Random Thoughts Part 4 - Split Thread

[dkotschessaa]

The science behind these sugar substitutes does not seem to be very clear. Modern times, you know, the thrill of having all this data available and the agony of filtering out the noise and the trash in order to get to the useful stuff.

Recent:
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/07/28/u...ts-artificial-sweeteners-over-sugar.html?_r=0

 

[dkotschessaa]

Indeed, there are actual formulas for producing hit songs based on this, on Statistical Analysis. People are more predictable than they are willing to admit/accept. Similar attitudes by people towards adevertisement: " It doesn't affect me". Nonsense, it is such a large sector for a good reason: it works.

Education helps one with immunity to social programming, I think. I can pretty much tell , by the first 30 seconds of most modern pop songs, how the rest is going to go, and I can probably reproduce it on my instrument. Having this ability makes me "immune" in the sense that something so easily reproducible isn't interesting or appealing.

So I'm really big on music education, mostly because I think people would stop making crappy music and then I wouldn't have to listen to it.

Similarly if you can see through the psychology of advertising it tends to be less effective.

-Dave K

 

[fresh_42]

Similarly if you can see through the psychology of advertising it tends to be less effective.

Same with TV series. I once decided to avoid all products which are advertised by such a stupidity that it hurts. Unfortunately ...

 

[zoobyshoe]

After using sugar substitutes like Splenda and Equal for a while, it takes around 6 regular sugars to sweeten my coffee, instead of the 2 it used to take.

Yes, the substitutes are more powerful, and you can't go back to regular sugar after your tolerance has been raise by them. 6 regular sugars is too much. I would not dismiss the dangers of diabetes, which is an insidious disease that progresses incrementally until you suddenly start fainting, or find you have symptoms of peripheral neuropathy.

Let's hope we are both general health equivalents to Winston Churchill, who smoked almost daily, was overweight and still lived till his 90's. There is something to be said for not worrying too much -- that may be our edge.

Churchill did not seem to develop any problems from his weight or cigar habit, but his old age was made less-than-ideal by the fact he took increasingly to drink as he aged, and was not in good mental or physical shape. There were a few instances where he was found wandering around Blenheim Palace naked, for example.

It's true that an easy going attitude prevents stress related problems, but there's a difference between that and letting yourself go.

 

[dkotschessaa]

Star wars spoiler alert:

 

[WWGD]

Yes, the substitutes are more powerful, and you can't go back to regular sugar after your tolerance has been raise by them. 6 regular sugars is too much. I would not dismiss the dangers of diabetes, which is an insidious disease that progresses incrementally until you suddenly start fainting, or find you have symptoms of peripheral neuropathy.

Churchill did not seem to develop any problems from his weight or cigar habit, but his old age was made less-than-ideal by the fact he took increasingly to drink as he aged, and was not in good mental or physical shape. There were a few instances where he was found wandering around Blenheim Palace naked, for example.

It's true that an easy going attitude prevents stress related problems, but there's a difference between that and letting yourself go.

Of course, I don't advocate/recommend magical thinking of the "just don't worry" . What I meant was, instead of worrying, address the issues and then let things take care of themselves. I exercise, don't smoke nor drink, eat reasonably healthy. After that, the most I can do is just let things happen.

 

[zoobyshoe]

Similar attitudes by people towards adevertisement: " It doesn't affect me". Nonsense, it is such a large sector for a good reason: it works.

I'm going to dispute this based on things told to me by a friend who works in advertising. Their whole goal and struggle is to sell the ad to the people who want their product advertised. Whether or not the ad works on the general public is, in the end, completely immaterial. The challenge is to make the ad agency client think it's going to work.

The client comes to the ad agency with a long laundry list of things they want emphasized about their product, and a vague but simultaneously strong sense of how they want it presented. The client is, for obvious reasons, exceptionally attached to a preconceived image of their product which they want the ad agency to purvey, or at least, not undercut. So, what follows is a long, usually cordial (but not always), arm wrestle between the client and the agency, during which the agency tries to pry the client away from their preconceptions and open them up to novel ideas the agency authentically thinks will work. Clients differ in their degree of stubbornness, and the ad agency has, always, to tread lightly in how much they push them, least they just take their business elsewhere. (Ad agencies refer to stubborn clients as "untalented," and to pushover clients as "talented," in exactly the same way hypnotists use that term. A "talented" subject for a hypnotist is the one most easily hypnotized, the one who comes to the hypnotist already believing in his mesmerizing powers, and drops into a trance at the slightest suggestion. Ad agencies love "talented" clients, but they are the exception rather than the rule.) So, the client always wins, and in most cases the ads you see are not the ads the ad agency wanted to make, but some bastard hybrid of conflicting value systems. For that reason, ad ends up being completely unpersuasive, and often irritating, such that you have to wonder if there's anyone in existence who taken in by it.

The ad agency takes comfort in the fact that almost any ad works for the basic reason that it alerts the consumer to the existence of the product such that they add it to their list of possible choices when buying that type of product. An extensive ad campaign makes the consumer say," This product must be O.K. since they make enough money to pay for this extensive ad campaign. Anonymous Laundry Detergent must have something wrong with it: they can't afford TV commercials." That is the power of advertising: the product that can afford extensive ads must be an O.K. product: if people weren't buying it, how could they afford those ads?

So, yes, ads work, but the notion that ad men are master psychologists who are subliminally manipulating the stupid masses at levels they'll never understand, is a lot of hooey. Ad agencies rarely get the chance to pull out all their creative stops, and when they do, it's as hit or miss as any gamble.

 

[WWGD]

I'm going to dispute this based on things told to me by a friend who works in advertising. Their whole goal and struggle is to sell the ad to the people who want their product advertised. Whether or not the ad works on the general public is, in the end, completely immaterial. The challenge is to make the ad agency client think it's going to work.

The client comes to the ad agency with a long laundry list of things they want emphasized about their product, and a vague but simultaneously strong sense of how they want it presented. The client is, for obvious reasons, exceptionally attached to a preconceived image of their product which they want the ad agency to purvey, or at least, not undercut. So, what follows is a long, usually cordial (but not always), arm wrestle between the client and the agency, during which the agency tries to pry the client away from their preconceptions and open them up to novel ideas the agency authentically thinks will work. Clients differ in their degree of stubbornness, and the ad agency has, always, to tread lightly in how much they push them, least they just take their business elsewhere. (Ad agencies refer to stubborn clients as "untalented," and to pushover clients as "talented," in exactly the same way hypnotists use that term. A "talented" subject for a hypnotist is the one most easily hypnotized, the one who comes to the hypnotist already believing in his mesmerizing powers, and drops into a trance at the slightest suggestion. Ad agencies love "talented" clients, but they are the exception rather than the rule.) So, the client always wins, and in most cases the ads you see are not the ads the ad agency wanted to make, but some bastard hybrid of conflicting value systems. For that reason, ad ends up being completely unpersuasive, and often irritating, such that you have to wonder if there's anyone in existence who taken in by it.

The ad agency takes comfort in the fact that almost any ad works for the basic reason that it alerts the consumer to the existence of the product such that they add it to their list of possible choices when buying that type of product. An extensive ad campaign makes the consumer say," This product must be O.K. since they make enough money to pay for this extensive ad campaign. Anonymous Laundry Detergent must have something wrong with it: they can't afford TV commercials." That is the power of advertising: the product that can afford extensive ads must be an O.K. product: if people weren't buying it, how could they afford those ads?

So, yes, ads work, but the notion that ad men are master psychologists who are subliminally manipulating the stupid masses at levels they'll never understand, is a lot of hooey. Ad agencies rarely get the chance to pull out all their creative stops, and when they do, it's as hit or miss as any gamble.

But a lot of these agencies do know the triggers of many people's behaviors better than the people themselves. Few people understand their own psychological make up and what motivates them. This allows those who do understand their motivation triggers to manipulate them. This does not require much brilliance, just methodical observation.

 

[zoobyshoe]

But a lot of these agencies do know the triggers of many people's behaviors better than the people themselves. Few people understand their own psychological make up and what motivates them. This allows those who do understand their motivation triggers to manipulate them. This does not require much brilliance, just methodical observation.

You'd be a talented client for an ad agency.

 

[WWGD]

You'd be a talented client for an ad agency.

?

 

[zoobyshoe]

?

Reread my post carefully.

 

[HomogenousCow]

The new StarWars movie is amazing apparently.

 

[WWGD]

You'd be a talented client for an ad agency.

If I understood correctly, you believe I think the ad agencies are brilliant and do their job effectively. I am not sure this is my position. All I am saying is that it is not hard to use the average person's lack of awareness against them. I am not sure this is what the ad agencies do, but I think this is possible. Con men of different sorts, some politicians, everyday people use it, with different degrees of subtlety. The more subtle you are, the more effective the manipulation. Nowadays, after the upheavals of the 60s, there is too much skepticism towards institutions that makes it harder to manipulate people, who start out with a skeptical position.

EDIT: Are you sure your friend's position and his experience in the industry is representative- enough to draw the general conclusion? Did s/he tell you about their experience recently?

EDIT2: Have you ever watched or heard mention of this MTV show where this guy would make just-about any woman want him ? By his own admission, he was able to do this by just observing and trying to understand people's needs and triggers, which most people themselves were not aware off. You also have , e.g. Dale Carnegie on influencing people. I don't know for sure this is what ad agencies do as a general method, but it has been used in the design and marketing of products. That is my point.

 

[zoobyshoe]

If I understood correctly, you believe I think the ad agencies are brilliant and do their job effectively.

No, I think you think this:

But a lot of these agencies do know the triggers of many people's behaviors better than the people themselves. Few people understand their own psychological make up and what motivates them. This allows those who do understand their motivation triggers to manipulate them. This does not require much brilliance, just methodical observation.

In other words, I think you are attributing an expertise to ad men that they don't actually have. They wish they did, and they will absolutely claim they do to prospective clients, but all they actually have is some industry lore about what works and a grab bag of rules of thumb.

All I am saying is that it is not hard to use the average person's lack of awareness against them. I am not sure this is what the ad agencies do, but I think this is possible. Con men of different sorts, some politicians, everyday people use it, with different degrees of subtlety. The more subtle you are, the more effective the manipulation.

Yes, ad men are essentially wanna-be con men, but the target is always the client, not the consumer. And, yeah, they do have all sorts of tricks and ploys for dealing with clients, but that's relegated to not pissing them off while they're trying to change their tack.

EDIT: Are you sure your friend's position and his experience in the industry is representative- enough to draw the general conclusion? Did s/he tell you about their experience recently?

He's worked at three different agencies, and I've gotten intermittent reports over about 30 years. Last time I discussed it in depth with him was 5 years ago. His story then was the same as when he first started: it's overwhelmingly about wrangling the client, not the consumer.

The main reason I have no problem believing his experience is representative is because I tried it once myself. I wanted to do something useful with my artwork, and I approached a singer and asked if she'd be interested in me doing some sheet ads for her. It was a debacle. It turned out she had a specific artist who's artwork she thought would suit her singing style and would not entertain my quite different take on what might make the public interested in her gigs.

I suggest you try it. Next time you meet someone with something to sell, create a mental ad campaign for them, a sincere one, and run it by them. Or, simply ask them how they would, sincerely, advertise their thing if they had the money to make TV ads. Then, conceive of a different way, and try to get them to abandon theirs and adopt yours.

 

[zoobyshoe]

The new StarWars movie is amazing apparently.

I actually have an interest in seeing it.

 

[WWGD]

No, I think you think this:

In other words, I think you are attributing an expertise to ad men that they don't actually have. They wish they did, and they will absolutely claim they do to prospective clients, but all they actually have is some industry lore about what works and a grab bag of rules of thumb.

Yes, ad men are essentially wanna-be con men, but the target is always the client, not the consumer. And, yeah, they do have all sorts of tricks and ploys for dealing with clients, but that's relegated to not pissing them off while they're trying to change their tack.
ought would suit her singing style and would not entertain my quite different take on what might make the public interested in her gigs.

But how can a model like this be sustainable over such a long period of time. Wouldn't the whole industry have collapsed if this is all there is to it, I mean, supposedly you can fool some people... I mean, I don't think they are all brilliant, but it seems hard to believe that what you state is basically an empty facade can last for so long. So it just seems that, together with the hot air, there must be something to it. Still, outside of advertisement, do you think my suggested method is used , in areas like marketing, in the ways supermarkets stock their shelves, in the music they choose to play, the temperature, etc. ? This is largely what big data is about : predictive analytics.

 

[dkotschessaa]

But how can a model like this be sustainable over such a long period of time. Wouldn't the whole industry have collapsed if this is all there is to it, I mean, supposedly you can fool some people... I mean, I don't think they are all brilliant, but it seems hard to believe that what you state is basically an empty facade can last for so long. So it just seems that, together with the hot air, there must be something to it. Still, outside of advertisement, do you think my method is used , in areas like marketing, in the ways supermarkets stock their shelves, in the music they choose to play, the temperature, etc. This is largely what big data is about : predictive analytics.

http://www.apa.org/monitor/oct02/advertising.aspx This article seems to confirm what Zoob is saying. The short of it is - advertising psychology exists as a field, but it is not being put to use.

I think another problem is that no amount of data in the world can tell you how effective an ad is. You may remember an ad, or like it, but it may not persuade you to buy the product. (I love Geico commercials). You may buy the product because of or in spite of an ad. You might buy the product because it's the only one there or its the cheapest..

 

[WWGD]

http://www.apa.org/monitor/oct02/advertising.aspx This article seems to confirm what Zoob is saying. The short of it is - advertising psychology exists as a field, but it is not being put to use.

I think another problem is that no amount of data in the world can tell you how effective an ad is. You may remember an ad, or like it, but it may not persuade you to buy the product. (I love Geico commercials). You may buy the product because of or in spite of an ad. You might buy the product because it's the only one there or its the cheapest..

Wouldn't a consistent increase in sales be a good measure of the effectiveness of an ad, when controlling for other factors?

 

[zoobyshoe]

But how can a model like this be sustainable over such a long period of time. Wouldn't the whole industry have collapsed if this is all there is to it, I mean, supposedly you can fool some people... I mean, I don't think they are all brilliant, but it seems hard to believe that what you state is basically an empty facade can last for so long.

I explained this:

The ad agency takes comfort in the fact that almost any ad works for the basic reason that it alerts the consumer to the existence of the product such that they add it to their list of possible choices when buying that type of product. An extensive ad campaign makes the consumer say," This product must be O.K. since they make enough money to pay for this extensive ad campaign. Anonymous Laundry Detergent must have something wrong with it: they can't afford TV commercials." That is the power of advertising: the product that can afford extensive ads must be an O.K. product: if people weren't buying it, how could they afford those ads?

Ever see the movie, "Catch Me if You Can?" That con-man could have gone on forever if not for the cop dedicated to bringing him down, and it took that cop a very long time. There is no one dedicated to pulling back the Wizard of Oz curtain on the advertising world. People who talk about it do rather the opposite, contributing to the myth that advertisers are surreptitiously dazzling the consuming public with gleams and glamours it can't resist, when, in fact, they are only attempting that on the people who pay them to make ads.

 

[zoobyshoe]

http://www.apa.org/monitor/oct02/advertising.aspx This article seems to confirm what Zoob is saying. The short of it is - advertising psychology exists as a field, but it is not being put to use.

I think another problem is that no amount of data in the world can tell you how effective an ad is. You may remember an ad, or like it, but it may not persuade you to buy the product. (I love Geico commercials). You may buy the product because of or in spite of an ad. You might buy the product because it's the only one there or its the cheapest..

Yes, that article is exactly what I'm talking about. There is a myth that commercials are designed with big, big psychological mojo behind them, and are affecting us at deep levels we don't consciously grasp, but that is bogus. Psychologists actually believe ads get it all wrong.

I, myself, enjoyed the adventures of Flo, the insurance lady, for at least two years before I could tell you which brand of insurance she sells. Additionally, for a long time I had no idea cave man insurance was actually the same insurance as lizard insurance.

 

[WWGD]

Yes, that article is exactly what I'm talking about. There is a myth that commercials are designed with big, big psychological mojo behind them, and are affecting us at deep levels we don't consciously grasp, but that is bogus. Psychologists actually believe ads get it all wrong.

I, myself, enjoyed the adventures of Flo, the insurance lady, for at least two years before I could tell you which brand of insurance she sells. Additionally, for a long time I had no idea cave man insurance was actually the same insurance as lizard insurance.

It seems clear too many companies are relying on gimmicks and humor, now that you bring up the general topic. It just seems hard to digest that in a brutally competitive market environment none of these companies is trying to get it right and basically throwing away their money, which they could more of by following a more scientific approach. I just perceive the business world as being a hard-nosed one, where you can rarely afford to do things a certain way just because they strike your fancy. I though those who acted that way , at least often-enough, would be eaten alive quickly.

EDIT: Maybe an underlying issue is that many companies are not fully convinced that advertising works, at least works well-enough to be worth it, so they end up spending some amount of money, but not quite enough to allow the ad people to show what they can do.

 

[zoobyshoe]

It seems clear too many companies are relying on gimmicks and humor, now that you bring up the general topic. It just seems hard to digest that in a brutally competitive market environment none of these companies is trying to get it right and basically throwing away their money, which they could more of by following a more scientific approach.

They're not throwing away their money at all. Flo is a minor (very minor) cultural icon now. The ad agency that created Flo has risen accordingly in prestige, and can say to prospective clients, "Trust us. We are the people who created Flo. Go out and stop passersby on the street. They all recognize Flo. You see, we are master psychologists and we know what we're doing. Our competitors did not create Flo. They did not create anyone. You want to go with them? Or us?"

The point is to get repeat business from Progressive, and ALSO new business from people who want their own Flo.

 

[WWGD]

They're not throwing away their money at all. Flo is a minor (very minor) cultural icon now. The ad agency that created Flo has risen accordingly in prestige, and can say to prospective clients, "Trust us. We are the people who created Flo. Go out and stop passersby on the street. They all recognize Flo. You see, we are master psychologists and we know what we're doing. Our competitors did not create Flo. They did not create anyone. You want to go with them? Or us?"

The point is to get repeat business from Progressive, and ALSO new business from people who want their own Flo.

Well, not to beat this one to death, but maybe to say that they are "comparatively throwing away their money" , in that they could get much more than just brand recognition by applying more rigor in their advertising ideas/methods.

 

[zoobyshoe]

Well, not to beat this one to death, but maybe to say that they are "comparatively throwing away their money" , in that they could get much more than just brand recognition by applying more rigor in their advertising ideas/methods.

Like I went into in depth about before, the client won't let them pull out all their stops on the consumer. The client has a whole rigid set of idiosyncratic, non-expert ideas about how the product should be advertised, and there is no way around that. The client has the trump hand: the money.

Additionally, commercials are created by teams. My friend says he has to take the pulse of the client, then go to the actual creative team and explain to them the weird parameters they'll have to work within to please the client. Everyone on the team has a different take on what he said, and they all work at cross purposes with each other and the client, and what you get is what you have seen a million times: mostly annoying and unpersuasive insults to your intelligence.

 

[jim hardy]

But a lot of these agencies do know the triggers of many people's behaviors better than the people themselves. Few people understand their own psychological make up and what motivates them. This allows those who do understand their motivation triggers to manipulate them. This does not require much brilliance, just methodical observation.

I, myself, enjoyed the adventures of Flo, the insurance lady, for at least two years before I could tell you which brand of insurance she sells. Additionally, for a long time I had no idea cave man insurance was actually the same insurance as lizard insurance.

I agree ads are intensely psychological .
eg
Flo the shy Insurance lady with too much makeup and frumpy outfit is i believe immensely attractive to shy insecure young men , translate low risk drivers in their most expensive insurance years..
Sex sells.
But i like her anyway.

Speaking of that
Hedi Klum's "Guitar Hero" TV ad stopped our Monday night poker game cold - we had to redeal the hand...
this is kinda racy , but it was on primetime TV...honest.


a most effective TV ad for Grandpas, it permanently imprinted the brand name.

We could have a whole thread on analyzing advertisements. old jim

 

[zoobyshoe]

I agree ads are intensely psychological .
eg
Flo the shy Insurance lady with too much makeup and frumpy outfit is i believe is immensely attractive to shy insecure young men , translate low risk drivers in their most expensive insurance years..
Sex sells.
But i like her anyway.

I liked Flo, and always paid more attention to her commercials than others. Like my friend said, she's like that friendly truck stop waitress who makes you feel at home. But you missed the part where I said two years went by before I even bothered to pay attention to what brand of insurance she was selling.

Check out this article posted by Ddotchka which explains that everyone thinks commercials are psychologically designed, but they actually aren't, and very frequently get the psychology wrong:
http://www.apa.org/monitor/oct02/advertising.aspx

A famous model glides down a staircase, removing articles of clothing as she goes. Once she's inside the car being promoted in this British advertisement, she removes her panties and flings them out the window. The only problem with this wildly popular ad? An informal survey by a Welsh psychologist revealed that the visual image was so compelling that virtually no one remembered the brand of car being advertised.

Speaking of that
Hedi Klum's "Guitar Hero" TV ad stopped our Monday night poker game cold - we had to redeal the hand...
this is kinda racy , but it was on primetime TV...honest.
a most effective TV ad for Grandpas, it permanently imprinted the brand name.

Sex certainly gets attention, but does it really sell? Did you buy a Guitar Hero? There's an important gap between you and your buddies stopping the poker game to watch Heidi, and you and your buddies going out to buy a Guitar Hero. You haven't really been psychologically manipulated unless the latter happens, have you?

Psychologists have done a good job figuring out what makes people remember ads, says Fishbein, now a professor at the University of Pennsylvania's Annenberg School for Communication. Unfortunately, there's little evidence that simply recalling an ad changes behavior. And decades of research have failed to identify factors that encourage viewers to accept information.

"Advertisers are interested in winning Clios and not that interested in changing behavior," he explains. "When they've got an ad that people remember, they think they've got a good ad."

 

[dlgoff]

You haven't really been psychologically manipulated unless the latter happens, have you?

May happen yet. Us old folks can be impulsive buyers. Well at least I can be. How about you Jim?

 

[Ibix]

I'll admit that an advert with a sexy woman is likely to catch my attention. However, I dislike people trying to lead me around by my... er... nose, so when I notice it I tend to make a mental note to try to buy from a competitor.

 

[dkotschessaa]

I put this in my "personal info" on my profile today. Is this inspiring, harsh, or just weird?

I am a 39 year old graduate student in mathematics. I am married. I've got reactive hypoglycemia, A.D.D. and and a busy family life. Think you are too old for this crap? I'm probably older and stupider, so suck it up!

 

[jim hardy]

Did you buy a Guitar Hero? There's an important gap between you and your buddies stopping the poker game to watch Heidi, and you and your buddies going out to buy a Guitar Hero. You haven't really been psychologically manipulated unless the latter happens, have you?

Well, i haven't bought a Guitar Hero for the grandkids. But they haven't asked for one either... It's the only brand of those things I'm aware of.

Have i been manipulated ? Every time i see a Guitar Hero in the toy store i chuckle about that ad and how it made six geezers' jaws drop. So, if the aim of the advertiser was to make folks remember their brand name Heidi should be able to retire on that ad alone.
I'd say i was affected, imprinted if you will. Prior to that i didn't even know who was Ms Klum.
Way is paved for grandkids to do the manipulating,
meaning the odds are significant for "You want a Guitar Hero? Sure, but i get the Heidi poster."

old jim

 

[Silicon Waffle]

I just found a very good cure for my tired eyes: Sleep!

 

[WWGD]

I have been always leaving sleep as the last thing I sacrifice. I think it has been the right choice. Still, I am trying to become better at napping outside of home. I usually just pretend to be reading something or put my phone in front of me and close my eyes. That way it is harder for staff to tell I am napping and I am not asked to leave.

 

[zoobyshoe]

Well, i haven't bought a Guitar Hero for the grandkids. But they haven't asked for one either... It's the only brand of those things I'm aware of.

Have i been manipulated ? Every time i see a Guitar Hero in the toy store i chuckle about that ad and how it made six geezers' jaws drop. So, if the aim of the advertiser was to make folks remember their brand name Heidi should be able to retire on that ad alone.
I'd say i was affected, imprinted if you will. Prior to that i didn't even know who was Ms Klum.
Way is paved for grandkids to do the manipulating,
meaning the odds are significant for "You want a Guitar Hero? Sure, but i get the Heidi poster."

old jim

O.K., you've described a situation that is pretty strange and needs some analysis. You came away from the commercial with the strong impression you were psychologically manipulated, yet you never bought the product, and the company made no money from you. My take on this is that the party that was authentically manipulated here was the manufacturers of Guitar Hero. They were manipulated by the ad agency that made the commercial. Money did change hands in that relationship.

This is what I've been trying to explain to WWGD: in reality, advertising isn't about ad agencies manipulating the consumer, it's about manipulating the clients, the people who have products for sale. The impression the commercial made on you is part of the smoke and mirrors, the magical misdirection the ad agency uses on its clients, "Now even old poker players know the name 'Guitar Hero!'" Sounds impressive, but they fail to add, "Even thought they're never going to buy one. We haven't exactly figured out how to make that happen yet."

 

[JorisL]

Yuck I have to make this stupid ASSignment.

We're asked to come up with three questions suitable for an exam.
These questions should be about a specific chapter in our book.
Not only do we need to give a solution + a key to give marks.
We also have to motivate why we believe it's a good question in less than 400 words. I bet they're going to use my questions next year.

I'm thinking of bouncing the ball back and ask to identify why the questions they posed are bad.

 

[zoobyshoe]

Yuck I have to make this stupid ASSignment.

We're asked to come up with three questions suitable for an exam.
These questions should be about a specific chapter in our book.
Not only do we need to give a solution + a key to give marks.
We also have to motivate why we believe it's a good question in less than 400 words. I bet they're going to use my questions next year.

I'm thinking of bouncing the ball back and ask to identify why the questions they posed are bad.

I don't exactly get it. Do you suspect this is just a sneaky way to get students to write next years exams (i.e. the person who gave the assignment is lazy)?

 

[JorisL]

No I just don't like the assignment.

'Twas a bit of a rant.

 

[zoobyshoe]

No I just don't like the assignment.

'Twas a bit of a rant.

I see. Carry on.

 

[Ibix]

I would like to go on record as stating that I completely agree with the consensus in my train carriage that "E's not worff it bruv, e ain't ****ing worff it". Pleased to report that opinion now appears to be unanimous on the inadvisability of attempting to teach 'im a lesson by kicking the **** out of 'im.

Sophisticated bunch I travel with...

 

[JorisL]

Not in the least because I might have to skip a beer tasting evening because of it :-(

That reminded me of the http://www.beerofbelgium.com/en/chimay-blue-9-33cl.html I've got in the fridge. Time to get creative.
I can suggest that one if you like strong, dark beers.

 

[Ibix]

Re advertising, someone once pointed out to me that TV companies are not in the business of making TV, they're in the business of selling your eyeball time (or the perception thereof) to advertisers. TV programmes are merely the pretty flowers they suck us worker bees in with.

I feel like there's some kind of distinction between companies that use advertising revenue to fund artistic endeavour and companies that use artistic endeavour (however loosely defined) to improve advertising revenue. Probably the latter make more reality shows. And more money.

 

[jim hardy]

They were manipulated by the ad agency that made the commercial.

Welll there's logic in what you say,
i figured out long ago that fishing lures are designed to attract not fish but fishermen.

If i understand advertising right it's not to make me rush out to the mall in a "must have" frenzy but to give a statistical edge,
the goal being to imprint brand recognition,
so that when I'm standing in the Toys R Us aisle wavering i'll be ever so slightly inclined to choose the brand i recognize. .
The ad under discussion achieved that.

Another ad I've remembered for over fifty years:
A shy bookish looking young man wearing an open lab coat, sporting a pocket protector with a sliderule sticking out amongst the pencils introduced himself as an engineer at Ford Motors. He then explained the working and advantages of Ford's full flow oil filtering system. This was late 1950's when an oil filter was still an option on Chevys.
I do not know why that particular ad stuck in my alleged memory. I think i identified with the shy bookish young man, and i appreciated the ad's mildly technical content.
Today i see it as an example of all-too-rare honesty in advertising for it explained a genuine advantage of a product..

But i doubt there's a dozen people in the country who remember that ad.

old jim.

 

[jim hardy]

Re advertising, someone once pointed out to me that TV companies are not in the business of making TV, they're in the business of selling your eyeball time (or the perception thereof) to advertisers. TV programmes are merely the pretty flowers they suck us worker bees in with.

I feel like there's some kind of distinction between companoes that use advertising revenue to fund artistic endeavour and companies that use artistic endeavour (howevet loosely defined) to improve advertising revenue. Probably the latter make more reality shows. And more money.

I heard a former TV writer interviewed on some talk show. Among his reasons for leaving the field was this statement:
"It is your job to deliver the audience to the commercial break in a receptive state of mind".
and he said he didn't like the imposition on his art.
That made me aware of the manipulation, which i resent(it's a pet peeve), and ever after I've been unable to tolerate commercial TV.
They've got the cost too high - the commercials just batter one's psyche. Especially the hip-wagging and flashing lights, doubtless modern TV is the inspiration for MIB's "Neuralizer".

http://www.rense.com/ufo5/flashing.htm][/PLAIN]
Television programs have come under stricter regulation in Great Britain and Japan after causing seizures in children. The illness, a form of epilepsy known as photosensitivity, is triggered by the flashing lights and quickly alternating shots found in many shows and commercials.

But while researchers have long known that bright, regular flares can provoke epileptic episodes, photosensitivity has gained a higher profile within the last 20 years as new triggers for the illness crop up with each new piece of media technology that comes along. Indeed, an increase in the number of stimuli--anything from fluorescent lighting to video and virtual reality games--has led to debate as to whether measures similar to those adopted in the UK should be enforced in the United States.

old jim

 

[zoobyshoe]

Welll there's logic in what you say,
i figured out long ago that fishing lures are designed to attract not fish but fishermen.

Absolutely true.

If i understand advertising right it's not to make me rush out to the mall in a "must have" frenzy but to give a statistical edge,
the goal being to imprint brand recognition,
so that when I'm standing in the Toys R Us aisle wavering i'll be ever so slightly inclined to choose the brand i recognize. .
The ad under discussion achieved that.

This is the meme ad agencies want their clients to believe. It seems to make sense, but is it testable in any ironclad way?

Another ad I've remembered for over fifty years:
A shy bookish looking young man wearing an open lab coat, sporting a pocket protector with a sliderule sticking out amongst the pencils introduced himself as an engineer at Ford Motors. He then explained the working and advantages of Ford's full flow oil filtering system. This was late 1950's when an oil filter was still an option on Chevys.
I do not know why that particular ad stuck in my alleged memory. I think i identified with the shy bookish young man, and i appreciated the ad's mildly technical content.
Today i see it as an example of all-too-rare honesty in advertising for it explained a genuine advantage of a product..

But i doubt there's a dozen people in the country who remember that ad.

I wish there was a lot more of that. I have never understood why ads don't consist of calm, reasonable people explaining why their product is better.

 

[dlgoff]

That made me aware of the manipulation, which i resent(it's a pet peeve), and ever after I've been unable to tolerate commercial TV.

I Know That's Right.

 

[zoobyshoe]

I would like to go on record as stating that I completely agree with the consensus in my train carriage that "E's not worff it bruv, e ain't ****ing worff it". Pleased to report that opinion now appears to be unanimous on the inadvisability of attempting to teach 'im a lesson by kicking the **** out of 'im.

Sophisticated bunch I travel with...

Perhaps they are a bit unpolished, but men like that do all the heavy lifting to keep the British Empire the greatest in the world. Without them, who would Monty Python make fun of?

 

[zoobyshoe]

Re advertising, someone once pointed out to me that TV companies are not in the business of making TV, they're in the business of selling your eyeball time (or the perception thereof) to advertisers. TV programmes are merely the pretty flowers they suck us worker bees in with.

That was soooooo apparent during this year's season of Fargo. The time between commercials got shorter and shorter, till, at the end of the episode, the commercial breaks were about double the time of the show segments. I would wager this is because it was such a popular show that advertisers were willing to pay extra big bucks to have their ads aired, and the TV companies raked in the Washingtons.

Stunts like that are actually counterproductive, because I intensely resent any product that conspired to interrupted that wonderful series.

 

[jim hardy]

This is the meme ad agencies want their clients to believe. It seems to make sense, but is it testable in any ironclad way?

Being aware of it, i analyze myself in the grocery store. I do tend to pick old familiar brands , especially if the logo is same as in my childhood.
Observe RCA went back to Nipper
Harley Davidson retains the Vtwin look, and sound from uneven firing interval
some Japanese water cooled cycle engines have bolt-on fins so as to resemble air cooled Harley look
Dodge retains the Ram from 1932

i guess that's why trademarks are so vehemently protected.

But i don't know how to test it on any ironclad scale.

Didn't Einstein say 'Physics is simple. Human ehavior is not..'
?

old jim

 

[JorisL]

Finally done making up the questions I mentioned last page.
Now to answer them to my own satisfaction.

TIL I'll probably make tests way to hard if I ever end up teaching for realz.

 

[collinsmark]

Something else on PF today (not technically the same topic) reminded me of this "random" thought:

 

[WWGD]

Not in the least because I might have to skip a beer tasting evening because of it :-(

That reminded me of the http://www.beerofbelgium.com/en/chimay-blue-9-33cl.html I've got in the fridge. Time to get creative.
I can suggest that one if you like strong, dark beers.

Isn't Belgium the land of 1000+ beers (and rich food)? How hard is it to move there?