Most have been tricked!

[arebelspy]

I'm not seeing it

Read the content of their latest posts, not just individual sentences plucked out.

Comment about how one thinks they might be completely immune and can't find any examples they aren't immune to, and comment by the other that this sort of marketing doesn't have (weasel words) affect on them.

Yeah, they can hem and haw and not come outright and say they're immune, but that's more or less what they're arguing.

And if they aren't, what the fuck are they arguing about?  We're saying it affects everyone.  If they agree, fine.  But they don't seem to agree.

If you still don't see it, I can't really help you, and we'll have to agree to disagree.

[ChrisLansing]

I'm not a vegan or even a vegetarian, but I'm intrigued by the "pre-exclusion" of products that some vegans here have spoken of. 

My wife and I have been trying hard this year to only buy US made products.   We know we'll pay more, but we also know that we don't need much.   So, when it comes time to buy new (whatever the product) we buy American, which pre-excludues a lot of stuff being advertised, including quite a number of "American" cars (that are actually Hecho en Mexico) and quite a lot of "American" brand names that are actually made in China.   

Checking the label neutralizes any advertising for non-US made goods.

So you have a Toyota Avalon, right? :p

Ford Ranger.  :P

[Justin234]

I have three ideas to add to this conversation, and they may have already been said, but here they are anyway:

Idea 1: The person most susceptible to advertising is the person who feels themselves insusceptible to ads;
Idea 2: An ad works best when the person buys the product thinking that they do so out expression of personal freedom, desire, and volition, and with no conscious memory of ever seeing the ad;
Idea 3: If you see an ad that annoys you and turns you off the product, it may not mean that the ad didn't work. They may be trying to deter you from buying the product because you are exactly the kind of person who will make their product look bad/uncool/unhip/etc., and they don't want you diluting the brand.

In summary, the more you think you know, the more you probably don't know. These ideas are offered as food for thought, not as certainties or in critique of any one perspective.

Edit: I originally spelled "add" as "ad" which may have been due to the advertising of the word "ad" in this thread

[dragoncar]

I'm not seeing it

Read the content of their latest posts, not just individual sentences plucked out.

Comment about how one thinks they might be completely immune and can't find any examples they aren't immune to, and comment by the other that this sort of marketing doesn't have (weasel words) affect on them.

Yeah, they can hem and haw and not come outright and say they're immune, but that's more or less what they're arguing.

And if they aren't, what the fuck are they arguing about?  We're saying it affects everyone.  If they agree, fine.  But they don't seem to agree.

If you still don't see it, I can't really help you, and we'll have to agree to disagree.

The point is, those quotes show that they've admitted they are affected on some level.  The fact that they keep denying it just means they are confused about what the argument is about (reminds me of the net neutrality discussion).

[happy]

I'm not really influenced by advertising, but I do love watching those funny Super Bowl commercials while enjoying the crisp, refreshing taste of an ice cold Coca-Cola.

I see what you did there. Its the real thing after all.

[Squirrel away]

I'm not seeing it

Read the content of their latest posts, not just individual sentences plucked out.

Comment about how one thinks they might be completely immune and can't find any examples they aren't immune to, and comment by the other that this sort of marketing doesn't have (weasel words) affect on them.

Yeah, they can hem and haw and not come outright and say they're immune, but that's more or less what they're arguing.

And if they aren't, what the fuck are they arguing about?  We're saying it affects everyone.  If they agree, fine.  But they don't seem to agree.

If you still don't see it, I can't really help you, and we'll have to agree to disagree.

The point is, those quotes show that they've admitted they are affected on some level.  The fact that they keep denying it just means they are confused about what the argument is about (reminds me of the net neutrality discussion).

Exactly. I have said that I am probably affected on some level but most products I see advertised I can't or won't buy.

I just realised as well that over here in the UK I mostly watch the BBC channel and there deliberately isn't any adverts on that channel.

I switched over to a channel with advert breaks and watched them for an example:

1. Advert for car insurance (I don't have a car)
2. Ad for treating kids for head lice (I don't have children)
3. Ad for a bed (I don't need a new bed)
4. Dishwasher advert (I wash my dishes by hand)
5. KFC advert (I'm vegan)
6. Advert for Asda supermarket (Bingo, I do actually use Asda!)
7. Advert for banana cereal (probably will contain dairy so not suitable for vegans)
8. Advert for beef gravy (not vegan obv)
9. Michael Bolton album advert (er, no lol).

So what I'm saying, and what I think other vegans are saying, is that a lot of advertising is for products we don't use or need. If there were more adverts with lovely vegan food and vegan shoes etc... I'm sure I wouldn't be immune to them.:)

[warfreak2]

So what I'm saying, and what I think other vegans are saying, is that a lot of advertising is for products we don't use or need.

Sometimes, you don't need something because you already have it (e.g. a bed) - but you will eventually replace your bed, or need another bed for children or guests, or suggest somewhere for a friend to get a bed from.

Sometimes, you don't need something because you can do without it (e.g. a dishwasher) - but you might change your mind, or your circumstances might change (e.g. significantly reduced free time, bedridden for long periods, physically disabled), or again a friend might want to know where to get one from.

Advertising doesn't have to have its effect immediately; the products and services advertised may not apply to you now but could in ten years' time. Keep in mind that cigarette companies try pretty hard to deliver their advertisements to children, who aren't even allowed to buy cigarettes.

[Squirrel away]

So what I'm saying, and what I think other vegans are saying, is that a lot of advertising is for products we don't use or need.

Sometimes, you don't need something because you already have it (e.g. a bed) - but you will eventually replace your bed, or need another bed for children or guests, or suggest somewhere for a friend to get a bed from.

Sometimes, you don't need something because you can do without it (e.g. a dishwasher) - but you might change your mind, or your circumstances might change (e.g. significantly reduced free time, bedridden for long periods, physically disabled), or again a friend might want to know where to get one from.

Advertising doesn't have to have its effect immediately; the products and services advertised may not apply to you now but could in ten years' time. Keep in mind that cigarette companies try pretty hard to deliver their advertisements to children, who aren't even allowed to buy cigarettes.

Well, obviously I will need to buy another bed in my lifetime as vegans do sleep in beds.:)

Again, I'm not saying I'm immune to advertising or that I don't buy products that have been advertised but I would think many vegans tend to be worse consumers than the average non-vegan person. The amount of stuff vegans can buy is limited because it is a such a minority lifestyle and I assume companies don't really care about marketing products to us as it wouldn't be profitable to them. I was a non-vegan for 30 years of my life and I know I used to buy a lot more shit back then. Now having to check for animal ingredients or if products are animal tested means I can't buy mindlessly anymore. That was my main point, not that vegans are a super race immune from advertising.;)

[arebelspy]

I'm not seeing it

Read the content of their latest posts, not just individual sentences plucked out.

Comment about how one thinks they might be completely immune and can't find any examples they aren't immune to, and comment by the other that this sort of marketing doesn't have (weasel words) affect on them.

Yeah, they can hem and haw and not come outright and say they're immune, but that's more or less what they're arguing.

And if they aren't, what the fuck are they arguing about?  We're saying it affects everyone.  If they agree, fine.  But they don't seem to agree.

If you still don't see it, I can't really help you, and we'll have to agree to disagree.

The point is, those quotes show that they've admitted they are affected on some level.  The fact that they keep denying it just means they are confused about what the argument is about (reminds me of the net neutrality discussion).

But all of their posts are merely admitting the possibility, then basically denying it by saying it's not relevant to them because they don't buy that stuff.

They say stuff like:

Exactly. I have said that I am probably affected on some level but most products I see advertised I can't or won't buy.

In other words: "Well SURE, those ads could probably, maybe, possibly affect me, but I only buy absolutely what I need and plan out every purchase exactly and never take into account any information I've heard through a source I haven't vetted myself and so it ends up not affecting me at all in any way, shape, or form."

And we're saying "You aren't probably affected, you definitely are affected, and on products you purchase."

[Squirrel away]

Whatever, this is such a pointless and tedious discussion if you don't want to accept what I'm saying.

[Chuck]

I am absolutely influenced by advertising. I know that German luxury sedans are the industry standard because that manly early-30's rich guy that I want to be told me so on that commercial.

[Ottawa]

Whatever, this is such a pointless and tedious discussion if you don't want to accept what I'm saying.

Only because you are chained to a big steel post set in 6 feet of concrete. 

It would be helpful to the discussion (THIS IS NOT A DEBATE) if you considered reading up on the topic (you clearly haven't).  And no:

My father is a Marketing Director for a well known UK company as it happens.

doesn't count.

Until you are willing to explore, interactively, the whole concept of how marketing influences everyone I agree with your point that:

this is such a pointless and tedious discussion

[ChrisLansing]

And we're saying "You aren't probably affected, you definitely are affected, and on products you purchase."

Ah, the faith based approach.   You read a couple books on marketing and have convinced yourself that no one can escape the magical powers of marketing/advertising. 

Why so much hostility aimed at people who think the effect of advertising on them is minimal.  People aren't saying that advertising has no effect at all, just that it affects them very little.   

Advertising and marketing are not magical powers.   They don't effect everyone the same way.   

The vegans have made a good case that much advertising (not all) doesn't apply to them, they are therefore not affected by it.   They have admitted that they might be influenced by the (rare) vegan ads they have seen.   They have admitted that they might be influenced on products where vegan principles don't apply. 

[matchewed]

And we're saying "You aren't probably affected, you definitely are affected, and on products you purchase."

Ah, the faith based approach.   You read a couple books on marketing and have convinced yourself that no one can escape the magical powers of marketing/advertising. 

Why so much hostility aimed at people who think the effect of advertising on them is minimal.  People aren't saying that advertising has no effect at all, just that it affects them very little.   

Advertising and marketing are not magical powers.   They don't effect everyone the same way.   

The vegans have made a good case that much advertising (not all) doesn't apply to them, they are therefore not affected by it.   They have admitted that they might be influenced by the (rare) vegan ads they have seen.   They have admitted that they might be influenced on products where vegan principles don't apply.

It's not faith it's science. You seem to have faith that your monkey brain is somehow some unique snowflake of a monkey brain. It probably isn't. It is probably just like all the other monkey brains out there susceptible to various cognitive manipulations that all businesses do. Whether the marketing of a specific product applies to them is irrelevant. I would personally not be influenced by someone selling me baby meat but that doesn't mean I'm not influenced by advertising and marketing.

*edit*

You're even admitting he's right. His statement says you are affected on items you purchase. You're saying they are affected on items they purchase.

/blink blink

[ChrisLansing]

Nearly everyone has been saying all along that they are influenced.   The problem seems to be the degree of that influence.   Some people seem to have a difficult time considering the "possiblity" that some are effected only to a very small degree. 

[arebelspy]

It's not faith it's science. You seem to have faith that your monkey brain is somehow some unique snowflake of a monkey brain. It probably isn't. It is probably just like all the other monkey brains out there susceptible to various cognitive manipulations that all businesses do.

Agreed, and +1 to Ottawa too.  It's hard to wrap your head around how pervasive and how much it affects things until you learn about it.  I used to think I was immune too.  I wasn't, I was just ignorant of how subtle and influential that stuff can be.

Nearly everyone has been saying all along that they are influenced.   The problem seems to be the degree of that influence.   Some people seem to have a difficult time considering the "possiblity" that some are effected only to a very small degree. 

Okay, we all agree then.  Every single person in this thread is affected by marketing, and is affected on products that they buy.

Anyone disagree with that?  Guess we can end the thread if we all agree, right?

[ChrisLansing]

We're all effected by the weather as well.    Hope that isn't too controversial.     Those without jackets might be somewhat more effected?    Those with rain gear somewhat less effected?   

It seems to me the interesting part of the discussion is in looking at reasons that advertising might not be nearly as effective as the "Mad Men" would like it to be.   

If the only point you wanted to make is that we are all susceptible then true.   Ditto for weather, death, and taxes.    I guess we don't need to discuss those topics either. 

[arebelspy]

advertising might not be nearly as effective as the "Mad Men" would like it to be.   

Never seen it.

If the only point you wanted to make is that we are all susceptible then true.   Ditto for weather, death, and taxes.    I guess we don't need to discuss those topics either.

Ah, but we all admit we are affected by those (maybe?).  Not "well I might be affected, but it seems to me I'm not and can'tfind a single example of being affected, so even though I'll admit it's a possibility, I feel like I'm immune."

It seems to me the interesting part of the discussion is in looking at reasons that advertising might not be nearly as effective

Absolutely.  And a discussion of how we can avoid taxes, prepare for the weather, etc. is useful.

Just like how we can cut out advertising to reduce it's influence (no TV ads is a great start).  But when some are plugging their ears and saying that the weather might theoretically affect them but probably not, it's hard to discuss which is the best raincoat.

[Ottawa]

Nearly everyone has been saying all along that they are influenced.   The problem seems to be the degree of that influence.   Some people seem to have a difficult time considering the "possiblity" that some are effected only to a very small degree.

Of course, I agree that there are degrees of influence.  However, vegans really don't have a defacto claim to being affected minimally.  Perhaps minimalists have a higher claim in this area?  This is not really a competition for who is least influenced by the totality of marketing tactics.  This is about exploring the pervasiveness of marketing.  Specifically, I think, we can consider that certain groups of people (perhaps vegans?) may be able to claim less exposure/direct influence from traditional adverts in certain product sectors.  However, that is the tip of the iceberg.  I don't think that vegans are giving the underwater part of the iceberg anywhere near the respect that it deserves.  Cause, you really don't know how big an influence is on you when you are not willing appreciate its magnitude.

[ChrisLansing]

advertising might not be nearly as effective as the "Mad Men" would like it to be.   

Never seen it.

If the only point you wanted to make is that we are all susceptible then true.   Ditto for weather, death, and taxes.    I guess we don't need to discuss those topics either.

Ah, but we all admit we are affected by those (maybe?).  Not "well I might be affected, but it seems to me I'm not and can'tfind a single example of being affected, so even though I'll admit it's a possibility, I feel like I'm immune."

It seems to me the interesting part of the discussion is in looking at reasons that advertising might not be nearly as effective

Absolutely.  And a discussion of how we can avoid taxes, prepare for the weather, etc. is useful.

Just like how we can cut out advertising to reduce it's influence (no TV ads is a great start).  But when some are plugging their ears and saying that the weather might theoretically affect them but probably not, it's hard to discuss which is the best raincoat.

Nice straw man argument.   But no one is doing that.    Some of us are simply saying that the effect is quite small because of the way we approach buying things. 

[Zikoris]

In other words: "Well SURE, those ads could probably, maybe, possibly affect me, but I only buy absolutely what I need and plan out every purchase exactly and never take into account any information I've heard through a source I haven't vetted myself and so it ends up not affecting me at all in any way, shape, or form."

Well, I'm looking at what I bought in April, and still having trouble pinpointing anything.

We spent $1242.

Rent, groceries, phone and internet bills come to $1080.

Of the other $162, we bought:
Cat litter
Replacement parts for the bread machine
Garbage bags
Fries a couple of times at restaurants
Laundry (in our building)
Bus tickets
Easter chocolate ($45 worth of it actually - Easter and Valentines are the only times a year when really excellent vegan chocolate is available here)
Body wash

[ChrisLansing]

Nearly everyone has been saying all along that they are influenced.   The problem seems to be the degree of that influence.   Some people seem to have a difficult time considering the "possiblity" that some are effected only to a very small degree.

Of course, I agree that there are degrees of influence.  However, vegans really don't have a defacto claim to being affected minimally.  Perhaps minimalists have a higher claim in this area?  This is not really a competition for who is least influenced by the totality of marketing tactics.  This is about exploring the pervasiveness of marketing.  Specifically, I think, we can consider that certain groups of people (perhaps vegans?) may be able to claim less exposure/direct influence from traditional adverts in certain product sectors.  However, that is the tip of the iceberg.  I don't think that vegans are giving the underwater part of the iceberg anywhere near the respect that it deserves.  Cause, you really don't know how big an influence is on you when you are not willing appreciate its magnitude.

That  could well be true.    I'm not reading people's posts as a denial of advertising's effects.   I just think some have give pretty sound reasons why advertising has a small effect on them. 

If we can go back to the original post, which was about new car ads, I would say I'm unaffected by new car ads (while still admitting that I buy toothpaste and might be effected by advertising for that product)   I'm somewhat more Mustacian now than I used to be.    I'd never consider a new car as they make no economic sense.   I might well be influenced by used car ads, because there might come a day when I'll replace the current vehicle.   

[Ottawa]

Well, I'm looking at what I bought in April, and still having trouble pinpointing anything.

We spent $1242.

Rent, groceries, phone and internet bills come to $1080.

Of the other $162, we bought:
Cat litter
Replacement parts for the bread machine
Garbage bags
Fries a couple of times at restaurants
Laundry (in our building)
Bus tickets
Easter chocolate ($45 worth of it actually - Easter and Valentines are the only times a year when really excellent vegan chocolate is available here)
Body wash

Nice low spending rate! 

Rent: Consider what factors you think made you choose to rent where you do.  Indeed, even to rent.
Groceries: If you buy them, you have been marketed to. 
Phone and Internet: Why did you choose the companies you did?
Cat Litter: Why did you buy the brand you bought?
Garbage Bags: Why did you buy the brand you bought?
Fries: which fries did you buy?  Why?
Laundry: Which detergent? Why?
Bus Tickets: Why bus? 
Easter Chocolate:  You have been marketed to.
Body Wash: Which one?  Why?

The tricky part of questioning the "WHY" of each thing/service you buy/use (or don't buy/use = negative marketing) is in understanding that YOU DON'T KNOW WHY for a large percentage of each decision.  You cannot know all of the intricacies of you decision making.  When you start to educate yourself on the topic you will realize that you really don't know anything much at all.  (Nor do I). 

Do you know how every optical illusion you've seen works?  Do you know why phishing scams work?  Have you had fun playing any of these before: http://www.youtube.com/user/profsimons? Have you read books like "You are not so Smart"? 

When you start to immerse yourself in the literature on the topic and slowly move aside the veil...you will start to see that "You are now less Dumb".

[Zikoris]

Rent: Consider what factors you think made you choose to rent where you do.  Indeed, even to rent.
Groceries: If you buy them, you have been marketed to. 
Phone and Internet: Why did you choose the companies you did?
Cat Litter: Why did you buy the brand you bought?
Garbage Bags: Why did you buy the brand you bought?
Fries: which fries did you buy?  Why?
Laundry: Which detergent? Why?
Bus Tickets: Why bus? 
Easter Chocolate:  You have been marketed to.
Body Wash: Which one?  Why?

Rent - We did the math and found renting is the cheapest option in Vancouver. As for location, it's walking distance to work for both of us, and we can also walk to four of our twelve grocery stores (easy biking distance from another seven, harder biking distance from the last one)

Groceries - We have a pretty strict system here, with about a dozen grocery stores, and know who has the best prices on everything we buy (predominately base ingredients like flour, produce, lentils, etc). It would be hard to fall victim to marketing here.

Phones and internet - Cheapest that met our needs. Mine will get cheaper this summer, since some discount carriers have sprung up since my last contract renewal.

Cat litter - Cheapest

Garbage bags - Cheapest

Fries - We bought the plain old fries, at restaurants mostly picked by other people, plus one small place we really like (I don't think they advertise, or if they do I haven't seen it). We pick fried because they're the easy, cheap vegan  option

Laundry - Cheapest detergent. Our box is approaching its second birthday next month.

Bus tickets - to get to places that are out of biking distance, or late at night, etc. We walk and bike nearly everywhere. This was $21.

Easter chocolate - I enjoy chocolate, and Easter and Valentines are the only times of the year when I can get really good vegan chocolate here. I don't buy chocolate for the rest of the year - the quality I want is just not available.

Body wash - the vegan, non-animal-tested one. Pain in the butt to find, but gradually more stores are selling it. There are two brands to choose from, and we buy whichever one is cheaper at that time.

[matchewed]

Rent: Consider what factors you think made you choose to rent where you do.  Indeed, even to rent.
Groceries: If you buy them, you have been marketed to. 
Phone and Internet: Why did you choose the companies you did?
Cat Litter: Why did you buy the brand you bought?
Garbage Bags: Why did you buy the brand you bought?
Fries: which fries did you buy?  Why?
Laundry: Which detergent? Why?
Bus Tickets: Why bus? 
Easter Chocolate:  You have been marketed to.
Body Wash: Which one?  Why?

Rent - We did the math and found renting is the cheapest option in Vancouver. As for location, it's walking distance to work for both of us, and we can also walk to four of our twelve grocery stores (easy biking distance from another seven, harder biking distance from the last one)

Groceries - We have a pretty strict system here, with about a dozen grocery stores, and know who has the best prices on everything we buy (predominately base ingredients like flour, produce, lentils, etc). It would be hard to fall victim to marketing here.

Phones and internet - Cheapest that met our needs. Mine will get cheaper this summer, since some discount carriers have sprung up since my last contract renewal.

Cat litter - Cheapest

Garbage bags - Cheapest

Fries - We bought the plain old fries, at restaurants mostly picked by other people, plus one small place we really like (I don't think they advertise, or if they do I haven't seen it). We pick fried because they're the easy, cheap vegan  option

Laundry - Cheapest detergent. Our box is approaching its second birthday next month.

Bus tickets - to get to places that are out of biking distance, or late at night, etc. We walk and bike nearly everywhere. This was $21.

Easter chocolate - I enjoy chocolate, and Easter and Valentines are the only times of the year when I can get really good vegan chocolate here. I don't buy chocolate for the rest of the year - the quality I want is just not available.

Body wash - the vegan, non-animal-tested one. Pain in the butt to find, but gradually more stores are selling it. There are two brands to choose from, and we buy whichever one is cheaper at that time.

Even the cheapest is a form of cognitive manipulation.

Also how do you define quality of the chocolate? Why is it that Easter and Valentines has higher quality? I sincerly doubt that a company only makes a specific batch of chocolate twice a year unless they are a specialty chocolatier or something.

For the phone you say meet your needs. Are your needs truly needs or just really really wants? Are these phones advertised in such a way that they meet those needs/really really wants? If so you've been tricked.

But then again maybe you really are a special snowflake of a monkey brain.

[Zikoris]

Even the cheapest is a form of cognitive manipulation.

Also how do you define quality of the chocolate? Why is it that Easter and Valentines has higher quality? I sincerly doubt that a company only makes a specific batch of chocolate twice a year unless they are a specialty chocolatier or something.

For the phone you say meet your needs. Are your needs truly needs or just really really wants? Are these phones advertised in such a way that they meet those needs/really really wants? If so you've been tricked.

But then again maybe you really are a special snowflake of a monkey brain.

Try to realize, vegan chocolate is not a widely available item. Most of the year, you've got bitter dark chocolate bars, and that's about it, outside of very expensive specialty chocolatiers. Twice a year, select stores stock things like rice milk chocolate eggs, vegan peanut butter chocolate cups, etc - it's simply not available the rest of the year. It does not exist in my city, period.

Phones - we don't have a land line, so we need a certain amount of minutes. Not very many, but we need something. My boyfriend needs texting because he buys and sells on Craigslist, and that's the preferred form of communication (he tries to call people, they don't pick up, then they text him a second later). We don't have smartphones or data. Pretty minimal.

[daverobev]

edit: Graham crackers are wafer thin and crunchy.  I guess if you made one half an inch thick it might resemble a cookie -- no idea.  I guess texture is more important to me.

There are lots of crunchy cookies.  The definition of cookie you gave in the other thread included "crisp".   While I prefer a soft cookie, they can be either way.  But I can't think of a sweet cracker.

"Biscuit" is a "crunchy" cookie.

Mmm, milk chocolate digestive. Or... ugh.

[Cromacster]

Some of us are simply saying that the effect is quite small because of the way we approach buying things.

I dunno, that statement right there says marketing is doing something, otherwise you wouldn't be buying things.....

Vegan, frugal, minimalist, whatever.  If you are buy things, marketing is doing its job.

Edit Addition:  If you really want to argue the minimal effects of marketing has over you, to be taken credibly, you would have to be growing and hunting your own food, making your own cloths, harvesting your own materials for shelter.  Society today is built on marketing.  Marketing is the only reason people know what being a vegan is.

But if you were this person, you wouldn't have internet so would only communicate with those is your general area.

[simonsez]

Try to realize, vegan chocolate is not a widely available item. Most of the year, you've got bitter dark chocolate bars, and that's about it, outside of very expensive specialty chocolatiers. Twice a year, select stores stock things like rice milk chocolate eggs, vegan peanut butter chocolate cups, etc - it's simply not available the rest of the year. It does not exist in my city, period.

Where have I heard this before?  Oh, that's right!  The people who would get excited about McDonald's "bringing back" the McRib or Starbucks selling their pumpkin spice lattes only at certain times.

A rose by any other name.

[matchewed]

Even the cheapest is a form of cognitive manipulation.

Also how do you define quality of the chocolate? Why is it that Easter and Valentines has higher quality? I sincerly doubt that a company only makes a specific batch of chocolate twice a year unless they are a specialty chocolatier or something.

For the phone you say meet your needs. Are your needs truly needs or just really really wants? Are these phones advertised in such a way that they meet those needs/really really wants? If so you've been tricked.

But then again maybe you really are a special snowflake of a monkey brain.

Try to realize, vegan chocolate is not a widely available item. Most of the year, you've got bitter dark chocolate bars, and that's about it, outside of very expensive specialty chocolatiers. Twice a year, select stores stock things like rice milk chocolate eggs, vegan peanut butter chocolate cups, etc - it's simply not available the rest of the year. It does not exist in my city, period.

Phones - we don't have a land line, so we need a certain amount of minutes. Not very many, but we need something. My boyfriend needs texting because he buys and sells on Craigslist, and that's the preferred form of communication (he tries to call people, they don't pick up, then they text him a second later). We don't have smartphones or data. Pretty minimal.

Well you've rationalized every action you've ever taken perfectly. There is no way possible that any of the things you do or have bought have ever been influenced by outside manipulation. I see it now.

But then again maybe you really are a special snowflake of a monkey brain.

[arebelspy]

Some of us are simply saying that the effect is quite small because of the way we approach buying things.

I dunno, that statement right there says marketing is doing something, otherwise you wouldn't be buying things.....

Vegan, frugal, minimalist, whatever.  If you are buy things, marketing is doing its job.

I probably wouldn't go that far.

[Zikoris]

Try to realize, vegan chocolate is not a widely available item. Most of the year, you've got bitter dark chocolate bars, and that's about it, outside of very expensive specialty chocolatiers. Twice a year, select stores stock things like rice milk chocolate eggs, vegan peanut butter chocolate cups, etc - it's simply not available the rest of the year. It does not exist in my city, period.

Where have I heard this before?  Oh, that's right!  The people who would get excited about McDonald's "bringing back" the McRib or Starbucks selling their pumpkin spice lattes only at certain times.

A rose by any other name.

I essentially have two options: eat chocolate twice a year, or not at all. I think it's a bit of a stretch to call that being influenced by marketing - if the two times a year where they sold it were on January 7th and August 15th, rather than Easter and Valentines, those would be the dates I bought it.

[matchewed]

Try to realize, vegan chocolate is not a widely available item. Most of the year, you've got bitter dark chocolate bars, and that's about it, outside of very expensive specialty chocolatiers. Twice a year, select stores stock things like rice milk chocolate eggs, vegan peanut butter chocolate cups, etc - it's simply not available the rest of the year. It does not exist in my city, period.

Where have I heard this before?  Oh, that's right!  The people who would get excited about McDonald's "bringing back" the McRib or Starbucks selling their pumpkin spice lattes only at certain times.

A rose by any other name.

I essentially have two options: eat chocolate twice a year, or not at all. I think it's a bit of a stretch to call that being influenced by marketing - if the two times a year where they sold it were on January 7th and August 15th, rather than Easter and Valentines, those would be the dates I bought it.

Well what brand of chocolate is it? Is it truly utterly unavailable and never made outside of twice a year? Or is it just easier to find as stores stock it on those holidays. In which it is marketing as the stores specifically stock it on those dates to make a false scarcity.

[simonsez]

Try to realize, vegan chocolate is not a widely available item. Most of the year, you've got bitter dark chocolate bars, and that's about it, outside of very expensive specialty chocolatiers. Twice a year, select stores stock things like rice milk chocolate eggs, vegan peanut butter chocolate cups, etc - it's simply not available the rest of the year. It does not exist in my city, period.

Where have I heard this before?  Oh, that's right!  The people who would get excited about McDonald's "bringing back" the McRib or Starbucks selling their pumpkin spice lattes only at certain times.

A rose by any other name.

I essentially have two options: eat chocolate twice a year, or not at all. I think it's a bit of a stretch to call that being influenced by marketing - if the two times a year where they sold it were on January 7th and August 15th, rather than Easter and Valentines, those would be the dates I bought it.

I know!  Clever, isn't it?  If the people buying the products thought they were giving in to advertising/marketing pressures when consuming a good, they would likely alter their behavior somewhat so they no longer feel they are giving in (as has been pointed out, we don't like to feel like we are being duped, we like control).  Thus, subtlety.

[daverobev]

Ok, so back up a step.

What is the point of advertising and marketing? To make you buy company Y's product X.

There are two ways in which you buy product X: either as a replacement to a previous product, Z, or as a brand new thing.

If you have no need or for whatever reason cannot buy product X, the question is moot.

If you have a need for product X or Z and you choose X, the advertising/marketing has worked - right? Or not - you might choose X because it is more suited to your need than product Z.

If you *want* product X but have no need for it and buy it, or X and Z are equivalent, then the advertising has worked.

Thing is, you can advertise.. I dunno.. Hellmann's Mayo at me as much as you like (I haven't seen an ad for years), I'll buy it when it's on sale or when we run out, I like mayo on my sandwiches, and I like Hellmann's more than other mayos I have tried.

Is that.. advertising? Or is it just how it is?

Something being on the end rows in the supermarket will absolutely make me look at it. Sometimes it saves me hunting for something in the isles.

But for me, the big question is: Does advertising pay its way, or is it just a war of attrition *between* companies? I suspect that, except for the stupid new fads like one-cup coffee makers (so convenient!), the latter is true. This mayo, that mayo; this cola, that cola - its more about market share (ie, not losing any), keeping the sales figures up.

But are we all influenced? Sure... but I draw the line at 'the product is the advert'. If you see a car, and you like it, and you want to buy one, that's not advertising, is it? The car is the car. Tricky.

[Zikoris]

Try to realize, vegan chocolate is not a widely available item. Most of the year, you've got bitter dark chocolate bars, and that's about it, outside of very expensive specialty chocolatiers. Twice a year, select stores stock things like rice milk chocolate eggs, vegan peanut butter chocolate cups, etc - it's simply not available the rest of the year. It does not exist in my city, period.

Where have I heard this before?  Oh, that's right!  The people who would get excited about McDonald's "bringing back" the McRib or Starbucks selling their pumpkin spice lattes only at certain times.

A rose by any other name.

I essentially have two options: eat chocolate twice a year, or not at all. I think it's a bit of a stretch to call that being influenced by marketing - if the two times a year where they sold it were on January 7th and August 15th, rather than Easter and Valentines, those would be the dates I bought it.

I know!  Clever, isn't it?  If the people buying the products thought they were giving in to advertising/marketing pressures when consuming a good, they would likely alter their behavior somewhat so they no longer feel they are giving in (as has been pointed out, we don't like to feel like we are being duped, we like control).  Thus, subtlety.

So - is there any way of eating chocolate that's not a result of marketing? Is it impossible for a person to just enjoy chocolate, without having been suckered in by advertising?

[Zikoris]

Try to realize, vegan chocolate is not a widely available item. Most of the year, you've got bitter dark chocolate bars, and that's about it, outside of very expensive specialty chocolatiers. Twice a year, select stores stock things like rice milk chocolate eggs, vegan peanut butter chocolate cups, etc - it's simply not available the rest of the year. It does not exist in my city, period.

Where have I heard this before?  Oh, that's right!  The people who would get excited about McDonald's "bringing back" the McRib or Starbucks selling their pumpkin spice lattes only at certain times.

A rose by any other name.

I essentially have two options: eat chocolate twice a year, or not at all. I think it's a bit of a stretch to call that being influenced by marketing - if the two times a year where they sold it were on January 7th and August 15th, rather than Easter and Valentines, those would be the dates I bought it.

Well what brand of chocolate is it? Is it truly utterly unavailable and never made outside of twice a year? Or is it just easier to find as stores stock it on those holidays. In which it is marketing as the stores specifically stock it on those dates to make a false scarcity.

Sjaaks, a small producer in California. They make chocolate year round, it's just not sold in stores in Vancouver all the time. I did contact them about getting it directly, but it didn't make financial sense given the shipping, customs, order size, etc. There used to be an Israeli brand called Tropical Source, but they've disappeared - at least in Canada.

[Cromacster]

Thing is, you can advertise.. I dunno.. Hellmann's Mayo at me as much as you like (I haven't seen an ad for years), I'll buy it when it's on sale or when we run out, I like mayo on my sandwiches, and I like Hellmann's more than other mayos I have tried.

If you see a car, and you like it, and you want to buy one, that's not advertising, is it? The car is the car. Tricky.

This is all adverstising!  How has Hellmans convinced you to buy their mayo over you making your own?  Whether you like it or not isn't really the question.

Same sentiment with the car, but even further, do you think the design of the car wasn't a part of the marketing of it?  If you believe it's removed, cars would just be ugly boxes that move be made in the most profitable way would all be the same shut up and take my money. 

The fact that you like it, is marketing.

[simonsez]

But for me, the big question is: Does advertising pay its way, or is it just a war of attrition *between* companies? I suspect that, except for the stupid new fads like one-cup coffee makers (so convenient!), the latter is true. This mayo, that mayo; this cola, that cola - its more about market share (ie, not losing any), keeping the sales figures up.

War of attrition mostly, at least that's what I was taught.  We were given small game theory examples such as:

Companies X and Y have revenues of 400 and 600, respectively, with 0 spent on advertising.  Through market research, they both independently find that if they spend 50 on advertising, revenues will go up by 100, ceteris paribus.  So both companies implement advertising strategies.  Do revenues go to 500 and 700 for the two companies?  No, because the ceteris is not paribus.  If one company was the only one advertising their good in a world with only 2 vendors, then yeah, revenues would indeed go up by 100.  But when they both advertise, revenues only go up by 25 each (since one good does not monopolize the marketing and no entity is viewed as superior, most readily available, whatever). This is viewed as paying 50 to get 25 but really they're paying 50 to try to get 100 extra in the hopes competition will not keep up.  Inevitably since no company wants to let the competition get all of the new market, they also advertise.

Easier to see depicted in a 2x2 square.  Hard to prove in real world with data since revenues with no ads/marketing isn't practical or easy to estimate (can be toned down or increased but not eliminated), not to mention there are a lot more than 2 vendors and timeframe is important.

[simonsez]

So - is there any way of eating chocolate that's not a result of marketing? Is it impossible for a person to just enjoy chocolate, without having been suckered in by advertising?

Yes, not give a shit if some companies advertising marginally got you to buy their product over some substitute provided eating the chocolate is a good use of your money.  Why is that a negative?  They made a good product, you value it as a good deal based on the way they priced it (technically, all the non-pecuniary factors that go into our decision making processes would be taken into consideration as well), and they made you aware of it to get you to buy it.

Or, you can remain blissfully ignorant to the scope of marketing strategies and continue to live and consume "what you need/want only and nothing extra".

Enjoy the chocolate!

[Jamesqf]

The point is, those quotes show that they've admitted they are affected on some level.  The fact that they keep denying it just means they are confused about what the argument is about (reminds me of the net neutrality discussion).

No, the point is that when some people realize they're losing the original argument, they go and try to change the grounds of the argument :-)

Now if you go back to the first post in this thread, it's about marketing new cars.  So have I ever been directly affected by new car advertising?  Obviously not, since I have never bought a new car, even though I've been well able to afford one for the last 25 years or so.  I'll even say that the advertising doesn't have much of a second-order effect, since the used cars I do buy generally do not share the most-advertised qualities.

Of course, as I've said all along, marketing has indirect effects, as it shapes the options that are available (e.g. someone must have bought my used cars when they were new), but that's an entirely different argument.

So back to my so-far-unanswered question: if advertising affects me directly, why have I not run out and spent all my income (and my credit) buying the things that are advertised to me?

Suppose we look at some of the items from that previous list (I'll leave out irrelevant things like cat litter):

Rent: Consider what factors you think made you choose to rent where you do.  Indeed, even to rent.

I own.  I decided what I wanted (and how much of what I wanted I could afford :-), and asked a real estate agent to find me places that fit.  Seems that if there was marketing there, I was the one doing it, selling myself as a potential purchaser.

Groceries: If you buy them, you have been marketed to.

 

Maybe I have been marketed to, but how much effect does the marketing have?  Most of what I buy comes from the produce & bulk food sections, which means I am not buying the more heavily marketed brand-name & prepared foods. 

Phone and Internet: Why did you choose the companies you did?

Internet because cable is the only practical option for high-speed internet out here.  Phone because a prepaid cell was cheaper than the land line, and the vendor chosen by internet search rather than direct advertising.

Garbage Bags: Why did you buy the brand you bought?

I don't buy garbage bags.  To me, they seem a singularly useless product, as grocery bags or old dog food bags serve the purpose perfectly well.  So I've demonstrated the non-effect of not just brand marketing, but of the meme that people need to put their trash in special bags :-)

Fries: which fries did you buy?  Why?

Haven't bought any in years, despite seeing innumerable ads for fast-food places.

Laundry: Which detergent? Why?

Generic store brand, because of price.

Easter Chocolate:  You have been marketed to.

Can't say that I've ever specifically bought Easter chocolate (not my religion, so I'm barely aware of the holiday).  Most of my chocolate is bought from the bulk bins at my local WinCo (where I buy most groceries).  Have never seen any specific marketing for anything in their bulk bins, or even of the fact that they have an astounding number of things in bulk.

Body Wash: Which one?  Why?

I didn't even know that such a thing as body wash even existed until I saw a mention in an MMM thread a month or two ago, so body wash marketing obviously hasn't affected me :-)

[daverobev]

The point is, those quotes show that they've admitted they are affected on some level.  The fact that they keep denying it just means they are confused about what the argument is about (reminds me of the net neutrality discussion).

No, the point is that when some people realize they're losing the original argument, they go and try to change the grounds of the argument :-)

Now if you go back to the first post in this thread, it's about marketing new cars.  So have I ever been directly affected by new car advertising?  Obviously not, since I have never bought a new car, even though I've been well able to afford one for the last 25 years or so.  I'll even say that the advertising doesn't have much of a second-order effect, since the used cars I do buy generally do not share the most-advertised qualities.

Of course, as I've said all along, marketing has indirect effects, as it shapes the options that are available (e.g. someone must have bought my used cars when they were new), but that's an entirely different argument.

So back to my so-far-unanswered question: if advertising affects me directly, why have I not run out and spent all my income (and my credit) buying the things that are advertised to me?

Suppose we look at some of the items from that previous list (I'll leave out irrelevant things like cat litter):

Rent: Consider what factors you think made you choose to rent where you do.  Indeed, even to rent.

I own.  I decided what I wanted (and how much of what I wanted I could afford :-), and asked a real estate agent to find me places that fit.  Seems that if there was marketing there, I was the one doing it, selling myself as a potential purchaser.

Groceries: If you buy them, you have been marketed to.

 

Maybe I have been marketed to, but how much effect does the marketing have?  Most of what I buy comes from the produce & bulk food sections, which means I am not buying the more heavily marketed brand-name & prepared foods. 

Phone and Internet: Why did you choose the companies you did?

Internet because cable is the only practical option for high-speed internet out here.  Phone because a prepaid cell was cheaper than the land line, and the vendor chosen by internet search rather than direct advertising.

Garbage Bags: Why did you buy the brand you bought?

I don't buy garbage bags.  To me, they seem a singularly useless product, as grocery bags or old dog food bags serve the purpose perfectly well.  So I've demonstrated the non-effect of not just brand marketing, but of the meme that people need to put their trash in special bags :-)

Fries: which fries did you buy?  Why?

Haven't bought any in years, despite seeing innumerable ads for fast-food places.

Laundry: Which detergent? Why?

Generic store brand, because of price.

Easter Chocolate:  You have been marketed to.

Can't say that I've ever specifically bought Easter chocolate (not my religion, so I'm barely aware of the holiday).  Most of my chocolate is bought from the bulk bins at my local WinCo (where I buy most groceries).  Have never seen any specific marketing for anything in their bulk bins, or even of the fact that they have an astounding number of things in bulk.

Body Wash: Which one?  Why?

I didn't even know that such a thing as body wash even existed until I saw a mention in an MMM thread a month or two ago, so body wash marketing obviously hasn't affected me :-)

James, you're arguing the specifics of each irrelevant suggestion.

For each thing(t) that jamesqf buys, the number where advertising effect is greater than zero is probably nonzero.

If you integrate that across all people, the effect of advertising is nonzero.

At this point I think we all agree on that.

[Jamesqf]

For each thing(t) that jamesqf buys, the number where advertising effect is greater than zero is probably nonzero.

If you integrate that across all people, the effect of advertising is nonzero.

At this point I think we all agree on that.

Sure, I think everyone has always agreed that the effect is non-zero.  The question is whether it's significant or not.

[Zikoris]

I don't buy garbage bags.  To me, they seem a singularly useless product, as grocery bags or old dog food bags serve the purpose perfectly well.  So I've demonstrated the non-effect of not just brand marketing, but of the meme that people need to put their trash in special bags :-)

I actually don't buy them either, as a general rule - I guess that must have made me look a bit wasteful! I'm actually moving soon to a smaller apartment, and bought them for some clothing donations and moving related stuff. We use grocery bags as well for our everyday garbage!

[warfreak2]

I don't buy garbage bags.  To me, they seem a singularly useless product, as grocery bags or old dog food bags serve the purpose perfectly well.  So I've demonstrated the non-effect of not just brand marketing, but of the meme that people need to put their trash in special bags :-)

I actually don't buy them either, as a general rule - I guess that must have made me look a bit wasteful! I'm actually moving soon to a smaller apartment, and bought them for some clothing donations and moving related stuff. We use grocery bags as well for our everyday garbage!

I had to buy a roll of them for garbage here, because that's the only way the local council will collect rubbish. You have to leave it in sealed bags on the pavement. Not really expensive, but totally unnecessary anyway.

[alm0stk00l]

There seem to be some real hard-liners with regards to the influence of advertising in this thread.

I currently do not have a cell phone. I need a cell phone. Because cell phones have been advertised, does that mean it is impossible for me to go out and purchase one based solely on the price and the fit of the plan to my needs? It seems like some people feel that it is absolutely impossible to ever buy anything that has been advertised without the advertising playing a role in the purchase.

I feel like I can go out and make that purchase without consideration of any advertising I have seen, but I guess that may be hubris. It seems that in an effort to ensure that I am not taken advantage of, I should solicit advice on how to approach the purchase while ignoring the noise created by advertising companies. Any advice?

[Jamesqf]

I currently do not have a cell phone. I need a cell phone.

But if advertising/marketing worked the way the hard-liners believe it does, you should run out and get a cell phone whether you need it or not :-)

Or take me.  I find a phone useful, though I could survive without one.  So if marketing really worked, I should have gotten a cell phone years ago, on an expensive contract, and regularly upgraded to the latest & greatest model - or the most heavily advertised one - every year or so.  But instead I didn't get one at all until I found that a prepaid phone would cost about $7-8/month, vs over $30 for the land line.  And I still have that same dumb phone...

[Ottawa]

Poor James et al.

I'm surprised, I think you misunderstand who the hard liners are here.  You misunderstand to the point of gross negligence; regarding your knowledge of marketing's reach.  You are needlessly in denial.   We're not asking if you are an alcoholic. It is ok to be influenced!

In brief :

1) profit margins exist no matter the cost of the item
2) marketing influences everything (soft and hard products) that was, is or will be sold*
3) the less you spend, the less you give to companies that market**

* Yes. Even free stuff comes under the purvey of marketing...it is an investment in future influence
** This does not mean you are marketing immune

[arebelspy]

So back to my so-far-unanswered question: if advertising affects me directly, why have I not run out and spent all my income (and my credit) buying the things that are advertised to me?

Because we never said it dictates all your actions.  It just influences them, especially when you are or aren't purchasing things.

I currently do not have a cell phone. I need a cell phone.

But if advertising/marketing worked the way the hard-liners believe it does, you should run out and get a cell phone whether you need it or not :-)

[Zikoris]

There seem to be some real hard-liners with regards to the influence of advertising in this thread.

I currently do not have a cell phone. I need a cell phone. Because cell phones have been advertised, does that mean it is impossible for me to go out and purchase one based solely on the price and the fit of the plan to my needs? It seems like some people feel that it is absolutely impossible to ever buy anything that has been advertised without the advertising playing a role in the purchase.

I feel like I can go out and make that purchase without consideration of any advertising I have seen, but I guess that may be hubris. It seems that in an effort to ensure that I am not taken advantage of, I should solicit advice on how to approach the purchase while ignoring the noise created by advertising companies. Any advice?

In my books, if you research all the options available in your area and choose the lowest cost option that meets your needs (actual needs, not "I want something shiny and fancy"), you haven't been influenced by advertising. Some people here seem to disagree.

I have a contract that's expiring this summer, and have been actively researching my options for the last few months. When I make a decision, it will be based on price and coverage alone.