Re: New Apple Ads - Slams MS Vista in Funny Ways!
Re: New Apple Ads - Slams MS Vista in Funny Ways!
"Mayor of R'lyeh" <mayor.of.rlyeh@gmail.com> stated in post
pvijj3ha50kv75i22nt2bnm70k0s5emv3v@4ax.com on 11/13/07 9:08 AM:
>>>>>>>>> Companies spend a lot of money on commercials... because the work.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Something there's actually zero evidence for.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> So you think companies spend... what... millions or maybe billions of
>>>>>>> dollars a year on commercials even though they have no reasonable
>>>>>>> expectation that they work. Seems... well... unlikely.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> Still its true. Consider that what many consider the 'best' commercial
>>>>>> campaign ever - The California Raisins- saw a decrease in raisin sales
>>>>>> during its run.
>>>>>>
>>>>> I would like you to support the rather silly idea that there is "zero
>>>>> evidence" that commercials work. That does not mean that *all*
>>>>> commercials work - clearly they do not, nor does it mean you can always
>>>>> figure out why products gain or lose sales.
>>>>>
>>>> So this is what you're reduced to? Insisting that people prove negatives?
>>>
>>> You made an unsupportable and, frankly, rather silly claim. Of course you
>>> cannot prove it, support it, or even suggest why it would be true.
>
> I'm noticing that you're unable to refute it.
Well, other than the multitude of scholarly research articles I pointed to,
of course. LOL!
OK, let's get a bit more specific for you. Before I pointed you to this:
<http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=commercials+television+effectiveness>
I assumed you would be able to click on a few of the links and actually
understand them. My mistake. Let me click a few for you:
Link 1 Abstract:
The impact of media sources including televised political
commercials, television news, and newspapers on candidate
issue position knowledge and issue-based candidate
evaluations is explored. From previous research, we expect
that citizens who recall political TV commercials and are
more attentive to newspaper political coverage will have
greater knowledge of candidates' stances on issues than those
watching political news on TV. Citizens recalling political
ads and those reading the newspaper are also expected to be
more likely to evaluate the candidates using substantive
issues. Regression analysis of the 1992 American National
Election Study data. Citizens recalling political advertising
have the most accurate knowledge of the candidates' issue
positions and are the most likely to use domestic and foreign
issues to evaluate the presidential candidates. Consumption
of negative advertising is also associated with greater issue
knowledge and use of issues in evaluations late in the
campaign.
Shows a correlation... not great evidence, but not "zero support", either.
Link 2 Abstract:
Many advertisers have argued that 15-second television
commercials
15s) should be used only to reinforce effects
created by longer commercials. However, this recommendation
is based on studies that have several weaknesses, including
use of single exposure levels, established commercials, and
learning as the primary dependent variable. The authors
report the findings of a laboratory experiment in which they
compared the effectiveness of :15s and :30s by using novel
commercials with different message appeals (informational vs.
emotional), exposing subjects multiple times, and employing
multiple dependent variables. They find that informational
:15s are as effective as informational :30s in several
situations and can be used as stand-alone units. They also
show that emotional :30s are superior to emotional :15s in
influencing a viewer's learning of brand name and attitude.
The reasons for and the implications of these findings are
considered.
Wait! Talks about studies that have looked into the effects of commercials
and talk about different ones have superior effects on learning "brand name
and attitude".
Well, that is clearly more than "zero support"!
Link 3 Abstract:
Does television advertising produce sales by changing
attitudes? Not always, says Herbert E. Krugman in his
presidential address before the American Association for
Public Opinion Research on May 15, 1965. It may do so, he
states, just by changing perceptions of the product in the
course of merely shifting the relative salience of attitudes,
especially when the purchaser is not particularly involved in
the message. This arresting thesis has important implications
for noncommercial as well as commercial persuasion efforts.
Looks at the reasons *why* commercials work... saying they may work "just by
changing perceptions of the product".
Much better than "zero support".
And on and on... skim, say, the next 5 or 10 on your own.
--
The direct use of force is such a poor solution to any problem, it is
generally employed only by small children and large nations. - David
Friedman