There is something unsettling about this marketing/advertising ploy some product-pushers have been inclined on using. For x amount of money, one is bestowed with the product, plus y amount of cash back. X + Y seems to equal to an earnest and desperate appeal for anybody to buy the product and consequently making an elusive sale.
It just screams "commercial bomb" to me. How bad can the product be that one is actually paid to get the product? "Here, take them all, but for godsakes, just buy our car!!!"
I grew up in a world where people do not stand by street corners for the exclusive purpose of passing money around like their lives depended on it. In fact, they stand on street corners to actually force money out of unsuspecting hardworking citizens--but definitely not to get rid of it. Trades and market efficiency have been based on two crucial pillars: consumers and the manufacturers, where consumer is robbed of many and manufacturer robs gleefully. But some time during an executive meeting of a commercially stinker product owner it was decided that this perfect world should be assailed by redefining the roles of consumers and manufacturers. "In order to create sales, we must become the robbed and not the robber," they essentially thought.
I confess I am not much of a car enthusiast that I can ably and fairly price the market value of any car brand of whatever age and of whatever specs. But I think I know relatively enough to hypothesize that a Korean car named KIA is not much of a hot-seller.
