35 replies to this topic

[Comrade Kal]

Advertising is nothing more than corporate propaganda. It generates, rather than fulfils, a need in society and is therefore counter-productive to the aims of most people. It should be destroyed.

Discuss.

[chemical ali]

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.

[Comrade Kal]

Without advertising you would still have all of that.

[Comrade Kal]

Imagine if in Britain we had government posters on every street corner telling us how glorious the country and our government was. On giant electronic screens in cities, being broadcast over the radio, displays outside every police station, in newspapers, every 15 minutes on hundreds of channels 24 hours a day.

Is that right?

No. But we've been brought up with companies doing it and telling us it's fine. Whereas if the government did it... that's what happens in evil countries, where the government tell you how many times you can take a piss (and of course, what company would want to do that?)

[Destroyer]

Advertising, while annoying, has helped to fund radio, television, and internet websites, where donations wouldn't be enough.

I certainly understand what you're saying, but I think it has to stay. Advertising like in that picture, though, is disgusting.

[Comrade Kal]

Hmm. It's probably difficult to take one particular thing in my beliefs without including them all, as they all influence one another.

[Blodo]

Advertising dumbs people down. It generates fake demand for things that we don't need and probably don't really want in the first place. Thing is I don't care about one commercial, but human psychology studies prove that if you see a hundred commercials telling you that this product is good and you need to buy it - you will. That's the mind spam were dealing with daily.

Then you have the issue of not what product is better but what product gets better advertising. Mcdonalds does well because it throws millions at advertising each year, dumbing people down to believe that their products are good. Regardless that it all tastes like dog shit.

Basically advertising has it's hand in remaking capitalism into corporatism. It should be regulated in terms of quantity to begin with, and heavily too.

[Dirt]

1) Advertisement is just business
2) Without adverts business cannot spread
3) If it cannot spread ppl would not know the business
4) Ppl wouldn't use the business
5) No income for business
6) Business fails
7) No public service facility
8) Economy collapses
9) Scarcity

But really I hate exaggerated commercials. In thai channels it just say that this product is great and, for instance, 90% sure it will cure something/pleases you but when i actually uses it, it suck. As Bloby said, its just like spamming/flooding to make you buy it, and even you buy it the TV still say you must buy it. Thats why i dont watch TV much. But how come Revora just have google ads just on top of the page? But somehow, unexaggerated ads are pretty useful, to make you know things. There are a lot of commercial in thailand telling you not to drink (it covers the whole page in the newspaper). In the channels sometimes in shows there is advert posters on the whole background and commercial breaks come almost every 5 min of the show and it lasts 10 min before returning to the show. Its irritating when i watch AF concerts and they have to leave/cut parts out just to make sure the watchers get the ads. IMO i hate exaggerated and too much quantity of commercials but in the real world we really need some adverts.

Edited by Shocker, 25 December 2006 - 08:59 AM.

[Comrade Kal]

1) Advertisement is just business
2) Without adverts business cannot spread
3) If it cannot spread ppl would not know the business
4) Ppl wouldn't use the business
5) No income for business
6) Business fails
7) No public service facility
8) Economy collapses
9) Scarcity

1) Doesn't make it good. Quite the opposite.
2) If people want it they'll look for it
3) ditto
4) ditto
5) hurrah
6) hurrah
7) why not?
8) that's a good thing
9) not a knock-on effect

[Blodo]

in the real world we really need some adverts.

TBH? No we don't. All the money that is spent on advertising and generating false demand is the money that won't go into enforcing product quality. In the end advertising is but a part of the capitalist machine which by sheer definition will drive product quality down a level every once in a while. If you put money into quality you don't put it into quantity. You lose because you are out-advertised by your opponents.

Basically capitalism worked when it came to small companies. As soon as corporations had a go - that's when the system is no longer viable, it is unfair and should be overthrown. Corporations abuse everything, always.

[Silent_Killa]

Then you have the issue of not what product is better but what product gets better advertising. Mcdonalds does well because it throws millions at advertising each year, dumbing people down to believe that their products are good. Regardless that it all tastes like dog shit.

Why do you hate McDonalds? I for one love the chicken nuggets... I just try not to think of what other than chicken is in them

1) Doesn't make it good. Quite the opposite.
2) If people want it they'll look for it
3) ditto
4) ditto
5) hurrah
6) hurrah
7) why not?
8) that's a good thing
9) not a knock-on effect

Let me revise what Shocker said to how it affects you...

1) Advertisement is just business
2) Without adverts business cannot spread
3) If it cannot spread ppl would not know the business
4) Ppl wouldn't use the business
5) No income for business
6) Business fails
7) People like me lose our jobs
8) Nobody left to pay taxes
9) No more welfare for you

TBH? No we don't. All the money that is spent on advertising and generating false demand is the money that won't go into enforcing product quality. In the end advertising is but a part of the capitalist machine which by sheer definition will drive product quality down a level every once in a while. If you put money into quality you don't put it into quantity. You lose because you are out-advertised by your opponents.

Not necessarily, many bussinesses succeed with very limited advertising. We've got a fast food chain in California called In and Out burgers, high quality food for only a little more than McDonalds, no advertising, and yet cars are backed up from the drivethrough to the street waiting. You operate off the assumption that all of humanity are some sort of brain dead morons who will buy anything they see on TV.

[Athena]

That photo looks very extreme. Why in some places would it be "necessary" to put up so many ads, and other places it is not "necessary"? I do not want to see any more ads than I do (and it's by no where as extreme as that photo). I always walk away during TV commercials (well, when I still watched TV that is), or I get a book and read something. Rather than spending so much money in ads as extreme as that photo, I think that money could be spend in better ways. Too much ads are annoying. Phone ads are annoying (you know, those people who phone you to inform you about their product). They get more brutal by the day, last time they phoned at 10:30 on a saturday morning .. Phone ads should be destroyed.

I'm okay with a little bit of advertising, but there is a limit. I'm glad I live here and not in an area like that photo.

[Blodo]

Why do you hate McDonalds? I for one love the chicken nuggets... I just try not to think of what other than chicken is in them

Shit food with unidentified ingredients. And I hate the clown guy, that's just the most annoying thing ever.

Not necessarily, many bussinesses succeed with very limited advertising. We've got a fast food chain in California called In and Out burgers, high quality food for only a little more than McDonalds, no advertising, and yet cars are backed up from the drivethrough to the street waiting.

That's one of the few exceptions to the rule I suppose. But take for example AOL, that's a prime example of what I said. Big advertising - shit product.

You operate off the assumption that all of humanity are some sort of brain dead morons who will buy anything they see on TV.

One of the principles of propaganda is if you tell something to someone a hundred times, and tell them that it's good - they will eventually believe you. Same way if the corporations spread their lies on TV that their products are good, people will go and buy them. The companies with better products and less adverts thus get less money, which means they have to cut something to stay on the market. It's either wages or product quality. There is also a third option: put more cash into adverts than your opponent, which essentially means cutting product quality by a lot. The opponent now faces the same problem, and has to resort to similar measures to keep himself floating.

In the end we get a shitload of commercials warring for recipients and using underhanded tactics like phone ads and door to door salesmen, both of which are only annoying. Meanwhile the product that we actually liked some time ago becomes something slightly short of a turd.

Now what I am talking about obviously happens on a longer timescale, as in a few years probably. But it is noticable. You pay less for less quality and the higher quality is ran out of business due to it's inability to keep the prices low. It all comes down to the price and adverts.

[Silent_Killa]

That's one of the few exceptions to the rule I suppose. But take for example AOL, that's a prime example of what I said. Big advertising - shit product.

Haven't been paying much attention to bussiness news lately, but as I recall AOL has been in a state of decline since the mid 90's.

One of the principles of propaganda is if you tell something to someone a hundred times, and tell them that it's good - they will eventually believe you. Same way if the corporations spread their lies on TV that their products are good, people will go and buy them. The companies with better products and less adverts thus get less money, which means they have to cut something to stay on the market. It's either wages or product quality. There is also a third option: put more cash into adverts than your opponent, which essentially means cutting product quality by a lot. The opponent now faces the same problem, and has to resort to similar measures to keep himself floating.

Then why don't you eat at McDonalds or use AOL? You've heard it a hundred times right? What makes you think you're so fucking special?

[Blodo]

Then why don't you eat at McDonalds or use AOL? You've heard it a hundred times right? What makes you think you're so fucking special?

I tried McDonalds, probably payed somebodys wage there even and from that I can figure that the food is shit. They made their goal - they made me spend my money on their crap. I'm not special.

I would probably try AOL too if it was providing service in my country, but it doesn't. Reading online reviews however I achieved the rather correct opinion that it's services reek of bullshit, but only due to extensive searching on the subject - something most people don't bother to do. How do I know that? Because there is another bullshit internet provider operating here that scores the big bucks due to annoying commercials and disinformation. People don't check, buy their cheap but crap service and don't complain, because they have no idea that the service can be any better. The damn commercials are designed to trick people who have no idea on the subject to buy their crap services. And it works, too!

That's as good as anything a reason to at the very least heavily contain and control commercials, have some sort of equal opportunity thing allowing only this much commercials and show them by categories so that people get a look at alternatives - and also helping those businesses who can't afford the info war against the corporations. And most importantly: stop displaying them a hundred times per day.

[CodeCat]

That reminds me of what someone told me yesterday. He payed US$ 40 for a broadband service that gave him no more than a few kB/s worth of bandwidth (about the same as dialup). I told him he was getting ripped off, but that company was the only one that provided in his area. As a comparison, I pay €21 for 200 kB/s.

[chemical ali]

Often access to high speed internet is difficult in remote rural regions, I remember my mums work was stuck on ISDN for years which cost more than broadband, satellite broadband was out of the question as well due to the cost but in the end the area could have broadband due to upgrades on the lines.

The good thing in the UK is that because British Telecom was privatised it opened up the market to competition meaning internet is very cheap now, I think my dad pays about £30 a month for 6 mbps with BT Business and we have had this since about the year 2000 when it was only 512 kbs ah those were the days...

[CodeCat]

But what about privatisation when there's no competition, like in the case of that friend? A free market only works when each market is covered by companies that are about equal in footing. If one company gets a severe upper hand, it almost becomes a monopoly in itself, because nobody else is able to compete. And who regulates that there is no market that is covered by just one company?

Now back to advertising (yes, I had a point). The companies that are just starting off will not be able to compete with others. They have no money for advertising, which means the advertising of others simply 'pushes them out of the market' altogether. It's a self-perpetuating system, where the larger companies stay large and either buy out or out-advertise and out-compete anyone who tries to get a piece of 'their' cake. The free market is supposed to combat molopolisation, but in the end the purpose of each company IS to gain a monopoly. It's like saying weapons prevent death, while they're made exactly to CAUSE death.

[Silent_Killa]

I tried McDonalds, probably payed somebodys wage there even and from that I can figure that the food is shit. They made their goal - they made me spend my money on their crap. I'm not special.

Exactly, you tried their product and did not use it again. If everyone only bought 1 hamburger from the place they'd be out of bussiness already.

I would probably try AOL too if it was providing service in my country, but it doesn't. Reading online reviews however I achieved the rather correct opinion that it's services reek of bullshit, but only due to extensive searching on the subject - something most people don't bother to do. How do I know that? Because there is another bullshit internet provider operating here that scores the big bucks due to annoying commercials and disinformation. People don't check, buy their cheap but crap service and don't complain, because they have no idea that the service can be any better. The damn commercials are designed to trick people who have no idea on the subject to buy their crap services. And it works, too!

And yet their company is circling the toilet bowl... right...

But what about privatisation when there's no competition, like in the case of that friend? A free market only works when each market is covered by companies that are about equal in footing. If one company gets a severe upper hand, it almost becomes a monopoly in itself, because nobody else is able to compete. And who regulates that there is no market that is covered by just one company?

The unequal footing can be viewed as a result of government intervention... but that's for another topic

Now back to advertising (yes, I had a point). The companies that are just starting off will not be able to compete with others. They have no money for advertising, which means the advertising of others simply 'pushes them out of the market' altogether. It's a self-perpetuating system, where the larger companies stay large and either buy out or out-advertise and out-compete anyone who tries to get a piece of 'their' cake. The free market is supposed to combat molopolisation, but in the end the purpose of each company IS to gain a monopoly. It's like saying weapons prevent death, while they're made exactly to CAUSE death.

For starters, weapons do not cause death.

Anyways... looks like I'm going to have to delve into my statement anyways... the goal of the company is to gain a monopoly, but this is offset by innovation. The problem is that when a corporation grows to a certain size it gains influence over the government, which allows it to control innovation and restrict the competition.

[Detail]

On a smaller scale:


If i could not advertise my sites in my sig, here or anywhere else, the only place you'd find it is in a Google listing.
Not that you'd know about Google, as no-one could say "Just fucking Google it!" to you, because that would be advertising.

A world without advertising is like the internet without external links, how would you find anything without randomly typing stuff into the address bar.
Although, shop.com would be one cool address to own if there were no external links.


Advertising can not be removed, as girls advertise their hot bodies on every beach. I do like the world with girls in bikinis, on beaches.


That's me taking the word advertising very generally. - If it was just a ban on company's advertising products, then maybe the world might be better off.
So, as with everything, it depends on the situation of the advertising.

Edited by D, 29 December 2006 - 07:25 PM.