Advertising to Children and Feeling Ripped Off
Offline Hamby's post on child indoctrination got me thinking about advertising to children. The bright colours, happy faces of other children playing with a product, and the use of specific motion to attract a kid's attention is frankly sick. They honestly know exactly how fast to zoom and pan in those commercials to produce the desired effect.
What is the desired effect? Whining. If a child whines enough at a parent, eventually that parent will give in. How do you get a child to whine? The same way you get an adult to whine: you dangle a carrot, and show them that they're not getting whatever it is that you're dangling. In their powerlessness, they whine.
The worst part is that it carries into adulthood, just with different toys. Television shows continue to reinforce the idea that other people are doing better financially, have prettier girlfriends/boyfriends, more dramatic social interactions, and can solve problems in a simple and comprehensive way. Commercials grab that suggestive state and run with it, showing more pretty people enjoying the products they're selling. The pretty people in the commercials reinforce the idea that people in general are pretty (when that's not true at all) and all that modeling of reality has a detrimental effect.
The effect is, again, whining. How can you not feel ripped off when your life doesn't look anything like the one on television where everyone's pretty and important and has simple problems to solve? That doesn't look like reality, where problems are more complicated, and take longer to solve, if indeed they can be solved at all. Add to that the ubiquitous reminders of an attractiveness standard, through pictures of people who presumably meet that standard, and you can't escape feeling (again) like you've been ripped off - this time genetically!
Irony of ironies, this is happening in the most affluent societies! Even in a recession, we're generally doing pretty well compared to the people in the world who really are getting ripped off.
And we're doing this to ourselves!
Saint Will: no gyration without funkstification.
fabulae! nil satis firmi video quam ob rem accipere hunc mi expediat metum. - Terence
- Login to post comments
Offline 1) Get a lobbyist group.
2) Get granted no-bid government contracts
3) Get the government tools to draft some complicated law that basically outlaws your competition
4) ????
5) Profit
By the way... I love that meme. Thank you South Park... 
After eating an entire bull, a mountain lion felt so good he started roaring. He kept it up until a hunter came along and shot him.
The moral: When you're full of bull, keep your mouth shut.
MySpace
- Login to post comments
Offline
I don't understand, so the government becomes the companies?
How would say food distribution work?
I have no delusions about a perfect solution. I know people are still going to be greedy, but I think it would happen on a smaller scale. As far as having an open government, do you really believe your government is honest and forthcoming? By the way, do you reside in the US?
So the solution is to give said greedy individuals MORE power?
What if the government doesn't want to be open and only release selective stuff, who's going to punish them and how?
No, I'm Canadian.
All governments are subject to the people who hold power. If we could find an person (or group of people) that was honest, intelligent, compassionate, and incorruptible a despotism would be the best system of government. I wouldn't hold my breath for it though...
And since we can't find a people like that, the best thing to do is limit their power.
- Login to post comments
Offline
I don't understand, so the government becomes the companies?
Yes. All money already belongs to the government that prints it. This would simply take it to the next step.
How would say food distribution work?
Similar to how it does today. Resources wouldn't be wasted on pointless competition anymore though, reducing costs. Efficiency. In this day and age, you have to go to 4 or 5 grocery stores to get the best deal on $400 worth of groceries. Spending $30 in gas along the way, mitigating whatever savings you actually recieved.
spike.barnett wrote:
I have no delusions about a perfect solution. I know people are still going to be greedy, but I think it would happen on a smaller scale. As far as having an open government, do you really believe your government is honest and forthcoming? By the way, do you reside in the US?
So the solution is to give said greedy individuals MORE power?
What if the government doesn't want to be open and only release selective stuff, who's going to punish them and how?
The government wouldn't have a choice in the matter. A strong constitution would force it upon them. Not to mention a reward system for whistle blowers, as opposed to the current climate of dropping such people into the nearest pit and filling it with unemployment forever.
Quote:All governments are subject to the people who hold power. If we could find an person (or group of people) that was honest, intelligent, compassionate, and incorruptible a despotism would be the best system of government. I wouldn't hold my breath for it though...
And since we can't find a people like that, the best thing to do is limit their power.
The best way to limit their power is to limit everyones power. To give everyone equal power and opportunity. Only socialism can accomplish this.
Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.
- Login to post comments
Offline Similar to how it does today. Resources wouldn't be wasted on pointless competition anymore though, reducing costs. Efficiency. In this day and age, you have to go to 4 or 5 grocery stores to get the best deal on $400 worth of groceries. Spending $30 in gas along the way, mitigating whatever savings you actually recieved.
But if the grocery store realizes that you're going to their competitor to get a better deal, then that store will try to compensate by having special offers, or offering better quality products etc....
The government wouldn't have a choice in the matter. A strong constitution would force it upon them. Not to mention a reward system for whistle blowers, as opposed to the current climate of dropping such people into the nearest pit and filling it with unemployment forever.
The problem is the government enforces the laws. See a problem here?
Besides, how would you know if they didn't release something? If they make illegal deal with company X, they aren't going to release the paper trial.
- Login to post comments
Offline For reference, see 'Markopolos'
He's the guy that allegedly uncovered the Madoff scam. He took his findings to the SEC only to be ignored.
He has done this almost easily.
However, he doesn't even know a viable solution to the problem of regulation.
His idea was to basically create a Homeland Financial Security Department.
Unfortunately, he forgot that a department requires employees to do the work. Thus leaving the opportunity for a new type of scam for government employees to engage in by extorting the target of the investigation or creating records for prosecuting his ex-girlfriends father. lol.
Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server, which houses Celebrity Atheists.
- Login to post comments
Offline [edit: before you read this, please understand that none of the following should be taken as advice. In no way should you EVER follow what I have said on this forum as advice to you. It is not intended as such, and under no circumstances will I be liable for what you do with your money.]
Trying to get rich is gambling. (Which is what traders do! 
And that, ladies and gentlemen, is how you deliver a good ribbing. Appreciated. Also, I should note that my attitude towards investment advisors isn't always negative. If an investment advisor gives their clients as much doom-and-gloom as they realistically can, then I have no problem. But more often than not, an investment advisor will not show their clients the risks of investment at all.
Trying to build portfolios based purely on stocks gets expensive for these people due to transaction costs.
So why are they playing a game that they can't afford to lose?
There are good no-load mutual funds that have decent fee structures that provide the needed broad exposure for clients.
Don't even start with that talk. I take a performance fee of around 20-30% - that's decent. The guys who run mutual funds take 2% of assets. For those of you reading thinking, "Wow, Will really screws over his clients," the phrase "performance fee" means that I only make money when my clients make money. My clients have made much more than 30% for the last few years, so they're not complaining. (I am NOT advertising or soliciting, here - I have no interest in new clients). With a mutual fund, you'd be happy with what, 8%? And these guys are taking 2% of assets? Shit, buy a bond! At least that way, you're not lying to yourself.
but most people are not capable of understanding a such finely tuned portfolio
Then they shouldn't be in the game. Let them buy a guaranteed certificate or a government bond. Do I try to join the NFL without learning how to play football? No.
What do you personally find most objectionable about mutual funds, and does it apply to all funds or certain ones?
I know the idea is to help these people out once you're in the position to be selling them financial instruments. The atmosphere when things are going well is that they'd be missing out if they didn't get on the investing train. Then things go sour, and everyone starts to cry because they were promised the moon. Don't get me wrong, it's my opinion that if they decide to run with the big dogs and get bitten, it's their own damn fault. But if they were led to believe that they weren't running with the big dogs, and that their purchase of mutual funds was as "low-risk" as can be, then I have a problem with that.
I don't know what your client base is like, but ours is not all that knowledgeable.
Oh, absolutely. But I tell them the truth: a market is a bunch of people getting together to decide a price. The numbers are just rationalizations, and make everything look real official, but when it comes down to it, it's people. It's group-think. I tell them they can follow interest rates and money supply (currency clients) all they want, but when it comes to the actual trades, the price action tells the tale before you see it on the news. I also tell them that funds are run by greedy fucks like me who are using their money to get rich, so they're swimming with sharks.
But we're talking about two totally different types of clients, here. Yours aren't entrusting you with risk capital, they're entrusting you with their retirement. Meaning you and your boss probably deal with more money than I do, and it represents a much greater percentage of each client's total assets. In essence, your clients are taking a much bigger gamble than mine. (I couldn't resist.)
Children's advertising is objectionable as children do not have the cognitive ability to seriously analyze commercials yet, and many of their parents don't take the time to do so either. Older and ignorant people are easy prey for unscrupulous financial advisors for the same reason. I would think it would be better to promote critical thinking than governmental crackdown. Regulations for advertising akin to what the financial regulatory bodies have in place for investment advisors, broker-dealers, etc. sounds like a reasonable idea.
I have to agree that a government crackdown would be a huge waste of time. Honestly, I'm not sure how it could be handled, because children's advertising represents a much more complicated environment for legislation than managed funds. That's why I'd suggest simply not advertising to kids. That is, not creating advertising specifically aimed at getting the attention of children. But I admit that I have no idea how that could be effectively enforced.
Saint Will: no gyration without funkstification.
fabulae! nil satis firmi video quam ob rem accipere hunc mi expediat metum. - Terence
- Login to post comments
Offline Joe the camel
The Marlboro man
A list of banned commercials longer than the attention span of... wait, what was I talking about?
OH! Yeah. Things that used to be advertised to everyone and allegedly Joe the camel was specifically targeted at children.
Those were stopped.
However, teen smoking rates stayed at or above the same level for decades.
Ratings systems on cd's and dvd's (gee thanks Tipper you bitch) meant that I got my older friend to show his ID for the cd.
All of that regulation and in nearly every instance some entrepreneur finds a work around.
The same is true for FOREX, Mutuals, Bonds, options, and stocks.
Some asshole said "Wow. I think I will call this a 'credit default swap'." and then bought insurance on it.
Genius.
Until he/she gets featured on a CNBC special. lol.
My boss has a saying (it's not really his, but he claims it.) It's useless trying to make anything idiot proof because nature will just make a better idiot.
It's been right. I can plan, create procedures, redundant analyses, and STILL someone will forget to do something, the inspector gets lazy, and BAM! "Josh, we need you in there."
Then of course, it makes me think I am nature's better idiot for trying to prevent anything in the first place. lol
Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server, which houses Celebrity Atheists.
- Login to post comments
Offline spike.barnett wrote:I have no delusions about a perfect solution. I know people are still going to be greedy, but I think it would happen on a smaller scale. As far as having an open government, do you really believe your government is honest and forthcoming? By the way, do you reside in the US?
So the solution is to give said greedy individuals MORE power?
Said greedy people don't keep the companies. Control would be passed to people deemed by election to be less greedy.
What if the government doesn't want to be open and only release selective stuff, who's going to punish them and how?
The same way they're always punished, heads to the guillotine.
No, I'm Canadian.
So is it a greener grass thing then? It certainly is for me. Of course the unemployment rate is over 10% in my state. Thanks mostly to lack of regulation regarding outsourcing.
spike.barnett wrote:All governments are subject to the people who hold power. If we could find an person (or group of people) that was honest, intelligent, compassionate, and incorruptible a despotism would be the best system of government. I wouldn't hold my breath for it though...
And since we can't find a people like that, the best thing to do is limit their power.
I think you might be underestimating how much power the US government already has over the citizens.
After eating an entire bull, a mountain lion felt so good he started roaring. He kept it up until a hunter came along and shot him.
The moral: When you're full of bull, keep your mouth shut.
MySpace
- Login to post comments
Offline It's useless trying to make anything idiot proof because nature will just make a better idiot.
That's the exact reason why I'm hesitant to demand some sort of action, rather than just discuss the idea as an ethics thing. In the case of recessions aided by trading, you have
1974/9 - Oil shocks, prime rate for lending hits 21.5% in 1980 (overselling something overvalued)
1987 - mortgage-based bonds screw-up (overselling something overvalued)
1997 - Asian market screw up (overselling something overvalued)
2008 - "credit default swap" screw-up (overselling something ... see a pattern?)
...
See you in 2017, kids!
Saint Will: no gyration without funkstification.
fabulae! nil satis firmi video quam ob rem accipere hunc mi expediat metum. - Terence
- Login to post comments
Offline anniet wrote:Trying to get rich is gambling. (Which is what traders do!And that, ladies and gentlemen, is how you deliver a good ribbing. Appreciated. Also, I should note that my attitude towards investment advisors isn't always negative. If an investment advisor gives their clients as much doom-and-gloom as they realistically can, then I have no problem. But more often than not, an investment advisor will not show their clients the risks of investment at all.
Thank you. I do try sometimes.
anniet wrote:Trying to build portfolios based purely on stocks gets expensive for these people due to transaction costs.So why are they playing a game that they can't afford to lose?
anniet wrote:There are good no-load mutual funds that have decent fee structures that provide the needed broad exposure for clients.Don't even start with that talk. I take a performance fee of around 20-30% - that's decent. The guys who run mutual funds take 2% of assets. For those of you reading thinking, "Wow, Will really screws over his clients," the phrase "performance fee" means that I only make money when my clients make money. My clients have made much more than 30% for the last few years, so they're not complaining. (I am NOT advertising or soliciting, here - I have no interest in new clients). With a mutual fund, you'd be happy with what, 8%? And these guys are taking 2% of assets? Shit, buy a bond! At least that way, you're not lying to yourself.
anniet wrote:but most people are not capable of understanding a such finely tuned portfolioThen they shouldn't be in the game. Let them buy a guaranteed certificate or a government bond. Do I try to join the NFL without learning how to play football? No.
I do understand your objections here, but would note that it just doesn't work out that way. We both know 2008 sucked big time in the stock market. I've spent the past few weeks running all kinds of performance reports and "what if" projections. Even with the horrid returns of last year, clients as a whole did way better from 1/1/2002-12/31/2008 than they would have with treasuries or long term CDs. Way better. And my boss is not a genius when it comes to picking mutual funds. But his misses are more than offset by the hits and he does stick with funds that have lower expense ratios. And that's what these people are paying him to do. They aren't going to take the time to learn his job. That's what they pay him for. And it means they have more than just social security to live off of.
I do think many of your criticisms are valid as I've seen some of the portfolios that people transfer in from other advisors and brokers. I don't think it's easy to find someone who is honest and knows what they're doing in the financial services world. I just wanted to let you know that there are some advisors who do truly help people grow their assets over the long-term responsibly.
anniet wrote:What do you personally find most objectionable about mutual funds, and does it apply to all funds or certain ones?I know the idea is to help these people out once you're in the position to be selling them financial instruments. The atmosphere when things are going well is that they'd be missing out if they didn't get on the investing train. Then things go sour, and everyone starts to cry because they were promised the moon. Don't get me wrong, it's my opinion that if they decide to run with the big dogs and get bitten, it's their own damn fault. But if they were led to believe that they weren't running with the big dogs, and that their purchase of mutual funds was as "low-risk" as can be, then I have a problem with that.
Yeah, that is a problem. My boss spends a lot of time educating his clients regarding investment matters. I don't think most advisors do that though. Current regulations are a pain in the ass and don't really do much to protect the ignorant. With Boomers retiring and rolling over 401k balances into IRAs and scam annuities over the next 15 years, I would imagine we are going to hear some real nasty stories about people being taken advantage of.
I also tell them that funds are run by greedy fucks like me who are using their money to get rich, so they're swimming with sharks.
Ah, truth in advertising. The SEC would be proud.But we're talking about two totally different types of clients, here. Yours aren't entrusting you with risk capital, they're entrusting you with their retirement. Meaning you and your boss probably deal with more money than I do, and it represents a much greater percentage of each client's total assets. In essence, your clients are taking a much bigger gamble than mine. (I couldn't resist.)
Touche. They really are gambling on the ability and ethics of my boss though. If he gets hit on the head or starts showing signs of Alzheimer's they could easily get screwed.
I'll admit that I've never really spent much time talking with a trader. I had a couple friends who worked at the trading desk of a mutual fund company I used to work for as an accountant - pushing NAVs out the door every day, watching the MBS derivatives market take off, ah, those were the days (that I'm glad to have left behind) - but I don't think they really count as traders as they were just following PM instructions. Are there really enough rich people in this country that you get to play around with their extra cash? Who are your clients and what do they expect of you?
anniet wrote:Children's advertising is objectionable as children do not have the cognitive ability to seriously analyze commercials yet, and many of their parents don't take the time to do so either. Older and ignorant people are easy prey for unscrupulous financial advisors for the same reason. I would think it would be better to promote critical thinking than governmental crackdown. Regulations for advertising akin to what the financial regulatory bodies have in place for investment advisors, broker-dealers, etc. sounds like a reasonable idea.I have to agree that a government crackdown would be a huge waste of time. Honestly, I'm not sure how it could be handled, because children's advertising represents a much more complicated environment for legislation than managed funds. That's why I'd suggest simply not advertising to kids. That is, not creating advertising specifically aimed at getting the attention of children. But I admit that I have no idea how that could be effectively enforced.
Darth, your comment in relation to Joe Camel and such is a good reminder. I suppose it wouldn't really be all that hard to ban children's advertising. The current situation gives me a good excuse to black all kinds of tv programs I don't really like without really watching the programs themselves though. You would be cutting into my laziness as a parent here.
OK, gentlemen, you've convinced me. "Ban Children's Advertising" has now been added to my list of changes that need made. Do you feel accomplished now? You should as I'm told I'm more stubborn than a mule. 
Oh, and Darth, I LOVE your idiot quote. That's funny! Thanks.
(SEC REGULATORY DISCLOSURE: Nobody should be taking any kind of investment advice from this thread. For all you know we all work at McDonald's and are talking out of our assess. Getting investment advice from some random posting on the internet is a very, very bad idea. Just look at how things work out for people who listen to guys on tv like Kramer. The internet is full of people even worse at giving advice than him. )
"I am that I am." - Proof that the writers of the bible were beyond stoned.
- Login to post comments
Offline I do think many of your criticisms are valid as I've seen some of the portfolios that people transfer in from other advisors and brokers. I don't think it's easy to find someone who is honest and knows what they're doing in the financial services world. I just wanted to let you know that there are some advisors who do truly help people grow their assets over the long-term responsibly.
That's frankly awesome. I mean that in the literal sense, as in I am in awe of your boss. To say that situation is rare is an understatement. You're lucky if he's your mentor.
Yeah, that is a problem. My boss spends a lot of time educating his clients regarding investment matters. I don't think most advisors do that though. Current regulations are a pain in the ass and don't really do much to protect the ignorant. With Boomers retiring and rolling over 401k balances into IRAs and scam annuities over the next 15 years, I would imagine we are going to hear some real nasty stories about people being taken advantage of.
From the richest single demographic in the world? Yeah, I have a feeling we're going to hear some good ones.
Are there really enough rich people in this country that you get to play around with their extra cash?
I'm in Canada, but in the states? Yes. Yes, there are. There are a ton of rich people in North America. A ton. I mean qualified persons rich, with over 2 mil in assets, or an expectation of well over 300,000 a year of income. It's surprising how many.
Who are your clients and what do they expect of you?
There isn't really an overall type - there's a trust, two businesses, and the rest are individuals. I show them exactly how I've traded in the past, and exactly how I'd trade for them in the future, and people who appreciate a short presentation have been sold on the idea. It's all based on fairly straightforward math, and I let them know that they're at the bleeding edge of risk management. I run them through my maximum drawdowns (which are well outside the tolerance level of a retail investor) and various expectations of volatility. Basically, it's anyone who wants to play a bit of money for a chance to double it in a couple of years (or triple it in the case of our recent crazy interest rate cuts).
(SEC REGULATORY DISCLOSURE: Nobody should be taking any kind of investment advice from this thread. For all you know we all work at McDonald's and are talking out of our assess. Getting investment advice from some random posting on the internet is a very, very bad idea. Just look at how things work out for people who listen to guys on tv like Kramer. The internet is full of people even worse at giving advice than him. )
I'd like to second that - I don't think I provided anything that could be construed as advice (oh wait - "buy a bond" - shit, I'm going to have to put a disclaimer on that post). Seriously, folks, what anniet said. I have not intended any of this as advice.
Saint Will: no gyration without funkstification.
fabulae! nil satis firmi video quam ob rem accipere hunc mi expediat metum. - Terence
- Login to post comments
Offline I'm going to start by saying I had a longer post typed up yesterday, but the computer I was on had an epic failure before I could post it. And I was viewing the preview screen at the time. *Sigh*
Vastet wrote:Similar to how it does today. Resources wouldn't be wasted on pointless competition anymore though, reducing costs. Efficiency. In this day and age, you have to go to 4 or 5 grocery stores to get the best deal on $400 worth of groceries. Spending $30 in gas along the way, mitigating whatever savings you actually recieved.
But if the grocery store realizes that you're going to their competitor to get a better deal, then that store will try to compensate by having special offers, or offering better quality products etc....
They offer deals on some products while raising prices on others. If you get cheap milk, you pay more for cheese or steak. Otherwise the store isn't economically viable, and doesn't break even let alone make a profit.
Quote:The government wouldn't have a choice in the matter. A strong constitution would force it upon them. Not to mention a reward system for whistle blowers, as opposed to the current climate of dropping such people into the nearest pit and filling it with unemployment forever.
The problem is the government enforces the laws. See a problem here?
The military branch would enforce the law(more on that in a moment). The constitution would lay it out. The truly important laws; such as freedom of life/speech/etc, self defense, seperation of church and state(I could go on, but it would take too long), would be enshrined in the constitution. Unalterable. Anything within would make sense a thousand years ago or a thousand years hence.
Other laws, such as: walking on the grass, no skateboarding, speed limits, etc; would be electorate decisions based locally. Changeable with the times.
Military participation would be part of school. Mandatory. Though at the same time, it would be focused on search and rescue, fire fighting, policing, and first aid response. As such, everyone has had a direct hand in helping run the country.
Besides, how would you know if they didn't release something? If they make illegal deal with company X, they aren't going to release the paper trial.
There would be no purpose in such an activity. You'd be shooting yourself in the foot by interfering with the nations economy. It wouldn't take long for you to be found out either. The department that was being ignored would notice that it's funding was gone pretty quickly, and would report such. It would be fixed within a day or two, and the perpetrator would be dealt with appropriately.
Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.
- Login to post comments
Offline Darth, your comment in relation to Joe Camel and such is a good reminder. I suppose it wouldn't really be all that hard to ban children's advertising. The current situation gives me a good excuse to black all kinds of tv programs I don't really like without really watching the programs themselves though. You would be cutting into my laziness as a parent here.
Excellent. Internet solutions are next. Family computer in the living room in clear view of the recliner make it seem like you're watching television instead of the child's internet browsing. I want to spy, but not be caught spying like using your cellphone at a mall bench while checking out MILFs during the spouse's shopping.
OK, gentlemen, you've convinced me. "Ban Children's Advertising" has now been added to my list of changes that need made. Do you feel accomplished now? You should as I'm told I'm more stubborn than a mule.
I'm in the end-market 'banning camp'. I don't feel as if a society SHOULD allow its government to control what they see, but to give them the tools by which they can ban it themselves.
Oh, and Darth, I LOVE your idiot quote. That's funny! Thanks.
I love how the boss will sometimes ask me, "How can we prevent this from happening again?" and I give him his own quote as an answer. lol.
(SEC REGULATORY DISCLOSURE: Nobody should be taking any kind of investment advice from this thread. For all you know we all work at McDonald's and are talking out of our assess. Getting investment advice from some random posting on the internet is a very, very bad idea. Just look at how things work out for people who listen to guys on tv like Kramer. The internet is full of people even worse at giving advice than him. )
Ahhh. Nobody listens to me anyway. HR1 will be the ultimate test of my limited knowledge. TARP was/is fun. So far, I'm counting my calls as wins with regard to that debacle.
I tried to give CNBC some advice to cut costs a few weeks ago. Apparently, they didn't take my advice either. lol.
I personally believe that eliminating 'The Call' and possibly 'Power Lunch' from your lineup would greatly reduce your costs and improve your entire channel. Extending the 'Squawks' to fill that airtime would be a fantastic improvement.
Dropping Melissa and Larry would be the first cuts I would suggest. More time could be given to Mark, Erin, Becky, Joe, and Carl.
Certainly, I cannot be the only person that absolutely cannot stand to listen to MULTIPLE people SCREAMING at each other EACH and EVERY DAY.
If these people cannot convey the news and their opinions in a professional manner then why were they hired in the first place?
Naturally, my opinions concerning the state of the economy are diametrically opposed to those of the majority of your employees. Regardless, I am a regular VIEWER since I can only listen to about 5 minutes of Larry, Melissa, Trish, and Dennis before muting the television to still be able to watch the ticker and the top banner.
Dylan is a keeper since the only times I hear him yell is on the two aforementioned programs or occasionally on 'Fast Money'(which I only watch once in a while).
Cramer is on the bubble with me. He doesn't yell for the entire program. However, if he melts down with Erin one more time EVER, I will boycott your channel and go back to the internet for all financial news and information.
Sue is inconsequential and would probably serve you better as field correspondent, answering to Margaret and Julia for assignment assistance. Her salary could be based upon actual work or knowledge concerning the subject matter. Perhaps independent contractor status might be warranted in her situation.
As for 'The Kudlow Report', I have never seen a single episode. Nor do I plan to do so in the future. Well, I may watch it one day if someone buys Larry a hearing aid so that he can hear himself.
Thanks.
Your faithful viewer,
Y'know what? I forgot to mention to keep Rebecca Jarvis.
Tell me that SHE isn't marketing genius. She is actually the only one that subdues Cramer. He doesn't yell at all when she is talking to him.
I might be charged with assault if anyone ever says "Boo-yah" or "Welcome to Cramerica" in my presence. lol.
Sorry to take it on a tangent.
Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server, which houses Celebrity Atheists.
- Login to post comments
Offline I might be charged with assault if anyone ever says "Boo-yah" or "Welcome to Cramerica" in my presence. lol.
Cramer is like the Ultimate Idiot. There's an Ultimate Fighter show, and Cramer's show just needs to be re-named.
Sorry to take it on a tangent.
We were already tangential. At least with Cramer, we're still talking about children.
"On fuego" is my favourite. I hadn't heard "Welcome to Cramerica". That guy is such a clown.
Saint Will: no gyration without funkstification.
fabulae! nil satis firmi video quam ob rem accipere hunc mi expediat metum. - Terence
- Login to post comments
Offline LMAO
I love the internet - because of people like you 2.
*gush*
*gush*
*gush*
- Login to post comments
Offline We were already tangential. At least with Cramer, we're still talking about children.
Now THAT was awesome.
Thanks anniet.
Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server, which houses Celebrity Atheists.
- Login to post comments
Offline Joe the camel
The Marlboro man
A list of banned commercials longer than the attention span of... wait, what was I talking about?
OH! Yeah. Things that used to be advertised to everyone and allegedly Joe the camel was specifically targeted at children.
Those were stopped.
Obviously, this thread has veered away from the original topic of marketing to children, but this quote made me think of something.
A few weeks ago, I was reminded of those Marlboro commercials with the cowboy dudes that I used to watch in my youth, and I thought "Man, it's been ages since I've seen one of those commercials! ... wait a minute, it's been ages seen I've seen any cigarette commercials." I asked my mom about it, and sure enough, cigarette commercials were banned quite awhile back. I was still just a kid, so I was only vaguely aware that any such decision had been made.
But it's just as well. Saturday morning cartoons were laden with cigarette commercials during my early years. Objectively, I knew that smoking was bad. My own grandfather was a heavy smoker for most of his life, until a health scare motivated him to quit when I was 10 or 11. Many times when my grandparents were babysitting my siblings and I, I'd tell him that smoking was bad, and a few times I even managed to steal his cigarettes (which were actually Marlboros.. menthols - yuck) and throw them in the trash, which practically got me spanked.
But Saturday morning, it was a different story. At the age of 7 or so, I remember thinking "Wow... If I ever take up smoking, I'm totally buying Virginia Slims. Those women have it all..." The Virginia Slims ladies were beautiful, popular, independent - all qualities that you can be without the aid of cigarettes. But children have trouble separating the two. It's the same reason why at 8, I thought "Wow... I want to be a Victoria's Secret model when I grow up..." or "Wow... Maybe if I drink Diet Coke I'll be popular too!" These are all products whose target audience is a demographic other than children. Maybe those commercials were sandwiched between the ninja turtles as a subtle way to get the kids hooked at a young age. Or maybe marketers thought that the ads would go over childrens' heads, and only parents would pay attention. But if the latter was the case, they were dead wrong.
Nowadays, I tend to tune commercials out, and I could really care less about the products 90% of the time. But I still have vivid memories of commercials I watched as a kid - toys, happy meals, junk food. And I'm not the only one. Many times at parties, something will remind one of my friends of a commercial that last aired 10 years ago - but we'll ALL start quoting it. For instance, while taking jell-o shots: "J-E-L-L-O... it's alive!!" We all still have those catchy theme songs memorized too.. "They're the world's most fearsome fighting team; they're heroes in a half-shell and they're green!" Kids are sponges. With age comes wisdom, and now that I'm older, I'm better able to see past the pretty happy people and discern whether I need a given product or not. (We've come a long way, baby.) But kids are much more susceptible. I can't imagine that banning advertising aimed only at children would help the problem, because they'll just see other ads that are targeted at adults, and still want to buy those products and mimic those behaviors.
The only way around the problem is the same solution to curing theism - teaching kids critical thinking skills.
- Login to post comments
Offline The only way around the problem is the same solution to curing theism - teaching kids critical thinking skills.
We could force truth in advertising. For example, an add for Marlboro could just be a pack of cigarettes and the words "5% more nicotine then the next leading brand." A commercial for the latest car would be a list of test results and specifications.
After eating an entire bull, a mountain lion felt so good he started roaring. He kept it up until a hunter came along and shot him.
The moral: When you're full of bull, keep your mouth shut.
MySpace
- Login to post comments
Offline In amongst the offal are the messages that prompt critical thinking.
"2 hours in a meeting. Forever in a landfill. Brita."
I'm sure that if you can remember cigarette commercials then you can also remember "This is your brain on drugs!"
Indians shedding tears at the landfill.
Talking bears concerned about forest fires.
"Knowing is half the battle."
"It's 10:00pm. Parents do you know where your children are?"
It seems like a trade-off. Advertisers have to make money from producers selling products. Marketing tells them that whining children make parents buy the products. Commercials cater to children. Money is made. Some of the money goes toward public service announcements and VOILA! relatively well-adjusted capitalist children running around singing freecreditreport.dom jingles playing with their BRIO train sets.
Is this NOT what you wanted? Little buying machines leveraged to hell and back?
How are we going to fix the "'comony"? (bonus points for reference)
How much does airtime cost? I'm sure we could all pitch in and outbid Chuck and Christie for the Total Gym time slot at 2:30am. We could teach critical thinking one time a year.
My point is: You can't get rid of the commercials that are specifically geared toward children unless you want to cut the profits of the producers of the advertised products.
It is up to parents and non-parents alike to tell people it's OK to say "NO!" to your/their children.
I won't think less of a parent if they can't get their kid a Cuddle-and-Coo doll. I'd like for non-parents to feel the same way instead of the side-long glances that sometimes make the parent want to do anything to shut the child up.
It is partly due to the fact that non-parents when witnessing a temper tantrum by a child immediately make assumptions as to the quality of the childcare. Parents don't want their children to act up in public. However, it happens. They're kids.
I'd like for non-parents to help the parents by giving them a reassuring word or two that it is okay with them too if they say "No."
A long time ago, I felt like shit because I didn't get a Tickle-Me-Elmo for my son's x-mas present until March of the following year. I didn't have anyone TELLING me that I was being a bad father, but I felt like everyone who had already gotten their brats one was laughing at me with scolding derision.
I realized that it was a delusion of unrealistic goals.
THAT was what told me it was OK to say "No." or "Never." or "Wait for a while."
Since then, I have become known as Evil Uncle Josh to my nieces and nephews.
[In the 'voice'] Your mother said, "No!", boy(girl). Now, cut it out or you can forget going to (whatever activity) [end of the 'voice']
It isn't lazy parenting that causes the whining either. It is the audience to the temper tantrum that weakens the parent's resolve.
On a side note: I won't know a fucking thing about modern teenagers for at least 2 more years as the oldest (the boy) is almost 14 and seemingly too well-adjusted to test me right now. lol.
Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server, which houses Celebrity Atheists.
- Login to post comments
Offline My point is: You can't get rid of the commercials that are specifically geared toward children unless you want to cut the profits of the producers of the advertised products.
I don't have a problem with this. They don't need to be making money off of trying to manipulate kids'.
Governmental banning really is just a short-term solution though, isn't it? Long-term, kids and adults need to be taught that they don't need all this junk. How about a mandatory 6 months living in rural 3rd world countries for all Americans? No electricity and no indoor plumbing for an extended period of time would help people keep life in perspective! That's a totally workable solution isn't it?
"I am that I am." - Proof that the writers of the bible were beyond stoned.
- Login to post comments
Offline How about a mandatory 6 months living in rural 3rd world countries for all Americans? No electricity and no indoor plumbing for an extended period of time would help people keep life in perspective! That's a totally workable solution isn't it?
Pretty easy to forget about it 15 years later though.
Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.
- Login to post comments
Offline Governmental banning really is just a short-term solution though, isn't it? Long-term, kids and adults need to be taught that they don't need all this junk. How about a mandatory 6 months living in rural 3rd world countries for all Americans? No electricity and no indoor plumbing for an extended period of time would help people keep life in perspective! That's a totally workable solution isn't it?
"Tomorrow night on CBS. 'LIFE SWAP' will open its season premier.
We'll be taking Josh, an atheist and mild-mannered husband and father from Tennessee, to Kandahar, Afghanistan where he will be trading lives with Abdullah Oudab Muhammad Ghazni.
Ghazni will be flown non-stop on a private jet to Tennessee (since he can't fly commercial) where he will assume the head of Josh's family consisting of one wife and four children.
Meanwhile, Josh will take control of Ghazni's clan of eight wives (including the blind one-legged one) and 19 children (oops. 18 children. Little Omar got too close to the action yesterday).
While Gazni will be forced to see women without burqa's and eat fast food, Josh will sincerely miss his porn, pork, and politics.
We'll follow their lives as closely as possible since both men will need constant security and face death at every corner while trying to enjoy the wonderful settings of their counterparts.
Tune in next week as we take Kevin Brown, an atheist from Canada, to swap with Julio, the catholic police officer, from Bluefields, Nicaragua."
Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server, which houses Celebrity Atheists.
- Login to post comments
Offline anniet wrote:Governmental banning really is just a short-term solution though, isn't it? Long-term, kids and adults need to be taught that they don't need all this junk. How about a mandatory 6 months living in rural 3rd world countries for all Americans? No electricity and no indoor plumbing for an extended period of time would help people keep life in perspective! That's a totally workable solution isn't it?
"Tomorrow night on CBS. 'LIFE SWAP' will open its season premier.
We'll be taking Josh, an atheist and mild-mannered husband and father from Tennessee, to Kandahar, Afghanistan where he will be trading lives with Abdullah Oudab Muhammad Ghazni.
Ghazni will be flown non-stop on a private jet to Tennessee (since he can't fly commercial) where he will assume the head of Josh's family consisting of one wife and four children.
Meanwhile, Josh will take control of Ghazni's clan of eight wives (including the blind one-legged one) and 19 children (oops. 18 children. Little Omar got too close to the action yesterday).
While Gazni will be forced to see women without burqa's and eat fast food, Josh will sincerely miss his porn, pork, and politics.
We'll follow their lives as closely as possible since both men will need constant security and face death at every corner while trying to enjoy the wonderful settings of their counterparts.
Tune in next week as we take Kevin Brown, an atheist from Canada, to swap with Julio, the catholic police officer, from Bluefields, Nicaragua."
Now that's a reality show I might be willing to watch!
"I am that I am." - Proof that the writers of the bible were beyond stoned.
- Login to post comments
We do not have an open government. I have yet to see one. An open government would be required to submit EVERYTHING to the public. The only things that could even be considered something to keep secret would be military secrets.
I can't speak about Haliburton. I know nothing of it. Paul Martin didn't launder money, so he has no business being in jail for laundering money. Besides, the whole ad-scandal MADE Canada money, so it's not something that bothers me any.
In a Libertarian system there is no government capable of preventing corporations from doing much worse than our governments do today. Competition will be bought until there is monopolies, until there is monopoly. What little government does exist will be out powered in a very short time. It doesn't have enough power to prevent it. If it was a strong enough government to prevent it, it wouldn't be Libertarianism. By every definition of the word that I'm aware of.
No power to imprison them. Money talks loud enough to change the laws to favour the rich, making their activities legal. Much worse than recent events would inevitably occur. Libertarianism is a one way road to either Monarchy or Anarchy. Only a Democratic Socialism that makes use of capitalism in a limited and controlled way could be better than the Democratic Capitalism that uses socialism in a limited and controlled way which we have today. Neither Statism nor Libertarianism have checks to prevent anarchy or mass oppression over the long term against a sufficiently determined and intelligent individual or group. And both political wings could lead to the same result.
Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.
Actually I think the reason that companies are doing so bad today, is because they have the government in their pockets. Lobbyists are pretty much everywhere espically in the States.
But companies can use the government to get rid of competition.
For example:
1) Get a lobbyist group.
2) Get granted no-bid government contracts
3) Get the government tools to draft some complicated law that basically outlaws your competition
4) ????
5) Profit
Competition is the very heart of Libertarism. Even if a company buys out it's competitors, new competitors will arise.
But under a Libertarian system, it's much harder to "buy off" government officalls. The government will have limited power, but will still be able to investigate and punish those who break the law.
Ironically socialism is far easier to buy off the government, and it has extreme effects since the government has so much power. If the government regulates companies, that yeah, a simple buy off can make either your activities legal, or your competitions illegal.
I agree. So remove the companies, and put the money of the people in the hands of the people who have worked for it. Where it's always belonged.
Indeed.
Only if there is room for it. See Microsoft, who still holds a basic monopoly despite the efforts of multiple governments across the planet to stop them. The only reason they have lost any ground at all is due to disgustingly inferior and incomplete products. Something they could remedy at any time, considering the resources at their command. I guess it's more profitable for them not to, for now. Or something.
I fail to see how it could maintain such power over the span of a few generations. The smaller the government is, the more cliquish it will become. Fewer elected officials lead to a requirement of popularity and funding for election. Not capability or effeciency. Popularity is almost exclusively bought. There are few, if any, poor popular people known in multiple countries. There are rich popular people known globally, and there are many of them. Yet management skills are not bred from the rich. Neither is intelligence. Yet the best schools are restricted to the rich. The gap between the rich and poor will inevitably increase, and monopolies will be generated.
It is impossible to buy off the government with socialism. And that power you speak of is diluted through numbers and strong constitution. Which also provides more jobs, handily enough.
There are no companies. The people own what the people make. The people are the government. Any company names would simply be front names for a government division.
Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.
You don't have to be a Libertarian to see that "no-bid" contracts are an awful idea. Government contracts, like all other contracts, should be given to the company most able to fulfill the contract for the most reasonable price.
All governments are subject to the people who hold power. If we could find an person (or group of people) that was honest, intelligent, compassionate, and incorruptible a despotism would be the best system of government. I wouldn't hold my breath for it though...
After eating an entire bull, a mountain lion felt so good he started roaring. He kept it up until a hunter came along and shot him.
The moral: When you're full of bull, keep your mouth shut.
MySpace