Fuck Advertising

[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.

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.

After all, broadcast entertainment is worse for your kids, than say, you getting drunk a lot.

Cause, you know, that won't rub off on them AT ALL.

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

After all, broadcast entertainment is worse for your kids, than say, you getting drunk a lot.

Cause, you know, that won't rub off on them AT ALL.

I don't get drunk around my kids, and outside of the ridiculously frequent festivities of the "holiday season", I don't get drunk that often. Also I think you are a complete fucking asshole for saying that.

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

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. 

Yeah, but what if it causes cancer?

[ñͤͣ̄ͦ̌̑͗͊͛͂͗ ̸̨̨̣̺̼̣̜͙͈͕̮̊̈́̈͂͛̽͊ͭ̓͆ͅé ̰̓̓́ͯ́́͞]

After all, broadcast entertainment is worse for your kids, than say, you getting drunk a lot.

Cause, you know, that won't rub off on them AT ALL.

I don't get drunk around my kids, and outside of the ridiculously frequent festivities of the "holiday season", I don't get drunk that often. Also I think you are a complete fucking asshole for saying that.

You don't get drunk around your kids, but the effects of getting drunk stay with you, while you're around your kids.

Hey, I was just fine with keeping with reasonable discussion, but then you brought in all this bullshit so I responded in kind.




Broadcast entertainment causes cancer?

ARE YOU STONED?

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

After all, broadcast entertainment is worse for your kids, than say, you getting drunk a lot.

Cause, you know, that won't rub off on them AT ALL.

I don't get drunk around my kids, and outside of the ridiculously frequent festivities of the "holiday season", I don't get drunk that often. Also I think you are a complete fucking asshole for saying that.

You don't get drunk around your kids, but the effects of getting drunk stay with you, while you're around your kids.

Hey, I was just fine with keeping with reasonable discussion, but then you brought in all this bullshit so I responded in kind.




Broadcast entertainment causes cancer?

ARE YOU STONED?

A: You disagree with my opinions on corporate commercial advertising so you react by accusing me of being a shitty parent? Wow, yeah, you totally made your point, you so win.

B: You are a seriously humorless stick in the mud, and it's not my fault if you've missed out on the "radio waves cause cancer" conspiracy theory and that reference went over your uptight little self-righteous pinhead.

[ñͤͣ̄ͦ̌̑͗͊͛͂͗ ̸̨̨̣̺̼̣̜͙͈͕̮̊̈́̈͂͛̽͊ͭ̓͆ͅé ̰̓̓́ͯ́́͞]

After all, broadcast entertainment is worse for your kids, than say, you getting drunk a lot.

Cause, you know, that won't rub off on them AT ALL.

I don't get drunk around my kids, and outside of the ridiculously frequent festivities of the "holiday season", I don't get drunk that often. Also I think you are a complete fucking asshole for saying that.

You don't get drunk around your kids, but the effects of getting drunk stay with you, while you're around your kids.

Hey, I was just fine with keeping with reasonable discussion, but then you brought in all this bullshit so I responded in kind.




Broadcast entertainment causes cancer?

ARE YOU STONED?

A: You disagree with my opinions on corporate commercial advertising so you react by accusing me of being a shitty parent? Wow, yeah, you totally made your point, you so win.

B: You are a seriously humorless stick in the mud, and it's not my fault if you've missed out on the "radio waves cause cancer" conspiracy theory and that reference went over your uptight little self-righteous pinhead.

I never said you were a shitty parent.

It's certainly possible to be a good parent and get drunk occasionally.

Just like it's possible to be a good parent and let your kids watch some fucking Sponge Bob.

You vapid hippy.

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

I never said you were a shitty parent.

You certainly hell of implied it. There are not a lot of ways to interpret "After all, broadcast entertainment is worse for your kids, than say, you getting drunk a lot.

Cause, you know, that won't rub off on them AT ALL."

That was a pretty frontal assault on my parenting, a cowardly low blow, and completely irrelevant to the discussion.

It's certainly possible to be a good parent and get drunk occasionally.

Just like it's possible to be a good parent and let your kids watch some fucking Sponge Bob.

You vapid hippy.

My kids watch all kinds of videos, including Spongebob, which I personally love. That doesn't have shit to do with my opinion of corporate advertising or the susceptibility of kids who have parents who, for whatever reason, don't screen what their kids watch or teach them critical thinking skills from an early age.

If that makes me a "vapid hippie" in your estimation, well, really, who cares?

[ñͤͣ̄ͦ̌̑͗͊͛͂͗ ̸̨̨̣̺̼̣̜͙͈͕̮̊̈́̈͂͛̽͊ͭ̓͆ͅé ̰̓̓́ͯ́́͞]

I never said you were a shitty parent.

You certainly hell of implied it. There are not a lot of ways to interpret "After all, broadcast entertainment is worse for your kids, than say, you getting drunk a lot.

Cause, you know, that won't rub off on them AT ALL."

That was a pretty frontal assault on my parenting, a cowardly low blow, and completely irrelevant to the discussion.

It's certainly possible to be a good parent and get drunk occasionally.

Just like it's possible to be a good parent and let your kids watch some fucking Sponge Bob.

You vapid hippy.

My kids watch all kinds of videos, including Spongebob, which I personally love. That doesn't have shit to do with my opinion of corporate advertising or the susceptibility of kids who have parents who, for whatever reason, don't screen what their kids watch or teach them critical thinking skills from an early age.

If that makes me a "vapid hippie" in your estimation, well, really, who cares?

I wasn't just responding to your facile argument against corporate advertising. I was suggesting you worry less about other people's children in a way that is guaranteed to shake you up. Nigel utopia, meet barstool.



You framed the discussion around something potentially harmful to children that parents fail to protect their kids from. That's a huge list and I can think of a hundred things that come before advertising, corporate or otherwise. Including getting drunk just a little too often. (Yeah, I'm going to go ahead and put that near the top). Which I'm not saying you do. No one really knows but you and your kids.

The line between using intoxicants and abusing them isn't simple to identify. Nor is the point at which that starts to effect your ability to nurture your kids. It's a risky game to play that rightfully can land your children in somebody else's care.

But you sound much more careful and extreme about something that has less potential to fuck them up. Or were you making blanket statements in the place of a clear position?

Corporate advertising is a red herring. That includes non-profit groups that you're probably a supporter of. It's the behavior of specific corporations actually doing particularly nasty things which is the true issue. Even the worst of marketing tactics in advertising pales in comparison to say, agricultural corporations having connections to what amounts to slavery.

That generalized fear and hate of corporations without any actual evidence or intelligible argument is one of the more embarrassing things about living in Portland.

Another case of right track, wrong train.

Bring something coherent to the discussion or take my impossible-to-disprove potshots at your parenting in stride. I did insinuate a very nasty thing about you. But does it bother you more that my mean-spirited implication was mean, or that perhaps I have some points?

[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. 

Yeah, but what if it causes cancer?

KYSFTB

[LMNO]

IF WE MADE BROADCAST ENTERTAINMENT IMPOSSIBLE, MORE CHILDREN WOULD DIE ON SWINGSETS.



DO YOU WANT THEIR BLOOD ON YOUR HANDS?
   \

[Bebek Sincap Ratatosk]

I think Netaungrot makes some very valid points, albeit through a sloppy use of barstool philosophy, but nonetheless, some of the points appear quite valid to me.

There are many, many issues in this world, some seem important to some people, others seem important to other people. The trick, as far as I can tell, seems to be keeping in mind that just because you 'hate corporations', or 'hate corporate farms' or whatever, your view may be a partial, incomplete view.

I work for a corporation. They regularly donate more to United Way than any other company in the city (sometimes the state). They started a Reading program for inner city schools, where employees are bussed to schools as tutors, during the work week (and they get paid). When Katrina hit, this corporation had emergency supplies ready and waiting for all of our employees affected. The corporation found all of them places to stay and made sure that every one of them was moved to a new store etc. in the area they moved to. The corporation heavily encourages participation in civic projects and even the CEO (one of the richest guys on the planet) gets involved, last year I saw him up a ladder painting a building at one of the local parks. We have production facilities for clothing in several small far eastern nations and while the laws in the area may be lax, the factories are held to US standards as far as safety etc.

Yet, we regularly have protesters standing outside our HQ.

They have a point, don't get me wrong... the Victoria's Secret catalog is printed on special High Gloss paper. While every other form of paper we use in the company is recycled, the Catalog, in order to hold the ink as they want, and provide the lush appearance of the catalog, they use paper made from Old Growth Forests in Canada. It's legal, but its not nice. So even though, the corporation does a very impressive job of helping the community and their employees (we are taken care of pretty well), the 'activists' only see one aspect of the corporation and thus damn it in their Coffeehouse Diatribes.

Of course, there are EVIL corporations... corporations that make a buck at the expense of customers, employees and anyone else they can scam off of. There are also non-evil corporations that may make decisions that don't jive with what's popularly held as RIGHT. These two groups are often seen as the same, when I think it may be wrong to consider them that way.

That being said, I personally have a struggle when I see the protesters, not to join them. I know that LimitedBrands is a pretty good company, they have good ethics overall etc... but the part of me that's a hippie still wants to scream at The Man for turning ancient trees into lingerie ads.

A bar in a Black Iron Prison, may be...

Also, Nigel... you are a drunk that beats her children and keeps them in cages while you engage in satanic rituals and orgies. It would be much safer for them if you would make them watch Hannah Montana and dress like Brit and Paris.

[LMNO]

I dunno about you, Rat, but I find it much more difficult to masturbate to an old-growth forest than to a lingere catalog.

So, the point goes to the Major Corporation.

[ñͤͣ̄ͦ̌̑͗͊͛͂͗ ̸̨̨̣̺̼̣̜͙͈͕̮̊̈́̈͂͛̽͊ͭ̓͆ͅé ̰̓̓́ͯ́́͞]

Also, Nigel... you are a drunk that beats her children and keeps them in cages while you engage in satanic rituals and orgies. It would be much safer for them if you would make them watch Hannah Montana and dress like Brit and Paris.

[hunter s.durden]

If I could do one thing, it would be to make broadcast entertainment impossible.

um...

My kids watch all kinds of videos, including Spongebob, which I personally love.

lolwut?

[LMNO]

If I could do one thing, it would be to make broadcast entertainment impossible.

um...

My kids watch all kinds of videos, including Spongebob, which I personally love.

lolwut?