Xref: utzoo misc.consumers:26657 alt.activism:9645 talk.environment:2147 comp.org.eff.talk:1364 Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!sdd.hp.com!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!zardoz.cpd.com!dhw68k!felix!asylvain@felix.UUCP From: asylvain@felix.UUCP (Alvin "the Chipmunk" Sylvain) Newsgroups: misc.consumers,alt.activism,talk.environment,comp.org.eff.talk Subject: Re: Advertising is bad Keywords: DMA Suppression junk-mail recycling activism Message-ID: <156606@felix.UUCP> Date: 5 Feb 91 01:27:19 GMT References: <856@argosy.UUCP> <156215@felix.UUCP> <1991Feb1.054640.1441@cs.ucla.edu> Sender: daemon@felix.UUCP Reply-To: asylvain@felix.UUCP (Alvin "the Chipmunk" Sylvain) Distribution: na Organization: Foundation for the Increased Wealth of Chipmunks Lines: 152 In article <1991Feb1.054640.1441@cs.ucla.edu> gast@maui.cs.ucla.edu (David Gast) writes: > In article <156215@felix.UUCP> asylvain@felix.UUCP (Alvin "the Chipmunk" Sylvain) writes: > >The average American sees and ignores more than 2000 advertising mes- > >sages every day. You oughta be used to it by now. > > If I saw 300 murders a day, should I get used to that? I don't want to > see any advertising unless it has true informational value. Period. > Can't remember the last ad I saw that had true information value. Murder and advertising are two different items. Advertising may offend your sensibilities, or inconvenience you, but there's no bloodshed (except, mayhaps an occasional paper-cut.) > >Let's face facts, nobody goes to the library to research what deoderant > >to buy, > > Of course not. They are basically all the same; only the advertising is > different. How do I decide which one to buy? I go to the super duper > cheap place and then buy which ever is the least expensive unless it is > made by a company I won't do business with in which I buy the cheapest > brand made by a company I will do business with. In this particular case, > aerosols are out as well. You, my friend, are the exception to the rule. As should be expected from anyone educated enough to be hooked up to USENET. > > so the decision is largely based on what advertising has had the > >most effect. > > But the advertising has no informational value. Just some stupid song > or a pretty face or something like that. It is content free. So? That makes it bad? Most of USENET is content free! > >*It is true* that without advertising, you simply > >*would not know* about the very existance of the products you buy and > >use. > > They are on the shelf of the store. I am trying to remember the last > product I bought where I learned of the existence of the product through > advertising, much less junk mail. Yes, but *which* store! Would you drive 5 miles out of your way to try a different store to save maybe 20% from your bill? I would! I do! How are you going to find out about that store if it doesn't advertise? > > The companies that produce those products would go out of busi- > >ness. Then you (or me, or others like us) would be out of work. > > Might be a better world. Say that when you get out of school and can't find a job! > >I must remind you that *advertising is not > >evil*! It is a perfectly valid method of informing the public of one's > >goods and services. > > Advertising is evil. Guess what, your resume is advertising too. If you really feel the way you do about *all* forms of advertising, remember, that resume is your personal ad. Sending intro letters to potential employers is advertis- ing. Better throw those applications in the trash can, now. I hope you have a large fortune saved up, because there will be *no* effective way for potential employers to *find out you exist*. (No way, except of course, becoming a hypocrite and *advertising* yourself.) Even knocking on the front door is advertising, door-to-door. (But mailing resumes is much more time/cost effective.) > It is misleading, I suppose you put "horribly slothful on Mondays and Fridays" on your resume. "Can't accomplish anything until my third cup of coffee." Advertising emphasizes the good points and glosses over the bad points. This is perfectly natural, and consumers are smart enough to realize it. I don't know what to tell you about the ones who are stupid enough to believe 100% everything they see in an ad. > invasive, No more invasive than you allow. If you don't like an ad, ignore it. It will cost you all of 2 minutes to sort thru some junk mail and toss it. If you had plans for those 2 minutes, well, I'm sorry. Get a PO box for your important mail, and toss *everything* that comes to your house. If you find something *really* *mongo* offensive (like obscenity, misre- presentation, fraudulent, etc.), write a friendly letter to the company. Chances are very good they'll listen. Entire ad campaigns have been dropped on the strength of a single letter from a consumer. Companies *need* your support. > threatening, etc. I have never in my life been threatened by an ad. (I take that back ... I saw a magazine cover once that showed a dog with a gun to it's head. The banner read, "buy this magazine, or we'll shoot this dog!") > It provides no information, only slogans. It provides all the information the advertisers wish for you to have. If you want more information on a product, you must seek other sources. Besides, education is *not* the purpose of an ad. (Neither are slogans for that matter. Merely an incidental.) > It increases the costs of products. > Let's face it, it costs money and someone has to pay, > and that someone is the consumer. Successful advertising allows a company to increase it's market share, allowing it to sell *more* products, which frequently allows it to apply volume discounts to it's production, and, *if it's a good idea*, pass those discounts to the consumer. The consumer *saves* money. (I say "if it's a good idea", because people are often surprised to find out that it's not always a good idea. It frequently happens that reducing the price of an item also reduces demand.) Furthermore, once it's selling more of a product, the company has more money to spend on things such as diversifying into other markets, where it can produce more products, creating even more profit. Also, inciden- tally, creating more jobs. Without advertising, the company will lose customers to the competition, go out of business, and lay everybody off. If companies go out of busi- ness because you forbid them to advertise, there will be fewer products on the market. The consumers' choices will become limited. Competi- tion, which keeps prices down, will be reduced. Prices will go up. (If your neighborhood store slowly creeps up prices, how will you even know that you can shop down the street if that store doesn't advertise? Have you got your entire 100 square mile neighborhood memorized? (I'm assuming with 100 that you wouldn't mind driving 5 miles out of your way in any arbitrary direction to save 20% on your groceries.)) > Junk phone calls are even worse than junk mail. Get an unlisted number, and you won't be bothered anymore. (My number is *listed*, and I haven't been bothered by junk calls at all! It's the funniest thing, tho, these new "automated phone calling machines". One of them reached my answering machine!) > David Gast -- asylvain@felix.UUCP (Alvin "the Chipmunk" Sylvain) =========== Opinions are Mine, Typos belong to /usr/ucb/vi =========== "We're sorry, but the reality you have dialed is no longer in service. Please check the value of pi, or see your SysOp for assistance." =============== Factual Errors belong to /usr/local/rn =============== UUCP: uunet!{hplabs,fiuggi,dhw68k,pyramid}!felix!asylvain ARPA: {same choices}!felix!asylvain@uunet.uu.net