Advertising

It isn't hard at all to tell people to "get fucked" when their problem solving skills have them arrive at the conclusion that riots and widespread property damage are the most productive course of action when faced with systemic unemployment. I'm not saying that they should just go get a jobby-job that grows on the job-tree, because I know the problem is more complicated than that. But seriously - fuck ANYONE who thinks that because their life sucks, everyone else's should suck as well.

While your at it, are you going to ban pop music or the rap videos that glorify much of the materialism? What about all the TV sitcoms where the family lives a comfortable middle/upper-class existence and all of life's problems can be resolved in 24 minutes? Are we going to make athletes adhere to a strict public appearance code that includes only off-the-rack suits from JCPenneys, and late-model year domestic family sedans? People don't live in little bubbles, and will witness the income disparity despite anything we do to hide it.

For the most part, this is self-correcting: it is ineffective to market upscale items to the masses (and vice versa). Companies who discover that paying for an 30 second ad right after Wheel Of Fortune, in order to sell a aviator themed wristwatch by IWC that runs about $10,000 probably won't generate many sales. On the other hand, putting one of those ads in the sidebar on Uncrate or Gear Patrol just might.

Just to reiterate what binary vision said - you're merely referring to a symptom of a greater social problem; treating just the effects won't address your issues.

 

You should really try to calm down.

The point I was trying to make is that 20% or "one in five" isn't just some people, it's a hell of a lot. Once you start looking at Spain and Greece it's even worse, 40% plus of their youth can't find a damn job.

 

Depends on where you're from I guess, I think we (the US) have kept our noses fairly clean in this latest clusterfuck. It seems that the Euros didn't learn the same lessons we did back in 2008.

I wholeheartedly agree.

 

I didn't assume anything. We surveyed 5000 Americans from 3 different financial demographics and 3 different lifestyle types and the data came back with you being too stupid to realize that...

Its actually what JWags said perfect. The message gets researched, the creative not so much.

 

I guess that explains why our accounting team is still using the abacus department-wide.

And I get what you're saying but in this case it's just not the truth. My only answer as to the "why" is that no one at the top, for whatever reason, seems to give a shit about the minutia that's occurring on the ground floor. Perhaps they shouldn't; but right now the company intranet - which goes out worldwide - is filled with broken links, articles from 2008, broken images, and kid pics' clip art.

And they're planning to conduct a survey on why nobody uses it. Well, when they get around to it. The higher ups will probably just try to solve their problems with more advertising and playing games in finance.

In case you didn't realize it, everyone already knows Coke Zero, Pepsi Max, and now Dr. Pepper 10 were targeting "manly men" who wanted a zero-calorie drink. This is patently obvious to all.

He was asking why the Dr. Pepper version had such crapTACULAR advertisements. It was so in-your-face this-is-for-men, it came across as strange. Especially the emphasis on IT'S NOT FOR WOMEN!! In our PC society it could have easily been taken as sexist or some crap.

Usually when a product targets one demographic, they don't say "Fuck you" to their non-primary demographics. Do you see Lexus saying "This is not for fucking POOR PEOPLE!! YEEEAAAH!!!"

It's so strange, and I'll say it, off-putting (didn't think it was funny nor did I "get" why they were saying fuck-you to women --- shock value..?) --- that it's confusing what angle they were going for. That's why it was asked if it was triple-meta irony. No one knows. Most likely it's just more crap advertising.

 

Greece is about to legalize all drugs entirely. I have a funny feeling the tourism is about to increase, hopefully that will increase the amount of jobs where you hand out towels to people who shout at your face in english if you can score them weed.

There's advertising for ya:

GREECE: ALL DRUGS NOW LEGAL.

..that is all you would have to do, and Amsterdam would have tumbleweeds.

 

This is confirming my belief that marketing and advertising departments would need 2 focus groups, 4 surveys, and 17 memos to find their ass with both hands.

 

It's not that the agency people WANT to do the research. The clients say "We spend 50 billion dollars with you, justify it." Just like if someone came up to you and said "I have a system that will make you rich, just give me your life savings." You'd be like "Whoa, what the fuck? How could you do that and explain to me how it would work."

 

Coke Zero isn't just rebranded Diet Coke either, I'm pretty sure it actually uses a different sweetener.

<a class="postlink" href="http://www.differencebetween.net/science/health/difference-between-diet-coke-and-coke-zero/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://www.differencebetween.net/scienc ... coke-zero/</a>
...or not. All I know is it tastes a million times better than Diet Coke. Maybe I've been brainwashed by marketing.

 

Funny you should say that.
Of course they shouldn't believe the advertisements. That's my whole point. However, if you are going to rail on people for believing they deserve things they can't afford, shouldn't you save some vitriol for the entities giving them that message?

Well, no. That's why I specifically said

I believe in the rights of companies to advertise. I also believe in the rights of people to establish religious cults, or people to live on nothing but fast food and bourbon. I just don't necessarily believe that any of these things are a net plus for society overall. That's fine; the goal of a company is to turn a profit, not to improve society. However, this idea that we have to approve of the constant flow of advertising or we are devaluing free will strikes me as odd.

 

It's not about devaluing free will, it's about what's detrimental to free markets. If a company can afford to advertise in a medium, it should be their choice to determine the message, as suits the market. It's not as if there's zero regulation there. Governments go after demerit goods through tax hikes and launch their own ad campaigns against those products, not to mention limiting advertising capacity in certain areas. What more do you want? What's really more harmful to the nation and the economy? Disingenuous advertising or prohibiting marketing (assuming corporations aren't telling direct lies)? It's better to err towards the side of permitted promotion rather than inhibiting companies and industries.

I'm lost on this idea that companies shouldn't advertise goods or services certain social classes can't afford. Should we tell the wealthy to shy away from these too since owning them is offensive? Should we boycott luxury goods? If a nation is going to treat its citizens like adults they need to let people reap the consequences of overspending and let them decide how to spend their money. Unemployment rates involve issues way beyond the scope of advertising too.

 

For the love of God. Let me be clear here.

I'm trying to think of a way to re-word this to explain my position more clearly.
1. Advertising can have negative societal implications. It should be allowed, but just because it should be allowed doesn't mean it's a good thing.
2. If we are going to allow advertising (as we should), we should teach people how to deconstruct the messages in the ads. This will lessen some of the negative effects of advertising, while preserving the useful elements of it.

Nowhere have I said that companies shouldn't advertise products, or that we should prohibit marketing; I have actually stated the opposite repeatedly.

 

Well, you said people should save some vitriol for the advertisers, and it's disingenuous to not blame advertisements.

They do teach that though, or at least they did at my school. You can offer 12 years of English to native speakers and some still can't string a coherent paragraph together. It sounds like you just want people to be smarter, but that isn't going to happen. Besides, we've all bought stuff we hardly used, or didn't need; some more than others, and telling people how to draw the line is only going to do so much.

 

Look, for advertising to be in any way at fault for those riots it would have to do something ridiculous like intentionally attempt to foster discontentment among those who view the advertisements, and imply that a material good is an important and critical piece of one's identity and emotional well being and... oh... right.

 

You mean young good looking white girls with bankruptcy history don't turn in their paid-off Lambo's for a title loan to get TOP CASH for guns, gold, and jewelry?

 

So why don't we start blaming people who own things we want too for fostering discontentment among those who see their possessions, and thus implying that a material good is an important and critical piece of one's identity and emotional well being, and did you see that rolex he was showing off? Might as well riot and start looting. Blaming ads for people rioting is like saying if I shoot someone with a hunting rifle it's someone else's fault for it being legal. Oh wait, people actually do think that. Then again, I never thought those riots were really about advertising. Must be wrong there.

 

No, it's like saying that if you shoot someone with a hunting rifle then it was someone else's fault for making you be the kind of person that would shoot someone. And to some extent, all of us know that's true. To what extent is of course the issue.