Sounds like a common sense decision
 

On Mon, 12 Nov 2012 08:58:23 -0000, "NY" wrote:

There isn't that much difference between some BBC trailers (for BBC services
or BBC-related publications like Radio Times, rather than for programmes)
and the adverts that we are used to on all other channels.

The big difference is most of the BBC trailers occur in the gaps
between programmes, the exception being the ones disguised as news
stories.

Sounds like a common sense decision
 

"JohnT" wrote in message
...

"Jim Lesurf" wrote in message
...

Bear in mind that the ad-man's mark... erm 'customer' is the client who
pays for the ads to be made. Not the end-consumer who may buy goods. So
for
advertising to prosper the critical requirement is for ad-men to convince
others to buy the adverts. The claimed talent of advertisers is to make
people fall for what they say, after all. ;-


That really is nonsense. Advertising Agencies which fail to get consumers
to buy goods don't get much repeat business. There are almost countless
examples of how "good" advertising sells bad products

sunny D anyone

tim

Sounds like a common sense decision
 

In article , JohnT
wrote:

"Jim Lesurf" wrote in message
...

Bear in mind that the ad-man's mark... erm 'customer' is the client
who pays for the ads to be made. Not the end-consumer who may buy
goods. So for advertising to prosper the critical requirement is for
ad-men to convince others to buy the adverts. The claimed talent of
advertisers is to make people fall for what they say, after all. ;-


That really is nonsense. Advertising Agencies which fail to get
consumers to buy goods don't get much repeat business.

I note your absolute personal beliefs, but don't share your faith that what
you believe is always true. :-)

As I pointed out: The 'advertising agency' only has to convince the client
that their newest cunning scheme is a winner. If they do that, they can get
the "business". It is manifestly correct that the arguments ad-men present
aren't always true, even if 'convincing'. The skill of advertising is to be
convincing and plausible, not to always be true.

And the ad agency's mark is the company that may buy ads, etc, not the end
user of that client's products.

What is interesting is that people sometimes find this so hard to accept,
despite the kinds of adverts we are subjected to. In that sense, I guess
advertising does succeed... at selling the idea of adverts themselves. :-)

There are almost countless examples of how "good" advertising sells bad
products

I'd agree, noting that your statement admits it isn't based on any count of
how many such examples exist. But I'm afraid you are still confusing
"examples" with an absolute rule that must always be true in every case.

Some advertising may well help sell products. Agreed. But that isn't the
point I was making, and doesn't falsify it. Indeed it may be that some of
the ad ideas *rejected* might also have helped to sell the target product.
But we didn't find out because the ad-man failed to convince their customer
- the client who wanted to sell products. The hurdle the ad-men have to
overcome is convincing the client. The ads may then work or not, but if
accepted by the client, the ad-men have scored.

There is, of course, also the real question of ensuring that when sales
rise is *was* due to the adverts and not some other factor. Again, an
absolute faith in what must always be the case may be a poor guide here.
But I'm sure the ad men often do a good job of convincing clients... Only
the convincing ones stay in business, after all. ;-

Slainte,

Jim

--
Please use the address on the audiomisc page if you wish to email me.
Electronics http://www.st-and.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scot...o/electron.htm
Armstrong Audio http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/Armstrong/armstrong.html
Audio Misc http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/index.html

Sounds like a common sense decision
 

In article , Bugbear
wrote:
Lots of people proudly, and loudly claim not to be influenced
by adverts.

As you say - the behaviour of self-interested advertisers
suggest otherwise.

The behaviour based on the *beliefs* of self-interested advertisers in
the statistics they collect may suggest otherwise, but it says nothing
about the purchasing habits of any individual.

Rod.
--

Sounds like a common sense decision
 

In article en.co.uk,
Roderick Stewart wrote:
In article , Bugbear
wrote:
Lots of people proudly, and loudly claim not to be influenced by
adverts.

As you say - the behaviour of self-interested advertisers suggest
otherwise.

The behaviour based on the *beliefs* of self-interested advertisers in
the statistics they collect may suggest otherwise, but it says nothing
about the purchasing habits of any individual.

Indeed. Part of the problem for people in business is to try and read the
goat's entrails and work out *why* sales of various products were as they
have found. All to easy to jump onto the wrong 'reasons'. And if a large
successful ad-biz is providing glossy feedback about how well their ideas
'work'...

The parallel here is with businesspeople who tend to have faith that any
success was due to their being exceptionally clever, hard-working, etc.
Generally no mention of the work of those they employed, etc. Self-made men
seem to exist in a curious mental vacuum. Yet others fail and put it down
to 'bad luck'.

BTW I must admit I burst out laughing last week when a R4 interviewer
started asking Nigel Lawson why we should take his ideas about climate
seriously (when he is clueless about science), and - more pointedly - asked
who bankrolled his work on the topic.

His reply was that his money came from "rich friends" who have paid him to
be active in this area. He then went on to smugly say that these people
weren't only "more wealthy than average" but also "more intelligent". Which
again, does remind me of the ad-men situation. It becomes a neat
self-supporting circular argument that suits those who end up with the cash
in their pocket in exchange for the beliefs they push.

Adcos are 'successful' though selling advertising to clients, so (the
argument goes) they must be 'good' if they have done so, and that then
becomes a 'reason' for others to buy their advertising campaigns. If sales
happen to go up, well it must be the ads. If they don't, oh dear, maybe
something else caused that - e.g. someone else's ads were 'better'. You
just choose the products that did well as the 'evidence' for the belief
that ads work. Who cares about most plebs... erm people. It is these
'unusually wealthy' people who are self-evidently sic also 'unusually
intelligent' that decide. :-)

Baloney Baffles Brains... even those of the "unusually intelligent" it
seems.

Slainte,

Jim

--
Please use the address on the audiomisc page if you wish to email me.
Electronics http://www.st-and.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scot...o/electron.htm
Armstrong Audio http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/Armstrong/armstrong.html
Audio Misc http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/index.html

Sounds like a common sense decision
 

In ,
Jim Lesurf wrote:

BTW I must admit I burst out laughing last week when a R4 interviewer
started asking Nigel Lawson why we should take his ideas about climate
seriously (when he is clueless about science), and - more pointedly - asked
who bankrolled his work on the topic.

His reply was that his money came from "rich friends" who have paid him to
be active in this area. He then went on to smugly say that these people
weren't only "more wealthy than average" but also "more intelligent". Which
again, does remind me of the ad-men situation. It becomes a neat
self-supporting circular argument that suits those who end up with the cash
in their pocket in exchange for the beliefs they push.

Well they do say you should fight fire with fire.

--
TH * http://www.realh.co.uk

Sounds like a common sense decision
 

Jim Lesurf wrote:

I note your absolute personal beliefs, but don't share your faith that what
you believe is always true.

I thought that was so good an aphorism I googled it to see who said it
first. But it looks like it was Jim!

Bill

Sounds like a common sense decision
 

In article , Bill Wright
wrote:
Jim Lesurf wrote:

I note your absolute personal beliefs, but don't share your faith that
what you believe is always true.

I thought that was so good an aphorism I googled it to see who said it
first. But it looks like it was Jim!

I'll google 'aphorism' before deciding if that is an insult or not. :-)

Slainte,

Jim

--
Please use the address on the audiomisc page if you wish to email me.
Electronics http://www.st-and.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scot...o/electron.htm
Armstrong Audio http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/Armstrong/armstrong.html
Audio Misc http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/index.html

Sounds like a common sense decision
 

"Bill Wright" wrote in message
...
Jim Lesurf wrote:

I note your absolute personal beliefs, but don't share your faith that
what
you believe is always true.

I thought that was so good an aphorism I googled it to see who said it
first. But it looks like it was Jim!

I think that he thought it up whilst inscribing a million Angels on the head
of a pin.
--
JohnT

Sounds like a common sense decision
 

On 13/11/2012 20:35, Bill Wright wrote:
Some confusion I think between the engravers' test piece of getting
Lord's Prayer on a pin head and the ancient theological question about
angels dancing on a pin head (how much room does an angel need? -- they
used to worry about things like that in them days). Nowadays the angels
and pin head thing means, basically, wasting time talking about daft
things. So I don't really know what the OP was getting at.

The angels dancing thing sounds slightly less daft when you find out
that the two debated answers were "finite" and "infinite".

Andy