nukchebi0 wrote:
Could you elaborate slightly? I'm not sure I see much of a difference between manipulation and lying in this case.
So they don't exist, but then they do?Please, read what you wrote:
I don't believe in the idea of trend setters. Trends today are so materialistic that they are mostly defined by business, and their success is dependent on making people believe they are following the trend setters.
You don't think their early adoption has any effect on the rate it it spreads through the rest of society?No, I'm saying that the people who are popular happen to pick up trends first because that is the kind of person they are. The timing makes an illusion that they are the cause of the trend, but they could be removed completely and the cycle would stay the same.
To you, yes. To me, yes. But the world and consumer base is comprised of more than you and me. Companies would not pay a ton of money to have celebrities in commercials or endorsing a product if it didn't have an effect. Businesses are not created to waste money.They don't though. They are only as effective as any type of advertising is.
Agreed, but having something small placed in an ideally location or used ideally will be less effective than a larger logo located or used similarly. To say size is irrelevant is a bit narrow-minded, I think.The implementation is important, not the size.
Based on what has been established in capitalist business for the past 100 years, having your name visibly on a product is useful in advertising for it. Again, would companies put their name on it if it didn't have an effect on their sales? No, of course not. They wouldn't bother with it.Just because there are no good examples in a certain industry doesn't mean a company cannot be successful without blatant logos everywhere. It just means no one has been creative enough in that industry to use some finesse.
Yes, I see. As Toenails did point out, and is much clearer to me now, advertising is manipulating someone's perception of something in order to favorably influence their actions in regards to this something.Not making any claims isn't lying, not even by omission. They are only making people remember the product, because if they remember the product and it is a good one, that will boost sales right there.
I meant I agreed with the general concepts of your original post.We clearly don't agree.
I associated the perception manipulation with lying. But yes, there is no technical lying.SenorToenails wrote:
http://www.bebereviews.com/aejeans.jpgnukchebi0 wrote:
Could you elaborate slightly? I'm not sure I see much of a difference between manipulation and lying in this case.
What's the lie?
http://www.duncans.tv/images/Gap-Swing.jpg
Gap clothes will make you spontaneously swing dance? No.
http://img74.imageshack.us/img74/9236/hollister3ad.jpg
Lies? There are no promises made in these ads, so where are they lying?
You are seeing X product associated with fun and 'beautiful' people. They imply that product X will make that happen, but they don't say it will. That's manipulation, not lying.
Last edited by nukchebi0 (2008-04-27 19:49:24)
The illusion of them exists. You can't point to one.nukchebi0 wrote:
So they don't exist, but then they do?
No. People would adopt it no matter who actually buys the product because of the methodology of the advertising. The popular people only get on board first because they are more prone to trying new things and putting themselves out there, hence their popularity. The slower people would still take up the fashions because the companies tell them everyone is doing it, not because they actually see other people doing it.nukchebi0 wrote:
You don't think their early adoption has any effect on the rate it it spreads through the rest of society?
Again, there is an illusion of an effect. People believe it will make a big difference, so they spend big money on it. Whether it actually makes a difference is debatable.nukchebi0 wrote:
To you, yes. To me, yes. But the world and consumer base is comprised of more than you and me. Companies would not pay a ton of money to have celebrities in commercials or endorsing a product if it didn't have an effect. Businesses are not created to waste money.
How is bigger effective? Bigger is better? Many people, including me obviously, are turned off by these huge logos.nukchebi0 wrote:
Agreed, but having something small placed in an ideally location or used ideally will be less effective than a larger logo located or used similarly. To say size is irrelevant is a bit narrow-minded, I think.
They would because they think it makes a difference. It is impossible to prove whether it actually does or not. The only necessary goal of advertising is to get the word out about the product if it is a quality product, and many companies do not rely on stamping everything in sight. For some companies that is a necessity.nukchebi0 wrote:
Based on what has been established in capitalist business for the past 100 years, having your name visibly on a product is useful in advertising for it. Again, would companies put their name on it if it didn't have an effect on their sales? No, of course not. They wouldn't bother with it.
One example of a company succeeding by asserting their brand on everything does not make a general rule.nukchebi0 wrote:
One example of a company succeeding without asserting their brand on everything does not disprove a general rule.
Oh. That wasn't clear.Flaming_Maniac wrote:
The illusion of them exists. You can't point to one.nukchebi0 wrote:
So they don't exist, but then they do?
So popular people get it because the company implies its 'fresh', and the rest of the people get it because the company asserts (half correctly) "everyone" is doing it?No. People would adopt it no matter who actually buys the product because of the methodology of the advertising. The popular people only get on board first because they are more prone to trying new things and putting themselves out there, hence their popularity. The slower people would still take up the fashions because the companies tell them everyone is doing it, not because they actually see other people doing it.nukchebi0 wrote:
You don't think their early adoption has any effect on the rate it it spreads through the rest of society?
The fact it hasn't been stopped after the long amount of time it has been used suggests there is tangible benefits to companies using it.Again, there is an illusion of an effect. People believe it will make a big difference, so they spend big money on it. Whether it actually makes a difference is debatable.nukchebi0 wrote:
To you, yes. To me, yes. But the world and consumer base is comprised of more than you and me. Companies would not pay a ton of money to have celebrities in commercials or endorsing a product if it didn't have an effect. Businesses are not created to waste money.
How does this affect the fact that celebrities can help sell products?Also, there are plenty of successful million dollar ad campaigns without any celebrities.
A bigger logo makes this slightly easier. Obviously one would not want one overly large, but size does influence the effect to some degree.How is bigger effective? Bigger is better? Many people, including me obviously, are turned off by these huge logos.nukchebi0 wrote:
Agreed, but having something small placed in an ideally location or used ideally will be less effective than a larger logo located or used similarly. To say size is irrelevant is a bit narrow-minded, I think.
All that has to be done is imprint an idea of who made the product, how that is done is completely irrelevant.
I have way more products in my house that incorporate the logos of companies than those that don't.They would because they think it makes a difference. It is impossible to prove whether it actually does or not. The only necessary goal of advertising is to get the word out about the product if it is a quality product, and many companies do not rely on stamping everything in sight. For some companies that is a necessity.nukchebi0 wrote:
Based on what has been established in capitalist business for the past 100 years, having your name visibly on a product is useful in advertising for it. Again, would companies put their name on it if it didn't have an effect on their sales? No, of course not. They wouldn't bother with it.
Except there are much more than one.One example of a company succeeding by asserting their brand on everything does not make a general rule.nukchebi0 wrote:
One example of a company succeeding without asserting their brand on everything does not disprove a general rule.
No, everyone gets it because the company asserts "everyone" is doing it. The early adopters are more likely to jump on the bandwagon sooner because that is their nature, that is part of what makes them popular.nukchebi0 wrote:
So popular people get it because the company implies its 'fresh', and the rest of the people get it because the company asserts (half correctly) "everyone" is doing it?
Suggests, does not prove.nukchebi0 wrote:
The fact it hasn't been stopped after the long amount of time it has been used suggests there is tangible benefits to companies using it.
It means that maybe it isn't the celebrities that make the products sell. Maybe it is the extra time and effort that goes in to planning an ad with a celebrity because of the additional cost involved.nukchebi0 wrote:
How does this affect the fact that celebrities can help sell products?
The size of the logo only affects the clarity. As long as people can tell what it is, that is all that matters.nukchebi0 wrote:
A bigger logo makes this slightly easier. Obviously one would not want one overly large, but size does influence the effect to some degree.
Really? Who made your pots and pans? What about your furniture? (don't check the tag, no one who comes to your house does) Your electricity? Heating gas? Carpet? Hell, who built your house, most likely the largest financial investment your family has?nukchebi0 wrote:
I have way more products in my house that incorporate the logos of companies than those that don't.
As are there examples of companies that don't rely on stamping their products.nukchebi0 wrote:
Except there are much more than one.
Implies, not asserts. Otherwise, it would be lying, and companies don't lie in advertising.Flaming_Maniac wrote:
No, everyone gets it because the company asserts "everyone" is doing it. The early adopters are more likely to jump on the bandwagon sooner because that is their nature, that is part of what makes them popular.nukchebi0 wrote:
So popular people get it because the company implies its 'fresh', and the rest of the people get it because the company asserts (half correctly) "everyone" is doing it?
Suggests strongly, as in can be logically inferred.Suggests, does not prove.nukchebi0 wrote:
The fact it hasn't been stopped after the long amount of time it has been used suggests there is tangible benefits to companies using it.
Maybe...or maybe the fact Hannah Montana is behind it helps much more than the quality of the ad. *Looks at Craptoon Network ads*It means that maybe it isn't the celebrities that make the products sell. Maybe it is the extra time and effort that goes in to planning an ad with a celebrity because of the additional cost involved.nukchebi0 wrote:
How does this affect the fact that celebrities can help sell products?
Clarity is important in telling what it is.The size of the logo only affects the clarity. As long as people can tell what it is, that is all that matters.nukchebi0 wrote:
A bigger logo makes this slightly easier. Obviously one would not want one overly large, but size does influence the effect to some degree.
Visible. (Revere Wear)Really? Who made your pots and pans? What about your furniture? (don't check the tag, no one who comes to your house does) Your electricity? Heating gas? Carpet? Hell, who built your house, most likely the largest financial investment your family has?nukchebi0 wrote:
I have way more products in my house that incorporate the logos of companies than those that don't.
In the certain industries that don't need to, yes. Outside, very few.As are there examples of companies that don't rely on stamping their products.nukchebi0 wrote:
Except there are much more than one.
How is that strongly suggested? Because logos are everywhere? No one has done a study about whether or not there is a tangible difference, so you cannot know.nukchebi0 wrote:
Suggests strongly, as in can be logically inferred.
Same as above.nukchebi0 wrote:
Maybe...or maybe the fact Hannah Montana is behind it helps much more than the quality of the ad. *Looks at Craptoon Network ads*
First of all, congratulations on having the only furniture and house in America with a visible tag on them.nukchebi0 wrote:
Visible. (Revere Wear)
Not visible.
Visible. (CEC)
N/a
Not visible.
Visible. (Solaire)
Of course, you picked two utilities, which typically don't need product awareness (I grant certain industries just don't need it). Carpet doesn't need it, either, because you pick what looks good regardless of maker.
But, look at you computer monitor. Look at your mouse. Look at your speakers. Look at your TV. Look at your car. Look at your printer. Look at your dishwasher.
Do you know who made them? Yeah, you do.
You're just throwing out made up rules and making generalizations about industries according to your arguments. You aren't backing it up with anything.nukchebi0 wrote:
In the certain industries that don't need to, yes. Outside, very few.
