Tuesday, November 26, 2013
"We don't lie in advertising"
Czech Dream - Garden Row
According to one of the advertising people, the one with his back to the camera, in the Czech Dream, "We don't lie in advertising." He expressed concerns about the deception about a hypermarket that doesn't exist.
Some people might not be convinced; so perhaps it would help to get an opinion from a respected elder statesman.
What do you think Dick?
Thanks Dick, um that's always good to know.
But I'm not quite sure how that addresses the claim by the advertiser.
I tell you what; a couple of the other advertisers that contributed more to the ad campaign and ahd doubts about it justified it in a little more detail.
Perhaps their comments would help elaborate.
Does that make sense Dick?
Thanks Dick, um, it's good to make that clear but I'm still not sure what that has to do with the issue at hand.
That clip is presented much better in the video; assuming you haven't seen it. toward the end the girl who denied all responsibility was laughing when she held up her hand to block the camera and told them to stop; perhaps she suspected that many people might not think her denials had any integrity.
Whether they lie in advertising or not they have been steadily increasing the amount of money they spend on ads for decades, so much that it is taking up a growing percentage of the GDP; and it does nothing to improve the quality of products or services being advertised, although corporations can't make profits unless they find a way to pass these costs on to the consumers. The amount of money being spent on advertising rose from $39 billion in 1950 to $256 billion in 1990 (Benjamin Barber “Jihad Vs. McWorld” 1995 p.62); it increased even more in the nineties reaching $435 billion in 1998 (Naomi Klein “No Logo” p.8-9). Other sources indicate that advertising continues to rise faster than other expenditures.
Whether they lie or not they make little or no effort to inform the public of this nor do they try to remind the public that similar figures could be cited when it comes to political advertising.
Whether it is politics or advertising for products the vast majority of the information that people make their decisions with, except for a small percentage of the public that takes the trouble to do their own research from alternative sources, is bought and paid for by someone that has a motive to distort the truth.
At the same time the amount of money being spent on manufacturing and services is being cut.
This isn't the only expense that is going through the roof faster than expenses that benefit the public; campaign contributions have also been rising faster than the rate of inflation; which means that it is also accounting for a growing portion of the GDP. Additional expenses like union busting activities and research into child psychology, for the purposes of marketing to them, not helping them, have also been rising.
Expenditures that shift wealth to the rich are rising, thanks to their centralized control of the economy; and we are replacing quality merchandise and services with hype and lies!
Trade secrecy laws make it difficult to tell how much this is going up; but there is evidence to indicate that it is. Some of it was revealed by researchers into marketing to children like Roy Fox and Susan Linn or by Marty Jay Levit, a former union busting consultant.
Whether they lie in advertising or not they don't make any effort to inform the public about these inconvenient facts or many others like the enormous amount of environmental damage that is escalating despite all the ads from the oil companies about how "safe" they or the coal companies telling us about "clean coal."
Paid speech has little or no credibility, yet it gets much more protection than unpaid speech and the expense of it is passed on to consumers who don't necessarily have nearly as much protection under the first amendment.
Does that make any sense Dick?
If the President does it then it is not illegal.
Yea Dick that helps a lot, thanks.