6/30/2003: Deceptive ads

[Undertoad]

This was caught by Consumer Reports for their hilarious Selling It column. Both these ads appeared in the same issue of Men's Fitness. Same guy gaining 28 pounds and losing 30 pounds with the same before and after bodies. It looks like losing weight is a better deal as you also get a shirt, a girlfriend, and a more pleasant environment.

I believe that, in the US, we are on the verge of going over the edge in fraud and deception. About half the ads on radio these days are frauds, and the number of television is increasing bit by bit as well. It seems alarming, although one wonders if there's really anything anyone could do about it.

I'm fascinated by ads for "natural male enhancement" that visually suggest their product increases genital size while the actual product description says no such thing. Even the phrase "male enhancement" is part of the deception; the seller can claim that even placebo effects are an "enhancement" for the user. Without question, this is not just fraud but very carefully constructed fraud, and everyone involved to understand that the product actually does nothing.

On the other hand, much of the same could be said for every advertisement everywhere...

[joydriven]

and the same guy--james sterling--offers the two 'unique' testimonials?

[hot_pastrami]

This kind of crap is one of the reasons I avoid mass media like the plague. I don't watch TV anymore, I don't listen to the radio anymore, and I don't read magazines. And I won't browse the Internet without Mozilla's popup blocking and image manager stopping most of the ads. Now if only Mozilla would add the ability to block plug-ins on a per-site basis, it's be complete freedom from all ads, including Flash-based. Ahh.

So much of what is marketed right now is lies. So many companies are profiting on peoples' insecurities... weight loss, weight gain, sexual enhancement, penis/breast enlargement... not to mention financial insecurities. My own grandmother gave her life saving away to various sweepstakes before anybody realized that she was doing it. Tens of thousands of dollars, gone.

Not to try to hijack the thread, but I'm curious... do you guys think it's wrong to visit a website but block the ads, which are a site's source of revenue? Some argue that it is immoral to block ads, but I liken it to ripping all of the ads out of a magazine before reading it. It's the risk of the publisher to hope that the reader decides to view the ads, and to respond to them. But if the reader does not do so, they have not acted immorally. But that's just my opinion.

But see, it's not the same as ripping ads out of a magazine. It's the same as ripping ads out of a free magazine. And even then, at least you kinda glance at it.

I don't like ads either, but let's not make them something they're not. On the web, you're getting content for free. You're free to block the ads, too, but when that site isn't making enough revenue to stay afloat, understand that <b>this is partly your fault</b>.

Personally, I prefer sites that have ads but they can be removed with a reasonable subscription ($10-25/year is reasonable). Popup ads are a no-go, and I obviously have those blocked. But in-line ads, I don't mind as much. These places have to support themselves somehow, and if it's ads, okay. I even click them sometimes, and on a very rare occasion I'll buy something.

I wouldn't say that it's wrong to block all ads, but you may be doing yourself a disservice by doing so.

[Bitman]

Originally posted by Undertoad
we are on the verge of going over the edge in fraud and deception

You make it sound like advertisers have traditionally been an honest bunch. That's completely false; advertisers have been desperately trying to lie to us ever since humans came to this planet. All we have here is one (probably the same) company being particularly stupid about their choice of models and timing.

As for the advertising thing, I block pop-ups, but make it a point to allow in-line ads. I don't mind people trying to make a buck, but popups are just stupid.

As for being off topic, I just noticed this guy has a single front tooth.

[SteveDallas]

But these days most ads are paid according to click-throughs, not page hits, right? Does that mean there's no moral difference between blocking the ads altogether and simply not clicking on them? Compare and contrast this to the TV executive who said people who didn't watch TV commercials were thieves.

You know, as much as I ignore advertising, I have to wonder how effective it really is.

[mitch]

For the most part I agree with dave. I'm a proponent of the free-market mentality -- those places with content worth viewing will get traffic, and if it's worth money to pay for that content, they'll pay according to the perceived value. I pay a small yearly or lifetime subscription fee to those sites that I believe are worth my money.

At the same time, I think that certain types of ads, particularly the invasive ones (pop-ups, phone solicitations, etc.) are NOT cool. In America today there are advertisements EVERYWHERE. I believe Americans coined the phrase "mindshare" with respect to products like Coke or Kleenex becoming household names for "soft-drink" and "tissue" -- what does that say about our mindset?

We have ads on busses, fronts/backs/inside cabs, and taco bell cups. I pay $7.50 to see a movie and get to see 15 minutes worth of ads before previews, not to mention the ads and "quiz games" (i.e. more ads) that cycle before they even roll the film.

I am fearful of what this country is becoming, especially in the hands of media giants such as Time-Warner and Viacom. My fear is really based around the fact that I feel this is still a great place to live, and I don't want to have to feel like I need to go to another country to "stop the insanity". Ads are necessary for awareness, but look back 50 or 60 years -- advertisement was NOTHING back then like it is now, and people and companies got along just fine (other than the whole WW2 thing).

I think you're right here -- people for the most part are being treated like cattle and mindless zombies that can't think for themselves. Rather than selling a product based on its features, quality, and usefulness, marketing makes/breaks a product before it even exists, in some cases.

That's my $0.02, I'm done for now. I'm going to go back and enjoy my "Coke" and cry my tears into my "Kleenex".

[hot_pastrami]

The only ads I block fervently are animated ads. I hate those. Bloody distracting.

I don't mind paying for a site's content, but so far most sites have really crappy subscription models. The ones I usually go for are those with a Paypal Donation link or similar, and I just drop $5 every once in a while, as long as the content is worthwhile.

I actually used to run an A+ Certification study website that got somewhat substantial traffic... 19,000 unique visitors per month... and managed to do so without ads. I did it at my own expense, and the retun on investment was a whole Internet full of sites which similarly offered free information, and an inbox full of thank-yous (aka good karma). To annoy visitors with banner ads wasn't worth the $12-$18 I could have gained per month.

As far as mass media goes, it's scary that the previously blurred lines between news, entertainment, and marketing are now pretty much gone in America. I shudder to think what it will be like ten years from now. Makes me think twice about having kids.

[juju]

Originally posted by Bitman
You make it sound like advertisers have traditionally been an honest bunch. That's completely false; advertisers have been desperately trying to lie to us ever since humans came to this planet.

Well, there's a difference between telling people what your product does and lying about what it does. Lies are a matter of degree, though, and I don't think you can say the lies haven't been getting worse. They've been pushing it farther and farther. Advertisers are testing the limits and finding that they aren't being punished. So, they're drawing a new line in the sand.

[mitch]

Originally posted by SteveDallas
But these days most ads are paid according to click-throughs, not page hits, right? Does that mean there's no moral difference between blocking the ads altogether and simply not clicking on them? Compare and contrast this to the TV executive who said people who didn't watch TV commercials were thieves.

You know, as much as I ignore advertising, I have to wonder how effective it really is.

You make an interesting point about blocking TV ads. I own a TiVo and don't watch ads anymore, although sometimes I'll click back to watch a movie preview or something.

Think about the large companies who rely on powerful marketing to sell a product (new cereal, kids toys, etc.) losing their capability to do what they've done for years because of a new technology. They're going to freak out and do what the RIAA is doing with MP3s and file sharing -- they're going to attack the technology and work the law to help them get what they want (the entertainment industry is going to help because it's their source of revenue).

The problem with this (obviously) is that it stifles creativity and invention -- the next TiVo might not be made because it isn't cost-effective to do so anymore. The giant corporations that have effective lobbies can shape law into their own desires -- CDs will have built-in copy-protection and TiVo's won't be allowed to skip ads.

I don't know the numbers myself, but certainly someone knows the average length of commercial breaks for a 1-hour television program 20-, 10-, 5-, and even 2 years ago compared to now. I bet the results are interesting.

[juju]

Originally posted by mitch
We have ads on busses, fronts/backs/inside cabs, and taco bell cups. I pay $7.50 to see a movie and get to see 15 minutes worth of ads before previews, not to mention the ads and "quiz games" (i.e. more ads) that cycle before they even roll the film.

There's a Mexican restaurant here that has advertisements all over the tables. I think it's revolting, but unfortunately my wife and I really like their food, so we go there all the time.

[Undertoad]

If the next TiVo won't skip ads, many people will quickly develop one that does.

[mitch]

Originally posted by juju
There's a Mexican restaurant here that has advertisements all over the tables. I think it's revolting, but unfortunately my wife and I really like their food, so we go there all the time.

I almost don't mind that as much, though. I've been to places like that in several towns, and it's usually smaller businesses that do that sort of thing, shove business cards under the table or whatever. However, if I didn't like the food, I'd be *pissed*.

[mitch]

Originally posted by Undertoad
If the next TiVo won't skip ads, many people will quickly develop one that does.

Yeap, long live open-source!

[99 44/100% pure]

Originally posted by mitch
. . . In America today there are advertisements EVERYWHERE. . . We have ads on busses, fronts/backs/inside cabs, and taco bell cups. I pay $7.50 to see a movie and get to see 15 minutes worth of ads before previews, not to mention the ads and "quiz games" (i.e. more ads) that cycle before they even roll the film.

[RANT]Not to mention the "content" that we are trying to see while wading through all the obvious ads -- right from the start, television programming was understood by executive producers to be the stuff that keeps the viewers watching the ads. Now, more and more of the programs, movies, radio shows, etc. have so much advertising built into them, you may as well not make a distinction between the program and the ads.

In 1999-2000 I conducted a small study on the effect of consumer culture on school-age children. More than 40%* of the content of "programmed" materials seen by elementary-school age children (television, websites -- yes, even the 'educational' ones -- newspapers and other print media, and even textbooks) contain specific commercial messages. In addition, the more benign (non-product endorsing) content contains subtle consumer messages.

This is why I haven't had a TV for 11 years and listen primarily to public radio. I can't even tolerate the ads in the local paper anymore. Once you actively try to reduce your exposure to advertisement, you see that it really is EVERYWHERE. [/RANT]

*as a percentage of time viewed or column inches viewed