Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Very good game.


Here's a tale...


Before '88 drink driving was more than socially acceptable, it was considered a demonstration of social status. It was largely associated with chief executives in jaguars that could get away with it.


In rural areas it was an aspirational objective, and pubs even had breathalysers on which 19 year-olds in XR2s could test how pissed they were before they drove home. (They were installed by police on the basis that they would do the opposite).


In the next few years we had a concerted govt. campaign that demonstrated graphically the damage these guys did. Drink driving is now socially unacceptable. It may be difficult for people to envisage this unless they lived through it.


Advertising is a political hot-potato:


(1) In a libertarian society the booze firms are free to advertise at will, and the people have to learn the consequences (it clearly doesn't work).


(2) In a progressive liberal society the booze firms are free to advertise at will but we tax the bastards and spend it on govt. advertising to point out the bad side (seems to work).


(3) In a totalitarian society we prevent booze firms from advertising (see above from DJKQ).


You have to work out what policy you think is best.


DJKQ insists that I believe in (2) because it's my business. I don't. I believe in (2) because I think it's healthy. I believ in informed self-expression as a socialist ideal.


Current Conservative policy is (1)


And some idiots claim advertising doesn't work...

I do find scrolling through BARB numbers to be a tiresome task these days, it has to be said


I am finding it hard to continually persuade segments of the voracious consumers ,we call the UK, to take advantage of facile products that may indeed be of benefit.

Exposed? HAL9000 outed me months back, you can't put the toothpaste back in the tube you know.


Advertising can't brainwash people, but it can elevate awareness, influence priorities and alter the ideas you associate with particular products or ideas.


For example, the Chelsea Tractor syndrome was created by reinforcing the belief in a certain group of people that looking good and demonstrating wealth was more important than caring for your environment, and that a Chelsea Tractor could achieve this for you.


There was no brainwashing involved, these customers already had big egos, big houses and big bank accounts and tiny penises. The advertising merely suggested that a big car would fit with their portfolio and make up for their shortcomings.


As for crap, just buy supermarket own-brands. They'll do a similar job, but you won't be very happy because you probably have negative associations with them.

Is the advertising industry populated by people who are worse than people who populate estate agents, the music industrty, publishing, finance, banking etc? I think there are scum bags in all professions and I'm not sure advertising is any worse than any other profession, if you can call it a profession.

Can someone start having a pop at the software developers please?

I'm feeling left out.


There are loads of cowboys in the industry, it's overpaid and both public and private sector waste billions on these self-serving scumbags, always with the 'i know best' and the 'lets use the latest technology so that you can effectively pay for reaaaally expensive on the job training for me that I'll take to the next dupe once the project inevitably fails/your company/government dept goes bust/gets axed'.


I mean, bastards, seriously.

And sometimes we they wear stupid animal hats, and trainers and stuff.

mockney piers Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> I'm wondering if this was a very roundabout way

> for snorky to advertise the ipad2.

> Slimmer AND lighter?! Woo, I'm in!!!!


I dont know how I managed without A LIGHTER , SLIMMER way to post on tw@tter.


woot


this really out crap inventions like fire and the wheel in their place

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Latest Discussions

    • Surprised at how many people take the 'oooh it's great it got approved, something is better than nothing' view. This is exactly Southwark council's approach, pandering to greedy developers for the absolute bare minimum of social and affordable housing. It's exactly why, under their leadership, only a fraction of social and affordable housing has been built in the borough - weirdly Mccash chose to highlight their own failures in his 'near unprecedented' (yet unbiased 😆) submission. All the objectors i have met support redevelopment, to benefit those in need of homes and the community - not change it forever. The council could and should be bolder, demand twice the social and affordable housing in these schemes, and not concede to 8 storeys of unneeded student bedsits. If it is a question of viability, publically disclose the business plan to prove how impossible it might be to turn a profit. Once the thing is built these sites can never be used for social or affordable housing. The council blows every opportunity, every time. Its pathetic. Developers admitted the scale was, in this instance, not required for viability. The student movements data seemed completely made up. The claim that 'students are taking up private rentals' was backed up with no data. There is empty student housing on denmark hill, needs to be fixed up but it's there already built. The council allows developers years to build cosy relationships with planners such that the final decision is a formality - substantiated objections are dismissed with wooly words and BS. Key meetings and consultations are scheduled deliberately to garner minimal engagement or objection. Local councillors, who we fund, ignore their constituents concerns. Those councillors that dare waiver in the predetermination are slapped down. Not very democratic. They've removed management and accountability by having no nomination agreement with any of the 'many london universities needing accommodation' - these direct lets MAKE MORE MONEY. A privately run firm will supposedly ensure everyone that those living there is actually a student and adheres to any conduct guidelines. There's no separation to residents - especially to ones on their own development. Could go on... We'll see how many of the 53 social/affordable units that we're all so happy to have approved actually get built. 
    • I am looking for 1 unit which is working for £50 cash. Thank you
    • Can’t recommend the company enough, great service. 
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

Search
×
    Search In
×
×
  • Create New...