Intrusive advertising is THE cornerstone of capitalism...

By the way, it wasn't free market cap-ism that led to the spill or the housing melt down -- it was gov't rules + oversight, mostly. Fannie/Freddie forcing banks to lower lending requirements + the deepwater horizon rig was given excellent safety rating by the gov't 1 or 2 months before the explosion.

But -- is cap-ism worth saving? Well, if it goes away, all will be reduced to what is "necessary." That is whatever you'd see in an Amish village. Nothing wrong with that -- except -- how will everyone EAT?

Cap-ism is decadent, lavish, materialistic, imperial, etc. -- yes, I agree.

But when one dials everything back to what is "necessary," one ends up with many, many STARVING PEOPLE who unable to supprt themselves, because their LIVELIHOOD was a *superfluous* job.

No, we don't NEED 137 TV channels, or Macy's, or Paul Mitchell, or computers, or $2,300 couches -- and all the middlemen in all the distribution chains, etc., etc. -- we don't even really "NEED" more than one kind of shirt. But, together, all those "superfluous" jobs (products + services) make up a giant "superfluous" HOUSE-of-CARDS that is our ECONOMY!!

And that economy (as superfluous as (I admit) it is), FEEDS a lot of people.

If it goes away (in favor of what is "necessary") how will all those people EAT?

Gordon, you have in your sig an info product about info products. That product allows you to eat (or it creates a certain % of your food). But when all the "unnecessary" things start getting zapped, won't that include your info product? Isn't your product superfluous too? Isn't it (too) part of the interdependent, superfluous house-of-cards called cap-ism? If it gets zapped, and everything gets dialed back to "Amish village" level -- and you go to the grocery store to buy milk -- and you reach into your wallet for $ -- and you see nothing there -- what will you do?

Or are you also a carpenter?

-- TW

[GordonJ]

You are as much of an enigma to me as Glenn Osborn is to you. I just don't 'get' you. That being said.

The gulf oil spill as well as wall street meltdown WERE the result of OUR current free market capitalism which believes the golden rule of whoever has the gold makes the rules. And Gov't at all levels and in all Federal Bureaucracies is in collusion with or paid by "Capitalists".

There was a popular book in the 50's, None Dare Call it Treason. The saying is, "Treason does not prosper, for it prospers, none dare call it treason."

I'm a big believer in free enterprise and capitalism as you well know, but my point is, I'm not buying YOUR premise of the need to advertise in such a way, an INTRUSIVE way to "save capitalism".

What will save "capitalism" is NOT intrusive advertising...but a combination of factors, and advertising being only a part of the mix.

YES, it is necessary to promote products, but even when the ads come on for say, Hulu, we don't have to tune into them. In fact, the 30 seconds can be used for doing other things.

Gordon Jay Alexander

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

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

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

[Ankesh]

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.

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

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.

[GordonJ]

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.

Originally Posted by Richard Dennis

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

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.

I refer to this as corporatism.

Originally Posted by GordonJ

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.