- Some marketers, concerned that data isn’t telling them everything they need to know, are considering increasing their use of personal interviews in research. Meanwhile, some ad agencies are looking to hire more people from rural areas as they rethink the popular use of aspirational messaging showcasing a ritzy life on the two metropolitan coasts. One company is also weighing whether to open more local offices around the world, where the people who create ads are closer to the people who see them.
And this paragraph
- “The election will have spooked the liberal elite away from high concept, ‘make the world a better place’” advertising to “a more down-to-earth ‘tell me what you will do for me’ approach” said Robert Senior, worldwide chief executive of Saatchi & Saatchi, a creative firm owned by Publicis Groupe.
The filter bubble many of these people live in is popping. I can only see this as a good thing, maybe some of the people in this country that have been ignored for a few decades will get some airtime, even if only in adverts.
Reveals a deeply disingenuous concept of how advertising works. But that's okay because it's generally acknowledged that if you're still hunting broadcast dollars you're playing to dying rednecks anyway. Which is okay 'cuz you're dying too. Ad budgets are down about 70% since 2000 and it's almost all online. Two thirds of the population of the United States is "coastal elites."
As was I. People forget that "flyover country" includes a lot of large international airports attached to thriving metropolises.
Isn't part of the reason ad budgets are down so much is because modern loyalty cards and the internet have allowed companies to target individuals much more effectively and for much less money than regular advertising? After all, why spend so much money on television, radio, and billboards when emails cost almost nothing?
-BanksyThe thing I hate the most about advertising is that it attracts all the bright, creative and ambitious young people, leaving us mainly with the slow and self-obsessed to become our artists.. Modern art is a disaster area. Never in the field of human history has so much been used by so many to say so little.
I've read this somewhere before. I think from you actually. I'm calling my art snob friend tomorrow and letting him know my opinion is validated by Bansky. Then he'll tell me Banksy is a poser. ::Shrugs:: He's smart, but sometimes there's no winning with that guy.
Woah. Woah. Let's be fair here. I was making a throw away joke here. I'm not a member of that generation of television of viewership. I had no say in the matter. That said, I too have been a victim of the fickle mistress known as network bullshittery. To this day it still pains me to think that Cartoon Network killed Samurai Jack before the story could ever be finished and replaced it with Yu-Gi-Oh of all things. Would I take Twilight Zone over Hee Haw? I dunno. I've never seen either but I'm guessing the former was better than the latter. Am I surprised that a show like Gunsmoke performed better than Gilligan's Island when it took over its time slot? Yeah. Kind of. That tv series had been going since the '50s. Do I have a valid argument here? Maybe. But I wouldn't even know how to begin defending it. But I must say sir, do not besmirch the good name of Green Acres. Eddie Albert and Eva Gabor were a wonderful comedy duo and as classic sitcoms go, that show is one of the better ones. Like The Dick Van Dyke Show, everyone on there seems to have a genuinely wonderful time enjoying what they're doing and it shows. I'd easily name it as one of my favorite sitcoms ever and I'm sure I'm not alone there.
Hey, let's be fair here. We're comparing apples and oranges, both targeted to completely different demographics. One is a sci-fi anthology that is full of well regarded stories and parables that is loved by so many people of various ages across the country. The other is a comedy show that has popular musical guest acts that's targeted towards fans of the country and bluegrass music demographic that is loved by so many people of various ages across the country. Both shows are well regarded and well remembered and both have their merits. Since I hear The Twilight Zone talked about more often than Hee-Haw means it's probably standing the test of time better. That doesn't mean Hee-Haw was crap.
We're not. Jim Aubrey made an active policy of cancelling "brainy" shows in favor of, I shit you not, "bosoms, broads, and fun". The limited resource of broadcast television was tilted away from Richard Matheson thinkpieces and towards this: There's been a lot of scolding in the past few weeks about how us "liberal media elites" have gotten our comeuppance because what the country wants is good old fashioned down home values, none of our cosmopolitan LGBTQ cerebral expositions on liberty and the like. And while I can't draw a direct line between TV getting stupider and Nixon taking the White House, I can sure as fuck draw a correlation. Hee Haw was crap. It was the only fucking thing on Saturdays, often hour after fucking hour of it. Back when there were four fucking channels and no VCRs, you got to watch what was on, which was Dukes of Fucking Hazard, Hee Fucking Haw and Press Your Fucking Luck. Twilight Zone? Yeah, that shit was on at 1am. Sure. Apples and oranges. But there's only one box, and it'll either have apples in it, or it'll have oranges in it. Fuck your oranges. Oranges are bullshit.
I'm not good at analyzing things, but part of me thinks the backlash is against materialism. People on TV always have fancy houses, fancy aparments, fancy cars, fancy clothes, fancy lives, etc. They're everywhere, from commercials to TV shows. It brings a sense of resentment in me and I'm sure I'm not alone in feeling that. That said, there's probably some truth to your coorelation and Nixon becoming president and my coorelation and Trump becoming president. This is a bit of a difficult discussion to have, because when it comes to comparing shows there's two ways about it. Either we compare the shows as fruit in general, so then one can arguably be better than the other, though preferences for apples over oranges or vise versa might color that opinion. Or we can compare the apple to other apple and the oranges to other oranges. I'm personally inclined to say "Woah. I'm a berries kind of guy and I haven't had either that particular apple nor that particular orange but I've heard good things about both from people who's opinions I value."There's been a lot of scolding in the past few weeks about how us "liberal media elites" have gotten our comeuppance because what the country wants is good old fashioned down home values, none of our cosmopolitan LGBTQ cerebral expositions on liberty and the like. And while I can't draw a direct line between TV getting stupider and Nixon taking the White House, I can sure as fuck draw a correlation.
You're talking to someone who makes reality TV for a living. I can say with no quaver in my voice that I am actively contributing to making the country a worse place. And we all do it, because those are the jobs available, because we give the people what they want, and what they want is SHIT. I will not celebrate shit.