Anyone else think advertising is going too far?

[sublime]

I go out on the streets and see advertisements everywhere, inside and outside buildings and busses, and on people's clothes and accessories. I go home and they call me on my phone, contact me through email, show up on banners on the websites I go to, and have regular rotation on my television. Everything that I own has its creator's name on it, reminding me on a daily basis who they are that I happened to buy and who I should give my money to in the future. I hate it.

Is anyone else sick of it, or is it another thing that you have become accustomed to? All these different companies harassing and begging me for my money is very bloody annoying, and I'm starting to think that the guy who invented advertising is almost as evil as the guy who invented taxes.

Down with Advertising!

Down with Advertising!

[Jacob]

It annoys me too. I try to buy clothing without any label if at all possible.

I hate being a walking billboard for a company.

[JonnoB]

Just wait until we get retinal scans and customized advertising delivered directly to us as we walk along the street. Anyone see Minority Report?

[Jeff Rutledge]

Just wait until we get retinal scans and customized advertising delivered directly to us as we walk along the street. Anyone see Minority Report?

I was just thinking that exact same thing! 8)

[JustinGTP]

Well everything is branded and logoed, I dont think we will see anything changing soon with regards to advertising.

-Justin.

[JackTheTripper]

If there were no advertising how would you know new products have come out? Word of mouth? What if everyone around you had Palms rather than PPC's? You'd say "Hey, what is that?" "A PDA." he/she answeres. "Cool! I gotta get me one of those! I've never seen anything like it before." Then one day you're walking down the street playing Dope Wars and trying not to crash into things (It's not like you can listen to an MP3 you got from Napster. (What's Napster?)) and you see a guy with a cool shiny little toy and he's listening to headphones and singing. "What's that?" you ask him in passing. "Oh, it's my PDA." "That looks nothing like mine! Who makes it." The friendly stranger looks at it front and back.... "I don't remember. I've had it for a couple years." He nods a 'bye' at you as he goes on singing his latest fav 'Walk like an Egyptian' that he just heard about through a friend who heard it from a friend who got it from a friend. Meanwhile your feet are killing you from wearing your flip-flops 24/7 so you write a note in you Palm IIIe to remember to ask your friend about those new foot coverings he has that have rubber soles and are great for running and basket ball and pretty much anything else. (Did they have a swoosh on them? Or maybe 3 stripes? Where do I get a pair of those?)

[Jacob]

If there were no advertising how would you know new products have come out? Word of mouth?

I don't think anyone is saying that we should abolish advertising. I also don't think it's unreasonable to want to be away from it at some points in our day ;)

Advertising companies are always trying to find new ways to get their ads in front of you and they don't particularly care how intrusive they are. Case and point: telemarketers and spammers.

[shawnc]

My only problem is with the number of billboards that proliferate our highways and roads here in Pittsburgh. It can be very distracting while your driving simply because its difficult to distinguish advertising from community information.

Some citizens initiated a drive to limit the number of billboards on the roads, but of course money won out in the end.

[dmacburry2003]

The only thing in the house that doesn't have a logo on it is my butt :wink:

I look around; PC-Pavilion, trash can-rubbermaid, PPC-HP, sock-LV (???), book-Kingfisher, CF card-Fujitsu, VHS tape-Paramount, envelopes-Stuart Hall.

YOU ARE TOTALLY RIGHT!!! EVERYTHING IS AN ADVERTISEMENT!!!

But... What if you made something and your logo wasn't on it? How would you be able to tell you product (like Jack said) from someone else's? I know I would want a logo on my stuff because I made it.

Hmmm... A lot of thought could go into this :idea:

[sublime]

JackTheRipper:

It's BECAUSE of advertising that you have a desire for the "new" things that come out. If you need a PDA, you go to a store and buy a PDA, rather than buying an "IPAQ" or a "Palm" or whatever. You would buy everything generic, and use the products for nothing more than utility.

Then most of the weak-willed would not be up to their eyeballs in debt from buying useless stuff. Advertising does its best to convince you that you need stuff that you don't need, and has done a great job of pulling the wool over the eyes of millions.

If you need basketball shoes, you buy basketball shoes, not the shoe with a swoosh or three stripes, and not the one named "Nike" or "Converse." Need flip flops? Buy flip flops. Need running shoes? Buy them.

Just don't buy the bloody name.

I'd like to see a shirt that doesn't say "GAP" or "Guess," but "shirt." Then, Jack, you'd find yourself walking one day, barechested, and ask someone what it is that's covering them. "It's a shirt," they'd say, and rather than telling you what kind it is, they'd tell you what it's used for.

Face it: we buy things we don't need, and doing so has become such a prominent master-narrative that anyone who opposes it is branded a weirdo or a hippie.

[PetiteFlower]

A product with a brand and a logo on it is not just advertising, it's identifying. Now I'm not talking about a shirt with the designer's name in huge letters across the top. I'm talking about the Dell logo on my X5 or the Sprint and LG logos on my phone. Brands aren't bad. If everything was generic that would mean less choices and all monopolies. Bad thing. I bought my PDA because I liked the price and the features, but also because the name Dell carries a reputation for quality at reasonable prices, which I like. Associating a name with the company also means I can research the company easily and find out how globally responsible they are, whether other people have been satisfied with this company, etc. And the (inobtrusive) logo on my PDA just reminds me what I have and enables me to describe it to my friends. That part is kind of advertising, but it's not the bad intrusive kind.

I'm in favor of buying generic for some things--clothes, food, OTC drugs, some prescription drugs--but when it comes to electronics, generic usually means shoddy. A company will work harder to produce a quality product if they have a name and a reputation to protect. In some things, the differences between brand and generic are small or nonexistant. In others, there's a big difference! Brand doesn't always mean better, buying by name alone is dumb, but before I decide which to get, I'm going to compare them and see if the branded version is worth the extra money.

But anyway back on topic no I don't feel advertised to every time I see a logo, unless it's a particularly conspicuous product placement in a movie or something. I DO get annoyed with flashing banner ads and the fact that AIM decided to make its ad window bigger in the last upgrade and those things. I get annoyed that I have to treat my email address like a national secret to avoid spam! I get annoyed at those infuriating java popups that my popup blocker can't catch. I get really annoyed when I hear TV execs saying that fast forwarding through commercials is like stealing. But when that happens, you know what I do? I put on a CD or a DVD or read a book. There's plenty of escape, you just have to unplug for a little bit :)

[JackTheTripper]

JackTheRipper:

It's BECAUSE of advertising ...

You don't have to preach to me brother-man! I don't buy 'brand.' I buy 'need.' I bought my Toshiba e310 about 2 years ago. It was about $200 bux after rebate. (And my company paid for it. (But I kept the rebate. ;) )) (It was already pretty old at that point.) I still use it. Even though they never offered a Mobile2k3 update for it. I don't need it. Mine keeps appointments and names and addresses. It keeps me busy waiting for the dentist. I've never bought any software to put on it. It's all freeware. I never bought a case for it. The leather slip case that came with it works fine. So does my 32mb sandisk card I got for free after rebate.

[PetiteFlower]

Re:Clothing brands

Say you're standing in line at the coffee shop and you see someone in a really neat looking shirt. You like it so much that you'd like to get one just like it. So, you say to the person, I really like your shirt, where did you get it? And they say, it's a shirt, I got it at a store. How completely unhelpful is that? If they say, I got it at Gap or Old Navy at least you know that there's a reasonable chance of you going there and finding something similar if not the same. So brands and labels may be a form of advertising, but if you ask me it's a helpful form, one that allows me to be able to more easily find clothes that I like without having to go to a million stores. All the big-labled clothing in the world isn't going to be as annoying as internet ads!

[sublime]

Ask yourself why you would consider one shirt more "neat" looking than your own. Is it inherent, or are you conditioned to think so?

[Janak Parekh]

Ask yourself why you would consider one shirt more "neat" looking than your own. Is it inherent, or are you conditioned to think so?
I disagree with (what I think is) your implicit assertion that all shirts "are the same". I've found certain brands simply hold up longer, or feel more comfortable, or that I simply prefer their colors. The colors might be conditioning, but the other qualities are not.

I agree strongly with PF that branding isn't a bad thing. Overadvertising, perhaps, is, but it's hard to define what people are "OK" with as a whole... people have different "limits". Being in Manhattan, I'm constantly bombarded with advertising, but somehow I just filter most of it out, or look upon it as a curiosity. Maybe it's just that Times Square wouldn't be the same without the advertising. ;)

Perhaps it's that I more dislike "stupid" advertising -- some of the most "clever" advertising is quite interesting and makes me reflect on what it takes to convince someone of a product in a very given small timeframe -- it's not a trivial thing to do.

You don't have to preach to me brother-man! I don't buy 'brand.' I buy 'need.' I bought my Toshiba e310 about 2 years ago. It was about $200 bux after rebate.
Are you saying you never consider brand? ;) Have you never had a negative experience with one manufacturer in particular?

--janak

[JackTheTripper]

Negative experience is a whole nother thing. I'm talking about when you have no experience with the products. For example, I went to the store on the way home last night because we needed paper towels. I purchased lots of different kinds in the past. All have served their purpose pretty much equally. Sure, some may claim to "hold twice the liquid" than the competition. But do I really care? So I have to use 2 of the "other" brand to wipe up the same amount as one "quicker picker upper" brand. But how often am I cleaning up spills? Mostly I use them to dry my hands after doing dishes or in place of a napkin when just eating a quick snack. So I've got it narrowed down to 2 generic brands I've never bought before. So I bought the least expensive generic brand.

Now if I ever had a negative experience with this generic brand (Say I'm allergic, or I find they stick to each other and it's impossible to get them off the roll) then I would not buy them again. But when everything is neutral.... why consider brand?

[Janak Parekh]

Sure, some may claim to "hold twice the liquid" than the competition. But do I really care?
Maybe I'm just nuts, but I do. I've identified a couple of brands of paper towels that do measurably work better than others, so I make sure to pick those up.

--janak

[JackTheTripper]

But are you picking that product because of brand or performance/experience?

[Janak Parekh]

But are you picking that product because of brand or experience? (Performance?)
Hmm. I think it's a little of both. I'll sometimes pick other products of that brand, as well, because I expect the same quality.

--janak

[PetiteFlower]

Well how would you be able to apply your experiences without brands to identify the different products? I've tried several kinds of paper towels and decided that there's one kind that I like best, it's softer and more absorbant then others. If it didn't have a name, how would I know what to buy next time?

And as far as liking a particular shirt, I was referring to the style of the shirt only, not the name or the quality or whatever. I understand that men's clothing has a bit less variation then women's clothing, but consider that there are HUNDREDS of different styles of shirts for women, and millions of variations within the larger categories. So finding a style of shirt(or whatever) that you really dig is a great find! With so much choice, any way to narrow things down is a plus to me. Men's clothes maybe not so much, unless you're a metro type :) So maybe that's a girl thing, but I'm sure that you boys can understand the desire to get shopping done quickly....I'd rather know which stores carry styles I like(at prices I can afford!) and which I can skip entirely!

Maybe that's why I like branding on a basic level. Because I can try different kinds of whatever product, decide which I like best, and then store the name of the kind I like in my little mental database, so next time I run out and have to go to the store, I can just walk in, go immediately to the brand I like, buy a large quantity of it, and get out, knowing that I'll be happy with the product's performance. I have preferred brands of TP, paper towels, shampoo, toothpaste, just about every product(food and household) that I use consistently and buy over and over again, I tend to pick a brand and stay with it. One less thing to think about at the store and I know what to expect when I get it home.

[dmacburry2003]

Why not just throw everything in a bin at the Dollar Store and let people choose from there? :lol:

[sublime]

Well how would you be able to apply your experiences without brands to identify the different products?

What we're really getting back to is quibbles stemming from the shoe argument we already handled in this thread. If you want to apply it to paper towels, so be it:

If you want paper towels that do such and such, you buy paper towels that do such and such by going to the store and asking for paper towels that do such and such. "Hi, Mr. Stock Boy, I want paper towels that can absorb a lot," you would say, and Mr. Stock Boy would direct you to such a product. Products should be sold according to their performance, and not summed up by the reputation of their creator. The label on the paper towel would be "Paper Towel that Absorbs a Lot" instead of "Bounty, the Quicker Picker Upper"

However, the point of my argument, I believe, is still valid: advertisers convince us that we need stuff that we really don't need.

And, though this may sting a little, your desire for different styles of shirts, I believe, is based on a purely superficial level, and wholly unnecessary (and probably due its own thread). If it is a warm shirt you want, that is fine, and not what I am arguing against when I badmouth "styles." However, if you want shirts with a frilly flower design on it, ask yourself why you want such a shirt, rather than just any other shirt.

[Janak Parekh]

If you want paper towels that do such and such, you buy paper towels that do such and such by going to the store and asking for paper towels that do such and such. "Hi, Mr. Stock Boy, I want paper towels that can absorb a lot," you would say, and Mr. Stock Boy would direct you to such a product.
In an ideal world, perhaps. But in a "real" world, defining precise specifications for every item so that you can refer to it generically is highly impractical. Look at Pocket PCs -- we've got lots of specs -- and yet a "Toshiba" has different feel and aspects to it than an "HP". Why'd you get an iPAQ, not a Toshiba Pocket PC, for example?

Products should be sold according to their performance, and not summed up by the reputation of their creator.
What about support then? OK, you don't need support for paper towels, but any consumer electronics do. Or are you advocating very stringent rules that define what exactly companies can and cannot do in this regard? That, to some extent, is a communistic economy, right? I don't mean it in a bad way, mind you -- but practical experience has shown that having a government define everything leads to a lack of true productivity, since people only have to do exactly X and nothing more. Competition seems to be innate in humans, and our capitalistic model enhances that -- but branding comes part-and-parcel of the capitalistic model we have today.

However, the point of my argument, I believe, is still valid: advertisers convince us that we need stuff that we really don't need.
You're walking down a dangerous road here with this argument. Do you need paper towels? Do you need a computer to type this on? Do you need a house, or a car, or life in a geopolitical entity? And if I come to you and say "Hey, this Pocket PC is cool", does that automatically mean I'm an advertiser? You might think I'm being cute here, but I'm actually somewhat serious. Who defines what one "needs"?

However, if you want shirts with a frilly flower design on it, ask yourself why you want such a shirt, rather than just any other shirt.
Would you prefer a society where we wear all the same style of shirts, drive the same style of cars, and live in the same style of house? Some people like that kind of conformity, mind you, and there's nothing wrong with it -- but in our materialistic society, the majority like the variety that we get. If you're down on materialism, well, see my previous paragraph. ;)

Mind you, I'm not defending advertisers blindly -- there's a lot of advertising that I don't like. But there's also the reverse argument as well.

--janak

[Hyperluminal]

D'oh, late to the conversation... :)

Anyway, let me impart on you my views.
First about branding all of a company's products. I bought an iPaq for my PDA, mostly because it was, feature-for-feature, the best out there for me. But as it happens, I've dealt with HP tech support before, had some very nice experiences, and generally respect HP as a company. I plan on doing a lot more business with them in the future. And the HP name is part of the reason why my PPC cost as much as it did. Now, I'm happy to have an HP, not because of some advertising-imparted desire, but because of past experience. Frankly, because of that, I like having the HP logo unobtrusively placed on the front of my PDA. It reminds me that I'm holding a thing of quality, with a company willing to back up my investment. And it reminds me of why I paid as much as I did for it in the first place.

Another thing too. I guess I'd be a bad consumer advocate, I often side with big companies on certain things. I see that they need to make money, and get people to stick with their brand. They need to stay in business as much as all of us do. And so if RCA feels like putting a small logo on my TV remote, I don't mind. It's in their interests, yes, but how does that disenfranchise me? It doesn't hurt me, and I think I have enough intelligence and self-control to not necessarilly buy another RCA remote just because my old one was by them. In fact, if it broke and needs to be replaced in the first place, I'll be less likely to buy another from them.

And about the branding of paper towels, etc.. It's silly, in my opinion, to think that you can just ask the salesguy for "soft and strong" and get something you like. People take time to find a brand they like, that does what they want. Everyone values different things, and if you ask a stockboy for the most absorbant paper towel, how do you know he'll give you the one that you personally think is best? All paper towels are not created equal, why should one pick from an essentially random set and hope they get what they want? If you find that Bounty is the best for your subjective needs and wants, and you're willing to pay however much it costs, why should you use anything else? And why should a company strive for consistently good products when they can't count on brand loyalty?

[Jason Dunn]

Interesting discussion. :way to go:

The goal of advertising is simple: to impart a desire to have that product. In some cases, it may offer something that you really want and something that you've been waiting for. In other cases, it may evoke an emotional response and you'll feel a desire to buy it because you think you need it. Ultimately advertising is just a message, and it's up to the individual to have the proper filters in place to discard the messages they don't need/want. However, the average credit card debt in North America tells us that people have trouble distinguishing between WANTS and NEEDS.

Brands, in general, are a good thing. Brands mean a standard of quality that is repeatable. Brands mean that when you buy something of a certain brand, you expect it to be the same next time. Sometimes brands matter in terms of product quality, sometimes they don't. I'm happy enough buying generic dish soap, because it still works ok. I'm not happy buying a generic keyboard, because I'm fond of the Microsoft design - I haven't seen a generic keyboard that copies their style exactly. That's probably the biggest difference between brands and generic - design.

To some extent, I'm sure we're all conditioned to prefer certain brands - I wear GAP jeans, and have for years. I like them because they're comfortable, but it's equally possible that there's a generic brand of jeans out there that would be just as comfortable. There's something humans fear about the unknown though, and brands benefit from this - what if that generic shampoo makes my hair fall out? What if that generic RAM lights my computer on fire?

Ultimately advertising is a necessary evil for those of us in the content providing business. If magazines had no ads, they'd cost 10x as much. Ditto for newspapers. Without ads, the only channel on the air would be PBS. 8O So unless you're willing to pay a great deal more for your content, and see most of it disappear, don't be too quick to wish for the death of ads.

[sublime]

I'm glad how well this discussion is going. Thanks for the well thought out responses. I will adress Janak and Jason in separate posts, since they have so much to say:

In an ideal world, perhaps. But in a "real" world, defining precise specifications for every item so that you can refer to it generically is highly impractical. Look at Pocket PCs -- we've got lots of specs -- and yet a "Toshiba" has different feel and aspects to it than an "HP". Why'd you get an iPAQ, not a Toshiba Pocket PC, for example?
We are getting into more specific and complicated issues, but I think that they have already been solved. Little do I know about Dell, but I am pretty sure that if you want a computer or laptop or anything along those lines, you can get in contact with them and have your equipment customized according to your needs. This makes much more sense than going to a store and buying a bundle that may fit you in some areas and not in others. This would be the solution to branding. You call the computer manufacturers, tell them what you want, and get what you want. You will not ask for a Dell, but for a computer that does such and such. This would also work for any problems with support.

My understanding of communism is very shabby, so I cannot agree or disagree with you on your point regarding it, since I am so uninformed about it. The only thing I can surmise is that competition (or Capitalism, as you have related the two) fuels our innate desire to compete, which leads to ferocious advertising, which leads to people buying stuff they don't need. I believe that Dell (if that is what Dell does) has solved the problem concerning specific equipment, and I believe this can be implemented to everything else highly complicated, including cameras and cars, and even clothes, if we want to have different clothes so badly.

Who defines what one "needs"?
Good question, but I think you exploded my statement to its logical extreme. What I meant to say is that advertisers make us want things more than we normally would, especially by implementing beauty. Models are beautiful, and by models, or even role models, endorsing a specific product, we buy the product in hopes of emulating these models, rather than according to our needs. Do I make myself clear on this? Beauty sells. Sex sells a lot more. I think you see where I'm going.

But do we need paper towels, and computers, and the likes? That depends on the individual. One hundred years ago we did not need them to survive, and lived very well. So, my answer is, No, we don't need those things, since people have gone along just fine without them. Who, then, defines what we need? I believe advertising plays a key role in it, as I believe my previous points have explained, but there are other factors at play, too, which deserve a thread of their own (one of them being man's growing laziness/desire for convenience/constriction for time, etc.) But let's not get into that point...

Do I want everybody to wear the same clothes and drive the same car and do the same everything? Once again, I fear that you have taken my argument to its extreme, and I think that customization according to the consumer is the answer to customization according to the seller. How's that?

Jason, you're up next...just let me get a bite to eat first :)

[Jason Dunn]

But do we need paper towels, and computers, and the likes? That depends on the individual. One hundred years ago we did not need them to survive, and lived very well. So, my answer is, No, we don't need those things, since people have gone along just fine without them.

Not quite logical...100 years ago, I would have been a farmer, or perhaps a chemist or tinkerer (based on my personality), but today computers have become the basis for my career. So it's silly to say that 100 years ago we didn't need computers to survive - it was a different world back then with different rules and a different reality. You might argue that the world of 100 years ago was a simpler, better one, but to say that we didn't need something that didn't exist is completely illogical. I could equally argue that 100 years ago we needed things that we didn't have - air planes, heart surgery, cancer treatments...

This has gone far, far beyond advertising in scope. 8O

[sublime]

Jason:

Yes, I do agree that this topic has gone far beyond its original point, but it's still something worth discussing, I should hope.

Let me rephrase my statement: We can survive without said things, but not as easily as in days past, since current times have grown to depend on computers for survival. I directed my statement not towards the work/business environment, where you have interpreted it, but to the home environment, where working for survival is not an issue. Anyway, that, as you said, is beyond the scope of this discussion. How it barely relates to the discussion is this: advertisers make us believe that we need things more than we really do, and we wind up buying what advertisers tell us what to buy, instead of what we as consumers need, as I hope I explained in my previous post regarding customization.

However, I think you understand what I'm so strongly against, as you said:
In other cases, it may evoke an emotional response and you'll feel a desire to buy it because you think you need it.
It is THIS that I am so strongly attacking, and it seems that the rest of advertising happened to fall in the path of fire. My idea of customizing according to consumer needs merely an ideal fancy that I doubt will ever be put into play, and a way I dream of putting an end to the cheap tactics advertising is using to make people want what they don't need, which results in many people being so badly in debt.

As for your comments on brands being a good thing, I think we would find it a BETTER thing if everything was customized to our needs. Don't you? Instead of having quality repeated, your change of needs would be met by customization. You would get exactly what you wanted, except without the Microsoft Logo on it.

As for television, I see your point, and I cannot find my way out it. So, for the real world, my wish would not be for the death of all TV ads, but for those that evoke emotional responses; those "are you fat? are you ugly? are you stupid? Buy this and people won't think so!" ads; those ads that demand emulation; those ads that govern your emotions rather than your reason. Those ads should go. I think that the real world can survive without telemarketing and spamming and billboards, too. In my ideal world, there would be no ads at all, since everything would be customized. However, the governors of my ideal world still haven't figured out a way around the dependence of TV and magazine on ads, so you got me there. Perhaps we'll banish those, too?

For my ideal world, everything would be customized. For this world, this is where advertising has gone too far:
--by evoking emotional response
--by their overwhelming ubiquity

...and now we're back to the original topic.

[PetiteFlower]

No, I don't think we're taking you too far Sublime. You clearly stated that I'm superficial because I want to wear a style of clothing that is comfortable and pleasing to my eyes. I counter with the fact that I am an individual and I do not want to look like everyone else. This is not a drive created by advertisers, it is a natural human drive. Sounds to me like you want a world without color, without choices, without individuality, where there is only one kind of paper towels and one kind of shirt and one kind of PPC and all the companies make the same things and you can't tell one from the other. That is a scary world, my friend, I'll accept advertising if it means I can wear clothing that expresses my personality and my style and my mood and where I can become familiar with a company's reputation for support and service before I buy electronics from them and where there are 50 brands of paper towels and they all feel a little different in your hand and I can use brand A and my friend can use brand X because we like different textures in our towels--yeah they ALL absorb a lot, but that's not the only issue--and where I can use Colgate instead of Crest because I think it tastes better.

I'll thank you to not toss words like "superficial" around when you clearly have NO idea what you're talking about.

Oh and I wouldn't be caught dead in a frilly flower shirt. Tell you something about my personality? I thought so. Is there an "anti-frilly flowers" advertising campaign going on? Of course not. I for one am capable of having likes and dislikes without them being dictated by advertising. I'm not talking about what the fashion world says is "in" this season I pay no attention to that. I am more then what society tells me I should be.

[sublime]

I am sorry I offended you PetiteFlower, and I hope to check my tongue before I ever offend you or anyone else again.

My use of the word "superficial" is in the most literal sense: on the surface.

You state that your choice of clothing is a reflection of your individuality. Is there nothing more to define who you are than what you wear and how you look? Your thoughts are what should define you, and your thoughts are internal. Speaking, writing, communicating, expressing your thoughts and feelings are a more accurate representation of yourself. Clothing, only being on your surface, on your body, are thus superficial aka "on the surface," no?

Have you ever worn high heels? Have you ever worn make-up? Have you ever worn a push-up bra? There's a very good chance that you have. Are those reflections of who you are, or of who you aren't? Are they a claim for your individuality, or a claim against it?

Thus do I badmouth clothing as a definition of your individuality, because they are only superficial in the most literal sense, and they are often times inaccurate representations of who you really are. Define yourself according to your thoughts and not according to your clothes. Is that fair?

[Jason Dunn]

How it barely relates to the discussion is this: advertisers make us believe that we need things more than we really do, and we wind up buying what advertisers tell us what to buy, instead of what we as consumers need...

Sure, I agree with you on that, but you seem to believe that all advertising is evil. When I was looking for a new photo printer to replace my ageing Epson C80, whenever I saw an ad for a photo printer, I paid attention. Advertising can educate you about a product if you have your filters in place to remove the emotional promises. I didn't base my decision as to which printer to buy completely in advertising of course, but it did educate me about what's on the market today. If I had to start 100% from scratch and research what products are on the market every time I wanted to buy something, that would be really irritating.

As for your comments on brands being a good thing, I think we would find it a BETTER thing if everything was customized to our needs. Don't you? Instead of having quality repeated, your change of needs would be met by customization. You would get exactly what you wanted, except without the Microsoft Logo on it.

Truthfully, I don't grasp your assertion that "customization" is the solution to the issue. You seem to think that it's possible for a "Brand X" keyboard to be just as good as a Microsoft keyboard, and I've never seen that to be true. The generic "never heard of the brand because they don't advertise" keyboards are ugly and cheap. I've been burned so many times buying "generic" hardware that I purposefully shop for brands. Know why? Because brands will stand behind their product in a way that a generic "Brand X" maker won't - because a name-brand wants to protect their reputation for quality, while "Brand X" could care less.

Besides which, unless you have the blueprints for a Star Trek-style replicator up your sleeve, mass customization is economically impossible. Mass market products are affordable (relatively) because they're NOT customized - it's one size fits all. You want to see the difference between mass market and customized? Go look at www.vajacases.com - a basic case will cost you $50 or so, while a fully customized one will cost $150. That's the price of customization.

[Wiggin]

Very entertaining read, thx for the grins all :way to go:

Sub, your posts leave me with the impression that you are missing some of the basic themes of a Capitalistic system... here's a few to ponder... :i got it:
Theme 1: competition is good for the consumer
Theme 2: variety is a natural consequence of competition
Theme 3: a product company will survive ONLY if they can convince people to buy their variety of product
Theme 4: Advertising is a requirement due to themes 1-3

For my ideal world, everything would be customized. For this world, this is where advertising has gone too far:
--by evoking emotional response
--by their overwhelming ubiquity


This quote leaves me especially entertained....
Advertising should not evoke an emotional response? Would you have advertising rely only on messages based upon intellectual and analytical arguments? What a dreary way to be informed of options! Dreary world aside... EVERYTHING you do, and decide, is based upon your emotions. You can't escape those pesky emotions, no matter how hard you try. For advertising to be effective, it MUST address your emotions!

As for ubiquity, strange word to use to describe excessive advertising. Even companies that advertise excessively would fall short of being in all places (everywhere) at the same time (pulling from Webster's definition of the word).

As a final thought to consider, if you are annoyed by companies trying to establish a brand image and increase their market share via abundant advertising, there is a very powerful way to let them know... do not buy their products!

Isn't Capitalism great?! :mrgreen:

[sublime]

Wiggin, this is where you and I differ. I place much more emphasis on rationality than emotions. It always seemed to me that man was defined as a rational animal for centuries. I doubt we can throw that out now. If you think otherwise, then our opinions shall never be resolved as they differ at a fundamental level.

And, might I clarify, companies are not ubiquitous. Advertising is.

Your defence of advertising based on your four themes I disagree with. Competition is good for the customer - I would assume from your response - because it provides customers with a variety of packages to choose from. In the ideal world I have been so often speaking about, your system would be discarded. The variety that you believe to be so important would be made better through product customization, as seen in the examples of Dell and Vaja Cases.

And now on to Jason:

Advertising can educate you about a product if you have your filters in place to remove the emotional promises
And I absolutely agree. However, you are thinking about electronics solely. But little can be learned when seeing a Calvin Klein ad apart from "sexy people wear our clothes. Buy our clothes and be sexy like them."

I don't see how you don't grasp my assertion that customization is the solution, and then apply the terms "generic." For the example of keyboards, as in your example, you would have the keyboard you want customized to the Microsoft design that you are so fond of. Is that fair?

Your next point about being irritated every time you had to buy a product is very pertinent to our discussion about ideal customization. What you are advocating, really, is the convenience of impulse buying - a convenience, I think, which has led people to be so terribly in debt. If people thought about what they are purchasing beforehand, buyer's remorse would be a thing of the past.

Your final point is that customization would be very expensive, and you use the example of Vaja cases. Of course, your example is pertinent to the real world, where customized and packaged items are sold, while in mine, there would be no such thing as packaged items. Thus, since customization would be available worldwide, they would not be so expensive (or so my terrible knowledge of economics suggests). Are Dell computers that much more expensive than the computers you see at a Best Buy?

Maybe?

I must say, however, that I am making this all up as I go, and these thoughts are no older than the day that I type them, so I'm sure there are many flaws to the argument. Blame advertising for my idle dreaming...

[Kati Compton]

And I absolutely agree. However, you are thinking about electronics solely. But little can be learned when seeing a Calvin Klein ad apart from "sexy people wear our clothes. Buy our clothes and be sexy like them."
When I read this, I just realized that I do not pay any attention to clothing ads whatsoever. Completely tuned out. And really, most other ads as well. My main thought is "this is an ad", not "that is so cool." That being said, there are ads that make me laugh (but usually don't in any way affect how I feel about a product), and some ads that make me say "that thing is cool", where "thing" might be a car or gadget... Or maybe a $50K kitchen remodel. But I really don't think it affects whether or not I'm going to buy it.

On the other hand, I'd have to say that my purchasing decisions are based on a balance of rational thinking (my mother and husband make fun of me when I make comparison charts) and emotion ("ooooh... this one is prettier!").

Not sure where I was going with this, but I'd guess for most people, purchases are at least partially emotional. I mean, do most people really NEED that extra .2 GHz in that computer they buy? That 1 GB RAM machine... Could most people get by okay with 768? Why do people call some PDAs ugly and others "sexy"? Do you think that will affect which PDA they buy? Etc.

[GoldKey]

As for your comments on brands being a good thing, I think we would find it a BETTER thing if everything was customized to our needs. Don't you? Instead of having quality repeated, your change of needs would be met by customization. You would get exactly what you wanted, except without the Microsoft Logo on it.


Besides which, unless you have the blueprints for a Star Trek-style replicator up your sleeve, mass customization is economically impossible. Mass market products are affordable (relatively) because they're NOT customized - it's one size fits all. You want to see the difference between mass market and customized? Go look at www.vajacases.com - a basic case will cost you $50 or so, while a fully customized one will cost $150. That's the price of customization.

Another good example would be jeans. I believe Levis and a few other companies will actually make custom fit jeans for you. Of course these would be ideal, but rather than pay $100 for a custom fit pair of jeans, I can go to Old Navy and buy a pair of mass market jeans for $20 that fit well enough. In addition to cost, customizing everything would take more time than most consumers would want to spend. Again to use the jeans example. You could customize everything from the cut to the fabric type, stiching, buttons etc. Between examining all the choices, making a decision, getting fitted, etc might take 45 minutes. Plus a wait to have them delivered. I know my size at old navy. I can be in and out in 5 minutes. So too many choices can be a bad thing.

[GoldKey]

That being said, there are ads that make me laugh (but usually don't in any way affect how I feel about a product), and some ads that make me say "that thing is cool", where "thing" might be a car or gadget...

Exactly, I found the commerical for the fem hygine product and the leaking boat kind of funny, but, no matter how brilliant they make their advertising, they can't convince me to buy a product I don't need.

I don't think you can really blame advertising for some peoples lack of self control.

[sublime]

Goldkey, I have already answered your post in my last response, especially in my point against the convenience of impulse buying.

Kati, I do not understand your objection. Are you telling me that the concept of "sex sells" doesn't exist? I hope that's not what you're saying.

[sublime]

I don't think you can really blame advertising for some peoples lack of self control.
--Then tell me, if people are not controlling themselves, who is controlling the people?

[GoldKey]

Goldkey, I have already answered your post in my last response, especially in my point against the convenience of impulse buying.

Actually you don't address the additional costs or time that would be involved in getting everything customized. I think there is room for both standard and custom products in the market. Like I said, I am unwilling to pay the price or time premium to get custom made jeans, so standard jeans are fine for me. To someone else, the premium may be worthwhile.

[Jason Dunn]

I don't see how you don't grasp my assertion that customization is the solution, and then apply the terms "generic." For the example of keyboards, as in your example, you would have the keyboard you want customized to the Microsoft design that you are so fond of. Is that fair?

Sure, that's fair. If I could get EXACTLY the keyboard I wanted, the right style, design, feel, functionality, I would't care who's logo was on it. But, as I stated earlier, what you want is impossible with our current technology.

Further, you seem to think that people know exactly what they want, but that's not always the case. Marketing is the moutpiece for product innovation - ten years ago, did people want volume controls on their keyboards, or slanted eronomic designs? No. But today I'd be unhappy with a keyboard that didn't have those features. You're also assuming that people are creative enough to think up ways to improve products on their own - I don't think that most are.

This entire discussion has gotten a bit silly. :lol:

[GoldKey]

I don't think you can really blame advertising for some peoples lack of self control.
--Then tell me, if people are not controlling themselves, who is controlling the people?

I would define someone who lacks self control as being out of control (ie not being controlled by anyone) and falling prey to internal impulses. (Don't remember my psycology classes to well, but those ID, EGO, Superego things).

Advertisements don't have any special magical power that makes people into zombies to go buy products they dont want.

[sublime]

Yes, this conversation has become a little silly, but I still find it stimulating enough to respond and think up of more ideas.

So now, Jason, your objection is that customers will not innovate their own improvements. I suggest that the customizers aka the merchants would suggest new options when you are ready to purchase a new item, rather than suggesting something new that will make you want to purchase a new item. There's my difference, and I think it's an important one. The customizers will currently be thinking of ways to improve our products, and when we need a new product, they would tell us our new options.

Goldkey, so then you suggest that the customers who lack self control are really controlled by their impulses, correct? Sex sells, doesn't it? What impulse do you think that appeals to? Your argument for the ID, Ego, and Superego are all via Freud, and THAT is a better argument towards sex selling than I have ever produced (for those who know what Freud was advocating all his life). Thanks for the hand :)

And I don't believe that hyperbolizing my argument is a feasible way of discrediting it. Never did I suggest magical powers, nor did I suggest zombies, so don't introduce elements of the absurd as an attempt to gain the upper hand in a rational discourse.

[PetiteFlower]

You state that your choice of clothing is a reflection of your individuality. Is there nothing more to define who you are than what you wear and how you look? Your thoughts are what should define you, and your thoughts are internal. Speaking, writing, communicating, expressing your thoughts and feelings are a more accurate representation of yourself. Clothing, only being on your surface, on your body, are thus superficial aka "on the surface," no?

My clothing is a reflection of my freedom of choice, for one thing, and that's something that I value highly.

As for the other stuff, you said it exactly--my thoughts are internal, and people I meet in my daily interactions have no access to them. I never said my appearance is the ONLY thing that defines me though, it's one of many things, it may not be the most important thing, but we as human beings judge each other based on appearances, that's just a fact, so it is important to me that my style expresses a part of who I am. It may not tell the whole story, but who would expect it to? It will give a few hints though, and when meeting new people it's important, those hints are what get people to decide whether they want to get to know you better or not.

[PetiteFlower]

And I absolutely agree. However, you are thinking about electronics solely. But little can be learned when seeing a Calvin Klein ad apart from "sexy people wear our clothes. Buy our clothes and be sexy like them."

Well that's completely ridiculous. The main function of clothing ads is to show the consumer what their clothing looks like. Yes, there is the secondary purpose of trying to make the clothes look "cool" and desirable, but the main thing is "showing the merchandise". If I look at an ad and think "My god that's the ugliest thing I've ever seen" then I'm not going to go out and buy it, no matter what hot chick is modeling it! Now I don't pay much attention to clothing ads either, not since I gave up reading women's magazines, but if I wanted to know what's being sold currently, all I'd have to do is pick one up and I would know what to expect at lots of different stores and from different designers. The same as if I was researching a new printer or buying a new car; say I changed size drastically and needed a new wardrobe, then I might do some ad-looking before I shopped so I'd know where I wanted to go.

Obviously all advertising is designed to make you want to buy a certain product, but that doesn't mean it can't be useful if you approach it with caution--and that applies to ALL products not just technology.

As for your ideal fantasy world, it doesn't make any sense. It sounds like you picture one giant company making all the PDAs in the world(for example) and you'd call them up and tell them exactly what features and what you'd want it to look like and whatever. Well, I can come up with a million drawbacks to this, price for one, monopoly for another, lack of drive to innovate, long wait for products, the list goes on. Are you a communist? Companies don't innovate to help consumers you know, they do it to beat the competition, to make more money. If only one company was doing the manufacturing, or if all the companies offered the exact same things in any form you wanted, there would be no competition, no drive to improve, because you'd have a captive market and not only no reason to try to beat the other guys, but no way to beat them since you'd all offer the same things. Sounds more like a nightmare then a dreamworld to me.

Advertising is a necessary evil in a capitalist society. End of sentence. We can limit its involvement in our lives and filter it out, but we can't make it go away, nor should we want to--it shows a healthy market and thriving competition. It's better then the alternative so suck it up and deal already!

[Kati Compton]

Kati, I do not understand your objection. Are you telling me that the concept of "sex sells" doesn't exist? I hope that's not what you're saying.
Not quite. Other people being sexy doesn't sell anything to *me*, personally. It might to others, and I'd bet it does.

However, I should note that I'm more likely to buy pants/dresses/shirts/etc that make me look sexy instead of fat and bloated (go figure). But there's no way to judge that from an ad, only from trying the clothes on. So "sex" might be used in my buying decision, but not from an advertisement.

And I'm not more likely to drink one beer over another because of the Swedish Bikini Team.

[Pat Logsdon]

Interesting discussion. All this talk of customization reminds me of the Engineers in the book "The Mote in God's Eye (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0671741926/qid=1077303485//ref=pd_ka_1/104-7330153-9169521?v=glance&s=books&n=507846)" by Niven and Pournelle. The alien society is basically separated into several different castes - rulers, workers, engineers, etc. The Engineer's ONLY purpose in life is to customize ANYTHING, from a bed that fits your body exactly, to a complex piece of machinery. They are bred specifically for this purpose. I don't even think they talk - they just tinker and change.

The point? It would take something like that to make "universal customization" feasible. At our current level of technology, there's simply no way to make personalized products on anything approaching a large scale. That's why we have mass production, and millions of items that all look the same. That's also why we need advertising - so the makers of those products can attempt to convince you to buy their product rather than a competitor's.

[GoldKey]

Goldkey, so then you suggest that the customers who lack self control are really controlled by their impulses, correct? Sex sells, doesn't it? What impulse do you think that appeals to? Your argument for the ID, Ego, and Superego are all via Freud, and THAT is a better argument towards sex selling than I have ever produced (for those who know what Freud was advocating all his life). Thanks for the hand :)

And I don't believe that hyperbolizing my argument is a feasible way of discrediting it. Never did I suggest magical powers, nor did I suggest zombies, so don't introduce elements of the absurd as an attempt to gain the upper hand in a rational discourse.

You suggested that advertising makes people buy things they don't need. Maybe I am reading too much into it, but it seems you also suggest that it is advertisers fault that people buy things they don't need. Maybe I am misreading your arguement, but I attempted to hyperbolize it specifically to demonstrate why I don't believe it is true. I just hate seeing people blame their own lack of self control on outside influences.

I think we have gone way off on a major tangent from where this started, so I am fine with dropping this discussion.

[Enderet]

Interesting... yet too large scale to really have anything come out of it.