 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
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.
...Chambers
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Jim Henderson wrote:
> 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
It's happened before, it'll happen again. How many old radio shows were
sponsored by certain products, and found creative ways to work those
into the show? It went away for a while, because people pay for cable,
but it's come back because there is money to be made there.
Geez, Eureka, though . . . I should be surprised about it but I'm not.
The adverts for it, over the summer, were funny. Until they switched
from 'buy this product that is actually impossible' to 'buy this actual
product that we claim is impossible.' I just can't imagine how a top
secret government facility can explain having such mundane sponsors who
most likely lack proper clearance.
But, it's SciFi channel. They hate funding good shows, and would
obviously rather throw money away on weekly B movies. As evidence, see
every show they've only ever shown just one season of, showing Eureka
out of order, canning FarScape, canceling SG-1 at the episode 200 wrap
party, and showing last season's Heroes and Lost.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
And lo on Wed, 13 Aug 2008 05:11:43 +0100, Jim Henderson
<nos### [at] nospam com> did spake, saying:
> But that's because I think the whole "entertainment as a delivery
> mechanism for advertisements" has gotten WAY out of hand, at least her
e
> in the US. Take commercial TV stations, for example. Their primary
> function is to serve advertising; entertainment is secondary. The tre
nd
> over the past 20+ years has been to increase the advertising time in a
n
> hour of commercial TV programming; it has doubled in that time period.
The latest trick on commercial channels here is to run two programmes ba
ck
to back with only a short trailer-type ad separating them and then chuck
in the ad break early. Better yet the first programme overruns slightly
so
the next one starts 1 minute late whereas the BBC seem to be finishing
programmes slightly earlier so the next one starts 1 minute before it's
scheduled.
> The really disturbing thing I'm starting to see now (starting with Eur
eka
> on SciFi) is *in show* advertising. Not product placement - but actua
l
> 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 righ
t
> now. If I want to watch The Truman Show, I have the disc on the
> bookcase.
What's annoying me here is the BBC news programmes slipping in reference
s
to other programmes on later - "We'll return to coverage of World War
Three in a moment. Now is acne a problem for you? A BBC programme being
shown later today states that..."
Then there's the squeeze, which Charlie Brooker delightfully lampooned i
n
his series*. There's now a style guide for programmes about what they
can't do during the end credits because the broadcaster wants to squeeze
the show into the top left-hand corner and list upcoming programmes on t
he
right while having an VO explaining how wonderful they are and why you
should watch them. Damned annoying when you're trying to discover who
played what and the credits are a quarter the proper size.
*http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yrm2dj6bIU0
> 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 w
ith
> the product, or making a good product better.
Pfft everyone knows it's marketing that sells products, not having the
best or even just a good product.
> (sorry, didn't mean to rant - this is one of my major pet peeves just
at
> the moment).
So you should be, can't stand ranters me ;-)
--
Phil Cook
--
I once tried to be apathetic, but I just couldn't be bothered
http://flipc.blogspot.com
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Jim Henderson wrote:
> are good, solid, reliable, and that actually work.
I remember seeing a book in the store about ten ways how to make your
brand more popular. The methods were things like "don't let someone sell
both coke *and* pepsi", and "if they sell coke make them sell sprite
also" and "end every ad with a picture of your brand" and such.
I noted with amusement that nowhere on the list was "associate your
brand with a product people like."
--
Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
Ever notice how people in a zombie movie never already know how to
kill zombies? Ask 100 random people in America how to kill someone
who has reanimated from the dead in a secret viral weapons lab,
and how many do you think already know you need a head-shot?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New wrote:
> I noted with amusement that nowhere on the list was "associate your
> brand with a product people like."
Forgive my cynicism, but for products like cars and soft drinks, people
don't "like" what they like. They "like" what they see in commercials.
Actually, it goes well beyond cars and soft drinks. General
electronics, cell phones, certain packaged items.
The book is spot on. Creating a product that actually does the job well
and is pleasurable to use often doesn't compete well with those products
that follow the tips in the book.
Along Jim's thread, I actually refused to go to Hardees for many years
because of *really* obnoxious ads. I figured ads should work both ways.<G>
--
/\ /\ /\ /
/ \/ \ u e e n / \/ a w a z
>>>>>>mue### [at] nawazorg<<<<<<
anl
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Mueen Nawaz wrote:
> Darren New wrote:
>> I noted with amusement that nowhere on the list was "associate your
>> brand with a product people like."
>
> Forgive my cynicism, but for products like cars and soft drinks,
> people don't "like" what they like. They "like" what they see in
> commercials.
OK, I'll grant you that one. :-)
I'd say that for products too complicated (or otherwise hard to
describe, like a soft drink) to actually describe in the ad, this is
probably true.
I think there are any number of products that are simple enough that you
could do a decent job of describing them in an advertisement, tho. Say,
a vacuum cleaner. Not much to say there.
--
Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
Ever notice how people in a zombie movie never already know how to
kill zombies? Ask 100 random people in America how to kill someone
who has reanimated from the dead in a secret viral weapons lab,
and how many do you think already know you need a head-shot?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New wrote:
> I think there are any number of products that are simple enough that you
> could do a decent job of describing them in an advertisement, tho. Say,
> a vacuum cleaner. Not much to say there.
But unless there's something grandtastic about a certain vacuum
cleaner, my guess is that the ones best placed on store shelves will get
bought.
--
"Energize" Picard said, and a pink bunny with a drum materialized.
/\ /\ /\ /
/ \/ \ u e e n / \/ a w a z
>>>>>>mue### [at] nawazorg<<<<<<
anl
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
And lo on Wed, 13 Aug 2008 20:56:53 +0100, Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom>
did spake, saying:
> I think there are any number of products that are simple enough that you
> could do a decent job of describing them in an advertisement, tho. Say,
> a vacuum cleaner. Not much to say there.
"Our vacuum cleaners suck more then the competition's"
--
Phil Cook
--
I once tried to be apathetic, but I just couldn't be bothered
http://flipc.blogspot.com
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Mueen Nawaz wrote:
> cleaner, my guess is that the ones best placed on store shelves will get
> bought.
Likely. Of course, the internet and mail-order mucks everything up, too. :-)
--
Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
Ever notice how people in a zombie movie never already know how to
kill zombies? Ask 100 random people in America how to kill someone
who has reanimated from the dead in a secret viral weapons lab,
and how many do you think already know you need a head-shot?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
