What if product ads were like political ads.. ?

GroupDIY Audio Forum

Help Support GroupDIY Audio Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.

JohnRoberts

Well-known member
Staff member
GDIY Supporter
Moderator
Joined
Nov 30, 2006
Messages
28,331
Location
Hickory, MS
Mac Donalds advertises that Burger King causes cancer.  8)

Shell advertises that BP gas will cause car engines to break down.  8)

Mackie advertises that Behringer preamps generate "bad" distortion...  8)

The problem isn't too much political advertising, it is too much advertising trying to make the other person look bad from both sides. This is dragging us all down with more and more negative energy... We need more critical inspection of sleazy inaccurate ads. If either side is going to go negative, be able to prove it. Or go to karma jail.

I know i do not appreciate all the negativity...

JR
 
negativity?

Oh it's gone way beyond that key word now.

Flat out lying anymore.
Anything goes on TV now.

That's why aside from the NFL, I've turned off the tv.

 
I'm with you John. Stick to the facts I say.


abraham lincoln said "You can't believe everything you see on T.V."  He is right.



Seriously, I concur. It's gone from being about issues to how much shit  real or made up we can sling at the other person. We live in strange times, every major civilization has always collapsed from within, I think we are well on that path.
 
I like this one:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=0rZdAB4V_j8

I'm really happy that where I live robocalls are banned, political TV advertising is tightly regulated and elections are over quickly and cost peanuts compared to the US.

Also, there's a big difference between the almost pathological kind of fabrication of lies and application of dirty tricks Karl Rove is famous for, and the mere act of pointing out problems with an opponent. Between those two there's a lot of space, and as everyone knows since they played in the sand-box, things tend to escalate until someone goes to far.

But I think the real reason is the way the system works to polarize the electorate, if there were more parties and positions to choose from, a more nunanced discussion would ensue. Also, the way things are voting doesn't matter in most states and counties.
But here's why the comparison doesn't hold: Businesses usually don't do negative ads (lawsuits nonewithstanding) because the whole industry would suffer a loss of reputation, and people would take their business elsewhere. Since you really only have a choice between two partys in the US, revenue doesn't matter but market share is everything, negative ads work. Give people more choices and the discussion would be a lot more issue-driven and rational, more people would vote. But good luck on trying that...
 
living sounds said:
I like this one:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=0rZdAB4V_j8

I'm really happy that where I live robocalls are banned, political TV advertising is tightly regulated and elections are over quickly and cost peanuts compared to the US.
I'm happy too. If you lived here you might be even more critical of us.  ;D

Seriously, I am a would be student of government and agree that the time, money, and energy wasted on campaigning is obscene. Not to mention that the legislature is effectively shut down until after the election. (Wait, that's not really a bad thing).

Also, there's a big difference between the almost pathological kind of fabrication of lies and application of dirty tricks Karl Rove is famous for, and the mere act of pointing out problems with an opponent. Between those two there's a lot of space, and as everyone knows since they played in the sand-box, things tend to escalate until someone goes to far.
I will assume you are not being bombarded by the actual campaign ads. From your characterization of Karl Rove I's guess you might not like him. While i suspect personal perspective will color our impressions of this, lies seem to be the currency of all campaigns. Public officials are not protected against slander, like private citizens. Perhaps they should be, but we have a long tradition of fiery abrasive political rhetoric (this really isn't new, while it seems amplified by a lot more money than usual- I know "Citizens United"). 

For the record, Romney was nominated precisely because this Chicago rules campaign was expected and he has been so throughly vetted that there are no skeletons in his closet to find. The amount of creative writing in the attack ads deserve a fiction award.

I wouldn't mind seeing those $B spent by both sides on more productive things. 
But I think the real reason is the way the system works to polarize the electorate, if there were more parties and positions to choose from, a more nunanced discussion would ensue. Also, the way things are voting doesn't matter in most states and counties.
Yes. but the electoral college design is still useful to make it appear more of a horse race than it is. This keeps the uninformed  relatively calm between elections.  8)

I might be tempted to repeal the amendment that makes the senators elected by popular vote instead of being appointed by the state legislatures as they were before.  Other tweaks could help modernize the election and perhaps take some energy from the attack advertising strategy that works so well (or they wouldn't use it).
But here's why the comparison doesn't hold: Businesses usually don't do negative ads (lawsuits nonewithstanding) because the whole industry would suffer a loss of reputation, and people would take their business elsewhere.
Actually probably illegal to say stuff in product ads that isn't true, like they do in politics, but we kind of expect our candidates to man up, and win despite the absence of gentlemen's rules.
Since you really only have a choice between two partys in the US, revenue doesn't matter but market share is everything, negative ads work. Give people more choices and the discussion would be a lot more issue-driven and rational, more people would vote. But good luck on trying that...

I don't think it's that simple, but that is the model for many governments where a coalition from numerous parties must be assembled after elections to seat a ruling government.  This also gives the minority parties more of a voice in actual governance.

No reason we could not do a similar thing informally in the congress. In fact on the actual ballot for election day there are several different party's  candidates, but for the top office it is usually an either or vote. I suspect the dominant parties use the power of office to suppress smaller parties. That seems unconstitutional or illegal too. The legislators generally write different rules for themselves. Something else to tweak, but the pukes in power don't want to dilute their power. One more thing on the long list to fix. but we have bigger fish to fry in the near term. 

JR
 
Well, I thought the last presidential election was first class entertainment, you couldn't make it all up, and it even came with a happy ending.

My American friends are just as critical as me, and believe me, there are a lot of things I am critical about over here as well. But when it comes to global politics and ideas what happens in the US matters for everyone.

In the end the electorate in the US is just as diverse as elsewhere, here's a rundown of the different factions within the parties:

http://www.electoral-vote.com/evp2012/Pres/Maps/Aug19.html#item-1

Trying to keep them all together almost mandates dissapointments and misreprensentations, I think.

 
meteor-hitting-earth.jpg


Just a suggestion :p
 

Latest posts

Back
Top