h a l f b a k e r y
Right twice a day.
idea:
add, search, annotate, link, view, overview, recent, by name, best, random
meta:
news, help, about, links, report a problem
account:
Browse anonymously,
or get an account
and write.
Login
Create account.
|
|
|
If the point in advertising is to get listeners to pay attention to the ads then maybe marketers should simultaneously broadcast several versions of the same commercial, each one differing in the tone it tries to impart. I know I might pay more attention if I could put my TV into sarcastic mode.
[link]
|
| |
How do you know they don't already do this? I know of at least one company that is running three versions of the same ad, on different TV networks in my market. |
|
| |
Local radio ads round here rely on irritating you so much that you remember their product. Individual adverts are only 20s long, so nobody is likely to switch off in that time. I don't generally buy a product I've heard of on the radio, simply because I usually wind up hating the company responsible. |
|
| |
Yeah, funny how the advertising people aren't cottoning on to that really, isn't it? |
|
| |
david - Radio ads are a little different. They're so short I usually don't change the station (although if there's a string of them I turn the volume down to a whisper). On the other hand, I find TV ads consistently dull so I usually use those three minutes to wander off and take care of some chore (I guess I do get some good out of them though since getting up off of the couch is good exercise). |
|
| |
UB - They have long and short versions of commercials here but I haven't seen different ones based on tone. I'm waiting for the one from a drug company that compares my chances of winning the lottery to my chances of getting one of their side effects. |
|
| |
6 numbers from 45 gives you odds of about 8.1M:1. I think the longest odds I've seen on a medicinal side effect is about 300K:1. |
|
| |
This is one of those tricky votes. The idea is actually quite a good one, but as advertising is one of the banes of our existence, I must take a stand against it. Fishbone. |
|
| |
I would vote bun if you moved it to public:evil where it would fit in nicely. |
|
| |
Wait wait... what are halfbakerys supposed to vote for or against? If the idea is good... even when the purpose is to help advertisers have more seductive/persuading ways, why should anybody fishbone it? Are we voting for the idea or the purpose of it? |
|
| |
Good point [pericles]. Are there any fixed rules on why you should vote? Perhaps you should vote for 'good' ideas. What constitutes a 'good' idea? This is only a 'good' idea if you are in advertising. If you are me it is a 'bad' idea because it would mean giving advertising agencies even more power to influence me and get me to spend my money on stuff I don't need. I voted against this simply because I don't like the implications. I am not consistent in this though. I gave a bun to the 'Revolving Door Human Sampler' because it appealed to something in me, even though the implications of this would be truly awful. A different case, though - the 'RDHS' won't get baked. This idea might well be. |
|
| |
What I'm trying to get across here is that we all vote on different ideas for different reasons - I invite responses from those with a consistent voting strategy! |
|
| |
If an idea is new, feasible, and something I'd want to find in reality, then I vote for it. Since commercials have more of an impact on my viewing time than they do on my shopping time, this one falls into that category for me. If an idea is something I'd never want to stumble across in reality, then I vote against it. I'm pretty much neutral on everything else (even the magic and bad science ideas, because I don't know what I might know some day that will erase these opinions). |
|
| |