Trog's Thread of Blatant Advertising!

[Alarra]

The subject for this thread (discussion started in (of all places) the chivalry thread post #317) is advertising and marketing. How do you feel about it? What do you like about it? Hate? Is it Evil? Etc. Have at it! :smallbiggrin:


*Eat at Trog's Tavern*
Vomit free for 0002 days!




I know you don't mean it that way overtly but saying women are so easily led by society is demeaning them in a much more profound way than just saying outright "Women are stupid." Women aren't such Myrmidons you know. The differential distribution of the sexes in some professions may indeed be to societal influences that will disappear in time, but is it so hard to believe that women just aren't as interested in some of the things that men are, and vice versa?

I understood the hyperbole. :smallwink:
But I still agree with the essence of your post.

Have you looked at society lately? *shakes head* The truth of the matter is that a good chunk of people as a whole (both male and female) are led around like sheep by the media, fashion trends, advertising, and the lot. I mean, why do you think so much money is poured into the advertising industry? Because people (in general... yes ...there are some individual, free thinkers out there...and I think this site has a higher than usual concentration of them) are sheep, and people will do whatever the little black box tells them to. I mean, look at children that will only buy a certain brand of clothing. *shakes head again* And it really kinda sucks, a lot....especially given the complete oversexualization of well....almost every industry and every advertisement. The media is really damaging society, in my opinion. [/end rant that's not at all on topic] :smallredface:

erm....so....umm.....holding open doors for people is a nice and friendly gesture, not to be seen as imparting flirtatious or sexual undertones. In my opinion :smallwink: There....look ma! a topic.

(although really, I think that all of the areas we've been debated tie well enough together to not consider this completely off topic, and I've always been rather more supportive of the natural flow of conversation, particularly in debates)

[averagejoe]

I know you don't mean it that way overtly but saying women are so easily led by society is demeaning them in a much more profound way than just saying outright "Women are stupid." Women aren't such Myrmidons you know. The differential distribution of the sexes in some professions may indeed be to societal influences that will disappear in time, but is it so hard to believe that women just aren't as interested in some of the things that men are, and vice versa.

That isn't what I'm saying at all. Or, rather, it's half of what I'm saying. Yes, women are so easily led by society, but only because people are so easily led by society, and women are part of the group known as "people." Even me. None of us can help it, society is there from birth, influencing away. In certain cases I can see why there might be significant differences in numbers; combat sports, for exampe, would be more attractive to males, because men are biologically predisposed to fighting. However, the numbers we see today are rediculous, far to great to be explained away by simple "preference." I especially have trouble believing that women are, for example, less apt to logical thought, which is why they supposedly dislike maths more than men.

[Alarra]

But we agree that acting trendy, following the masses and doing what's popular isn't in itself bad? Just doing it so people'll like you is? :smalltongue:

Why, yes. :smalltongue: :smallbiggrin: I'm certainly not saying that the things that are trendy are in themselves bad items. And I certainly have say...shopped at the Gap. But there's a big difference in buying an item because you like it, or want it, or think it will look good on you, and buying an item because (to get more back on topic) you're expected to because of your gender, or any other, non individualized reasoning. Or buying something because having a brand name splashed over your chest makes you feel more worthwhile as a person.

eep....it's 5.

[Sisqui]

That isn't what I'm saying at all. Or, rather, it's half of what I'm saying. Yes, women are so easily led by society, but only because people are so easily led by society, and women are part of the group known as "people." Even me. None of us can help it, society is there from birth, influencing away. In certain cases I can see why there might be significant differences in numbers; combat sports, for exampe, would be more attractive to males, because men are biologically predisposed to fighting. However, the numbers we see today are rediculous, far to great to be explained away by simple "preference." I especially have trouble believing that women are, for example, less apt to logical thought, which is why they supposedly dislike maths more than men.

But all most of the people in this argument who take my view are saying is that it is time to give up on this Cult of Victimology BS. Women have just as much free will as men and exercise it by making choices. Some choices are in the majority (I for one, love to breathe air. Really, I am a total sheep with that one :smallwink: ) And some are not. Not every statistical discrepancy in demographics represents some sexist or societal plot which must be undone by yet more sexist and societal plotting.


Have you looked at society lately? *shakes head* The truth of the matter is that a good chunk of people as a whole (both male and female) are led around like sheep by the media, fashion trends, advertising, and the lot. I mean, why do you think so much money is poured into the advertising industry? Because people (in general... yes ...there are some individual, free thinkers out there...and I think this site has a higher than usual concentration of them) are sheep, and people will do whatever the little black box tells them to. I mean, look at children that will only buy a certain brand of clothing. *shakes head again* And it really kinda sucks, a lot....especially given the complete oversexualization of well....almost every industry and every advertisement. The media is really damaging society, in my opinion. [/end rant that's not at all on topic] :smallredface:


Not to be rude, but have you ever noticed how the person calling most of humanity "sheep" almost always excludes himself/herself and the people he/she is conversing with? Just sayin' :smallconfused:

[ChronicLunacy]

And I certainly have say...shopped at the Gap.

*GASP!* You sick, sad, horrible person. Cthulu help you.:smallwink:

[Alarra]

Not to be rude, but have you ever noticed how the person calling most of humanity "sheep" almost always excludes himself/herself and the people he/she is conversing with? Just sayin' :smallconfused:

I'm not saying that I'm not a sheep, or that I'm not influenced by advertising. Everyone is. Admittedly, not having tv, I think I'm less susceptible than the average person, yes, but that's purely the result of my being unable to currently afford cable :smalltongue:. But, that doesn't mean I'm wrong in my assessment. Compare the people of this messageboard, with saaaaaay....the types of people that would say want to be on....flavor of love :smallwink: and you have to admit that there is a difference. Not that those type of people necessarily represent the 'average' human populace either. I will, however, stand by my assessment that the people on this messageboard are of a slightly higher mental caliber than the general populace, likely due to the focus of the site.

And yeah...Decken....let's not go down that route, that's asking for trouble.

[Trog]

Have you looked at society lately? *shakes head* The truth of the matter is that a good chunk of people as a whole (both male and female) are led around like sheep by the media, fashion trends, advertising, and the lot. I mean, why do you think so much money is poured into the advertising industry? Because people (in general... yes ...there are some individual, free thinkers out there...and I think this site has a higher than usual concentration of them) are sheep, and people will do whatever the little black box tells them to. I mean, look at children that will only buy a certain brand of clothing. *shakes head again* And it really kinda sucks, a lot....especially given the complete oversexualization of well....almost every industry and every advertisement. The media is really damaging society, in my opinion. [/end rant that's not at all on topic] :smallredface:
Okay. Responding to this. As my job 40+ hours a week is to MAKE advertising that works. Blaming advertising for making people sheep does not put the responsibility where it lies - with the sheep.. er... people. It's the "If your friend jumped off the bridge would you?" thing all over again. Just because anyone or anything tells you that something is good and that you should want it doesn't meant you HAVE to give into that. Granted good advertising makes that message difficult to ignore. But difficult to resist? No.

Lord knows I don't make the most money in the world and I have to severely limit my spending so many things that other people break down and buy (I currently have no TV. Haven't for a few months. When I do have TV I have basic basic cable... 13 channels for like $14 or something) I am tempted to get too... but I CHOOSE not to. And frankly if I can do it anyone can. The media only tempts us. Though no more than, say, your neighbor with the better (fill in the blank here) does. But it is our responsibility to make our choices wisely. Afterall business is business and business must grow, regardless of crummies in tummies you know. :smalltongue:

On Topic: *Trog wanders out* Chivalry's last will and testament requests he be resurrected. Trog's not touching that. Let the ladies decide. *puffs*

[Alarra]

Okay. Responding to this. As my job 40+ hours a week is to MAKE advertising that works. Blaming advertising for making people sheep does not put the responsibility where it lies - with the sheep.. er... people. It's the "If your friend jumped off the bridge would you?" thing all over again. Just because anyone or anything tells you that something is good and that you should want it doesn't meant you HAVE to give into that. Granted good advertising makes that message difficult to ignore. But difficult to resist? No.


I'm not saying that advertising makes people sheep, merely that they exploit the mentality that people already possess. Which is their job, and they're good at it. I'm not saying advertising is the devil or anything, (I realize I've been completely coming off like that, when this isn't even a topic that I feel strongly about) Advertising is an important aspect of capitalism and really, the only good way for people to even learn about new products and services. I will however, blame media and advertising, for some (okay, a lot) of the general degeneration of society, due to the oversexualization of their messages, and well....for the tasteless crap that floods television today. (But this is an entirely different debate and one that I will stop getting into here)

[Jorkens]

I'm not saying that advertising makes people sheep, merely that they exploit the mentality that people already possess. Which is their job, and they're good at it. I'm not saying advertising is the devil or anything, (I realize I've been completely coming off like that, when this isn't even a topic that I feel strongly about) Advertising is an important aspect of capitalism and really, the only good way for people to even learn about new products and services. I will however, blame media and advertising, for some (okay, a lot) of the general degeneration of society, due to the oversexualization of their messages, and well....for the tasteless crap that floods television today. (But this is an entirely different debate and one that I will stop getting into here)
I think the point is that it's not just advertising. In fact, I think advertising is probably a fairly small part of it. It's not like there's a "girls: why not be a nurse or a secretary or something" advertising campaign running on TV. It's more about social / cultural norms. If almost all of the women (or men or ginger people or whatever) that you see on television or in newspapers or in books or among people that you know are in caring professions or doing creative type jobs or don't express their emotions, then you'll tend to assume (without neccessarily even being conscious of it) that it's a bit weird to do otherwise. And most people (myself included) tend to be at least a bit uncomfortable doing things that they and other people consider 'a bit weird.' Particularly when they're young, which is when really formative decisions are made.

What we're talking about is probably more subtle (and also a lot less bad) than the idea that "girls should always be nurses or teachers, boys should always be engineers or managers", but there are still ideas in our culture about what is acceptable or normal for a woman and what is acceptable or normal for a man. And some of those ideas are still harmful for people involved whose desires they go against - for instance the (now slightly outdated) idea that it was normal for men to get very drunk and unseemly for girls to have more than a gin and tonic made life worse for young men who actually liked to stay sober as well as for women who liked to get drunk and party. I'm not saying it neccesarily makes anything impossible for anyone (although if the person who's got the idea that girls are intrinsically a bit less good at logic / maths / reasoning is the person interviewing you for a physics postdoc, it might), just that it adds discouragement and discomfort, and makes it harder for people to live the life that they want to live.

And, to bring this back on topic, I guess that in a small way, ideas like "you musn't hit girls" or "it's wrong to swear in front of a lady" contribute to (and are evidence of) those different cultural expectations.

[Sisqui]

Perhaps that's true, and maybe even I am guilty of this, but that isn't what I mean. I'm not saying that women are victims and have no choice but to like knitting, I'm saying that we have to excise such thoughts, because it would better society.


My dear averagejoe, you wouldn't be advocating social engineering by the "enlightened elite" would you? Vision of the Annointed, anyone?

Surely you know that won't fly with me, of all people! :smallamused:

Edit: What is the new avvie? And what is he holding in his right hand?


I'm not saying that I'm not a sheep, or that I'm not influenced by advertising. Everyone is. Admittedly, not having tv, I think I'm less susceptible than the average person, yes, but that's purely the result of my being unable to currently afford cable :smalltongue:. But, that doesn't mean I'm wrong in my assessment. Compare the people of this messageboard, with saaaaaay....the types of people that would say want to be on....flavor of love :smallwink: and you have to admit that there is a difference. Not that those type of people necessarily represent the 'average' human populace either. I will, however, stand by my assessment that the people on this messageboard are of a slightly higher mental caliber than the general populace, likely due to the focus of the site.


To that I would say this:
People are influenced by society, yes. But only to the extent that the societal influences do not grossly conflict with their own internal codes of conduct. The more direct the conflict between the two, the more choices the individual is forced to make. As most choices between individual preference and societal preference (society, after all, being nothing more than an aggregate of individuals) are not that momentous, sure, people can go along with the crowd most of the time. So what, if it makes them happy? But don't demean most people by saying they are sheeple, incapable of discerning when their own interests or morals are inconflict with society's. It takes quite an ego to say only a chosen few (yourself included) have the independence to diverge from the herd.

As to flavor of love, I have no idea what you are talking about. Sounds like some kind of hippie sex festival to me......:smallconfused:

[Trog]

*snip* I will however, blame media and advertising, for some (okay, a lot) of the general degeneration of society, due to the oversexualization of their messages *snip*

de·gen·er·a·tion: intellectual or moral decline tending toward dissolution of character or integrity : a progressive worsening of personal adjustment

dis·so·lu·tion: Indulgence in sensual pleasures; debauchery.

char·ac·ter: moral or ethical quality: a man of fine, honorable character.

mor·al: of, pertaining to, or concerned with the principles or rules of right conduct or the distinction between right and wrong; ethical: moral attitudes.

So you are blaming media and advertising for people indulging in sensual pleasures (sex, assumedly, in this case since you used the word oversexualization) to a degree that is "wrong" due to the media. Interesting. Well people have been having sex for a long long time now and all sorts of debauchery has been going on long before advertising. I think it safer to say that the media shines a spotlight on that which would exist with or without it.

Ads DO take advantage of this and flaunt the libido. Again restraint is the answer not elimination of advertising or some other solution. Repression, censorship, etc.

I only argue this because, frankly, I get paid to make people act like sheep. And it is much easier to live with myself knowing that the reader/viewer/listener in the end is the decider of whether or not an ad works. Which I am going to continue to espouse until someone can prove it to me otherwise. :smallsmile:

Look! An Ad! V *futhers demonic ethos. Gets loads of XP* :smalltongue:

[Alarra]

It takes quite an ego to say only a chosen few (yourself included) have the independence to diverge from the herd.
Once again....I never once claimed to be divergent from the herd or to not be susceptible to advertising. I was talking about society as a whole and include myself well within that society.



So you are blaming media and advertising for people indulging in sensual pleasures (sex, assumedly, in this case since you used the word oversexualization) to a degree that is "wrong" due to the media. Interesting. Well people have been having sex for a long long time now and all sorts of debauchery has been going on long before advertising. I think it safer to say that the media shines a spotlight on that which would exist with or without it.

Ads DO take advantage of this and flaunt the libido. Again restraint is the answer not elimination of advertising or some other solution. Repression, censorship, etc.
No...I'm not. What I am blaming the media (media in general, really, not just advertising) for, is having a hand in a general decline in society's morality. Today, children are exposed to sex and violence much earlier and more readily than in any previous generation. Can you really argue that this doesn't have an effect on them and isn't affecting changes in the way people behave? I'm not saying that these behaviors didn't exist in times past, but I am saying that I think that the media latching onto these ideas and spotlighting them, as you will, is certainly effecting people's behavior. I'm not entirely blaming the media, certainly, there are a lot of factors leading to these changes, but to claim that the media has no effect on it, well...that doesn't seem like it could possibly be right.

I'm not condoning censorship. Well....I mean, I am condoning the idea that people should think about what effect things could have on children's thoughts and behaviors before they splash them all over cartoon programs. So, I suppose, yes, I am.


I only argue this because, frankly, I get paid to make people act like sheep. And it is much easier to live with myself knowing that the reader/viewer/listener in the end is the decider of whether or not an ad works. Which I am going to continue to espouse until someone can prove it to me otherwise. :smallsmile::smalltongue:
I've also never denied this. Of course the end viewer should be the one taking responsibility for whether they buy into advertising. And there are -plenty- of people that resist the temptation of an ad. But you admitted yourself that advertisers make the decision to resist more difficult. That's what advertising does! That's its job! I'm not saying that ads make decisions for people, but they certainly do their best to affect them. And you know....I did this job too, I know where you're coming from. I wrote ad copy and did back cover blurbs for books, and know what it's like to try to influence people through advertising....And I'm in no way claiming that advertising is a bad thing. Just a lot of how it's done today is, in my opinion. I'm not trying to knock advertising. I'm really not.

*Decides not to respond to Zeb's scenario, as not being offended by someone holding a door for me, am not the audience for whom its intended.*

[SDF]

Trog is a professional brain washer. He makes sure the zombies have clean brains to eat. :smallbiggrin:

[Sisqui]

But what in the world is flavor of love? Still waiting on the explanation for that one........

[The Great Skenardo]

But what in the world is flavor of love? Still waiting on the explanation for that one........

Cold strawberries dipped in chocolate.

Glad I could clear that up for you :smallbiggrin:

[Sisqui]

Cold strawberries dipped in chocolate.

Glad I could clear that up for you :smallbiggrin:

Only if it's dark chocolate. And I prefer raspberries :smallwink:

[SMEE]

Cold strawberries dipped in chocolate.

Glad I could clear that up for you :smallbiggrin:

Sorry to be slight off-topic, but truer words like ones quoted above were never said before. :smallsmile:

[Zeb The Troll]

But what in the world is flavor of love? Still waiting on the explanation for that one........Flavor of Love was an ill conceived reality show on VH1 where women vied for the attentions of Flavor Flav, a has been musician formerly of the band Public Enemy, with a nasty grill and a big clock necklace schtick. See here (http://www.vh1.com/shows/dyn/flavor_of_love/series.jhtml) for more.

[Sisqui]

Flavor of Love was an ill conceived reality show on VH1 where women vied for the attentions of Flavor Flav, a has been musician formerly of the band Public Enemy, with a nasty grill and a big clock necklace schtick. See here (http://www.vh1.com/shows/dyn/flavor_of_love/series.jhtml) for more.

Nasty grill? He never heard of a brillo pad?

EDIT: That all looks like it would rot your brain............. But, it's your brain to rot. "It's exactly the kind of thing you'd like if you like that kind of thing." :smallwink:

[Zeb The Troll]

Nasty grill? He never heard of a brillo pad?In case you're not kidding, and likely there are others that might not get it since it's kind of colloquial, it means "Holy smokes those are some bad teeth!"

[Sisqui]

In case you're not kidding, and likely there are others that might not get it since it's kind of colloquial, it means "Holy smokes those are some bad teeth!"

No, I wasn't kidding. Actually, I had no notion of a reference to teeth. I was trying to decide if you meant a BBQ type grill or a grill on the front of a car.....:smallredface:

[Zeb The Troll]

No, I wasn't kidding. Actually, I had no notion of a reference to teeth. I was trying to decide if you meant a BBQ type grill or a grill on the front of a car.....:smallredface:This is where it comes from. As in, "so bad it looks like the grill of a car". But we're skittering off topic here. Sorry about that.

[Trog]

Once again....I never once claimed to be divergent from the herd or to not be susceptible to advertising. I was talking about society as a whole and include myself well within that society.


No...I'm not. What I am blaming the media (media in general, really, not just advertising) for, is having a hand in a general decline in society's morality. Today, children are exposed to sex and violence much earlier and more readily than in any previous generation. Can you really argue that this doesn't have an effect on them and isn't affecting changes in the way people behave? I'm not saying that these behaviors didn't exist in times past, but I am saying that I think that the media latching onto these ideas and spotlighting them, as you will, is certainly effecting people's behavior. I'm not entirely blaming the media, certainly, there are a lot of factors leading to these changes, but to claim that the media has no effect on it, well...that doesn't seem like it could possibly be right.

I'm not condoning censorship. Well....I mean, I am condoning the idea that people should think about what effect things could have on children's thoughts and behaviors before they splash them all over cartoon programs. So, I suppose, yes, I am.


I've also never denied this. Of course the end viewer should be the one taking responsibility for whether they buy into advertising. And there are -plenty- of people that resist the temptation of an ad. But you admitted yourself that advertisers make the decision to resist more difficult. That's what advertising does! That's its job! I'm not saying that ads make decisions for people, but they certainly do their best to affect them. And you know....I did this job too, I know where you're coming from. I wrote ad copy and did back cover blurbs for books, and know what it's like to try to influence people through advertising....And I'm in no way claiming that advertising is a bad thing. Just a lot of how it's done today is, in my opinion. I'm not trying to knock advertising. I'm really not.

*Decides not to respond to Zeb's scenario, as not being offended by someone holding a door for me, am not the audience for whom its intended.*
I would argue (quite easily) that there are parents out there who do not monitor their children's media consumption. Generally I find the programs available at the flip of the channel to be largely non-child friendly. As well as most of the internet. I have done a careful job in shielding my boys from these sorts of influences and by and large I think they are probably about on par with where I was at their age. Probably better.

Yes the media has an effect. But that is why parents need to step up. Honestly I do not let my kids onto this site, even. So I am condoning parental involvement in sheilding their kids from such things. And such things ARE much more prevalent nowadays. Personally I blame the media for this... but the advertising available on that media? No. I dio not think that does anything more than promote products.


But you admitted yourself that advertisers make the decision to resist more difficult.
Actually no I didn't. I said this:

Granted good advertising makes that message difficult to ignore. But difficult to resist? No.
There's a difference. My job is to get your attention. And show you what the product can do to either 1) Solve a problem or 2) Make you feel good. Ads do not brainwash. They succintly inform and make very well thought out appeals to your needs and wants. That is all. :smallsmile:

Oops. Many posts appeared while I typed this. Back on topic. :smallredface:

[Pyrian]

Today, children are exposed to sex and violence much earlier and more readily than in any previous generation.Not so much. The only way to make that statement make sense is to narrow it "fictionalized, human, televised" - which really takes the wind out of your point. Farm kids grow up just fine, and they see the whole lifecycle and all that goes with it basically from birth.

But they see it truthfully, as it is...

What bugs me about media is not the information or the subject matter, it's the gross distortions. Reality doesn't happen like things happen on TV - even "reality" TV - except in that people mimic it because for some it's literally almost all they know about some things! Have you ever noticed how many guys in the Relationships thread are courting women who are obviously not romantically interested in return? I really think that there's something that goes on in our heads where we simply expect things to work out like they do in virtually ALL the movies (and books and...).

[Jorkens]

What bugs me about media is not the information or the subject matter, it's the gross distortions. Reality doesn't happen like things happen on TV - even "reality" TV - except in that people mimic it because for some it's literally almost all they know about some things! Have you ever noticed how many guys in the Relationships thread are courting women who are obviously not romantically interested in return? I really think that there's something that goes on in our heads where we simply expect things to work out like they do in virtually ALL the movies (and books and...).
Not to mention that our definition of 'averagely good looking' gets readjusted to 'minor hollywood actor / actress' and our view of ourselves and the people around us gets more negative as a result. Likewise most of the other scales we measure worth or success on...

But I suspect that going any further in that directions would lead into Politics, for me at least.

[0wca]

There's a difference. My job is to get your attention. And show you what the product can do to either 1) Solve a problem or 2) Make you feel good. Ads do not brainwash. They succintly inform and make very well thought out appeals to your needs and wants. That is all. :smallsmile:
:smallredface:

Riiiiiiiiiiiiight....

So you're saying that ads DON'T repeat the name of the article over and over again, so you get it in your head? It's the oldest trick in the book. The majority of consumers usually buy stuff that come from ads. Why? Because they've heard it so many times, they've become to believe in it.

I mean, don't get me wrong, if you can't resisist the temptation of material "satisfaction" then it's your fault. I'm just saying that ads exploit the fact above for their own profit.

Anyway you look at it, the consumer is just as "guilty" of buying a product as the advertiser.

[Sisqui]

Anyway you look at it, the consumer is just as "guilty" of buying a product as the advertiser.

Wait, what? Buying something entails feeling guilty? Since when?

[The Great Skenardo]

Wait, what? Buying something entails feeling guilty? Since when?

"Another quart of ice cream? How do I go through this stuff so quickly?" :smallsigh:

[Trog]

Riiiiiiiiiiiiight....

So you're saying that ads DON'T repeat the name of the article over and over again, so you get it in your head? It's the oldest trick in the book. The majority of consumers usually buy stuff that come from ads. Why? Because they've heard it so many times, they've become to believe in it.

I mean, don't get me wrong, if you can't resisist the temptation of material "satisfaction" then it's your fault. I'm just saying that ads exploit the fact above for their own profit.

Anyway you look at it, the consumer is just as "guilty" of buying a product as the advertiser.
Frequency is an important thing for getting noticed. I never claimed that some ads don't do that. But they do repeat because it gets your attention. And yes with radio ads and TV ads they do that because, quite frankly, if you don't remember the number after the commercial is over what good was it spending money to advertise? Handy thing about print ads (such as I create) is that they only have to include it somewhere not repeat it a bazillion times. It's a more permanent media. But is repetition of a phone number brainwashing? No. It doesn't MAKE you go and get the phone and call. YOU have to decide to. Yes consumers buy stuff from ads. And AGAIN just because an ad says something doesn't negate the consumer's intelligence. Yes people need stuff. YOU need stuff. Exploit you? Hardly. Exploit time tested methods for getting you to notice? Yes.

And to concur with other posters there is no guilt in advertising a good product to a market that may need it. If a consumer feels guilty for buying something that is, again, his or her own burden to bear. The victimization of the consumer to the media is a flimsy excuse sometimes used to cover for a consumer who feels guilt over their poor purchasing choices. A decision they made and on whose shoulders the burden solely lays.

[FdL]

You know, Trog and the others. I think this subject of advertising and marketing is far too interesting to be an off-topic aside to the present thread. Let's make it a new thread. I have a couple of things to contribute to that discussion.

[Trog]

The subject for this thread (discussion started in (of all places) the chivalry thread post #317) is advertising and marketing. How do you feel about it? What do you like about it? Hate? Is it Evil? Etc. Have at it! :smallbiggrin:


*Eat at Trog's Tavern*
Vomit free for 0002 days!

[Death, your friend the Reaper]

Wish to have bones that the other personifications will be jealous of?

Tiered of people laughing at your brown bones?

Didn't drink enough calcium as a child?

If you answered yes to one or more of these questions try:
Death's Easy Bleach!
9/10 Anthropomorphic figures recommend it!

http://i79.photobucket.com/albums/j139/z-t/NudeDeath.gif


Only $4.99 while stocks last!*

*Ill advised side effects include: immortality, eternal pain, dully of senses, loss of human emotions, loss of skin, loss of hair, giddiness, and in extreme cases Death. Use only as directed.

[Serpentine]

Well, I figure it's doing its job when an ad is flogged to death on TV, yet it doesn't get on your nerves... SHOUTING IS NOT AN EFFECTIVE ADVERTISING MEDIUM



Iron Avatarist Hall of Fame
Now Open for Viewing

[Trog]

Trog advises you to brace for thread merge and keep your hands and feet inside the thread at all times. :smallamused:

[Midnight Son]

Vomit free for 0002 days!Is it really free, or do you have to buy some ridiculously priced item to get it and you just say it's free because you didn't put a price tag on it?

[Alarra]

Oooh fun...*plays with neat modly tools she never uses* All the posts regarding advertising and the media are now lovingly tucked in here. Although it makes for a less pretty and impressive first post. *wanders away to see about fixing that*

[Trog]

Oooh fun...*plays with neat modly tools she never uses*
Is there a taser? :smallamused: And why do I now picture you with a Bat Girl utility belt? :smallconfused:

[FdL]

Hey ^^

Yeah, it's on the dark side alright.

I understand that advertisment is the basis of capitalism, and that it's a natural way to let the public know of the options they have when making a purchase.

The problem I have with advertising and marketing is mainly that nowadays they are too aggressive. They don't seem to care about the consumer apart from selling them stuff. The view marketing geniuses have of people is of pigeonholing them into percentual charts and squeezing as much information they can use to sell things to them.

And one thing is when this means that they match the right customer with the right product type and then they can present it as better alternative than the others. Using tricks we all know by now (more on that later).

But a major point is that they often try to sell things to people who don't need them. They create a need to buy when it's not there. And they can really sell you anything.

What I don't like about this is how they appeal to basic traits of people, basic needs, desires and dreams, and they use it to squeeze money out of them...Shall I say this feels like being cheated?

And because of this last point and also because of the way they present their products as desirable goals in a consumerist society, the impact they have in culture and society is too large. It's too large a responsability, to influence the values and goals and dreams of people in such way. Especially when the only drive behind companies and corporations is to make money.

So there, my point is how aggressive money-making strategies often clash with moral and ethical issues.


I'll give a little example of my view on marketing.
A year back maybe, I was walking on the street with my then girlfriend. Then a street salesman approached us. He was selling perfumes. Not original perfumes, but copies of know fragrances.

Well, he approached us and tried to start his pitch. I tried to be as polite as possible and tell him that we didn't want what he was selling.

I don't consider as polite the way the guy kept talking (sweet talking, which I didn't like with my girlfriend there) and doing his stuff whether we liked it or not. I confronted him and calmly told him that I didn't want to buy his perfumes because I don't use them (those), so that he didn't have to waste my time and his knowing this. I told him that I didn't like aggressive marketing strategies, because I was a conscious consumer and when I wanted something I was the one to look for it and make an active purchase.

The guy kept at it (persistent and smiling all the while), saying that according to the laws of marketing "I wanted the product but I didn't know it" and citing other similar well-studied lines (because in my city these street salesmen, all well dressed in their suits, are often marketing students... :s).

This encounter really angered me and was a perfect example of why I don't like hate marketing as a practice. He didn't care about what I wanted, he thought he knew about what I was willing to buy better than I did. And well, I somehow refuse to be told what to do and think, especially based on vague socioeconomic generalizations from a bunch of yuppies.

There. I feel better now :D

[Cyrano]

Is there a taser? :smallamused: And why do I now picture you with a Bat Girl utility belt? :smallconfused:

Because you're psychic.
And, wow, a moved topic, moved for being off topic. T'would be a shame if it went off topic.
I'm going to give my unnecessary two cents.

Calling advertising exploitation is ridiculous. It's like saying a beggar asking for money is immoral, or that a husband asking his spouse to do the dishwasher for him is insensitive. They ASK you to go and do it. The reason the beggar does not say "My name is Joe, and you can call me to donate at 111-111-1111. Please, call now, at 111-111-1111. My life depends upon it, at the handy number of 111-111-1111": is because the beggar is right there. The only reason the husband does not say " The dishwasher is in the kitchen, ok? Could you do it for me? In the kitchen? That's where you have to go. It's in the ktichen." is because it's their house. The advertiser has no direct link to the consumer save information and placement, both of which change constantly. They repeat things because they have to. Exploitation is forcing south africans to work for pennies. Advertising is a polite form of asking you to give them money in exchange for a service. Now, if they bought out every single competitor, destroyed them, then overpriced their product by a factor of 1000 and forced you to buy it, THEN, they exploit you.

Now, the reason advertising is so massively disliked, is porbably because you wanna watch 24, Lost, BSG, etc, and 25 minutes of your time is commercials (exageration.) Is that bad? Is it evil to have so much advertising time? No, if you want to pay 40k a year for a television set. Surprise, those ads PAY FOR SOMETHING. Honestly to any dude with willpower, ads are a blessing, not a curse.

Direct, salesman-type ads (as above) are different. They espouse forcing you to listen on your free time you chose to do something else with (contrary to watching TV) to force things on you whether you want or no, with no payoff. None. Zip. Nada. THat's not immoral or exploitation. It's just jerkhood.

[Zeb The Troll]

Is there a taser? :smallamused: And why do I now picture you with a Bat Girl utility belt? :smallconfused:Now there's an idea with some potential. :smallamused:

*gets tazed by Alarra's Moderator-tazer-banana-fana-fo-phazer* :smalleek:

Anyway, after the merge there's a bit of reading to do to get caught up but I think I'm there.

For the most part, I'm inclined to side with Trog in that, in it's basic form, advertising is meant to inform people. Here we have laws that are designed to prevent outright lying about what a product can or cannot do, so we're left with a reasonable facsimile of truth that the consumer needs to know in order to make an informed decision.

Here's where ads affect the decision making process, and again this isn't bad, it's by design. If a user suddenly finds themselves in need of a MightyThing and they go to the store to pick one up, and the store only has two options, the Megastore MightyThing X or the Acme MightyThing 9000, and the user has never even heard of the Megastore model, they are most likely to purchase the Acme model purely on brand recognition, without doing any further research on their own. That's what advertising is supposed to do.

What I don't like is when advertisers focus only on brand recognition and fail to actually inform you about their product in ANY way. I mention again the insurance commercials that are, seriously, a local football player surrounded by dancing girls singing a jingle that is simply "Go Brandname" repeated for 30 seconds.

[Midnight Son]

I have no problems with ads in general, and find using sex appeal or violence to sell product(a la the Miller Light Catfight) amusing, rather than abhoring. What really bugs me is when ad agencies think over-the-top-annoying guy doing his schtick is a good idea. I boycot those products till that commercial stops playing.

The other thing that bugs me about advertising is when they mislead. There may be laws about lying, but I showed an example of this on another thread recently. When Bayer came out with Bayer Select, they were essentially telling us that Asprin only works on headaches and that we need to have a different version for each ache. This is, of course, a load of bull puckey. Since pain medication is delivered through the bloodstream, it goes to all parts of the body. The only difference is the strength of the dose. So, if I had a headache, a stomach ache, and a backache, since I now took three times the recommended dose of painkiller, of course I'm going to think it's working as advertised. I could site many more examples of this, but I like to keep my posts to a reasonable length.

Edit. Oh, and see my post about Trog's free vomit for another pet peeve of mine in advertising.

[averagejoe]

You know, besides being really, really annoying (and I mean reeeeallly annoying), my main beef with advertizing is a lack of ethics. A commercial can tell the truth, follow all the rules, and much of the time it still doesn't seem entirely... right. Like the way that drug commercials list all the side effects quickly and softly, at the end of the commercial. Sure, the info is there, but they're less concerned about telling you that you might fall asleep while driving (true story) than how you'll reconcile with your father, or your kids will be happy, or whatever.

Then we get into the unnecessary manipulation. Associating a clothing line with domestic bliss, or other such silliness. The whole thing is rather distasteful.

[Yiel]

There is a certain type of mass-advertising often used in Australia, which is pretty much this:

"JEANS JEANS JEANS! BRANDNAME WE CAN'T TELL YOU LIKE LEVI AND CALVIN KLIEN! GET YOUR JEANS LIMITED SALES AT THE WAREHOUSE! THE WAREHOUSE! WE CAN'T TELL YOU WHAT BRANDS *flashing brand names across screen* JEANS JEANS JEANS! AT THE WAREHOUSE! ONLY UNTIL 5PM SUNDAY! GET YOUR JEANS BEFORE THEY'RE ALLLLLL GONE! ONLY AT THE WAREHOUSE ONLY UNTIL 5PM THIS SUNDAY!"

:smalleek: Its a nice reason not to turn the television on during peak advertising times. Not all advertising is bad though. For example, the not-for-profit organisation I currently work for needs to advertise our service, so that people who need our free services can find us. If we didn't advertise, the people who need us wouldn't be able to find us. Word of mouth is even a form of advertising.

Even with the "JEANS" advertisement, they are just letting us know their product/service is out there. Annoying as it is: :smallsigh:

[Trog]

The problem I have with advertising and marketing is mainly that nowadays they are too aggressive. They don't seem to care about the consumer apart from selling them stuff. The view marketing geniuses have of people is of pigeonholing them into percentual charts and squeezing as much information they can use to sell things to them.
In order to bust through the glazed eyes don't care mentality that often happens with ads you HAVE to be agressive. Maybe not hassle you on the street agressive but you have to be serious about getting people to notice you. And advertisers DO care about more than just selling you stuff. They WANT you to be satisfied. Why? Because then you TELL someone you are satisfied. And they tell someone else. Word of mouth and reputation carries a LOT of weight in business. It can make a small business thrive or a big business sink. Or anywhere in between.

And yes market research to determine people's buying habits IS very important. Without that you are just working in the dark. You may not be advertising in the right medium to reach your audience. You have to reach people that want the product. Believe it or not most marketing is about who NOT to advertise to. And therefore making sure that that you don't have to sit through ads that don't apply to you.


What I don't like about this is how they appeal to basic traits of people, basic needs, desires and dreams, and they use it to squeeze money out of them...Shall I say this feels like being cheated?

And because of this last point and also because of the way they present their products as desirable goals in a consumerist society, the impact they have in culture and society is too large. It's too large a responsability, to influence the values and goals and dreams of people in such way. Especially when the only drive behind companies and corporations is to make money.

So there, my point is how aggressive money-making strategies often clash with moral and ethical issues.
Yes the most effective advertising appeals to people's base wants and desires. Why? Well first off it works. Why would you want to appeal to whatever the opposite of "wants" are? Would that work? No. You wouldn't care and then would be annoyed at the commercial or ad because it was innane and pointless.

So let's take sex for example. Lets take human attraction as a base need to want or desire or whatever.

Let's say I make a shaver. I show a studly guy shaving with my shaver and show his woman admiring his smooth face. Think this doesn't actually happen in real life? :smallconfused: It does. Now if you made the mistaken assumption that you would buy their shaver and "get a girl like that" well then you just missed the whole point. The point of that man and that woman in there was to demonstrate the product. Why? BECAUSE YOU STARE AT THEM. Because deep down we all like looking at hot people. So it gets your attention. And maybe, just maybe, you will notice the razor. And so the next time you go to buy one and you have no idea which one to get you'll grab their razor because you recognize the name.

So how are you being cheated? You got to look at hot people for free. You would have anyways if they had been on a TV show. Would you have felt manipulated then?

And saying it's too large of a responsibility accomplishes nothing. First of all it seems to assume that all advertisers get together to decide these things or something like that. They don't. They compete with one another. The consumers do the deciding.



I'll give a little example of my view on marketing.
*snip*

I feel your pain. No one like people that aren't good at their job harassing them. But taking that guy as THE example of marketing would be to overlook and therefore do a disservice to those who do it well.


Is it really free, or do you have to buy some ridiculously priced item to get it and you just say it's free because you didn't put a price tag on it?
Actually I meant it in an "Accident Free Work Site" kind of way. Great. Now I have to give out free vomit. :smallsigh:

[Rockphed]

You know, besides being really, really annoying (and I mean reeeeallly annoying), my main beef with advertizing is a lack of ethics. A commercial can tell the truth, follow all the rules, and much of the time it still doesn't seem entirely... right. Like the way that drug commercials list all the side effects quickly and softly, at the end of the commercial. Sure, the info is there, but they're less concerned about telling you that you might fall asleep while driving (true story) than how you'll reconcile with your father, or your kids will be happy, or whatever.

I know somebody who sells drugs. No, not illegal things, and not by making commercials. He actually goes to doctors and informs them about drugs. And he will agree with you that drug ads are evil. :sabine: evil. Not :thog:, :sabine:. Why? For starters, because they always sell the newest drug. This in and of itself is not evil, but what comes next is. Drug patents expire after 13 years or so. These new drugs sometimes have unexpected side effects, which often don't show up for years. So, don't listen to drug ads, talk to your doctor.

And speaking of ads, Would Trog mind if I Borrowed his "Remember Kids: Don't drink, don't smoke, and don't consort with Troglodytes" banner?

[Serpentine]

Here (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xe3Js3uBvYg&mode=related&search=)is why I don't like advertising, and also "GO Harvey go Harvey Norman GO go Harvey go Harvey Norman GO!!!!!!". Admittedly, some advertisers do get it right - they make ads that you don't mind watching, that makes the product seem desirable, and that one way or another give some information about the product. For some reason it's mostly beer, though.

Oh, another form of advertising that bugs me can be seen here (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nhk8KVAbZGU).:smallsigh:

Also, I'm told that in most countries there aren't any ads during movies. Not sure how true that is... But to be honest, a lot of the time I don't really mind ads that much... it's when they play the same horribly annoying one 2 or 3 times in the one ad-break, the way they're becoming the defining feature of commercial TV - that is, it feels like you have to wade through an ocean of advertising just for a glimpse of the sandbar of program - and the latest habit of squishing the credits of the movie teeeny tiny at the bottom of the screen so they can show ever more advertising for stuff you don't want to buy or programs you don't want to watch. Like this:


BLOODY ANNOYING ADVERTISING
hardworking folk whose show/movie you just watched. Want to know who played that character? Too bad!

[KuReshtin]

I usually like watching commercials. Mainly to try and see if the advertising companies have tried to do something new and interesting, find a new angle to get you to notice their product. However, when you've heard about the "No win, no fee" injury claims lawyers 15 times in the last hour and a half or so, you do get fed up with them.

Some of the ads I like are the Bud Light "Real Men of Genius" ads, the coffee ads that has the tag line "When you get unexpected company" and the "Diet IRN BRU" ads over here in the UK. Oh, and the grand daddy of all ads (in my opinion, that is) "Terry Tate; Office Linebacker"

I could probably find YouTube clips of all of them, but I'm not sure if it would break the rules of the board or not, so I'll abstain for now.

[Charity]

OK re advertising.
I have no objection to people trying to flog stuff to adults, we're are responsible for our own lives and purse strings and can only blame ourselves for any poor decisions we make.
I do however object to advertising aimed at children. They do not have an independant income and are not as resiliant to advertising as adults (which is why they are mercylessly targeted by advertising)
Don't tell me that the advertising can be avoided because it simply is not true.
Adverts are everywhere, on childrens TV, magazines/comics, billboards, buses other children, films ... you get the picture. http://www.media-awareness.ca/english/parents/marketing/marketers_target_kids.cfm
These adverts openly encourage children to nag their parents Bart and Lisa style until they fold. They also establish relentless consumerism in our next generation... (I shall not pursue this for fear of becoming too political) Sorry Trog, you are a lovely fellow and all, but I fear much of the blame must lie with advertising.
A huge amount of research is put into more effective ways of apealing to our underlying nature, in an attempt to make the advertising irresistable.
If you throw temptation at us everywhere we go you cannot say that it is entirely our fault if we succomb that is not a realistic assesment of the situation.
2006 money spent on TV advertising alone was estimated $417 billion, given that sort of budget what chance do they have?

[Jorkens]

Then we get into the unnecessary manipulation. Associating a clothing line with domestic bliss, or other such silliness. The whole thing is rather distasteful.
This is really the beef for me. If you live in a developed country, you're basically bombarded from the age of 0 with a constant stream of
BUY THINGS!
BUY THINGS!
If you aren't happy or popular it's because YOU DON'T HAVE ENOUGH THINGS!
There is no road to happiness beyond OWNING LOTS OF THINGS!
If you can't afford enough things (which you can't because there's always something else to want) then you should WORK YOUR FINGERS TO THE BONE to get MORE THINGS!
YOU ARE WHAT YOU OWN!
The ULTIMATE GOAL OF HUMANITY is to OWN AS MUCH STUFF AS POSSIBLE!
And so on. And we wonder that people are messed up...

Although to be fair, I don't think it's just advertising that does this - look at the 'lifestyle' section of a newspaper or magazine or, well, pretty much anywhere else in society.

I'd better stop now before I use the phrase "consumer capitalism"...

[North]

First to all those people out there who hate commercials there is a solution.

Buy a PVR, Tivo, DVR.:smallbiggrin: You can just fast forward right thru the commercials. Although ive used it a couple times to see commercials again. IE Transformers.

IM a commercial whore. Brand Name does matter.

What honestly tastes better?

Kraft Dinner or Macaroni with cheese?

Frosted Flakes or Suger Coated Flakes?

Coca Cola or Safeway Select Cola flavour?

KD IS cheesier. Sugercoated flakes are all rounded and not as sugary. And Safeway Select leaves kind of a gritty aftertaste in my mouth. Actually my favorite version of coke is from mcdonalds when its fresh before teh ice starts to melt mmmm. Its got a very perfect zenlike balance there.

Bad advertising will also make me never buy a product line. A couple years back Quiznos had some sort of singing roadkill commercials. I refused to ever eat there. EVER.

I like advertising. It help me make up my mind if im stuck between two choices. All other things being equal the Tag commercial was better then the Axe one. Ill buy Tag. No I dont think that it will cause random women to start tackling me for my body. Although I wouldnt mind. But when there is no other difference Ill reward the team who made me laugh harder.

And for a lot of products what can they exactly inform you about? Like pants lets say. What needs to be informed? They cover your bum and end at the feet. So lets do something funny and throw the pants in there.

There is one group I would love to send to that special level of hell reserved for child molesters and people who talk during movies. The people who send frickin email spam. Cause you know the first couple thousand emails about viagralix didnt convince me, but you know email 3,001 sold me. ARGHGH.

[LCR]

Nasty grill? He never heard of a brillo pad?

EDIT: That all looks like it would rot your brain............. But, it's your brain to rot. "It's exactly the kind of thing you'd like if you like that kind of thing." :smallwink:

I've seen it, look what happened ...

[Zephra]

Vote Zephra most air elemental in the playground!

[LCR]

Vote Zephra most air elemental in the playground!

Maybe. What are you offering?

[Thes Hunter]

Yay! It looks like it's Trog vs. the Playground.

*grabs some name brand popcorn*
*sits down*
*tosses in a couple kernels*

Blah!

*gets back up wanders in the kitchen*
*gets out the butter, notices it is the fresh off brand stuff, puts it back*
*Grabs the name brand stuff and cuts off the little oxidized bits*
*melts the butter and pours it on the popcorn*

*goes back to her bean bag chair*
*throws the namebrand popcorn up, and catches it in her mouth*
*namebrand grease tumbling down the chin contented namebrand smiles*

[ZombieRockStar]

I like advertising. It help me make up my mind if im stuck between two choices. All other things being equal the Tag commercial was better then the Axe one. Ill buy Tag. No I dont think that it will cause random women to start tackling me for my body. Although I wouldnt mind. But when there is no other difference Ill reward the team who made me laugh harder.

Or, alternately, you could buy stick deodorant that doesn't smell worse than the odour it tries to mask...:smalltongue:

And, dude, KD is a national icon, man. Of course it tastes better. The only question in your mind should be: with ketchup or without?

I like the Gillette commercials where they think that adding yet another blade to a disposable razor equals a huge scientific breakthrough. They make me want to go out and search for one of those old straight-blade ones you have to clean.

[Jibar]

I'm terrible when it comes to advertising.
I'm communist naturally, but when some kind of food advert comes on, specifically, a breakfast cereal, I turn into a consumer whore.
Seriously, I turn on the TV one morning and there's a Coco Pops advert. I'm out in Morrisons later getting lunch with friends, and what do I buy? A box of Coco Pops.
Since then, I have Coco Pops with Frosties every morning.
The Frosties will be with me until the grave, thanks to so many "They're Grrrrrrrrrreat!" during my childhood.
I also find myself wanting Weetabix baaad every now and then.

[zeratul]

We should spend more time paying attention to important issues, than to paying attention to what Linsy Lohan is wearing. Down with the machine!

[Castaras]

Got some evil that needs doing?

Come To AMEN!

With the evilest and cruellest of the playgrounders all working together to create foul and vile plots to take over the playground with, if you have some paladin that needs smiting, or some do-gooder to have a fatal accident, just pop down to the Giant in the Playground Forums ; Silly Message Boards ; and Structured Games, and the current AMEN thread should be there waiting for you.

So don't delay! Call today, and you'll get free pies, freshly made!

http://img64.imageshack.us/img64/3317/amenbannewiprov9.png

*Not all members shown currently.#
#Banner subject to change

[Thes Hunter]

^ If wearing black makes you look uncool.... (well unless you are part of AMEN obviously)

I guess pink really is the new black then. :smalltongue:

[LCR]

We should spend more time paying attention to important issues, than to paying attention to what Linsy Lohan is wearing. Down with the machine!

That. Is. So. Wrong.
How is Lindsay's skirt not important? Have you seen her lately? She looks like such. A. Trainwreck.
And don't get me started on Nicole's latest Manolos ...



Got some evil that needs doing?

Come To AMEN!

With the evilest and cruellest of the playgrounders all working together to create foul and vile plots to take over the playground with, if you have some paladin that needs smiting, or some do-gooder to have a fatal accident, just pop down to the Giant in the Playground Forums ; Silly Message Boards ; and Structured Games, and the current AMEN thread should be there waiting for you.

So don't delay! Call today, and you'll get free pies, freshly made!

http://img64.imageshack.us/img64/3317/amenbannewiprov9.png

*Not all members shown currently.#
#Banner subject to change

I can wear black AND look cool. And I'm not evil. I like helping people!

[Castaras]

Ahh, but you're a single person, not a group. :smalltongue:

[LCR]

I am lcr, for I am many.

[sktarq]

A couple of things about advertising.
One it is so ubiquitous that it is now creating and defining social norms. This is done less as a reflection of the society in which it resides but on what makes people buy stuff. And as much as we like to think that because the people in the shaving comercial are hot has nothing to do with what we buy just reading a list of words that includes at a 1/5 ratio (as in these are important words and there are 4 other words for each one listed here) Florida, Pension, Prunes, Grave, etc we will walk slower, talk in more formal manner and in various ways ACT old-even it the topic of age was never adressed directly (note most of those above words are only assosiated with human age). Human brains are wired that way naturally-it was a good surivival instinct at one time. If you really want I can go to my car and pull the studies (I have odd reading habits).
Second-If when I step into a taxi I get a 3 minute loop of advertising nonsence blared at me- in addition to what was on the side and top of the taxi, If I can't walk down the street without being told who to sell my home through and if even PBS had five mintues of which car to buy before (Edit: who hoo power loss-thankfully I have a UPS). they put on whatever replaced Mr Rodgers, Nova, and other shows you can expect kids who don't know the difference between advertisement and TV until they are about 8 years old THEN how am I supposed to control access to my child to addvertising or even most of my own.
The biggest thing I find is that advertising has little to do with matching or filling a NEED or even a basic want (as In I want some jeans) but in CREATING that want. By playing to basic wants things like sex appeal, social status, popularity, health and while not assosiating it with such things....generally thins falls under the "being noticed" aspect of adds as Trog puts it. Ad really they have found they can drop any actual way of providing the information that will determine if the product is the one that matches my needs/wants. They appeal on the basis of emotion-often ONLY on emotion. Combinging this with the advertising glut found everywhere and such advertising's previous success it creates lowered intelectual standard. If people are cojoled to buy their toothpaste on their reletive merits versus emotional appeal what are they e Media who I actually blame LESS because very often that emotional tug IS the product they are selling (people care about their favorite characters, get an escape, or whatnot)

[Mr. Moon]

... But... You's not Trog... You's Allara....[/confusedfangirl]

Advertising is annoying. Especialy in comercials when it's for totaly unrelated things as to the show you're watching. I swear, if I'm told to call the operator to ask how to have endless fun with Floam during Naruto one more time, I'll call that operater and tell him just how to have fun with floam...

[Hell Puppi]

Don't blame the person you call...I actually worked for a while at a place where we took orders for infomercials *shudders*

[The Great Skenardo]

I usually make little dinosaurs and sentient moons that eat the dinosaurs.


Here's a thought; what if prime-time ads had more of a PBS feel to them?
i.e. there's some classy message that's the center of the ad, and then at the end you have a brief clip of...I dunno, an ice-cold cola and the logo.

Like ads where they teach a few phrases in Italian or similar
"Excuse me," or "I'm thirsty" or "Where's the bathroom?"

And then at the end, there's a slogan and the product.

I think that'd be awesome.

[Mr. Moon]

T.V.? A learning experiance? You're mad, man!

[The Great Skenardo]

But, since the very nature of adds is repetition, you'd actually have a chance to feel like you're learning something by watching them. I'll wager after a while, most avid T.V. watchers would at least subliminally know how to say a few phrases in a few choice languages.

You could have things with science, too. Nothing very cimplex; maybe just a quick graphic showing stuff like optical lenses and focal points.
Brought to you by Honda.

[Sisqui]

Woohoo, I was the first post of the thread! And I hadn't even posted in it!


These new drugs sometimes have unexpected side effects, which often don't show up for years. So, don't listen to drug ads, talk to your doctor.



That would be why they say "If you have Generic problem X, talk to your doctor about drug Y"

And, on a side note, the side effects that show up years after may not be as world shattering as your local trial lawyer would have you (and a jury) believe.......


I Brake For Blatant Capitalism!

[averagejoe]

Woohoo, I was the first post of the thread! And I hadn't even posted in it!

I believe you are mistaken, my dear Sisqui. If one carefully examines this (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showpost.php?p=2895465&postcount=2) post, especially noting the top right corner, it is the thread's second. Furthermore, if you examine it even more closely, you will find that it's my post. Therefore, I conclude that, besides Alarra's initial post, that it must have been I who was the first post of the thread. I can conclude, therefore, that you were not the first post of the thread, since I am clearly not you, and each of us being the first post are mutually exclusive events. :smalltongue:


That would be why they say "If you have Generic problem X, talk to your doctor about drug Y"

And, on a side note, the side effects that show up years after may not be as world shattering as your local trial lawyer would have you (and a jury) believe.......


I Brake For Blatant Capitalism!

I saw a commercial where one of the potential side effects was falling asleep while driving! I'm no fancypants big city lawyer, but that seems like it has a lot of potential to be world shattering.

Anyways, semantics and specifics aside, you surely can't deny that, even if drug commercials follow all the rules and give all the information, they certainly present it in such a way as to minimize the impression that there might be any risk at all. It's like that commercial seen on The Simpsons (with size representing volume):

Drink Duff! Responsibly.

Sure, they do the dance, but there's no poise or passion to it.

[FdL]

But, since the very nature of adds is repetition, you'd actually have a chance to feel like you're learning something by watching them. I'll wager after a while, most avid T.V. watchers would at least subliminally know how to say a few phrases in a few choice languages.

You could have things with science, too. Nothing very cimplex; maybe just a quick graphic showing stuff like optical lenses and focal points.
Brought to you by Honda.

Um...I'm planning on making a longer, more serious response to the topic later. But this caught my attention.

I don't thing that people involved in marketing or in television are actually willing to have a more educated consumer base. Sadly it's the contrary, the more stupid people is, the easier they are to influence, manipulate and sway to their advantage.

Actually this is good for everyone out there making money from the masses, sure. Not to mention politicians (well, actually let's not mention them because it's a forbidden topic).

Also, I definitely agree with sktarq's post. Most of it coincides with my expressed views.

[Sisqui]

I believe you are mistaken, my dear Sisqui. If one carefully examines this (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showpost.php?p=2895465&postcount=2) post, especially noting the top right corner, it is the thread's second. Furthermore, if you examine it even more closely, you will find that it's my post. Therefore, I conclude that, besides Alarra's initial post, that it must have been I who was the first post of the thread. I can conclude, therefore, that you were not the first post of the thread, since I am clearly not you, and each of us being the first post are mutually exclusive events. :smalltongue:

I meant that she used my post in her first post. She quoted me and then responded to it. Which you very well know. So :smalltongue: back at you!




I saw a commercial where one of the potential side effects was falling asleep while driving! I'm no fancypants big city lawyer, but that seems like it has a lot of potential to be world shattering.

Which is a side effect they are aware of and WARNED you about, not an unintended consequence only discovered years after the fact like the thalidomide babies. If you read the label and drive anyway, that is not the drug's fault, that means you are a . And besides, most of the side effects are not as problematic as whatever the medicine is being taken for, otherwise people wouldn't buy it and doctors wouldn't prescribe it. It's called a risk/benefit analysis.


Anyways, semantics and specifics aside, you surely can't deny that, even if drug commercials follow all the rules and give all the information, they certainly present it in such a way as to minimize the impression that there might be any risk at all. It's like that commercial seen on [I]The Simpsons (with size representing volume):

Drink Duff! Responsibly.

Sure, they do the dance, but there's no poise or passion to it.

Which is why, I say again, they tell you, in every freakin' commercial, to ask your doctor!

[averagejoe]

Which is a side effect they are aware of and WARNED you about, not an unintended consequence only discovered years after the fact like the thalidomide babies. If you read the label and drive anyway, that is not the drug's fault, that means you are a . And besides, most of the side effects are not as problematic as whatever the medicine is being taken for, otherwise people wouldn't buy it and doctors wouldn't prescribe it. It's called a risk/benefit analysis.

Which is why, I say again, they tell you, in every freakin' commercial, to [I]ask your doctor!

Yeah, yeah, yeah, you've said as much, I know they say all that stuff, but what I'm saying is that it's severely understated. They say these things while speaking quickly and softly at the end of the commercial, when everything interesting is over. Or in tiny letters. It's like,

Using product X will lead to a reconciliation with your estranged son!

Product may cause death. Consult your doctor.

Sure, they warned you, but it's abundantly clear that they don't want to, and are doing as little as they can within the confines of the rules.

[Serpentine]

*grabs some name brand popcorn*

There're popcorn brands nowadays? O.o

[StickMan]

Self edit deiced my post was political even though it was not meant to be.

[FdL]

You really think marketing and advertising are free of politics?

Edit: Oh...Right, no talk about politics in this forum. :smallconfused:

[North]

Or, alternately, you could buy stick deodorant that doesn't smell worse than the odour it tries to mask...:smalltongue:

And, dude, KD is a national icon, man. Of course it tastes better. The only question in your mind should be: with ketchup or without?

I like the Gillette commercials where they think that adding yet another blade to a disposable razor equals a huge scientific breakthrough. They make me want to go out and search for one of those old straight-blade ones you have to clean.

Lol.

Ah the Ketchup debate. Im typically a purist but every once in a while I will add Ketchup. Heinz of course :D

Id love to have a straight razor but I hear the maintenence and cost of those babies is severe. But for me I stop at three razors, four razors and the hair gets stuck in it too much.

[Sisqui]

Sure, they warned you, but it's abundantly clear that they don't want to, and are doing as little as they can within the confines of the rules.

Because of course killing your customers is a great way to get repeat business :smallannoyed:

Damn drug companies, inventing drugs that make me better when I am sick. Or worse, keep me from getting sick in the first place. Bastards.:smallmad:

[averagejoe]

Because of course killing your customers is a great way to get repeat business :smallannoyed:

Damn drug companies, inventing drugs that make me better when I am sick. Or worse, keep me from getting sick in the first place. Bastards.:smallmad:

Are you really not getting this, or are you just being argumentative? My issue isn't with the fact that the drug companies are selling these drugs, and never was. My issue is with the sly dishonesty present in such advertisements. Surely you must concede that they do as little as possible to warn people about the risks. Death may be bad for business, but the perception of risk is even worse. So such warnings are all reduced to fine print.

Anyways, even if I were to concede that advertisements are made with the primary concern being people's safety, surely you must concede that many, if not most, of them are extraordinarily stupid. Exposing children to excessive stupidity is even worse than exposing them to sex, violence, or swearing.

[Sisqui]

Are you really not getting this, or are you just being argumentative? My issue isn't with the fact that the drug companies are selling these drugs, and never was. My issue is with the sly dishonesty present in such advertisements. Surely you must concede that they do as little as possible to warn people about the risks. Death may be bad for business, but the perception of risk is even worse. So such warnings are all reduced to fine print.

I freely admit I can be argumentative just for the sake of it, but not in this case. I quite simply don't understand your point. Or rather, I don't think the point is valid. What is "fine print" about it? :smallconfused: Maybe we are watching different commercials, but all the ones I see have a voiceover or an actor (that female doctor in the Yasmin commercial) clearly describing the potential side effects. It's a commercial, not an infomercial. The in depth discussion you seem to want is for the doctor to conduct, not the commercial. Unless, of course, you think people are too stupid to realize they have to talk to their doctors to get prescription drugs in the first place? :smallconfused:


Anyways, even if I were to concede that advertisements are made with the primary concern being people's safety, surely you must concede that many, if not most, of them are extraordinarily stupid. Exposing children to excessive stupidity is even worse than exposing them to sex, violence, or swearing.

I think just about everything on TV is stupid, that's why I only watch Fox News, A&E, the biography channel, TLC, Court TV, etc...

[Zeb The Troll]

I think just about everything on TV is stupid, that's why I only watch Fox News, A&E, the biography channel, TLC, Court TV, etc...Sorry, I'm inclined to agree with your sentiment, I just can't believe you lumped Fox News (or any news station) in with the rest of those channels. :smalltongue:

[Cyrano]

Someone's talking about Fox News? I thought politics was restricted here.

[Sisqui]

Someone's talking about Fox News? I thought politics was restricted here.


Sorry, I'm inclined to agree with your sentiment, I just can't believe you lumped Fox News (or any news station) in with the rest of those channels. :smalltongue:

Ye Gods. A person can't watch the news without being political? And the news isn't supposed to be educational? The freakin' news?!?!
Well. That explains a lot of the posts in this thread. Humph!:smallmad:

[Cyrano]

Well, see, I said that BECAUSE the news is supposed to be educational. IE, to educate you. IE, to give you facts.

[Charity]

Ye Gods. A person can't watch the news without being political? And the news isn't supposed to be educational? The freakin' news?!?!
Well. That explains a lot of the posts in this thread. Humph!:smallmad:


I think their Zebs point may be, that Fox news are not reknown for their impartiality.

Edit - I do not think the News should educate (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/educate) I think it should inform (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/inform)

[Sisqui]

I think their point may be, that Fox news are not reknown for their impartiality

Neither is CNN, MSNBC, ABC, NBC, or CBS. As a matter of fact, the latest Rassmussen poll showed that almost all viewers believe the news is biased one way or the other. Fox News was simply the only one not viewed as having a liberal bias. Unless, of course, you don't think that counts.

EDIT:

I think their Zebs point may be, that Fox news are not reknown for their impartiality.

Edit - I do not think the News should educate (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/educate) I think it should inform (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/inform)
Interesting. Then check out definition number 5 on educate.

[Zeb The Troll]

Ye Gods. A person can't watch the news without being political? And the news isn't supposed to be educational? The freakin' news?!?!
Well. That explains a lot of the posts in this thread. Humph!:smallmad:Watching the news is fine. I do it often. I just wouldn't lump ANY news station (let alone Fox News) into the same category as TLC, Discovery, Biography, etc. Didn't mean to rock any boats or make anyone upset, it's just that 'news only' stations (especially Fox) are notorious for their programming which consists of one bigot yelling at his or her guests without giving them a chance to respond. (I finally stopped watching this type of programming when said hosts would actually tell their guests to shut up while they berated them for disagreeing.)

EDIT: @^Sisqui - by the way, I do agree with your statement about all other news stations being biased as well, in case that wasn't clear.

[Sisqui]

Watching the news is fine. I do it often. I just wouldn't lump ANY news station (let alone Fox News) into the same category as TLC, Discovery, Biography, etc. Didn't mean to rock any boats or make anyone upset, it's just that 'news only' stations (especially Fox) are notorious for their programming which consists of one bigot yelling at his or her guests without giving them a chance to respond. (I finally stopped watching this type of programming when said hosts would actually tell their guests to shut up while they berated them for disagreeing.)

Perhaps that is because you are watching the commentators and not the newscasters. There is a difference. And BTW, someone not sharing your humble opinion does not make them a bigot. Your automatically believing them to be may make you one however.

http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/bigot

EDIT: That last is only if you expect every commentator to be a bigot.

[Cyrano]

Hmph. Much as I would love to discuss each and every one of the failings and successes of news stations from here to Timbuktu, let's not. At least, let's not in an ADVERTISING thread, unless we're under the payroll of Fox to drum up some viewership. M'kay? That'd be swell.

[Sisqui]

Hmph. Much as I would love to discuss each and every one of the failings and successes of news stations from here to Timbuktu, let's not. At least, let's not in an ADVERTISING thread, unless we're under the payroll of Fox to drum up some viewership. M'kay? That'd be swell.

Personally, I think if more people watched the news, especially some of the segments on the economy and the markets, there would be a lot more sense in some of the posts in this thread.

[Cyrano]

Personally, I think if more people watched the news, especially some of the segments on the economy and the markets, there would be a lot more sense in some of the posts in this thread.

That's.....nice...however, I don't really see what that has to do with ads, but I can easily see what it has to do with Fox. Go make a Fox thread, see how fast it degenerates. Or, stop posting about it. Please.

[Sisqui]

That's.....nice...however, I don't really see what that has to do with ads, but I can easily see what it has to do with Fox. Go make a Fox thread, see how fast it degenerates. Or, stop posting about it. Please.

:sigh:

You know, the part about the markets. And the economy. And how they work. Ads get people to buy things, thus stimulating the economy, which might, just might, be related to this thread. And I said news. I didn't name any station specifically. YOU did. :smallannoyed:

[Orzel]

The only ads that work on me are food ads. I pay other people to buy stuff for I hate shopping so much I could eat the mall and vomit it into the SEA!!!. That and I hate people telling me what to do.

My stomach, I must listen to her and she is easy to lead yet hard to please.

[Zeb The Troll]

Perhaps that is because you are watching the commentators and not the newscasters. There is a difference. And BTW, someone not sharing your humble opinion does not make them a bigot. Your automatically believing them to be may make you one however.

http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/bigot

EDIT: That last is only if you expect every commentator to be a bigot.Well, my point was that if you are only watching news programming on those stations (and I do concede it's all of the stations) you will end up watching that type of show. And yes, I call them bigots because they are so adamantly sure of their opinion that they won't even let an opposing opinion be brought forth and they mock and humiliate people who might share an opposing opinion.

If you're watching one of the 30 minute shows that's only a blurb of daily events, you see less of what I'm talking about, it's true. And those are the programs I do watch. I like to hear "There was an incident in London today." I do not like to hear someone yelling at a guest about how it's all (insert group)'s fault because they (did or didn't do something or other) and then tell him or her to "shut up" when the guest tries to respond with an explanation.

I tell you, I used to watch Headline News because that's all it was, a recycling blurb of recent events. Now they've gone and spoiled it with this type of "my view is the only important one" programming and I can't even watch that anymore. I pretty much stick to local news and NPR lately.

Again, I'd like to state clearly that I never meant to fault you, or anyone, for watching the news. I just found it humorous that it was lumped in with more traditionally educational (and less heated) programming.

[Cyrano]

:sigh:

You know, the part about the markets. And the economy. And how they work. Ads get people to buy things, thus stimulating the economy, which might, just might, be related to this thread. And I said news. I didn't name any station specifically. YOU did. :smallannoyed:

Oh, sorry, I was under the assumption that when you went onto the counter rant when we talked about fox, you were ALSO talking about Fox. Sorry.
And the part about the markets. And the economy. And how they work. Very, very interesting, very relevant, very postable, and not at all what I got from your post. If this is a reading problem on my part, I apologize wholeheartedly. But I didn't get that.

As for the bigot comment, I would like to add two things.
Bill O'Reilly.
Cutting a guest's mic.
I don't think they are ALL bigots, but Bill, if not a bigot, is not a newsman either.

[Hell Puppi]

Bill O'Riely
*shudders*
Not a political statement, I just don't like the man.

(apologies--i don't know how to spell his name correctly)

[Sisqui]

Well, my point was that if you are only watching news programming on those stations (and I do concede it's all of the stations) you will end up watching that type of show. And yes, I call them bigots because they are so adamantly sure of their opinion that they won't even let an opposing opinion be brought forth and they mock and humiliate people who might share an opposing opinion.


That is why the free market allows you choice. You can pick and choose your flavor of news and news commentators and bias and bigotry. All paid for with advertising dollars BTW. Advertisers try to get their products on whichever network appeals to what is believed to be the ideals of the target audience. Which is how all of this relates to this thread.


Oh, sorry, I was under the assumption that when you went onto the counter rant when we talked about fox, you were ALSO talking about Fox. Sorry.

I was. The post I made just before you told me not to post about Fox just had news, poor old generic, lowercase news in it. That is what I was referring to.


And the part about the markets. And the economy. And how they work. Very, very interesting, very relevant, very postable, and not at all what I got from your post. If this is a reading problem on my part, I apologize wholeheartedly. But I didn't get that.

Not sure I understand this part.


As for the bigot comment, I would like to add two things.
Bill O'Reilly.
Cutting a guest's mic.
I don't think they are ALL bigots, but Bill, if not a bigot, is not a newsman either.

I would again point out the difference between a news commentator and a newscaster. THEY ARE NOT THE SAME THING! Guess which one Bill O'Reilly is? And, quite frankly, I don't watch his show. He isn't the whole network you know.

[averagejoe]

I freely admit I can be argumentative just for the sake of it, but not in this case. I quite simply don't understand your point. Or rather, I don't think the point is valid. What is "fine print" about it? :smallconfused: Maybe we are watching different commercials, but all the ones I see have a voiceover or an actor (that female doctor in the Yasmin commercial) clearly describing the potential side effects. It's a commercial, not an infomercial. The in depth discussion you seem to want is for the doctor to conduct, not the commercial. Unless, of course, you think people are too stupid to realize they have to talk to their doctors to get prescription drugs in the first place? :smallconfused:

Well, admittedly I don't even really watch commercials anymore, but I can't imagine that med commercials have changed a lot in the last few years. It's just the one's I've seen have been presented like good stuff good stuff good stuff bad stuff bad stuff bad stuff. My point isn't that the stuff isn't there, or that it needs to be an "in depth discussion" (you have a gift for extrapolating extra stuff out of my posts, by the way), just that the potential risks take a clear back seat to the rest of the commercial, which is usually unethical in itself, as it typically associates the medicine with things which have nothing to do with medicine. The above isn't even my big beef with advertisements, I've just been trying to get you to admit that it happens.

[Supagoof]

Just going to insert my two cents here.....not wanting to invade into the conversation prior, just share my view as always.


Y'know, the truth of marketing can best be summed up by one line.

I want to be different just like everybody else!

So, every product that's out there wants to make you feel special - like you can take some pride in the fact you purchased it, or it's simply good for you, or that it in some way makes you better/safer/smarter/cooler then those who hasn't. It's a simple hook to draw you in. For everyone who says they aren't a sheep, they are. If you have ever read Dr. Seuss' story The Sneetches (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Sneetches_and_Other_Stories#.22The_Sneetches.2 2) then you will know that at the very basic element of human wants and needs is the want to find a way to set ourselves apart from everyone else. So by stating you aren't a sheep, it makes you one of the "am not's". And by stating that you are a sheep, well that just puts you into another class or "am too". And you can argue this for every single thing that exists in the world.

All marketing does is figure clever ways to entice that very message to the masses. It's seems invasive, but there are no holds barred on companies who spend dollars to get their message out. So for every dollar one place spends, the competitor spends an equal amount to cancel it out or surpass it. It's no different then any other field out there except it is more in your face.

Imagine the trees cut down to produce the mail that's sent that goes from mailbox to wastebasket in 10 seconds from when you get home? Worth it, well not if you are not interested, but for roughly every thousand letters mailed, if they get 1 person to pay attention, then that's considered a win by the marketing team. And by pay attention I mean simply focus long enough to read the name on the envelope and remember it in some fashion.

So what's my point you ask? Just that marketing will try to reach you and struggle like a starving man crawling towards a plate of food. Does that make it horrible and bad - meh find your opinion on that. I myself am liking the change I've seen in marketing and am a fan of the services marketing provides.

Example - with the internet in play now, since consumers can easily find more information faster about a product, marketing has had to really be specific in it's advertising. I'm happy to see this change. No more "My product is better" claims that lead you to purchase their product without knowledge. Now it's "My product is better because of ...[insert reasons here]."

I like the low cost on listening to the radio and watching tv and even with playing games on-line all because marketing pays and supports the things as it's an avenue they can use to hopefully get their 10 seconds of message to you.

Heck, if's it is very good marketing, then it get's you to promote it without even you having to buy the product. Example - how many of us have an opinion on which automobile is better before we can even drive? *Raises hand*.

Does it make me a sheep - no because I checked into a lot of things before I bought my car, but it did influence what I searched and how I looked at it.

So I guess my point is - Yes, we are all sheep depending on how you look at it and No - being a sheep doesn't mean we're mindless drones and finally Bias - your biased before you even realize it. We don't have a way to learn like the Sneetches did - we're too diverse. Someday though, we may find the happy middle where it all doesn't matter.

[Sisqui]

My point isn't that the stuff isn't there, or that it needs to be an "in depth discussion" (you have a gift for extrapolating extra stuff out of my posts, by the way)

Well, that was snarky


just that the potential risks take a clear back seat to the rest of the commercial, which is usually unethical in itself, as it typically associates the medicine with things which have nothing to do with medicine. The above isn't even my big beef with advertisements, I've just been trying to get you to admit that it happens.

Well, if I thought it did, I would. I just don't. Every one of the commercials like that I see has the standard format:
BLAH,BLAH,BLAH (problem)
Take drug.
Drug may cause:
BLAH,BLAH,BLAH
Most patients were not bothered enough to stop taking drug.
Do not use if you are nursing, pregnant or may become pregnant.
Talk to your doctor about drug.

It's all pretty much right there. If that isn't enough for the prospective patient, they can always actually- :smalleek: gasp :smalleek:-listen to their doctor or heed the warning labels on their medicine. Should all other forms of common sense, government regulation and divine intervention fail, they can even read the drug information insert the pharmacist puts in the bag. Just how much redundancy do we need in life? What do you think the viewing public is? Blind, deaf and dumb? Or just plain dumb? Except you, of course, and you are going to go out there and crusade for all of the people in the world whom you evidently think have less sense than god gave a box of rocks. :smalltongue:

EDIT: Sorry averagejoe, that sounded a lot more harsh than I meant it to be. :smallfrown:

I just plain don't get it.

[Midnight Son]

Heck, if's it is very good marketing, then it get's you to promote it without even you having to buy the product. Example - how many of us have an opinion on which automobile is better before we can even drive? *Raises hand*.Then there's the best marketing of all...getting you, the consumer, to pay to advertize their product. Who here has ever owned a T-shirt with the only design being a great big Nike Swoosh? Did Nike give it to you to wear? Did they offer to pay you for endorsing their product for them? No, they charged you probably $25 so that you could proudly tell everyone you meet how great they are. Genius! I think I'm gonna start selling Midnight Son T-shirts; or maybe those sweats girls seem to like with my logo across the rear.:smallsigh:

[FdL]

Then there's the best marketing of all...getting you, the consumer, to pay to advertize their product. Who here has ever owned a T-shirt with the only design being a great big Nike Swoosh? Did Nike give it to you to wear? Did they offer to pay you for endorsing their product for them? No, they charged you probably $25 so that you could proudly tell everyone you meet how great they are. Genius! I think I'm gonna start selling Midnight Son T-shirts; or maybe those sweats girls seem to like with my logo across the rear.:smallsigh:

No, I never wore one of those. Those reasons being among the main ones.

[Midnight Son]

Same here. My only t-shirts with any logos on them are Order of the Stick. I have been known to have Looney Tunes or Star Wars Ts from time to time, as well as Ts with pics of animals. Just don't ask me to pay to wear a great big company logo on my body. Never gonna happen.

[Zeb The Troll]

Genius! I think I'm gonna start selling Midnight Son T-shirts; or maybe those sweats girls seem to like with my logo across the rear.:smallsigh:Brilliant! You need to have your MS+AtB sigatar on the front and Hog Goblins on the back. I'd buy one (or several). Then I'd be immediately recognizable to fellow itP'ers in this neck of the woods. :smallcool:

*ponders what would be on a Zeb The Troll shirt besides the Hog Goblins logo*

[Sisqui]

I want one of those "I'm not mean, you're just a sissy" t-shirts........

[averagejoe]

Well, that was snarky

Erm, I apologise, I didn't mean to be. I was just trying to, without detracting too much from the main point, say that you do that sometimes. It's just that whenever you refer to my posts you seem prone to either hyperbole or reading things between the lines that aren't there, or a mixture of both. Or, perhaps, something I haven't thought of, but that's what it feels like.


Well, if I thought it did, I would. I just don't. Every one of the commercials like that I see has the standard format:
BLAH,BLAH,BLAH (problem)
Take drug.
Drug may cause:
BLAH,BLAH,BLAH
Most patients were not bothered enough to stop taking drug.
Do not use if you are nursing, pregnant or may become pregnant.
Talk to your doctor about drug.

It's all pretty much right there. If that isn't enough for the prospective patient, they can always actually- :smalleek: gasp :smalleek:-listen to their doctor or heed the warning labels on their medicine. Should all other forms of common sense, government regulation and divine intervention fail, they can even read the drug information insert the pharmacist puts in the bag. Just how much redundancy do we need in life? What do you think the viewing public is? Blind, deaf and dumb? Or just plain dumb? Except you, of course, and you are going to go out there and crusade for all of the people in the world whom you evidently think have less sense than god gave a box of rocks.

I just plain don't get it.

Who's crusading? I'm not exactly shouting this from rooftops and trying to lead a revolution based on the quality of medicine commercials. Heck, if I were to undertake such a crusade, there are certainly much worse breaches of ethics in advertising. I've never had the illusion that I might actually change another person's way of thinking (unless they wanted it first); I'm simply stating the facts as I see them.

What I believe is the most effective way of advertising is through people's passions, perceptions, and gut feeling. They seem to be required to be processed on only a sub or semi concious level, because they often become stupid and absurd when considered on any sort of rational level; almost as if they are taking advantage of the "vegetative" state people enter into when watching TV. I have no actual proof of this, besides my own direct observation of the types of commercials most often displayed. Now, I could be wrong about this; I certainly don't see a large enough selection of advertisements to make a firm conclusion, and even if I could it may be that advertising companies are using less effective forms of advertising without knowing it. However, the assumption that advertising works better when people process it through the "gut" (for lack of a better term) than through the brain. It seems to be a safe enough assumption for now, because it does seem to be the practice, and I'm concerned more at this point with what people do than what they ideally should do.

Now, I'd also say, to be fair, that medicine commercials can vary a bit, and if I ever implied that what I was talking about was universal among medicine commercials, I'm sorry. I didn't mean to.

Now, to give an example of what I mean. Here's the one that sticks out in my mind:

I'm afraid I don't remember what was being advertised, but I do remember that the bit at the end listing the side effects was done more quietly and by someone with a lower voice than the rest of the commercial. (Actually, it may have just been the lower voice, but if so then the low voice made it sound quieter.) Part of it was (and I'm paraphrasing a little, but the important bit is exactly right,) "...potential side effects may include falling asleep [doing miscilaneous action A], [miscilaneous action B], and while driving." I almost did a double take when I watched it. I mean, it's like with road signs; it's okay to have signs to minor side streets be relatively small and out of the way, but I want "Sharp Turns, reduce speed" to be spelled out on big yellow signs. I'm not even saying that it needs to change because people are too stupid to get it, or whatever, I'm saying that I, averagejoe, would like to be warned of potentially lethal consequences in big neon letters (so to speak.) I mean, it may cause some inconvenience, but my life IS rather important to me. However, giving potential death any more than a few words would ruin the gut perception which the commercial tries to put forth, whatever that may be. It would ruin the mood, as it were. That was my point above; above all else the drug needs to feel like it's a good idea.

Sure, I'll talk to my doctor about it, but that's completely beside the point. I've never been trying to claim that medicine commercials have actually been causing people to die, or even causing them to be inconvenienced. I'm not talking about any potetially effects that the commercial might have on people, for which you seem to think I have contempt (okay, I kinda do, but that's irrelevant as far as this goes :smallwink: ); that is a moot point. I'm not, and have not been, going that far. I am, and have been, talking about the commercial in and of itself, nothing beyond. What I have been trying to say is that it's somewhat dishonest just because it doesn't lend equal weight to all facts. Sure, all the facts are there, but there is certainly more time spent on the cute little skit or the people telling their stories about how it has improved their lives, except in the case that the drug has a long list of side effects.

[Sisqui]

Erm, I apologise, I didn't mean to be. I was just trying to, without detracting too much from the main point, say that you do that sometimes. It's just that whenever you refer to my posts you seem prone to either hyperbole or reading things between the lines that aren't there, or a mixture of both. Or, perhaps, something I haven't thought of, but that's what it feels like.

We both do that actually:smallwink: . But I'm cool with admitting it. (It's a sign of really getting your teeth into an argument you know.)


Who's crusading? I'm not exactly shouting this from rooftops and trying to lead a revolution based on the quality of medicine commercials. Heck, if I were to undertake such a crusade, there are certainly much worse breaches of ethics in advertising. I've never had the illusion that I might actually change another person's way of thinking (unless they wanted it first); I'm simply stating the facts as I see them.

Sorry, see edit to that post :smalleek:


I'm afraid I don't remember what was being advertised, but I do remember that the bit at the end listing the side effects was done more quietly and by someone with a lower voice than the rest of the commercial. (Actually, it may have just been the lower voice, but if so then the low voice made it sound quieter.) Part of it was (and I'm paraphrasing a little, but the important bit is exactly right,) "...potential side effects may include falling asleep [doing miscilaneous action A], [miscilaneous action B], and while driving." I almost did a double take when I watched it. I mean, it's like with road signs; it's okay to have signs to minor side streets be relatively small and out of the way, but I want "Sharp Turns, reduce speed" to be spelled out on big yellow signs. I'm not even saying that it needs to change because people are too stupid to get it, or whatever, I'm saying that I, averagejoe, would like to be warned of potentially lethal consequences in big neon letters (so to speak.) I mean, it may cause some inconvenience, but my life IS rather important to me. However, giving potential death any more than a few words would ruin the gut perception which the commercial tries to put forth, whatever that may be. It would ruin the mood, as it were. That was my point above; above all else the drug needs to feel like it's a good idea.


Okay. I will agree with you that the side effects may be listed less forcefully in some commercials (why not, I can be generous when you're beaten :smallbiggrin: ). But, I would also say that these side effects are usually not found in very great numbers. If one person in a drug study died of a complication which may or may not be due to the drug (but cannot be proven to be so) the drug company still has to list it in the warnings. The odds of having some of these possible side effects and reactions are extremely small. If they were advertised as having equal weight as the known and intended effects, would that not be equally as misleading? And, given that these drugs are prescribed with the intention of correcting a medical problem, would it not cause greater harm to worry someone (needlessly) enough that they refused to take what could be a life saving/bettering drug at all?

Maybe, as you said, we should back away from these types of commercials specifically and address what I think is your essential point. What you are saying is that you have an overarching sentiment about all commercials, not just the drug company ones in particular. You want commercials to appeal to your sense of reason- not to your instincts or emotions. You want a logical reason why their product is something you should buy and you feel...misused/insulted/violated in some way when the commercials try to sneak in an appeal to your impulses and emotions because they think you will either not notice or not be able to resist even if you do notice. Essentially, it violates your sense of fair play. Is that pretty close to the mark?


If so, I understand. Here in Columbia we have a new heart hospital. On their commercials, they advertise it as SC's only free-standing heart hospital. Now, I know that is supposed to sound new and shiny, all trendy and modern and such, but every time I see that commercial all I can think of is: all that technology and equipment, all those doctors and nurses with years of experience, and the chief selling point of the hospital is that it is not physically connected to another structure? WTF?? What advertising exec thought this was the best way to market their product? And what does that say about the quality of care if the fact that it is free standing is its best selling point? And how many people watching this commercial will even think to ask that question? :smalleek:

[averagejoe]

Maybe, as you said, we should back away from these types of commercials specifically and address what I think is your essential point. What you are saying is that you have an overarching sentiment about all commercials, not just the drug company ones in particular. You want commercials to appeal to your sense of reason- not to your instincts or emotions. You want a logical reason why their product is something you should buy and you feel...misused/insulted/violated in some way when the commercials try to sneak in an appeal to your impulses and emotions because they think you will either not notice or not be able to resist even if you do notice. Essentially, it violates your sense of fair play. Is that pretty close to the mark?

If so, I understand. Here in Columbia we have a new heart hospital. On their commercials, they advertise it as SC's only free-standing heart hospital. Now, I know that is supposed to sound new and shiny, all trendy and modern and such, but every time I see that commercial all I can think of is: all that technology and equipment, all those doctors and nurses with years of experience, and the chief selling point of the hospital is that it is not physically connected to another structure? WTF?? What advertising exec thought this was the best way to market their product? And what does that say about the quality of care if the fact that it is free standing is its best selling point? And how many people watching this commercial will even think to ask that question? :smalleek:

That's pretty much it. I wouldn't say that I feel "misused/insulted/violated" so much as I feel "like it's indicitive of the permiating stupidity of society," but otherwise that's it.

[Hell Puppi]

I've realized pretty much all anyone has to do to get me to buy their product is the put something from resident evil on it.
I wasn't too into the whole hot topic thing until they made Revil shirts.
I turn into a sheep of consumerism when it comes to that genre.

[FdL]

I've realized pretty much all anyone has to do to get me to buy their product is the put something from resident evil on it.
I wasn't too into the whole hot topic thing until they made Revil shirts.
I turn into a sheep of consumerism when it comes to that genre.

A sheep in wolf's clothing. I should have figured :p

[Hell Puppi]

Have to respect a sheep that could kill a wolf =P

I prefer to think of myself as a demonic welsh corgi...could be dangerous....but most likely not:smalltongue:

[FdL]

Have to respect a sheep that could kill a wolf =P

I prefer to think of myself as a demonic welsh corgi...could be dangerous....but most likely not:smalltongue:

Dangerous but lovely ^^ The perfect pet. Just sit there for a minute while I go look for a cloth to cover the back seat of my car.

[Hell Puppi]

One side of my brain goes:smallconfused:

The other side says: 'We're going for a ride?!?!'

[Sisqui]

That's pretty much it. I wouldn't say that I feel "misused/insulted/violated" so much as I feel "like it's indicative of the permiating stupidity of society," but otherwise that's it.

Yes, I wasn't sure how to phrase that part exactly. But by "stupidity permeating society," do you mean the ad agencies doing it or that it is reasonable, given the average intelligence of the viewers, that they think it would work? Or both?


One side of my brain goes:smallconfused:

The other side says: 'We're going for a ride?!?!'

That made me laugh :smallbiggrin:

EDIT: Well, as long as we are on the topics of t-shirts and free advertising, I went today to give blood. *Sneaks in a shameless plug for blood donation while appealing to people's altruism* (no one tell averagejoe :smallwink:)
Donate blood at the Red Cross. Save Lives. Help Humanity. And get a cool t-shirt!

[averagejoe]

Yes, I wasn't sure how to phrase that part exactly. But by "stupidity permeating society," do you mean the ad agencies doing it or that it is reasonable, given the average intelligence of the viewers, that they think it would work? Or both?

I wouldn't say that add agencies are directly responsible; it wouldn't work, after all, if people didn't allow it. I don't know where to cast blame, in truth, only that it's happening.


EDIT: Well, as long as we are on the topics of t-shirts and free advertising, I went today to give blood. *Sneaks in a shameless plug for blood donation while appealing to people's altruism* (no one tell averagejoe :smallwink:)
Donate blood at the Red Cross. Save Lives. Help Humanity. And get a cool t-shirt!

Hey, I never said all advertisments are bad, just that they tend to be. :smalltongue: Besides, it's for a worthy cause, and everything you said is pretty much true. Giving blood is a good idea. That ginormous freaky needle isn't even so bad, especially when you consider that you get free cookies. Plus, I'd imagine that you could get out of doing things like mowing the lawn, because the people there always tell you to take it easy way longer than you need to. (Never worked for me, because mom's a nurse. :smallfrown: )

[Sisqui]

Plus, I'd imagine that you could get out of doing things like mowing the lawn, because the people there always tell you to take it easy way longer than you need to. (Never worked for me, because mom's a nurse. :smallfrown: )

Doesn't work for me either, I'm a mom. Gots to pick up the ginormous freaky baby!

And, this opportunity was just too good to pass up:smallwink: : you think blatant appeals to your emotions are OK if you agree with the product the advertiser wants to sell or the service they want you to perform?:smalltongue:

[Trog]

Then there's the best marketing of all...getting you, the consumer, to pay to advertize their product. Who here has ever owned a T-shirt with the only design being a great big Nike Swoosh? Did Nike give it to you to wear? Did they offer to pay you for endorsing their product for them? No, they charged you probably $25 so that you could proudly tell everyone you meet how great they are. Genius! I think I'm gonna start selling Midnight Son T-shirts; or maybe those sweats girls seem to like with my logo across the rear.:smallsigh:
Sooo is it a BAD thing that there is a "Trog's Tavern" T-shirt in the Llama's t-shirt drawer. And in the hands of a certain Druid in the middle East? And... er... others. :smalleek: :smallredface:

And if it helps I did it at cost to myself. Though I don't know how I can continue as I wuoldn't dream of charging for them and cannot afford to make and ship them for free. :smallsigh:

Oh and in response to the Goof about the "different like everyone else" thingy: This is not always the case with marketing. The other major option is telling you how the product will solve a problem for you. Regardless of how it wake you feel. Granted a great many products do this.

Take a look at the growing so-called "Green Movement". Products are being touted as environmentally friendly and due to how it makes people feel about how they are helping with the environment people buy them. Now the product may or may not actually be helping with the environment. Same with the person and all their other habits. But they FEEL like they are and so they buy. Could it help in the long run? Maybe? I don't know. But if it does you can thank marketing people for branding their products in a way that conveys that information to you the consumer. :smallsmile:

[Midnight Son]

No, Trog's Tavern Ts are fine. Think of it this way; if Llama wears that t-shirt around town, is anyone likely to drop by Trog's tavern to give you money? I am comfortable with wearing GitP product, because it advertizes the website and not GitP product(if that makes sense). If Nike put a picture of a clown standing on it's head while juggling on the T-shirt and only had a small Swoosh on the arm or some such, that'd be fine. Selling a T-shirt that just says Nike in huge letters or has a huge Swoosh across the back is immoral because they are charging their customers for their customers to advertize product. The only exception I make is with their shoes. Since that is their base product, they are allowed a Swoosh to let others know it's a Nike shoe. In that sense, it's like a BMW, for example, which puts it's logo on the hood so that all know what it is. But emblazoning Toyota accross the back window(or the tailgate) is tacky in my opinion.

To sum up, Where do I get me one of these fancy Trog's Tavern T-shirts?

[Alarra]

*pokes Trog*

I swear I ordered one of those. :smallsmile:

[0wca]

Have you looked at society lately? *shakes head* The truth of the matter is that a good chunk of people as a whole (both male and female) are led around like sheep by the media, fashion trends, advertising, and the lot. I mean, why do you think so much money is poured into the advertising industry? Because people (in general... yes ...there are some individual, free thinkers out there...and I think this site has a higher than usual concentration of them) are sheep, and people will do whatever the little black box tells them to. I mean, look at children that will only buy a certain brand of clothing. *shakes head again* And it really kinda sucks, a lot....especially given the complete oversexualization of well....almost every industry and every advertisement. The media is really damaging society, in my opinion. [/end rant that's not at all on topic] :smallredface:

I SOOOO agree with you on that one!

Wait.. I'm not a sheep because I just said that right? :smallbiggrin: :smallwink:

[Talya]

Today, children are exposed to sex and violence much earlier and more readily than in any previous generation.

I rather disagree with this. Today, we've extended the term of "childhood" well belong what has been historically natural for humans. A few decades ago, teenage marriages were common. A few centuries ago, 12-14 (basically as soon as we started bleeding), we were married off. Adulthood used to be pretty much considered "Ability to have offspring." As for violence, our culture has a far lower tolerance for violence than most have in generations past. Or even in other cultures today. You can't say that we aren't protecting children more and longer than we ever have.

[Thrawn183]

Well, I've got one that is a particular button of mine: diamonds.

Now, the advertising around diamonds has been brilliant. I have to give credit where credit is due. The people who came up with those adds for "THAT" comapany (I refuse to type its name) showed true genius.

Unfortunately, I don't place value on diamonds. I'm now 20. I've been thinking about the future quite a bit recently, but whenever I bring up diamond engagement rings in conversation with female friends of mine, all heck breaks loose.

Now, I have nothing against, say a ruby engagement ring. A ruby actually has intrinsic "value" if nothing else due to the fact that rubies are actually rare, whereas diamonds are artificially rare do to "that" company.

How does this apply to the topic you ask? Simple. I have successfully thrown off (or resisted as some might say) the idea that a diamond engagement ring is a necessity. That doesn't mean that at some point I won't end up buying one just because its easier to deal with than the **** storm that would flare up if I went with something else.

This also applies to pre-torn jeans. In my life I've had maybe 3 pairs of jeans (one was a hand-me-down from my brother), I actually wanted to start wearing jeans, but I couldn't find a SINGLE pair without holes in it. Now, things have gotten better of late in that department. But sometimes it really does get impossible to avoid the running trend, even if you know exactly what it is, and what you want instead. Ok, not impossible, but far far too difficult.

freaking diamonds

[FdL]

How does this apply to the topic you ask? Simple. I have successfully thrown off (or resisted as some might say) the idea that a diamond engagement ring is a necessity. That doesn't mean that at some point I won't end up buying one just because its easier to deal with than the **** storm that would flare up if I went with something else.


See the effect advertising has in people, the deep impact it has in a culture? What in the world would be wrong with an engagement ring that doesn't have diamonds?



This also applies to pre-torn jeans. In my life I've had maybe 3 pairs of jeans (one was a hand-me-down from my brother), I actually wanted to start wearing jeans, but I couldn't find a SINGLE pair without holes in it. Now, things have gotten better of late in that department. But sometimes it really does get impossible to avoid the running trend, even if you know exactly what it is, and what you want instead. Ok, not impossible, but far far too difficult.


Pre-torn jeans :rolleyes:

Just think about the name. Think about the concept.
The things sellers get away in ther name of "coolness".

Oh, and it's perfectly possible to avoid trends. It's more difficult when every shop sells the same stuff, but I think that's not the case in most places. And even then you could still be a discerning comsumer and keep looking instead of settling for what they're pushing on you.

[Trog]

Hmmm... in regards to the diamond issue I have this to say:

Get whatever will make your girl soon to (hopefully) be your fincee's eyes shine the brightest. Talking with her ahead of time should give you an idea with what to go with. :smallsmile:

In regards to the ads for diamonds they appeal to men and women differently. Look in a woman's magazine and you will likely find the diamond in question on the hand of a model who is happy and has a handsome man who can afford the huge rock in the ad. Appealing to women? You bet. But understand it's not the diamond... it's the guy. And the hope that the guy will have enough to provide her with a good life. An outdated concept in these modern times where a woman can provide all she needs for herself, of course. But the ideal that is "Mr. Right" lives on still. Diamonds, through these ads, get connected with this fairy tale concept. Buying a diamond for your wife to be taps into this concept, etc. etc.

In guy's magazines diamonds are aften set against a powerful black background and sybolized in much the same way an expensive watch or automobile are. They are ways to show you to be a good provider and desirable.

And while many people will scoff at these concepts as primitive and outdated and perhaps even ridiculous they will remain simply because men still want women and vice versa. Now whether or not you and your significant other buy into these roles or not may not matter because you can bet that everyone you show that rock to will. So whatever you do get her something nice that she will feel proud showing off. It's really -you- she wants to tell everyone about. Not the stone.

Anyways that's my opinion. :smallsmile:

[sktarq]

@Trog.
I wont dispute the idea of what a diamond represents. The ability to provide and if that is an outdated concept. The part that irks many people (including myself) is that there is a link between a diamond and such ideas not through logic but via image and market manipulation. Hence the comment on the Ruby engagement ring. Rubies, being rare, have limited supply and being able to obtain one proves your provide credentials. Diamonds are not very rare as gemstones are measured-Their worth is thus would be lower that rubies. However due to marketing it has become a social expectation to present a such a stone rather than one with a higher logical value. Frankly I feel manipulated and that expectations are being foiseted on me by society by DeBeers influenced girls.

[Trog]

Yes the diamond places do a MUCH better job at marketing themselves than other stone companies do ( if they even exist :smallconfused: ) And yes there are a lot of diamonds out there. But realize that not all diamonds are the same caliber. Differing clarity of the stone and carat weights for example already reduce what is commonly refered to as a jewelry quality diamond to a much smaller number. One that are ground into powder and used to coat certain saw blades and the like are much lower quality. So there's that.

And again you might feel it is too much to pay for a ring but let me ask you this... Would the savings difference between an expensive ring and a less expensive one be worth it if you lost the girl over it? Not saying that it's always gonna happen this way but it -could-. *shrug*

[FdL]

And again you might feel it is too much to pay for a ring but let me ask you this... Would the savings difference between an expensive ring and a less expensive one be worth it if you lost the girl over it? Not saying that it's always gonna happen this way but it -could-. *shrug*

Hey, wasn't this exact point brought before?
Because when reading it I feel the same indignation about it :p
(no, seriously, this was talked about before)

[Trog]

Hey, wasn't this exact point brought before?
Because when reading it I feel the same indignation about it :p
(no, seriously, this was talked about before)
In this thread? :smallconfused:

[averagejoe]

And again you might feel it is too much to pay for a ring but let me ask you this... Would the savings difference between an expensive ring and a less expensive one be worth it if you lost the girl over it? Not saying that it's always gonna happen this way but it -could-. *shrug*

If it's the sort of girl that I would lose over a diamond ring, then good riddance, I'd say. There are worse things than being alone.

[FdL]

In this thread? :smallconfused:

I don't know, I'd say not in this exact thread, but I haven't looked.

Also @^: QFT.
Not losing her about a diamond ring, but it's kinda shallow to confuse love with amount of money invested in gifts or with symbols of social status.

But the way you put it, Trog, it IS a selling point. It's coherent with the ways of advertisment. And those are the kind of things I don't like about it.

[Trog]

I don't know, I'd say not in this exact thread, but I haven't looked.

Also @^: QFT.
Not losing her about a diamond ring, but it's kinda shallow to confuse love with amount of money invested in gifts or with symbols of social status.

But the way you put it, Trog, it IS a selling point. It's coherent with the ways of advertisment. And those are the kind of things I don't like about it.
Ah. Well I'll continue then. :smallwink:

And yes if the reason she dumps you is because the ring isn't big enough or whatever, and by that she means to say "you cannot provide enough for me" then yes. Dump city. But an engagement ring is going to be on her finger from that moment on while she is in your life. It ought to be something good. And I see no problem with a woman wanting the ring to be a nice one for that reason.

Not every couple can afford to do this and I have known ones who have made due with a simple ring until a later anniversary where a more fitting tribute was given. And that's perfectly understandable.

Just make sure you are not slaming women for wanting their engagement ring to be nice. Because that can make you come off as being insensitive or cheap when that is really not your intention. Or at least I would hope it isn't.

[FdL]

Ah. Well I'll continue then. :smallwink:

And yes if the reason she dumps you is because the ring isn't big enough or whatever, and by that she means to say "you cannot provide enough for me" then yes. Dump city. But an engagement ring is going to be on her finger from that moment on while she is in your life. It ought to be something good. And I see no problem with a woman wanting the ring to be a nice one for that reason.


Of course, no problem with that. The problem is the distance between "a nice ring" and what advertisement tells you it's the best ring.

See, I also see the "you cannot provide for me" as something concrete that's being measured against the limitless imaginary world of status advertising sells.



Not every couple can afford to do this and I have known ones who have made due with a simple ring until a later anniversary where a more fitting tribute was given. And that's perfectly understandable.


What about the tribute that is a life of love and companionship, a life of support and "providing" (as you put it)? Because for me that's the point of marrying someone, those are the reasons that should be important about it and not the money spent in a symbol. Which I know has a lot of meaning, and that it's desirable, and that everyone just wants the best for their love, and that women dream of a diamond ring the size of an iceberg, etc. I'm not ignoring that, mind you.

I'm focusing on the point in which the amount of money spent decides the fate of a marriage. I, for one, don't think that's right.



Just make sure you are not slaming women for wanting their engagement ring to be nice. Because that can make you come off as being insensitive or cheap when that is really not your intention. Or at least I would hope it isn't.

No, I'm sure it's not, thank you.

Anyway, I was also aiming more at the "oh, it's just a ruby instead of a diamond :(" scenario. This is an example of the influence of advertising in the life of people.

[Sisqui]

What about the tribute that is a life of love and companionship, a life of support and "providing" (as you put it)? Because for me that's the point of marrying someone, those are the reasons that should be important about it and not the money spent in a symbol. Which I know has a lot of meaning, and that it's desirable, and that everyone just wants the best for their love, and that women dream of a diamond ring the size of an iceberg, etc. I'm not ignoring that, mind you.

I'm focusing on the point in which the amount of money spent decides the fate of a marriage. I, for one, don't think that's right.


Well, if you want a married woman's perspective on it, when my husband and I decided to get engaged, he didn't spend one dime on the ring. He gave me his grandmother's. It has a chip of a diamond that I am sure would not fetch much of a price today. However, his grandfather had to work extremely hard to buy it for her- in the Great Depression! The band on it was worn so thin we had to use the wedding band as a gold supplement, so now the ring is whole, but composed of both rings. I thought that was much, much nicer than a fancier, higher priced ring. My brother bought his wife a $15,000 ring with a huge diamond, some little diamonds, and extra bands studded with diamonds. Guess which ring I like better? But, I confess, I'm biased. :smallbiggrin:

[sktarq]

Trog I think you're missing my point.
I don't really have a problem that at the time I ask a girl to spend the rest of her life with me that she may (or may not) want a physical symbol of my ability to provide for her, sacrifice my monetary well being, commitment to the relationship, something to signify and show off to others the above, a sign of my confidence in our long term prospects, etc. Because that is what it is. A symbol. There is a logic in this-one that may or not be convincing-can you symbolize your love with a physical object is something else. I just find a diamond to be an invalid symbol.
The very fact that you repeatly started to talk about the idea of giving jewerly as a symbol is a perfect example of my problem.
I am saying that diamonds have not earned their glorious possition as the ideal symbol of such situations. Fine art, Saphires, rubies, emeralds, etc are concidered second rate.
Oh and the arguement about non gemstone quality diamonds doesn't hold water when I am comparing it to, say, a saphire or ruby. Which was the point I was trying to gett accross. I didn't compare it to a ruby by accident.

Warning: I am going to focus on Natual selection and the ideas of evolution-If you do not share such ideas please ignore this as a statement of fact and focus only on the projection of logic from these more simple situations to our own.
To start I am going to compare this type of human behavior to similar behavior in animals both to show it may have a biological and natural basis.
Because lets face it. Most of these mating behavirs are animals advertising oneself as a good potential mate-in a symbolic way really. When it comes to these types of things it only works if 3 things happen together. A-one side develops the symbol to represent top breeding material. B-the targets of such a symbol like and select for the symbol and C: the symbol is valid represention of the breeding potential of the individual presenting the symbol. If C is not there targets who select for the symbol won't have addition surviving young and thererfore there will be no self reenforcing loop to keep the symbols development going.

Lets start with an Elk. Rutting male elk display behaviors that they don't normally do. The smack things-mostly each other-with their antlers. They don't do this with predators-trees etc and in general it is not a survival skill yet females will breed with those who do this best. Why? Because those who follow the winners in this symbolic contest have more surviving young. Now what things are needing to win these antler wrestling contests anyway? Strength, Endurance, The ability to store enough food in ones body to keep these contests up for an extended period, the ability to recognise good feeding grounds (and hence select the leks where these battles happen). Those caracteristics are good survivibility indicators and hence the rut continues.
Peacocks....A little closerr to our diamond analogy. Why would a peahen select and be impressed by males with larger tails....(and they do). Seams like a pretty stupid symbol when you think about it. It takes allot of energy to grow, more to maintain, and makes it easier for predators to catch you. Oh and feathers are rather sensitive to your health. Think about how people who are even slightly ill- their hair changes. More for long hair or long feathers. Well now If you see a male with a big tail in good condition then he must have extra time to take care of it, extra energy to grow it, can avoid predatores even with that huge extra weight and grab point, and must be eating well to have all those in good condition. Actually if they can do that they would probebly be a good father now, wouldn't they?
Bower birds have a wide variety of premating rituals. Almost all of them symbolic. One famous type collects things that are blue in a specific woven grass tunnel. The more blue things that a male can collect the better his chances with a female bower bird is. However they can get sneaky-they will steal blue things from each other, They will mess up each others display areas, and generally comeate for a scarse reasource. Blue being a rare pigment in nature in their region. The competition between each other combines dexterity, knowledge of the territory, sneakness, and other qualites that the females find desirable. All told makes sense.
So having a flashy bauble to get the girl has a long history. But does a diamond actually represent those things that the girls really want? For example we geneally don't give usefull things in these types of situations because like a peacock's tail it represents the abilty to waste reasources and still be ok-thus demonstrating that one has deep safty margin on survival. Diamonds are pretty useful really in all sorts of industrial uses-and have been used nearly as long in this way as they have for jewlery. In part this is why they were not regared as a cut above other jewerly until the linkage between Queen Victoria and Rhodes. Also a rare object via supply and demand would be a better symbol of being able to provide-diamonds? they are not actually very uncommon, by gemstone standards. They are easy to fake in most people's eyes. Also a fake diamond is hard for most people to spot without training. Also other stones are easier to work into full complex jewerrly. This doesn't matter very much anymore but was a big deal during the early part of the time when diamonds rose to prominence. The above reasons seem to make a diamond a sub-standard gift. The realson that it is expected is due to image and market manipulation.

It's not that I don't think diamonds don't have a place-In fact I've bought them for my girlfriend-why? because she loved light and diamonds have more "fire" (which is light difreaction) than any other gemstone. Personally I don't think I could give a girl a diamon ring anymore. Why because of what they now represent to me-a lie. Every time I see the symbol of my love sitting on my gal's finger I'd see an industry manipulating me into getting THAT (not something but that specific thing). It would be a drop of poison in the centre of all those things that the girl wants from such a symbol that I said at the top of this long and rambling post.

[Beleriphon]

Because of course killing your customers is a great way to get repeat business :smallannoyed:

Damn drug companies, inventing drugs that make me better when I am sick. Or worse, keep me from getting sick in the first place. Bastards.:smallmad:

Keep in mind that a profitable drug company doesn't cure your illness, they treat the symptoms for as long as possible. If a drug company could cure the common cold do you think they would? From a standpoint of profitability its suicide, they're better off treating your runny nose and cough, then actually stopping the illness.

In the long run all advertising is meant to do is make you remember the name of a product when you're out and about. If you see watch an advertisement for Levi's jeans and you're out and see blue jeans you might remember the Levi's ad and decide that you would like a pair of said blue jeans, or you might just remember that you needed to get a new pair since your current ones have non-design related holes.

Advertising and marketing does not create desires, it can however present you with new ones you didn't realize you had. Using the hierarchy of needs the majority of the people in the Western world have moved beyond the basic necessity of shelter and food. Once you've got those things down pat you move on to social needs, the need for companionship, the need for spiritual enlightenment, etc. Advertising feeds into those needs in different ways. To take an example of deodourant we have ads that show a young man being mobbed by hordes of beautiful women because he uses a particular brand of deodourant. Does this mean the ad implies that women will flock to said male because of the deodourant? Of course not, its meant to ensure you remember the product when you're buying deodourant. It doesn't create a need for deodourant as a product, but is rather feeding into a fairly high level social need to not stink like BO.

Advertising is innocent of all things hoary in the modern world. Trog and his marketting buddies aren't making people buy stuff, all they do is make people remember their clients product when a consumer wants to buy stuff. The desire to have stuff is a result of moving up the heirarchy of needs. Once our basic needs are fulfilled we look out personal needs, usually pleasure.

If we look at car commercials most of them are more about making you remember a specific model of car, or better yet the company in general, so that when you buy a car you go to that company. Nothing about car commercials particularly makes me want to buy a car beyond reminding me that I hate taking the bus to visit my parents. I'd be quite content with any brand of car, however I do recall Hyundai commercials because their cars are inexpensive and that would be something I'm looking for in a car. If I was in the market for a new pickup truck I'd probably start at a Ford dealer because the first type of vehicle of that sort I can remember is a Ford F-150. How it compares to a Dodge Ram? No idea, but I remembered the Ford first so Ford's advertising is working.


It's not that I don't think diamonds don't have a place-In fact I've bought them for my girlfriend-why? because she loved light and diamonds have more "fire" (which is light difreaction) than any other gemstone. Personally I don't think I could give a girl a diamon ring anymore. Why because of what they now represent to me-a lie. Every time I see the symbol of my love sitting on my gal's finger I'd see an industry manipulating me into getting THAT (not something but that specific thing). It would be a drop of poison in the centre of all those things that the girl wants from such a symbol that I said at the top of this long and rambling post.

Or it was the fact that diamonds happen to rather attractive stones when set properly by an expert jeweler, or that they are surprisingly hard to manipulate driving the cost of a high quality diamond to astronomical levels. I'll freely admit that the supply/demand issue is mostly due to DeBeer's being the major diamond mining company in the world. Again from their perspective they want people to buy diamonds so ads were created to make people think of diamonds when buying jewelery, specifically engagement rings. They didn't even particularly care if people bought they competitors diamonds since DeBeer's functionally controlled the diamond market for a very long time. What's happened since then? Well the concept of a diamond engagement ring stuck and has become tradition. So advertising didn't create a demand for diamonds, or a desire for them. All it did was make people think of diamonds when purchasing jewelery, who created a demand all by themselves. That said I do find DeBeer's business practices questionable as a whole, but that doesn't have any direct impact on the success or failure of advertising (well not directly).

[Extra_Crispy]

I feel that advertisements go too far sometimes. I have seen the drug commerical that shows the guy walking the park/forest/down the street with the nice looking woman on his arm talking about how this drug made everything better but not even saying what the drug is used for. just "contact your doctor and ask about [blah]" Or the advertisements that center on kids specifically and tell them to pester their parents/guilt the kids into getting the item (your not cool unless you have it) toys and such have too advertise to kids, as that is their consumers, but when they say "tell your parents to get you a ___" and yes I have heard a commerical say that (was not on the air for long) or in a very slightly vailed way show that you are not cool unless you wear/have/use certain things, that is going too far. I am an adult I can look at that and say sure whatever and ignore it but many kids want to fit in and be popular so they feel so much like an outsider because they cant get these items and feel bad/depressed.

Other types of advertising centered towards adults is fair game. Adults have the ability (or at least should have the ability) to know that the advertisement is just that, an advertisement for a product, not something that will all of a sudden make you the most popular/sexiest/smartest person in the world. (I am still looking for the product that can make me the perfact speller, I am horrible at it) I laugh or wonder at the Nike commercials then go by the $50 high top boots instead of the $200 tennis shoes. I dont feel like paying 150 more for a shoe that will last 1/4 as long.

I guess I also have a problem with the stereo type commercial. Like the previous discussion about diamonds. Most of them show a man giving this huge ring to the woman as a show of how much he loves the woman and she loves him that much more because he showed she loved him more. Trying to show that all women MUST have a diamond to show how much you love them and all men MUST give them the jewelery. Neither is true. I guess my problem with some commercials is the assumptions they make. People have to fit into certain roles or everyone wants certain things. I just hate that. I have to live with it alot from others (I am 6'4" 250lbs, shaved bald with a goatee, ride a motorcycle, and have scars all over but I am, almost, a nurse. All the patients in the hospitals assumed I was a doctor first and all the female students were nurses)

Enough rambling. Guess I am just trying to say that advertisement needs to stay away from some of the vulnerable (kids) parts, and stop being so sterotypical but all in all it is the adults decision to buy what they are selling no matter how it is packaged.

[Thrawn183]

Whoah, didn't expect my post to actually effect the path of this discussion!

Anyway, I do understand the symbol that an engagement ring represents. I actually support that symbol (or at least don't mind it too terribly, I vacillate on that one.) My point was simply that when bringing up the topic of "not a diamond" even if my intent is to supply that symbol, I have to work so hard to break through the ice of, "Oh Noes, its not a diamond, what could you be thinking!?"

Again, I think the marketing for diamonds was brilliant. You can see that just from how the situation is today. I don't even think the marketing was wrong morally or ethically: they were a company trying to sell their goods. I'm complaining about how so few people can step back and realize that I'm not just trying to hop out on my duties or responsibilities before hitting me with a heck of a knee jerk reaction.

[Sisqui]

Keep in mind that a profitable drug company doesn't cure your illness, they treat the symptoms for as long as possible. If a drug company could cure the common cold do you think they would? From a standpoint of profitability its suicide, they're better off treating your runny nose and cough, then actually stopping the illness.


Actually, since the common cold is caused by thousands of different viruses, they would have to give you "the cure" for each of them, so yes, they probably would. But, if they did manage to develop a vaccine against all of them, yes, I do think they would sell it because it is a product people would buy. The vaccine would probably get mandated by law like the MMR or DPT. They would just charge you some really high price for it. But, hey, it's their product, they should be able to charge what they want.

Besides, I said make me better when I am sick, not "cure" one ailment. I think developing antibiotics, anticoagulants, hormone therapies, etc... is more along the lines of what I was referring to. You know, things that actually keep people alive. And for which the drug companies get precious little thanks, I might add.

[Trog]

I am saying that diamonds have not earned their glorious possition as the ideal symbol of such situations.
Funny that they -are- the most widely used (in America) symbol though eh? Probably earned it I would imagine. Whatever "earned it" means. :smallconfused:

And wait, wait, wait...

Extra_Crispy is bald with a goatee too? :smalleek: How many of us are one this forum sporting that look? It's downright uncanny I tells ya. :smalltongue:


Trog and his marketting buddies aren't making people buy stuff, all they do is make people remember their clients product when a consumer wants to buy stuff. Thank you, Beleriphon. :smallsmile:

[The Great Skenardo]

And Remember the fact that you'll never be popular or beautiful or muscular unless you use Widget X-Treme

[Midnight Son]

Extra_Crispy is bald with a goatee too? :smalleek: How many of us are one this forum sporting that look? It's downright uncanny I tells ya. :smalltongue:It's a good look. More people should try it. Course, they'd just be stealing my look(like Trog and Extra_Crispy did), but then, it's certainly a look worth stealin'.:smallcool:

[Indon]

Allow me to contribute to this thread with a simple source of information.

Namely, the reason that advertisers make ads that introduce their brand, but never mention anything about the product (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mere_exposure_effect).

One can say Advertising is about informing the consumer, but advertising as a science is about exploiting the human mind, not teaching.

[averagejoe]

It's a good look. More people should try it. Course, they'd just be stealing my look(like Trog and Extra_Crispy did), but then, it's certainly a look worth stealin'.:smallcool:

Bah, the only worthwhile hair style is the one that's reminicent of 17th century France. (http://gloriabrame.typepad.com/photos/uncategorized/johnwilmot_earlofrochester.jpg) I believe the phrase, "glorious locks" comes to mind. :smallbiggrin:

[Hell Puppi]

I would totally be up for 17th century french styles to become en-vouge...errr is that the correct phrase?
I of course mean the awesome men's and woman's wear, jackets and hair styles, but this time we have CLEANLINESS!
And none of that revolutionary stuff. I just want the awesome clothes. Most of the time watching 'brotherhood of the wolf' I was thinking: 'damn, I want that jacket'
http://www.pirates-cave.com/coat1e.jpg

[Extra_Crispy]

Bah, the only worthwhile hair style is the one that's reminicent of 17th century France. (http://gloriabrame.typepad.com/photos/uncategorized/johnwilmot_earlofrochester.jpg) I believe the phrase, "glorious locks" comes to mind. :smallbiggrin:

Ya well I used to have hair down to my knees. Even after my accident it grew back very well and long then it started comming out and left a bald spot on top. Bald on top with long hair = really bad look. I had it short by the time it started getting bald but still. So now I shave what I have left. But I miss the "glorious locks" :smallfrown:

Now back on topic

Allow me to contribute to this thread with a simple source of information.

Namely, the reason that advertisers make ads that introduce their brand, but never mention anything about the product (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mere_exposure_effect).

One can say Advertising is about informing the consumer, but advertising as a science is about exploiting the human mind, not teaching.

Ya I know why they do it but it annoys the heck out of me and makes me even LESS likely to buy their product if they don't at least tell me what it is for. Advertisements should tell you what they are selling and for what, otherwise they are worthless and should not advertise. Course don't really know why I care as I either change channels or mute all the commercials when they come on.

[FdL]

Ya I know why they do it but it annoys the heck out of me and makes me even LESS likely to buy their product if they don't at least tell me what it is for. Advertisements should tell you what they are selling and for what, otherwise they are worthless and should not advertise.

The trick is that they are "selling" more than just a product. They are selling a lifestyle, values, dreams, images, attitudes...Sometimes the fact that they are selling just soap goes to the background :p

[Trog]

It's a good look. More people should try it. Course, they'd just be stealing my look(like Trog and Extra_Crispy did), but then, it's certainly a look worth stealin'.:smallcool:

I have and anchor, actually, not a goatee. I once did but goatees are sooo 2006. :smalltongue:

[sktarq]

Trog and his marketting buddies aren't making people buy stuff, all they do is make people remember their clients product when a consumer wants to buy stuff.

Actually I disagree with you here. People have certain basic desires (Sex, Acceptance, Status, etc) and marketers use various means to tie their product to these base desires to create a want for it. They are not making people buy anything-they are however messing with people perceptions of ways to achive various basic (not nessesarily base) desires. And saying that people arre not influnced this way has been prooven wrong. Even if people think that the advertising is stupid and it doesn't make them remember or wnt it they are still more likely to buy that product. It is part of the difference between concious and subconcious thought.

[Midnight Son]

I have and anchor, actually, not a goatee. I once did but goatees are sooo 2006. :smalltongue:2006? I haven't had your normal everyday goatee since 2000 or so. What can I say, I'm a trend setter.:smallcool:

[horseboy]

diamonds (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1v0Av3ocF_A)
Joe, There's a reason that over the last 40 years marketing has stop employing logic and has replaced it with emotional manipulation. It's because of the growing influence of women in the market place. Commercials rarely target men, since men don't spend enough money. They're targeting Hellpuppi and Sisqui and the rest. We're just there to lug the stuff around. :smallwink:

[Thrawn183]

I totally had to listen to an annoying one this morning on the shuttle.

It was literally telling kids to get their parents to go to a sale and then ask for the money they saved as increased allowance. :smallannoyed:

[sktarq]

[QUOTE=horseboy;2973476Joe, There's a reason that over the last 40 years marketing has stop employing logic and has replaced it with emotional manipulation. It's because of the growing influence of women in the market place.[/QUOTE]
I'd have to disagree with that. Men are just as driven by emotions as women. Not nessesarily as visibly I'll grant you but we are.

[horseboy]

I'd have to disagree with that. Men are just as driven by emotions as women. Not nessesarily as visibly I'll grant you but we are.

They're not switching to emotion based advertising to get more people, they're not targeting men (except for stuff like hygiene, beer commercials and the like). Women spend money more often than men. In fact, women spend 70% of the money going into hardware stores. Hardware stores! They're targeting them specifically. Therefore they employ tactics that will work on them. Any men they catch is just bonus.