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.
So they don't exist, but then they do?
The as I said, by the way, was aimed toward the second sentence's italicized phrase, with the 'their' referring to business.
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.
You don't think their early adoption has any effect on the rate it it spreads through the rest of society?
They don't though. They are only as effective as any type of advertising is.
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.
The implementation is important, not the size.
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.
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.
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 without asserting their brand on everything does not disprove a
general rule.
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.
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.
We clearly don't agree.
I meant I agreed with the general concepts of your original post.
I associated the perception manipulation with lying. But yes, there is no technical lying.
Last edited by nukchebi0 (2008-04-27 19:49:24)