But you say this as if advertising somehow saves the consumer money, rather than pointing out that advertising simply shifts the way in which consumers pay for stuff. Sure, we don’t pay $200 a month for cable, or horrendously large amounts for magazines at the news-stand, but the corporations that advertise in the media don’t get their advertising revenue from some benevolent fairy.
They get it by charging a dollar for a can of water and corn syrup that probably costs a couple of cents to produce. They get it by fleecing us on prescription drugs, with some drug companies spending more on advertising than on researching new drugs. They get it by paying awfully low wages to American teenagers or third world laborers.
I realise i’m not making some radically new observation here, and i don’t want to get into a long debate over the merits of the capitalist system. I just wanted to make clear that, while advertising makes some things cheaper, or even free, it does so by making other things more expensive.
Of course, unlike with something like the BBC’s licencing system, you get to choose how much or how little you want to support the advertisers in a free market system. By buying certain products whose price is affected by large advertising budgets, some consumers actually pay a lot more for their “free” television that any BBC customer. And by not buying so many products, other people probably get their TV very cheaply, especially since advertising revenue forms a much larger part of the budgets of some companies’ than of others.
Well, advertising can have many purposes (education about the need, education about the product, brand recognition, comparison of competitors, the hard sell, increasing cachet, providing testimonials, etc. etc.). Any given ad is only able to address one or two of them, so the smart advertiser uses his strategies to complement each other. I don’t know which company the “hear me now?” guy is from, either, but I definitely know that whichever company he’s flogging claims to have significantly better coverage than the competition. If I’m in the market for a cell phone, then when I stroll through the mall on Saturday I’ll pass by a store with a big cardboard cutout of that guy and then I’ll know wich company o buy from to get that great coverage.
I accept that ads pay for a lot of the good TV I watch (but also the junk) but damn it, there is so freakin’ much of it. Ad breaks combined with relentless self promotion are so long now I won’t sit through them. $ minutes at a time, sometimes more. It’s counterproductive. Two minutes, maybe 3 and inertia will hold me but nowadays I just tivo any programme I want, begin watching it a few minutes late and pass over the adverts.
So instead of seeing a reasonable couple of minutes of ads someone has paid for, I see none at all.
Sure, but do you honestly believe that if advertising were cut out that they would drop their prices? Probably not. They’d just pocket the higher profits and search for more ways to screw American workers and third world laborers. I don’t think advertising really makes things more expensive in reality.
That’s exactly the point. It IS Big Brother. Human beings are hard-wired to imitate what they see - hence it’s not necessary to watch us in order to exert control. Instead it’s enough that WE watch THEM.
If you are upset about the amout of ads that we are subjected to, try and watch TV directed at kids. That is truly scary, the way that sophisticated ad techniques are selling crap (quite litterally) to kids that just aren’t as jaded or savvy as most adults.
That’s a fair point. They set the price of their products as high as the market will bear. I wonder, though, if there were no advertising and people had to pay more for television and other media, whether the “price the market will bear” would drop in the case of things like soda or whatever? Of course, the extent to which prices change would depend on the elasticity of demand for certain products.
Heh. I think you were right the first time. Sure, they’d try to retain the avoided expense of advertising, but competition is brutal and customers can be tough taskmasters. Absent the ability to communicate real or perceived product differentiation through advertising, one would expect prices to drop – particularly as advertising from rivals also ceased, reducing costs throughout an industry. This would be most true in industries with little product differentiation – soft drinks, gasoline, etc. and least true where differentiation is high – automobiles, sneakers, and so on.
Good point. Absent branding through advertising, I’d imagine that the soft drink market would be fairly elastic. Really, is there any major difference between the taste of Coke or Pepsi vs. Safeway Select (whose cherry colas are darn good)? Of course not.
yes a huge difference, I like the taste of Coke, I can drink a Pepsi if that’s the only thing available, but that Safeway or Albertsons stuff tastes like ass… very sugary ass.
As for advertising, I think targeting ads at anyone under 21 should be a crime.
You know what I would like to see? A company sponsoring an entire show on tv, putting one of their commercials on at the start and at the end, and no commercials at all within the show (and the show actually being 30 or 60 minutes long). I might buy their product out of sheer gratitude.
I would agree that there’s too much advertising. I would also agree that it’s too intrusive and obnoxious. But get rid of all of it? Please, no!
There are magazines that I buy solely for the advertising (especially tech mags and hobby mags). It’s the only place I can find out about certain new products.
I needed to find a repair shop the other day. Thank goodness for advertising in the Yellow Pages.
There’s a new pub in town. Since they’re new, their phone number isn’t in the book yet. But I found their ad in the newspaper. That was helpful.
When I was in the pet store, they had an advertising poster on the wall for a new type of feed. Perfect. Just what I needed, and I wouldn’t have known about it without that poster.
So go ahead and track down the people that buy talking urinals and whack them upside the head, but count me out of your crusade to get rid of all advertising.
THE FOLLOWING PREVIEW HAS BEEN APPROVED FOR ALL AUDIENCES
BY THE MOTION PICTURE ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA
In a world where you keep seeing that on your movie screen…
Something is coming that will change your world forever…or not.
13th Century Emu Pictures presents:
Bright Flash and Loud Noise in…
The Twenties.
Enjoy the show…if you dare.
PLAYING PERPETUALLY AT A THEATER NEAR YOU
(“The Twenties” would be a good name for a movie, wouldn’t it?)
IIRC Nip/Tuck did this for the Season 2 premiere. It was sponsored by XM Satellite radio.
Also, The Masters golf coverage was commercial free in 2003 (to shield advertisers from the male-only-members brouhaha that year) and again in 2004 (why I’m not sure). This year the commercials were back, sadly.
Billboards and high-rise gas station and fast food signs certainly don’t lower the cost of my gasoline. If that were the case, we’d be paying 70 cents a gallon in Missouri or Georgia.
Billboard companies usually pay extremely low permit fees to the state, and they are seldom taxed as real proper; billboards are usually considered depreciating assets, not revenue generating businesses of their own.
Some advertising is used to help pay for free or low cost services and media; television, radio, newspapers, and so on. Billboards and larger-than-necessary business signs are just parasites in comparison.