Talk:Advertising/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

CocaCola and McDonalds adverts[edit]

WP:NOTADVERTISING

The topic of the article does not need to provide charge free adverts for contemporary economical units. It is clear, that if we want to show an very old advert, then we can do it without promoting the CocaCola right in the lead, i.e. at the most valuable adverting position!

prohlep (talk) 16:50, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Spiegel US Data[edit]

105.3 billion(internet)+ 98.5 (television)+ 147 billion(print media)=350.8. 350 billion dollar on advertising is far more than TNS number for 2007 - 153,7 billion and it's pretty close to PWC worldwide number of 385 billion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.136.111.132 (talk) 03:46, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

External Links[edit]

What criteria should be used in choosing external links? For example, Articleopedia's page has ads on it mixed with good content. Should it be rejected for the ads? Thanks 66.82.9.55 23:47, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

nonlinemagazine.com link[edit]

Any ideas why the external link to "A brief history of advertising" was wiped? It's a great resource and is used by students and education bodies alike.—Preceding unsigned comment added by CraigDDunn (talkcontribs)

It's an advertisement for your employer, so I reverted your addition. See WP:COI and WP:SPAM - MrOllie (talk) 15:53, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Hi Mr Ollie, you're right, we put up the commercial version. We've amended the link to the university and schools version. Thanks for letting us know. —Preceding unsigned comment added by CraigDDunn (talkcontribs) 13:41, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Web advertising and internet advertising[edit]

Just notices (through redlinks on PNG) that internet advertising and web advertising or World Wide Web advertising don't have any articles yet -- is that just a misspelling, or something we need to fix? Ojw 22:34, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

There are articles on online advertising online marketing e-mail marketing pay per click click fraud web banner pop-up ad and spam (electronic). mydogategodshat 22:52, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

Here's a site on internet advertising that I'd like to include in the external links after any discussion. 18:06, 15 February 2006 64.238.102.176

This is a commercial site with many ads. I'm sorry but it would not be appropriate to include this link in the article. Monkeyman.pngMonkeyman 23:16, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Hey, lalala LoL why was the link to Guide for interesting stuff taking down? Is there a rule against sites like mine?"

Britannica illustration[edit]

"The sum total of human knowledge", huh? Pat yourself on the back, ye whomever put that picture in.  :-)
--Baylink 18:51, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

Do we really want a competitor's blatantly untrue and overzealous advertisement at the top of the page? WAvegetarian (talk) (email) (contribs) 16:12, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
Whew! That ad had almost convinced me to rush out and buy the latest Britannica. I was particularly taken in by its appearance that practically screams "This is a 21st Century encyclopaedia for the information age!". Thanks for stopping my moronic brain in its tracks!
Anyhow got to rush; I have to get to Wellner Motors before they close to have my car serviced. I can't figure out why I'd choose a garage that shut down years ago to do that... you'd think they're placing messages in Wikipedia or something. Fourohfour 16:35, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
My point is that we have recently seen a resurgence of criticism of our reliability and many are infavorably comparing us to "traditional" encyclopedias like Britannica. This seems to be reiterating that sentiment. To address your point, Britannica is online and free to use.
What point was that? The 100-year old advertisement makes no mention of the website. Fourohfour 13:34, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
That it isn't a 21st Century information age encyclopedia. WAvegetarian (talk) (email) (contribs) 04:12, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
I would also like to remind you of the Civility Policy. Your use of sarcasm is bordering on flame. WAvegetarian (talk) (email) (contribs) 10:41, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
It was intended as a humorous way of making a point, not sarcasm. But since you missed it, I'll say it straight; I don't believe such an ancient advert will serve as promotion for the modern Britannica- it may even lead to perceptions of them being stuck in the past. I understand your reasoning, but I don't agree with it- I honestly think you're giving the affair more serious attention than is warranted. Fourohfour 13:34, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
Sorry I took it as an attack, my nerves are still a little fried from end of semester finals. I'm not worried about it promoting Britannica. I agree that it is ridiculous to think so. I am on the Help Desk mailing list and have seen a number of complaints of falsehood/libel. Given what, with the lawsuit and media attention, may turn into a credibility crisis I found it odd that this authoritative claim was there. Before this ridiculousness with the Siegenthaler thing, e.g. when the first comment in this thread was made, it nicely contrasted the finished, third party, definitive attitude of Britannica with the modern, open, always improving attitude of Wikipedia. I don't really care that much about it; mostly I was just being defensive. If I really thought it was a problem I'd (re)move the image. WAvegetarian (talk) (email) (contribs) 04:12, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

Bernays[edit]

Zuh? No Bernays?

A single factory ... cannot afford to wait until the public asks for its product; it must maintain constant touch, through advertising and propaganda, with the vast pubic in order to assure itself the continuous demand which alone will make its costly plant profitable. (Bernays 1928)

- FrancisTyers 12:04, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Why were all of the humor and parody links removed?[edit]

I didn't see a specific reason given for the removal. I don't know about elsewhere but in the US there's a lot of humor and parody in and about advertisements. Weren't any of the links representative of that? Is there something wrong in pointing out humor and parody about advertising? Maybe there's a better way to do it, or is there another article on this topic somewhere else that I missed?

[edit]

- *Funny Advertisement - *False Advertising, a gallery of advert parodies - *Funny Finnish Adverts, with English translations - *The Advert Graveyard - *Bad Adverts.co.uk, Regular and entertaining reviews of the UK's worst adverts - *Orphanage of Cast-Off Mascots, a selection of forgotten product mascots - *Huh? Corp, a parody of an advertising agency - *Herring & Waffleman, yet another parody of a communications firm.

Just wondering why and how these decisions are made. Thanks, --Jim 19:45, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:External links. - FrancisTyers 20:04, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
It was me that removed them. There were too many and they don't add to the understanding of the subject. If the article was Advertising parodies they would probably be relevant, but I don't think they are useful here. See WP:NOT and WP:EL for more official guidelines. That said, I'm not against anybody adding one or two of them back to the article. --GraemeL (talk) 20:08, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
No, I understand your reasoning and agree, there were too many links. Perhaps someday their should be created, if there isn't one already, an article about advertising parodies &/or maybe humor. As I'm sure you know, humor is used in ads as well as about them. Some of the humor is intended to poke fun at advertising because the ad is itself humorous and some is directed critically at advertising in general. I see a link to Adbusters which is the sort of criticism I'm refering to. And also perhaps a link to something like the world's funniest or sexiest ads type shows. I have a personal bias on the issue that I'm not too fond of most advertising due to the advertising industry's use of methods that often involve deception and psychological manipulation. Thanks for the explanation, --Jim 02:48, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
For this level of article, I think a short paragraph somewhere appropriate pointing out that humour is used in advertising to make the product/advert more memorable and talked about might be relevant (and any other reasons I can't think of atm), but there is enough to discuss that getting down so much detail would seem unnecessary (here at least). --86.128.252.182 13:44, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Future[edit]

I notice that an anonymous contributor reinstated an earlier version of the "future" paragraph, which I had already reverted, and have reverted again (see here). The older version is (IMHO) loaded with speculation, and was originally edited down for this reason. If anyone wishes to re-include that version again, I'd be interested in hearing their reasons for doing so. Thanks. Fourohfour 16:43, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

A correction[edit]

There's a bit of this article that's been gnawing at me since I took my Intro to Advertising class.

"Unpaid advertising (also called word of mouth advertising), can provide good exposure at minimal cost. Personal recommendations ("bring a friend", "sell it by zealot"), spreading buzz, or achieving the feat of equating a brand with a common noun ("Xerox" = "photocopier", "Kleenex" = "tissue" , "Scotch Tape" = "Clear Tape", "Band-aid" = "bandage" , "iPod" = "MP3 Player" ) -- these must provide the stuff of fantasy to the holder of an advertising budget."

This is something my advertising professor made sure to drill into us: having your brand be equated with a range of products is BAD. I recently did research to find this somewhere else and I found this quote:

"On the other hand, the brand should not be generic to the category, otherwise it will not remain a strong brand. In fact, it can never be a strong brand and yet be generic because the two are in contradiction with each other." -Shunu Sen @ http://www.thehindubusinessline.com/businessline/catalyst/2001/11/08/stories/1908o053.htm

However, by the same token, I'm too paranoid about making the change myself because I don't want to ruin the organization of the article.

-George Schafer george.lmfao@gmail.com

George, You raise an interesting question. How important is mind share and market share to a brand. Although high market share and mind share are usually considered important goals, there is a dark side to very high shares. If market share becomes "too" high you could invite government attention. If share of mind becomes "too" high your product could become too closely associated with a given category and as such, it could lose its uniqueness. Utimately the answer depends on the marketing strategy you are pursuing (short term vs long term, focused vs low cost, etc). mydogategodshat 19:29, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Putpocketing[edit]

Am i the only one who has had advertisements slip into their pocket in the forum of flyers?--Whywhywhy 08:30, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Effects on communication media[edit]

Hello. I have just added a new section that I think is very necessary, important, relevant and truthful. But somehow I belive it will have some good and avid oppositors. I would like at least the section to remain. And if it is deleted I would like to know their reasons for removing the section. Otherwise I will keep adding it. Many thanks. --Pablo

Future of advertising (discussion)[edit]

Future of advertising (discussion) Hi everybody, whos interested in the future prediction for the Advrtsng. I will to try TRIZ tool/technique of Laws_of_Technical_Systems_Evolution. Those laws could be applied to the all system, nemd "advertising" or to the subsystems, like media, ?? more explanations coming soon --AndriuZ 23:58, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Advertising collection From the American Memory Collection of the Library of Congress[edit]

I have taken on the task of adding to the wikipedia experience with tying into this wonderful collection. One of the first collections is a sizeable one dealing with [[1]]Advertising Ephemera and the Advertising Ephemera Collection. If someone could offer a suggestion on how this would be added to this article, I would greatly appreciate it. It seems as though there is plenty enough information to start a subcatagory. Thanks in advance. 04:06, 30 March 2006 (UTC)Beam_er

The Adverts dab link[edit]

I think the point of it being there is that Adverts redirects to this article and could cause confusion. --GraemeL (talk) 13:43, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Up till 17:58, 28 July 2006 (UTC), advert, adverts, advertisement are all linked to advertising. It is consistent. The Adverts link is not a popular one. People search for advert usually refer to advertising. Sorry, I couldn't see any confusion. --Wai Wai 17:58, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Article removed from Wikipedia:Good articles[edit]

This article was formerly listed as a good article, but was removed from the listing because it is generally a mess, and poorly wikified. the wub "?!" 16:46, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

removal of media section[edit]

an anon (I think) removed the entire media section ... any thoughts? ++Lar: t/c 21:55, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Bring it back! Bring it back! They deleted the section with the picture I took. And someone get the admins to ban the anonymous IP user if they come back and deletes an entire section again with no explanation. --Coolcaesar 22:10, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
Reverted. Sorry I missed that section when I reverted the vandalism by the anom, but you can do it yourself. - User:Atenea26 15:45, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
Normally I would have but I'm not a frequent editor here and the history after it was confused, I thought maybe one of the serious editors here agreed so wanted to seek consensus before restoring it... I typically proceed slowly. (WP:BOLD notwithstanding... see my contributions, linked from my sig, I've been around a while). To Coolceasar, we have to be careful in blocking anons, we can lose good contributions from other editors at the same IP if we are not careful... I will, though, go review the history to see if that anon is doing other naughty things and if needed hand out a block. ++Lar: t/c 14:46, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
I wouldn't block that ip - I've been watching the contributions of that ip,and I have to say that ip has some useful contributions. That suggest me that he/she have done that vandalism using a computer in a public place such as a cyber cafe, a library or a computer room in some academic center Atenea26 16:15, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

Additions to history section[edit]

I was editing the history section earlier and added information on the MTV generation (you could write an entire article on its uses/styles of advertising), shopping channels (which are one big ad, might be a bit much to mention infomercials taking the place of "signing off" and such), the Internet and the use of embedded, interactive advertising. However, as I alluded to in an edit summary, I'm afraid the section sounds a bit US-centric - well we have a Canadian example now, but... yeah ;) - so feel free to add prominent examples from other countries. Modlin 05:02, 7 July 2006 (UTC)


Wiki Advertising policies[edit]

Hey, would anyone mind adding a "Wiki Advertising policies" at the front of the page? Others have done the same, eg:Deletion. --Wai Wai 12:46, 25 July 2006

July comment[edit]

(moved from top of page into chronological place)

The last section seems to to insinuate that some forms of advertising are positive for the audience it targets. The goal of advertising is to manipulate consumers to act in a favourable manner to the company which sells the product. The advertising messages are overwhelmingly irrational; overall, they do not rely on logic to persuade their audience.

It is in the consumers' interest to act rationally. Therefore, consumers should screen out advertising messages. By making advertising entertaining, the advertisers are making their messages easier to impart to consumers. But the effect of it is still negative!

If the above comment isnt POV, I dont know what is. Advertising is simply a way of businesses selling their products, giving customers information. Whoever wrote the above seems to believe that consumers have an unlimited ammount of time, energy and information. Ads can be helpful, giving consumers information they need. They can also be misleading and manipulative. The more illogical ones tend to be targeted at audiences that do not make logical decisions anyway (ex. teenagers). 12.154.0.112 22:01, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
"Businesses selling their products" and "giving consumers information" are not exactly the same thing. They can overlap, but they are not the same thing. I agree that it is POV to say the effect of ads is negative, but I think it is also POV to say ads "can be helpful, giving consumers information they need," because that equally presumes an idea of what is good in society. I think this is a very tricky topic to make truly NPOV. Giving space to the point of view of groups like Adbusters is necessary though. It would simply be POV to have an article about advertising that says it is a good thing or a necessary thing or anything like that. Rlitwin 22:30, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Re: my changes to the paragraph on generic terms and trademark protection

It is not true that "aspirin" lost its trademark protection when it was taken from Bayer by the US government, because the mark was then resold with the rest of Bayer's US assets. After this transfer, it was just another ordinary case--"aspirin" was ruled generic by a federal court in 1921 because of public and competitors' usage. It is highly doubtful, and indeed bizarre to imagine, that the US government would have the power or even desire to unilaterally make a trademark generic.

Also, Xerox has not officially lost its trademark protection, though it is undoubtedly in danger of it. At least on the law books, Xerox is not yet a generic term. -postdlf


GA nomination failed[edit]

As of 5 August 2006, this article has yet to reach GA status, mainly for these reasons:

  • The prose used is very uneven. Many sections have the appearance of being accumulated from many tiny additions; the writing does not flow at all. Weasel words ("some say..", "according to observers..") and abrupt changes in tone are everywhere.
  • The article lacks coherent organization. The section "History" is well-organized; the rest of the article is a total mess.
  • The depth of of the material is very confused. While "History" is well-written, the facts it touches on seem like generalities that are not very informative. It presents a simplified, conventional wisdom sort of timeline that lacks real insight and a view from multiple perspectives. Meanwhile, "Media" travels into such minutae as which brands were presented in which movies, but barely notes the existence of billboards, print ads, and such. Serious discussion of advertising from the perspective of marketers is entirely missing from the article. In my opinion, nothing is covered well, and several areas are not covered at all.
  • Inline references to verify the many assertions made in the article are virtually absent. The article is much the worse for it; several sections are composed largely of irrelevant trivia and uninformed speculation.

Writing "Advertising" is tricky; general, broad articles such as these are an important part of an encyclopedia but a weak point of consensus-based projects, such as Wikipedia. Unfortunately, this article is in need of a complete rewrite and content infusion by experts before it will be viable. Twinxor t 10:15, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Advertising literacy?[edit]

This addition by User:Graemecodrington appears to be simply to add links to an orphaned article, Advertising literacy, which is authored by the same user. The article appears to fail WP:MOS, WP:NOR, WP:V, and WP:NEO, needs copyediting, etc. --Bhuston 11:15, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Looks like Advertising lit is heading for deletion. I will remove the section here. --Bhuston 09:24, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

preamble improvements[edit]

"It is an important part of an overall communications mix ..."

This sounds like "breakfast cereal is an important part of your complete breakfast". This is a POV issue, because it sounds like direct advertising is necessary to proper well-being, which may be the POV of industry, but is not well reflected in the world community of citizens, who largly are opposed to being subjected to it.

Advertising is => Advertising is typically

This was not consistant. Old way first says advertising is non-personal and directed, then says that it can be personal or non-directed. It says the sponsor is identified, then mentions PR, where the sponsor is rarely identified. So I cleaned up the wording to make it more consistant. Also, advertising is typically performed by for-profit corporations, not by non-profits or government agencies. Changed wording to reflect this --Bill Huston (talk) 01:36, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

"Advertising plays a critical role in capitalist economies in creating demand for industrial output"[edit]

I'm taking out that statement. It's sourced to a document that I cannot find anything even approaching that statement in. In particular, in the source:

  • "critical" is used only in the sense of "critical theory"
  • "demand" isn't "created".
  • "industrial" doesn't appear in anything like the sense of "industrial output".

I'm not sure whether anyone seriously argues that if all advertising were, say, banned, demand for anything would actually recede. If there is documented research on a correlation between advertising and the savings rate, we can link to that, though a statement as strong as the one I'm taking out would need significant support.

I'd be more willing to include something to the effect that advertising "shapes" demand, but even that needs actual sources, not some essay related only vaguely to the statement at hand. After all, there are successful companies who advertise very little, and all that.

RandomP 12:15, 28 December 2006 (UTC)


Companies advertise to increase awareness to increase demand. And the companies that advertise little or at all (using common sense) get little attention. For example: A larger dot is more visible then a small one (these dots representing awareness).--207.68.235.128 (talk) 01:04, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

In Affluenza: The all-consuming epidemic, by John De Graaf et al. in Chapter 19: TV advertisement has grown to a 200b $ business and its turnaround is still increasing by 7,4% a year, which is more than double the general growth of the economy (cited from: Kim Chapman, "Americans to Spend More on Media than Food in 2003" in: Denver Rocky Mountain News, Dec 17th 1999) —Preceding unsigned comment added by StefSchweinschwaller (talkcontribs) 16:16, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

effects of advertising in economic terms[edit]

The following text was added to the article:

In economic terms, there are two basic effects of advertising: there is a product effect (e.g., computers) which expands the market by moving the demand curve to the right; and a brand effect (e.g., Dell Computers) which makes the slope of a specific brand's demand curve more inelastic.

I don't really like it, for two reasons:

  • "shifting the demand curve to the right" is both highly informal and inaccurate (after all, a proper shift would put the singularity most demand curves are assumed to have at some positive price, which is obviously not happening).
  • more importantly, it also suggests that advertising, overall, lowers the savings rate, and I just don't think that is something that has been properly studied — especially considering that in the long run, it is hard to argue the savings rate doesn't average out to zero.

I'll try reformulating this, but it needs more care. I think it would be safer to say that advertising is assumed by all those who are willing to pay for it to shift demand from other products to the advertised product, both at current price levels and at higher price levels (though why, all other things being equal, demand would be reduced at lower price levels ("the slope of a specific brand's demand curve more inelastic") is beyond me.

Frankly, can we have an expert write the introductory paragraphs?

RandomP 17:18, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm just taking out that text. I keep rereading it, and it doesn't say anything but that advertising (is assumed to) increase demand (well, d'oh); and something rather weird about brands and elasticity (I think what this is trying to say is that advertising a brand is supposed to reduce the loss of demand caused by a (non-infinitesimal) price increase while increasing the gain in demand caused by a (again, real) price reduction - simplified, that's a statement about the second derivative of demand w.r.t. price, not "elasticity", the first derivative).
I'm also still unconvinced it is accurate to describe advertising as increasing demand, implying that the money spent due to advertising effects would otherwise have been saved, rather than spent on less-advertised goods instead. We need to mention the effect it (is assumed to have) has on the savings rate, otherwise, "shaping" would be more accurate.
RandomP 17:29, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Who sees advertising as necessary for economic growth?[edit]

Moving on, please provide actual people who actually said that without advertising, economic growth couldn't happen at all before reinstating that. "While advertising is seen as improving economic growth" would be slightly more acceptable, but I think the statement should be made even more explicitly to avoid implicitly equating economic growth and an increase in the standard of living — if we want to say something positive about advertising at this point, why not quote specific influential (groups of) people who think advertising improves quality of life, on average?

RandomP 17:37, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't think you quiet understand what advertising is. Advertising is spreading awareness (simply stated). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.68.235.128 (talk) 01:06, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Time-shifted advertising[edit]

Is this really notable? Is it really so notable as to go in the opening paragraph? As far as I can tell, it's an idea that has not really been tried much in practice, raises severe privacy concerns, is pretty much limited to internet advertising, and the article at time shifted advertising (sic) is a real mess.

And it's not really a "variation" of normal net ads either - those have been targetted based on the page viewed and information the advertisers have about your IP for ages, haven't they?

Taking out for now.

RandomP 14:37, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi RandomP, I think this deserves more mention in the article alongside all types of advertising which attempt to "hi-jack" one advertising slot with another. (Sometimes also known as click fraud I think). I agree it doesn't belong in the opening paragraph as it is a subset of another article already mentioned. --Rebroad 10:45, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Nicole Kidman[edit]

What's up with this: The most expensive TV ad is the Chanel N°5, which cost at least $100,000,000. Starring Nicole Kidman as a famous dancer who runs away from the public with a man. She returns to a premiere and he remembers her scent.

Shouldn't there be at least a reference for this outrageous claim? $100 million is, well, a lot of money. Also the first phrase is misworded -- Chanel is a perfume, not an ad.

I've removed the text. As you noted, it was unsourced. Also, that section is supposed to be only a summary of what is in the main article on television advertising; there was no mention of this content in the main article. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 01:23, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

External Links[edit]

There are way too many External links on this article. I don't have time to sort it out now but if it isn't done by later I'll try. It seems like the advertising page has became streamed with advertising... Cream147 Shout at me for doing wrong 07:04, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Advertising in the Advertising article![edit]

The section on "Optimisation" seems to be intended to promote a brand, especially this last paragraph:

In addition to report card measures such as attention, brand linkage, and motivation, copy tests can provide insights into non-verbal measures using Picture Sorts®. Picture Sorts® provide moment-by-moment measures for all significant moments in the ad graphing the images by recognition Flow of Attention positive and negative feelings Flow of Emotion, and brand values Flow of Meaning. (Young pp.21-26). These graphs provide advertisers with a visual map of what is and is not currently working in an ad with the goal of identifying improvements which can be made, inexpensively, by editors.

I slapped an advert tag on; should it be deleted? Fraser J Allison 04:32, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

First notable advert that contained a URL[edit]

I'd be interested to know when advertising agencies and large corporations decided to drop the "http://" prefix, further more drop the "www." prefix and when.

Not to mention, it would be interesting to see who's leading the way. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hm2k (talkcontribs) 17:27, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

"is paid"[edit]

Not all advertising is paid. Advertising can come in the form of wearing t-shirts, giving out leaflets etc.... The first sentence is fairly misleading... User:jonnytabpni 10:13, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree. Some advertising (such as one's by a local city) do not spread advertising to a particular marketing group or entity.--207.68.235.128 (talk) 01:08, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Gradvertising[edit]

I've removed a section titled Gradvertising because it does not appear to be notable and comes across as self-promotion. If people think it adds value to the article, it can be added back in. Deli nk (talk) 21:44, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

actually it is not 'self' promotion, more like cross-country familial promotion. have not yet talked with him, but thanks for your diligence. good to know there are people who care :) sorry...he is a good boy —Preceding unsigned comment added by OldWordmonkey (talkcontribs) 16:34, 12 December 2007 (UTC)


Shari Graydon / Mediawatch book[edit]

Was revising style of this but decided to remove it as adspam:

"The award-winning book, How Advertising Works and Why You Should Know, by Shari Graydon, former president of Mediawatch (a feminist organization founded by Ann Simonton not linked to mediawatch-uk) provides context for these issues for young readers."

-- We could obviously mention thousands of books in this article; why this one? -- 201.37.229.117 (talk) 21:51, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm guessing because the article doesn't deal well with gender issues? Sounds like a good idea. TONY (talk) 12:21, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Criticism/Public Response Section?[edit]

I was wondering if it would be a good idea to consider a section highlighting what people dislike about advertising. I mean, many people hate adverts, a well documented fact. Adblock is one of the most popular plugins for firefox, and many people change channels when ads come on. Surely people's hatred of advertising deserves some mention? Bill Hicks had a word or two to say about people in marketing and/or advertising. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mr Vex (talkcontribs) 07:51, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Parts of this article are in a frightful mess[edit]

I'm interested in copy-editing bits of it over the next few weeks, but heck, can someone fix up the formatting of the reference section? TONY (talk) 12:19, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

T0his article is way too short when considering the cultural impact of advertising in the twentieth century and its effects on behaviour (a 1990's Tango advert had an effect on children who slapped each other round the ears, copying the advert - I'm sure there are many more examples from other countries). This era is practically skirted over and its total saturation is all but ignored. The Nazi's, who used advertising for propoganda (there are several articles on this on wiki), are ignored. Why? The totality of the media forms is written with such as positive spin - key words like 'innovation', 'pion' and 'new frontiers' are just thrown in like some key message speech. The summing up by Paul McManus should be removed, he's a creative director - err so what? Who is he and who is the company he represents? What makes them, or him an authority? Surely there should be a quote (sourced) from a recognised, authoritative book on the subject rather than someone on the payroll. This article is desperately trying to be an advert for advertising rather than an encyclopedic entry. --Gingerzilla (talk) 01:26, 1 September 2008 (UTC) I have removed the quote by Paul McManus. It has remained unsourced since April 07 (or rather that's when a citation was requested), there is no relevance to who he nor the company is and the quote hs no bearing on teh article. It sounds like a load of spin rather than annalysis that adds to the article. This is one of the worst articles I have ever seen. --Gingerzilla (talk) 09:07, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Error of grammar or content[edit]

Where it discusses radio advertising in the 1920s it say radio programs 'exploded' ?


Exloded as in ametaphor.--207.68.235.128 (talk) 01:16, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Advertising payed for by the U.S. Government?[edit]

Someone told me that the U.S. government pays for business' advertising by way of giving businesses a tax break for advertising. Is this true? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.106.219.78 (talk) 17:58, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Photographs[edit]

I usually try to avoid photographing advertisements, regardless of how attractive they are. This is because I don't like to give the advertiser any free publicity in addition to the publicity they have paid for. Do other Wikipedians have the same issue when contributing photographs of advertisements to Wikipedia? JIP | Talk 19:34, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

article is missing the verbal form of advertising[edit]

Very similar to the person holding a sign at a street corner, we have the vendor or shopkeeper standing by her cart and yelling at the top of her lungs (or hiring a person to do it), and you guessed it, "advertising" her wares. Also includes 'word-of-mouth' advertising. --ti 16:45, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Advertising is a form of communication that...[edit]

"Advertising is a form of communication that typically attempts to persuade potential customers to purchase or to consume more of a particular brand of product or service".

Really?

Maybe that is the current intent of advertisement, but I could have sworn the original purpose of advertisement was to bring exposure to a business that would otherwise be unknown to potential customers who would otherwise not know of its existence. Maybe the summary/intro should be changed to reflect the original intent of advertisement as well as the more recent intent that resulted from the advent of large corporations. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.204.19.63 (talk) 05:03, 11 March 2009 (UTC) ...<<<<<<


Advertising is more then to business. Advertising is used to spread awaraness through physical forces. Such as charity for example or to advertise a volunter group in need.--207.68.235.128 (talk) 01:10, 25 July 2009 (UTC)


In fact if you go in to a store and you agree that it is the best store you have ever been in, then tell your fiends, then you are advertising the business without any greedy means.--207.68.235.128 (talk) 01:13, 25 July 2009 (UTC)