# Internet advertising



## Olly Buckle (Feb 1, 2011)

Internet advertising sometimes seems a trifle haphazard, I suppose the audience is large and the rate is cheap, but I can see developments there to be made very soon. 

For example on a site like this people could be shown advertisements selected to appeal to them. I know that happens to a certain extent on the wider web where purchasing is analysed and you get ‘spam’, but what if the inset ads on the site changed?

 Language could be analysed to determine social groups, your locality, your internet provider and other web use might be monitored. Together it could build a pretty complete picture of the consumer, even if they don’t fill in personal details

How clever could they get? Would it be possible to have our personal WF, where one person’s header has heavy trucks, another saddles and bridles and another motorcycles? (No prizes for guessing who has which).

I am sure almost everyone on the forum is better informed than I on subjects like this, but I would be interesting to hear your ideas.

Looking back, I am not suggesting you sell us all down the river to some advertising agency Rob.


----------



## Baron (Feb 1, 2011)

The Google ads will pick key words from posts and threads and produce ads accordingly.  Like the thread about homosexuality on the debates forum will bring up ads to gay sites from time to time.  A thread about motorcycles will bring up ads on that topic.


----------



## Olly Buckle (Feb 1, 2011)

So I am already out of date, what is coming, any ideas?


----------



## BrokenPencil (Feb 1, 2011)

Olly Buckle said:


> Internet advertising sometimes seems a trifle haphazard, I suppose the audience is large and the rate is cheap, but I can see developments there to be made very soon.
> 
> For example on a site like this people could be shown advertisements selected to appeal to them. I know that happens to a certain extent on the wider web where purchasing is analysed and you get ‘spam’, but what if the inset ads on the site changed?
> 
> ...



Hmmm,
As a consumer, I'm usually not a fan of ads, but tolerate them if I must (like when watching TV). When I'm surfing the web, though, I use an "ad blocker" plugin that blocks all the ads. I'm not sure how many people are like me, but it might be something to consider if one is having a discussion about website advertising and if and how it works... and doesn't work if a significant number of people use ad-blocking software.
That's my perspective as a surfer and a user, but the other side of the coin would be an advertiser. The portable show booth displays company where I work uses google ads sometimes, but I think finds being listed in the "organic results" to generally be more effective for getting traffic for portable show booth displays rather than the paid ads. I think many people just tune out the ads and ignore them... or as I said above, they just block them...


----------



## JosephB (Feb 1, 2011)

Olly, last summer I worked on a prototype social networking site for a major brewery. Depending on the information gathered on sign-up, the user was presented with different ads, coupons and content, and the experience was continually updated and refined based on activity. The extent to which the site changed on each visit, or even while you were visiting was amazing. Test users where always saying, how did they know that about me? I have no idea how it all worked. We just worked on the look of the site and the user interface.


----------



## Baron (Feb 1, 2011)

JosephB said:


> Olly, last summer I worked on a prototype social networking site for a major brewery. Depending on the information gathered on sign-up, the user was presented with different ads, coupons and content, and the experience was continually updated and refined based on activity. The extent to which the site changed on each visit, or even while you were visiting was amazing. Test users where always saying, how did they know that about me? I have no idea how it all worked. We just worked on the look of the site and the user interface.


 
Facebook works in the same way.  When people fill out their interests, favourite music, etc. then they'll find ads appearing on their profiles to target those interests.


----------



## The Blue Pencil (Feb 1, 2011)

What urks me about internet advertising is that internet TV is becoming just as bad as watching shows on a TV. There is a reason that we watch Hulu instead of a television. It used to be that you could go online and watch movies and shows ad-free. It was an amazing relief from ten minute long commercial breaks. Now, even YouTube has frequent commercial breaks.
On Fox, when a commercial comes on the full screen shrinks and you have to sit up from your comfy sofa to resize the window after the commercial. 
Commercials have ruined television, and I hate to see it happening to the internet as well.
The customized ad experience irks me as well. The idea of telling the sponsors what kind of products I like is really creepy.


----------



## KrisMunro (Feb 1, 2011)

I'm not a fan of ads. If I want something, it's because there's a genuine need for it, not because someone has presented me with something that I suddenly 'have to have'. 

I don't have a TV, mostly because I don't want to hear about all the negative things in the world, but it has the added benefit of me not being bombarded with advertising left right and center. With relation to the internet, I use Ad Block Plus in conjunction with Ghostery. The few times I encounter ads, I can easily block them. I can pretty much block any component of a website. And Ghostery prevents Google (and any other site) from collecting details about my web habits. Sure, they'll still know my IP address, what browser I'm using, etc etc, but specific details about what I'm clicking and viewing aren't sent over.

It may interest people to know that even this site connects with Facebook, GoogleAdsense, as well as Tweetboard. So data about your web habits are being collected and collaborated between sites. As an example, Google will collect details about you from here, linked with your IP address, and will be able to target ads to you on any site that allows a space for them; such as facebook.

Now that YouTube has been bought by google (something like 1.3 billion dollars), we can expect even more of this to occur. Eventually, we'll have a variety of social networking sites being owned by larger corporations, and advertising will really take on a whole new level. It will end up with selected companies who are interested in making money from you, knowing a lot about you, including where you live, interests, occupation, lifestyle, income, etc. I'm not sure if that's a good thing.


----------



## JosephB (Feb 1, 2011)

Do you all think these sites serve up all the online content you enjoy out of the goodness of their hearts? They do it to generate revenue. Ads are means of doing that.


----------



## KrisMunro (Feb 1, 2011)

My sites contain no ads, nor do they ask for donations, or sell anything. So yes, I could argue that some are made from the goodness in people's hearts.


----------



## JosephB (Feb 1, 2011)

What kind of sites are they? Do you make your living from them?


----------



## KrisMunro (Feb 1, 2011)

They vary.. the first one was a fan site for a game. I've also made sites informing people of healthy ways to live, another for sharing images, for computer help, and some other similar sites. 

I don't make any money off running my own websites, but I have/do make money from making websites for other people (and maintaining them). It's more of a personal hobby for me, much like writing. I enjoy it too much for income to be a big concern. Mind.. in much the same way as writing, if someone came up and said, "I'll give you $10,000 for this here", I'd likely agree; take the money before starting on a new project.

I've always been fairly comfortable with 'my lot in life' and I'm content whether I have $50,000 in the bank as with $1,000. Making money isn't a big goal of mine, and so I guess you could say that I'm less aware of how much it matters to others.


And this in a way comes full circle back to advertising being useless to me. I've never bought anything because I saw some ad or got an email. There are some small caveats to this claim, such as seeing a new hot and spicy burger at KFC, but those are insignificant. I don't upgrade my computer because there's a deal going on at a random company. I get an upgrade because I need one. And when I need one, I search for what I'm after. I don't browse through adverts listening to companies boast about their product.


----------



## Baron (Feb 1, 2011)

KrisMunro said:


> I'm not a fan of ads. If I want something, it's because there's a genuine need for it, not because someone has presented me with something that I suddenly 'have to have'.
> 
> I don't have a TV, mostly because I don't want to hear about all the negative things in the world, but it has the added benefit of me not being bombarded with advertising left right and center. With relation to the internet, I use Ad Block Plus in conjunction with Ghostery. The few times I encounter ads, I can easily block them. I can pretty much block any component of a website. And Ghostery prevents Google (and any other site) from collecting details about my web habits. Sure, they'll still know my IP address, what browser I'm using, etc etc, but specific details about what I'm clicking and viewing aren't sent over.
> 
> ...


 The presence of Adsense, the Tweet Board or Facebook Connect have nothing to do with collecting information about members' surfing habits.  Adsense simply uses keywords on the site to produce ads.  It does not collect information about members.  Tweet board can only be used by those who already use Twitter and is not collecting any information from the site except what's posted onto the Tweet Board and the same applies to Facebook Connect.  Your post is just misinformed paranoia.

As far as revenue derived from advertising, donations or subscriptions is concerned; this site costs money to host, maintain and keep upgraded.  The main purpose of seeking any income is to meet those costs.  It's easy to preach about giving everything for free when you're not the one who has to meet the expenses.


----------



## KrisMunro (Feb 2, 2011)

Baron said:


> this site costs money to host, maintain and keep upgraded.  The main purpose of seeking any income is to meet those costs.  It's easy to preach about giving everything for free when you're not the one who has to meet the expenses.


I'm torn here.. I understand that people need to make money to support their websites. That I pay for mine, and offer them freely to the public is of no real relevance to how other people should run their sites (or how I should utilise other people's sites). 

There's a lot of angst over websites costing money, and there's some inherent expectation that the general public should pay for these costs; whether in donations or via putting up with advertising. I don't see it that way. If you've chosen to run a website, then you're responsible for maintaining it. You cannot get upset that people aren't supporting it. That it costs money to maintain isn't an issue that the general public have to concern themselves with. The owner can either make money out of it, or he/she cannot, and failing supporting it personally, the site will go under. If you treat the website like an income source, then you must treat it like a business; and businesses can fail.

The main point I'd like to make is that most websites (including this one) are presented to the public as is, free of charge and expectation of payment. There is no caveat that visitors sign stating that they will not use ad blockers, nor any trial basis before a donation needs to be made. I don't much care about the costs other people incur when running a site. That's their business. They've made the choice to have the site available, and they can live with the expenses that choice has generated. 

I do understand and appreciate that websites cost money. At the end of the day, you're providing a service. That service either makes you money, or it doesn't. You do not visit a business and have to put up with the owner getting angry at you for not buying enough. He/She has no right to approach you and say "hey, we're going to go out of business, can you spare a few dollars?".

If your website isn't breaking even, deal with it on your side, and don't displace the blame or responsibility onto your visitors.


----------



## Dudester (Feb 2, 2011)

In the early 1980's the pitch was made to the nation that they should have cable TV. The reason why ? Because, paying for TV, you wouldn't get commercials. We all know how well that worked out.

It happened again in the late 90's with the internet-you pay for the net-so, no ads.

I'm so fed up with guerilla advertising that if I was President for a day, a lot of advertisers would be put into giant meat grinders.


----------



## Olly Buckle (Feb 2, 2011)

I am with you on a lot of that Kris, in the case of this particular site Baron puts a lot of his time and effort into it and we all benefit from the site to some degree, I am happy to make an effort contribution and I don't find the ads intrusive, you don't see them but it is a banner across the top that disappears as soon as I move into the posts, that is fine.
What I was really interested in was the direction things might move in, I had the feeling there might be something for a story there, even if not a complete tale.


----------



## KrisMunro (Feb 2, 2011)

I agree that there's likely to be a great story there. I suspect that to get a complete tale out of it, you would have to take things to the extreme, and that would likely reduce your ability to suspend the disbelief of your readers.

Advertising has become bigger business than the products they promote. Many companies spend more money on promoting their goods than they do on creating those goods. This alone makes me wonder how interested the company is in making money rather than a superior product. It isn't a quality product that makes sales.. it's how many people know about it and want it. I doubt Apple products would do nearly so well if they didn't have the advertising backing them up. 

There's also some research into what's considered the 'hundredth monkey' theory. A lot of research also debunks this theory, but that's besides the point. The concept is that once you've reached 7% of the population, the rest of that population somehow miraculously also knows this thing you've told the original 7%. I've heard of advertising companies that strive to reach this benchmark, thinking that by reaching it, they will have reached everyone. And suddenly pink is the new red. 

Of course, advertising also factors in a lot of psychology. There are a number of sneaky attempts at subliminal messaging, attention grabbing, as well as selecting forms and colours to promote viewer interest. The purple whiskers box (cat food) is a simple example of this; cats prefer the colour purple, and often approach for the box rather than the food, making the 'parent' think the cat prefers that brand. Part of my disinterest in advertising is to avoid being tainted by the efforts of people who have a vested interest in what I do with my money.

Many companies are keenly aware of how people interpret and respond to something as simple as a symbol or company logo. Some companies spend many millions of dollars on the logo for their business. Sure, it's a big choice, but there must be some merit to how strongly people react to and remember logos to warrant this expense. The same logic applies to everything from website layouts through to book covers, poster designs, all the way through to your standard advertising flyers and banners.


I'm not sure how bad things could get in the future, but advertisers aren't shy on trying to trick you into spending your money. We've all heard of subliminal messages within movies and TV shows. They've been banned for a reason. Advertisers should have known the act was immoral, yet they ignored this and proceeded to try and brainwash people anyway. Any number of stories could be written based on this concept; a new method of ensuring that an advertisement works.

Technology is advancing quite a lot. One of the nice things I've heard about is with something like a paint on liquid crystal display. The company explained that it would be possible to wallpaper your house with liquid crystal and be able to display an entire wall as a rainforest, or desert, or your favourite game. Print the display onto your coffee cup and you've got a great medium for advertising. Want to buy a coke from the shops? You can get it cheaper if you drink it from a bottle with advertising scrolling across the label.

We're already being faced with advertising when we're going to the bathroom in public places. How much further do you think they can take it? Across number plates on cars? I've seen some research explain that companies are thinking about this as a possibility. 

Another technological invention is with glasses with heads-up-displays, or a wearable (small) computer that also has a projector. I saw a prototype of this concept where a person could go shopping, point the camera at an item, and the computer would search the database (via the internet) and pull up consumer information and reviews on the product. Scan a bag of peas and you'll get a list of how many nutrients are in them... and an advert saying that if you buy two bags, you can get one free. But wait, another brand is better for you, sure it's more expensive, but think of the health benefits. Follow the friendly blue arrow if you want to get a bag now.

----

Sorry for the long post.. I get carried away easily.


----------



## garza (Feb 2, 2011)

Well, you must know, I've looked at this from the other side of the fence all my life. If the newspaper that bought my stories when I was a kid didn't have Ozzie and Frank on the street selling ads, there would have been no newspaper. If the wire services didn't have clients who sold advertising there would have been no need for the wire services. Advertising is what has made possible my ability to pay the rent and buy groceries for the past 56 years. 

For me the best advertising on the Internet is on those sites that have a narrow focus with all advertising directly related to the subject of the website. For example, one of my favourite sites is prewarcar.com. It's almost all advertising with a small, but very interesting, magazine section. 

As for that old idea that 'you already pay for the Internet so there is no need for advertising', that's nonsense. I don't pay for the Internet. I pay for a connection to the Internet provided by Belize Telecom Limited, the local ISP. That's all. I do not pay to support all those millions of websites scattered around the world that provide me with information and entertainment.  

Advertising that is relevant is a service in itself. The fact some advertising is in poor taste does not diminish the value of and the continued need for advertising. The alternative is to turn all media everywhere over to governments to control. Consider that when you complain about advertising.


----------



## JosephB (Feb 2, 2011)

Kris, you really don't seem to have any knowledge of how advertising is developed. For the most part, companies have products and services they believe in, so it's very rarely a case of trying to trick or deceive anyone. They ask ad agencies to develop ads that communicate product features and benefits in ways that are memorable and that resonate with viewers. It's that simple.  

Most of the symbols used are overt, for example generating positive feelings by showing a food product in the setting of family all happily eating at the table. Cases of advertisers using subliminal messages are rare and most date back to the 60's and 70's. Many were cigarette ads -- not an industry known for it's ethics.

And you can’t force or brainwash consumers into buying products they don’t want or need. There are many examples of products that have failed despite massive advertising budgets. Consumers are the drivers – not the companies who advertise. 




KrisMunro said:


> This alone makes me wonder how interested the company is in making money rather than a superior product.



That's pretty naive. Of course companies exist to make money, as much as they can. That's the whole idea. Most companies know that the best way to do this is to offer products or services that are better than what their competitors offer. Whether you can describe them as superior is up for interpretation. It most often leads to products with which consumers are satisfied. If they aren't they'll go elsewhere and no amount of advertising will make a difference.



KrisMunro said:


> There are a number of sneaky attempts at subliminal messaging, attention grabbing, as well as selecting forms and colors to promote viewer interest. The purple whiskers box (cat food) is a simple example of this; cats prefer the colour purple, and often approach for the box rather than the food, making the 'parent' think the cat prefers that brand. Part of my disinterest in advertising is to avoid being tainted by the efforts of people who have a vested interest in what I do with my money.



How does this work? The cat owner puts two brands out on the floor and the cat goes up to the purple brand and somehow selects it? Or the owner takes the cat to the grocery store? Come on. 

Of course some people who have a vested interest in what you do with your money. They have a product and they want you to spend your money on it. Geez.


----------



## KrisMunro (Feb 2, 2011)

As much as I dislike advertising, I don't believe it's all bad. While I'd love a world where there was none, I cannot really imagine how our world could have coped without it. Or maybe I can.. but the more I think about it, the more difficult and unusual the solutions become. Maybe I just don't like what I think advertising is partly responsible for; a wide-scale degradation of our societal values in favour of possessions and power.

Call me biased..


----------



## JosephB (Feb 2, 2011)

KrisMunro said:


> As much as I dislike advertising, I don't believe it's all bad.



Well, it isn't all bad. In fact, very little of it is. I hope what I've said here has caused you to rethink some of your profound misconceptions and somewhat naive take on things.



KrisMunro said:


> Call me biased..



Call me biased. I work for an ad agency. I know a lot of people in the business. Most folks in advertising are pretty decent people who's main interest is doing good creative that helps clients sell products and services. They aren't interested in duping people and either are clients -- who mostly believe in what they're doing. There are exceptions, of course.

Advertisers play some part in promoting consumption and materialism. But like I said, for the most part, consumers drive advertising, not the other way around.


----------



## KrisMunro (Feb 2, 2011)

JosephB said:


> Kris, you really don't seem to have any knowledge of how advertising is developed. For the most part, companies have products and services they believe in, so it's very rarely a case of trying to trick or deceive anyone. They ask ad agencies to develop ads that communicate product features and benefits in ways that are memorable and that resonate with viewers. It's that simple.
> 
> Most of the symbols used are overt, for example generating positive feelings by showing a food product in the setting of family all happily eating at the table. Cases of advertisers using subliminal messages are rare and most date back to the 60's and 70's. Many were cigarette ads -- not an industry known for it's ethics.
> 
> ...


Sounding incredulous doesn't really support your stance... 

Your last sentence here is _my_ point. They want my money, so they direct slogans and catch phrases at me to gain it. When I want to spend my money, I'll seek what I'm after. I don't need someone trying to convince me I need their product. 

Advertisers do have a vested interest in the success of their efforts. "Of course companies exist to make money, as much as they can", you said. The focus is on what they want, not what the consumer wants. Their concept is 'the more people that know about our product, the more money we'll make'. It's fallen away from the ideals of creating a superior product that consumers will find a long term use for. They see us as sources for wealth acquisition, not as people who have a genuine need for their product. The distinction here is fairly profound. They are making a product to make money; they are not making a product to fulfill a need that people have. Sure, these concepts juxtapose in various ways, but I think I'm making it clear where its weighted.

Companies are not really interested in serving consumers, they're serving themselves and their own interests. There's some proof in this within the lessening durability of a great many items available to us. Many of the electronic items my grandparent owned still work today, yet each year, I have to buy some small household item because the 'old' one ceased working. You show me a company that sells a mobile phone that will last a lifetime, I'll accept that they are interested in making a superior product.

You may suggest that technology is advancing too quickly to need a mobile phone for that long, but don't miss my point here. The phone is an example. It should last that long if made with quality parts. And it's those quality parts that I could have if they didn't 'waste' so much money trying to get everyone's attention via advertising. When I said that they spend more money on advertising than on the product itself, what I'm saying is that they should have redirected that money to the product. Otherwise, I'm not only paying for the advertisement in terms of where I see it and the time it takes from me, but also within the cost of the item itself. I'm paying for countless other people to see the ad, even though they never bought the item.

I'm not saying that advertising doesn't have its place, but that the sheer amount of it that we encounter is too much. There has to be a happy medium.


----------



## Foxee (Feb 2, 2011)

KrisMunro said:


> I'm not saying that advertising doesn't have its place, but that the sheer amount of it that we encounter is too much. There has to be a happy medium.


There is unlikely to be one. Everything is potential ad space, really; packages of anything, the top bar of your gmail account, your t-shirt, shop windows, you tube videos...if you look at it and pay attention to it chances are good that a marketeer out there would like to stick an ad on it. If they could rent space on your girl or boyfriend's forehead they would...okay, that's slightly farfetched but how different is it to plaster 'Aeropostale' across her sweatshirt and 'Abercrombie and Fitch' up his jacket sleeve?

I used to work for small labeling manufacturer. We had meetings on advertising suggestions for on fresh meat packs.

The Superbowl is coming up this weekend and companies not only spend thousands of dollars on advertising during that game, they compete to do it! And they fight so hard for your attention that some of _those commercials_ get as much attention as the game itself in news and media!

Hate to break it to you, Kris, but advertisers are not about to give you a 'happy medium', each and every one of them is seeking to gain your full attention amidst all the noise and the more noise that there is, the more they will try.

There is a lesson here about writing. If you're writing anything that you are going to seek an audience for you've got to be aware of the level of noise that they experience. Your writing needs to cut through that, reach them, and communicate what you want it to. That's why novels that really make it big tend to have something about them that grabs people from the first page, the blurb on the last page, or at least the name of the author (sad to say).


----------



## KrisMunro (Feb 2, 2011)

Actually, there are stories of people being paid to get a company logo tattooed on their foreheads. Along with other people getting their names changed to promote a company label. Sad.. but some people will do anything for a quick buck.

And yeah.. I know advertisers aren't going to find a happy medium. Which is why I'm having a gripe 

I should also apologise in some way, I guess.. I tend to write in a more formal manner than I speak, and my tone often seems more serious than I intend it to. I'm pretty laid back, really.


----------



## Baron (Feb 2, 2011)

Foxee said:


> There is unlikely to be one. Everything is potential ad space, really; packages of anything, the top bar of your gmail account, your t-shirt, shop windows, you tube videos...if you look at it and pay attention to it chances are good that a marketeer out there would like to stick an ad on it. If they could rent space on your girl or boyfriend's forehead they would...okay, that's slightly farfetched but how different is it to plaster 'Aeropostale' across her sweatshirt and 'Abercrombie and Fitch' up his jacket sleeve?
> 
> I used to work for small labeling manufacturer. We had meetings on advertising suggestions for on fresh meat packs.
> 
> ...


 
How many best sellers would become so without advertising.  If nobody promoted these works how on earth would anyone know about them?


----------



## Foxee (Feb 2, 2011)

No need to apologize, Kris, it's a good discussion. Everyone's got an opinion and I get irritated with advertising, too. That's how I know, from a marketing standpoint, that I shouldn't get excited and think that I've made it just because I get my name out there.


----------



## JosephB (Feb 2, 2011)

KrisMunro said:


> Your last sentence here is _my_ point. They want my money, so they direct slogans and catch phrases at me to gain it. When I want to spend my money, I'll seek what I'm after. I don't need someone trying to convince me I need their product.



 Products are developed to meet needs and wants, if they don’t –- they don’t sell. Advertising is mostly about making consumers aware and communicating product features and benefits. You can’t put a product on the shelf and expect that consumers will just get around to buying it.

  If _you’re_ not convinced by the message, you don’t buy the product. If a product isn’t satisfactory, or doesn’t meet a need, people won’t buy it again and the product will fall by the wayside, or consumers will recognize a competitor’s product is better. Products that don’t live up to expectations set by advertising don’t stay on the shelves – so it doesn’t make sense long-term to oversell.



KrisMunro said:


> The focus is on what they want, not what the consumer wants.



You can’t make consumers buy products they don’t want. And if they aren’t satisfied with them, they won’t but them again. It’s very simple. That you think so shows a profound misunderstanding of how it all works. The road to developing a successful product and bringing it to market is littered with examples of companies trying to sell products consumers don’t want or need.



KrisMunro said:


> You may suggest that technology is advancing too quickly to need a mobile phone for that long, but don't miss my point here. The phone is an example. It should last that long if made with quality parts. And it's those quality parts that I could have if they didn't 'waste' so much money trying to get everyone's attention via advertising.



There are examples of products designed to wear out, but this is the exception. U.S. automakers did just what you’re suggesting. They made cars that were designed to be replaced every few years. Along came the Japanese with better cars and U.S. automakers were forced to make a better product. Long term, it isn’t a good business strategy and most companies are aware of that, although there are exceptions. If Company A makes a product that is known to outlast Company B's, then very often, that's what consumers will buy. 

  Cell phone manufactures might weigh the expected life of a phone based on advancing technology, that true. But that only makes sense based on what consumers want. Even so, I don’t really see a lot of cell phones that wouldn’t last if people chose to hold onto them. My mom’s cell phone is least 5 years old and going strong. Her battery wouldn’t charge after period of time, and I ordered her a new one.

 It’s all about the cost of doing business, what it takes to a bring product to market, make people aware of it and sell it. And what it takes to make a profit. That's how companies stay in business. Advertising is just part of that. The idea that companies could make more durable products if they didn't "waist" money on advertising doesn't take competition or other market forces into consideration.

The thing is, companies don't want to spend money on advertising any more than they want to spend it on any other cost. The ROI on advertising is difficult to pin down --  if they thought they could sell more products with less of it by making them more durable or whatever, they would -- that's a more predicable cost.



KrisMunro said:


> I'm not saying that advertising doesn't have its place, but that the sheer amount of it that we encounter is too much. There has to be a happy medium.



 When you sell your book to a publisher, be sure and tell them not to advertise it too much.


----------



## Foxee (Feb 2, 2011)

JosephB said:


> If _you’re_ not convinced by the message, you don’t buy the product.


This is where some spin and manipulation help a lot, though. Let's be honest.


> If a product isn’t satisfactory, or doesn’t meet a need, people won’t buy it again and the product will fall by the wayside, or consumers will recognize a competitor’s product is better. Products that don’t live up to expectations set by advertising don’t stay on the shelves – so it doesn’t make sense long-term to oversell.


I do wish that meant that it didn't happen. It is possible to end up with overhyped junk.


> You can’t make consumers buy products they don’t want.


Just hoodwink them a bit. 

Edit: Trying to post this has sent me completely round the bend. ARgh!


----------



## JosephB (Feb 2, 2011)

Foxee said:


> I do wish that meant that it didn't happen. It is possible to end up with overhyped junk. Just hoodwink them a bit.



Sure, it happens. Sometimes a lot more than a bit. A lot of the exercise crap out there is a good example. But like I said, products that don’t live up to expectations set by advertising don’t stay on the shelves –- so it doesn’t make sense long-term to oversell. 

Believe it or not, most companies really believe in thier products, some with a zeal that goes beyond reason. Don't discount that some folks really believe their own hype.

Regardless, I can't think of an example of where I bought over-hyped junk. Advertising only plays a role in my decision to buy. Independent verification is often needed. Word of mouth, product reviews etc. Let the buyer beware.

I'm biased of course -- somewhat. I'm in the industry. But it also gives me a perspective that a lot of other folks don't have. This idea that the purpose of advertising to dupe people into buying things isn't accurate. That's not to say that companies don't make products that people really don't need to survive. How many types and scents of air freshener do we really need? This is a products category that arose based on the idea that people's houses will stink to high heaven if one of these products isn't constantly in use. I'm not saying that companies don't ever try to sell products that aren't needed or that they don't create "needs" -- but that's not the rule.


----------



## Foxee (Feb 2, 2011)

> Let the buyer beware.


Exactly.

My time in the industry made me cynical and some days that's actually a good thing.


----------



## Hawke (Feb 2, 2011)

I almost bought a Pet Rock once. Oh, and a Chia Pet. Just saying.


----------



## Baron (Feb 2, 2011)

Hawke said:


> I almost bought a Pet Rock once. Oh, and a Chia Pet. Just saying.


 
At least Pet Rocks were useful as a deterrent when trained to go into attack mode.


----------



## KrisMunro (Feb 2, 2011)

Maybe one example of how advertising has had a detrimental effect on people is with fashion. In no other industry are people willing to spend, sometimes thousands of dollars more on a product because of the label. The fashion industry has gone beyond the form of clothing and exaggerated the function. People would not think to spend an extra $100 dollars on a shirt if it was not for the advertising that made it popular. The media and advertising has a lot of influence over what people think is attractive.. and this is a good part of my 'beef' with advertising. Their actions do affect what people want, and to a greater or lesser extent, this isn't always in the consumers best interests.

Baron made a good point about writers relying on advertising to get sales, and I agree this is necessary. But my point above also has relevance here. Some books are absolute drivel, yet they gain widespread attention because a publisher (who's oriented towards the market and making money) thinks the book has value; not as a book, but as a source of income.

We've had a few comments about the motivations of companies in making a product for consumers. These perspectives are really a directional thing; whether you are looking in or out. My view is that someone must see a demand before they make a product. Some people might call this catering to the needs of the consumers, but I'm more inclined to see it as them scanning for potential income sources. Even the home start-up business will look about and say "I think I could make a living selling bottled water", they don't look about and say "The people in this area really need bottled water, I think I'll help provide it".

You can argue that if people in the local area don't need bottled water, then at least one person is going out of business. And you can argue that advertising can help that person start his/her business. This is where I see advertising having a good impact; a reason for being. Publishers generally fall into this category.

Only advertising has gone beyond the point where it serves this purpose. It taints peoples views and values, interrupts and interferes with our time, it promotes greed and envy, encourages excessive spending, changes what people view as healthy, and alters culture in a negative way. When I hear some people say things like "Of course advertisers and companies are trying to take your money", I hear them saying that they agree with the companies' tactics of _easing_ our money from us.

You cannot tell me that the number of bulimic females in the world isn't partly a result of advertising. If someone is willing to do this, surely you can accept other people are willing to spend money, unnecessarily, on various items and goods; all as a result of advertising.

There's a line in the sand, and I know I've drawn mine a bit closer to home than other people. I can respect that other people see more value in advertising. But I've just been so damn happy without it


----------



## Bruno Spatola (Feb 3, 2011)

Oh. . . I just ignore them; easy. When you get so much content for free, a few ads here or there really shouldn't bother you. Gaming magazines are full of ads in the rear pages; I don't read them. Mythbusters has adverts every 15 minutes or so; I write ideas in my notebook till it's back on. Some YouTube vids have ads at the start; I turn the volume down and hum Bohemian Rhapsody till my (free) video actually starts. No harm done to me whatsoever.

Advertising is necessary in every medium. Quite silly in my eyes to be offended/annoyed by it, but we all react differently of course. The people who take the time to complain about advertising on a YouTube video are the funniest of all. They're wasting even _more_ of their precious time, moaning about something taking up - yes - their precious time. What should be funnier is the fact I'm wasting my time moaning about people moaning about advertisements wasting their time. . .:scratch:

I just get on with it. Seems the best way of a) becoming immune to its enticing glare and b) wasting the least amount of time on the interwebnet.

PS: That last bit (b) was just an excuse to use the term "interwebnet", which I have grown to love.

[video=youtube;-zOrV-5vh1A]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-zOrV-5vh1A[/video]

Mmmmm, advert.

*Uninteresting fact:* I have never purchased a product after seeing or hearing it advertised.


----------



## JosephB (Feb 3, 2011)

KrisMunro said:


> Only advertising has gone beyond the point where it serves this purpose. It taints peoples views and values, interrupts and interferes with our time, it promotes greed and envy, encourages excessive spending, changes what people view as healthy, and alters culture in a negative way. When I hear some people say things like "Of course advertisers and companies are trying to take your money", I hear them saying that they agree with the companies' tactics of _easing_ our money from us.



Wow. Advertising does all that? Well then, for the good of mankind, we should probably change the whole nature of advertising. TV ads could show a still image of the product, an announcer could calmly recite products features and benefits. No music or other images or taglines would be allowed. And nothing clever. Just the straight dope. Same with print –- just a product image and a set of bullet points, no clever headlines. Radio, same deal. Name of the product –- read the features and benefits in a calm, straightforward manner. 

Nothing that might get consumers whipped up into buying frenzy that will send them off to purchase products they don’t really need.

Better yet, we probably should stop advertising products that people don’t really need and only those that have real value, books and apparently bottled water under certain circumstances for example.

Even better, we should probably stop making products that people don’t really need, the products that companies cook up in some effort to make money, the ones they foist on the helpless populace who is rendered powerless by their evil advertising.

Soon enough, we'd be back in an idyllic,  pre-industrial society, where we make our own necessities or exchange them in a friendly barter system. Problem solved.


----------



## garza (Feb 3, 2011)

Do you mean to say that once you see or hear a product advertised, you refuse to buy it? Does that not severely limit your choices? 

And to be sure that my point was understood, you have a choice between allowing advertising to pay the way for media, including the printing of books, or turn all media over to government control. 

And let's tell Steve Jobs that he's not allowed to advertise Apple's next product. Would Apple have a next product? Well, that would depend on whether the Ministry of Technology would either grant a licence for further research and development, or decide that computer development has gone far enough and should stop now.


----------



## JosephB (Feb 3, 2011)

Could be wrong, but I think he means he never ran out and a purchased product as a direct result of seeing or hearing an advertisement.


----------



## KrisMunro (Feb 3, 2011)

JosephB said:


> Wow. Advertising does all that? Well then, for the good of mankind, we should probably change the whole nature of advertising. TV ads could show a still image of the product, an announcer could calmly recite products features and benefits. No music or other images or taglines would be allowed. And nothing clever. Just the straight dope. Same with print –- just a product image and a set of bullet points, no clever headlines. Radio, same deal. Name of the product –- read the features and benefits in a calm, straightforward manner.


 Come on.. don't be like that. Taking my statement to the extreme is a fallacy. It doesn't work, especially when I've clearly stated that advertising does have its place. Don't make me out to be ignorant or stupid...

Garza: I don't often encounter advertising, so I don't often have the opportunity to buy something I see in them. And I don't make a stance to not buy something because it's advertised. My dislike of advertising has nothing to do with my thoughts on the companies that use them or the products they sell.

I'm hoping my stance is coming across clearly here.. some of my statements are being taken in a negative light, and I'm spending a lot of time clarifying things that I really shouldn't have to. I've not ever suggested that people should not be allowed to advertise. Don't make me seem like I'm some sort of fanatic here.. I'm just voicing an opinion, and my clarifications of things have gone on for long enough to make it seem like I have an overly strong opinion on the matter. Really, I'm just happy not seeing advertising, and I wouldn't be upset if I never saw them.


----------



## JosephB (Feb 4, 2011)

It works for me -- but then again, I'm in advertising. I don't think you're ignorant or stupid, but you do a lot of exaggerating and generalizing -- and frankly your take on how and why products are brought to market and your understanding of what drives purchasing decisions is somewhat naive and in some cases just plain backwards. Sorry, that's just my opinion based on what you have to say. I also think that there are very few problems in the world today that couldn't be solved by more advertising.


----------



## KrisMunro (Feb 4, 2011)

JosephB said:


> It works for me -- but then again, I'm in advertising. I don't think you're ignorant or stupid, but you do a lot of exaggerating and generalizing -- and frankly your take on how and why products are brought to market and your understanding of what drives purchasing decisions is somewhat naive and in some cases just plain backwards. Sorry, that's just my opinion based on what you have to say. I also think that there are very few problems in the world today that couldn't be solved by more advertising.


 You're most likely right in that I'm naive about how advertising really works. But I would argue about me exaggerating.. maybe the claims I've made don't apply to all areas of advertising, but that's likely where you idea of me generalizing comes in. At the end of the day, it doesn't really matter what I believe. It's not like I care enough to do anything about it (besides block ads on my browser).

In some ways, I think my statements here were more intended as defense for my original spiel about not liking advertising rather than me actually having strong personal feelings against it.


----------



## JosephB (Feb 4, 2011)

I understand. Mine were in defense of what I do for a living. There are bad elements of it and effects of course -- but condemning it or perhaps even recognizing the need for it in the most tepid sort way imaginable is a bit like condemning the the whole restaurant and food service industry because of what fast food places do. 

Otherwise, it's all good. Few people are going to feel about the way I do. For me it's a way to make a living by expressing myself creatively and for the most part, I really enjoy what I'm doing -- and I didn't mind defending it.


----------



## The Backward OX (Feb 4, 2011)

The LOVE of money is the root of ALL evil.

Now, to further _that _particular angle in this discussion, perhaps you may all care to first ponder the all-encompassing term "evil" before running at your keyboard.


----------



## The Backward OX (Feb 4, 2011)

JosephB said:


> companies have products and services they believe in


Correction: companies have products and services they believe will make them money.


----------



## KrisMunro (Feb 4, 2011)

'Evil' is a hard word to give a clear definition of. Mostly because people relate 'evil' with hell and the devil. But it's not much of a stretch to think of hell/devil as a metaphor used to restrain otherwise 'evil' people. 

I know this is going to start up a whole new level of the debate, but I'd be happy living in a society where there was no money. I don't care (or know much about) communism or marxism, so I guess I don't have these biases against the concept of a 'free' world. Even as a kid, I used to wonder why the world turned to **** when money ran out. People didn't have jobs, they couldn't eat, they lost their houses... all because of this concept of money. I remember asking my mum (I would have been 6 or 7 at the time) why people just didn't keep working; and not earn money. Farms would still produce food, builders would still make houses, loggers would still provide resources for buildings... everything could just keep on rolling without people dying from a lack of food. There's enough reports of us making more than enough food to feed everyone in the world, so a single country starving itself (when the resources are there) seemed absurd to me.

In short, I'd say evil is anything that has a detrimental effect on other people, creatures, the environment, the world, and even the universe. The scope that 'evil' covers is too large to detail without using such a general description. With a description like this, money can be considered 'evil' (or maybe just the love of it as Ox pointed out), much like _some_ aspects of advertising.


----------



## JosephB (Feb 4, 2011)

The Backward OX said:


> Correction: companies have products and services they believe will make them money.



No kidding. That wasn't my point.  Most companies really believe in their products too –- even if they have to convince themselves that their product is better. Surely, that’s not so hard to understand.

EDIT: I'll elaborate. I've worked with company owners, C-level people, product and marketing people at all kinds of companies, from start-ups to fortune 500 companies. Most of these people believe in what they do -- some with an almost religious fervor. Of course, they're out to make money -- as much as possible, but part of the psychology of that is based on the belief that their product is better than their competitors, or that it's going to improve lives or whatever. Yeah, it's about making money -- but that's not everything.


----------



## KrisMunro (Feb 4, 2011)

There's a lot of public discontent about their working lives that might disagree with the idea that people truly support the company they work for (let alone the products that company supplies). Generally, people work from paycheck to paycheck. The success of the company and it's services only has a impact on that paycheck when you're at the upper management level (or are the owner). The average Joe isn't really concerned with the success of a company aside from when it's going out of business.

Also: many people will explain they approve of the product/service they provide, but there is evidence that some hold this belief because to do otherwise is an acceptance of them doing something they would otherwise dislike. As an example, people that pay a lot of money to watch a movie will generally find value in that movie, where people that watched the same movie for free are less likely to like it. Our value system regarding money and our time/effort warps our judgement. In short, working for a company and being paid by that company (in itself) is a contributing factor to our acceptance of the company's activities; the products themselves are also a factor, but people can overlook things they dislike in favour of believing they are happy to work for the company.

Yes, I'm generalising again.. but what is psychology if not the study of the most average a person can/should be.


----------



## JosephB (Feb 4, 2011)

I'm not sure if you're responding to me or not -- if so, note I said, "company owners, C-level people, product and marketing people at all kinds of companies." So I'm not talking about the average Joe -- I'm taking about stakeholders.

However, depending on the company, a lot of this belief in the company and the product filters down and is promoted among employees at all levels and people buy it -- and sometimes that's OK.



> ...but people can overlook things they dislike in favour of believing they are happy to work for the company.



And that sort of the same mentality applies at the top levels too. People want to believe in their products -- that what their doing is worthwhile -- that's applies to CFO's and people in the mail room as well.


----------



## KrisMunro (Feb 4, 2011)

JosephB said:


> And that sort of the same mentality applies at the top levels too. People want to believe in their products -- that what their doing is worthwhile -- that's applies to CFO's and people in the mail room as well.


 Which is part of why I think they don't really have a true grasp on what's good for the consumer. They live and breathe their own products, and may not see them in the same light as other people. When an advertisement portrays a product, it's usually (and you could argue always) presented in a better light than the truth of the matter.

I don't want to 'beat a dead horse' re. my views on advertising, but couldn't pass up making this connection.


----------



## JosephB (Feb 4, 2011)

No, they don't _always_ have a grasp on "what's good for the consumer." Sometimes they just think they do. 

You're asking an awful lot of companies -- and not much of consumers. Again, you're discounting that sooner or later -- usually sooner -- consumers will catch on that a product doesn't live up to the advertising.


----------



## KrisMunro (Feb 4, 2011)

Yeh, I am asking a lot of companies in some ways. But I think they could get along just fine without advertising. We have business directories and the internet these days, which are great for finding what your after; and hearing via word of mouth whether a product is good. I usually do research into customer feedback regarding larger purchases I make. This is how I find out about a great many products out there and whether they are good or bad. I may search for a nokia mobile phone, wanting something with an OLED display, but end up buying a samsung because a lot of other people said it was better. An advertisement cannot give me this comparison.

"The idea that consumers will catch on that a product doesn't live up to the advertising" is beyond the point when that advertising has caused people harm. It's like (and I know this is a exaggeration of the worst kind) saying that people realised that dropping an atom bomb on Hiroshima was a bad idea after it was done... but the people in charge still thought it would further their goals (and it did). Sorry for the bad example.. I just cannot think of anything else that portrays the same message in a gentler manner.


----------



## JosephB (Feb 5, 2011)

Yes, sometimes companies intentionally try to foist shoddy products on unsuspecting consumers. But I would contend that's the exception.

A lot of decisions have to made to bring a product to market, many of them might have to do with making certain aspects of the product  "good enough." So a company might not use the most durable material or try to cut corners in some other way. There's nothing evil about that.

I think some people have this idea that companies are rolling in dough, when the reality is, for most companies, profit margins are very small -- and the wrong decision on something that costs a few cents could put them out of business. It's a balance. Sometimes they just put stuff out -- and hope for the best. I've seen that happen. But people who run companies are human and they make mistakes just like everyone else. You can't afford to make too many, and sometimes one will put you out of business. It sucks that some consumers might get burned in the process, but it's not a perfect world. And a lot depends on how the company reacts and whether or not they try to make it right -- and in many cases they do, or the retailer does. Consumers really aren't left holding the bag that often -- and the "harm" usually amounts to some inconvenience. It's not really a big problem.

I think if you could actually see how some of this works from the inside, maybe your expectations would be more realistic.


----------



## bazz cargo (Feb 5, 2011)

*Average Bazz*

Unless you live in a cave and hunt for your food, you will need money.It is the way our ancestors have made this civilization work.
Every day I, like you are bombarded by ads. I am sure you, like me can  filter out the noise. If I decide I want, or need something, then an ad.  could be a good place start researching.
Good business's will make a good product, or provide a good service, and make a little money. Bad business's will make a lot of money and wont give a stuff for their customers. Now because of the internet I can find a wider range of business's, and check out their customers experiences.
Why so many people choose to deal with bad business's, or consume rubbish is beyond me.
For many small business's the only way to reach out to potential customers, is advertising. This forum uses it to provide a free service, and  pay the bills.
Its a win, win, win, situation.

free the penguin


----------



## Baron (Feb 5, 2011)

bazz cargo said:


> free the penguin


 
The penguin is confined under the shadow of Edinburgh Castle and is only allowed out for occasional internet binges.


----------



## The Backward OX (Feb 5, 2011)

KrisMunro said:


> Also: many people will explain they approve of the product/service they provide (sic) but there is evidence that some hold this belief because to do otherwise is an acceptance of them doing something they would otherwise dislike. As an example, people that pay a lot of money to watch a movie will generally find value in that movie, where people that watched the same movie for free are less likely to like it. Our value system regarding money and our time/effort warps our judgement.


It'd be most interesting to learn, via a professional study, where commercial prostitution of the female body fits, in this overall concept.


----------



## The Backward OX (Feb 5, 2011)

JosephB said:


> I've worked with company owners, C-level people, product and marketing people at all kinds of companies, from start-ups to fortune 500 companies. Most of these people believe in what they do -- some with an almost religious fervor. Of course, they're out to make money -- as much as possible, but part of the psychology of that is based on the belief that their product is better than their competitors, or that it's going to improve lives or whatever. Yeah, it's about making money -- but that's not everything.


 


A year or so back I happened across a Coca~Cola representative in a supermarket. He was creating a display at the end of an aisle and worked with that almost religious fervour of which you speak. I looked at him and his product in disgust for a few moments, then tapped him on the shoulder. When he looked up, I just said, “Why don’t you go and get a real job?” then walked off, hopefully leaving him to ponder.


----------



## JosephB (Feb 5, 2011)

The Backward OX said:


> A year or so back I happened across a Coca~Cola representative in a supermarket. He was creating a display at the end of an aisle and worked with that almost religious fervour of which you speak. I looked at him and his product in disgust for a few moments, then tapped him on the shoulder. When he looked up, I just said, “Why don’t you go and get a real job?” then walked off, hopefully leaving him to ponder.



Too bad he didn't pick up a can, whack you on the head with it and send you into the next week. That would have been awesome!


----------



## Baron (Feb 5, 2011)

The Backward OX said:


> It'd be most interesting to learn, via a professional study, where commercial prostitution of the female body fits, in this overall concept.


 
I thought you were resting. You really shouldn't think too hard on the field research in your condition.

http://www.writingforums.com/writers...ml#post1409587


----------



## bazz cargo (Feb 8, 2011)

*rage against the machine*

Is advertising just another way of telling a story ?
Some people succumb to the glitter, and some can ignore it, and some even see the dark side, does this mean we have an obligation to run the lives of those who are patently unable to run their own ? 
Why do cigarettes sell so well ? They make you smell, ruin your health and kill you horribly. They cost a fortune, and dictate your behavior. A cigarette says ' Hey I'm Stoopid.'
Yet I see school kids puffing away.
It's enough to make me want to write a rant about it.


----------



## garza (Mar 17, 2011)

Easy answer. Without commercials television would exist but would be run by government.


----------



## garza (Mar 17, 2011)

Follow-up - Without private, corporate investment and the use of advertising to recoup that investment with profit, the Internet would also exist, run by government.


----------



## The Blue Pencil (Mar 17, 2011)

Under The Cover said:


> This may be a dumb question, but without commercials would/could there be television?



Yes, commercials are essential to the survival of the television industry but in the past maybe 10 years, the length and amount of them has gone sky high. When watching TV, my family always says, "oh it's been 3 minutes, time for a commercial". It's gotten to where there are more commercials than television. It's just not worth watching anymore.
When we turned to watching TV on the computer I guess it was so unpopular that there weren't half as many commercials. I just hate to see Youtube turn into an endless parade of commercials with 3 minute breaks for the video.


----------



## garza (Mar 17, 2011)

UtC - Support, as you are in a very good position to know, must come from somewhere. The market-driven side of my mind says, given those two options, go for the private investors. Let readers vote with their dollars whose books they want to read. 

The situation we have today has no parallel in history. Never before has the writer had the ability to reach directly to a mass audience. Never before has a publisher had the means of putting the works of unknown writers before the public at minimum economic risk.


----------



## garza (Mar 18, 2011)

At my age 'success' is defined as the continuing ability to make it to the bank to cash the residuals.


----------



## Baron (Mar 19, 2011)

Apart from contextual links in threads (which the forum is equipped for but which are not used because they would disrupt creative posts) many of your suggestions are being put into practice by members of the forum.  We encourage viral promotion of their work by _active creative members_.

When one of our active members is published then we're all pleased to share the good news.  The emphasis is always on _active creative members_ rather than those who join only to promote their own enterprise and provide no real beneficial input to other members.

What we do not do is provide a sales base for those who do not otherwise positively contribute to the forum.


----------

