Things you're really, really NOT into. (not music)

Sean Trane wrote: I'm not assuming it... I just know it's the case, or else all you (as a manufacturer) would have to do is put an add in one of these paper advertising folders... If indeed you the consumer) wanted to know it existed, all you'd have to do is look into the folder....  All he'd see in that folder is the image and technical facts, the price and its performance... and that's it.....>>>no need to see Vanna White langourously laying on the hood of the latest Ford Mustang, right????   Instead, the multiple adds are forced upon you in the Superbowl or during Desperate Housewives ... funnily enough you won't find adds for hygienic towels during the Superbowl, like you don't have Four Roses Bourbon addsduring Housewives.... targetting the advertisement is already boosting consumerism

Ah yes the great, "I just know" defense.

That would be a very stupid way to advertise. People don't want to have to go out of their way to gather this information. If they did, advertising wouldn't be necessary.

Personally, if you tell me in plain text, "Cans of Spam 2 for 1". I probably won't really remember. If you put two cans of spam on Amy Adam's breast and say something like "Double your pleasure." . I'll remember that. It's very effective.

Targeted advertising stops companies from wasting resources and allows the viewer to be best served by seeing adds for things they actually have an interest in buying. I really, really don't see how you can be against target advertisement. If all advertisement were perfectly targeted, you would never see an ad for something that you don't want.

It's funny how you say 'adds are forced upon you' as if there's some A Clockwork Orange style chair you're strapped to with your eyelids help open. They're not forced on you by even the broadest definition of force.

Saperlipopette! wrote: Equality 7-2521 wrote: Saperlipopette! wrote: Of course they do. People are insecure and stupid, but that's not why I'm really NOT into it: Yourself excluded I assume? Obviously. What's really interesting is that because you overestimate people/consumers your arguments do them disservice. Equality 7-2521 wrote: Most criticism of advertising doesn't really make sense. It assumes that consumers are mindlessly buying things just because they've heard of it.

I haven't researched it since I wrote an economics paper four years ago, but at the time I couldn't find any research to support your point. However, I found plenty to support mine.

What's really interesting is that people seem to think advertisements work like some mythical hypnotist despite nobody ever feeling compelled to buy something that they don't want because of an ad that they're seen.

The T wrote: Can someone briefly explain to me what this advertisement discussion is about? I can't read it all now and the last posts are interesting. What the hell happened

I noticed a few people saying how they hate advertisements. That prompted me saying that I dislike people who hate advertisements because I see them as a great thing for consumers.

Thus the big bang.

Of course I'm not saying that advertisements can't be misleading. That's no reason to say that they're bad or a disservice to people. Sometimes product reviews that people leave are misleading. Sometimes what your neighbor tells you about their experience with a product is misleading.

That's no reason to say that product reviews and word of mouth experience does a disservice to consumers.


Edited by Equality 7-2521 - January 10 2011 at 13:13

It seems like we agree on all points except I'm saying that the benefits of advertisements outweigh the negative aspects. 

Equality 7-2521 wrote: Of course I'm not saying that advertisements can be misleading. That's no reason to say that they're bad or a disservice to people. Sometimes product reviews that people leave are misleading. Sometimes what your neighbor tells you about their experience with a product is misleading. That's no reason to say that product reviews and word of mouth experience does a disservice to consumers.

Ha-ha! Twisted logic.

Saperlipopette! wrote: Equality 7-2521 wrote: Of course I'm not saying that advertisements can be misleading. That's no reason to say that they're bad or a disservice to people. Sometimes product reviews that people leave are misleading. Sometimes what your neighbor tells you about their experience with a product is misleading. That's no reason to say that product reviews and word of mouth experience does a disservice to consumers. Ha-ha! Twisted logic.

If by twisted you mean solid, then I agree. Thank you sir.

The T wrote: They provide a service. As any service, it can be done horribly or well. Consumers are neither stupid nor smart. There are smart consumers and stupid consumers, though. So many people come to me asking for a tv with this and that and they have no clue whatsoever as to what it means, they just think is good and necessary. I explain it to them. I'm the next chain in the consuming process. Without this link, people would follow advertisement blindly. Is that bad per se? No. It can be bad? Yes, advertisers take advantage of how gullible people are. But those people are free to make whatever they can to know better. In the end, it all comes down to each person's decision.

Given your conversion to the church of libertarianism T would you still offer their usual argument that sellers who use deliberately misleading advertising or fail to provide the level of information service impartiality you clearly do, would not require to be regulated or scrutinised by a 3rd party ombudsman/government regulatory body? i.e. do you believe that the free market would regulate such practices itself by consumers abandoning the shoddy sellers?
(For the sake of clarity I don't believe a completely unregulated free market has the best interests of consumers at heart)

The red part, where does this perception stem from, if not from advertising foisted onto us by the media via peer group pressure? (keeping up with the Joneses etc)

I think most people (like myself, too), are not disliking advertising in itself, but its overabundance. God, I couldn't stand the idea of watching a film and having a commercial break every 20 minutes, or watching a news bulletin with commercial break every 10 minutes... Fortunately I no longer need to go through that since almost a decade. 

ExittheLemming wrote:  i.e. do you believe that the free market would regulate such practices itself by consumers abandoning the shoddy sellers?