Advertising Week NYC 2004 Begins

Being in the advertising industry myself I think this is time to celebrate how crap TV spots have become in this country. Often just as insulting as the news media, these degrading commercials of late help perpetuate the ignorant American persona. But then again, the collective intellect of the US seems to be declining so perhaps this is apt targeting...

Well, being "loud" (at least intelligently so) is a pre-requisite for an effective ad. In other words, if you don't make it above the noise/clutter, then you might as well invest your A & P budget into a new water cooler.

Are you speaking from an Art Director perspective or consumer? My point is that agencies (perhaps in direct response to conservatively scared clients) are releasing product that's merely average. Understood that the marketplace is becoming increasingly cluttered, but all the more reason to rise above with a more convincing communication.

I disagree with your statement about the industry. We simply act on behalf of client direction, which is frustratingly arising from an abundance of "me-too" consumables. The finger should be pointed towards more innovation at the design phase and then relevant (and interesting) advertising should follow. Or, if there weren't 15 companies promoting crap lite beer, then you wouldn't have to see and hear these people battle incessantly for your eyes and ears.

I don't think the advertising industry would want any human reaction to be "automatic" - we'd prefer the contrary: an interactive engagement between product/service and consumer. This establishes more value than any sort of cold stimuli.

People have identified themselves by products since the advent of a commercial society. There is nothing intrinsically wrong with this as long as its a healthy relationship that the consumer and society benefit from. Where this becomes disease-ridden is when materialism is all that exists; absence of any depth or true meaning. This is no true marketer's goal.

Don't forget that consumers essentially determine the products that will be offered and in turn successful. This idea that marketers force product "down peoples' throats" is ridiculous. Nike is a successful brand because people buy their products en masse. New Coke failed because very few liked it; believe me - if the company could have arranged for this to be a successful launch it would have.

Gothamist itself is a brand (along with its "-ist" brand extensions) and a comsumable product. This marketing paranoia as of late is absurd; if you want a product to fail then don't buy it. The same concept holds for an election. But don't be alarmed if the millions of other idiots in the world may consume it and thus allow it to succeed (the advertising is only a piece of this pie). I think in order to change marketing and advertising people need to change their habits first and put their $ where their mouth is.

P.S. Thanks for the debate! :-)

Regarding adgirls comments: Look at the world of medicine. So many people take drugs and get procedures they do not need (and this is documented even by concerned medical doctors) precisely because the drug companies (or surgeons) have a need for money, so they create a product, and then convince people that they literally "cannot live without it."

Certainly there are many conditions that medical treatment is very much needed. But it has been noted that there are many situations in which the patient has to be convinced that they need the drug or treatment solely because it rings up a sale for the drug salesperson or surgeon.

Regarding pharmaceuticals, it's all about risk vs. benefit. And I guarantee that every drug on the market is effective in this equation, otherwise it would never exist - clinically or commercially. Any doctor who prescribes a medicine simply for the "salesperson" is an idiot. This is a common misperception of the scared masses. Remember that all available pharmaceuticals are tightly regulated by the FDA; in other words, their benefits outweigh their risks. If it weren't for the drug companies you all loathe then your quality of life would be drastically compromised. When you're an elder sick person let me hear you then complain about innovative drugs. Sure, you'll whine about how much they cost, and then ignorantly wonder why it's not free to develop breakthrough medicine.
My opinion is that consumers who don't wish to pay for drugs shouldn't be allowed to access them. Certain countries provide them virtually for free due to their high income tax structure and the fact that we have to overcharge American consumers because foreign governments operate under antiquated price controls. The chief of Pfizer recently stated that if these countries (namely France) don't want to pay for medicines then they simply won't have access to them. YES!

This discussion is stimulating, but K, we can could without the name-calling and numerous unwarranted assumptions such as "loathing drug companies."

For the record I am a business owner.

Also for the record, I have a number of elderly relatives who remain alive due to use of pharmaceutical drugs.

Also, it has been noted in the New England Journal of Medicine, among others, that 125,000-200,000 or more Americans unnecessarily die annually, much of it due to unnecessarily medical procedures and overuse of drugs. The New York Times has had articles detailing the financial inducements and kickbacks that drug salespeople give to medical doctors to prescribe their products.

It has been recently reported in the news that some drug companies fake drug study data.

The point is that for some people (and their companies) all that matters is making money. And when people are obssessed with making money they rationalize all sorts of actions and tell themselves stories that their products help people, whether they do all not. The power of money is quite seductive and self-delusive.

I support the business owners who always keep in mind that the purpose of all business and other human activity is to better the world.

Lewis> Thanks for the intelligent insight that companies exist to make money. My point is that it's all in proportion: as long as the benefit outweighs the risk then the net effect is positive. Of course patients die incessantly; whether or not this is directly linked to a drug (which it almost never is - only temporally) is the issue. You seem to know the general assumptions of the masses, yet can you provide proof that a particular drug has killed more lives than it saved? I think not. So you're saying that the pharmaceutical industry doesn't benefit the world? This makes me laugh! Can you honestly say that you haven't - and will not - ever benefit from our products?

Judy> Looks like you need a real job yourself. Actually, I'm extremely happy in my career! My only frustration is with you ignorant masses that live in this idealistic nonsense.

Maybe in the future we'll control who we sell our products to - Judy and Lewis's life spans should be very short and their quality of life diminished greatly...

Thanks K for showing your true self in your rather malacious comments. I would consider you an office slave for sure.