Category Archives: Advertising

ObjectiveReporting

Posted in Advertising, Lawyers and Representation, News media, Over Advertising by

The other day I took note that Scripps is now on the Newsy TV channel. I saw an ad claiming they only report the news. Considering what Newsy called the news, you can imagine my doubts.

Nonetheless, I switched it over there a time or two to see what they wanted to call news. I was not impressed. The other day they had what was, at the least a biased documentary. They called it news.

Truth be told, it was a lengthy infomercial advertising solar cell energy. If the solar cell companies didn’t pay for it, they should have. The spokesperson spent the whole time talking of the advantages, completely ignoring the disadvantages. Considering most of our solar cells are made in China, I’d guess China got some free advertising.

It is the way of the liberal media and democrat politicians. It has gotten so much so that they are more than joined at the hip. Indeed, they are joined at the mind. If one is struck, they both recoil and cry out in pain. If one has a success they both cheer. It appears that Scripps is no different. They have their favorite party and they support it without shame.

The Ads Between the Advertisements

Posted in Advertising, Christian values by

Many years ago, they stopped permitting cigarette commercials on TV.  Considering my beliefs on tobacco products, I was pleased with the decision, though it did bother me that those who benefited the most were the lawyers.

However, it begged the question, “Who or what will replace all the commercial revenue that tobacco provided for TV and radio.  Unless you were around in the day as I was, you likely don’t realize the large percentage of ads from that one industry.

However, it’s not my point here to write about the ads, but rather the ads between the ads.  On the TV, and movies as well, tobacco paid a bundle to shoe people smoking.  In some case, they even made sure to expose the logo to the camera.  It is all part of the subtle or disguised ads.

It is the Kellogg’s box or Folder’s exposed to the camera in hopes to increase the sales for the cereal or coffee.

It is the increase in tobacco sales as the result of characters in the show smoking.  It is the increase in drinking as a result in the characters in the show making it appear to be the norm for everyone.  I mean, why not drink.  Everyone does it.

The tobacco contribution did not stop with the outright ads though.  If you look at the old TV and radio shows, you will note that many of the characters smoked in their scenes.  Guess what?  Ads between the ads are still there.  In the old movies and show, the characters still smoke to this day.

Well, the cigarette suggestive ads are no longer on new TV or movies, but many other ads are now subtly placed between the advertisements, where most don’t pay a lot of attention.

Some might wonder, “Does it work?”

I don’t know.  They might.  If they don’t work, some really big corporations are futility spending fortunes.  Hence, I have to assume that all those outfits really believe it works.  I suspect they spent an enormous amount of change in the research alone.

Initially, the ads from the casinos replaced at least some of tobacco money.  When gambling was made legal in Tunica County, it was impossible to listen to ten minutes of Memphis radio or TV without hearing one of the ads.  It seemed that if we went to the Hollywood Casino, we could all become famous actors.  Little was mentioned of the fact that we might lose our shirts and perhaps a bit more.

It seemed once the old water barrier started to leak, it wasn’t long before gambling started all over the country.  A couple of casinos were built here.  A couple more were built there.  I would now guess that there are few people in this country much more than a hundred miles away from someone willing and waiting to take all our/your money from us.

I don’t know.  They just might have oversaturated.  I don’t hear so many ads these days.  On the other hand, they just might have more customers than they want.  (I don’t think you’ll believe that one.)

Nonetheless, have you ever seen a recent movie or TV show where gamblers lose?  The object of the subtle ad is to convince you that you can gamble and win.  Not only that, you’ll have oodles of fun while you’re breaking the casino.  NOT GOING TO HAPPEN.  Remember the movie “The Rain Man.”

Consider the alcohol industry.  Do you think they ignore the effects of the ads between the ads?  I suspect the advertising departments in those outfits are very busy getting alcohol to fit in everywhere they can make it fit.  This is true even though it amounts to putting the proverbial square in the round hole.  Even those, so-called family oriented channels and shows have characters drinking at every scene possible.  Some will actually buy the subterfuge, hook, line and sinker.  Maybe I live a sheltered life, but, as near as I can tell, people simply don’t drink that much.

I suspect that the alcohol industry has done far more damage to our society than the tobacco industry could imagine.  Smoking might damage the lungs but alcohol deprives the brain of oxygen.  It doesn’t do the liver any good either.  Yet, for some reason, we destroy the tobacco farmer while we encourage the little old wine makers.

Don’t get me wrong.  I don’t like tobacco.  My father and two of my brothers smoked.  I saw the damage it did to them.  I will not defend the cigarette.  However, not too many people killed other people as the result of smoking as drinking does.  How many people abused their wives and children while in an altered state from smoking; it doesn’t happen.  The abuse of alcohol is far worse than smoking and it always will be.

It’s not just me saying that.  The experts say that alcohol causes more damage to our society than any other drug.  Maybe we should at least stop the ads between the advertisements on TV.  Let’s not present it to our children as a good or normal way of life.

I also find it odd that clergy have become the guilty party in so many who-done-its these days.  I do not suggest that there aren’t bad men who claim to teach of good things, but Hollywood intentionally distorts it.  They clearly don’t like Christians or Christianity.

Moreover, it should not be a surprise to anyone who has read their Bible.  Jesus has warned us of such people.  He said to beware of wolves in sheep’s clothing.  Some of those wolves find their way behind pulpits and teach error.  It’s horrible.  It’s terrible.  But let’s not imply that all preachers are bad.

On the other hand, they like to promote the concept that homosexuality is both common and normal.  I know this is going to draw a bunch of criticism.  Fine.  I can live with that.  However, it is more than coincidence that there are homosexual agents in both TV shows NCIS New Orleans and NCIS Hawaii.  It does make me suspect that CBS does have an agenda.  Cold Case also had its sprinkling of homosexual based plots.  They are all intentional ads in between the advertisements regardless of right or wrong.

If you do want to know if it is right or wrong, don’t consult the shows.  Don’t even ask me.  I did not make the rules and I can’t change them.  Neither can any of you.  You might want to ask the one Who did make the rules.  Then again, you might not want His reply.  You might choose to do as Adam did and run from Him.

By the way, on a lighter note, I wish I could get the free advertising for my books that Sean Hannity and all the others on FOX News receive whilst they are supposedly talking about news or comment.  I likely would still be a long way from a best seller, but I would at least have a chance.

That’s advertising between the advertisements too. Not only that, but I also bet they don’t pay a dime for it either.

Ad Fees

Posted in Advertising by

Every phone call made for advertising purposes should have a fee paid to the receiving person for use of their phone.

A. It would decrease the ad calls.

B. People would get their phones paid for by the advertisers. It’s only right if they insist on using our phones for advertising, like newspapers, like radio, like TV, and like billboards. Why should we have foot the cost of their ads?

For years we’ve been giving them free advertising. It’s about time they start paying as the rest. Not only is it the right thing to do, but it just might help to cut down on one of the biggest bothers since the door-to-door salesman.

If You Have to Ask….

Posted in Advertising by

There is a saying, “If you have to ask, you can’t afford it.” I guess in the case of continuous glucose monitors it’s true.

I just saw one of the ads for the umpteenth time and, because I’m diabetic, I decided to check on their price. After 20 minutes of looking on the web, I’ve come to the conclusion that they would just as soon I don’t know the price.

They tell you the advantages and how well they work, not what they cost. Apparently, that’s a secret.

So. I guess I can’t afford it if I need to ask. No sense checking into it any more. Don’t guess I need it anyway.

It just makes me wonder, why the big secret.

Confidence Games

Posted in Advertising by

Normally I don’t watch Bonanza. I wasn’t much of a fan even when they were first run. I must admit they did have some very picturesque scenes in a world where color TV was really coming into its own.

I did watch a rerun today about a big confidence ring trying to pull off a confidence game concerning a salted gold mine. I found it especially interesting when they broke for an advertisement that was clearly a scam, aka confidence scheme.

I had to let out a small laugh knowing that they wouldn’t fool many with their tricks. Then, I became more thoughtful as I realized just a few would be enough for the scammers to succeed. As for me, that’s too many.

Then, I considered it again. I guess most commercials are scams. Yet, for the advertisers, they call it success when they make a few dollars by deception.

We would all do well to remember most advertising has the purpose of getting our money, no matter how convincing it may be.

Sometimes I Wonder About Ads Actors & Models

Posted in Advertising by

I was waiting in a doctor’s office many winters ago and looking in magazine. I came across a large photo ad of a woman. The ad had little in the way of words and the woman had little in the way of clothing.

I laughed and covered the few words and showed the photo to my wife. Then, I asked her what she thought the ad was about. She shrugged and I uncovered the few words. She laughed too when she realized the ad was about shoes.

Nowadays, I think back over the ad. I wonder how many shoes it sold, how much the ad costs, and how much the model was paid. Then again, I look at things in ways no one else does. My wife will attest to it. My biggest question was and is, did the woman even know what she was advertising?

Such is the case in many modern day ads with scantily dressed women striking well-planned posses. Sometimes they act as if they are trying to lose what little clothing they have. The question comes to my mind, does the woman really know that she’s advertising a little magic pill?

Sometimes I wonder, if you ask the woman what the ad is for, could she say? For that matter can the photographer?

It is amazing what these ad people can do. Coca-Cola put a bunch of people on the side of a mountain and convinced the world that they would like teach the world to sing. The ad became reqested causing a problem for the stations. If they just played the ad on request, they would provide free advertising. Wonder if anyone foresaw that.

Here’s the real kicker. Only a small handful of people were recorded the song. We never got to hear all those folks on the hill. I wonder if they knew it. I wonder if they even knew the words, though I imagine they did.

Such is the case from time to time. I imagine the director of a new commercial finds a good looking dancer to jump around and mouth the words as we never see the real singers.

Maybe we need a truth in advertising law. Any time the models aren’t the ones we hear, a disclaimer should be flashed on the screen. Also all models should be told ahead of time what they will be advertising. It’s only fair. If they are going to put words in their mouths, they really should know what the words are.

Moreover, if we are to believe the words, or the poses, at least those presenting them should know what they are advertising, even if they don’t believe them…that is even if they know them to be false…that is…even if they know them to be lies.

Or, in the case of the one selling shoes, no matter how little clothing she is wearing.

A Word of Advice for All Advertisers

Posted in Advertising, Deceit, experience, Lawyers and Representation, Our Legal Systems, Over Advertising, TV Advertisements by

I know. I have no degree in advertising. I have no degree in higher learning at all. However, I do have eyes in my head and I have likely a little better mind for reasoning than most. That is to say, I can observe and draw reasonably sound conclusions.

Now, let’s say I’m watching a TV show and one of those irritating, highly over repeated ads come on. You know the ones. The ones by the lawyers seeking their 40% for legal fees; the ones advertising for Medicare part C; etc, etc and so forth.

Instead of leaving the room to make a sandwich, I change the channel to avoid the obnoxious blather. Then, no matter the reason, I don’t change the channel back. Maybe I forget. Perhaps I decide I like what’s on the other channel. I don’t know. Maybe the remote breaks or gets lost.

Your ad, which is immediately after the repetitive gibberish is not watched…the one for which you paid good money. The money, goes down the tubes, never to even be seen again. I imagine the ad agency as well as those writing the check don’t like like my little story.

Based on the above, it would seem to me that advertisers would not want to pay prime prices for time following “such fantastic works of art.”

Odd. While watching TV just now, one of those irritants came on. I’m not sure I’ll change it back. I sort of like this program better.

I mean, there are irritating commercials. Then, there are just irritating blabbing, if you get my point. I mean, I do believe we are all now well educated on bad water at Lejeune and the benefits of part c Medicare.

Ironically, No Ch. 5

Posted in Advertising, Cable TV, CEO Princeple by

The 1st time I arrived in Memphis, actually NAS Memphis located in in the city of Millington just north of Memphis, the only TV station I could receive on my little 5 in. portable TV was ch. 5.

Now I can receive all the major channels but 5. I have no idea why. I’ve tried auto-scanning the channels dozens of times. Depending on the position of the amplified GE antenna, I get some channels some times and other channels other times. However, since removing cable, I have yet to see NBC or any of the other substations on ch 5.

My first thought was that it was some kind of conspiracy but how. Certainly, those who own the station want me to be able to watch their advertising. I mean, they don’t make money off the programs but rather the ads.

It brings to mind my CEO theory again. Has the CEO ever tried to receive ch 5 on an antenna? Does he, or she even care about us mass of poor people who don’t have cable. Maybe we have been written off, so to speak, because we have such little purchasing power.

It does somewhat make me wonder what they are trying to sell on ch 5. For that matter, what kind programming do they have.

The main point of this post however, is point out the problem with the TV. I can delete channels after a scan but I cannot add any. Try as I may, I have tried and tried. It would appear the designers of my TV have assumed two things that aren’t true. First, they believed that their work of wonder will find all channels. Second, they assumed that all transmitters are the same direction from my living room.

Nothing is further from the truth. I need to adjust the direction of the antenna for each channel for best reception. That means that no one scan will pick up all the stations.

In this case, no ch. 5 at all.

I wonder if the CEO of ch. 5 knows, or cares.

An afterthought: Channel 10, PBS came in crystal clear, no matter where I point the antenna. Most of the shopping networks come in good. I wonder about that. It means every time I do a scan, I need to manually delete all the garbage.

History of TV Reception

Posted in Advertising, Cable TV, Crazy Nuts, experience by

When TVs first came out, the TV antenna soon followed. After just a short time, a person could pan the rooftops and see the antennas sticking up from most of the houses.

Some had to settle for rabit ears. Some, me included had broken antennas and settled for wire clothes hangers. My clothes hanger worked very well. I wish I could say it was because of my great knowledge of electronics but, in my case, I had a good picture without having to alter the hanger at all.

On the other hand, some needed 40, 50, or even 70 foot masts to receive signals from a 100 or more miles away. To complicate matters, some received signals from 2 or 3 different directions. To do this, they had what they called rotors and they worked well. It was a tad on the pricey side though. Not only did one need the equipment, but it also had to be installed.

I don’t know who first thought of the idea of cable, but I noticed it being installed in rural areas in the late 50s and early 60s. It was good for the stations and sponsors as it increased those receiving their programming and ads. There is no need to say it was good for those receiving cable. That’s obvious.

Over the years, those selling cable found more customers and types of customers. People in apartments and folks who hated ugly antennas sticking up all over the neighborhood. Also, the reception quality improved.

Perhaps one of the main reasons the cable idea spread so rapidly was the increase in channels available. People in San Diego watched L.A. channels, for example. In addition, what I call pseudo-stations started popping up.

Then, to improve reception and increase features, they went to digital. I never liked that much in the past, even less now. What started out to be a way to receive a good picture for 15 or 20 a month has turned into a huge conglomerate (if I may misuse the word) of sations, most of which are mental wastelands that I spent 226 a month. That is a big bite from my social security.

I just had my cable disconnected and I am now aware of why I don’t like digital TV. If a person buys an expensive antenna, after spending hours adjusting it and fussing with it, it almost works, almost doesn’t. Mostly, gone are the days of using a hanger. Now we must use 39.95 antennas that I can’t even receive all the local channels I received just fine in the old analogs. Moreover, I keep losing the picture into wild pixelations.

I guess the FCC had us in mind as they made the decision to digitize broadcasts, or at least I hope so. Then again, maybe it would help if the 39.95 antenna worked better than a clothes hanger.

(Does anyone know where I can get a metal clothes hanger? )

For Those Interested

Posted in Advertising, Computers, TV Advertisements by

About 5 or 6 months ago, I bought an Epson ET 2750 (I believe they call them Ecco Tech). It printed very nice. Then, about a week later, I tried to print something with it and I first had to clean the jets.

After a while, realized it was going to be a common problem. I realized, if I didn’t print daily, it was going to need cleaning before using it.

Frequently, it discouraged my using it because I knew I would first need to to wait for it to finish cleaning itself. This was made all the more frustrating as sometimes it needed 2 or even 3 cleanings.

At any rate, I made the switch back to laser. It’s more expensive and they use more power, but they work, even when there are a few weeks between uses.

Then too, the Epson always concerned me. Would the cleaning continue to work or would I have to get another printer anyway?

I guess that will teach me to believe TV ads, even the ones with famous basketball players.

As an aside, maybe Epson should have the things clean themselves every 12 hours, whether it’s used or not. Just a thought.