Special Offer!!

ADVERTS!.
Don't you just love them?,
What do you mean no?..

Just how much of our daily life is affected and controlled by adverts?.
You HAVE to buy the latest car,the fastest computer,the best brand hair restorer,car insurance for women only(are they still in business?),cheap and crappy health timebombs in a sesame bun.

Ok,so this is a natural compulsion in your quest for 'perfection' but.. How much do adverts affect your decision when it comes to making the actual purchase?

Do you buy the car that gets you the most mpg,has the most bhp,the most cubic cm's of space?..
Or because it has an advert with an attractive semi-naked girl licking the bonnet?..
Or because the advert on TV was played so many times in your normal viewing day that you simply got tired and though "Ok..Enough.. I'll go and buy the blummin' thing"?..
Or that the VOLUME!! on said TV advert was louder than a 'Disaster Area' concert.??

What is getting scary is the fact that Ad producers are blatantly treating us as mindless drones who will go and buy anything because it has a catchy tune or an old has-been/never-was b-rate actor selling it to us.

(YES to you advertisers out there.!! We HAVE noticed that putting .99p on the end of it is still pretty close to the next £ up too).

Web site ads..
ATS included..
Has ANYONE?? EVER?? gone to the source to buy some 'EXTRA-LOUD' talking 'smilies'??

This actually started out as a 'RANT' topic,but now I'm actually curious to see what influences people regarding purchase decision-making.
(No.. I'm NOT a martketer )

Maybe if we could refine what 'It' is that makes us buy stuff..Then we could go to the Satellite TV corp's etc and ask them for the stolen 20 FREAKIN MINUTES out of every hour that we could be actually watching the program that was advertised.
C,mon they must know we just turn off the sound anyway.!!

Just think how much cheaper the actual product could be if they didn't need to finance 'Celebs', Jingles or CG graphics.

EG.

Which would you choose and why?



OR



(As if you needed evidence on my marketting abilities. )

You research is Greatly appreciated.

Most people seem to operate on the addage, "You get what you pay for" out of experience. While that may be the case in certain situations, it is not always true.

I've read that some products initially don't sell very well and so their packaging in redesigned with the price raised substantially, which leads to more succesful sales. They probably didn't sell well in the first place because they didn't stand out. Certain colors draw the eye, and a higher price is usually associated with quality.

As for the two pictures you posted, I'd buy the cheaper one. Partly because it's cheap, and I aslo like the refreshingly simplistic honesty being displayed through the advertisement.

Well, that's not really correct, because it is not just the price and advertising that would influence me. I'd have a look at the water content and base my decision on how strong the bleach was, and if the cost-benefit ratio worked out to my advantage.

Caveat emptor, no?

I worked in advertising for 25 years. One thing I learnt from it was that no-one can be 'manipulated' without their -- not their consent, but their eager cooperation. And even then it's hard, because you're not operating in a vacuum; you have a pack of competitors clamouring for their attention and doing they're damnedest to outdo your offer. And most of the time you're using the bluntest instrument of all -- the media -- to communicate with.

All that subliminal stuff, all that psychological mumbo-jumbo: it doesn't work, believe me. The things that work are persuasion and temptation. They always have; they're as old as trade itself.

The craziest thing is.. I've actually deliberately AVOIDED certain products because of their annoyance level of advertising..

I can honestly say nowadays I don't even bother to look at what they're selling. It's jut sound off on the TV.
I used to channel hop but now it seems they're all in cahoots coz they put the ad breaks on at the same time on most channels now.

The only use I find for them isf I'm afer a product that I know I specifically WANT ALREADY.. then I just look to see how cheap I can get it,where to get it and why isn't it here already?('m very impatient on delivery)

It's like salesmen in stores.. If they hassle me while I'm browsing I'm liable to floor them

I'll call when ur needed mate OK.!!!

Originally posted by Mr. Ree

Well, that's not really correct, because it is not just the price and advertising that would influence me. I'd have a look at the water content and base my decision on how strong the bleach was, and if the cost-benefit ratio worked out to my advantage.

Yeah.. I get you exactly.. Check the quality on the label of the ACTUAL product..
But NOT pay more just because it's in a pretty box or has three silly old bags on the advert

T, I have to say that I always watch what I spend on any given product. I look at what the cost of the raw material was to make it.
For ex:
My son wants a new action figure toy.
Cost $14.99
For the love of god it's what 25cents worth of plastic to make the damn thing?
Another 30 cents for the package. Maybe a buck in shipping and transporting it from factory to store? Of course the stores massive mark up to gain profit...but still...come on.
AVOID Commercials at all costs. They cost you more money than you realize.
I always opt for the store brands when I can...or buy stuff used.
Hell when you drive that new car off the lot, within minutes it has lost it's value and you would never get what you paid for it.

I also read a story a long time ago...called "The Pickle Jars".
A factory worker in a plant that processed jarred pickles spoke of how every other day they switched between the jars that were labeled as a store brand,
and those that were labeled a name brand that cost 30% more. It was all the same pickles from the same vat going in both jars.
That was an eye opener.

Interesting topic.

Not being priviledged enough to be a millionaire...I almost always go for the cheaper or no-name products. There are times..usually with groceries that I've tried the lower priced products and they were not worth saving the few cents, so I've bought the higher priced/better tasting product.

There are times when I've been more attracted to a certain product because of the nice packaging...or the promise that it's somehow better for me. After being duped several times, I've learned to read labels and fine print more often.

One example in particular that almost always catches me is lower fat food products. Generally in the grocery store, the low fat options have a light blue label on them. I have been tricked before, not paying attention and grabbed something with a light blue label only to get home and find out that it wasn't really the healthiest choice..just a colour they've used on the label....the sneaky buggers!!

In terms of tv commercials...well I don't really watch that much tv so am rarely influenced by them. BUT, I know my kids are! Sugary cereals and "awesome" toys that we just HAVE to have! The funny thing is, most of the time when I do give in and get them the toy....they discard it soon after and go back to the old fallbacks...matchbox cars and legos. (or the boxes they came in!)

Michelle

reply to post by AccessDenied

My son wants a new action figure toy. Cost $14.99 For the love of god it's what 25cents worth of plastic to make the damn thing? Another 30 cents for the package. Maybe a buck in shipping and transporting it from factory to store? Of course the stores massive mark up to gain profit...

Yep. And...

A few million for market research. Usage and attitude studies to find out how, why, when and where kids in your son's demographic play with action figure toys. How they pester their mothers. How their mothers react. Devising strategies to exploit those dynamics. Manipulative? You decide.

Prototype development. A few more million there. Includes focus groups and playgroups to figure out what the kids like about the prototype, what they don't, how to improve it.

Meanwhile, most probably, a franchise agreement that costs absolute squillions to license the figure from whatever film or TV produceer, comic-book publisher etc etc owns the rights to the confounded thing.

Lots more moolah to ensure the toy is safe, yet more to put it through all the regulatory hoops and hurdles mandated (quite properly) by the law.

Money to create the designs, do the CAD, program the machines in the factory -- and who knows, maybe a few shekels to spare for the benighted coolies who assemble the vile objrct in some pit of a sweatshop in Shenzen. Cost of manufacture: not just 25¢ worth of plastic but building the moulds, setting up the production line, paying the workers, cost of manufacturing samples and rejects, domestic business taxes and tariffs and generally meeting the massive overheads any manufacturing business has to live with. Add to that -- this being the real world -- the very real cost of wining and dining third world politicians and bureaucrats.

Packaging design and manufacture. The figure itself may not be the most expensive part of the package, not the one that has the most money spent on its development.

Packing. Boxes, containers. Takes more labour, hence more money. Transport. Warehousing. Customs duties and tariffs.

Business overheads at the head office in Fullton, Ohion, where 4,000 very expensive employes, many of them unionized and therefore somewhat more costly, work.

Credit costs. Insurance premiums.

DISTRIBUTION. You have absolutely no idea how costly distributon is. Why do you people like DHL and Federal Express are among the world's biggest comanies? Distribution cost alone can put a 100% premium on what's gone before.

Then ADVERTISING, the subject of this thread. For high-margin (yes, they are) items like action figures, advertising can account for another 50% of sunk costs -- in other words, it costs as much as all the stuff we've been talking about so far put together. For luxury goods like designer clothes and perfumes, it's more like 90%.

Business taxes. I'm tempted to put that in capital letters too.

And after all of that, yes, your retailer makes a big markup. She often gets the biggest slice -- unless there are agents operating along the supply chain, which most companies do their best to avoid, though in many cases it is unavoidable. And at the level of primary products -- the oil that makes the plastic and runs the factories -- agents make billions.

* * *

Look at this way: if the maker of your son's toy could sell it to you any cheaper, he would. That's because there's always somebody else who will, if he won't. Manufacturers make money on economies of scale, not on the markup of indiviudal items. That's the retail business. That's why it's called retail.

There you have it. And why is it like this? Because people want it like this. All this happened because people wanted action figure dolls, just the way they are.

This bit is for Agent_T, too. If commercials put you off, it's probably because they are either (1) bad commercials or (more likely, 2) you're not in the target group. I sincerely hope that when I was a copywriter and account planner in the advertising business, I didn't make commercials like (1). I hope and believe I made plenty of (2). But you're right to abhor them. Agent_T, you watch TV with the sound off. I don't watch TV at all. Not because I'm afraid of being suckered into buying things I don't want, but because TV is garbage.

The ten minutes of commercials you have to endure when you're trying to watch a TV programme is the price you pay for being able to watch the programme in the first place. The advertising you watch pays for the programmes. You thought you were being allowed to watch TV for free? No-no.

No free lunches on Planet Earth. And besides, come on... if the lad's happy with his $14.99 toy, do you mean to tell me that it cost too much?

reply to post by Astyanax



Excellent,well thought out post.


I get that there is a lot of 'behind the scenes' cost to a product,as you've clearly laid out above.
It's even more of a shame when it's a good product totally killed by the advertiser.

What may seem like a catchy tune once or twice turns into a living hell when it's played during EVERY break.
Ad scheduling overkill maybe?

You're so right I'm not in the 'Target group' for the time of day I watch.
I actually figured out a solution by Sky+ing the two programs I watch and play back during the day and FFFFWD the living poo out of the ads.

Shocking though when you think how much you pay for your subscription that it takes the ads to pay for the programmes.
But DO the ads pay for themselves if there are many people like me who just won't be 'sold' stuff?

Originally posted by AccessDenied
.....and those that were labeled a name brand that cost 30% more. It was all the same pickles from the same vat going in both jars.
That was an eye opener.

And how many times do you see Companies declaring the fact that they
"Don't make contents for anyone else"

One of the nicest Beers in Lebanon was a 'Local brand' and sure enough it was the same production company for a beer that was 'Probably the best. etc etc etc."

And it was a heck of a lot cheaper too.
(O heck I fancy a frosty one now.. ) To diet or not to diet..

[edit on 13-3-2008 by AGENT_T]

reply to post by AGENT_T

Thank you for saying such nice things about my post.

And you're right, most advertising is a waste of the advertiser's money. Everybody in the industry knows this and some of us are even brave enough to say so to clients. Of course, we always insist that the campaigns we create are an absolute snip.

Scheduling overkill and the jingle jangle factor are only two of a great many ways in which advertising puts off consumers. Don't blame the advertising industry for this kind of thing, though: the fault lies with marketing 'professionals', who worship various primitive fetishes such as gross rating points ('eyeballs' are the New Media-speak equivalent) and day-after-recall scores. These people think the word 'intrusive', when applied to an ad, is a compliment. They'll cite research to prove to you that ads don't have to be liked by consumers to work, and that some of the most reviled ads have actually been the most successful. We advertising folk are forever trying to convince these delusive creatures that they can't bore or bully people into buying their products, but as you see we have had only limited success.

Count yourself lucky, by the way, if you live in the UK, which along with India and Hongkong is probably the advertising market that puts the highest premium on creativity. America is far behind; if ads in the UK bore and disenchant you, American advertising would drive you raving mad.

Another thing

Originally posted by AccessDenied
A factory worker in a plant that processed jarred pickles spoke of how every other day they switched between the jars that were labeled as a store brand and those that were labeled a name brand that cost 30% more. It was all the same pickles from the same vat going in both jars. That was an eye opener.

I'm not picking on you particularly, ma'am, it's just that you raise such interesting points in your post.

There are two ways of looking at the situation you describe. One is the way you see it: people who buy the name brand are being made to pay extra for nothing. And in a sense, this is true; no functional advantage accrues to the consumer from the extra 30 percent she has paid.

But if there is no advantage, why does she pay it? The store brand is on the shelf too, prominently displayed (because it is the store's) and obviously cheaper. Why does her questing, housewifely hand pass over the store-branded jar and reach for the name-branded one instead?

It must mean something to her.

And it does. As the purchaser of a branded product, she is choosing to pay extra for a certain assurance in terms of quality, consistency, performance and value that the name brand provides.

She knows the brand. She may have known it all her life. She knows from experience that when she opens the jar, she will find pickles of a certain size, shape, consistency and flavour. She knows from experience that they're safe to eat and tasty; in fact, the tip of her tongue remembers their exact taste as she reaches for the jar. And she believes, usually with reason, that she will be properly compensated if the product she buys falls short of these expectations in any way. All that is what she is paying for, and at a markup of less than one-third the price she'd be paying for Unknown Quantity Store Brand Pickles, I'd say it's a bargain.

So what if the same production line bottles name-brand pickles and store-brand pickles? It speaks highly for the quality standards of the store brand that it would use the same supplier as the name brand owner uses, but how do you know the store is just as choosy with its other suppliers of pickles, if it has any? You don't. But you may be sure the name brand owner does have other suppliers, all held to the same standards. That's one of the things brands do, and it is why people trust them.

And as for that 30 percent markup, it doesn't all go into the brand owners' pockets by any means. It is, in large measure, the cost of building the brand -- through packaging, advertising, distribution and quality control.

The only lesson the production line story teaches us is the one we have already learnt on this thread: you get what you pay for.

[edit on 14-3-2008 by Astyanax]