Looking from a distance, marketing is not that complicated. When you get closer and start to see more details, you can understand why some marketing campaigns work and others don't. And it's not always marketing's fault. But sometimes it is.
Marketing depends on the type of product, its phase of development, and the target audience. It also depends on the desired effect, and what you are trying to achieve through the campaign. Do you want to create awareness for a product, prepare a launch/rebranding, advertise an event, or do you want to lead the customer to the point of making a sale?
Do you want to create awareness for a product that is in the idea or early development stage? It probably doesn't help much. In crypto, this actually works because projects use the early development phase to raise funds too. Although this is an often avenue for scams as well.
Do you want to create momentum for a launch and reschedule it? I bet you don't...
But note that in these cases, marketing may not be to blame at all. It may have worked flawlessly (when it does) and, because the product wasn't ready, all the attention that was gained gets lost or even turns against the product as negative advertising.
The target audience is very important. When was the last time you saw an ad for Ferrari or Lambo (reference for some crypto people, specifically) on TV? I admit I haven't seen one directly, at least not recently. And very few ads for any vanity trademarks.
Why? Because they don't need to create awareness among the general population. They are unlikely to become buyers of their products.
So, how do they do it? Well, Ferrari has racing teams, although in F1, at least, it's been a while since they've been in the spotlight. But if they haven't been winning in F1, they dominate the endurance race from Le Mans.
Cars shown in the various movies and contexts also help. I don't think they pay for this either. More likely, the movie producers pay private collectors to use their cars (payment doesn't have to be in money).
The other way they get their marketing is through direct marketing by people showing off their cars either directly or on social media. And that's more targeted publicity because it's more likely their friends also have money to buy one or will do everything in their power to do that.
How about Tesla? Who promotes that? Other than Elon Musk talking about it on X. Do they have any official ads? I don't think so.
Let's take another example. iPhone, especially in Steve Jobs' era. Yes, there were commercials and ads for iPhone, since they are more accessible than a Tesla or a Ferrari, so targeting the masses makes sense, but like the other two, it has/had something special.
These are what we call magnets. The products attract by themselves, with very little marketing necessary.
And guess what else they have in common, they are all top performers and innovators in their fields.
So, what is a hook? I don't fish but think of a fisherman's hook. It doesn't have to be Ahab and his white whale. A small hook works too. To catch the fish, the fisherman has to attach the hook, add something to the hook to make the fish bite, and then, pull.
Marketers use hooks too, or pull marketing as this is called.
So, what's the difference between magnets and hooks, because the end result is the same: the customer going toward the product?
In the magnet's case, the product attracts the customer, it is irresistible.
In the hook's case, the customer is the "prey" (the fish that got caught). The product may be exceptional or awful, as long as the customer is "hooked", it doesn't matter.
The question in the title is rhetorical. A magnet is definitely better! But few products are true magnets, and if they are not, then a combination of an ok product (viable) with something that makes it uncommon, and a hook that brings people in, is what we most often find...