Samsung Galaxy Ad Misleads With Fake Interviews

unassimilatible writes "A Samsung ad campaign for the latest Galaxy Tab is misleading, to say the least. Actors pretending to be real people in fake interviews in a fake magazine misquoting a bad first-gen Galaxy tab review, are exposed — by the actual review writer. Netizens 'are having fun pointing out other curious things about the interviews, such as the fact that "leading New York real-estate CEO Joseph Kolinski" raves about the 8.9-inch Galaxy Tab even though the only 8.9-inch Tabs that Samsung itself had on hand at CTIA were non-working models.' Kolinski is actually an actor, not a CEO, Jim."

Comments

Re:I'm confused...

[kent_eh]

So wait... I'm confused, who do we hate again?

Marketing people. They'll lie equally about a product we like and one we hate.

Re:If willing suspension of disbelief works...

[martin-boundary]

Let's be clear. The whole point of putting people disguised as patients and doctors in ads is because the majority of ordinary people actually believe they are real patients and doctors. You know it, I know it, advertisers know it. It's a lie designed to bring in customers, and it works.

So what's your beef? You want to pretend such psychological tricks aren't evil because you're bored of someone pointing out the obvious? Or maybe you're just a troll who likes to be contrarian?

Re:If willing suspension of disbelief works...

[martin-boundary]

Sorry, I think you're confusing the purpose of the ad with its form. Being entertaining is the form, but entertainment is not the purpose: The purpose is to convince people to buy VW cars, and that's propaganda.

Similarly: Nigerian spam messages are usually funny, but their purpose is to scam people.

Re:If willing suspension of disbelief works...

[ScrewMaster]

Similarly: Nigerian spam messages are usually funny, but their purpose is to scam people.

Not quite. The 419ers aren't trying to be funny or entertaining ... they're intended to be taken seriously (and by the people that fall for them, they are.) That the rest of us find them hilarious is irrelevant.

Um. Business as usual? Or didn't you know?

[flimflammer]

Do people still honestly believe that commercials/advertisements/testimonials portraying consumers offering their opinions on the product are genuine?

This is business as usual. I would wager a guess at 95% of all commercials don't use genuine consumers. The remaining 5% (Vonage for example) have that little notice at the bottom that says something to the effect of "We offered them products and services for their endorsement in this commercial."

Re:Um. Business as usual? Or didn't you know?

[GNUALMAFUERTE]

There is a HUGE difference.

Ads with fake customers/doctors/specialists on it don't tell you at any time that those are REAL. They don't tell you that they are fake, either.

If anybody asks, then they'll tell you, sure, they are actors. Some people do realize that fact, most don't, but even if you do realize it's fake, it still sort of works at a subconscious level.

In the Galaxy 2 presentation, Samsung's engineers say "It's good to see this REAL LIFE experiences", etc, etc. (Emphasis is NOT mine, they actually put the emphasis on the word REAL) ... several times. Now, in most cases they just let you assume that they are real customers, in this case, they are lying to you.

For example, Chinese manufacturers put "3G support" on most of their tablets. If you ask, they'll tell you that it "Supports external 3G". That is, you can connect a modem to it through USB and it'll work. Same thing for GPS support. Now, sure, it's not honest, but it's not as bad as if they were telling you "Internal 3G, just insert your sim card", and it didn't have internal 3G at all.

Re:Apple has won

[node 3]

No, it's regarded as pig shit by Apple afficionados, people that would believe in the infallibility of Apple even if it did turn out pig shit.

No, AC has it right. Android has been on tablets for what, half a year now? No one is buying them. I seem to recall a bunch of predictions back in March and April last year that by Fall 2010, iPad would be outsold by the plethora of inexpensive but more powerful Android tablets.

Instead, iPad completely owns the tablet market. Android is barely a footnote.

The rest of us look at the overall value proposition, and may or may not decide to buy Apple based upon our actual needs.

That's funny. Do you really think the average consumer is going to methodically evaluate the iPad compared to Android tablets and make a choice based on specs?

Judging the overall value proposition will happen, but it won't be made based on the criteria you are thinking it will be. 15 million people made a value proposition in 2010 for the iPad. Right now Apple cannot make iPad 2's fast enough.

The phenomenal success of Android in the handset market shows very clearly that not everyone considers Apple a "must buy." And that's only reasonable: no single product, or product line, can hope to serve everyone's needs.

No, the "phenomenal" success of Android in the handset market (nice selective criteria there, iOS has greater market share than Android overall) shows that people have multiple criteria when choosing a cell phone beyond simply the OS and quality of the phone. This includes things price (how many of those Android phones were free with a contract?), carrier choice, and a physical keyboard. None of these things apply to the iPad.

On the tablet, Android has to compete with iOS directly, and so far it has failed miserably.