Phil Cook wrote:
> "Our vacuum cleaners suck more then the competition's"
> 
LOL

John

Post a reply to this message

On Wed, 13 Aug 2008 09:54:03 +0100, Phil Cook wrote:

> And lo on Wed, 13 Aug 2008 05:11:43 +0100, Jim Henderson
> <nos### [at] nospamcom> 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 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.
> 
> The latest trick on commercial channels here is to run two programmes
> back 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.

Yeah, I've seen that as well - end up having to adjust the recording 
times to start 1 min early and end 1 min late.  Which means if I've got 
three programmes set to record in a 2 hour period (one ending and two 
starting, for example - we've a dual tuner DVR), something's going to get 
clipped.

>> 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.
> 
> What's annoying me here is the BBC news programmes slipping in
> references 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..."

Yeah, we get some of that as well.

> Then there's the squeeze, which Charlie Brooker delightfully lampooned
> in 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
> the 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.

Yeah, I've seen that as well in some of the shows on BBC America (and 
stuff I've watched from other sources).

>> 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.
> 
> Pfft everyone knows it's marketing that sells products, not having the
> best or even just a good product.

Oh, right, I forgot - because they wouldn't do that if it wasn't 
effective.  Stupid me - it's too bad I'm not willing to be a sheep....
 
>> (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 ;-)

Eh, too bad. ;-)

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On Wed, 13 Aug 2008 09:40:36 -0700, Darren New wrote:

> 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.

Was "make it *better* than the competition" in there anywhere?

> I noted with amusement that nowhere on the list was "associate your
> brand with a product people like."

That is pretty amusing.  :-)

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On Wed, 13 Aug 2008 14:26:13 -0500, Mueen Nawaz wrote:

> 	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>

I refuse to go into Hardees for a couple of reasons. First, there aren't 
any here in Utah (so it's easy), but second (which actually came first) 
was my younger brother worked there once - and he refused to eat the food 
there as a result.  He said "you don't want to know what goes on in the 
kitchen there"....

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On Thu, 14 Aug 2008 15:34:21 +0100, Phil Cook wrote:

> 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"

I vaguely recall a similar line actually being used by Hoover - "Hoovers 
really suck"....

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On Wed, 13 Aug 2008 01:58:52 -0400, Sabrina Kilian wrote:

> 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.

Sure, but that doesn't mean I have to *like* it....or watch shows that do 
that, for that matter.

> 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.

Actually, they did sorta work it into the story.  That bit could be 
interesting.

> 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.

Well, some of those decisions made some sense; SG-1 was partly writer's 
fatigue, partly the cast's fatigue (esp. Michael Shanks, I think), and 
they'd done a lot farther beyond it; my wife and I used to say "remember 
when this show was about the *STAR* *GATE*?" - never a good sign.  
Atlantis isn't bad, but I liked the first seasons of SG-1 best.

Eureka out of order was definitely a problem - I know Colin Ferguson 
wasn't happy about it, because he wrote about that.

BSG is the one show there that I think has done *really* well.

But also don't forget that part of the recent problems with the shows in 
the US in general was the writer's strike.  That's why some things had 
earlier seasons shown this year.

One of the writers for Eureka cited the writer's strike as one reason why 
they needed corporate sponsorship; they had to cut the number of episodes 
down, but still had to pay the cast & crew the contracted wages.  They 
had to do something, but at least that writer does know - and understands 
why - some fans are going to be VERY upset about it.  So at least they're 
aware of it, and I'm hoping they can keep it pretty light (and poke fun 
at themselves for it) and do it just the one season and then get back to 
"business as usual" next season.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

And lo on Fri, 15 Aug 2008 00:29:08 +0100, Jim Henderson  
<nos### [at] nospamcom> did spake, saying:

> On Wed, 13 Aug 2008 09:54:03 +0100, Phil Cook wrote:
>
>> And lo on Wed, 13 Aug 2008 05:11:43 +0100, Jim Henderson
>> <nos### [at] nospamcom> did spake, saying:
>>
>> The latest trick on commercial channels here is to run two programmes
>> back 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.
>
> Yeah, I've seen that as well - end up having to adjust the recording
> times to start 1 min early and end 1 min late.  Which means if I've got
> three programmes set to record in a 2 hour period (one ending and two
> starting, for example - we've a dual tuner DVR), something's going to get
> clipped.

Should have been solved by now. We had PDC back in the VCR days, the  
broadcaster would send a signal at the end/start of a broadcast and the  
recorder would be looking for this signal at about the time it should be  
starting. Failed miserably as some broadcasters didn't use it and some  
misused it (you'd get the 60-second news blip instead of the programme).  
With EPG's it should all be a done deal, but for the last few weeks it's  
been showing Newsnight when Never Mind the Buzzcocks has been broadcast  
unless I reset the EPG and one programme I'm regularly recording starts 15  
minutes before its scheduled.

>>> 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.
>>
>> Pfft everyone knows it's marketing that sells products, not having the
>> best or even just a good product.
>
> Oh, right, I forgot - because they wouldn't do that if it wasn't
> effective.  Stupid me - it's too bad I'm not willing to be a sheep....

Life is so much easier when you are :-P

-- 
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

And lo on Fri, 15 Aug 2008 00:29:52 +0100, Jim Henderson  
<nos### [at] nospamcom> did spake, saying:

> On Wed, 13 Aug 2008 09:40:36 -0700, Darren New wrote:
>
>> 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.
>
> Was "make it *better* than the competition" in there anywhere?

I guess that's covered by the "don't let someone sell both coke *and*  
pepsi". You don't need to make a better product if you don't present the  
consumer with a choice.

As an example my mother often complains she can't pick up a certain brand  
of sauce at her main shop supermarket and has to go elsewhere; I'm running  
an internal bet as to how long it'll be before she either starts doing the  
main shop in this other store or ends up buying a different brand.

-- 
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

On Sun, 10 Aug 2008 09:48:40 -0700, Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:

>Stephen wrote:
>> Here we still fill up with fuel then pay. Some places do have card facilities at
>> the pumps though. "Pre-pay", it is a terrible world :(
>
>Sadly, one pump-and-run can take the profit of an entire week from the 
>gas station.
>

Ah! I forgot it's New York, New York so tough they named it twice. In case
someone stole it. Here we take photographs of the car number plate and threaten
to tell their mothers :)

>> My pet peeve is people who pay for "small change" shopping with a card. But then
>> I'm getting old and cantankerous ;)
>
>I get annoyed at people who pay with a personal check for that sort of 
>stuff, myself. Altho I understand that's usually not their own fault.

I probably annoy the rest of the queue by getting rid of all my small change in
shops. Well it annoys my wife.
-- 

Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

On Fri, 15 Aug 2008 09:08:45 +0100, Phil Cook wrote:

> And lo on Fri, 15 Aug 2008 00:29:52 +0100, Jim Henderson
> <nos### [at] nospamcom> did spake, saying:
>
>> Was "make it *better* than the competition" in there anywhere?
> 
> I guess that's covered by the "don't let someone sell both coke *and*
> pepsi". You don't need to make a better product if you don't present the
> consumer with a choice.

Heh, well, I know for many of the fast food chains, they don't have a 
choice, because they're actually owned by Pepsico or Coca-Cola.  I used 
to work for a company that did outsourced benefits management (for both 
companies, oddly enough), and seeing the brands that came in with those 
agreements was surprising.

> As an example my mother often complains she can't pick up a certain
> brand of sauce at her main shop supermarket and has to go elsewhere; I'm
> running an internal bet as to how long it'll be before she either starts
> doing the main shop in this other store or ends up buying a different
> brand.

That'd be an interesting thing to look at....

Jim

Post a reply to this message