On Tue, 12 Aug 2008 18:12:44 -0700, Chambers wrote:

> Jim Henderson wrote:
>> Understanding customer spending habits allows a store to better stock
>> up on the things I need/want.
> 
> In a similar vein, I'm not actually bothered by targeted advertising.
> 
> After all, I'd much rather watch commercials that appeal to me than ones
> aimed at 5yos, or women going through menopause, or basically anyone
> who's needs differ from my own.

True.  Of course, given a preference, I'd rather not watch ads at all.

But that's because I think the whole "entertainment as a delivery 
mechanism for advertisements" has gotten WAY out of hand, at least here 
in the US.  Take commercial TV stations, for example.  Their primary 
function is to serve advertising; entertainment is secondary.  The trend 
over the past 20+ years has been to increase the advertising time in an 
hour of commercial TV programming; it has doubled in that time period.

We've just been watching DVDs of Season 1 of The Muppet Show, which first 
aired in 1976 or 1977 - just over 20 years ago.  The shows run 25 minutes 
long; that's 10 minutes of commercials per hour of programming time.  
Today, an hour show runs about 42 minutes per hour of air time.

Companies that make "stuff" have gotten so obsessed lately with making 
the brand recognisible that they've forgotten the primary means of 
getting people interested in buying their products:  making products that 
are good, solid, reliable, and that actually work.

I don't buy Coke because I saw Michael Jordan drinking one in a 
commercial on TV or in a cinema.  I buy Coke because I *like* it.  But 
given a choice between buying Coke bottled in Atlanta and Coke bottled in 
Mexico City, I'll buy the Mexican Coke any time, because it's not made 
with high fructose corn syrup; it's made with real honest-to-$DEITY cane 
sugar.  But even more importantly, *it tastes better*.

Similarly, I'm not going to buy a Ford F150 pickup truck because Mike 
Rowe (from Dirty Jobs) advertises for them.  In fact, I wouldn't ever buy 
a Ford F150 pickup truck because, well first, I don't *need* one.  
Second, at 13 MPG and gasoline at > $4 per gallon, I couldn't *afford* it.

As a consumer, billboards, TV commercials, and even print advertising 
generally doesn't sway my buying habits.  I don't eat at Taco Bell any 
more because they couldn't get an order right if I stood there and walked 
them through it.  No amount of talking chihuahua "cuteness" (barf) on TV 
is going to make me want to go back more than a couple times of year (to 
see if they've improved on their reading comprehension skills and 
listening skills) because in the end, the product sucks (I consider the 
delivery of the proper order part of the product).  I'm more likely to go 
to the Wendy's next door because there's a far better than 50-50 chance 
that when I order a spicy chicken sandwich with no tomato, they'll 
remember to not put a tomato on it - and only about a 1 in 1000 chance 
that they'll screw the order up.

The really disturbing thing I'm starting to see now (starting with Eureka 
on SciFi) is *in show* advertising.  Not product placement - but actual 
advertising of a real-life product *in the show* as if the show was 
intended to be an infomercial.  I *hope* they knock that off, but even 
the fact that the actor who plays Carter is a friend of a friend of my 
wife's won't stop us tuning out if they don't knock that crap off right 
now.  If I want to watch The Truman Show, I have the disc on the bookcase.

All that money that goes into advertising could be much better spent 
making a product that I want to buy, improving the service that goes with 
the product, or making a good product better.

(sorry, didn't mean to rant - this is one of my major pet peeves just at 
the moment).

Jim

Post a reply to this message