You don't want to think about a new pair of sneakers or getting a sandwich. You bought the game to play it
And thats just the thing. Of COURSE traditional sports advertising didn't work! They were measuring the wrong targets response. I wonder how effective ads in a stadium are for the pro athletes since that would be the accurate comparison. Here's a hint to marketers...when we're focusing on playing the game, we ignore passive ads on the sidelines and billboards. If you make your ads more intrusive to counter this, we won't buy your game.
On the bright side, selling advertisements subsidizes the cost of the game for the consumer at the expense of the product being advertised.
Oh, silly me, I'll just ask Valve and EA for some money back from CS:S and BF2142 because since they just stuck ads in there, I should be saving some money right?
Don't be so naive. The companies see it as an additional revenue stream, not as a way to pass on savings to the customers.
Anyone have a truckload of coal to spare? I know someone who needs it wrapped, individually, and dumped on their front door.
Why not just throw it through their window...aiming for their tree of course. If any glass happens to get in the way, well, nobody is perfect. And if you happen to be throwing red hot coals well, tis the Season!
Just out of curiosity, how is it that he made that much freaking money off of a domain name? I'm sure he had ads and affiliate stuff all over the place but how in the hell did he make THAT much, it seems WAAAY more than he should have been able to make.
Can any adult webmasters weigh in on the amounts of money to be made in your business? How much would you say your "average" pr0n site pulls in? What amount of traffic is required for that?
I work for an ad agency and all I have to say is HAHA! I've been against Steam from day one because I KNEW they'd pull shit like this. Once they have a captive audience (and you'd better believe they have you by the balls with Steam) they can cram as much advertising down your throat as they like. Don't like it? Play another game. But the vast majority will play CS still and will suck it down.
Do I think this is a good thing? HELL NO. Parent's point and the Grandparent's points are dead on. They are changing the terms of their agreement on me. I'm sure they have a clause in their contract that lets them, but that doesn't mean I have to be happy about it, or play their crappy ad-infested game.
Thank you. I don't have the patience to keep pointing out the obvious to this lunatic. I have given hard examples and responded point by point...and he goes and rants on and on about how viral marketing is affecting people like a disease and all this other personal attack crap, which borders on slander.
Its quite obvious you have put up your walls and are refusing to listen to logic but I'll try addressing you point by point.
If the masses actually NEEDED products, they would find them. But advertising isn't about helping people find products they need, it is about making people want products they don't have.
And how would they go about finding them? How about the families that don't know jack about the internet? I'd like some actual examples of how they could find out about things. In terms of need vs want, as another poster kindly pointed out ads don't make you WANT anything. The flaw is in the viewer who feels they are missing something from their lives and then decides upon seeing an ad that that is the solution. That's how the majority of it works. I'm not going to pretend there aren't scummy advertisers who prey on the insecurities of people. There are. And a lot of advertising laws are designed to prevent that.
The military-industrial complex is also a multi-billion dollar a year industry. Yet it adds nothing of value to human life. In fact it does just the opposite, taking all value from human lives by taking those lives. If there were no armies anywhere, there would be no need for armies. The child labor industry makes billions, too. Just because something is popular or highly valued does not mean it is useful in relieving human suffering.
First, you are flat out wrong. Of all of the government organizations out there, the military has contributed more to society (and humanity) than any other. For all of the wars that are waged and people that are killed, how many have been saved due to the ridiculous medical breakthroughs that have come from military sponsored research? There is a lot of evidence to back this up so I suggest you spend some time reading on wikipedia. For starters we wouldn't even be having this discussion now if it weren't for DARPA. If there were no armies anywhere there would STILL be a need a for them as law enforcement is always needed, and that is what the military is at its base.
Providing entertainment is NOT what good advertising is about. An ad that was entertaining but sold no products would be a miserable failure. Making people do things they otherwise wouldn't is what advertising is about. Marketers and advertisers create demand for products that, in a sane world, would fail. If advertising didn't work like black magic mind control, it wouldn't be a multi billion dollar a year industry.
Its statements like these that go to show how little you actually know about the subject you are debating. First off, I AM an ad exec, so don't you dare tell me what is and is not good advertising until you first provide your credentials. Providing entertainment builds brand equity which in turn can lead to a purchase further down the line or a mention to a friend who might purchase, etc. In regards to making people do things...nobody is holding a fucking gun to someones head saying buy our product or else. If the consumer is too insecure and too stupid to realize that THEY DON"T HAVE TO BUY THE FUCKING PRODUCT, then that's their problem. If advertising worked like black magic mind control the world would not be the way it is today. People would be living on the streets from having all of their hard earned money spent on products that cost nothing to make since...you know...rational thought would not kick in and say "I don't need this and I can't afford this".
Advertisers are like virus writers for the mind. The phrase 'viral marketing' is a dead giveaway. If you are an advertiser, you are a virus writer. You are scum who takes advantage of bugs in people's mental operating system.
Again, showing your lack of any understanding of the industry....viral marketing was termed viral because of how it spreads organically by people passing the word along to their friends. Not because it "hack
You've touched on something very important in your comment which I really appreciated. The internet as we know it today is the seed of what will one day inevitably be the technological equivelant of telepathy once we get direct brain hookups to the web. If that doesn't qualify as another sense I don't know what the hell does. This flow of data is vital for us. To be without this new data is a disadvantage in todays society.
I would expand on my argument but I'm at work and I have to get a lot of stuff done. I'm chatting with s3xygurl15, buying Xmas presents on Amazon and selling my old Xbox on eBay. I also need to email my mom to see if she can bring me some ramen noodles or mac-n-cheese, since I won't have time to eat later 'cause I'm needed on a WoW raid in an hour.
I fear this discussion will be filled with people talking about this in two different ways. Those who think this is concerning the myriad of tasks that people use the net for in their daily lives, and those who think this is about all of the things you can do on the internet that can indeed lead you to addiction. Take myself for example.
In the clinical sense, I would definitely say I'm addicted. If I don't constantly check on my news sites, social networking sites torrent sites and email I begin to feel very anxious. When I was on a vacation without computers once I felt like I was going through withdrawl. You see, if you're away from it for a little bit, who knows what you'll miss because of how quickly things happen now. And yes, I realize that isn't a rational fear, but addictions and mental disorders rarely are.
I have a similar mouse from years ago actually that is a gyroscopic wireless mouse. Problem is even with tweaking the sensitivity its still hard to use which is why it has a button on there you have to hold when you want to use it so that the cursor doesn't just fly all over the place all the time.
It is extremely useful for my current setup though where I have my 40" hidef LCD hooked up via DVI->HDMI to my computer. Once I get a wireless keyboard I'll be able to play WoW from my couch!
The other cool thing is that you can have multiple mice plugged in at the same time, and both will work. They just both control the same cursor.
These are no Lawnmower man mice, but they're close.
As one of the other posters above me said, if you just compared advertising to baby-torturing you need a serious reality check. Without advertising, the masses would NEVER know about most of the helpful products in their lives. And I am not saying any one in particular, but I'm thinking about ma and pa out on the ranch, not you and me with the net at our fingertips.
And in terms of consuming resources and creating nothing of value...well, I'll let the fact that advertising is a multi-billion dollar industry and the share prices of the publicly held ad agencies do my talking for me.
And let me ask you about viral content that people find amusing and pass on to their friends. How does that stack up to say...baby-torturing. Providing entertainment is what good advertising is about. If there's a product message in there, who cares, you're free to ignore it as I frequently do. You don't HAVE to go out and buy a new Ford because a commercial of theirs made you laugh. Welcome to being a Slashbot. Make large sweeping generalizations about an industry you know absolutely NOTHING about (I can tell from the way you've written about it) and then when I have you backed into a corner go ahead and start spouting off Bill Hicks as if that suddenly lends some validation and credibility to your argument.
There is more to hunting than pulling the trigger as other posters have pointed out. I suggest you read those posts.
That was actually my point...that they can't participate in those other aspects other than pulling the trigger...so why do it and be a threat to others who may be in the woods?
News flash, that hard-working ad exec cannot afford his third Mercedes...he's probably still working on his first. The average account executive makes about 40-60k/year. If you're talking in terms of upper management, then you're talking closer to 80k-120k. There are of course exceptions, but please do not go spreading false rumors about the industry. Advertising does not pay very well in general except for those who own agencies, or directors/producers who can demand a lot for their work.
Spoken like someone who has ZERO clue what advertising is actually all about. Every industry has its evil people who give the rest a bad name and advertising is no different, but that certainly does not mean the entire industry is evil. Of course such a logical point would still probably get modded down in this discussion.
I don't see how you can make wild assumptions about the morality of the/. user-base from observing many people who obviously have a different sense of humor than you do making jokes. Its called grave humor and it applies to anything sad. Does this suck? YES. Big time. But making a joke about it does not lessen the seriousness of it, it just lets us have a much needed chuckle.
Try pulling the stick out of your ass before you go judging others.
How about "Look at the stupid glasses that guy's wearing!
You bring up a very good point. This technology has existed for a while. Unfortunately its developed by geeks, not fashion accessory designers. What I mean by that is if it is not as sexy as an iPod, or a Bluetooth earpiece etc. then it will not be picked up by the mainstream. And the mainstream is DYING for something like this if they can make it sleek, sexy, cheap and simple enough for the mass market.
If they made one of these suckers able to plug into a video iPod or other PMP, or a media cellphone, then this thing could be a huge hit. But that is the no-brainer part. Until they solve the aesthetics of such a device it will go the same route as calculator watches...something extremely functional and useful that only geeks end up wearing because it isn't stylish enough for the masses and thus the technology really never gets picked up and developed to its fullest potential.
But if they can overcome this hurdle I fully expect it to be common to see people walking around with these on the streets, perhaps just a monocle version.
Please don't think of this post as being heartless. I fully sympathize with people who have been robbed of their sight...but I'm sorry...there are just some things that your handicap prevents you from doing, and being out in the woods, where other people could be, pulling the trigger on a gun that you aren't aiming is NOT acceptable.
Lets say they accidentally shot someone somehow...who is liable? The person who told the blind person to fire or the blind person for pulling the trigger?
I'm sorry if I sound like a dick, but life isn't fair. Being blind means that hunting (as well as driving and a whole host of other things) is just one of those things that you are not going to be able to do.
I'd be really curious as to what their motivation is as well...I mean, not trying to judge...but isn't the point of hunting the skill involved in tracking and bagging your kill? If someone else is doing all of that for you, really the only thing you're doing is pulling a trigger that kills an animal. I'd go so far as to say that the blind person would really just be doing the easy wrap-up of someone elses kill.
But this brings up another point...if all they're doing is pulling the trigger since they can't sight targets...why not just let them loose in a room with some ambient forest noises, some animal noise sound board (complete with death sounds) and a fan or 2 to simulate wind and let them loose with a gun loaded with blanks?
You responded to my post so I assumed you were accusing me since you did not state otherwise. Recheck it.
If I was sued for downloading torrents of tv shows that I could watch on my paid for cable, I would actually have an EXCELLENT chance of winning. Please see the beta-max ruling for reference. I also consulted with a couple lawyer friends on this issue...so I'm not quite sure what legal knowledge you have backing your side of things.
I'm really curious though why you think that my claim of knowing my rights is laughable. I happen to take these issues very seriously and look into them to educate myself. I don't see what is laughable about that. Or maybe you think that just because something is complicated that someone on Slashdot surely can't grasp it.
I'm accusing you of arrogance because that is all you display with nothing to back you up. There is nothing hypocritical about what I have posted and the manner in which I've responded. Perhaps you need to reread the definition of a hypocrite.
You need to be knocked the hell off your pedestal.
You accuse me of stealing when I'm doing no such thing. I get cable as it is for my TV. What I am doing is making full use of my rights as a consumer to timeshift a service I already pay for and watch it when I want and archive it. And for the record, I'm not a teen, I'm done with college, have a job, and am smart enough to realize that those who are paying for shows off of iTunes are either doing it for the mainstream convenience because they "get" iTunes, or because they are too ignorant to know their rights as a consumer and therefore don't mind the stations (and Apple) double-dipping for content they shouldn't be paying twice for.
Of course, if you don't have cable and that's why you pay for them, thats one thing, but you need to get your facts straight before you start throwing around accusations with very detailed legal definitions.
One of the things that made The Deep the best was that as they keep going deeper and deeper, they eventually unveil life that has never before been filmed because nobody had gone that deep before. While today this stuff is kind of old news...its absolutely fascinating.
Although one thing I always wonder about this series....are they adding their own foley (sound effects)? Or did they actually put mics out there and this is what those suckers actually sound like? I'm particularly curious with those shrimp that shoot glowing bolts of goo. That sounded pretty intense.
Just an anecdote, but I've spent far more on TV shows this year on iTunes than I ever did on music.
That sucks. I haven't spent a dime on those since I timeshift my TV by downloading torrents. They even have hi-def ones that look great on my new TV. Why are people paying for TV from Apple again?
What sort of options do the students have at this point? Is the school in any way liable? Or is this just going to be one of those instances where they say "oops, we were hacked, so sorry but nothing we can do" and leave the students screwed (once again)?
All I know is that the school better not be heavily promoting its computer security courses.
I knew I'd see some of these. For any slashdotters who want to see a FASCINATING and beautifully produced BBC documentary on this, I recommend episode 2 "The Deep" from their award-winning "The Blue Planet" series. Here's a direct.torrent link.
Slashdot Mirror
And thats just the thing. Of COURSE traditional sports advertising didn't work! They were measuring the wrong targets response. I wonder how effective ads in a stadium are for the pro athletes since that would be the accurate comparison. Here's a hint to marketers...when we're focusing on playing the game, we ignore passive ads on the sidelines and billboards. If you make your ads more intrusive to counter this, we won't buy your game.
Oh, silly me, I'll just ask Valve and EA for some money back from CS:S and BF2142 because since they just stuck ads in there, I should be saving some money right?
Don't be so naive. The companies see it as an additional revenue stream, not as a way to pass on savings to the customers.
Why not just throw it through their window...aiming for their tree of course. If any glass happens to get in the way, well, nobody is perfect. And if you happen to be throwing red hot coals well, tis the Season!
Can any adult webmasters weigh in on the amounts of money to be made in your business? How much would you say your "average" pr0n site pulls in? What amount of traffic is required for that?
Do I think this is a good thing? HELL NO. Parent's point and the Grandparent's points are dead on. They are changing the terms of their agreement on me. I'm sure they have a clause in their contract that lets them, but that doesn't mean I have to be happy about it, or play their crappy ad-infested game.
And how would they go about finding them? How about the families that don't know jack about the internet? I'd like some actual examples of how they could find out about things. In terms of need vs want, as another poster kindly pointed out ads don't make you WANT anything. The flaw is in the viewer who feels they are missing something from their lives and then decides upon seeing an ad that that is the solution. That's how the majority of it works. I'm not going to pretend there aren't scummy advertisers who prey on the insecurities of people. There are. And a lot of advertising laws are designed to prevent that.
First, you are flat out wrong. Of all of the government organizations out there, the military has contributed more to society (and humanity) than any other. For all of the wars that are waged and people that are killed, how many have been saved due to the ridiculous medical breakthroughs that have come from military sponsored research? There is a lot of evidence to back this up so I suggest you spend some time reading on wikipedia. For starters we wouldn't even be having this discussion now if it weren't for DARPA. If there were no armies anywhere there would STILL be a need a for them as law enforcement is always needed, and that is what the military is at its base.
Its statements like these that go to show how little you actually know about the subject you are debating. First off, I AM an ad exec, so don't you dare tell me what is and is not good advertising until you first provide your credentials. Providing entertainment builds brand equity which in turn can lead to a purchase further down the line or a mention to a friend who might purchase, etc. In regards to making people do things...nobody is holding a fucking gun to someones head saying buy our product or else. If the consumer is too insecure and too stupid to realize that THEY DON"T HAVE TO BUY THE FUCKING PRODUCT, then that's their problem. If advertising worked like black magic mind control the world would not be the way it is today. People would be living on the streets from having all of their hard earned money spent on products that cost nothing to make since...you know...rational thought would not kick in and say "I don't need this and I can't afford this".
Again, showing your lack of any understanding of the industry....viral marketing was termed viral because of how it spreads organically by people passing the word along to their friends. Not because it "hack
I fear this discussion will be filled with people talking about this in two different ways. Those who think this is concerning the myriad of tasks that people use the net for in their daily lives, and those who think this is about all of the things you can do on the internet that can indeed lead you to addiction. Take myself for example.
In the clinical sense, I would definitely say I'm addicted. If I don't constantly check on my news sites, social networking sites torrent sites and email I begin to feel very anxious. When I was on a vacation without computers once I felt like I was going through withdrawl. You see, if you're away from it for a little bit, who knows what you'll miss because of how quickly things happen now. And yes, I realize that isn't a rational fear, but addictions and mental disorders rarely are.
It is extremely useful for my current setup though where I have my 40" hidef LCD hooked up via DVI->HDMI to my computer. Once I get a wireless keyboard I'll be able to play WoW from my couch!
The other cool thing is that you can have multiple mice plugged in at the same time, and both will work. They just both control the same cursor.
These are no Lawnmower man mice, but they're close.
And in terms of consuming resources and creating nothing of value...well, I'll let the fact that advertising is a multi-billion dollar industry and the share prices of the publicly held ad agencies do my talking for me.
And let me ask you about viral content that people find amusing and pass on to their friends. How does that stack up to say...baby-torturing. Providing entertainment is what good advertising is about. If there's a product message in there, who cares, you're free to ignore it as I frequently do. You don't HAVE to go out and buy a new Ford because a commercial of theirs made you laugh. Welcome to being a Slashbot. Make large sweeping generalizations about an industry you know absolutely NOTHING about (I can tell from the way you've written about it) and then when I have you backed into a corner go ahead and start spouting off Bill Hicks as if that suddenly lends some validation and credibility to your argument.
That was actually my point...that they can't participate in those other aspects other than pulling the trigger...so why do it and be a threat to others who may be in the woods?
Spoken like someone who has ZERO clue what advertising is actually all about. Every industry has its evil people who give the rest a bad name and advertising is no different, but that certainly does not mean the entire industry is evil. Of course such a logical point would still probably get modded down in this discussion.
Try pulling the stick out of your ass before you go judging others.
You bring up a very good point. This technology has existed for a while. Unfortunately its developed by geeks, not fashion accessory designers. What I mean by that is if it is not as sexy as an iPod, or a Bluetooth earpiece etc. then it will not be picked up by the mainstream. And the mainstream is DYING for something like this if they can make it sleek, sexy, cheap and simple enough for the mass market.
If they made one of these suckers able to plug into a video iPod or other PMP, or a media cellphone, then this thing could be a huge hit. But that is the no-brainer part. Until they solve the aesthetics of such a device it will go the same route as calculator watches...something extremely functional and useful that only geeks end up wearing because it isn't stylish enough for the masses and thus the technology really never gets picked up and developed to its fullest potential.
But if they can overcome this hurdle I fully expect it to be common to see people walking around with these on the streets, perhaps just a monocle version.
Lets say they accidentally shot someone somehow...who is liable? The person who told the blind person to fire or the blind person for pulling the trigger?
I'm sorry if I sound like a dick, but life isn't fair. Being blind means that hunting (as well as driving and a whole host of other things) is just one of those things that you are not going to be able to do.
I'd be really curious as to what their motivation is as well...I mean, not trying to judge...but isn't the point of hunting the skill involved in tracking and bagging your kill? If someone else is doing all of that for you, really the only thing you're doing is pulling a trigger that kills an animal. I'd go so far as to say that the blind person would really just be doing the easy wrap-up of someone elses kill.
But this brings up another point...if all they're doing is pulling the trigger since they can't sight targets...why not just let them loose in a room with some ambient forest noises, some animal noise sound board (complete with death sounds) and a fan or 2 to simulate wind and let them loose with a gun loaded with blanks?
If I was sued for downloading torrents of tv shows that I could watch on my paid for cable, I would actually have an EXCELLENT chance of winning. Please see the beta-max ruling for reference. I also consulted with a couple lawyer friends on this issue...so I'm not quite sure what legal knowledge you have backing your side of things.
I'm really curious though why you think that my claim of knowing my rights is laughable. I happen to take these issues very seriously and look into them to educate myself. I don't see what is laughable about that. Or maybe you think that just because something is complicated that someone on Slashdot surely can't grasp it.
I'm accusing you of arrogance because that is all you display with nothing to back you up. There is nothing hypocritical about what I have posted and the manner in which I've responded. Perhaps you need to reread the definition of a hypocrite.
You need to be knocked the hell off your pedestal.
You accuse me of stealing when I'm doing no such thing. I get cable as it is for my TV. What I am doing is making full use of my rights as a consumer to timeshift a service I already pay for and watch it when I want and archive it. And for the record, I'm not a teen, I'm done with college, have a job, and am smart enough to realize that those who are paying for shows off of iTunes are either doing it for the mainstream convenience because they "get" iTunes, or because they are too ignorant to know their rights as a consumer and therefore don't mind the stations (and Apple) double-dipping for content they shouldn't be paying twice for.
Of course, if you don't have cable and that's why you pay for them, thats one thing, but you need to get your facts straight before you start throwing around accusations with very detailed legal definitions.
Although one thing I always wonder about this series....are they adding their own foley (sound effects)? Or did they actually put mics out there and this is what those suckers actually sound like? I'm particularly curious with those shrimp that shoot glowing bolts of goo. That sounded pretty intense.
That sucks. I haven't spent a dime on those since I timeshift my TV by downloading torrents. They even have hi-def ones that look great on my new TV. Why are people paying for TV from Apple again?
>
All I know is that the school better not be heavily promoting its computer security courses.
BBC The Blue Planet: The Deep .torrent