Watch TV or Go to Jail

[Ming]

Originally posted by Osweld
There are fads created by people, and there are corporate fads. Britney spears, and pop culture in general, is a good example of corporate fads. Brintey spears was nothing before all the hype was created around her.

She is not a "corporate fad"... she is a media fad. The hype was originally created by media outlets. Advertisering only followed once she was a hit, not prior.

Ah, so you are begining to admit it.

No... I'm admitting to the LIMITED power of advertising.
Advertising can't make you buy a "pile of crap"... you imply that it can. Advertising can show how a product can fullfull a need... but you are the one that determines if you have the need.

They would however buy a huge gas guzzling 4x4 to drive their kids to school in, despite not needing that.

You obviously don't drive kids around. You "need" a vehicle that has enough room to drive MANY kids around.
A small economy car doesn't have the space you "need" to do so. Before the 4x4's... there were gas guzziling station wagons... and then vans. Both have their limitations. 4x4's sell well because people feel they need them... not because of advertising. Again... advertising works when there is already a need. Your comments make it sound like we could sell these people their own large school buses by simply advertising. It doesn't work that way.

[Jac de Molay]

Advertising can't make you buy a "pile of crap"... you imply that it can. Advertising can show how a product can fullfull a need... but you are the one that determines if you have the need.

Advertising, in many, many instances, creates that need outright, especially among the audiences that are most vulnerable to begin with.

Products, like designer clothes for teens, are portrayed against a backdrop of sexy, attractive people, and good times. There is an intrinsic need created that owning or wearing those clothes makes you part of that experience. Abercrombie and Fitch e.g.

There's always an undercurrent portrayed in much of advertising that the consumer's quality of life is somehow diminished because he doesn't own Product X.

[duke o' york]

Lots of people here seem to equate advertisers with thugs who stand outside stores and force people to buy products.
Advertisers will do all in their power to ensure that they make you buy the product they are advertising, including arguing that you are somehow less of a human being than somebody who already owns/uses this thing by making you ashamed of whichever alternative to it you have or of the fact that you don't have one, but they are incapable of actually making you buy anything. That would be illegal for a start, not to mention prohibitively expensive, although great news for the hired goons industry.
The consumer has the final decision, and if some people are more easily led than others then they will buy what they are told to, but the vast majority have the mental capacity to make a decision based on the information presented to them, whether by advertisements or in the shop. The advertiser can only try to put their product ahead of rivals' products in your thought processes, but they still cannot guarantee sales. How many times have you got to the shops and found that the wonderful thing you have seen/heard advertised is more expensive than you thought or can afford and have gone home with another product? For the advertisers, it would be better if you had returned hoime empty-handed and saved more money to get their choice of product, but that's not how things work.
Advertisers can direct your thoughts, but cannot control them.

[Ming]

Originally posted by Jac de Molay
Products, like designer clothes for teens, are portrayed against a backdrop of sexy, attractive people, and good times. There is an intrinsic need created that owning or wearing those clothes makes you part of that experience. Abercrombie and Fitch e.g.

We don't create the need. Teens already WANT to wear the the most trendy things. Since the beginning of time, people have always wanted to be considered hip, or the most fashionable... Adverrtising simply takes advantage of that need that already exists. Advertising doesn't "make" them want to be trendy... If a product is not TRENDY... advertising can't make it so.

Abercrombie and Fitch is a classic example of understanding the market, and designing products to meet an already existing need. They were a dying brand... a brand that used to cater to the old fat cat establishment... They were lossing money and market share. They knew they had to change. Since their clients were literally dieing on them... they decided to take a different approach. They sent their people out to places where teens hung out... did research... and determinded the types of clothes that teens thought was trendy and hip... and then started selling clothes that matched what they were being told. An instant success story. They didn't "create" the trend... they worked with an exisiting trend... and ran with it.

[Jac de Molay]

Advertisers will do all in their power to ensure that they make you buy the product they are advertising, including arguing that you are somehow less of a human being than somebody who already owns/uses this thing by making you ashamed of whichever alternative to it you have or of the fact that you don't have one,

Fine, then it shouldn't be in a classroom. I don't care how much fancy equipment the school gets-raise a bake sale if you can't afford it, fer chrissakes.

It's cynical to say " well kids watch a lot of tv and ads anyway". Now, they have to watch more crap, and all the schools gets is a bunch of overpriced equipment for their trouble.

Channel One doesn't add any value to a ****ty education system to begin with, and has no place there.

[Drake Tungsten]

all the schools gets is a bunch of overpriced equipment for their trouble.

How is free equipment "overpriced"?

[Ming]

That's your opinion...

The schools seem to think that getting free equipment that they can use for other things... like teaching the students, is worth it. So in their opinion... it's a good thing, and has a place in the classroom. So I guess the experts would disagree with you

[Ming]

I really love how some people equate advertising to mind control. How silly

In bad economic times... the advertising budget is the first thing to be slashed. Advertising is just one element of the Marketing Mix. If Advertising was as MIND CONTROLLING as some people seem to want to give it credit for... the first thing major companies would do in bad economic times would be to raise advertising budget so that the people would be "forced" to buy things they didn't need or couldn't afford...

Maybe some real classes on marketing and economics, or real world experience, would dispell people of this silly and incorrect notion

[Jac de Molay]

We don't create the need. Teens already WANT to wear the the most trendy things. Since the beginning of time, people have always wanted to be considered hip, or the most fashionable... .

That's not true at all. In most instances, the trends that are created are mostly "top-down". It's the designers and carriers that dictate the trends in fashion magazines and advertising blitzes.

If you peruse the fashion or teen magazines, the dictates of "What's Hot" or "What to wear" sections are usually proclaimed by designers and so-called experts and then filter down.

[General Ludd]

Originally posted by Ming
I really love how some people equate advertising to mind control. How silly

It is, you(they) just aren't very good at it.

[Jac de Molay]

Maybe some real classes on marketing and economics, or real world experience, would dispell people of this silly and incorrect notion

Or the equally naive notion that advertising is just an innocuous way to help consumers make "informed choices".

[duke o' york]

Originally posted by Ming
I really love how some people equate advertising to mind control. How silly

I've got lots of fun equations.

[Ming]

I have always stated that the intent is to help people make the decision to buy our product.

However... unlike others here, I don't think it's mind control and that it can force people to do things they don't want to do... that is naive, and just plain silly and incorrect.

My opinion has been based on a lifetime of real world experience as a member of the industry. I know what it's limitations are... I live them and see them every day in the real world. While you might claim I'm biased on my level of knowledge... others must agree with me, because they want me to lecture to students and other people in the industry

You are welcome to disagree... that is your right... But I must ask what the basis of your arguments are besides just your limited opinin

[duke o' york]

I wasn't disagreeing with you. Despite the liberal use of smilies.

[Jac de Molay]

But I must ask what the basis of your arguments are besides just your limited opinin

Limited opinion of what? I simply don't buy that notion that advertising doesn't create needs in and of itself.

I think there's plenty of real world examples that show that advertising creates needs that are either already filled or non-existent.

Fast-food marketing to children is a good example. Most well-raised children have access to nourishing food and plenty of it. But through advertising blitzes, and toy merchandising tie-ins, they are luring an audience that:

A) Already has access to the product they're selling.

B) Is uninformed, and incapable, of differentiation between product alternatives to begin with.

Channel One has no place in schools where advertisers have access to this kind of "dream" target audience. The mission of schools is to educate. And they might be getting something in return, but they're, in essence, selling student's time for it.

[Ming]

Originally posted by Jac de Molay
Limited opinion of what? I simply don't buy that notion that advertising doesn't create needs in and of itself.

Your limited knowledge of the "buying decision process"... a very scientific and researched process.

I think there's plenty of real world examples that show that advertising creates needs that are either already filled or non-existent.

If a need is filled... then there is a need to begin with
As far as non-existent... advertising can't create a need that doesn't exist... you have not provided any proof of that opinion...

Fast-food marketing to children is a good example. Most well-raised children have access to nourishing food and plenty of it.

If kids wanted nourishing food all the time... why do they want non nourishing food... like cookies, candy, junk food... the answer is simple. They like it. Advertising does not create the "desire/need" ... it just tries to position the product as something that addresses the desire that is ALREADY THERE.

But through advertising blitzes, and toy merchandising tie-ins, they are luring an audience that:

A) Already has access to the product they're selling.

Maybe access to nourishing food... but not for the type of food they want to eat. As far as toy merchandising... yeah, they want the toy... big deal. They have a desire for more toys... ALL KIDS DO. Advertising is just showing them the toys that are available. So again, advertising isn't creating anything except providing information on the toys that are there.

B) Is uninformed, and incapable, of differentiation between product alternatives to begin with.

Incapable... HAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAAHAHAHA.
If you want to use your homespum "real life" examples, I will do the same. My kids won't eat at certain fast food restaurants... Why... because they say the food sucks. NO amount of advertising or toy give aways can make them want to eat at a place where they don't like the food. You are implying that advertising can make them eat stuff they don't want... It can't. They make their choice based on what they like... not advertising.

As far as give away toys...My daughter wanted a specific toy that was being used as a give away...
(beenie babies) She never asked to eat at the place she didn't like... she asked me to go to the place and simply buy it for her. Beenie Babies were not successful because of advertising... they were cute, and kids loved them without the "mind control of advertising" They were a success without advertising. So the fast food place ad showed here where she could get them... it didn't make her want to eat their crappy food.

Channel One has no place in schools where advertisers have access to this kind of "dream" target audience. The mission of schools is to educate. And they might be getting something in return, but they're, in essence, selling student's time for it.

Yes... their mission is to educate. And they can do a better job of it by having the right tools... something they wouldn't have without channel one. You may make all the noise you want about how schools shouldn't have to do this... but wake up to reality. They don't have these tools, so they have done what they need to do to get them. So again... the experts disagree with your opinon. I'll go with the experts

[General Ludd]

Originally posted by Ming
However... unlike others here, I don't think it's mind control and that it can force people to do things they don't want to do... that is naive, and just plain silly and incorrect.

Like I said, you just aren't very good at it. Not good enough to litterally control people's minds, but everyone has a weakness and advertising is good enough that they can exploit those weaknesses. With enough ads over a large enough audience, you're bound to hit the weaknes of atleast a few people, and that's the whole idea of it.

My opinion has been based on a lifetime of real world experience as a member of the industry.

And mine a lifetime experience as the target. You said yourself, the average person exposed to thousands of ads every day. Anyone has the experience and knowledge required to be an expert on the subject if they stop and think about it for 2 minutes.

[MikeH]

Originally posted by Ming


Your limited knowledge of the "buying decision process"... a very scientific and researched process.

You need to preface that with "This is the science bit"

And you claim to be a pro.

[Tiberius]

Ming, you keep ignoring the basic fact that people buy things because: a) they need them or b) because they want them. It is not the same thing. AFAIK this is among the first things you learn in this job

It is true that advertising can't create the need for a product, but it can create the desire for a product, and it is enough in most cases for people to buy it. When the producct fullfills a need, that's the best case scenario, because you will seel much easier. But it isn't necessarry to exist a need; a desire is enough.

You keep using that car argument, which first of all is a bad one, because a car is expensive and even if you want a BMW it is difficult to buy it, but that wasn't my point. But since you used it: yes, people who have a lot of money will buy such a car. Do you want me to say that rich people really need 4 or 5 cars in their garage? A BMW, a Mercedes, a Ferrari and God knows what else? No, they've bought them because they wanted to, not because they needed all those cars.

The consumer has the final decision, and if some people are more easily led than others then they will buy what they are told to, but the vast majority have the mental capacity to make a decision based on the information presented to them,

That's true for adults, but not for kids. Kids can't control their desires so well like adults. Hey, I'd like to have a new bicycle or computer or mobile phone or whatever, but I have more important things to do with my money. Tell this to a kid.

It is bad enough that kids can watch commercials at home. Now they have to watch them in schools? What kind of education is that?

[Ming]

Originally posted by Osweld
Anyone has the experience and knowledge required to be an expert on the subject if they stop and think about it for 2 minutes.

Obvously not... or they wouldn't need to pay real experts top dollar to do it right, or they wouldn't need to hire people that have advanced degrees on the subject

Your "two minutes of thought" don't equal a college education on the subject, or multiple years of real life experience in the industry

[General Ludd]

Originally posted by Ming


Obvously not... or they wouldn't need to pay real experts top dollar to do it right, or they wouldn't need to hire people that have advanced degrees on the subject

Your "two minutes of thought" don't equal a college education on the subject, or multiple years of real life experience in the industry

No, I don't have the sleaziness required to work in one of the most morally corrupt buisnesses you can be in without breaking the law, and I don't have the expertiece of manipulation and exploitation required to work in it, but I can understand the industries objectives perfectly.

[MikeH]

Originally posted by Ming


Obvously not... or they wouldn't need to pay real experts top dollar to do it right, or they wouldn't need to hire people that have advanced degrees on the subject

Your "two minutes of thought" don't equal a college education on the subject, or multiple years of real life experience in the industry

Why do so many 'experts' create such boring/annoying adverts then?

[Sarxis]

I remember Channel One during the first Gulf War. The obvious target market advertisings of tennis shoes and candy bars made me sick even as a 10th grader.

I also refused to watch it, but just diddled on paper my Evil Pencil character.

[Arrian]

Switching is when people just use their remote to switch channels when a commercial comes on.

That's what I do. I ****ing HATE commercials. Almost every single one of them sucks. Occasionally there is one that is funny/witty, and I appreciate that, if I actually fail to flick...err...switch away.

I'm highly suspicious of this "channel 1" thing. Current events, if that's what it's for, can be taught using print media. And the whole "kids these days won't read, but will watch TV" excuse is a copout. That's not a trend one should be encouraging.

-Arrian

[duke o' york]

Originally posted by Tiberius
Ming, you keep ignoring the basic fact that people buy things because: a) they need them or b) because they want them. It is not the same thing. AFAIK this is among the first things you learn in this job

But even when you need something then there is still the element of choice, and that's what advertisers are tyring to make you appreciate. They are aware that there are many similar products out there and that you'll probably only buy one - so they try to ensure that that is their product.
When you were at school (however many years ago that was), then your mother would announce that you needed new shoes. You probably did. But what were the chances of your wearing a pair of shoes that she had chosen for you? (Assuming that you're older than say, 8 here) You've got an idea of what you consider good and bad shoes and what you consider cool and uncool shoes, and you're not likely to walk out in the cheapest pair if your mother can afford better. Just because you need something does not eliminate the element of choice.

[Ming]

Originally posted by Tiberius
Ming, you keep ignoring the basic fact that people buy things because: a) they need them or b) because they want them. It is not the same thing.

No... I've never said they were the same thing. However... What you seem to be ignoring is that if you "want" something... it's the product that you want.
Advertising may show you the product... but it's not what makes you want the product. The reason why you want it is your personal reason. An Ad may position the product in way that you want it so that you can see that it is something you want... but the "want" was already there.

It is true that advertising can't create the need for a product,

So very true...

but it can create the desire for a product, and it is enough in most cases for people to buy it.

No... it can't create the desire... the desire comes from within yourself. However, a good ad will play on that desire... and try to convince you that our product is the one that can fullfill your desire.

Do you want me to say that rich people really need 4 or 5 cars in their garage? A BMW, a Mercedes, a Ferrari and God knows what else? No, they've bought them because they wanted to, not because they needed all those cars.

Whether it's a need to own a bunch of fancy cars... or just a desire... it's no different than you wanting more than one pair of pants or women who need 1000 pair of shoes... Your point seems to be just an anti rich rant vs an argument that advertising makes them buy them.

Kids can't control their desires so well like adults.

That I will agree with... but in most cases... it's not the kids that are actually buying the products... it's their parents. Advertising doesn't make parents want to spoil their children... I would say that it's more of societies problem... the need or desire to "stay ahead of the jones"... Don't try to lay the blame at the feet of advertising... While advertising shows the products... it doesn't MAKE PEOPLE act the way the do.

I sure as hell don't buy my kids toys just because somebody else has it... or because they saw some commercial and decided they want it. A lot more goes into my buying decision...

It is bad enough that kids can watch commercials at home. Now they have to watch them in schools? What kind of education is that?

They already are exposed to commercials at school. Are you saying that kids shouldn't be allowed to wear clothes at school if they have a brand name on them.
Are you saying that pop and vending machines shouldn't be allowed... that all brand names have to be removed from ALL items that come into a school.

Their education is being enhanced by the equipment that schools get from Channel One... are you saying that they should be denied it simply because you don't like commericals

[Ming]

Originally posted by MikeH
Why do so many 'experts' create such boring/annoying adverts then?

While an ad may be boring or annoying to you... it's usually because you aren't the target for the ad... and that the ad is probably far more effective against people that they are targeting.

But after saying that... yeah, there are some bad ads out there... In many cases... they come from committee decisions... and we all know how stupid that can sometimes be.

But then again... there are a lot of bad movies... bad songs... bad books... advertising doesn't have a lock on stupidity

[MikeH]

Originally posted by Ming
They already are exposed to commercials at school. Are you saying that kids shouldn't be allowed to wear clothes at school if they have a brand name on them.

Yes. School uniforms!

Originally posted by Ming Are you saying that pop and vending machines shouldn't be allowed...

Yes, ban them. Especially as mostly they are soft drinks and sweets/chocolates that just lead to fat unhealthy kids.

Originally posted by Ming that all brand names have to be removed from ALL items that come into a school.

It's probably impossible to do it on everything unfortunately but the above would get rid of most of the problems... actually that'd make it like my old school.

[MikeH]

Originally posted by Ming
While an ad may be boring or annoying to you... it's usually because you aren't the target for the ad... and that the ad is probably far more effective against people that they are targeting.

But after saying that... yeah, there are some bad ads out there... In many cases... they come from committee decisions... and we all know how stupid that can sometimes be.

Or financial convenience. The worst ones we get are adverts that are obviously American ads that have English accents dubbed on them. I don't know anyone who doesn't find those intensely irritating. It's Ok for voice overs but not where you've got people trying to lip synch with the ad. They are starting to just show the US ads now though.

[Ming]

I went to a catholic school where we were forced to wear uniforms... I wouldn't wish that on any kid

Oh... and nice troll