Avoiding personal responsibility used to be clean and simple. Caught red-handed? The devil made you do it. End of story.
But today we have a dizzying array of bogus blaming options. We can choose from rap music, movies, TV, video games, the Internet, Twinkies, genes, society, the neighbor’s kid, our upbringing, the booze talking, atheism, evolution, the definition of “is,” planets, stars, lunar phases, the ever-vague and passive “mistakes were made,” the economy, being an only child, not being an only child, and more. Just keeping track can exhaust the most adept excuse-maker. Call me extreme, but some days I wonder if it might be easier simply to say, “I made a mistake.”
I saved the excuse that accuses my profession for last: “The advertising made me do it.” If you fed your kids fast food until your spouse mistook them for the minivan, blew the budget on a video game system, or bought trendy clothes you didn’t need and that went out of style as you were paying for them, take heart. You can blame us slick advertising people and our so-called hypnotic work.
Just one problem. No advertisement has the power to make you act against your will.
More than a few presumed experts have claimed otherwise. In 1957, aspiring researcher James Vicary claimed to have boosted soda and popcorn sales by splicing subliminal images into the movie Picnic. Three years later, he admitted to having made the whole thing up. (The claim that he flashed images at 1/3000th of a second should have provided a clue. Film moves through a projector at 24 frames per second.) But like most retractions, Vicary’s went largely unnoticed. Today, even in advertising circles, people cite the bogus claim as fact.
Alarmist author Wilson Bryan Key took the nonsense up another notch. In his book The Clam-Plate Orgy, he alleged that Howard Johnson restaurants lured people who hated fried clams to order them anyway. How? By means of subliminal, sexually arousing images embedded in photos of the clams. All I can say is, if you were around at the time and found those photos arousing, the more likely explanation is that you have a thing for dead clams. Not something to bring up on a first date.
Though I have never met one, for all I know there really are advertising people who employ so-called subliminal techniques. Let them. There is no evidence that subliminal advertising has any effect. Unless, of course, you count book sales that result from sensationalizing it.
Many people, ad people included, believe that when advertising is “truly creative,” sales follow as a natural consequence. Many equally argue that success is assured when advertising “stands out,” “is remembered,” or “increases name recognition.” These claims certainly smack of mind control. The only problem is, you must use selection and confirmation bias to defend them. You can dredge up as many creative, noticed, recalled and recognized advertisements that sold — or that didn’t — as you set out to find.
No matter how well crafted advertising may be, the inescapable fact is that the market always has a choice. The most skillful advertiser cannot foist a product on a public that doesn’t want it. There’s a reason for the failure of products like Bic disposable underwear, Cosmopolitan (magazine) yogurt, Colgate kitchen entrees, Ben-Gay aspirin, Smith & Wesson mountain bikes, and McDonald’s clothing. Though respected, experienced advertising agencies threw their best at these products, the market voted NO with its collective checkbook, leaving ad agencies powerless to do anything about it.
But markets can and often do wield the checkbook irrationally. When that happens, advertising makes a handy scapegoat. Advertising couldn’t make us buy Coors bottled water or Harley-Davidson perfume, but people still prefer to believe it makes us reach for Apple Jacks instead of apples.
This is not to say that all advertising is ineffective (though much of it is). The right ads can boost a product’s sales. Conversely, the wrong ads can drive them down. Taco Bell’s experience with its spokes-Chihuahua illustrates both. Prior to introducing the pooch, the chain had enjoyed steady sales. When the Chihuahua came on the scene, his popularity soared, but sales plummeted. When Taco Bell switched to dogless commercials with close-ups of savory ingredients, sales rebounded. (Ironically, by ad industry standards the Chihuahua campaign was “highly creative,” whereas its successful replacement was woefully lackluster.)
Good advertising does influence, and often in a big and profitable way. Not too many people thought they needed a Swiffer, Tide stain-remover pens, overpriced coffee, or Post-It Notes before advertising brought them to our attention. Nor does advertising only promote frivolous purchases. Advertising has had a significant hand in gaining acceptance for toothbrushes, deodorant, breast exams, regular dental check-ups, immunizations, safety belts and, for that matter, the likes of the JREF and TAM.
Moreover, not all advertising people subscribe to the above-referenced myths. An admitted minority regularly conduct evidence-based, controlled advertising tests — and learn from them. Such testing has been going on for over 100 years, generating and amassing valuable information about which advertising techniques work most often, and which don’t. You might be surprised at what I know about your (collective) habits as a result of a career in evidenced-based advertising. But that’s a topic for another article. In fact, look for it next month. Sneak preview: You prefer toll-free numbers displayed with a 1 in front of them. And headlines without punctuation.
Still, if there is one thing that a century of controlled advertising tests have revealed, it is that there is no way to force people into buying. We can highlight benefits, entertain, badger, entice, add urgency, sweeten the deal, appeal to emotion, remove barriers, and put a 1 in front of the toll-free number — but always, the final choice of “to buy, or not to buy” rests with the market. That’s good news if you don’t like the idea of being pushed around. It’s bad news if you want to blame your choices on someone else. So if you charged a big-screen TV you can’t afford, bought an overpriced gas hog when the old heap was running just fine, or spent too much on JREF products, I’m truly sorry. But neither my colleagues nor I made you do it. Oh, and thank you for buying the JREF products. Click here to buy more.
Two Closing Thoughts:
Children’s advertising is an emotionally charged issue that deserves separate mention. Children can be influenced more easily than adults, and some children do not distinguish advertising from programming. I shall leave you to decide if these findings are de facto damning of kid-targeted ads. (I think they are not.) Either way, let’s not overlook the absence of any law compelling parents to purchase the moment a child points at the tube and says “I want that.” Nor has anyone abridged the right of parents to monitor younger children’s viewing, feed their kids healthy diets, and avoid buying them every advertised toy. What’s more, the evidence suggests that parents can do these things without producing social misfits and, in a few cases, without breaking out in hives.
Ads that deceive also deserve mention. To find examples of legal but deceptive advertising practices, you have only to search through ads for alternative medicine, political candidates, diet plans, hearing aids, stock market predictors, multi-level companies, or subliminal self-improvement CDs, to name a few. Many such ads toe the legal line by placing qualifying language in small type that occupies five percent of the ad space, and using the remaining 95 percent to mislead. A five percent weasel does not unmake a lie. Though falling short of mind control — consumers remain free to fact-check — the practice is heinous and should be outlawed.
No advertisement has the power to make you act against your will. written by Griz,
February 12, 2010
That's just as big a cop out as people blaming advertising for doing stupid things because that's exactly what the majority of ads are shooting for. Advertising tries HARD to find every trick in the book to grab your attention and play on your emotions to get you to do things without thinking. It's not just some advertising, it's by far MOST. It's a classic case of observing the letter and not the spirit of the law and there's no excuse for it.
Hell, advertising and marketing people taught televangelists everything they know. I got no sympathy. I don't believe that people should be able to use advertising as an excuse for doing anything, but I also believe that the entire marketing and advertising industry should be held accountable for their deliberate attempts to misrepresent products.
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +5
... written by HarveyC,
February 12, 2010
Any time you see something advertiised on TV, magazines, etc. be prepared to pay more. I have yet to buy an new car, TV, meal, or anything by what is on the boob-tube, or magazine, newspapers. If the company is spending money to put it on TV it's going to cost you to help them pay for that advertising. As you stated parents should have control of their children. Unfortunately, most parents want to be, "friends", with their children rather than being parents. I still shop at the grocery store at ankle lever rather than eye level. It will save you 5-6 cents per item. A sucker is born every minute. Today I believe one is born every 30 seconds.
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +7
Wow, what a load! written by Michael Dawson,
February 12, 2010
I realize the JREF pimps for VISA, but the unreason in this post is stunning nevertheless. So, a trillion-dollar-a-year-industry that peddles Earth-destroying junk on behalf of the corporate overclass is just fine and dandy, because it's not 100 percent efficient? You guys are pitching "woo" on this topic, big-time.
And Cuno, you're just a massive, self-deluded liar. If advertisers could dictate what people did, they'd happily do so, and you know it.
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: -27
@Michael Dawson written by JeffWagg,
February 12, 2010
He got you to read his article.
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +21
Jeff written by Griz,
February 12, 2010
I kinda take exception to that. James Randi got me to read anything I read on this site. I read this article because YOU (the collective you, the JREF) posted it. If this had appeared on Yahoo News I would have stopped reading after the first sentence.
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +4
@griz written by Davis,
February 12, 2010
you said: "the entire marketing and advertising industry should be held accountable for their deliberate attempts to misrepresent products."
Wow, you really went out on a limb with that one. Thanks for making such a substantial and noteworthy comment. Do you have a daily blog we can subscribe to?
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +0
Going against the majority here... written by KWC,
February 12, 2010
I have to agree with the idea that advertisers should be blamed for peoples actions. For instance, I'm currently the executive officer for my university's local astronomy club. For every meeting I try to design attractive signs and post them from one end of the campus to the other, and yes if I could bring in enough people to fill every single empty seat I would. Why? Because I believe that increasing the community's understanding of science begins by finding something that they are interested in, and because I believe that the our astronomy club can function in this regard. So if someone comes to one of our meetings instead of studying for their 8am test in the morning should "I was at the astronomy club meeting" be an acceptable response for failing it? Is it my responsibility to ensure that every attendee does not have more pressing obligations? Of course not and I think we would all agree on that.
Before the argument is made that promoting science is quite different than selling a product (which I do agree it is) please at least acknowledge the bias in that statement. It is different from everything else because it is important to me. Anyone here should agree that statement is crap. To the company trying to establish it's place in the market or maintain their current growth, selling that damn Snuggie is more important. (I have a healthy hate of Snuggies...maybe not so healthy. They should all be destroyed!)
I agree with the idea that we need to stop looking elsewhere to place blame and accept responsibility for our own actions. I also agree that there is deceptive advertising out there and probably more than Cuno acknowledges. I think that all around people must be able to carry on a critical thought process. And we are back to where we often find ourselves. We are in an age of intellectually laziness and if an ad tells us we need something most people cannot think it through and decide "No I really don't".
We don't need to blame advertising, we need a society that can think for themselves and even point out the deceptive ads.
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +11
sigh written by KWC,
February 12, 2010
Ok so I apparently cannot type OR proofread. The first statement was suppose to be:
"I have to agree with the idea that advertisers should not be blamed for peoples actions."
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +8
Not Either/Or Issue written by Michael Dawson,
February 12, 2010
For a bunch of militant rationalists, there is a lot of dunderheadedness on display. The question isn't whether to place 100 percent blame on either marketers or individuals. The question is whether marketers have a major behavioral impact on the way people live and the choices available to us. They certainly do, as even Cuno admits amid his special pleading.
By the way, corporate marketing is the dominant sponsor of commercial television, which is both the nation's #1 leisure activity, and also a mildly addictive substance. http://www.shenet.org/high/hsa...Television Addiction is no Mere Metaphor.pdf
And speaking of woo, advertising operates by carefully exploiting the most irrational forces of the human mind. Honesty and straightforward information are anathema to the advertiser. Emotion, flattery, misinformation, mental manipulation, illogical associations -- these are the tools of the marketing trade.
Shame on JREF for publishing this massively dishonest piece.
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: -7
Gonna call you out on the Post-Its. written by warreno,
February 12, 2010
Those really were a solution to an office problem. Before Post-Its, workspaces were festooned with memo pages taped to surfaces; documents had notes paperclipped in (which got lost nearly half the time).
Post-Its, by serving as temporary-sticky notes, managed to reduce the amount of tape residue on desks, typewriters and (eventually) monitors; they also provided an easy means for corrections to documents to be suggested, and a way to indicate where signatures needed to be put.
They really are remarkably useful, and I believe they did fill a need the instant they became available.
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +13
... written by KWC,
February 12, 2010
I would say shame on you for lacing two of you posts so far with ad hominem arguments but let's just put that aside. I agree that it is not an either/or issue, almost nothing in life ever is. The question that this article raises to me is who is ultimately responsible for one's actions. For me the answer to that question is the individual. There are many things I would like to have, could afford, and are advertised very attractively. I have enough sense to ask the questions "Is this needed? Is my money better spent elsewhere? and Does my house have room for this?" among other considerations. Because some people impulse buy is not the fault of the advertisements. I also work a part time retail job and have for some time. Let me assure you that it goes far beyond ads. People will buy with little to nothing actively persuading them and complain about it later. Some people drive to the store that I work at multiple times every single day and shop. If the store wasn't there they couldn't do that, so is it the store's fault now for turning on their signs and advertising their location?
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +6
OK for marketing myths but what about marketing science? written by Skeptigirl,
February 12, 2010
The article seems to be addressing the woo that sneaky ads have magical abilities of mind control. But in an apparent emotional response to claims based on these specific myths, it appears as if the article is dissing the public for being susceptible to the techniques developed through rigorous science for influencing people.
I find more than a few skeptics who don't recognize marketing science as a science. While marketing science is the one science many anti-science woo believers use extensively. Marketing relies heavily on research and evidence. Marketers have been seriously researching their science almost as long as we've been seriously researching medicine.
If you recognize how successful science has been in fields like medicine, why doubt the success of techniques developed through rigorous research to influence people?
Yes, like myths in medicine, there are myths about the ability of marketers to influence people. But to rant that everyone is responsible for their own choices (true philosophically) goes a bit far when the rant ignores the marketing science those individuals are up against.
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +13
@Skeptigirl written by KWC,
February 12, 2010
Total agreement on this point! I've been looking at the article in a slightly different way where the the question is from a practical standpoint who is responsible when people make bad choices after bad choices. In this I still believe we have to control ourselves instead of blaming others and saying you were tricked. The marketing science is a research effort to find how best to persuade people, not control them. Maybe a small difference there but it is an important difference. The choice and the ability to stop are still ours. Mistakes can be had and will be. But people that routinely overspend and make excessive purchases need to stop making excuses. That whole "fool me once.... fool me twice..." business. We can all make bad choices and we can all be tricked or persuaded but if we refuse to learn then we have no one else to blame.
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +4
... written by Otara,
February 12, 2010
I think the article tries to draw a clear line between deceptive advertising and honest advertising, when its a whole lot greyer than that. And needs to learn a more complex view of how human behaviour really works.
Most large budget advertising is trying to create associations between a product and something else that doesnt really exist. The argument essentially seems to boil down to 'we arent successful all the time so we bear no personal responsibility for our behaviour'.
Yes I have the 'choice' to 'fact check' - that doesnt mean that the person making me have to fact check isnt an asshole as far as Im concerned.
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +10
... written by MadScientist,
February 12, 2010
I don't believe the weaseling should be outlawed; if you did that you would also have an adverse effect on the creativity of an ad. I would prefer that laws be passed for any "alternative medicine", "alternative treatment", "natural treatment", etc (woo-woo by any other name smells just the same) to meet the standards required of real medicine. I suspect that we also need ads on TV to educate people about nutrition and how they don't really need all those pills (unless prescribed by a real physician). For example, let's look at one of the pharmaceutical industry's big money earners: vitamin supplements. There are people who suffer from vitamin deficiencies for a number of reasons and in many cases supplements may help (or even completely eradicate problems). However, the vast majority of people do not need those supplements. The labels make the (truthful) claim that X aids Y or X is essential for Y etc. But that's only half the truth - the other half is "you probably already have an adequate amount in your body and you won't benefit at all from these pills". And yet there is not even any weasel escape clause in the labeling.
Another method for bringing the nonsense under control is to introduce more regulation of pharmacist shops - that will at least prevent pharmacists from freely spreading the woo-woo. However, it won't do a thing for the folks who will just walk to 7-11 or Walmart to get the same stuff.
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +4
... written by MadScientist,
February 12, 2010
Troll in aisle 3! Troll in aisle 3!
It seems Dawson can't tell the difference between "ads can't force you to do stuff" and "some people are so damned stupid". What do people call the TV these days? In my generation it had names like "the idiot box" and "boob tube" - the TV had no nicknames which were not derogatory. If people are properly educated the TV and ads don't matter; if not, the TV and ads are as effective at controlling the herd as any religion.
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +9
I teach an elementary school course in Defense against Dark Arts written by MakeChessNotWar,
February 12, 2010
I teach kids the tricks advertisers and politicians use. Starting with the 1947 "doctors prefer Camels" ad to a lot of modern cereal ads. While not subliminal, ads use colors to help emphasize their products. Usually all the kids are smiling and happy when they are eating the product. Implications include that kids will be more popular if they have the product. The product is misrepresented through exaggeration, especially fast food.
Is it not written "There's a lot goes on we don't get told."? (Lu Tze)
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +8
... written by GrahamZ,
February 12, 2010
Some people are just more gullible than others. It's not always about intelligence. When you aren't used to being (knowingly) fooled, misled, or lied to, it builds a kind of naivete that makes you more susceptible to all sorts of nonsense. My best friend from college was (Seriously) brilliant when it came to his major (physics). But on the other hand, he was naive and gullible, possibly because he grew up in a small town in the midwest (he did get 'smarter' over the years -- it just took experience).
One of the reasons why con-men can make a living, isn't because their victims are dumb, but because they are trusting. And you can con someone without out and out lying to them -- that's what many commercials do. It's wrong to purposefully mislead. And advertisers, not their victims, ought to be held accountable for it.
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +8
Mad Scientist written by Michael Dawson,
February 12, 2010
"It seems Dawson can't tell the difference between "ads can't force you to do stuff" and "some people are so damned stupid'."
Hey, Mad Scientist, what I can't tell is the meaning of this sentence. What is the meaning of this sentence?
A bunch of commenters have said they blame individuals for being influenced by marketing, not marketers for influencing individuals.
You seem to be repeating that interpretation, with your -- erroneous -- implication that TV-watching is ineffective on the "properly educated." Have you ever actually bothered to think about this issue and the relevant facts, or is it all just dropping from your buttocks? Take a look at that article on TV addiction, and explain to us how the "properly educated" are exempt from the mechanism by which TV hooks us. Education is a factor, but not an exemption.
Meanwhile, I can indeed to tell the difference between the two things opposed in your sentence, despite your lack of coherence. The former is a lame excuse, and the latter an elitist dismissal of the need to account for very real and lavishly funded institutional forces of unreason.
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: -13
Skeptigirl or Elitigirl? written by Michael Dawson,
February 12, 2010
Refuse to learn?
Big business marketing is a trillion-dollar-a-year industry. It receives twice as much money as education in this society.
And marketing is a science of evil and waste, not reason and enlightenment. It is human history's largest and most successful system of elite behavioral conditioning.
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: -9
Five finger exercises written by Grim,
February 12, 2010
Hey, Michael Dawson, don't be so hard on JREF for publishing Cuno's guff.
Even the best of rational sceptics needs an occasional five finger exercise just to keep fit, and this has been onem
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: -2
It's still a shame written by Kajabla61,
February 12, 2010
Though it does seem unlikely that subliminal and specific advertising can make people do specific things, the overall barrage of advertising must be heavily influencing people to go out and buy something with the choices quite often being bad or worse based on the level of deception in the advertising.
It is still a societal failure however that we have so much commercial advertising that is not balanced with educational "ads". Commercial deceit wins by default.
"So, a trillion-dollar-a-year-industry that peddles Earth-destroying junk on behalf of the corporate overclass is just fine and dandy"
Yes, yes it is, now get to buying undermensh since apparently you have zero free will. Also senor toolio just what has been "destroyed"?
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: -1
Elitigirl? Are you serious? And here the forum community is convinced I'm hard core leftist (also not true). written by Skeptigirl,
February 12, 2010
Skeptigirl or Elitigirl? written by Michael Dawson, February 12, 2010 Refuse to learn?
Big business marketing is a trillion-dollar-a-year industry. It receives twice as much money as education in this society.
And marketing is a science of evil and waste, not reason and enlightenment. It is human history's largest and most successful system of elite behavioral conditioning.
Somewhere in your brain filters you saw my post which agrees with a tiny fraction of what you've posted as claiming marketing is good because it is a science.
If you hadn't posted anything except your first post, you'd have actually seemed semi-rational. Pity.
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +5
... written by MadScientist,
February 12, 2010
@MakeChessNotWar: Hey, that's a great idea teaching kids how to spot the lies.
On another topic, I think I just saw Dawson ride past on a donkey and wielding a pitchfork while mumbling something about saving the world from the evils of TV and advertisements.
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +4
Love the remote written by razmatazspaz,
February 13, 2010
When I do watch tv (rarely), the remote is right at hand to mute the commercials. What a wonderful application of modern technology! I do remember being raised on tv and sucking it all up. I always had a christmas list as long as one of my legs filled with the "latest and greatest" toys. The worst is when tv and religion team up to batter us over the head with christmas. The masters of misrepresentation and fantasy meet the masters of advertising to sell you snuggies and war toys. November and December are the months that I watch the least amount of tv.
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +5
... written by Gremmel,
February 13, 2010
When I was a child there was a very informative show on HBO that taught kids the tricks of advertising. It really changed the way I looked at all advertising, and when I saw my son falling for the ads, I taught him what I had learned, now he thinks about things before wanting to buy. He even goes as far as to check out the boxes of food for ingredients and fat content. Knowledge is always power.
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +7
... written by Willy K,
February 13, 2010
Hmmmm... advertising products that have no use?
What about the dangers of advertising something that has killed hundreds of millions?
Nineteen guys fell for this ad: "Fly a plane into a building and have seventy-two virgins for eternity."
There are millions more examples just like this one, this one happens to be the most recent and disturbing.
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +5
... written by knitwit,
February 13, 2010
Just because subliminal learning is poppycock doesn't mean that advertising has no effect. Nowhere in this ad for advertising do you mention why on earth millions upon millions are spent if it does not work the majority of the time. Repetition is the key. It is pretty well-known that if you repeat something long enough, people begin to believe it.
Your attempt to justify advertising to children is simply pathetic. I have no quarrel with personal responsibility, but it is also well known that advertising targets the harried parent as well as it tailors the ad to attempt to get the child to nag (a great deal of psychological research is done to assist with this tactic).
You can get some insight into some of this by reading Dr. David Kessler's book, "The End of Overeating" in which he details the lengths food manufacturers go to produce addictive crap food and the equal lengths advertisers go to to hammer anyone who watches television that this crap food is essential for a good time or a happy life. A parent is up against an onslaught of experts using the child's psychology to work against the parent. The only defense (and one I completely support) is to KILL the television. Although I myself have taken this path, I know what a lonely path it is that I travel.
People who visit here ARE educated for the most part and may have enough insight through education to resist varying degrees of advertising, but don't tell me that commercials have no effect on the brand of toothpaste you use (except for the rare bird above who says he never buys advertised brands). A lot of the population is not well-educated--go to WalMart and see what people are buying for their kids, especially immigrants who are trying to be "American". A lot of these kids are obese from the constant stream of junk the TV is telling them and their parents that all "happy" and "typical" kids love.
You may (MAY) have a case for the adult population, but none whatsoever for children. How can you think of children as "targets"? Have you no shame?
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +4
Apology and More written by Michael Dawson,
February 13, 2010
Skeptigirl, I misread your post. I take it back.
Xiphos, meanwhile, repeats yet again the notion that this is an either/or issue. In his mind, saying marketing is a major influence apparently means people have "zero free will."
As to Mad Scientist, I just saw him walk by holding up the tails of the Emperor's beautiful new clothes and scowling at the bystanders who were laughing at them...
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: -4
... written by MadScientist,
February 13, 2010
Hey Dawson, when are you going to get around to saving the world from plastic furniture?
I think the pope needs saving from his strange catholic beliefs too.
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +1
... written by MadScientist,
February 13, 2010
@WillyK: Did those ads force people to do something they didn't want? No, they chose to do what they did. Banning thoughts (no matter how stupid they are) is not a good idea. The catholic church had been very successful at banning ideas under penalty of death for almost 2000 years. The muslims have been doing it for about 1400 years so in another 600 years they will surpass the catholic church. Which ideas will be banned? Why, whichever ones the tyrants in power decide to ban. Personally I'd prefer a society where people had the sense to separate bullshit from reality, not a society in which we ssume everyone is so damned stupid that they need to be protected from themselves. I hate nanny states.
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +1
Mad Scientist written by Michael Dawson,
February 13, 2010
What's your claim to being a scientist? The basics of trade seem to elude you.
To say it against, dunce: This debate turns on the difference between "force" and "influence."
Can your peabrain process that difference? It has to do with probability and partiality and reality.
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: -4
What about the jingles? written by Zoroaster,
February 13, 2010
You know what I'm talking about - it sure feels like mind control when a happy rhythmic song comes bubbling out of my subconscious singing the praises of the latest flavor of sugar water which was the furthest thing from my mind seconds prior. And then I can't make it stop no matter how much I want to. "Feelin' 7-Up, I'm feelin' 7-up!" Not that this makes me buy the product, I know that won't make the brain noise go away either. It just makes me despise the advertisers.
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +4
... written by Stargazer9915,
February 14, 2010
What a kerfuffle. I have noticed that nobody has mentioned brand wars in advertising. Many commercials are aimed at people to 'buy product x instead of product y'. Not all of it is aimed at the sheep to buy useless products.
Does the term 'buyer beware' mean anything to the anti-advertising posters here. Holy Christ! get a grip on reality. To those people who can't 'not' buy something when they see a great or convincing commercial - Grow A Spine and leave the checkbook alone.
Many posters here are poo-pooing the notion of personal responsibility but that is the crux of the matter. You can't blame the Snugee(?) people because you bought an inferior product in as much as you can't blame the psychic friends network for you calling thier number. People need to pull thier heads out of thier asses and the defenders of these people need to stop enabling. Simple as that.
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +2
... written by Willy K,
February 14, 2010
@MadScientist
Did those ads force people to do something they didn't want? No, they chose to do what they did. Banning thoughts (no matter how stupid they are) is not a good idea.
They did those terrible things because they were lied to. Banning thoughts? I couldn't advocate something that couldn't be done. The christian and muslim All religious power bases have maintained their power by lies and threats.
How about this? A freely elected government that's major purpose it to protect people? I'd like to see an FDA/FTC to test for (drum roll please) Truth in Advertising (tada). Just like smoking and drinking, you're free to do them, but their potential for damage must be fully and freely available to all. Imagine a Skull and Crossbones image prominently placed on the cover of the bible, torah, koran etc.
PS. In case you're an "all governments are evil" conspiracy theorist, I say that governments are not designed to fail, but many aspects are so poorly designed that they do fail. Big difference, at least to me.
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +2
... written by bob1942,
February 16, 2010
I have hated advertising as long as I can remember. While in 5th grade (1950's) I used to wonder how one two different tooth pastes could be "The best, greatest tooth paste ever made. No logical sense. Or how Chesterfield could be better than Camels. So I never believed any it. I found that whenever I had something, it never worked as promised. My philosophy now is, "Don't buy anything you see advertized on TV." The companies that had to be bailed out by the government really annoyed me. They had plenty of money to have their ads on every TV station in the world, but not enough to stay in business. Bull shit to them. When the late Billy Mays came on, my thoughts were 'a prostitute selling himself to anyone to hawk a needless, useless piece of junk that probably won't work.' How many jobs did an ad on the super bowl cost the company, country and people? A million dollars is still a big number.
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +1
Write comment
You must be logged in to post a comment. Please
register if you do not have an account yet.
TrackBack URI for this entry
Subscribe to this comment's feed
Hell, advertising and marketing people taught televangelists everything they know. I got no sympathy. I don't believe that people should be able to use advertising as an excuse for doing anything, but I also believe that the entire marketing and advertising industry should be held accountable for their deliberate attempts to misrepresent products.