gast@maui.cs.ucla.edu (David Gast) (02/01/91)
In article <156215@felix.UUCP> asylvain@felix.UUCP (Alvin "the Chipmunk" Sylvain) writes: >Don't be so all-fired-up certain they're *not* doing a public service. If you like it, then request it. But I don't like it and I don't want it. > PLEASE PLEASE don't >flame me about disposable diapers! I'll accept your guilty plea. >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. >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. > 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. >*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. > 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. >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. It is misleading, invasive, threatening, etc. It provides no information, only slogans. It increases the costs of products. Let's face it, it costs money and someone has to pay, and that someone is the consumer. Junk phone calls are even worse than junk mail. David Gast gast@cs.ucla.edu {uunet,ucbvax,rutgers}!{ucla-cs,cs.ucla.edu}!gast
ald@garth.UUCP (Al Date) (02/05/91)
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: > > >>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. It is misleading, invasive, threatening, etc. >It provides no information, only slogans. It increases the costs >of products. Let's face it, it costs money and someone has to pay, >and that someone is the consumer. > If advertising is as bad as you say it is, it should be banned. Of course, the same argument could be made about religion. Surely more harm is done by people blindly adhering to religious ideals and going off on jihads, crusades, and inquisitions, all because of what some holy man "advertised" as the truth. Advertising per se, is not evil, no more than speech per se, is evil. Whether it is immoral or unethical depends on the *content* of the advertising (or the speech). There are laws against fraud and against false advertising. The remainder of advertising, which is either "true" or "innocuous" is protected by the First Amendment. The suppression of free speech is a far greater evil than advertising can ever be. The issue of the added costs of marketing is only relevant with respect the overall production costs and the competitive environment for each individual producer. A company may find that a certain level of advertising increases market share (and hence production levels) to a critical level of capacity, or a break-even point, in which case the advertising actually results in a lower cost per unit. --Al Date Std. disclaimers
asylvain@felix.UUCP (Alvin "the Chipmunk" Sylvain) (02/05/91)
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
hes@ccvr1.ncsu.edu (Henry E. Schaffer) (02/05/91)
In article <1991Feb1.054640.1441@cs.ucla.edu> gast@maui.cs.ucla.edu (David Gast) writes: > ... 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. There clearly is a distinction between "consumer" ads and what I'll call "industry" ads. Let me take an example - I have a copy of Datamation open on my desk (January 1, 1991, page 4), to a full page ad from Oracle. It discusses the types of cpu's which run oracle, and the distribution of databases over mainframes, minis, micros and mentions a seminar they offer and gives the 800 number to call for info or to sign up for the seminar. I find that advertising is an important component of my keeping informed in the fields of computing and data communications. Even in the consumer arena - I like to know when various stores are having sales. I buy a lot of my tools, auto parts, hobby supplies, and clothes on sale. I'm also irritated by ads which are purely for "image" - but perhaps you are over-reacting? > ... --henry schaffer n c state univ
spm2d@newton.acc.Virginia.EDU (Steven P. Miale) (02/06/91)
In article <156606@felix.UUCP> asylvain@felix.UUCP (Alvin "the Chipmunk" Sylvain) writes: >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.) But that is not the point. The point is, just because something exists, should we accept it? NO. > >> 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! Including your messages! > >> 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? Well, lets see. I'm hungry! I need to go to a grocery store! Well, since they don't advertise, I'll STARVE because I don't know about them! Ever consider that people shop around? Who REALLY listens to all that nonsense about how "Food Tiger saves you money by doing something completely worthless!" and "Not Really All That Fresh has UNADVERTISED SPECIALS which we advertise anyway because we are dits!"? NOBODY. They try the different stores and find out which one is cheaper. If they talk to a friend who says "yeah, Bob's is cheaper", they'll go there. Word of mouth WORKS. > >> Might be a better world. > >Say that when you get out of school and can't find a job! So people won't buy ANYTHING unless companies advertise? Gosh, that makes sense! Heck, nobody would buy any food if food companies didn't advertise! And that is EXACTLY what you are saying. Of course, if you fail to respond to this argument, I'll assume you agree with me (ala Four person debate) and thus I'd win! > >> 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. Resumes aren't evil. Calling up bosses every day and say "Hey! Will you hire me?" gets annoying. Doesn't it? > >> 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. OK, then. Now, please give us your address. Why? Because I want to fill out all those cards in magazines like Computer Shopper and such to receive merchandiser advertisements and be put on their mailing lists. Since you clearly LOVE to get junk mail, I'd think you'd consider this a blessing. And when you DO give us your address, I encourage EVERYBODY on the net to fill out those reader info cards and fill this fellas mailbox up REAL quick. Hey, all he has to do is take 2 minutes to sort through this junk! > >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. Give me one example. > >> It provides no information, only slogans. > >It provides all the information the advertisers wish for you to have. A bunch of lies. Not the truth. LIES. h >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.) Isn't that the case you were making earlier in your message? That ads "educate" the public? If not, what ARE the purpose of ads? Do tell. > >> 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. Which means other companies have to advertise more, raising THEIR prices. There IS a limit to how much mass production saves money, you know. > >(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.) Reducing price reduces demand. Contrary to what EVERY SINGLE ECONOMICS TEXTBOOK IN THE HISTORY OF MANKIND HAS SAID, you have just really stuck your foot in your mouth. OK, if this is true, then raising prices increases demand, eh? DUMB, DUMB, DUMB. > >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. Once it's selling more of a product, it does diversify, which means it spends more money on advertising, creating less profit. >> 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!) Oh, now this is really a bunch of crap. My family has an unlisted number, and guess what - we STILL get calls. Telemarketing calls. Yes, really! > >asylvain@felix.UUCP (Alvin "the Chipmunk" Sylvain) Maybe we can flood his mailbox with junk e-mail. Why not? He seems to love it... Steven Miale
midkiff@sp66.csrd.uiuc.edu (Sam Midkiff) (02/06/91)
spm2d@newton.acc.Virginia.EDU (Steven P. Miale) writes: >In article <156606@felix.UUCP> asylvain@felix.UUCP (Alvin "the Chipmunk" Sylvain) writes: ... lots of stuff deleted ... >> >>(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.) >Reducing price reduces demand. Contrary to what EVERY SINGLE ECONOMICS >TEXTBOOK IN THE HISTORY OF MANKIND HAS SAID, you have just really stuck >your foot in your mouth. OK, if this is true, then raising prices increases >demand, eh? DUMB, DUMB, DUMB. Actually, for some "luxury" items, price decreases can lead to decreased demand, since part of the reason of owning the item is to show that you can afford such an expensive thing. Also, some people with more money than time will buy the most expensive item under the assumption that it is the best, or at least good enough. And finally, when the price of silver skyrocketed some years ago, demand for silver bullion increased as people tried to get in on a "good thing." When the price began to plummet, demand dropped accordingly - so much so that silver now only sells for about 10% of its peak price. Simple demand/price analysis assumes that people are rational, that they are attempting to maximize their purchasing power, and that their desires are infinite. Although this is often true enough, especially for the majority of products and the majority of consumers, anyone who attempts to apply simple economic laws to *all* economic activity is being, shall I say it?, DUMB, DUMB, DUMB. What this has to do with the morality of advertising, I cannot say. Sam Midkiff midkiff@csrd.uiuc.edu
raphael@fx.com (Glen Raphael) (02/07/91)
midkiff@sp66.csrd.uiuc.edu (Sam Midkiff) writes: >spm2d@newton.acc.Virginia.EDU (Steven P. Miale) writes: >>In article <156606@felix.UUCP> asylvain@felix.UUCP (Alvin "the Chipmunk" Sylvain) writes: >... lots of stuff deleted ... >>> >>>(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.) >>Reducing price reduces demand. Contrary to what EVERY SINGLE ECONOMICS >>TEXTBOOK IN THE HISTORY OF MANKIND HAS SAID, you have just really stuck >>your foot in your mouth. OK, if this is true, then raising prices increases >>demand, eh? DUMB, DUMB, DUMB. >Actually, for some "luxury" items, price decreases can lead to decreased >demand, since part of the reason of owning the item is to show that you >can afford such an expensive thing. Also, some people with more money than >time will buy the most expensive item under the assumption that it is the >best, or at least good enough. And finally, when the price of silver >skyrocketed some years ago, demand for silver bullion increased as people >tried to get in on a "good thing." When the price began to plummet, demand >dropped accordingly - so much so that silver now only sells for about 10% of >its peak price. There is also the phenomenon of "inferior goods". Suppose Susan would like to buy steak but can only afford hamburger and therefore eats hamburger 7 nights a week. If you lower the cost of hamburger, with the money Susan saves on hamburger 6 nights a week she can afford to buy steak or lobster on the seventh night. So by lowering the price of hamburger you have lowered the demand for hamburger. Glen Raphael raphael@fx.com
chrz@tellabs.com (Peter Chrzanowski) (02/07/91)
> In article <1991Feb1.054640.1441@cs.ucla.edu> gast@maui.cs.ucla.edu (David Gast) writes: > > advertising is evil. > > 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. I would just like to introduce the idea that my home is my castle. My home is not a store, and I don't see any reason to have any advertising in it except that which I invite. If I WANT to see or hear ads, I'll go to a store, or turn on the televideocy, or buy an advertiser-supported publication. What you do in YOUR store, or in time or space which YOU have purchased, is your business: but MY home is MY SPACE, not yours. If you want to place a flashing blue light in YOUR home, and pipe Muzak-with-ads from speakers from the ceiling, why you just go right ahead: but MY home does not exist so that marketers will have a place to do battle. Surely you understand that free speech does not include the right to shout in my ear? Or bury my lawn in ad-garbage? Or make my telephone unuseable for ordinary social purposes? > > >The average American sees and ignores more than 2000 advertising mes- > > >sages every day. You oughta be used to it by now. If average Americans IGNORED the "messages" then companies wouldn't PAY for them, would they? > > You, my friend, are the exception to the rule. ^^^^^^^^^^ Aren't you presuming just a little bit? [without advertising] > > > 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! Suppose there were sound trucks constantly blaring advertising at people in their homes, at whatever level of loudness was necessary to get people's attention. Would that lower the rate of unemployment? If it did, would it be worth it? > > >I must remind you that *advertising is not evil*! The world may be better off because of fertilizer, but that doesn't mean I want some spread on the living room rug. If you enjoy advertising, and consumer culture in general, that's just fine: B U T N O T I N M Y H O M E !
dione@ajax.lpl.arizona.edu (Matt Cheselka) (02/07/91)
I don't like advertising for regular reasons:
1. It interrupts my TV shows and movies.
2. Billboards and posters are unappealing and add to what I like to
call "City Junk".
2. Some advertising is pretty awful and makes me gag.
There are two main reasons why advertising is around:
1. TV stations have to be able to pay for their air time.
2. Companies have to make sure their products are known, in order to
simply tell the public, "Hey y'all, we're right around to corner!"
(This is similar to what they do in Nogales, Mexico, except for the
fact that the shopowners come out into that street and start yelling
at you!)
The main delema here is the fact that this world we live in is very much
economically orientated. There is at the moment no way around it. I feel that
it is very simple-minded to reply to that by saying, "Well, then get rid of
money!" because that just won't work. I wish is could. My life would be a lot
better if money were no option. But since it is, we must deal with it.
Instead of fighting it, we should work with it. Humans are intelligent enough
to know that "giving in" is sometimes a good strategy...it makes everything
a little better if we're not fighting all the time.
On the other hand, TV (and even some radio and magazine/newspaper) ads are
really good entertainment! We pay 6-10 dollars to go see a good movie...why
not spend a couple extra cents to see a good commercial?
Advertising is not evil. Evil is a strong word that should only be used in
extreme cases. There cannot be evil without good anyway. Hitler was evil but
very intelligent. Hussein is evil but very crafty. My mother is evil but
I love her very much (that is, she's evil to me because she made me do things
I didn't want to do when I was a kid).
Matt Cheselkascott@blueeyes.kines.uiuc.edu (scott) (02/08/91)
In article <1991Feb5.192632.20536@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> spm2d@newton.acc.Virginia.EDU (Steven P. Miale) writes: >In article <156606@felix.UUCP> asylvain@felix.UUCP (Alvin "the Chipmunk" Sylvain) writes: >>> 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. > >Resumes aren't evil. Calling up bosses every day and say "Hey! Will you >hire me?" gets annoying. Doesn't it? Furthermore, most of the resumes you send out are in direct response to a SOLICITATION to do so (help wanted ad in the paper, for example). And you only send ONE resume, not one every six months, not one to "John J. Ceo" and one to "John Ceo" and one to "J. Ceo." On top of all that, a resume is primarily informational. About the only similarity between junk mail and a resume is the fact that the vast majority of both end up in the trash can. >>> 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. > >OK, then. Now, please give us your address. Why? Because I want to fill >out all those cards in magazines like Computer Shopper and such to receive >merchandiser advertisements and be put on their mailing lists. Since >you clearly LOVE to get junk mail, I'd think you'd consider this a >blessing. Why not do what the junk mailers do and get the address from a mailing list service WITHOUT HIS CONSENT OR KNOWLEDGE? After all, you're doing him a service by telling all those companies to send him all that useful and informative material. -- Scott Coleman tmkk@uiuc.edu "Unisys has demonstrated the power of two. That's their stock price today." - Scott McNealy on the history of mergers in the computer industry.
toad@cellar.UUCP (Tony Shepps) (02/08/91)
> 2. Billboards and posters are unappealing and add to what I like to > call "City Junk". "Lack of advertising leaves a weird hole in the urban landscape. You think, 'What could be uglier than billboards?' But have you ever looked behind them? In Communist countries you don't get to see the giant pictures of the cars, boats, and pretty faces that fill people's dreams. You just see the people and where they live." - P.J. O'Rourke from "What Do They Do For Fun in Warsaw?" an essay in his book _Holidays In Hell_ --------------------------------------------------------------------------- - The Cellar BBS, a responsible, kind, and caring public-access Unix site - - toad@cellar.UUCP ...uunet!cellar!toad -
asylvain@felix.UUCP (Alvin "the Chipmunk" Sylvain) (02/09/91)
(sigh) More flames from idiots. What the hell, it's lunch time. Here goes. In article <1991Feb5.192632.20536@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> spm2d@newton.acc.Virginia.EDU (Steven P. Miale) writes: > In article <156606@felix.UUCP> asylvain@felix.UUCP (Alvin "the Chipmunk" Sylvain) writes: > >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.) > > But that is not the point. The point is, just because something exists, > should we accept it? NO. No, you shouldn't accept it simply because it exists. But you shouldn't ban it simply because you don't like it. You'll have to come up with better reasons. You'll have a lot of convincing to do. > >> 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! > > Including your messages! Thanks a lot! It's comforting to know I'm appreciated around here. [...] > >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? > > Well, lets see. I'm hungry! I need to go to a grocery store! Well, since > they don't advertise, I'll STARVE because I don't know about them! No, *you'd* probably ask your mother for a hand-out. > Ever consider that people shop around? Of course they do. But they shop around to places *who's advertising they have seen*. Unless they happen to stumble on to something, which also happens. Even in this case, tho, if they haven't seen the store advertise, there's a good chance they won't go in. Advertising also legitimizes an establishment ... people have more trust in a company they've heard about, even if only in advertising. People distrust a place where they feel it's so tiny they can't even afford to advertise. Haven't you ever looked for something in the Yellow Pages? (advertising, btw) Do you call up all the little itty-bitty phone- number-only listings, or do you call the guy with the half-page ad? (I know, I know, *you* call the little itty-bitty ones. Obviously, the silly folks buying the half-page ads are wasting their money.) > Who REALLY listens to all that > nonsense about how "Food Tiger saves you money by doing something > completely worthless!" and "Not Really All That Fresh has UNADVERTISED > SPECIALS which we advertise anyway because we are dits!"? NOBODY. You are incorrect and reveal your ignorance with that statement. Do you really suppose that companies would spend tens of thousands of dollars on something that everyone ignores? *Somebody* must be using it! Probably even you, altho I doubt you'll ever admit it here. > They try the different stores and find out which one is cheaper. If they > talk to a friend who says "yeah, Bob's is cheaper", they'll go there. > Word of mouth WORKS. Of course it works. It works Wonderfully. But it's slow. It's *horri- bly* slow. Your company will go out of business waiting for someone to show up based on word-of-mouth. What do you do if you're a new busi- ness? How you get someone to come in the for the very first time and start the word-of-mouth going? Telepathy? Once people know you and learn of your existance thru word-of-mouth, how do you remind them you're still there? The public's memory is extremely short. If you happen to get a discount from your supplier, and want to pass the savings on, how do you let your customers know that now's a good time to come in? Knock on everybody's door? > So people won't buy ANYTHING unless companies advertise? Gosh, that > makes sense! Heck, nobody would buy any food if food companies didn't > advertise! And that is EXACTLY what you are saying. No, that is *not* exactly what I'm saying, as you again display your ignorance of the matter. Advertising allows new companies to enter the market and allows existing companies to persuade customers from the competition. Of course people would still sell and buy. *Some* companies would exist. *Other* companies *would* go out of business. With fewer companies, competition is lower. Competition is what keeps prices down. Ther also would be fewer products. How do you inform the public that you've just invented a new widget that will make their lives easier, more productive, or get 'em better dates? We have a supermarket here, called Vons, which doubles manufacturer's coupons. Do you suppose they'd bother doubling coupons without advertising? Not likely. The reason they do it, and the reason they advertise that they do it, is to convince shoppers to come over from Luckys (and others, of course). Luckys has lower prices, but less variety. Now, how do you suppose I'd find out about Vons' coupon-doubling if they didn't advertise? How do you suppose I'd find out that Luckys is the "low-price leader" if they didn't advertise? Do you suppose Luckys would bother trying to be the "low-price leader" if it wasn't for Vons' advertising taking some of their customers away? Do you suppose Vons would bother doubling coupons if it wasn't for Luckys taking away some of theirs? > Of course, if you fail to respond to this argument, I'll assume you > agree with me (ala Four person debate) and thus I'd win! This is totally off the subject. I'm not trying to debate you, I'm trying to give you an education. You are woefully in need of it. > >> 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. > > Resumes aren't evil. Calling up bosses every day and say "Hey! Will you > hire me?" gets annoying. Doesn't it? The personnel departments of most good-sized companies receive hundreds of resumes per day. *Hundreds* per *day*. Smaller companies probably receive hundreds per week. When they put a good sized ad in the paper (say two or three columns, or the whole page) that number goes up to *thousands*. Furthermore, they *also* receive plenty of telephone calls. I imagine it does become annoying, depending on the caller. Maybe you should give up looking for a job, since it seems to be against your principles. Resumes == Advertising, unless you want to make an exception in your case. The case, that is, of when *you* have something to sell (your expertise and/or labor). I know! The companies will hear about you by word-of-mouth! Rii-ii-iight! Better hope your mother hasn't rented out your room yet. [...] > OK, then. Now, please give us your address. Why? Because I want to fill > out all those cards in magazines like Computer Shopper and such to receive > merchandiser advertisements and be put on their mailing lists. Since > you clearly LOVE to get junk mail, I'd think you'd consider this a > blessing. Alvin "the Chipmunk" Sylvain Post Office Box 1861 Walnut, California 91788-1861 > And when you DO give us your address, I encourage EVERYBODY on the net > to fill out those reader info cards and fill this fellas mailbox up > REAL quick. Hey, all he has to do is take 2 minutes to sort through > this junk! I really hope you get your jollies out of this. Honest, I want you to be a happy person. I already toss plenty of junk mail, so I doubt if I'd even notice the difference. (Please remember "the Chipmunk", so I'll know it's you. My interests are computers, software, sailboating, photography, and (near-)naked women.) > >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. > > Give me one example. I'm afraid I don't remember the specifics, but I've heard of a woman who wrote a letter to Proctor and Gamble about some ad they were doing. Boom, the ad was dropped. Look, instead of complaining to me about the ads, why don't you try it? Find a particular ad that really disgusts you (for reasons *other* than simply being advertising) and write them a letter! Chances are pretty good your success will be greater than you think. Companies do not stay in business alienating their customers. Every letter they receive counts for 100-500 people whom they figure agree with you, but are too lazy to write. That's an awful lot of clout, if you think about. [...] > >It provides all the information the advertisers wish for you to have. > > A bunch of lies. Not the truth. LIES. OK, give *me* one example. > Isn't that the case you were making earlier in your message? That ads > "educate" the public? If not, what ARE the purpose of ads? Do tell. I have never said that ads educate the public. The purpose of ads are to let the public know of the existance of goods, services, and the com- panies that provide them. If you like, that is "education" of a sort. Even more important is to convince people of the quality of those goods and services. And, most importantly, to persuade people to *buy* the goods or services. > >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. > > Which means other companies have to advertise more, raising THEIR > prices. There IS a limit to how much mass production saves money, > you know. They don't necessarily advertise more, just advertise differently. Budweiser may drop "Spuds McKenzie" in favor of "Gumby". They have an advertising budget, which, depending on their business practises, probably stays pretty constant. They may increase it or decrease it depending on current market conditions. If they find themselves losing market share, they're more likely to change the "flavor" of the advertising. They could switch some of their ad budget to prizes in a sweepstakes. They may even hire a different advertising firm. But they won't just blindly increase the ad budget. But that's *their* decision, not *yours*. They can't simply raise prices arbitrarily. That is a good way to send customers to the competition under most circumstances. If they deter- mine that they must increase ad spending, but can't increase prices, then they have to suffer lower profits. It's a decision made in hopes of keep their customers for the long term, or getting more customers. If it works, they can profit later. If it doesn't, oh well. No one said it was going to be easy. [...] > Reducing price reduces demand. Contrary to what EVERY SINGLE ECONOMICS > TEXTBOOK IN THE HISTORY OF MANKIND HAS SAID, you have just really stuck > your foot in your mouth. OK, if this is true, then raising prices increases > demand, eh? DUMB, DUMB, DUMB. Again you display your ignorance of the subject. Believe it or not, it is actually true. For some products, in some markets, under some condi- tions, *lowering the price* can be the stupidest thing the company can do. Yes, increasing the price in some situations will increase demand. I truly doubt if you've ever read any one of those economics textbooks you refer to. Otherwise, you'd know better. Statements like these reaffirm what I suspected, that is, that you have not the slightest notion of what you are talking about. [...] > >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. > > Once it's selling more of a product, it does diversify, which means it > spends more money on advertising, creating less profit. But it's already budgeted advertising for that market! In a market which usually already has competitors, who are already advertising! Profit is *in*creased by selling in *more* markets! > >> Junk phone calls are even worse than junk mail. > > > >Get an unlisted number, and you won't be bothered anymore. [...] > Oh, now this is really a bunch of crap. My family has an unlisted number, > and guess what - we STILL get calls. Telemarketing calls. Yes, really! I suggest you complain to the phone company. Altho, it's possible they've gotten your number from other sources. You didn't fill-in any surveys, did you? The phone company is *not* supposed to sell unlisted numbers. My number is listed, and I hardly get any calls at all. Yes, really! > >asylvain@felix.UUCP (Alvin "the Chipmunk" Sylvain) > > Maybe we can flood his mailbox with junk e-mail. Why not? He seems to > love it... Go ahead. Just so long as you have something to say other than flames. I'll even respond, if the mailer doesn't bounce. > Steven Miale -- 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
gast@maui.cs.ucla.edu (David Gast) (02/09/91)
In article <1991Feb5.153346.6523@ncsuvx.ncsu.edu> hes@ccvr1.ncsu.edu (Henry E. Schaffer) writes: >In article <1991Feb1.054640.1441@cs.ucla.edu> gast@maui.cs.ucla.edu (David Gast) writes: >> ... 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. > There clearly is a distinction between "consumer" ads and what I'll >call "industry" ads. Yes, the trade press is useful. If you read the trade press for, say, food processing, you can learn what chemicals can be added to deceive the consumer. If you read, the ad for a food using the chemical (or even the label), it will probably say something like 100% healthy, natural, no cholesterol, light, etc. One of the favorite techniques is called ``sophisticated flavors.'' You put stuff like plastic in the food and the consumer is supposed to think he is getting real seeds. ``Caution: This product may contain seeds.'' >gives the 800 number to call for info or to sign up for the seminar. You should never call an 800 number from your home unless you want to the receiver to be able to know your phone number. You should also not call companies with ISDN or caller id, etc. David Gast gast@cs.ucla.edu {uunet,ucbvax,rutgers}!{ucla-cs,cs.ucla.edu}!gast
dwp@willett.pgh.pa.us (Doug Philips) (02/11/91)
In article <157119@felix.UUCP>, asylvain@felix.UUCP (Alvin "the Chipmunk" Sylvain) writes: > In article <1991Feb5.192632.20536@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> spm2d@newton.acc.Virginia.EDU (Steven P. Miale) writes: > > But that is not the point. The point is, just because something exists, > > should we accept it? NO. > > No, you shouldn't accept it simply because it exists. But you shouldn't > ban it simply because you don't like it. You'll have to come up with > better reasons. You'll have a lot of convincing to do. Didn't you come in on the beginning of this topic? The point was that it doesn't just "exist". Mass mailings use massive amounts of paper, even if it is recycled. > Of course they do. But they shop around to places *who's advertising > they have seen*. [...] > Advertising also legitimizes an establishment ... people have more trust > in a company they've heard about, even if only in advertising. People > distrust a place where they feel it's so tiny they can't even afford to > advertise. Haven't you ever looked for something in the Yellow Pages? > (advertising, btw) Do you call up all the little itty-bitty phone- > number-only listings, or do you call the guy with the half-page ad? "What we have here is a failure to communicate..." Your argument is addressing only part of the advertising picture. For one thing, I only get one YP per year. Not every week. Second, most of the adver-crap I get is disguised to look like real/important mail. That does not create in me the "trust" you claim. It pisses me off and I refuse to deal with the weenies that use that tactic. However, neither my nor your picture of advertising is complete. We are looking at different pieces of the pie. > You are incorrect and reveal your ignorance with that statement. Do you > really suppose that companies would spend tens of thousands of dollars > on something that everyone ignores? *Somebody* must be using it! > Probably even you, altho I doubt you'll ever admit it here. Yes, some advertising is useful to me. That does not imply that all advertising is useful, nor does it follow that advertising is the only/best way for me to get the information. > I really hope you get your jollies out of this. Honest, I want you to > be a happy person. I already toss plenty of junk mail, so I doubt if I'd > even notice the difference. (Please remember "the Chipmunk", so I'll > know it's you. My interests are computers, software, sailboating, > photography, and (near-)naked women.) Lucky for you most of your junk mail is so readily identifiable. > I suggest you complain to the phone company. Altho, it's possible > they've gotten your number from other sources. You didn't fill-in any > surveys, did you? The phone company is *not* supposed to sell unlisted > numbers. > > My number is listed, and I hardly get any calls at all. Yes, really! And mine is unlisted and I still get junk calls. Listing vs. Unlisting doesn't do you diddle squat when the weenies are either dialing at random, or are buying your phone number from someone who you wanted-to/had-to give it to. But this is way off the subject. I think the upshot of this discussion is not that advertising is useful therefore not evil, but that there are several kinds of advertising and that it is not useful to lump them all together. Nor is it useful to assume that because advertising exists the way it does now that it is in fact the best way to achieve the goals it claims to be trying to achieve. -Doug --- Preferred: dwp@willett.pgh.pa.us Ok: {pitt,sei,uunet}!willett!dwp
asylvain@felix.UUCP (Alvin "the Chipmunk" Sylvain) (02/12/91)
In article <1991Feb7.190250.12402@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu> scott@blueeyes.kines.uiuc.edu (scott) writes: > In article <1991Feb5.192632.20536@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> spm2d@newton.acc.Virginia.EDU (Steven P. Miale) writes: > >In article <156606@felix.UUCP> asylvain@felix.UUCP (Alvin "the Chipmunk" Sylvain) writes: > >>> 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. > > > >Resumes aren't evil. Calling up bosses every day and say "Hey! Will you > >hire me?" gets annoying. Doesn't it? > > Furthermore, most of the resumes you send out are in direct response to a > SOLICITATION to do so (help wanted ad in the paper, for example). And you > only send ONE resume, not one every six months, not one to "John J. Ceo" > and one to "John Ceo" and one to "J. Ceo." On top of all that, a resume > is primarily informational. About the only similarity between junk mail > and a resume is the fact that the vast majority of both end up in the trash > can. Better hope your mother hasn't rented out your room yet. If you want a job, you don't limit yourself to only companies with ads out. This I can tell you from personal experience. Sometimes a company will open a position based on having someone to fill it, not the other way around. Sometimes a company may not have gotten around to placing an ad yet (the requisition may still in the paperwork stage), and viola! Here's someone who can fill the position already! If you think all resumes are purely informational, I can tell that you obviously haven't read very many! Let's face it, your resume is your personal *advertising* for your expertise and ability to work. To look at it in any other way is put yourself at a disadvantage. You'd likely put silly things in there that your customer (the hiring agency) doesn't care to read, or worse, things that make you look bad. (Examples: Don't put your hobbies on your resume. Potential employers couldn't care less what you do once you leave the working site. Use that space to *sell* your ability to work hard and smart. Tell them how smart and responsible you've been in the past, and how hard and effi- cient you've worked. Don't put "RESUME" in big letters on the top of each page. They're not stupid, they know it's a resume! Instead, put your name up there, in case the pages become separated.) You had better be putting your best foot forward on your resume, or someone else is going to put their foot into that job instead of you. Now then, you want to outlaw advertising? You'd better think of different ways to get your job first! -- 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
gast@maui.cs.ucla.edu (David Gast) (02/12/91)
>But they shop around to places *who's advertising they have seen*. Speak for yourself. I prefer places that I have not seen advertise. I certainly consider expensive ads to be a waste of money and not worth the cost. There is a company--a warehouse store--out here that I have never seen an ad for in any media, but almost everyone I know has been in it. Great prices. >Unless they happen to stumble on to something, which >also happens. Even in this case, tho, if they haven't seen the store >advertise, there's a good chance they won't go in. Again speak for yourself. >Advertising also legitimizes an establishment Where do you dream this stuff up? >People >distrust a place where they feel it's so tiny they can't even afford to >advertise. I never felt that way. I have never walked into a store and thought "I'd buy from them, but they are too small to advertise." >Haven't you ever looked for something in the Yellow Pages? >(advertising, btw) Do you call up all the little itty-bitty phone- >number-only listings, or do you call the guy with the half-page ad? I call the guy with the centerfold. :-) Seriously, I only look at the listings, not the display ads. >(I know, I know, *you* call the little itty-bitty ones. Obviously, the >silly folks buying the half-page ads are wasting their money.) That's right!! And charging the customer too much. >> They try the different stores and find out which one is cheaper. If they >> talk to a friend who says "yeah, Bob's is cheaper", they'll go there. >> Word of mouth WORKS. >Of course it works. It works Wonderfully. But it's slow. It's *horri- >bly* slow. So I should believe all the lies--all the claims to have the lowest prices when you can see another ad on the same page with lower prices? At least, make the companies be honest. >Your company will go out of business waiting for someone to >show up based on word-of-mouth. When I want to buy something, I usually ask someone if they have any recommendations. For example, I needed to get my monitor repaired. Do you think I looked in the Yellow Pages for the biggest ad and called that number? No, I got a personal recommendation and called them up. I never even considered looking in the phone book, the newspaper, etc. When I needed a smog certificate, I did the same thing. It never even occurred to me to consider looking at ads. >What do you do if you're a new busi- >ness? How you get someone to come in the for the very first time and >start the word-of-mouth going? If you wait six months for the yellow pages to come out, you are already out of business unless you have that word-of-mouth going. >Once people know you and learn of your existance thru word-of-mouth, how >do you remind them you're still there? Bother them with junk phone calls day and night? Kidnap their son? :-) I don't need reminding and I don't want reminding. >Advertising allows new companies to enter the >market and allows existing companies to persuade customers from the >competition. New companies can't afford to advertise like the established companies. Sprint, MCI, and AT&T are engaged in massive advertising propaganda now. Is there any content? No. Are there new entrants? No. Are prices rising? Yes. >you suppose I'd find out that Luckys is the "low-price leader" if they >didn't advertise? I asked someone who has lived here a long time which store has the lowest prices. He mentioned a warehouse place, then Lucky's. But Trader Joe's does very little advertising, and the prices there are even lower. >This is totally off the subject. I'm not trying to debate you, I'm >trying to give you an education. Thanks, but I already have my MBA and advertising is mostly lies. Why can't you face up to it? Or provide specific ads that you think are honest and not manipulative? >> >> Advertising is evil. >Maybe you should give up looking for a job, since it seems to be against >your principles. Who's looking for a job? I am on Welfare and food stamps. :-) >I know! The companies will hear about you by word-of-mouth! >Rii-ii-iight! Better hope your mother hasn't rented out your room yet. But how will anyone find out it's for rent--she doesn't advertise? >I already toss plenty of junk mail, so I doubt if I'd >even notice the difference. (Please remember "the Chipmunk", so I'll >know it's you. My interests are computers, software, sailboating, >photography, and (near-)naked women.) So these people should send in a typical advertising fashion ads for baby needs, cars, 900 numbers, and other junk you have no interest in. Why? How is the new store down the block from you going to get you to come in and buy a stuffed bear if he does not advertise? How will you even know the pedophile is in business? >Look, instead of complaining to me about the ads, why don't you try it? >Find a particular ad that really disgusts you (for reasons *other* than >simply being advertising) and write them a letter! Chances are pretty >good your success will be greater than you think. Companies do not >stay in business alienating their customers. I wrote a letter recently and guess what? No response. Not even the courtesy of a ``You, sir, are full of shit.'' >I truly doubt if you've ever read any one of those economics textbooks >you refer to. Otherwise, you'd know better. Statements like these >reaffirm what I suspected, that is, that you have not the slightest >notion of what you are talking about. Actually, you are confusing marketing books and economics books. >> >asylvain@felix.UUCP (Alvin "the Chipmunk" Sylvain) >> Steven Miale David Gast
gwangung@milton.u.washington.edu (Just another theatre geek.....) (02/12/91)
In article <1991Feb12.045629.9917@cs.ucla.edu> gast@maui.cs.ucla.edu (David Gast) writes: >>But they shop around to places *who's advertising they have seen*. >Speak for yourself. I prefer places that I have not seen advertise. >I certainly consider expensive ads to be a waste of money and not worth >the cost. Let me tell you a story. I belong to a local, non-profit theatre. Five years ago, we were doing GREAT stuff in the theatre--but doing TERRIBLY at the box office. In looking at what we were doing, we noted that we were relying on press releases, calendar listings and public service announcements. We were also getting a lot of comments from other people, both on the phone and in person, "Gee, I didn't know you guys were still around." We decided to spend some money on some print and media ads to advertise our shows. We carefully targetted them at the publications most similar to our artistic philosophy. Guess what. Our attendence has slowly been rising. We get more people coming to our shows DESPITE a raised ticket price. We get people coming to us to volunteer for our next show--and they know when it is! Advertising evil? Riiiggghhhhttt...... -- ----- Roger Tang, gwangung@milton.u.washington.edu Middle-class weenie and art nerd
seebauer@eos.informatik.uni-bonn.de (Heinrich Seebauer) (02/12/91)
In his article toad@cellar.UUCP (Tony Shepps) writes > "Lack of advertising leaves a weird hole in the urban landscape. You > think, 'What could be uglier than billboards?' But have you ever looked > behind them? In Communist countries you don't get to see the giant pictures > of the cars, boats, and pretty faces that fill people's dreams. You just see > the people and where they live." > - P.J. O'Rourke > from "What Do They Do For Fun in Warsaw?" > an essay in his book _Holidays In Hell_ Whats wrong with that? Just face the reality and wake up from your dreams of civilization. It turns out that (e.g.) New York is as bad as Warsaw, but just more colourful. Heinrich. -- /---S---\ Heinrich Seebauer BARDE---Y-----BARDE Institut fuer Institut Abteilung fuer Informatik IV \---N---/ Roemerstr. 164, 5300 Bonn 1, x228 / 550 223 \---C-/ dataflow - the better way
peter@taronga.hackercorp.com (Peter da Silva) (02/13/91)
In article <992@organpipe.UUCP>, someone wrote... > > 2. Billboards and posters are unappealing and add to what I like to > > call "City Junk". In article <oo81w4w163w@cellar.UUCP>, toad@cellar.UUCP (Tony Shepps) quotes P.J. O'Rourke: > "'What could be uglier than billboards?' [...] In Communist countries you > don't get to see the giant pictures of the [stuff] that fill people's > dreams. You just see the people and where they live." I agree. When I first came to the United States, from Sydney, I was quite overwhelmed by the billboards. For me they will always represent the basic vitality of the country... I can't imagine a U.S. city without them. Now the city of Sydney doesn't allow billboards visible from the harbour, and the lower reaches of the harbour are a place of great scenic beauty. But higher up the Paramatta river a few ads to cover up the shipyards, naval facilities, and (let's face it) occasional slums would do wonders for the place. True story: when the Queen was visiting, they built huge burlap barricades to keep the Queen from seeing the run-down parts of Redfern from the train. A few billboards and nobody would ever have to avert their eyes. Now whether that's a good thing or not is another point... but this is getting pretty far from the EFF in any case. What will the equivalent for cyberspace be? Prodigy, where the ads hide the basic poverty of the system? -- (peter@taronga.uucp.ferranti.com) `-_-' 'U`
jym@berkeley.edu (Jym Dyer) (02/14/91)
___
__ Excuse me, but this flaming thread is inappropriate for
_ alt.activism. If you must flame about this, please remove
alt.activism from your Newsgroups header. Net manners 101.
<_Jym_>parilis@elbereth.rutgers.edu (Gary Parilis) (02/15/91)
Funny, it seems to me that everyone has gotten off of the original point. Didn't this "advertising sucks/"no it doesn't" originally start with a discussion of unnecessary junk mail? This is talk.environment, isn't it?
gast@maui.cs.ucla.edu (David Gast) (02/15/91)
In article <oo81w4w163w@cellar.UUCP> toad@cellar.UUCP (Tony Shepps) writes: > "Lack of advertising leaves a weird hole in the urban landscape. You >think, 'What could be uglier than billboards?' But have you ever looked >behind them? In Communist countries you don't get to see the giant pictures >of the cars, boats, and pretty faces that fill people's dreams. You just see >the people and where they live." You get to see big pictures of the leaders, advertising for the communist party. And anyway most of the billboards around here have ads for tobacco products, liquor, and the like. There is the one that posts the number of Americans killed by smoking this year. Almost 400,000 per year. David Gast
dtasman@nmsu.edu (TASMAN) (02/17/91)
In article <6VD1H1K@taronga.hackercorp.com> peter@taronga.hackercorp.com (Peter da Silva) writes: > When I first came to the United States, from Sydney, I was quite > overwhelmed by the billboards. For me they will always represent the > basic vitality of the country... I can't imagine a U.S. city without them. Scottsdale, Arizona. Santa Fe, New Mexico. Hilton Head, South Carolina. Granted, these are tourist towns, but part of their attraction is their visual environment. Billboards have their place in large cities, entertainment districts, and the like, but the scenic beauty of a lot of places, like the American Southwest, is ruined through an overwhelmong amount of billboards, placed during the region's rapid growth. Now cities are beginning to realize what a mess they are. Houston, Texas, hopes to rid itself of most of the city's billboards through a proposed zoning ordinance. El Paso, Texas, on the other hand, is reported to have more billboards per capita than any other city in the nation. I-10 through El Paso is one of the most unattractive strips of Interstate in the U.S. > Now the city of Sydney doesn't allow billboards visible from the harbour, > and the lower reaches of the harbour are a place of great scenic beauty. > But higher up the Paramatta river a few ads to cover up the shipyards, > naval facilities, and (let's face it) occasional slums would do wonders > for the place. > > True story: when the Queen was visiting, they built huge burlap barricades > to keep the Queen from seeing the run-down parts of Redfern from the train. > A few billboards and nobody would ever have to avert their eyes. I would like to see a few zoning ordinances from Australian cities, and see how they regulate outdoor advertising. Seeing that Australia is a suburban, automobile-based society (correct me if I'm wrong) like the United States, I would suspect the regulations would be similar to that of many United States cities... > > -- > (peter@taronga.uucp.ferranti.com) > `-_-' > 'U` > Dan Tasman New Mexico State University, USA dtasman@DANTE.nmsu.edu City of Las Cruces Planning Department "I think that I shall never see, a billboard as lovely as a tree... Indeed, unless the billboards fall, I'll never see a tree at all..."
nazgul@alphalpha.com (Kee Hinckley) (02/17/91)
In article <6VD1H1K@taronga.hackercorp.com> peter@taronga.hackercorp.com (Peter da Silva) writes: >basic vitality of the country... I can't imagine a U.S. city without them. Move to Maine or some other state which has outlawed them. It's much prettier. >But higher up the Paramatta river a few ads to cover up the shipyards, >naval facilities, and (let's face it) occasional slums would do wonders >for the place. Hiding poverty is never a good idea. -- Alfalfa Software, Inc. | Poste: The EMail for Unix nazgul@alfalfa.com | Send Anything... Anywhere 617/646-7703 (voice/fax) | info@alfalfa.com I'm not sure which upsets me more; that people are so unwilling to accept responsibility for their own actions, or that they are so eager to regulate everyone else's.
peter@taronga.hackercorp.com (Peter da Silva) (02/19/91)
In article <1991Feb17.001958.20740@alphalpha.com>, nazgul@alphalpha.com (Kee Hinckley) writes: > In article <6VD1H1K@taronga.hackercorp.com> peter@taronga.hackercorp.com (Peter da Silva) writes: [ on billboards ] > >basic vitality of the country... I can't imagine a U.S. city without them. > Move to Maine or some other state which has outlawed them. It's much > prettier. Oh lord, no. I wouldn't want to move there... they have *winter*. I don't approve of winter. Even the diluted form we get here in Houston is worse than I'm used to. And, of course, one might also consider that the vitality that I'm talking about seems in greater abundance in states other than Maine. > >But higher up the Paramatta river a few ads to cover up the shipyards, > >naval facilities, and (let's face it) occasional slums would do wonders > >for the place. > Hiding poverty is never a good idea. How about the shipyards and naval facilities, warehouses and industrial parks? > I'm not sure which upsets me more; that people are so unwilling to accept > responsibility for their own actions, or that they are so eager to regulate > everyone else's. No comment. -- (peter@taronga.uucp.ferranti.com) `-_-' 'U`