Quote:
Originally Posted by Stompy
If they're advertising themselves, then what is the viewer being bombarded with? I know a lot of people used to just watch Family Guy, but then they'd show ads for Aqua Teen. If it wasn't for those ads, a lot of people probably wouldn't have had the chance to know about other quality (but off-the-wall) entertainment! Personally, I just to just watch ATHF and Family Guy, but then I'd see ads for Sea Lab. I'll watch it occasionally, but it's not like I'm being bombarded with anything other than "watch our shows". I do enjoy the shows.
But don't you think their ratings increase because of quality shows that people enjoy watching as opposed to the "user friendly" in-betweens that they're presented with?
|
Their ratings went up because the number of people watching the shows increased. The question is: WHY did they increase? You stated aboce that seeing Sea Lab commercials helped you decide to watch it occasionally so that advertising worked (at least occasionally) with you.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stompy
Product familiarity... I don't see how or why it's so negative. It's just the result of advertising. I'm assuming you're talking about "fun" characters like Tony the Tiger, or the Trix Rabbit.
A kid watches cartoons on TV in the morning, but those stations get funded by advertising space. Ok, so Kelloggs or whoever comes in and advertises Trix. A "fun" little cartoon with a rabbit scampering about and catch phrases "Silly Rabbit, Trix are for kids!" So now they know about Trix.
I dunno, maybe someone could provide some insight as to something I'm overlooking because I don't particularly see how it's something to be worried about.
|
Product familiarity isn't by itself a negative thing; it is a result of a potentially negative effect of advertising. The whole purpose of advertising is to create or increase the consumption of a product or to set apart a product from the competition. The validity and accuracy of the ads have become a moot point.
Here is a little example: Let's say I know nothing about Green Beans. I need to pick some up for a special meal and I go to the grocers shelf and find 10 different brands of green beans. Since I know nothing about them, I start looking to see which package 'catches my eye' and I rule out half of the choices because they don't 'look' good to me. I check the remaining cans and decide to go with Green Giant because they are the only brand that I have ever heard of. Sitting on that same shelf was a plain beige can of Laura Lynn green beans that were 75 cents cheaper and were made by Green Giant for Ingles Grocery stores. In the end, I overpaid for the exact same can of beans because I 'bought into' their effective advertising. Green Giant won my purchase because they exposed me to the "Ho-Ho-Ho, Green Giant" jingle as a kid and I remember them because of it. Maybe 20 have passed since I heard that jingle and it is still in my head. How effective was that ad?
Green Giant didn't create my desire for their product in the same way that the advertising you mentioned for Trix cereal does. Trix ads are aimed squarely at little kids and create an artificial demand that has nothing to do with quality of product. This type of advertising uses positive influence and state of mind to create a consumer for it's product.
Advertising is embedded in our culture and we are exposed to it at every turn. We are constantly bombarded with messages designed to intrigue, delight, and pique our curiosity but most are devoid of any validity. We are constantly fed incorrect information by Media and are denied other information by the same. in other words, our knowledge and opinions are formed in many cased by artificial information purchased by manufacturors.
The most decided arguement has been summed up by Art in recent posts. How do we independently define who we are when most of the information we use as reference and grounding is bought by someone? In other words; How much of ME is really ME?