A long-held conspiracy theory of mine: While 99%+ of those watching broadcast or cable television never have the opportunity to buy Cisco equipment for their business, and much better suited advertising channels exist (IT magazines, even TechCrunch), Cisco spends a LOT of time & money advertising on TV. (Until recently, Cisco used other brands for consumer products, e.g. Linksys!) But if it’s not to reach the consumers, why do it? Simply to “purchase” journalists and networks. If they start criticizing Cisco for its role in oppressive regimes’ censorship and e-terror campaigns, they lose a significant percent of their ad revenue.
The genius of it is, the financial ramifications are so obvious to these networks & publishers that not a single explicit word needs said; it’s not a bribe, it’s just making it lucrative to keep one’s figurative mouth shut.
Oh come on. My completely non-technical boss looked at me a while ago and said "We should get a barracuda spam filter."
Why? Why does he even know what this is? Why does he even know that spam filters exist?
Because barracuda has their ads all over every airport I've ever been in.
The same goes for cisco. If I put in a request for funding for some network gear, my boss wants to feel like he knows a bit about what I'm spending money on. Cisco helps him feel that way. When he signs off on it, he gets a warm fuzzy because the television told him that cisco gear is the best gear and cisco gear is what he needs.
He might even object if I told him that we're going to get juniper stuff instead of cisco because juniper doesn't have ads on the TV and he's never heard of them. What are they, some generic brand? No! WE need cisco!
That's the most crazy-ass, tinfoil hat thing I've heard in ages.
And I completely, 100% believe it. Damn. What possible alternative explanation could exist for that absurd consumer ad spend in the service of network infrastructure products? I hope someone can provide one, otherwise this will keep me awake tonight, pondering.
but then any company making networking equipment sold to oppressive regimes should be equally responsible, why did you single out Cisco?
obviously Cisco is the market leader and probably more of their equipment ends up everywhere (I'm not so sure though, for example Alcatel-Lucent equipment might be more welcome by anti-US regimes, than same equipment from US companies. A-L is also known UN sanctions violator).
or do you have any evidence that Cisco is specifically marketing for oppressive regimes?
The genius of it is, the financial ramifications are so obvious to these networks & publishers that not a single explicit word needs said; it’s not a bribe, it’s just making it lucrative to keep one’s figurative mouth shut.