DailyDirt: Advertising Needs To Be More Considerate

from the urls-we-dig-up dept

Advertising is a tricky business. Content producers can be as thoughtful and careful as they think they can be, and they can still make mistakes, really, really bad mistakes sometimes. Audiences everywhere are ready to jump on an ad that wastes their precious time or misleads them or offends some sensibility. But it’s not always (ever?) easy to make content that is both compelling and also good for selling widgets (or promoting a message). Check out a few of these links on advertising campaigns gone a bit wrong.

If you’d like to read more awesome and interesting stuff, check out this unrelated (but not entirely random!) Techdirt post via StumbleUpon.

Filed Under: , , , , , , , ,
Companies: best buy, greenpeace

Rate this comment as insightful
Rate this comment as funny
You have rated this comment as insightful
You have rated this comment as funny
Flag this comment as abusive/trolling/spam
You have flagged this comment
The first word has already been claimed
The last word has already been claimed
Insightful Lightbulb icon Funny Laughing icon Abusive/trolling/spam Flag icon Insightful badge Lightbulb icon Funny badge Laughing icon Comments icon

Comments on “DailyDirt: Advertising Needs To Be More Considerate”

Subscribe: RSS Leave a comment
Coyne Tibbets (profile) says:

Nazca lines

The Greenpeace faux pas is seriously overblown.

I am particularly disheartened that the “political opponents” are trying to make political points on this. Talk about the peak of hypocrisy: There is no group of people on this planet who care for anything (such as world landmarks) less than their pocketbook. If there were something valuable under those Nazca Lines, these are the same people who would plow them under faster than you can say “greed”.

So, okay, Greenpeace, definitely not the best thought out action. The landmark took some minor damage, a “ding”, but it’s not ruined completely.

Stop worrying about this ding and instead worry about some dispassionate multinational digging there next week for road gravel.

McCrea (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re: Nazca lines

Well, being an American, I have been raised to be ignorant and dismissive of “other cultures”, as if any such things actually exist.

I didn’t know they were called Nazca Lines and would appreciate learning such a thing in the news… if only I had. I learned about this only by following Techdirt.

My brain seriously does a little happy dance when American news reports anything not related to America. It definitely does not happen too often. I think our school children might take a moment of silence to appreciate the grace and fragility of the Nasca Lines (that could certainly be a better use of the time expressly given for saying the Pledge of Allegiance). Older students should look at Greenpeace’s assinity and realize that virtually nobody ever respects someone’s political message on someone else’s apolitical work.

art guerrilla (profile) says:

continuing on previous ad rant...

1. there is a fundamental flaw with commenting systems, that this one exhibits as well: active threads with lively debates become quickly obsoleted when that story scrolls down the list…
(note: i don’t ‘blame’ techdirt for this, it simply is a part of how most commenting systems work and are flawed, not a nefarious plot…)
2. in that respect, i am continuing a response to another post on ads where the author (forget which techdirtian, but it doesn’t really matter) tried to continue this canard of how ads can be good, No Really!
i will not get into a point-by-point rebuttal (which -again, given the post has scrolled into limbo, is pointless), but merely state several weaknesses with the defense proffered:
A. NO ONE has ‘refuted’ (it can not be) one of my main points, that advertisements constitute a pernicious form of aural and visual pollution…
you merely (without asserting it) seem to imply that *whatever* downside of ads is more than compensated for by the upside… (said ‘upside’ i both deny and decry…)
B. NO ONE has ‘refuted’ that ads ARE annoying (purposefully so), NOT informative… there is NO REASON advertisers could not take the tack techdirt constantly refers to as far as making more unobtrusive, inserted ‘naturally’ in content, etc, etc, etc, TODAY… they do not; they WILL not…
to hope that advertisers will be measured and tasteful in their ad campaigns is silly sophistry: THERE IS NOTHING STOPPING them from doing so now, yet they do not; WHY they will do so under your ‘good-ads’ regime is beyond me…
C. NO ONE has ‘refuted’ that the WHOLE INTENTION of this ‘golden age of neo-advertising’ IS attempting to serve ads up EVERYWHERE ALL THE TIME… again, it is merely technology that has made making ads ubiquitous with very little time, effort, or resources…
DO NOT CARE HOW clever, funny, cool, current, or even informative ads are, when they plaster OUR WORLD wall-to-wall, 24/7 THEY SUCK NO MATTER HOW ‘GOOD’…
D. the application of ‘no true Scotsman’ in the form of ads is disingenuous: my rejection of billboards was ‘refuted’ by the absolutely MINIMAL counter-example of farmer john having a ‘harvest days’ billboard by the highway…
you know, if THAT WAS ALL we were being exposed to, i might not have a problem; but it isn’t, is it ? ? ? it is 99 garish billboards for every one of farmer john’s theoretically helpful informative billboards…
and, yes, i WILL throw that baby out with that bathwater…
E. *sigh* it seems redundant to repeat to techdirt what they repeat about others a number of times (with validity): how people see an issue depends on who signs their paycheck; advertisers indirectly sign your paycheck, why am i not surprised you are all for advertising ? ? ? (just -you know- ‘good’ advertising… *snort*)
3. lastly, i will say the responses of the writer were indicative of his dislike for me (get in line), but not indicative of close reasoning and logic: the moronic ‘you type like a baby and use shouty-caps all the time, blah blah blah’ is STUPID SHIT, SHUT THE FUCK UP, you are demonstrating you value style over substance… (but really, you are just looking for ANY excuse to attack me, aren’t you ?)
address the points, or go the fuck home and bitch to your spouse about what a mean asshole i am…
i know i do…
(bitch to my wife about what a mean asshole i am…)

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: continuing on previous ad rant...

The reason no one addresses it is because the point of view of advertising as pollution is that point of view is so radical to be dismissed as absurd out of hand. Freedom of speech is valued higher than nonexistent “rights” to forms of “pollution”. As it should be, since visual pollution would be a great tool to silence political view points.

Using language of pollution looks like the same sort of hysteria as people claiming health effects from WiFi or cellphone towers.( All of which have failed the detectability test. If they can’t tell if it is on or not then all of the problems are psychological.) Complaining about being exposed to advertising so strenuously looks like a nervous breakdown.

Light pollution is a legitimate case of visual pollution. Not postings.

John Fenderson (profile) says:

Re: Re: continuing on previous ad rant...

While I think that art guerrilla has is a bit too absolutist in his statements, I don’t disagree with his characterization of (many forms of) advertising as visual pollution. I don’t think that’s an extreme statement at all — it’s clearly and obviously true, given that it’s essentially impossible to avoid advertising in public spaces.

“Freedom of speech is valued higher than nonexistent “rights” to forms of “pollution”.”

That may be, but it doesn’t mean that it’s not pollution.

“Using language of pollution looks like the same sort of hysteria as people claiming health effects from WiFi or cellphone towers.”

I disagree completely. Why do you think it’s hysterical to point out that advertising is ubiquitous? That’s a simple fact.

“Complaining about being exposed to advertising so strenuously looks like a nervous breakdown.”

Ubiquitous advertising makes me angry, too. Why is that indicative of a nervous breakdown rather than being indicative that an aspect of modern life is so intrusive that it causes anger?

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: continuing on previous ad rant...

When you take such an extreme position, it’s difficult for anyone to engage with you with any hopes of having a fruitful discussion. It’s anticipated that you’ll simply argue back with your extreme viewpoint without considering that others may have equally valid opinions. (no one can refute what you say.. so why bother even addressing your points?)

I think many people agree that advertising is annoying — perhaps even offensive as this post points out. But does that mean necessarily it will alwyas be so? MUST advertising be annoying? If you say yes to that, then you live a bubble that I don’t wish to enter.

art guerrilla (profile) says:

Re: Re: continuing on previous ad rant...

sigh evidently missing another point i made: advertisers CAN make ‘responsible’ (sic) advertising NOW, WHY don’t they ? ? ?
WHAT is going to change that will ‘force’ them to make ‘good’ ads ? ? ?
again, my point is valid: IT DOES NOT MATTER if EVERY SINGLE ad was ‘great’, funny, cool, tasteful, entertaining, and fun, Fun, FUN ! ! ! WHO wants them plastered in front of them EVERYWHERE they go, NO MATTER HOW ‘GOOD’ THEY ARE ? ? ?
…and THAT is what they are accomplishing: ad platforms EVERYWHERE, all the time…

GEMont (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re: continuing on previous ad rant...

Rant Warning

If you’ve ever read old science fiction, many such authors depict human future as a kaleidoscope of floating 3D images that follow us around on the street and float right through the walls of our homes to broadcast their maker’s products and services 24/7, non-stop.

Streets become collages of ads as every flat space available is used to full capacity to get the image of someone’s wares or service into your face.

A world where even sleep is assaulted with subliminal advertisements broadcast on standing alpha waves to infiltrate even the comatose with deals that are always too good to be true.

How could such a travesty become reality?

Money transfers from the advertisers, manufacturers and service companies to the politicians and law makers will make it so.

Always has.

Always will.

We are in fact, seeing the beginnings of this process as the MAFIA owned MPAA and its many member dinosaurs create legislation like SOPA and bypass public accountability with what passes today for Trade Agreements, that will soon destroy the internet and take control of what you see, eat and do, when you see, eat or do it and bill you regularly for the “privilege” of breathing.

After all, there is nobody among the consuming peasants with the clout to do anything but quietly bitch under their breathe about it, and nobody in power who gives a shit about what the peasants want anyway.

Peasants are notoriously bad at bribery.

As long as the advertisers, product makers and service providers are willing and lawfully allowed to fulfil every law-maker and politician’s wet dreams of yachts, bimbos and cocaine a-go-go, with daily cash deposits to their tax-haven off-shore accounts, there will be constant escalation of the methods of control put in place over the resource population made possible by our leaders.

Sadly, the only way that we the people could possibly put and end to such massive social engineering projects, would be to boycott the products and services of those companies shown to be complicit in the elimination of freedom and choice and boycott all those companies who lie about their products and services, and publicly expose all those who wear the badge of leadership, who make all of this legal robbery possible.

And that, as anyone who still has a functioning brain can tell you, is simply impossible, because 99% of the peasant/consumers on earth are already programmed to buy whatever new toy is dangled in front of them and their greatest joy in life is to be the first to purchase some new piece of shit labelled shinola.


GEMont (profile) says:

Trooth In Advertising would make a billion dollar industry extinct.

“Advertising Needs To Be More Considerate”

I would easily settle for simple honesty.

A beer commercial that came right out and stated that their beer will get even the most chronic guzzle-boozer pleasantly shit-faced on three bottles and peel the panties of most boozin’ bosom-babes after 4 bottles, would get my serious kudos, even if I never drank a bottle of it in my life.

If I discern even the slightest amount of deception – and modern commercials literally swim in it – I delegate the product being sold to the “not in this life-time” purchase list, permanently.

It should thus be fairly obvious that I do not use any products advertised on TV at all.

Add Your Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here

Comment Options:

Make this the or (get credits or sign in to see balance) what's this?

What's this?

Techdirt community members with Techdirt Credits can spotlight a comment as either the "First Word" or "Last Word" on a particular comment thread. Credits can be purchased at the Techdirt Insider Shop »

Follow Techdirt

Techdirt Daily Newsletter

Techdirt Deals
Techdirt Insider Discord
The latest chatter on the Techdirt Insider Discord channel...