Jump to content

People who work in Advertising


huncamunca

Recommended Posts

Very good game.


Here's a tale...


Before '88 drink driving was more than socially acceptable, it was considered a demonstration of social status. It was largely associated with chief executives in jaguars that could get away with it.


In rural areas it was an aspirational objective, and pubs even had breathalysers on which 19 year-olds in XR2s could test how pissed they were before they drove home. (They were installed by police on the basis that they would do the opposite).


In the next few years we had a concerted govt. campaign that demonstrated graphically the damage these guys did. Drink driving is now socially unacceptable. It may be difficult for people to envisage this unless they lived through it.


Advertising is a political hot-potato:


(1) In a libertarian society the booze firms are free to advertise at will, and the people have to learn the consequences (it clearly doesn't work).


(2) In a progressive liberal society the booze firms are free to advertise at will but we tax the bastards and spend it on govt. advertising to point out the bad side (seems to work).


(3) In a totalitarian society we prevent booze firms from advertising (see above from DJKQ).


You have to work out what policy you think is best.


DJKQ insists that I believe in (2) because it's my business. I don't. I believe in (2) because I think it's healthy. I believ in informed self-expression as a socialist ideal.


Current Conservative policy is (1)


And some idiots claim advertising doesn't work...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I do find scrolling through BARB numbers to be a tiresome task these days, it has to be said


I am finding it hard to continually persuade segments of the voracious consumers ,we call the UK, to take advantage of facile products that may indeed be of benefit.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Exposed? HAL9000 outed me months back, you can't put the toothpaste back in the tube you know.


Advertising can't brainwash people, but it can elevate awareness, influence priorities and alter the ideas you associate with particular products or ideas.


For example, the Chelsea Tractor syndrome was created by reinforcing the belief in a certain group of people that looking good and demonstrating wealth was more important than caring for your environment, and that a Chelsea Tractor could achieve this for you.


There was no brainwashing involved, these customers already had big egos, big houses and big bank accounts and tiny penises. The advertising merely suggested that a big car would fit with their portfolio and make up for their shortcomings.


As for crap, just buy supermarket own-brands. They'll do a similar job, but you won't be very happy because you probably have negative associations with them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

*Bob* Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> I've got some great ones.. but they're quite

> specific - and I certainly don't want to 'out'

> myself.



Come now *bob*, you're just living a lie. I've found it strangely liberating.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Is the advertising industry populated by people who are worse than people who populate estate agents, the music industrty, publishing, finance, banking etc? I think there are scum bags in all professions and I'm not sure advertising is any worse than any other profession, if you can call it a profession.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Can someone start having a pop at the software developers please?

I'm feeling left out.


There are loads of cowboys in the industry, it's overpaid and both public and private sector waste billions on these self-serving scumbags, always with the 'i know best' and the 'lets use the latest technology so that you can effectively pay for reaaaally expensive on the job training for me that I'll take to the next dupe once the project inevitably fails/your company/government dept goes bust/gets axed'.


I mean, bastards, seriously.

And sometimes we they wear stupid animal hats, and trainers and stuff.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

mockney piers Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> I'm wondering if this was a very roundabout way

> for snorky to advertise the ipad2.

> Slimmer AND lighter?! Woo, I'm in!!!!


I dont know how I managed without A LIGHTER , SLIMMER way to post on tw@tter.


woot


this really out crap inventions like fire and the wheel in their place

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Latest Discussions

    • Well worth signing up to become a "supporter" as they send their updates and often shed light on things the council and their supporters would rather didn't get too much attention! https://www.onedulwich.uk/get-involved
    • Spot on...and they rant against "anonymous" groups like One Dulwich and then post missives from "anonymous" lobby groups like Clean Air Dulwich without any sense of hypocrisy or irony...
    • The original council proposals for the area around the Dulwich cross roads were made well before Covid - and were rejected then by locals. The council used the Covid legislation to push through the LTNs when opposition was not allowed. LTNs, as experiments were some good (reduced traffic in areas which did not push traffic elsewhere and which did meet the needs of residents - typically in places very well served by public transport and where the topology (absence e.g. of hills) allowed wide use of cycling and walking - not as it happens a good description of the Dulwich (inc ED, WD and ND) areas.)  Dulwich never met Southwark's own description of ideal LTN areas, but did happen to match Southwark Councillor ambitions dating way back. One Dulwich has been clear, I believe that it is anti this LTN but not, necessarily all LTNs per se. But as it is One Dulwich is has not stated views about LTNs in general. In the main those prepared to make a view known, in Dulwich, have not supported the Council's LTN ambitions locally - whilst some, living in the LTN area, have gained personal benefit. But it would appear not even a majority of those living in the LTN area have supported the LTN. And certainly not those living immediately outside the area where traffic has worsened. As a resident of Underhill, a remaining access route to the South Circular, I can confirm that I am suffering increased traffic and blockages in rush hours whilst living some way away from the LTN. All this - 'I want to name the guilty parties' -' is One Dulwich a secret fascists cabal whose only interest is being anti-Labour?' conspiracy theorising is frankly irrelevant - whoever they are they seem to represent feelings of a majority of actual residents either in the LTNs, or in parts of Dulwich impacted by the LTNs. And I'm beginning to find these 'Answer me this...' tirades frankly irritating.
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

Search
×
    Search In
×
×
  • Create New...