Re: Intrusive advertising is THE cornerstone of capitalism...
 

Hi Gordon...

I'm not saying ads must be made to be intrusive to save cap-ism. I'm saying intrusive ads have always been + will continue to be the cornerstone, driving force, behind cap-ism. Cap-ism cannot exist without intrusive ads. Further, it thrives to the extent that ads are intrusive -- and that has always been the case.

When you say, "those 30-secs can be spent doing something else," are you saying the advertisERs are stupidly wasting their zillions of $$$'s? That the intrusive ads 'system' is a myth, in terms of effectiveness? If so, I'm sure stockholders would be fascinated by that.

Also, if you don't like ads that are intrusive, why not remove your sig from your posts in this forum? Why doesn't the owner of the forum remove the banner ads? Wouldn't the exact same number of sales be made, with or without the intrusive sigs + banners? Or are the sigs + banners "successful" to the extent that they are intrusive (uninvited + use info about the viewer that the viewer never (willingly) "gave" to the marktER(s) -- contextual).

Whether the marketEE "wants" or doesn't want to be "marketed to," is irrellevent. That cannot be allowed to be part of the transaction equation. How many ads do you "want" to see on your favorite tv show? None, of course. Yet, the ads are what is paying for the show -- and it's NOT the advertisier who's paying -- it's the viewer(s) who pay, via buying the stuff that is advertised. For that to happen, the audience must be *forced* to pay attention to the ads. So, merely "ignoring those 30-seconds" makes the show (or yahoo news video) VANISH.

-- TW

Re: Yahoo News videos held HOSTAGE...
 

I look at my email until the internet commercials are over.

Anti-capitalism
 

Gordon,

The problem is not capitalism.

Every instance you cite involves huge corporate interests who have a long-time unholy alliance with the politicians. The corporations fund campaigns, and congress passes the legislation the corporations want ... mainly designed to raise the bureaucratic cost of entry into any market so high that no entrepreneur in his right mind would dare enter that market.

The problem is government collusion with big business. If you want to call that capitalism, I guess that's your choice. To me, it's anti-capitalism. The intended result is FEWER businesses and LESS competition ... putting more money in the pockets of big business and the politicians.

The only way that will stop is when politicians don't go along with it. It's pretty tough to be optimistic THAT will ever happen ... but certainly not with the group in charge now.

Richard

Sorry to be such a terrier here...
 

Every member of this forum who puts a for-profit link in their sig, is engaging in intrusive advertising.

The owners of this forum are engaging in intrusive advertising via the banner ads that appear.

Also, I noticed Gordon (who has a link-in-sig), asks -- on his site -- for the services of a WP expert. The reward he offers him/her, is... an intrusive ad (for them, in his final product).

So, not only an intrusive ad user, but he's *trafficing* in intrusive ads (ie: he's a "dealer"), too! lol

Or maybe I'm just looking at the topic differently than Gordon is, overall.

I'm not saying I'm a *fan* of intrusive ads -- I'm just pointing out that they are *necessary* part (an INTEGRAL part) of capitalism. And the natural progression is for the intrusiveNESS to INCREASE over time, not decrease.

The ads CHASE the people, and the people cannot be permitted to "win" (or cap-ism will die).

Cheers.

-- TW

Re: Sorry to be such a terrier here...
 

I think your definition of "intrusive" contrasts with what most folks think "intrusive" means.

If you ask folks if forum signatures are intrusive - they will say no.
If you ask folks if blinking forum signatures are intrusive - they will say yes.

Intrusive = forced / unwelcome interruption. At least thats what I take the word to mean. It would be helpful if you mention what the word means for you yoo.

Re: Intrusive advertising is THE cornerstone of capitalism...
 

TW,

To start with the cornerstone of Capitalism was to break free from the King of England's rule and government ownership of all businesses as well as the extreme taxation placed upon colonists.

The definition of Capitalism is: "an economic system in which the means of production and distribution are privately or corporately owned and development is proportionate to the accumulation and reinvestment of profits gained in a free market."

Simply put, Capitalism succeeds due to a free market, not advertising. When the government steps into the free market to take over or regulate private sector businesses, then Capitalism begins to disappear. No amount of intrusive or permission based advertising can save it or shift the machine.

Advertising is only a medium and has always been a medium to do one thing and one thing only, to carry a message. And that message has always been, "Look what I got, You need it, Buy it now!"

As for Intrusive Advertising, the subject, it's in every economic system and has been around long before Capitalism ever came into existence.

Remember intrusive advertising can be found as far back as Ancient China when peddlers would dance and sing in front of their goods and were known for going door-to-door interrupting the person's day to sell them their wares.

Forms of advertising in ancient times

People in old times created various ways of advertising to prosper their businesses. Today you can still find traces of the ancient advertising signs in commercial streets or in front of stores and restaurants. The main advertising forms included:

Peddling

Peddling, a kind of clear, sonorous and rhythmic yo-heave-ho, was a special way to attract customers or passengers when the peddlers traveled about the streets to sell their goods.

Signboards

The signboard, usually made of cloth, silk or boards, was a vivid sign to describe the businesses and attract customers. Mainly set up in front of shops and bars, it was also called a bar sign or shop sign.

Music

It was a centuries-old advertising form in China in which sellers sang songs and played instruments while selling their goods.

Lanterns

Lanterns had been used as a means of advertising in front of shops and restaurants until the founding of New China. Similar to neon signs in today's cities, lanterns in ancient times had clear but brief business descriptions on them.

Real objects

Real objects were used as advertising signs for businesses especially in front of restaurants and bars, such as the head of various cattle.

Picture signs

Picture advertising, such as designs of scissors for a scissors shop and shoe pattern for a shoe shop, was a more civilized way compared to using real objects.

Characters

From real objects to pictures, and to pictures with descriptions, ancient advertising had developed a long way. The emergence of signboards with only characters, such as "当" (to pawn) and "押" (to impawn) in front of pawnshops, indicated the maturity of advertising.

Copperplate-printed advertisements emerged during the Song Dynasty (960-1279), more than 300 years earlier than those in the West.

Finally, ALL ADVERTISING is intrusive. I don't care what Seth Godin preaches. Because at the end of the day it is still: "Look what I got, You need it, Buy it now!" Some folks just have to say it 7 times.

Re: Intrusive advertising is THE cornerstone of capitalism...
 

I make a distinction between 'unwelcome' + 'uninvited.'

Unwelcome means there's an implied backlash -- like 'reviled.'

'Uninvited' just means there may or not be a backlash, but either way, the ad was not *requested* (or sought out) by the marketEE.

That is, intrusive advertising is where the ad finds the marketEE, and not the other way around.

It's the difference between a display ad (smack-dab in the middle of a newspaper article), and a classified ad.
In the former, the ad 'finds' the reader (intrusively/uninvited). In the latter, the reader finds the ad (intentionally).

It never made sense to me when, say, Yahoo announces (re: yahoo SEARCH), "Target thousands of potential customers!" That's not the marketER 'targeting' the marketEE! -- It's backwards! After all, the 'target' in 'target marketing' SHOULD refer to the marketEE, not the marketER!

Intrusive marketing is where the marketER has a means by which he/she can get the message in front of the intended audience, with or without their specific permission to do so.

So, a sig link and a banner ad, both qualify.

In both cases the marketER has found a way to state their case, in front of my eyes, regardless of whether I am seeking such an offer or not.

It is intruding, *uninvited* (by me).

-- And I contend, if this ability is taken away from marketers (or as it erodes), cap-ism will disappear -- because that is where the initial spark comes from, that leads to the vast majority of transactions.

It is a question of who is finding whom, really. I say 80-90% of transactions are the result of marketers finding marketees (with or without permission).

-- TW

I agree. But...
 

Richard,

I can't argue with you. I agree. But it may be a parsing of words.

WE are the picture in the dictionary when it comes to Capitalism.

However, we have, as you point out, an Anti-Capitalism society, which has been built from the late 50s when President Eisenhower warned of the military/industrial complex.

What we have is a PAY TO PLAY capitalism. Deep pockets secure votes.

Let me give you an "observation". Twenty-five years ago, Ben Suarez was at war with corrupt bureaucrats and politicians.

He spent millions fighting and running full page ads and millions more exposing corruption.

NOW, I'm in NO WAY speaking for Ben, just giving my OBSERVATION of what appeared to happen, and I may be way off target. But what I saw happen was a shift.

A shift of money spent. Instead of fighting, Ben formed a Political Action Committee.

So, IT APPEARED, that instead of "fighting" politicians, he decided to join the Capitalistic Way of doing it...BUYING THEM.

If you consider political contributions, he and other small businesses are "small fries" compared to the money being spent by Big Pharm, Big Insurance, Big OIL, Big BANKS, etc.

THEY (the big contrbutors) have their own form of capitalism. BUY the politician. Spend big money on influencing their votes as it pertains to their business.

AND the result is we have corrupt organizations, the Minerals Mining Management is just the most recent GLARING example of money talking and "to hell with the people" attitude which pervades all of gov't.

IT is ANTI capitalism. But it is the REALITY of the times in which we live. But it is the way things are, so, it is also the way of capitalism in America today.



My opinion: it won't happen. EVER. No matter who is elected or who is in power. It is my opinion, it is too late. We've passed the line of no return. What we have in the way of Capitalism in USA today is what we have.

It is what it is.

And it won't and I think CAN'T be changed. I call it Capitalism. You call it anti-capitalism...and I think we agree on the condition as it exists, however we might parse the word or differ on definitions.

Gordon

PS. On a different note Richard, is there 100 acres available in your neck of the woods, or all the way up into GA. A golf course for sale might work too.

Re: I agree. But...
 

I refer to this as corporatism.

Re: I agree. But...
 

Gordon,

I love you, man. We've only met once, but that week in Arkansas definitely ranks high on "Most Fun Weeks of My Life."

But I totally disagree that this is just "parsing of words." Our anti-capitalism society was going on when Ike was in elementary school. The political collusion between politicians & big business has a much longer history than the late 50s. But that's another discussion.

In 1978, after failing at a wide variety of sales jobs and 2 or 3 businesses, I took a fall-back, short-term job as a bus driver in Miami & Miami Beach, while I figured out how to make big money.

Sixteen years later, "big money" showed up and "short-term" ended. I've always had a long runway.

One of my most vivid memories from my 16 years as a county government employee came the first week in training class. The instructor asked the class how much of the system revenue we thought came in through the farebox. Don't remember my answer. Low guess for the class was about 25%.

Answer: 13%.

In other words, taxpayers were financing 87% of the transit system. The people actually using it and benefiting from it were putting up 13%.

I was stunned. But he wasn't done.

Of all those tax dollars, the majority was coming from the federal government. So people in Cheyenne, Wyoming and Bar Harbor, Maine, and Chagrin Falls, Ohio were paying MORE for our transit system than anyone in our local area.

I sat there shaking my head for awhile.

----

Remember the "3 Big Lies"? I know you heard them in the Navy, if not before:

1. "The check is in the mail."
2. "I'm from the government and I'm here to help you."
3. "I promise not to ... (redacted)."

We all know the truth. Government is a special interest group that 100% watches out for itself. There is no way on God's green earth to waste money any more efficiently than to give it to government. The performance standard for government agencies is to spend everything they get on whatever they think is a good idea, so they can ask for more. I saw this craziness up close for 16 years. What boggled my mind was that I was seeing the thievery in just one agency in one county in one state in the U.S.

I don't take a second seat to anyone in my disdain for the big corporations. But it is stark raving nuts to demand more government oversight of these corporations. Reminds me of the words of B'rer Rabbit in "Song of the South" when I was 8 years old:

"Please, B'rer Fox, PLEASE, B'rer Fox, PLEASE DON'T THROW ME INTO THAT BRIAR PATCH!!!"

Corporations = B'rer Rabbit
You & I = B'rer Fox
Corporate & Government Collusion = the briar patch

It's government + big corporations

versus

you + me + all the public + all entrepreneurs & small businesses

I believe it is our duty to ourselves & our children & grandchildren to do everything in our power to change what we can. For instance:

1. It's pretty easy to observe that the longer a politician is in office, the worse they get. Solution? Vote for opponents. Get rid of incumbents. I believe this is a good policy for as long as the U.S. exists.

2. Let them know at every turn that they cannot spend money we don't have. That spending policy MUST end in disaster for us.

Enough of us yelling at them together, and voting them out, will make a change.

Less-experienced politicians won't be able to steal as much money from us. That's my plan.

Richard

PS - Lots of acres available up here. Give me a clue what you have in mind, and I can probably make a suggestion.