Watch TV or Go to Jail

[Agathon]

Originally posted by Ming
There is no need to address you post when all you do is rant silliness, Come up with something close to being meaningful, and I'll take the time to respond.

That's pathetic, Ming.

Do you dispute any of the following points.

1. Brand based advertising exists because there is no real material difference between competing products.

2. Consumers pay for advertisements through increased prices.

3. Suffering advertising and paying higher prices is prima facie irrational.

4. If schools were funded properly, like they are in other countries, teachers wouldn't have to waste time and money looking for sponsors.

[Ming]

No... your knowledge of marketing and economics is what's pathetic.

Originally posted by Agathon
Do you dispute any of the following points.

Shall do

1. Brand based advertising exists because there is no real material difference between competing products.

Not even close... Brand based advertising is usually an umbrella campaign to leverage the total strength of an entire product line... Studies have proven the effectiveness of this type of approach. In addition, studies have proved that "Brands" have a value far beyond traditional advertising. In combination with a traditional USP campaign, it is even more effective.

2. Consumers pay for advertisements through increased prices.

Yeah... the few additional pennies that is passed on to the consumer will really break the bank. In many cases... advertising can bring the cost of a product down based on increased production and better efficiencies...

[quote]
3. Suffering advertising and paying higher prices is prima facie irrational.
[quote]

A meaningless rant...

4. If schools were funded properly, like they are in other countries, teachers wouldn't have to waste time and money looking for sponsors.

Again... your lack of knowledge is simply wonderful. The teachers have nothing to do with the process and waste no time looking for sponsors. And they waste no money either, since the package is brought to them in a turn key system... no mess, no fuss... just equipment the school can use to enhance the learning experience, and doesn't cost them a cent.


Do you have any more rants in you that make as little sense as the above.

[Agathon]

Originally posted by Ming
No... your knowledge of marketing and economics is what's pathetic.

Not even close... Brand based advertising is usually an umbrella campaign to leverage the total strength of an entire product line... Studies have proven the effectiveness of this type of approach. In addition, studies have proved that "Brands" have a value far beyond traditional advertising. In combination with a traditional USP campaign, it is even more effective.

This doesn't answer the point at all, it's just a rhetorical smokescreen. In the first place you've told me what branded advertising is for. Whoopdy do! As if I didn't know. In the rest of it you basically said that it moves more product. That doesn't answer the point either, because that is also not in dispute. The point is why it does.

Yeah... the few additional pennies that is passed on to the consumer will really break the bank. In many cases... advertising can bring the cost of a product down based on increased production and better efficiencies...

That sounds like magical reasoning to me. If this is the old "it stirs competition" argument, then it applies in some cases, but not others. Since advertising increased on NZ television and the old broadcasting fee was phased out, the quality of television has gone south and advertisements now dominate everything - so people have started turning off their TVs. There's no evidence that this helps improve efficiencies in things like public education or health care.

It still doesn't affect my basic point. If I buy Nike then I pay for those massive advertising campaigns and I have to suffer swooshes everywhere. That's just a fact.

Again... your lack of knowledge is simply wonderful.

Substance, please, not style.

The teachers have nothing to do with the process and waste no time looking for sponsors. And they waste no money either, since the package is brought to them in a turn key system... no mess, no fuss... just equipment the school can use to enhance the learning experience, and doesn't cost them a cent.

This is at best only slightly relevant. I was talking about sponsorhip generally, based on the failures of a virtual voucher system that was tried in New Zealand (and the findings of a report on it). It doesn't matter how channel one is distributed anyway - the basic point still stands.

Again, your assertion that it doesn't cost them a cent is completely false. It does because consumers pay advertisers - one way or another. It also costs them the hassle of having to watch what is, by all accounts, a moronic and trashy programme, instead of actually learning something worthwhile.

I said that it would be cheaper and more useful in the long run if this sort of thing were funded publicly. The fact is that in societies that complain about taxation all the time, people do not pay enough tax to support public goods like schools. Of course, they pass the buck to their kids, who have to watch this trash, but everyone ends up paying in the end, because time is wasted and the integrity of schools is put at risk.

[Drake Tungsten]

Originally posted by MikeH
I am still highly sexually traumatised by having been surrounded by uniformed school girls for so many years without being able to **** any of them. *sigh*

A pain I know all too well...

[Ming]

Originally posted by Agathon
This doesn't answer the point at all, it's just a rhetorical smokescreen. In the first place you've told me what branded advertising is for. Whoopdy do! As if I didn't know.

You obviously don't based on your comments.

In the rest of it you basically said that it moves more product. That doesn't answer the point either, because that is also not in dispute. The point is why it does.

Again... you don't seem to have any knowledge of basic marketing. All products have differences except for your standard generic/store brands or in the drug business.

Otherwise... your statement that products don't have any differences is ignorant at best.

Brands have PROVEN value. People trust brand names that they have used and liked. The brand halo provides built in confidence for trying new products under the corporate brand. Then the product differences makes them regular customers...

That sounds like magical reasoning to me. If this is the old "it stirs competition" argument, then it applies in some cases, but not others.

I guess it would sound magical to somebody with your little knowledge of marketing and product costs.

The first thing they teach is that it's cheaper per unit to make 1000 units vs 100. Advertising and other marketing increase sales... makeing it possible to lower the unit cost, and to decrease the cost to the consumer... and therefore selling even more products as long as there is enough demand... Not magic... just economics.

Since advertising increased on NZ television and the old broadcasting fee was phased out, the quality of television has gone south and advertisements now dominate everything - so people have started turning off their TVs. There's no evidence that this helps improve efficiencies in things like public education or health care.

In public education... it does... Colleges and Private schools are the only ones that advertise here... because they don't have full class rooms, and every empty seat means they have to charge people more, or lower the education experience...

Health care it's the same thing... empty beds mean less money... and if you do elective surgery that can be profitable to the hospital, you want people to do it at your hospital and not somebody elses...

It still doesn't affect my basic point. If I buy Nike then I pay for those massive advertising campaigns and I have to suffer swooshes everywhere. That's just a fact.

As far as your TV example... it probably just means people put crap on TV... Who knows when it comes to NZ.

This is at best only slightly relevant. I was talking about sponsorhip generally, based on the failures of a virtual voucher system that was tried in New Zealand (and the findings of a report on it). It doesn't matter how channel one is distributed anyway - the basic point still stands.

Yes.. it does matter how channel one is distributed... your point was not even relevent, and still isnt'... like all your other points so far.

Again, your assertion that it doesn't cost them a cent is completely false.

You point was that "teachers" lost time and money trying to get sponsors... that is the only thing that is false. Because it doesn't cost the school or teachers a single cent to put the system in.

It also costs them the hassle of having to watch what is, by all accounts, a moronic and trashy programme, instead of actually learning something worthwhile.

All accounts... HAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAAHAHA making stuff up again I see.

I said that it would be cheaper and more useful in the long run if this sort of thing were funded publicly. The fact is that in societies that complain about taxation all the time, people do not pay enough tax to support public goods like schools. Of course, they pass the buck to their kids, who have to watch this trash, but everyone ends up paying in the end, because time is wasted and the integrity of schools is put at risk.

Now you are just ranting your normal political crap... not relevent at all...

So about all you have proved is that you know nothing about marketing... but really know how to lay out the political propaganda really think...

No surprise to people that read your posts regularly.

Try again... and this time, at least try to sound like you know what you are talking about...

[Q Classic]

channel one? god, i remember hating them in high school.

i remember one salient ad. i didn't mind it much, because it featured a shapely young woman taking off her jean pants and laying them down atop railroad tracks. moments later, a train went by, chopped off the lower end of them, after which she put them on. ah, levis cutoffs.

i remember their assumption that we were too stupid to understand britishers in their accents, and so they subtitled their "on the street" interviews with those britishers into american english.

i remember that after about a half a semester of that ****, our class, a senior ap english class, unplugged the tv every midday when channel one was to come on. apparently, we weren't the only one, and the administration didn't really care.

[Drake Tungsten]

i remember their assumption that we were too stupid to understand britishers in their accents, and so they subtitled their "on the street" interviews with those britishers into american english.

Why do you say "Britishers"? I thought you were Korean, not Indian.

[Jon Miller]

Channel One was terrible

I was glad that my highschool didn't ahve any of that BS

Jon Miler

[Q Classic]

Why do you say "Britishers"? I thought you were Korean, not Indian.

'cause it's a funnier word than britons, or albionese.

[Agathon]

Originally posted by Ming

You obviously don't based on your comments.

Give it up Ming, you are a terrible arguer. I've had better from a first year student.

Again... you don't seem to have any knowledge of basic marketing. All products have differences except for your standard generic/store brands or in the drug business.

Otherwise... your statement that products don't have any differences is ignorant at best.

If the best you can do is this, then I fear for you. Every product line is different from each other in some respect. That's not the point at issue. What is at issue is why people bother with brands.

Of course you point out that they increase sales. I knew that, that wasn't my point. Perhaps you should think before you type since I've said this twice now.

A company that brands like Nike does so because it wants to associate its products with a cool image and set of life values. But what does a set of life values have to do with shoes. Pretty much nothing. So why do they do it? Why don't they just focus on pointing out the superiority of their shoes over those of their competitors. One reason they don't is that there isn't much difference. Hence the need to create some artificial difference which has no basis in reality. Nike's brand loyalty has little to do with the quality of its shoes.

Brands have PROVEN value. People trust brand names that they have used and liked. The brand halo provides built in confidence for trying new products under the corporate brand. Then the product differences makes them regular customers...

But it doesn't for brands like Nike, where the differences in quality matter little. Teenagers simply do not worry about the quality of labelled clothing that much, they care about how cool or hip it is - and that is largely a matter of brand halo as you call it. I'm not talking about clothes powders or **** like that - these fit better into your scheme - the brand in these cases is almost always a mark of reliability (As Hyperion Records is for me).

What's idiotic is that people buy Nike shoes because they are seduced into the whole "just do it" thing. There's no pulling punches - these people are simply morons.

I guess it would sound magical to somebody with your little knowledge of marketing and product costs.

It sounds magical because it is moronic.

The first thing they teach is that it's cheaper per unit to make 1000 units vs 100. Advertising and other marketing increase sales... makeing it possible to lower the unit cost, and to decrease the cost to the consumer... and therefore selling even more products as long as there is enough demand... Not magic... just economics.

And poor economics at that. Your argument falls flat on its face because if we followed your logic it's cheaper to make 10,000 units versus 1000 and so on (lets say these are shoes). But this ignores the point that a market is simply a device to allocate scarce resources. But we don't want just to have shoes - we need to allocate resources to other things, and if people buy more shoes than they really need, we end up wasting resources when we didn't have to. The fact that Nike has to resort to this ridiculous charade shows that shoe consumption is way too high - it's artificially inflated by taking advantage of complete idiots.

In public education... it does... Colleges and Private schools are the only ones that advertise here... because they don't have full class rooms, and every empty seat means they have to charge people more, or lower the education experience...

Advertising most certainly does not improve efficiency in public education. I turn your attention to New Zealand's ridiculous experiments in this area. What happened was exactly what I said did. In any case that's slightly away from the main point which is that Channel One means that people spend more money over time for a poorer service. The reason you have Channel One in the States is that you guys are highly tax averse and prefer market solutions. The problem is that education is particularly prone to market failure - that's why we have public education systems (I could go on).

Health care it's the same thing... empty beds mean less money... and if you do elective surgery that can be profitable to the hospital, you want people to do it at your hospital and not somebody elses...

Yes, but if all the hospitals are run or paid by a central authority this problem does not arise. What you have again failed to realise is that empty beds can also be a sign that we are producing too much health care. You have committed the same fallacy as you did above.

As far as your TV example... it probably just means people put crap on TV... Who knows when it comes to NZ.

The causes are quite plain for anyone to see. A reduction in the public service aspect of television in favour of a market model.

Yes.. it does matter how channel one is distributed... your point was not even relevent, and still isnt'... like all your other points so far.

How does the distribution mechanism for Channel One matter if the chief objection to it is that it provides the same service that public funding would at a cost that compromises the integrity of the school system and wastes student time.

You point was that "teachers" lost time and money trying to get sponsors... that is the only thing that is false. Because it doesn't cost the school or teachers a single cent to put the system in.

Even if that is true, the other point stands.

All accounts... HAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAAHAHA making stuff up again I see.

No - everyone I've heard go on about it says it sucks - including someone in this thread.

Now you are just ranting your normal political crap... not relevent at all...

Which shows you don't understand. The reason that some things are publicly funded is an economic reason - to avoid free riding and its associated inefficiencies. In brief: markets often fail to provide an adequate level of a certain good if left to themselves - that is one reason why we have taxation.

Or perhaps you are one of those loons who thinks that the state just steals your money.

So about all you have proved is that you know nothing about marketing... but really know how to lay out the political propaganda really think...

No surprise to people that read your posts regularly.

Whatever.. some people even agree with me. ( some even when I'm not serious :eek!: )

Try again... and this time, at least try to sound like you know what you are talking about...

I do. At least I can understand how the argument is supposed to work. Your method seems to be to post material which misses the point at issue and then rant on about I don't know anything. Well, from what I've read, you should quit. I;m not an economist, but you can't see through third-rate market fundamentalist propaganda.

[Jon Miller]

Originally posted by Agathon


Give it up Ming, you are a terrible arguer. I've had better from a first year student.

he doesn't have a lot of recent practice

at least, not on this site

Jon Miller

[Nubclear]

Not to mention he's very good at trolling.

[Q Classic]

Give it up Ming, you are a terrible arguer. I've had better from a first year student.

don't you hate it when a word spelled correctly just looks wrong, for no particular reason at all? even though you know it's spelled right, but it just looks wrong?

[DinoDoc]

I can not believe that a troll based on a two year old incident got this large.

[Q Classic]

doesn't ming have some background in marketing/advertising? chicago's a good town for that.