Watch TV or Go to Jail

[Ming]

Originally posted by Osweld
There are fads created by people, and there are corporate fads. Britney spears, and pop culture in general, is a good example of corporate fads. Brintey spears was nothing before all the hype was created around her.

She is not a "corporate fad"... she is a media fad. The hype was originally created by media outlets. Advertisering only followed once she was a hit, not prior.

Ah, so you are begining to admit it.

No... I'm admitting to the LIMITED power of advertising.
Advertising can't make you buy a "pile of crap"... you imply that it can. Advertising can show how a product can fullfull a need... but you are the one that determines if you have the need.

They would however buy a huge gas guzzling 4x4 to drive their kids to school in, despite not needing that.

You obviously don't drive kids around. You "need" a vehicle that has enough room to drive MANY kids around.
A small economy car doesn't have the space you "need" to do so. Before the 4x4's... there were gas guzziling station wagons... and then vans. Both have their limitations. 4x4's sell well because people feel they need them... not because of advertising. Again... advertising works when there is already a need. Your comments make it sound like we could sell these people their own large school buses by simply advertising. It doesn't work that way.

[Jac de Molay]

Advertising can't make you buy a "pile of crap"... you imply that it can. Advertising can show how a product can fullfull a need... but you are the one that determines if you have the need.

Advertising, in many, many instances, creates that need outright, especially among the audiences that are most vulnerable to begin with.

Products, like designer clothes for teens, are portrayed against a backdrop of sexy, attractive people, and good times. There is an intrinsic need created that owning or wearing those clothes makes you part of that experience. Abercrombie and Fitch e.g.

There's always an undercurrent portrayed in much of advertising that the consumer's quality of life is somehow diminished because he doesn't own Product X.

[duke o' york]

Lots of people here seem to equate advertisers with thugs who stand outside stores and force people to buy products.
Advertisers will do all in their power to ensure that they make you buy the product they are advertising, including arguing that you are somehow less of a human being than somebody who already owns/uses this thing by making you ashamed of whichever alternative to it you have or of the fact that you don't have one, but they are incapable of actually making you buy anything. That would be illegal for a start, not to mention prohibitively expensive, although great news for the hired goons industry.
The consumer has the final decision, and if some people are more easily led than others then they will buy what they are told to, but the vast majority have the mental capacity to make a decision based on the information presented to them, whether by advertisements or in the shop. The advertiser can only try to put their product ahead of rivals' products in your thought processes, but they still cannot guarantee sales. How many times have you got to the shops and found that the wonderful thing you have seen/heard advertised is more expensive than you thought or can afford and have gone home with another product? For the advertisers, it would be better if you had returned hoime empty-handed and saved more money to get their choice of product, but that's not how things work.
Advertisers can direct your thoughts, but cannot control them.

[Ming]

Originally posted by Jac de Molay
Products, like designer clothes for teens, are portrayed against a backdrop of sexy, attractive people, and good times. There is an intrinsic need created that owning or wearing those clothes makes you part of that experience. Abercrombie and Fitch e.g.

We don't create the need. Teens already WANT to wear the the most trendy things. Since the beginning of time, people have always wanted to be considered hip, or the most fashionable... Adverrtising simply takes advantage of that need that already exists. Advertising doesn't "make" them want to be trendy... If a product is not TRENDY... advertising can't make it so.

Abercrombie and Fitch is a classic example of understanding the market, and designing products to meet an already existing need. They were a dying brand... a brand that used to cater to the old fat cat establishment... They were lossing money and market share. They knew they had to change. Since their clients were literally dieing on them... they decided to take a different approach. They sent their people out to places where teens hung out... did research... and determinded the types of clothes that teens thought was trendy and hip... and then started selling clothes that matched what they were being told. An instant success story. They didn't "create" the trend... they worked with an exisiting trend... and ran with it.

[Jac de Molay]

Advertisers will do all in their power to ensure that they make you buy the product they are advertising, including arguing that you are somehow less of a human being than somebody who already owns/uses this thing by making you ashamed of whichever alternative to it you have or of the fact that you don't have one,

Fine, then it shouldn't be in a classroom. I don't care how much fancy equipment the school gets-raise a bake sale if you can't afford it, fer chrissakes.

It's cynical to say " well kids watch a lot of tv and ads anyway". Now, they have to watch more crap, and all the schools gets is a bunch of overpriced equipment for their trouble.

Channel One doesn't add any value to a ****ty education system to begin with, and has no place there.

[Drake Tungsten]

all the schools gets is a bunch of overpriced equipment for their trouble.

How is free equipment "overpriced"?

[Ming]

That's your opinion...

The schools seem to think that getting free equipment that they can use for other things... like teaching the students, is worth it. So in their opinion... it's a good thing, and has a place in the classroom. So I guess the experts would disagree with you

[Ming]

I really love how some people equate advertising to mind control. How silly

In bad economic times... the advertising budget is the first thing to be slashed. Advertising is just one element of the Marketing Mix. If Advertising was as MIND CONTROLLING as some people seem to want to give it credit for... the first thing major companies would do in bad economic times would be to raise advertising budget so that the people would be "forced" to buy things they didn't need or couldn't afford...

Maybe some real classes on marketing and economics, or real world experience, would dispell people of this silly and incorrect notion

[Jac de Molay]

We don't create the need. Teens already WANT to wear the the most trendy things. Since the beginning of time, people have always wanted to be considered hip, or the most fashionable... .

That's not true at all. In most instances, the trends that are created are mostly "top-down". It's the designers and carriers that dictate the trends in fashion magazines and advertising blitzes.

If you peruse the fashion or teen magazines, the dictates of "What's Hot" or "What to wear" sections are usually proclaimed by designers and so-called experts and then filter down.

[General Ludd]

Originally posted by Ming
I really love how some people equate advertising to mind control. How silly

It is, you(they) just aren't very good at it.

[Jac de Molay]

Maybe some real classes on marketing and economics, or real world experience, would dispell people of this silly and incorrect notion

Or the equally naive notion that advertising is just an innocuous way to help consumers make "informed choices".

[duke o' york]

Originally posted by Ming
I really love how some people equate advertising to mind control. How silly

I've got lots of fun equations.

[Ming]

I have always stated that the intent is to help people make the decision to buy our product.

However... unlike others here, I don't think it's mind control and that it can force people to do things they don't want to do... that is naive, and just plain silly and incorrect.

My opinion has been based on a lifetime of real world experience as a member of the industry. I know what it's limitations are... I live them and see them every day in the real world. While you might claim I'm biased on my level of knowledge... others must agree with me, because they want me to lecture to students and other people in the industry

You are welcome to disagree... that is your right... But I must ask what the basis of your arguments are besides just your limited opinin

[duke o' york]

I wasn't disagreeing with you. Despite the liberal use of smilies.

[Jac de Molay]

But I must ask what the basis of your arguments are besides just your limited opinin

Limited opinion of what? I simply don't buy that notion that advertising doesn't create needs in and of itself.

I think there's plenty of real world examples that show that advertising creates needs that are either already filled or non-existent.

Fast-food marketing to children is a good example. Most well-raised children have access to nourishing food and plenty of it. But through advertising blitzes, and toy merchandising tie-ins, they are luring an audience that:

A) Already has access to the product they're selling.

B) Is uninformed, and incapable, of differentiation between product alternatives to begin with.

Channel One has no place in schools where advertisers have access to this kind of "dream" target audience. The mission of schools is to educate. And they might be getting something in return, but they're, in essence, selling student's time for it.