The most effective advertising subterfuge

  • Thread starter Thread starter Loren Booda
  • Start date Start date
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the effectiveness of various advertising methods across different media, including web, TV, radio, and print. Participants share personal experiences regarding how advertisements influence their purchasing decisions, if at all, and explore the psychological aspects of advertising and consumer behavior.

Discussion Character

  • Debate/contested
  • Exploratory
  • Conceptual clarification

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants assert that they are not influenced by advertisements and actively avoid them, preferring independent research for significant purchases.
  • Others mention that while they do not consciously buy products due to advertisements, they may subconsciously avoid brands associated with annoying or sleazy advertising techniques.
  • A few participants express enjoyment of certain commercials, indicating that while they may not lead to purchases, they can be entertaining.
  • One participant highlights the impact of branding and emotional associations, suggesting that a strong brand image can influence choices unconsciously.
  • Some participants discuss the effectiveness of different advertising styles, such as "soft sell" versus "in your face" commercials, and question when each might be more effective.
  • There are mentions of specific products and advertisements that have left a lasting impression, both positively and negatively.
  • One participant notes the trend of advertisements disguised as humorous articles, raising concerns about transparency in advertising.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants generally express a lack of consensus on the influence of advertisements, with some claiming no effect while others acknowledge subtle influences. The discussion reflects a variety of personal experiences and opinions regarding advertising effectiveness.

Contextual Notes

Participants express differing views on the role of conscious versus unconscious decision-making in purchasing influenced by advertising. There are also references to personal limitations affecting shopping behaviors, such as disabilities and preferences for independent research.

Who May Find This Useful

This discussion may be of interest to individuals exploring consumer behavior, marketing strategies, and the psychological effects of advertising on purchasing decisions.

  • #31
Honestly, I'd rather have a flawless, undectable fake at a fractuion of the price and spend the rest of the money on something practical.

I think the only reason people buy diamonds is because they are rare and expensive and thus exclusive. If cheap undetectable fakes flooded the market, I think they would become tacky soon enough.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #32
Moonbear said:
If I ever meet the right guy, turbo is in charge of directing him toward appropriate engagement ring choices. I used to want onyx, which really would have made some guy happy, but I also used to be more cynical (yeah, really, more so than I am now!) and thought it would be humorous to have a black stone for an engagement (in case anyone ever wondered why I'm still single :rolleyes:). Now I lean more toward sapphire. I like the darker blue color rather than light blue, and if my understanding is right, that's actually a cheaper stone, so I'm still going to make someone happy.
You're right. US women are not as discerning as Asian women regarding the qualities of colored stones, so the best rubies and sapphires tend not to show up on this market. Instead, we see pink "rubies" that would never be called rubies on the Asian market and inky sapphires. Many of these sapphires are so dark and included that they hardly show any color, even in melee-sized cuts. A good sapphire should be of a color that will hold up well in large-sized stones and is very lightly included. Those are expensive stones.

Edit: Sapphires are a very good choice for an everyday-wear ring like an engagement ring because they are are very hard and tough. For people that work with their hands, I recommend either a bezel mount or a 6 prong Tiffany mount in 10 or 12 karat gold. 14 karat and finer gold is soft and the prongs wear easily, leading to the eventual loss of the stone. For instance, someone who tucks in sheets (makes beds) or puts on work gloves frequently should avoid 4-prong Tiffany mounts and 14 karat or finer gold like the plague, especially if their stone is a $$$ one. You should also tell the jeweler that you work with your hands, and want to have the prongs left a little "meatier" so you won't lose your stone.
 
Last edited:
  • #33
verty said:
I think the only reason people buy diamonds is because they are rare and expensive and thus exclusive. If cheap undetectable fakes flooded the market, I think they would become tacky soon enough.
The point is that diamonds are not rare. They are one of the more common gem-stones. DeBeers keeps the prices inflated by monopolizing the trade and regulating the supply. If diamonds came to the market at the rate that they are mined, they would be VERY affordable. By comparison, if every woman in the US wanted an engagement ring with a Tsavorite, Alexandrite, or Demantoid stone, they would be out of luck. These stones are exceedingly rare, especially in larger sizes, and any sort of increased demand would price them out of reach of all but the very wealthy.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 46 ·
2
Replies
46
Views
5K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
4K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
4K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
7K
  • · Replies 77 ·
3
Replies
77
Views
7K
  • · Replies 169 ·
6
Replies
169
Views
13K