Fuck Advertising

[hunter s.durden]

... that is, they may be able to skin a deer, run a trot line, create beautiful wood furniture, know every local plant and critter, what's good to eat, what's good for medicine etc. Yet, if we drop that person in a city, they might be considered a royal idiot (particularly if the latter two forms of Stupid are combined as often seems to be the case in Rural US).

This sort of intelligence is over-looked soooo often nowadays.

If the collapse hapened tomorrow, alot of these people would be kings.

[Cain]

Seems a fair distinction to me.  The former are hardly to blame for their state and can do nothing to change it, the latter may or may not be to blame to some degree (bad imprinting could be a problem, sometimes) but they fail to do anything about it.

[AFK]

So you've got:

Ability to acquire new information

and

Need to acquire new information

and

Desire to acquire new information

As LMNO points out, if the ability is shot, well the person is out of luck.  

Perhaps that is a kind of stupid.  

Beyond that, I don't know if stupid is the appropriate word anymore.  I think it's about ignorance.  

One feels all of their needs for new information are satiated and there is no longer any need to pull in more.  

Another recognizes they have the basics to survive, but they want and desire more information, to have a clearer picture of what's going on around them.  

Of course, you've also got the types who don't contemplate desire, and acquiring more and more knowledge IS a need to survive.  The types who can't see the forest through the trees.  

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

At the risk of sounding concillatory, perhaps you can agree to the statement, "Some people are born with brains that for some reason do not function as well as others."


In this way, we aren't talking about intelligence, we're talking about the hardware potential.

We can also separate the people who are stupid because of physical means, and people who are stupid because of psychological means.


Now, I don't think either of us has a way of saying what percentage of people have poorly functioning hardware, but I would hazard that it is far less than the amount of people who believe the ads on TV.

Which is what we were talking about in the first place.

That works for me.

[ñͤͣ̄ͦ̌̑͗͊͛͂͗ ̸̨̨̣̺̼̣̜͙͈͕̮̊̈́̈͂͛̽͊ͭ̓͆ͅé ̰̓̓́ͯ́́͞]

advertising rocks cause ad agencies hire artists and i want a job someday. rah!

Win.

[ñͤͣ̄ͦ̌̑͗͊͛͂͗ ̸̨̨̣̺̼̣̜͙͈͕̮̊̈́̈͂͛̽͊ͭ̓͆ͅé ̰̓̓́ͯ́́͞]

Shunted off of the open bar.

I've thought for a while now the point of advertising is to make people aware your company/product exists

That's the point of a single ad,and it's surely far from brainwashing as Netaungrot says,but atvertising as a whole,as a practice,is different to me.
For example,a mercedes-benz commercial tries to make you buy a mercedes benz,but surely you won't run out and buy one just because you saw the ad,even if you saw it billions of times.But you see many brands' commercials so maybe you are not brainwashed by mercedes or BMW,but the idea that you need some cool car to be cool coul have made it in your brain...wich car,is still your choice,but you will be less conditioned by cost and fuel consuption when choosing.That's why useless and overexpensive SUVs are sold in massive quantities...
So,IMHO,single commercials just tells you that a product exist,and that it's a good product,while advertising and commercials as a media phenomenon sticks in your head the idea that you always have to buy something;single products try to be that something,and surely ad campaigns are risky for a single productor,but you're more likely to buy stuff,so a company's problem is not if advertising will work or not, but how big will be its share of the additional incomes caused by ALL the commercials...

Well said. It's also important to remember that children are growing up surrounded by these messages... the message that you must consume to be not just cool but HAPPY is everywhere. Intelligent adults can think critically, but children are eager little sponges, and advertisers know this, and use it... and by the time children are old enough to use their critical thinking skills, they have a lot of deprogramming to do to themselves. First, though, it has to occur to them that they need/want deprogramming.

The need to consume and the satisfaction of consuming is a natural drive. Just like how Bower birds like to collect neat little piles of things as status symbols to attract mates. There's nothing innately wrong with consuming or collecting.

It's not advertisers' role to teach your children about how much you believe is appropriate for them to consume. Who do you want to make that call? The state? Adbusters?  That's your job as a Mom.

Consumers created the consumerism in society with their fucking gluttony, not some ev0l j00 conspiracy that controls minds (and the childrens!) with advertising media.

[tyrannosaurus vex]

Shunted off of the open bar.

I've thought for a while now the point of advertising is to make people aware your company/product exists

That's the point of a single ad,and it's surely far from brainwashing as Netaungrot says,but atvertising as a whole,as a practice,is different to me.
For example,a mercedes-benz commercial tries to make you buy a mercedes benz,but surely you won't run out and buy one just because you saw the ad,even if you saw it billions of times.But you see many brands' commercials so maybe you are not brainwashed by mercedes or BMW,but the idea that you need some cool car to be cool coul have made it in your brain...wich car,is still your choice,but you will be less conditioned by cost and fuel consuption when choosing.That's why useless and overexpensive SUVs are sold in massive quantities...
So,IMHO,single commercials just tells you that a product exist,and that it's a good product,while advertising and commercials as a media phenomenon sticks in your head the idea that you always have to buy something;single products try to be that something,and surely ad campaigns are risky for a single productor,but you're more likely to buy stuff,so a company's problem is not if advertising will work or not, but how big will be its share of the additional incomes caused by ALL the commercials...

Well said. It's also important to remember that children are growing up surrounded by these messages... the message that you must consume to be not just cool but HAPPY is everywhere. Intelligent adults can think critically, but children are eager little sponges, and advertisers know this, and use it... and by the time children are old enough to use their critical thinking skills, they have a lot of deprogramming to do to themselves. First, though, it has to occur to them that they need/want deprogramming.

The need to consume and the satisfaction of consuming is a natural drive. Just like how Bower birds like to collect neat little piles of things as status symbols to attract mates. There's nothing innately wrong with consuming or collecting.

It's not advertisers' role to teach your children about how much you believe is appropriate for them to consume. Who do you want to make that call? The state? Adbusters?  That's your job as a Mom.

Consumers created the consumerism in society with their fucking gluttony, not some ev0l j00 conspiracy that controls minds (and the childrens!) with advertising media.

There is no room for this personal responsibility crap in my century.

[Cain]

Advertising hasn't been about product awareness for longer than I have been alive.

Its about selling you a lifestyle.  Just watch an ad by Coca-Cola or iPod if you don't believe me.  The idea is to draw assosciations between unrelated effects through purchasing.  You can "buy" the cool, trendy hipster lifestyle promoted by iPod ads and thus, in a small way, become cool, trendy and hip yourself.

Its not advertising, its bloody sympathetic magic in a new wrapping.

[AFK]

Well, I think it can vary for different products. 

The big one that sticks out in my mind is Prescription Drugs in the USA.  10 years ago, you didn't have direct to consumer ads for prescription drugs because it wasn't allowed.  Someone in the FDA writes a memo reinterpreting regulations, and blammo, the floodgates were open. 

10 years ago and before you found out about what drug you should take, at the doc visit.  Now, with all of the advertising, many are going into Doctor's offices saying, "I have x disease and so I need y drug."  Now, sure again, there is certainly personal responsibility at play.  A patient should go in with symptoms and let their doctor choose the best course of action.  They shouldn't go in demanding and pressuring to get a certain prescription. 

But there is another aspect to this plethora of advertising, the kids who have been growing up since the moratorium on Rx drug advertising was lifted.  If kids watch anything besides Nick and Disney they will see all of the ads.  This can potentially give a young person the idea that the solution to ALL aches and pains, mental and physical, is popping a pill.  Of course, here again, is a role for personal responsibility on the part of parents.  To teach their kids about media and media awareness/literacy.   

So yes, advertising can have an impact, but, it also can be easily combatted just by being aware of it. 

[LMNO]

Advertising hasn't been about product awareness for longer than I have been alive.

Its about selling you a lifestyle.  Just watch an ad by Coca-Cola or iPod if you don't believe me.  The idea is to draw assosciations between unrelated effects through purchasing.  You can "buy" the cool, trendy hipster lifestyle promoted by iPod ads and thus, in a small way, become cool, trendy and hip yourself.

Its not advertising, its bloody sympathetic magic in a new wrapping.

Good point.  I have been fully aware from a very early age that Miller, Coors, and Budweiser all sell crappy beer that give you the shits the next day, but you will be a sexual messiah if you drink it.

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

Shunted off of the open bar.

I've thought for a while now the point of advertising is to make people aware your company/product exists

That's the point of a single ad,and it's surely far from brainwashing as Netaungrot says,but atvertising as a whole,as a practice,is different to me.
For example,a mercedes-benz commercial tries to make you buy a mercedes benz,but surely you won't run out and buy one just because you saw the ad,even if you saw it billions of times.But you see many brands' commercials so maybe you are not brainwashed by mercedes or BMW,but the idea that you need some cool car to be cool coul have made it in your brain...wich car,is still your choice,but you will be less conditioned by cost and fuel consuption when choosing.That's why useless and overexpensive SUVs are sold in massive quantities...
So,IMHO,single commercials just tells you that a product exist,and that it's a good product,while advertising and commercials as a media phenomenon sticks in your head the idea that you always have to buy something;single products try to be that something,and surely ad campaigns are risky for a single productor,but you're more likely to buy stuff,so a company's problem is not if advertising will work or not, but how big will be its share of the additional incomes caused by ALL the commercials...

Well said. It's also important to remember that children are growing up surrounded by these messages... the message that you must consume to be not just cool but HAPPY is everywhere. Intelligent adults can think critically, but children are eager little sponges, and advertisers know this, and use it... and by the time children are old enough to use their critical thinking skills, they have a lot of deprogramming to do to themselves. First, though, it has to occur to them that they need/want deprogramming.

The need to consume and the satisfaction of consuming is a natural drive. Just like how Bower birds like to collect neat little piles of things as status symbols to attract mates. There's nothing innately wrong with consuming or collecting.

It's not advertisers' role to teach your children about how much you believe is appropriate for them to consume. Who do you want to make that call? The state? Adbusters?  That's your job as a Mom.

Consumers created the consumerism in society with their fucking gluttony, not some ev0l j00 conspiracy that controls minds (and the childrens!) with advertising media.

It's not MY children that I'm worried about. It's all the other kids they have to live in the same world with.

If I could do one thing, it would be to make broadcast entertainment impossible. Actually; that's not true. It would be to invent teleportation, and after that it would be to invent a perfect battery. After that, to fly, and to be able to change sex at will. But somewhere after that it would definitely be to make broadcast entertainment impossible.

[LMNO]

"Broadcast Entertainment?"

[Triple Zero]

If I could do one thing, it would be to make broadcast entertainment impossible. Actually; that's not true. It would be to invent teleportation, and after that it would be to invent a perfect battery. After that, to fly, and to be able to change sex at will. But somewhere after that it would definitely be to make broadcast entertainment impossible.

who needs entertainment after you got all that stuff anyway?

[AFK]

You don't need to get rid of "broadcast entertainment".  It certainly is a good idea to get kids to get off the couch and explore their world, but you don't need to eliminate it.  They will still be subjected to bad ideas and influential messages.  The trick is for them to have critical thinking skills and to be able to make sense of all that they are experiencing and taking in.  Someone with sound judgement and thinking skills is not going to have any trouble understanding advertisements on television. 

[LMNO]

Yeah.  Look at all the fucked up shit humans did before TV...