|
|
| Author |
Message |
marcin
|
|
Advertising. Do you hate it?
| 
Feb 7 19:35 UTC 1995 |
With TV as the biggest medium for advertising, and the Super Bowl as the
most expensive TV program just over, I suppose this is a good time to begin
a little "debate" on commercials in today's US. Pepsi or Coke, Coke or Pepsi?
That is the question. It took lots of dollars and time, but they finally
convinced me. Never again I shall make wrong choice of the wrong generations.
Easily persuaded, and naive people, like me, do not feel used. What if they
are? What do you think?
To spur a response from all you literate people out there, I will present you
with my own, very UNIQUE (and humble) point of view. Personally I profoundly
believe in the freedom for evolution of business only influenced by finacial
gain or loss. This is why "dinosaurs" die, and no one should nor has the
right to obstruct this natural process. Ofcourse not all play is fair play...
Although THE FIRST AMENDMENT allows ads to include texts like :
"the best in it's class"
"most doctors recomend"
"car of the year by XXX magazine"
"beats all other leading brands"
"new"
"every must go now"
etc.
the advertising companies are not coming up with anything innovative. Sometimes
I wonder am I the ONLY one getting realy aggravated by this bs (sorry, mi
culpa) rethoric I am compelled to hear every time I watch Rush? If not ,
why isn't the public try to reject this kind of advertising. For God's sake
American consumer can not be a complete moron , she is your wife !!!!!
(sorry)
Pawel.
|
| 16 responses total. |
omni
|
|
response 1 of 16:
|
Feb 8 06:52 UTC 1995 |
I'll say this:
Earlier this year, when I was having problems with my stomach, and
I was using a fair amount of Maalox, I asked my doctor which one was the
best, Mylanta or Maalox. He responded "Buy the store brand, whichever one
is cheaper, because it's basically the same stuff chemically"
And yet we still hear Mylanta claiming to be reccommended by more doctors.
I personally think it's bullshit.
I don't listen to the ads. No TV or Radio spot ever influenced my decision
to spend my money. I shop for things and base my decision on how well the
product performs and the end cost of that product. I do read the sale
papers, but largely ignore advertising
|
other
|
|
response 2 of 16:
|
Feb 8 07:03 UTC 1995 |
Your decisions have to be affected by advertising, because unless you either
read a lot of consumer reports, or own and operate a research laboratory, you
cannot be significantly informed about the existence, much less the
performance, of all of the consumer goods which you purchase on a regular
basis. Advertising's biggest objective is just to get you to be familiar with
a particular brand name of product or service, because you are *much* more
likely to buy a name you know than a name you don't, regardless of substantive
differences.
Advertisers do not need flashy new slogans other than to catch your attention
enough to make their brand name stand out from the noise. If the old standbys
work, then why spend the money coming up with something else?
|
marcin
|
|
response 3 of 16:
|
Feb 8 19:08 UTC 1995 |
Does this mean, we will fall for the same tricks as long TV exists?
|
other
|
|
response 4 of 16:
|
Feb 9 06:50 UTC 1995 |
We have fallen for the same tricks as long as men and women have been
getting together and having children. Why should we stop now, just when there
are so many new ways for us to be taken advantage of.
|
tnt
|
|
response 5 of 16:
|
Feb 19 15:19 UTC 1995 |
So you're saying that parts of the female anatomy & the way it/they is/are
displayed is 'advertising' which suckers us men into having children with
the woman (women)?
I think you have something there!
|
raven
|
|
response 6 of 16:
|
Mar 2 06:21 UTC 1995 |
I used to be offended by advertising, but now I find the graphics
and editing entertaining. They do not influence my decsion to buy things,
I don't drink soda, and if I were to buy a new car or computer I would
do a lot of research before I made that decsion.
|
ajax
|
|
response 7 of 16:
|
Mar 6 06:52 UTC 1995 |
I think most people think they're unaffected by advertising. I agree
with #2 - ads generally try to make you familiar with a name, and if you
watch any television (even PBS), that will happen.
It's interesting, in #1, omni said no ad has ever influenced his
purchasing decisions, yet in the same response, he says he asked his
doc whether to use Maalox or Mylanta, a coke and pepsi of their genre.
I doubt that would have been the question if it weren't for their ads!
And I doubt I'd even recognize their names if not for advertising. In
that sense, making their names familiar, their ads worked.
|
omni
|
|
response 8 of 16:
|
Mar 7 06:53 UTC 1995 |
Yes, I did, but at the time, I was using a drug store clone of the stuff
and I still refuse to spend 6 dollars for Maalox when I can the very
same stuff for 2 bucks at Meijer.
I still buy what I like, and I really don't listen to sales pitches
because essentially there all bullshit. If they wern't we wouldn't need
Consumers Reports now would we?
|
tnt
|
|
response 9 of 16:
|
Mar 8 04:26 UTC 1995 |
Don't waste your time pointing out Jimbo's inconsistencies. Usually
they're obvious enough so that everyone else has detected them, and Jim
isn't equipped to deal with criticism.
|
omni
|
|
response 10 of 16:
|
Mar 8 06:51 UTC 1995 |
I can handle criticism just fine. I just stated my position which was
for the most part accurate, and relflected my actions.
Note: As a matter of curiousity, and mind you that's all it was,
which was better Maalox or Mylanta, But I wasn't using either of these
products, I was just curoius to see what a medical professional would
say about it. I was just proving to myself that this fake war between
maalox and mylanta was just that-- bullshit.
Want real relief? Go and buy the cheapest drug store brand you can find
That usually works as well or better than the national brands. In 9
of most cases this is true.
Now, go ahead and criticize it all you like, and I will rebut your
statments to the best of my ability.
|
other
|
|
response 11 of 16:
|
Mar 10 21:06 UTC 1995 |
Criticism doth not merit rebuttal, and that, I believe is hoolie's point.
But that's nowhere and nothing at all...
|
omni
|
|
response 12 of 16:
|
Mar 11 05:37 UTC 1995 |
Well, the only point he has is the one on top of his head!
|
tnt
|
|
response 13 of 16:
|
Mar 11 07:05 UTC 1995 |
Another beautiful example of the "Roto" Reuter mental flip-flop!
|
omni
|
|
response 14 of 16:
|
Mar 12 08:47 UTC 1995 |
A record. It's only taken you 13 responses to completly polarize the
item. Nice Job Tim
|
aaron
|
|
response 15 of 16:
|
Mar 12 20:38 UTC 1995 |
And he did it all by himself, right....
|
tnt
|
|
response 16 of 16:
|
Mar 13 00:17 UTC 1995 |
Yep, responses 1-13 were all entered by me! Damn, that eagle-eyed,
owl-brained Roto Reuter saw right thru all my deep-cover aliases! I
give up!
|
