35 replies to this topic

[Comrade Kal]

Yes, the last sentence was correct. The rest was a bit pedantic.

[Ash]

Theres nothing wrong with it, its healthy and ensures that prices are low for the consumer by the regulation of the market it creates a free society where people have the right to choose what they want and when they want it.

Never before on this forum have I read such a complete, utter, audacious and unadulterated load of tripe.

I have no problem with advertising a product. It's the mass advertising the same thing a billion times all over the place until it just loses all meaning, and the inanity of all the adverts which gets my goat. As for informing the consumer of a new product..that's fine.

[Hostile]

Sure you have, you say the same of me all the time. Seriously though. I'm so sick of seeing adds splattered on everything I see.

I'm waiting for some squirrels in my back yard to start having products taped to thier asses. But it's neceassary evil I suppose in order for the corporations to pay for things and allow us free access to stuff.

There are some products that you buy with adversitment free. But it's not true. Even the satellite radio I have in my car and home proclaim advert free. It's not, it's only free of adverts on channels produced by them. The rest still run commercials.

And even on thier own channels, they still have adverts, except it's only about getting the satellite radio service. Now if I can "hear this message," doesn't it mean I already have the service?

Maybe the issue is there are too many products. That's the problem of capitalism. Too much competition. Everyones a business owner and wants your attention to buy something.

God how I miss the old gulag days when I had only too adverts for bread, white and green. Nostaglia...

And please everyone understand, I'm only kidding. Just having some fun. There is no capitalist commerial here (insert capitalist comercial <HERE>)

But if you act now, for a limited time offer, only avaliable in certain areas, limited 2 per household, and if you call within 2 minutes, not avaliable in (insert everywhere except where you live), by popular demand, and approved by the national associations of association, than you will be entitled to a free gift that you can choose from this shelf.

Not including everything left of the bubble gum, just right of the pencil erasers, and not including the mickey mouse watch.

(Just got done working 18 hours straight and am completely sober unfortunately...)

[Kazyumi]

I see all this potential, and I see squandering. God damn it, an entire generation pumping gas, waiting tables; slaves with white collars. Advertising has us chasing cars and clothes, working jobs we hate so we can buy shit we don't need. We're the middle children of history, man. No purpose or place. We have no Great War. No Great Depression. Our Great War's a spiritual war... our Great Depression is our lives. We've all been raised on television to believe that one day we'd all be millionaires, and movie gods, and rock stars. But we won't. And we're slowly learning that fact. And we're very, very pissed off.

What purposes do we have in life if we were not to have been taught all this materialistic addiction.

Imagining waking up one morning and then not wanting to bother to work just to buy a newer and faster car, a fancy house, stylish clothes.

Right, why would one work then?
Come on, we work for our own selves in capitalism.
But do we really work for ourselves is were taught to like/want certain things that drive us into debts and all (think: new expensive sports car/new bigger house/expensive new clothing)?

Edited by Kazyumi, 01 January 2007 - 01:02 AM.

[Blodo]

We are taught to be a consumer because if we weren't one, the capitalist world would collapse. Thus we are meant as a people to buy everything. In an ideal corporate world.

[Comrade Kal]

Everybody in the world has just not enough money. From a bangladeshi peasant to an American CEO, they just need to be a little bit richer and then everything would be OK... people are never satisfied because there's always something you can't quite afford.

If you're not busy being born, you're busy buying.

Imagine... no money, no posessions.

[Tom]

Money is slavery if we let it rule us. We can still live with money, but it should become what it is meant to be; a way of trade rather than a way of life.

[Alsch]

While advertising is necessary and useful, corporations often cross the line with their methods. Ads that use sex to sell things, for example is unacceptable. Also, ads can also lead to people buying perhaps (there's a small chance) the right thing, but for very wrong reason. I want to buy car insurance because it's right for me and my family, not because I liked the little talking lizard.

[Cossack]

Ads that use sex to sell things, for example is unacceptable.

ahhh...but they are the only ads I actually enjoy looking at

Outdoor advertisment should be heavily regulated. I live in Canada where bill boards are illegal, and everytime i drive down to florida it sickens me to see such beautiful landscape destroyed by a gigantic billboard every 50 metres blocking my view. Not only is it ugly but also distracts me form driving.

Other then that, I dont mind ads. In fact I like them because I can tune in when I hear an add for something ive been looking for, but just ignore them for the most part.

[Solinx]

Advertisement does have a purpose, namely to inform the public about new products. However, advertisement has become a nuisuance over the years.

They pop up at every corner. To come back to the joke Hostile made about the squirrels, some cows (or sheep?) who stood in a field near the highway actually got advertisement on them for a while. It was just a cloth over their backs (no dire animal abuse), but still...

In my opinion, public advertisement in the form of bill boards, etc. should be forbidden. Same goes for telephonic advertisment.

That pretty much leaves us with advertisement through television, radio, etc. This sort of advertisment should become personal. 90% of the advertisements I hear or see now don't interest me a second. For the remaining 10% that attention span lasts a little bit longer, with occasionally something I actually do find interesting enough to look up.

The technology to efficiently and cost effectively implent the following is lacking at the moment, but I would suggest the marketing community to rather focus on offering "advertisment on demand".

Instead of broadcasting the same advertisments to everyone watching the same channel, each person would be able to preselect certain types of commercials that match his/her interests. Optionally, everyone would be free to select the amount, lenght and/or times of advertisement as well, determening the price to pay for the service.

With this new method the advertisers would lose buyers who didn't select their type, but it would also mean that viewers watch with more interest to their commercials, instead of walking away, talk to others, or switch the channel.

From the watchers point of view, these commercials can be made shorter, as they are more focussed on the person watching the commercials, increasing their effectiveness. This increase makes them worth more, and should lead to an increase of costs per minute for advertisers.

Quantity becomes quality...

If data was more publicly accessible, I'd like to do some research on it, but for now... it's nice to dream... :(

Solinx

[duke_Qa]

well the internet is getting quite good at finding out what adverts that you personally might be more likely to be interested in. the one on the top here right now says gulf hurricane relief which seems a bit more generic than the other ads i've seen through the ages, but if i was a person who gave to charity it might have hit a nerve.

but the theory is that sometimes that might become embarrasing aswell, i think penny-arcade has a comic about this.

http://www.penny-arc...omic/2006/10/19

Edited by duke_Qa, 09 April 2007 - 01:14 PM.

[Bart]

Same goes for telephonic advertisment.

in fact, i'm amazed that it's not illegal, while SPAM is

In my opinion, public advertisement in the form of bill boards, etc. should be forbidden.

bill boards on walls in small streets are OK, but next to the highway they are annoying, and even dangerous to those who can't concentrate very well.

oh, and in some places, like las vegas and disneyland, billboards are part of the style, so they should stay.

That pretty much leaves us with advertisement through television, radio, etc. This sort of advertisment should become personal. 90% of the advertisements I hear or see now don't interest me a second. For the remaining 10% that attention span lasts a little bit longer, with occasionally something I actually do find interesting enough to look up.

there are pro's and cons of personal advertisement:
- pro: you are generally interested in the stuff
- con: you never see advertisements for stuff you don't like at that moment, but would have been interesting to you
- con: the advertisement companies would know what interests you.

personally i believe more in google style ads: advertisements that fit the context they are in

[Blodo]

Adverts:

1. The idea - to provide information about products to people who are looking for such information
2. The problem - instead it's stamped on everything, everywhere with absolutely no compunction about placement, even sacrificing safety (sexy ads on highways, now try and tell me that isn't a safety hazard) just to place some dumbass ads, not even speaking about annoying you to fuck by email spam, snail mail spam, telephone ads, etc.
3. The consequences - the ads make us dumb and stupid. People think they should look like ads tell them to look, buy what they tell them to buy, etc. It decreases intelligence. Proof to that would be the average American.
4. The solution - ban advertising altogether except in special "adbooks" which could be bought at newsagents. Also put restrictions on how ads are to look. No more dumbass lifestyle bullshit, instead just provide dry info about the product and where can one get it.

Edited by Blodo, 11 April 2007 - 12:15 PM.

[Solinx]

Your solution would create entry barriers, reduce product innovation and increase the power of monopolists. And that in about every industry.

It would also mean the end of a lot of free services, as well as result in cost increasement for many services that are now cheap.

I would explain in detail, but I haven't got the time atm.

Solinx

[Blodo]

I would explain in detail what I would do to capitalism to make it work so that the people are in power, not the corporations but a long post probably won't get read anyways. I made a couple of these some time ago anyways.

You are so totally wrong on the monopoly argument btw. It's not like it's any better today, taking into account this has became a race on who can spam his adverts the most. The one with the most money wins, thus monopoly. The system encourages it, though nobody will admit to it publically of course. It's better to make war on terrorists.

BTW Two hundred years ago there was no TV. How did businesses manage? Simple - they were small. That's how they should stay. Corporations would be the only ones with problems, and that's an idea that I rather like to be honest.

[Solinx]

I would explain in detail what I would do to capitalism to make it work so that the people are in power, not the corporations but a long post probably won't get read anyways. I made a couple of these some time ago anyways.

Yeah, feeling the same about it too. And im still busy, so I'll keep it short again. Those posts you made, could you link to them? It's only for this past week that I've been actively visiting this part of Revora.

You are so totally wrong on the monopoly argument btw. It's not like it's any better today, taking into account this has became a race on who can spam his adverts the most. The one with the most money wins, thus monopoly. The system encourages it, though nobody will admit to it publically of course. It's better to make war on terrorists.

You are right, it's not much better today, but it is better. By isolating advertisement to bought ad-bundles, you give major compagnies another advantage. (Another because they can still spam the most ads in the ad-bundles) The only advertising next to this bundle would come from the public. Major compagnies are well known by a greater public and will profit more from this than small compagnies, which are less known by the public.
Edit: This is the short story, excluding new compagnies

BTW Two hundred years ago there was no TV. How did businesses manage? Simple - they were small. That's how they should stay. Corporations would be the only ones with problems, and that's an idea that I rather like to be honest.

200 years ago, technology were limiting the possibilities, but even so, there were still big compagnies. A random example from 1600 to 1800 there was the VOC.

From wikipedia:

By 1669, the VOC was the richest private company the world had ever seen, with over 150 merchant ships, 40 warships, 50,000 employees, a private army of 10,000 soldiers, and a dividend payment of 40%.

And there has been recent news that the fleet was actually bigger than formerly thought of.

This firm had the benefit of a few major entry barrier to keep competition from rising up. The high costs to build a ship and pay the crew, the risk involved with each trip, and the VOC had lot's of contacts with the merchants at both sides of the water.

Sadly, advertisement is not the only thing that keep monopolies in place...

Innovation can break monopolies tho. The problem here is that there is a reasonable chance that this monopolist will only get replaced by another.

Solinx