Trog's Thread of Blatant Advertising!

[Alarra]

The subject for this thread (discussion started in (of all places) the chivalry thread post #317) is advertising and marketing. How do you feel about it? What do you like about it? Hate? Is it Evil? Etc. Have at it!

*Eat at Trog's Tavern*
Vomit free for 0002 days!

I know you don't mean it that way overtly but saying women are so easily led by society is demeaning them in a much more profound way than just saying outright "Women are stupid." Women aren't such Myrmidons you know. The differential distribution of the sexes in some professions may indeed be to societal influences that will disappear in time, but is it so hard to believe that women just aren't as interested in some of the things that men are, and vice versa?

I understood the hyperbole.
But I still agree with the essence of your post.

Have you looked at society lately? *shakes head* The truth of the matter is that a good chunk of people as a whole (both male and female) are led around like sheep by the media, fashion trends, advertising, and the lot. I mean, why do you think so much money is poured into the advertising industry? Because people (in general... yes ...there are some individual, free thinkers out there...and I think this site has a higher than usual concentration of them) are sheep, and people will do whatever the little black box tells them to. I mean, look at children that will only buy a certain brand of clothing. *shakes head again* And it really kinda sucks, a lot....especially given the complete oversexualization of well....almost every industry and every advertisement. The media is really damaging society, in my opinion. [/end rant that's not at all on topic]

erm....so....umm.....holding open doors for people is a nice and friendly gesture, not to be seen as imparting flirtatious or sexual undertones. In my opinion There....look ma! a topic.

(although really, I think that all of the areas we've been debated tie well enough together to not consider this completely off topic, and I've always been rather more supportive of the natural flow of conversation, particularly in debates)

[averagejoe]

I know you don't mean it that way overtly but saying women are so easily led by society is demeaning them in a much more profound way than just saying outright "Women are stupid." Women aren't such Myrmidons you know. The differential distribution of the sexes in some professions may indeed be to societal influences that will disappear in time, but is it so hard to believe that women just aren't as interested in some of the things that men are, and vice versa.

That isn't what I'm saying at all. Or, rather, it's half of what I'm saying. Yes, women are so easily led by society, but only because people are so easily led by society, and women are part of the group known as "people." Even me. None of us can help it, society is there from birth, influencing away. In certain cases I can see why there might be significant differences in numbers; combat sports, for exampe, would be more attractive to males, because men are biologically predisposed to fighting. However, the numbers we see today are rediculous, far to great to be explained away by simple "preference." I especially have trouble believing that women are, for example, less apt to logical thought, which is why they supposedly dislike maths more than men.

[Alarra]

But we agree that acting trendy, following the masses and doing what's popular isn't in itself bad? Just doing it so people'll like you is?

Why, yes. I'm certainly not saying that the things that are trendy are in themselves bad items. And I certainly have say...shopped at the Gap. But there's a big difference in buying an item because you like it, or want it, or think it will look good on you, and buying an item because (to get more back on topic) you're expected to because of your gender, or any other, non individualized reasoning. Or buying something because having a brand name splashed over your chest makes you feel more worthwhile as a person.

eep....it's 5.

[Sisqui]

That isn't what I'm saying at all. Or, rather, it's half of what I'm saying. Yes, women are so easily led by society, but only because people are so easily led by society, and women are part of the group known as "people." Even me. None of us can help it, society is there from birth, influencing away. In certain cases I can see why there might be significant differences in numbers; combat sports, for exampe, would be more attractive to males, because men are biologically predisposed to fighting. However, the numbers we see today are rediculous, far to great to be explained away by simple "preference." I especially have trouble believing that women are, for example, less apt to logical thought, which is why they supposedly dislike maths more than men.

But all most of the people in this argument who take my view are saying is that it is time to give up on this Cult of Victimology BS. Women have just as much free will as men and exercise it by making choices. Some choices are in the majority (I for one, love to breathe air. Really, I am a total sheep with that one ) And some are not. Not every statistical discrepancy in demographics represents some sexist or societal plot which must be undone by yet more sexist and societal plotting.

Have you looked at society lately? *shakes head* The truth of the matter is that a good chunk of people as a whole (both male and female) are led around like sheep by the media, fashion trends, advertising, and the lot. I mean, why do you think so much money is poured into the advertising industry? Because people (in general... yes ...there are some individual, free thinkers out there...and I think this site has a higher than usual concentration of them) are sheep, and people will do whatever the little black box tells them to. I mean, look at children that will only buy a certain brand of clothing. *shakes head again* And it really kinda sucks, a lot....especially given the complete oversexualization of well....almost every industry and every advertisement. The media is really damaging society, in my opinion. [/end rant that's not at all on topic]

Not to be rude, but have you ever noticed how the person calling most of humanity "sheep" almost always excludes himself/herself and the people he/she is conversing with? Just sayin'

[ChronicLunacy]

And I certainly have say...shopped at the Gap.

*GASP!* You sick, sad, horrible person. Cthulu help you.

[Alarra]

Not to be rude, but have you ever noticed how the person calling most of humanity "sheep" almost always excludes himself/herself and the people he/she is conversing with? Just sayin'

I'm not saying that I'm not a sheep, or that I'm not influenced by advertising. Everyone is. Admittedly, not having tv, I think I'm less susceptible than the average person, yes, but that's purely the result of my being unable to currently afford cable . But, that doesn't mean I'm wrong in my assessment. Compare the people of this messageboard, with saaaaaay....the types of people that would say want to be on....flavor of love and you have to admit that there is a difference. Not that those type of people necessarily represent the 'average' human populace either. I will, however, stand by my assessment that the people on this messageboard are of a slightly higher mental caliber than the general populace, likely due to the focus of the site.

And yeah...Decken....let's not go down that route, that's asking for trouble.

[Trog]

Have you looked at society lately? *shakes head* The truth of the matter is that a good chunk of people as a whole (both male and female) are led around like sheep by the media, fashion trends, advertising, and the lot. I mean, why do you think so much money is poured into the advertising industry? Because people (in general... yes ...there are some individual, free thinkers out there...and I think this site has a higher than usual concentration of them) are sheep, and people will do whatever the little black box tells them to. I mean, look at children that will only buy a certain brand of clothing. *shakes head again* And it really kinda sucks, a lot....especially given the complete oversexualization of well....almost every industry and every advertisement. The media is really damaging society, in my opinion. [/end rant that's not at all on topic]

Okay. Responding to this. As my job 40+ hours a week is to MAKE advertising that works. Blaming advertising for making people sheep does not put the responsibility where it lies - with the sheep.. er... people. It's the "If your friend jumped off the bridge would you?" thing all over again. Just because anyone or anything tells you that something is good and that you should want it doesn't meant you HAVE to give into that. Granted good advertising makes that message difficult to ignore. But difficult to resist? No.

Lord knows I don't make the most money in the world and I have to severely limit my spending so many things that other people break down and buy (I currently have no TV. Haven't for a few months. When I do have TV I have basic basic cable... 13 channels for like $14 or something) I am tempted to get too... but I CHOOSE not to. And frankly if I can do it anyone can. The media only tempts us. Though no more than, say, your neighbor with the better (fill in the blank here) does. But it is our responsibility to make our choices wisely. Afterall business is business and business must grow, regardless of crummies in tummies you know.

On Topic: *Trog wanders out* Chivalry's last will and testament requests he be resurrected. Trog's not touching that. Let the ladies decide. *puffs*

[Alarra]

Okay. Responding to this. As my job 40+ hours a week is to MAKE advertising that works. Blaming advertising for making people sheep does not put the responsibility where it lies - with the sheep.. er... people. It's the "If your friend jumped off the bridge would you?" thing all over again. Just because anyone or anything tells you that something is good and that you should want it doesn't meant you HAVE to give into that. Granted good advertising makes that message difficult to ignore. But difficult to resist? No.

I'm not saying that advertising makes people sheep, merely that they exploit the mentality that people already possess. Which is their job, and they're good at it. I'm not saying advertising is the devil or anything, (I realize I've been completely coming off like that, when this isn't even a topic that I feel strongly about) Advertising is an important aspect of capitalism and really, the only good way for people to even learn about new products and services. I will however, blame media and advertising, for some (okay, a lot) of the general degeneration of society, due to the oversexualization of their messages, and well....for the tasteless crap that floods television today. (But this is an entirely different debate and one that I will stop getting into here)

[Jorkens]

I'm not saying that advertising makes people sheep, merely that they exploit the mentality that people already possess. Which is their job, and they're good at it. I'm not saying advertising is the devil or anything, (I realize I've been completely coming off like that, when this isn't even a topic that I feel strongly about) Advertising is an important aspect of capitalism and really, the only good way for people to even learn about new products and services. I will however, blame media and advertising, for some (okay, a lot) of the general degeneration of society, due to the oversexualization of their messages, and well....for the tasteless crap that floods television today. (But this is an entirely different debate and one that I will stop getting into here)

I think the point is that it's not just advertising. In fact, I think advertising is probably a fairly small part of it. It's not like there's a "girls: why not be a nurse or a secretary or something" advertising campaign running on TV. It's more about social / cultural norms. If almost all of the women (or men or ginger people or whatever) that you see on television or in newspapers or in books or among people that you know are in caring professions or doing creative type jobs or don't express their emotions, then you'll tend to assume (without neccessarily even being conscious of it) that it's a bit weird to do otherwise. And most people (myself included) tend to be at least a bit uncomfortable doing things that they and other people consider 'a bit weird.' Particularly when they're young, which is when really formative decisions are made.

What we're talking about is probably more subtle (and also a lot less bad) than the idea that "girls should always be nurses or teachers, boys should always be engineers or managers", but there are still ideas in our culture about what is acceptable or normal for a woman and what is acceptable or normal for a man. And some of those ideas are still harmful for people involved whose desires they go against - for instance the (now slightly outdated) idea that it was normal for men to get very drunk and unseemly for girls to have more than a gin and tonic made life worse for young men who actually liked to stay sober as well as for women who liked to get drunk and party. I'm not saying it neccesarily makes anything impossible for anyone (although if the person who's got the idea that girls are intrinsically a bit less good at logic / maths / reasoning is the person interviewing you for a physics postdoc, it might), just that it adds discouragement and discomfort, and makes it harder for people to live the life that they want to live.

And, to bring this back on topic, I guess that in a small way, ideas like "you musn't hit girls" or "it's wrong to swear in front of a lady" contribute to (and are evidence of) those different cultural expectations.

[Sisqui]

Perhaps that's true, and maybe even I am guilty of this, but that isn't what I mean. I'm not saying that women are victims and have no choice but to like knitting, I'm saying that we have to excise such thoughts, because it would better society.

My dear averagejoe, you wouldn't be advocating social engineering by the "enlightened elite" would you? Vision of the Annointed, anyone?

Surely you know that won't fly with me, of all people!

Edit: What is the new avvie? And what is he holding in his right hand?

I'm not saying that I'm not a sheep, or that I'm not influenced by advertising. Everyone is. Admittedly, not having tv, I think I'm less susceptible than the average person, yes, but that's purely the result of my being unable to currently afford cable . But, that doesn't mean I'm wrong in my assessment. Compare the people of this messageboard, with saaaaaay....the types of people that would say want to be on....flavor of love and you have to admit that there is a difference. Not that those type of people necessarily represent the 'average' human populace either. I will, however, stand by my assessment that the people on this messageboard are of a slightly higher mental caliber than the general populace, likely due to the focus of the site.

To that I would say this:
People are influenced by society, yes. But only to the extent that the societal influences do not grossly conflict with their own internal codes of conduct. The more direct the conflict between the two, the more choices the individual is forced to make. As most choices between individual preference and societal preference (society, after all, being nothing more than an aggregate of individuals) are not that momentous, sure, people can go along with the crowd most of the time. So what, if it makes them happy? But don't demean most people by saying they are sheeple, incapable of discerning when their own interests or morals are inconflict with society's. It takes quite an ego to say only a chosen few (yourself included) have the independence to diverge from the herd.

As to flavor of love, I have no idea what you are talking about. Sounds like some kind of hippie sex festival to me......

[Trog]

*snip* I will however, blame media and advertising, for some (okay, a lot) of the general degeneration of society, due to the oversexualization of their messages *snip*

de·gen·er·a·tion: intellectual or moral decline tending toward dissolution of character or integrity : a progressive worsening of personal adjustment

dis·so·lu·tion: Indulgence in sensual pleasures; debauchery.

char·ac·ter: moral or ethical quality: a man of fine, honorable character.

mor·al: of, pertaining to, or concerned with the principles or rules of right conduct or the distinction between right and wrong; ethical: moral attitudes.

So you are blaming media and advertising for people indulging in sensual pleasures (sex, assumedly, in this case since you used the word oversexualization) to a degree that is "wrong" due to the media. Interesting. Well people have been having sex for a long long time now and all sorts of debauchery has been going on long before advertising. I think it safer to say that the media shines a spotlight on that which would exist with or without it.

Ads DO take advantage of this and flaunt the libido. Again restraint is the answer not elimination of advertising or some other solution. Repression, censorship, etc.

I only argue this because, frankly, I get paid to make people act like sheep. And it is much easier to live with myself knowing that the reader/viewer/listener in the end is the decider of whether or not an ad works. Which I am going to continue to espouse until someone can prove it to me otherwise.

Look! An Ad! V *futhers demonic ethos. Gets loads of XP*

[Alarra]

It takes quite an ego to say only a chosen few (yourself included) have the independence to diverge from the herd.

Once again....I never once claimed to be divergent from the herd or to not be susceptible to advertising. I was talking about society as a whole and include myself well within that society.

So you are blaming media and advertising for people indulging in sensual pleasures (sex, assumedly, in this case since you used the word oversexualization) to a degree that is "wrong" due to the media. Interesting. Well people have been having sex for a long long time now and all sorts of debauchery has been going on long before advertising. I think it safer to say that the media shines a spotlight on that which would exist with or without it.

Ads DO take advantage of this and flaunt the libido. Again restraint is the answer not elimination of advertising or some other solution. Repression, censorship, etc.

No...I'm not. What I am blaming the media (media in general, really, not just advertising) for, is having a hand in a general decline in society's morality. Today, children are exposed to sex and violence much earlier and more readily than in any previous generation. Can you really argue that this doesn't have an effect on them and isn't affecting changes in the way people behave? I'm not saying that these behaviors didn't exist in times past, but I am saying that I think that the media latching onto these ideas and spotlighting them, as you will, is certainly effecting people's behavior. I'm not entirely blaming the media, certainly, there are a lot of factors leading to these changes, but to claim that the media has no effect on it, well...that doesn't seem like it could possibly be right.

I'm not condoning censorship. Well....I mean, I am condoning the idea that people should think about what effect things could have on children's thoughts and behaviors before they splash them all over cartoon programs. So, I suppose, yes, I am.

I only argue this because, frankly, I get paid to make people act like sheep. And it is much easier to live with myself knowing that the reader/viewer/listener in the end is the decider of whether or not an ad works. Which I am going to continue to espouse until someone can prove it to me otherwise.

I've also never denied this. Of course the end viewer should be the one taking responsibility for whether they buy into advertising. And there are -plenty- of people that resist the temptation of an ad. But you admitted yourself that advertisers make the decision to resist more difficult. That's what advertising does! That's its job! I'm not saying that ads make decisions for people, but they certainly do their best to affect them. And you know....I did this job too, I know where you're coming from. I wrote ad copy and did back cover blurbs for books, and know what it's like to try to influence people through advertising....And I'm in no way claiming that advertising is a bad thing. Just a lot of how it's done today is, in my opinion. I'm not trying to knock advertising. I'm really not.

*Decides not to respond to Zeb's scenario, as not being offended by someone holding a door for me, am not the audience for whom its intended.*

[SDF]

Trog is a professional brain washer. He makes sure the zombies have clean brains to eat.

[Sisqui]

But what in the world is flavor of love? Still waiting on the explanation for that one........

[The Great Skenardo]

But what in the world is flavor of love? Still waiting on the explanation for that one........

Cold strawberries dipped in chocolate.

Glad I could clear that up for you

[Sisqui]

Cold strawberries dipped in chocolate.

Glad I could clear that up for you

Only if it's dark chocolate. And I prefer raspberries

[SMEE]

Cold strawberries dipped in chocolate.

Glad I could clear that up for you

Sorry to be slight off-topic, but truer words like ones quoted above were never said before.

[Zeb The Troll]

But what in the world is flavor of love? Still waiting on the explanation for that one........

Flavor of Love was an ill conceived reality show on VH1 where women vied for the attentions of Flavor Flav, a has been musician formerly of the band Public Enemy, with a nasty grill and a big clock necklace schtick. See here for more.

[Sisqui]

Flavor of Love was an ill conceived reality show on VH1 where women vied for the attentions of Flavor Flav, a has been musician formerly of the band Public Enemy, with a nasty grill and a big clock necklace schtick. See here for more.

Nasty grill? He never heard of a brillo pad?

EDIT: That all looks like it would rot your brain............. But, it's your brain to rot. "It's exactly the kind of thing you'd like if you like that kind of thing."

[Zeb The Troll]

Nasty grill? He never heard of a brillo pad?

In case you're not kidding, and likely there are others that might not get it since it's kind of colloquial, it means "Holy smokes those are some bad teeth!"

[Sisqui]

In case you're not kidding, and likely there are others that might not get it since it's kind of colloquial, it means "Holy smokes those are some bad teeth!"

No, I wasn't kidding. Actually, I had no notion of a reference to teeth. I was trying to decide if you meant a BBQ type grill or a grill on the front of a car.....

[Zeb The Troll]

No, I wasn't kidding. Actually, I had no notion of a reference to teeth. I was trying to decide if you meant a BBQ type grill or a grill on the front of a car.....

This is where it comes from. As in, "so bad it looks like the grill of a car". But we're skittering off topic here. Sorry about that.

[Trog]

Once again....I never once claimed to be divergent from the herd or to not be susceptible to advertising. I was talking about society as a whole and include myself well within that society.


No...I'm not. What I am blaming the media (media in general, really, not just advertising) for, is having a hand in a general decline in society's morality. Today, children are exposed to sex and violence much earlier and more readily than in any previous generation. Can you really argue that this doesn't have an effect on them and isn't affecting changes in the way people behave? I'm not saying that these behaviors didn't exist in times past, but I am saying that I think that the media latching onto these ideas and spotlighting them, as you will, is certainly effecting people's behavior. I'm not entirely blaming the media, certainly, there are a lot of factors leading to these changes, but to claim that the media has no effect on it, well...that doesn't seem like it could possibly be right.

I'm not condoning censorship. Well....I mean, I am condoning the idea that people should think about what effect things could have on children's thoughts and behaviors before they splash them all over cartoon programs. So, I suppose, yes, I am.


I've also never denied this. Of course the end viewer should be the one taking responsibility for whether they buy into advertising. And there are -plenty- of people that resist the temptation of an ad. But you admitted yourself that advertisers make the decision to resist more difficult. That's what advertising does! That's its job! I'm not saying that ads make decisions for people, but they certainly do their best to affect them. And you know....I did this job too, I know where you're coming from. I wrote ad copy and did back cover blurbs for books, and know what it's like to try to influence people through advertising....And I'm in no way claiming that advertising is a bad thing. Just a lot of how it's done today is, in my opinion. I'm not trying to knock advertising. I'm really not.

*Decides not to respond to Zeb's scenario, as not being offended by someone holding a door for me, am not the audience for whom its intended.*

I would argue (quite easily) that there are parents out there who do not monitor their children's media consumption. Generally I find the programs available at the flip of the channel to be largely non-child friendly. As well as most of the internet. I have done a careful job in shielding my boys from these sorts of influences and by and large I think they are probably about on par with where I was at their age. Probably better.

Yes the media has an effect. But that is why parents need to step up. Honestly I do not let my kids onto this site, even. So I am condoning parental involvement in sheilding their kids from such things. And such things ARE much more prevalent nowadays. Personally I blame the media for this... but the advertising available on that media? No. I dio not think that does anything more than promote products.

But you admitted yourself that advertisers make the decision to resist more difficult.

Actually no I didn't. I said this:

Granted good advertising makes that message difficult to ignore. But difficult to resist? No.

There's a difference. My job is to get your attention. And show you what the product can do to either 1) Solve a problem or 2) Make you feel good. Ads do not brainwash. They succintly inform and make very well thought out appeals to your needs and wants. That is all.

Oops. Many posts appeared while I typed this. Back on topic.

[Pyrian]

Today, children are exposed to sex and violence much earlier and more readily than in any previous generation.

Not so much. The only way to make that statement make sense is to narrow it "fictionalized, human, televised" - which really takes the wind out of your point. Farm kids grow up just fine, and they see the whole lifecycle and all that goes with it basically from birth.

But they see it truthfully, as it is...

What bugs me about media is not the information or the subject matter, it's the gross distortions. Reality doesn't happen like things happen on TV - even "reality" TV - except in that people mimic it because for some it's literally almost all they know about some things! Have you ever noticed how many guys in the Relationships thread are courting women who are obviously not romantically interested in return? I really think that there's something that goes on in our heads where we simply expect things to work out like they do in virtually ALL the movies (and books and...).

[Jorkens]

What bugs me about media is not the information or the subject matter, it's the gross distortions. Reality doesn't happen like things happen on TV - even "reality" TV - except in that people mimic it because for some it's literally almost all they know about some things! Have you ever noticed how many guys in the Relationships thread are courting women who are obviously not romantically interested in return? I really think that there's something that goes on in our heads where we simply expect things to work out like they do in virtually ALL the movies (and books and...).

Not to mention that our definition of 'averagely good looking' gets readjusted to 'minor hollywood actor / actress' and our view of ourselves and the people around us gets more negative as a result. Likewise most of the other scales we measure worth or success on...

But I suspect that going any further in that directions would lead into Politics, for me at least.

[0wca]

There's a difference. My job is to get your attention. And show you what the product can do to either 1) Solve a problem or 2) Make you feel good. Ads do not brainwash. They succintly inform and make very well thought out appeals to your needs and wants. That is all.

Riiiiiiiiiiiiight....

So you're saying that ads DON'T repeat the name of the article over and over again, so you get it in your head? It's the oldest trick in the book. The majority of consumers usually buy stuff that come from ads. Why? Because they've heard it so many times, they've become to believe in it.

I mean, don't get me wrong, if you can't resisist the temptation of material "satisfaction" then it's your fault. I'm just saying that ads exploit the fact above for their own profit.

Anyway you look at it, the consumer is just as "guilty" of buying a product as the advertiser.

[Sisqui]

Anyway you look at it, the consumer is just as "guilty" of buying a product as the advertiser.

Wait, what? Buying something entails feeling guilty? Since when?

[The Great Skenardo]

Wait, what? Buying something entails feeling guilty? Since when?

"Another quart of ice cream? How do I go through this stuff so quickly?"

[Trog]

Riiiiiiiiiiiiight....

So you're saying that ads DON'T repeat the name of the article over and over again, so you get it in your head? It's the oldest trick in the book. The majority of consumers usually buy stuff that come from ads. Why? Because they've heard it so many times, they've become to believe in it.

I mean, don't get me wrong, if you can't resisist the temptation of material "satisfaction" then it's your fault. I'm just saying that ads exploit the fact above for their own profit.

Anyway you look at it, the consumer is just as "guilty" of buying a product as the advertiser.

Frequency is an important thing for getting noticed. I never claimed that some ads don't do that. But they do repeat because it gets your attention. And yes with radio ads and TV ads they do that because, quite frankly, if you don't remember the number after the commercial is over what good was it spending money to advertise? Handy thing about print ads (such as I create) is that they only have to include it somewhere not repeat it a bazillion times. It's a more permanent media. But is repetition of a phone number brainwashing? No. It doesn't MAKE you go and get the phone and call. YOU have to decide to. Yes consumers buy stuff from ads. And AGAIN just because an ad says something doesn't negate the consumer's intelligence. Yes people need stuff. YOU need stuff. Exploit you? Hardly. Exploit time tested methods for getting you to notice? Yes.

And to concur with other posters there is no guilt in advertising a good product to a market that may need it. If a consumer feels guilty for buying something that is, again, his or her own burden to bear. The victimization of the consumer to the media is a flimsy excuse sometimes used to cover for a consumer who feels guilt over their poor purchasing choices. A decision they made and on whose shoulders the burden solely lays.

[FdL]

You know, Trog and the others. I think this subject of advertising and marketing is far too interesting to be an off-topic aside to the present thread. Let's make it a new thread. I have a couple of things to contribute to that discussion.