Credit Card Blog & Article Area
Blog Post Date: Oct 19, 2005
Did you ever notice how TV advertising is completely controlled by the TV stations and the government. I was thinking about this today as I was reading Kevin Trudeau's newsletter about his struggles with advertising his health book.
TV stations are all about ratings, even when it comes to the advertisements shown. Of course ads have to be approved by the appropriate legal and regulatory body before they're shown on TV.
However, you just can't say anything you want about any topic in an ad or TV spot.
Advertisers want to show you the great parts of their products and services. They don't get into the reality of situations that you can encounter with their products.
It would be funny, but sad to see an add for some new drug like VIOXX where the people are experiencing the side effects of the products. You've heard the great virtues of each product as designed and developed by the ad agency.
What would happen if the commercial enacted what really happened with the product. Example: "This product can help your allergies, but the side effects may cause dry mouth, nausea, weak bladder, lack of sexual performance and desire, loss of sleep etc."
The commercials should show these as the total package of what the drug is actually going to do to the person. My question is then: If you showed the benefits and side effects of drugs, would as many people buy them?
I saw a documentary about McDonalds Restaurant. In it they showed how McDonald's uses the whole cow in their meat. The brains and bones and guts of the cow are ground up to a point where they're imperceptible. It just tastes like a nice burger, with all of the additives they put in. Why doesn't McDonalds actually show this. Why doesn't McDonalds show the conditions of where the chickens are grown and how they are treated before they become chicken McNuggets?
McDonalds spends it's money on image enhancement and driving volume. It would lose 90% of its business over night if it showed in its ads what that documentary showed.
On the flip side, most activists who would want to purchase ad spots to show the reality and/or down side of products and services aren't able to advertise on TV or any other medium. Why would they be allowed to do so. I've had credit repair ads refused by a newspaper because they were distasteful and would hurt the newspapers relationship with its creditors.
If activists showed the reality of the past/present/future of a product it would reduce sales for companies and stop those companies from advertising. These wet blanket companies are not welcome to advertise.
The big question is: If this is really the way advertising works, where you're only shown one side of the product, is that really good for the economy? People then seem to be buying products and services that are based on a one sided foundation.
Just a bit of economic philosophy rattling around in my head.
Thoughts?
By Monty Loree - Financial Maturity blog - Topic - advertising is one sided.
Articles from October 2005
More articles from Year 2005
Comments (0)