to the idea of new campaigns needing to spend more due to unfamiliarity with the campaign itself; thats actually a fair point : imagine if Intel changed their signature 'tune' : currently, you hear it and know its 'Intel inside' without even seeing it : a new 'tune' would have to be really pushed hard to get the same instant recognition. So maybe not so odd.... just.... deep  ???

Title: Re: Marketing Costs
Post by: Curse on October 12, 2012, 12:18:10 PM
Yeah, that's what I meant. Thanks for translating it into something shorter and better understandable. :) Native language advance I see.

Here's a screenshot of the marketing campaigns I have. (game started 1st Feb 1985, now is 15th Jan 1988) They brought me up to 95+ CI and I'd swear it would have gone higher if I hadn't missed to get some new staff.


I put also a temporariy (1 month, whole world, everything to click - an additional $9.5 Million Dollar per week!) campaign to it once, the increase was a higher (2% instead of ~1%) and when it was done, it still increases. So temporary campaigns don't seem to affect my thesis.
Title: Re: Marketing Costs
Post by: brique on October 12, 2012, 12:40:23 PM
I'm only running a local small-scale outfit, with a single competed route, so I dont really need a massive CI anyway : but keeping marketing spend at about 10% of revenue did push it up to CI50 rather painlessly. I then opened a base and that really lit a fuse on it : spend went to about 15% and CI flew up to 70 in no time at all. Would have to factor in the big batch of RI spends on the new routes as well though. But even when they ended, the CI stayed around the 70 mark fine.

9/11 did throw things out, I cut marketing spend and even putting it back hasnt got CI above 60 since. Which is fine for my operation, getting it any higher would only be an ego thing : nice to do but I'd rather spend the $$$ getting the fleet in shape to last until game-end.

I think the way to go is add campaigns as you grow, keeping your old ones running and let the 'inflation' increase their spend : and, avoid cancelling them : maybe using temp campaigns is the way to control marketing spend, renewing or not as funds dictate but not hurting your underlying gains from early cheap spending?
Title: Re: Marketing Costs
Post by: LemonButt on March 22, 2020, 07:39:18 PM
I was poking around the bug reports to see what was updated etc. and found this topic I started in 2012.  Obviously all those airlines are gone now although I assume that data is archived somewhere.

My further input on "fixing" this bug, which re-reading everything seems to be more of a quirk or gotcha in terms of requiring advanced knowledge of how the marketing campaigns work, would be to marketing more strategic/declarative versus tactical/imperative.

Right now most decisions in the game are strategy vs. tactical (not to be confused with tedious vs. not tedious) with the exception of marketing.  Marketing today means deciding tactics, throwing money at it, and seeing what comes out the other end.  To make this more strategic/declarative I think what needs to happen is that airlines set their target CI and then marketing expenses/campaigns/etc. are calculated based on the desired outcome (same with RI where once you hit the target RI the campaign ends, actually making these campaigns viable).  So instead of an airline adding additional campaigns and tinkering with the settings, you simply put in I want to have a CI of 50 and it says your expenses will be X and your marketing team will be doing Y campaigns.  Thus, the campaigns are an output versus an input.  As the "CEO" of an airline, I want to set strategy and desired outcomes--whether they are running Facebook Ads, buying billboards, or otherwise I don't care as long as I get to to my 50 CI goal.  There would be a similar setup for alliances where they pick their target CI boost for members for the marketing expense.

To my knowledge this is still a "bug" but with this fix would be more of a feature request...
Title: Re: Marketing Costs
Post by: knobbygb on April 27, 2020, 11:34:26 AM
same with RI where once you hit the target RI the campaign ends

Is that a thing?  I've never seen it - selecting a target RI I mean, even as a seasoned player. What am I missing?