OSNews

Wrong. As I said, "I'm almost unmoved by the massive amount of advertising I'm subject to". And, I'm in a position to gauge that whereas you are not. Aside of the fact I know exactly how advertising works as it relates to my daily work, I am one of those people who does their homework. Not on every little thing of course -- that would be pointless. But on everything I deem as relevant, important, or of interest, yes.

The people who tend to have no idea are the ones who think they know more about other people than those people know about themselves.

I hate this argument. Three or four people on this board have tried this one on me and I still don't buy it. It's not because there is no truth to it, its because it is often used as supporting evidence for a completely different claim - that certain products are successful solely because of marketing, or that people believe certain things because they are brain washed by marketing.

That somehow, merely as a 3rd party observer, someone can actually tell another person why they bought a product - to the point they will actually tell the person they are wrong when they try to explain why... "Im sorry, but you are just confused - the product you like is actually shitty and you are just a sheep".

This whole thread of discussion started because one guy said that people who bought Windows did it because they like it. Others contend that because people are motivated by marketing than that explains why they do things (i.e. they are sheep). Im not saying you are making this argument directly, but you brought the "everyone is affected by marketing" into this...

The two things can both be true at the same time, and in fact I would contend that "I like it" is ultimately way more important than marketing - and the two concepts are not necessarily related to each other.

What I see is that people who don't like a certain product simply use this argument to explain why other people buy it. Lady Gaga sucks, therefore her success can only be explained by marketing. Windows suck, therefore its success can only be explained by marketing.

I put forth a different hypothesis - not everyone likes the same things. People are willing to ignore some deficiencies in a product when it makes up for them in other ways. Everything is a tradeoff, and a consumers opinion of a product is made up of more than just the advertising budget of the manufacturer...

Some people like Fiona Apple and the Gilmore Girls - I have no idea why But I certainly won't try to tell them it is because they are in fact being influenced subconsciously by marketing.

Strange, the huge amount of monies expended on advertising which is almost impossible to avoid in some form or another and yet almost everyone says has little effect on them. Have my doubts.

You don't buy it because you've completely mischaracterized the argument into nothing but a strawman. No surprises there.

I have yet to see anyone, including speaking for myself, argue that it's SOLELY because of advertizing.

Try again, and try not to misrepresent anyone's argument as you are prone to do.

A voice of sanity. The truth is that advertising works and it wouldn't be a trillion dollar industry if it didn't.

No one, not even yourself, can look into the depths of your subconscious and this is where advertising/marketing does its job. I hear people proclaim that advertising just simply doesn't work on them but unless you live under a rock, it has some influence on decisions. It just more rarely creates a conscious noticeable influence that your brain can distinguish from all the noise.

I have yet to see a single person suggest that advertising simply doesn't work on them period, or any other person. Nobody has claimed advertising is entirely ineffective. You're not even offering anything new. I myself have stated that advertising works to varying degrees.

Also, the subconscious has been greatly studied. It's not some mystical thing that nobody knows anything about.

Lastly, advertising dollars spent per year adds up to a tremendous amount of money -- you are right about that. But, you are wrong about why. The use of advertising as a tool to manipulate and influence is not an exact science. Every single campaign is trial & error. Running identical campaigns always produces different results. Why do you think that is?

Edited 2012-11-06 01:18 UTC