|
|
|
|
|
|
by necessity
3980 days ago
|
|
|
I completely disagree and I find your choice of words - "it's too deep for
you", "it's tricking you!", "it's eeevil!" to be distasteful. Seems like a
political ad for going to the "righteous side" of being against ads. There has been only one brand that I can recall to have bought because of
"hidden" advertising. Budweiser. I used to see the characters from my favorite
series drinking it while eating pizza or other delicious food, and whenever I
passed by it in the market I had this feeling that it seemed to taste real
good. It's piss. I have never bought it again, and I was fully conscious that I
thought it was good because I established a relation between it and people I
like eating food I like while drinking it. Even if I had not seen this
relation, I would not mind. I for one do not want to see the day when trying to
sell your fish the best you can - without deceive - becomes immoral or illegal.
Before someone says I'm being "tricked in a deeper level" and buying other
stuff without noticing, I don't pick brands. I pick whatever is cheaper at the
moment since I'm both frugal and unemployed. |
|
|
"My, my, that's a spicy meatball"
It was an alka seltzer commercial, didn't help with their sales, but sales of spaghetti supposedly increased at the time. Just because the advertising didn't work for its intended purpose doesn't mean the advertising didn't work on you. The manufacture selling the ad wants you to go to the store and think about fish because there is a good chance you will buy their product. The manufacture buying expensive ads also tends to have the bright colored boxes in the store, they are placed at eye level, there are likely other ad campaigns in the store to direct you to their product. In the end there is a higher probability of 'an average person' buying their product over the other brands. The other fish brands get sales benefit at their competitors expense.