Author Topic: Bush and Kerry... (Read 1312 times)

Holden McGroin · « **Reply #15 on:** March 16, 2004, 11:25:02 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by GScholz
If you say you're not emotionally affected by commercials then you're either a sociopath, too stupid to realise it, or a liar.

What really gets me is puppies. Soft, warm, fuzzy, cute, cuddly puppies. When I see a commercial with a puppy, I walk down to the store like an automaton and buy whatever the commercial told me to buy.

Holden McGroin · « **Reply #16 on:** March 16, 2004, 11:40:23 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by GScholz
Well, that is a bit oversimplified, but in essence correct. If the commercial is aimed at men it will contain women. If it is aimed at women it will most likely contain children.

What about puppies? Are you saying that because my emotional hit button is puppies I am neither a man nor a woman? Are you saying I am some sort of non human? Why you #@%& son of &$#@!

Holden McGroin · « **Reply #17 on:** March 16, 2004, 11:53:23 PM »

Children are our future. Might as well start to think like me now and save time.

Holden McGroin · « **Reply #18 on:** March 17, 2004, 12:08:11 AM »

What about Philadelphia, Gynter? You like Philadelphia?

Holden McGroin · « **Reply #19 on:** March 17, 2004, 12:17:27 AM »

Well I thought you were either jewish or WC Feilds.

WC hated kids, dogs, and Philadelphia but if you are indifferent on Philly, you are obviously not WC.

But you do follow the abortion policy of the National Jewish Confederation, which believes it is an abortion until the child graduates from medical school.

{please... joke.... it's a joke}

Nilsen · « **Reply #20 on:** March 17, 2004, 03:24:23 AM »

if commercials have no effect then why is is so much of it on american TV? why would the candidates need it if it has no effect?.....is it just to support marketing/advertising jobs?

Damn, i better get myself a new education cause marketing school must have been a total waste of my money.

Holden McGroin · « **Reply #21 on:** March 17, 2004, 03:48:48 AM »

It certainly has effect, but I watched the 'Cat Fight' commercials, yet I do not drink Miller Lite.

I see Pepsi and Coke commercials yet I don't drink those either.

I am not a customer of McDonalds more that two or three times a year. Apparently my incredible self control has built a mental barrier to render me immune to the subliminal mind control techniques used by corporate America.

I will see untold numbers of Bush and Kerry ads in the next 8 months yet it will not effect my decision. Something in an ad my spark my interest, and I will investigate and make up my mind based upon that investigation.

Nilsen · « **Reply #22 on:** March 17, 2004, 03:57:05 AM »

if those ads are not gonna effect your decision then what are they good for?

IF something in one of those ads sparks your interest and you investigate, then havent you infact been effected?

Relax, not trying to pick a fight here, just curious.

Holden McGroin · « **Reply #23 on:** March 17, 2004, 04:06:32 AM »

I'll give you the effect of sparking my investigation... but the ad will not be the majority or even a significant minority of the data required to convince me.

Advertisements are very soft in their ability to sell any product.

If I became a loyal customer of Coke, then Pepsi ads would have been a failure even though they are substantially the same as Coke ads. I doubt that all the scientific testing and focus groups used in the advertising industry have shed light on human behavior more than just scratching the surface.

If we knew how the public would accept something, we would not have been surprized by the huge box office of Gibson's Passion.

Nilsen · « **Reply #24 on:** March 17, 2004, 04:20:15 AM »

you are correct in that one good or ever a thousand extremly good pepsi ads will never get you to switch if you are a loyal coke user

but that is not the idea either.
Every day a new generation of consumers get to the point where they choose one product over another and the company that does not have any ads or their brand exposed looses the battle for those simply because they are not aware of that brand. Making existing coke addicts switch to pepsi is simly to expencive and not worthwhile.

If you are in the market for a new computer and you have never owned one before then you will most likely choose the brandname that you have heard before. If you have never heard of Dell you will go for Gateway if you have heard the name before.

Holden McGroin · « **Reply #25 on:** March 17, 2004, 04:38:26 AM »

Advertising is extremely important in that if no one knows of your product, no one will buy. However if you have a significantly better product (as political parties attest they do) than you would not need to match advertising dollar for dollar.

Political ads do try to change minds, not just make up new ones. If it was just the new ones that ads were interested in issues of the aged would not take the forefront of the issues discussed.

Most retired people have been voting their respective party line for decades and parties struggle for the votes from this group.

As one ad blends into another somehow through the din a voters view clears and his decision is made. Theories of how this happens are many and differing, and consistantly changing with the issues.

In 1964, LBJ ran a very powerful commercial suggesting the danger of voting for Goldwater who was percived a hawk in the Vietnam years. The advertisment was a video of a small girl picking flowers while a countdown to a nuclear detonation was occuring in the background. When the detonation occured a voiceover of Johnson siad, 'These are the stakes... we must all learn to live together or we must die."

While it is widely remembered, the effect in 1964 was muted. It seemed to harden opinions rather than change them.

Holden McGroin · « **Reply #26 on:** March 17, 2004, 06:52:20 AM »

The problem, GS, is that you look at some lower middle class, single mother of three in Dothan Alabama, and decide to sell her on your candidate.

The polsters tell you that child care and schools are the way to do it, so you design your campaign around those issues, and come to find out in the exit polls that she voted because of drug benifits in social security because of her elderly parents and foreign policy due to her brother serving in the military.

Child care and schools are issues number six and seven in the national election, because her daddy always told her of them bums on the school board is who you should blame if your kid's school was bad, throw those bums out, and she sould lean on the church and her kin for help with taking care of the kids.

The most interesting thing about the flowerchild commercial is that it aired once it did not make a cup of spit worth of difference in the '64 election.

Eagler · « **Reply #27 on:** March 17, 2004, 07:12:36 AM »

i think they are for the mindless few who do not follow politics and know zero difference btwn lib and rep and who still find the energy to get their couch potato arse up and to the voting booth while remebering only the last catchy phrase from the last commercial that past b4 their blurry eyes

or are bused to the booth with the promise of free cigs and beer if they check the "D" box

Holden McGroin · « **Reply #28 on:** March 17, 2004, 07:32:22 AM »

So the fact that money is spent is proof that it is spent wisely. Okay....

Holden McGroin · « **Reply #29 on:** March 17, 2004, 07:50:16 AM »

Didn't say that. Just questioning your reasoning.

I think Coke or Budweiser could coast for quite a while on half their ad budget and do nicely. But as soon as a slip in name recognition occurs, they have waited too long in getting back to the ad grind.

Bush and Kerry put ads out to stimulate water cooler discussion. That is where the true convincing happens. Friends and coworkers discussing politics, not 30 seconds of radio or TV.