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

Sometimes people report on a product after having abused said product and so their report is skewed

The T wrote: ExittheLemming wrote: 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'm not converting to anything. Socially, I've said it countless times: I agree with full freedom. My major concerns have been economical and mostly on the health issue; I've never wanted nobody deciding everything for me. I still favor of course public police and public courts and even some degree of public schools. I'm not opposed to those things, some government is necessary (and, sadly, I can't see another way of financing it but wit some taxes, though Robert's consumption tax idea is one to consider). I used to think free market equaled corporation kingdom. BNut with research and discussion and readings I see that the government is just as responsible, if not THE only responsible, for making corporations so huge and powerful that they pretty much control parts of our lives. I still don't like greed. I don't like money as the ultimate goal in life. But that's me.  About the question, I think is quite easy. Fraud. If an advertiser says "product x does Y" and someone buys it and it doesn't do Y, then he can sue for fraud. The target of suing is debatable, but it would be the manufacturer who paid for the misleading ad campaign I guess (the retail end of things is just the last link). Scam, fraud, that can be sued. But there's no need for a third party saying "oh you can say this and can't say that". Eventually, the produtc would be rejected by consumers.

I had my tongue in my cheek re the conversion part (hence the emoticon)
Your response seems entirely reasonable for a tangible product that is demonstrably 'not fit for the purpose' and yes, the consumer would reject the product and does have recourse through the courts for fraud
(assuming they can afford the fees to hire someone capable of taking on what could be a huge corporation capable of sourcing the finest legal representatives money can buy, but your point is valid)
However, four batches of faulty kettles from over 300 batches of working kettles would not cause a tangible product to be rejected by the consumer irrespective of the incompetence of the manufacturer.
When it's a service that's being offered by the seller things get even blurrier e.g. a consumer can have a legitimate claim against just one service outlet of a large corporation with hundreds of stores that is not a 'pure' franchise. Thousands of other consumers have received the service exactly as was advertised but several unlucky critters who visited the 'rogue' stores did not. The advertised service would again not be rejected by the majority of consumers. It's all very well to state that the seller will suffer the loss in sales and that dissatisfied consumers can sue, but this requires levels of disposable income the vast majority of us simply don't have. Similarly, we would all agree that the buyer must take responsibility for their purchasing decisions using their own resources but when it comes to say, specialised health, financial or legal services, are we to follow the advice of caveat emptor by going through medical/law/business school for several years to be able to arrive at this informed choice? I believe that for these types of purchases a suitably qualified 3rd party/ombudsman would be beneficial to consumers.

Where I do agree with the libertarians is when financial institutions/banks etc behave with reckless abandon and unlike other private entities who have to suffer the consequences of going 'tits up', are bailed out time and time again by tax-payer dollars.

I'm off now to boil water for my coffee in a piggy bank.

(The Law is an anagram of wealth)


Edited by ExittheLemming - January 10 2011 at 18:01

presdoug wrote:  Just to spite you all, and because i think some of you are getting a bit too serious, i have decided that-            I AM going to try eating some Green Eggs            But BUYER BEWARE! Some companies are offering what are really fluorescent green eggs, as they have added something to make the resultant green egg yolk glow            Not a good idea as additives like that are definitely not good to put into your body, but eating fluorescent food is interesting to some, even though it is dangerous

The hardest part of the process, technologically, is to take something as fragile and breakable as an egg, and "inject" it with fluorescent colouring
                  Researchers and scientists in California have been working on this one for quite awhile, and have come up with a solution
                      An "injecting needle" both small and thin, and when heated slightly, becomes malleable in just the right way, and believe it or not, can be inserted without breaking the egg!
                    And in the "its a small world department", the experimenter who perfected the process, is actually a big fan of the prog group Egg, and is seriously considering labelling this new process after one of their albums, "The Civil Surface"
                          It all seems to fit into place and make sense
                      Thank god for new ideas!

Saperlipopette! wrote: Your neighbour or a product review (if its independent) doesn't have these "hidden" agenda, Its irrelevant if they sometimes are wrong in their reccomendation. They're wrong because we're all wrong at times. When advertising is wrong, its because they're trying to sell us a sh*tty product.

Now that's a rather indefensible thing to say- giving yourself, your friends, relatives, neighbors and the like a pass because they're "all wrong at times," but then making a sweeping generalization that advertisers (i.e., human beings also) are just all being devious.

Dean wrote: Organised religion Disorganised religion Religion Organised Atheism

Epignosis wrote: Now that's a rather indefensible thing to say- giving yourself, your friends, relatives, neighbors and the like a pass because they're "all wrong at times,"

A jeez.. Yes I'm giving everyone that has no interest in promoting one spesific product instead of another a pass.

Comparing those, and saying that since your neighbour and the advertising company might both be wrong, there's really no difference, and we should trust or distrust both equally, is absurd  (but basically how Equality7-2... concludes)

Saperlipopette! wrote: Epignosis wrote: Now that's a rather indefensible thing to say- giving yourself, your friends, relatives, neighbors and the like a pass because they're "all wrong at times," A jeez.. Yes I'm giving everyone that has no interest in promoting one spesific product instead of another a pass. Comparing those, and saying that since your neighbour and the advertising company might both be wrong, there's really no difference, and we should trust or distrust both equally, is absurd  (but basically how Equality7-2... concludes)

Well, I don't know why you would do that.

By the way, when people go to job interviews, are they not pitching themselves?  Would you then accuse your neighbors and friends who try to get a job of being devious advertisers? 

Equality 7-2521 wrote: 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     There was nothing to answer. I'm not even sure what you really mean by that. If you're talking about advertisement bringing about our nation's penchant for over consumption, >>>> not just your country, but western and far-eastern society as well, even if the US always have a few miles advantage away in the wrong direction for the healthy future of mankind

Sean Trane wrote: Equality 7-2521 wrote: 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     There was nothing to answer. I'm not even sure what you really mean by that. If you're talking about advertisement bringing about our nation's penchant for over consumption, >>>> not just your country, but western and far-eastern society as well, even if the US always have a few miles advantage away in the wrong direction for the healthy future of mankind     Pat,   We never did agree on much, probably not even on prog (except for some classics, maybe) but to be discussing such an evident subject as the preverted effects of advertising and you denying it like you do with such a bad faith as yours, leads me to think that you're studying  and planning a career into advertising... either that or your father is the owner of the biggest advertisement agency around...     no hard feelings, but I give up....   not because you're right and won the debate through good argumentations,, but just because you're too stubborn (probably because oif your youth) to ever see the errors of your thinking and philosophy

I would usually take this as a veiled insult, but I'm going to chalk it up to more of a language barrier because you're a pretty friendly guy. I'll assure you that I find advertising very boring and have no interest in it. As much as I would enjoy my father being in such a lofty position, it's not so.

I'll say that I believe it's far from evident. I think the point is only evident in that it's the popularized perception. I could point out many false things which are evident from the same position.

I've changed my opinion many many times. It comes from very sound arguments which I feel actually defeat my thought out position, and not from two or three short posts on a forum. Such a thing could be an impetus for me rethinking my position and eventually changing it, but if anyone honestly thinks a few posts on this forum, thought of and typed in a 3 min span, then they are either delusion or have failed to give any critical thought to their positions.

Equality 7-2521 wrote: Epignosis wrote: I'll bet the people who are complaining about advertising watch a lot of TV and listen to the radio.   Or use Prog Archives!  Yeah look at that predatory add at the top of the page forcing you to get tickets to a KoRn concert. It's very misleading also.

I can't see it due to Adblock. Does it imply that Korn is good music?

BTW, speaking of Adblock, I hate internet advertising because it's much more intrusive than normal advertising. Banners who load over the page you want to read and try to hide the "close" button as much as possible, often loud noises that you can't shut off, etc.