Advertising

Lies, Damn Lies and…

by

One of my academic advisors used to say that any argument without numbers is a religious one. And we all know how productive they are.

Being a numbers jock and P-Chemist, that statement resonated with me. It still does.

But then I went into business, and for a while my job involved the quantitative prediction of consumer behavior. Entering into the social sciences like that, where there is no ideological bias, just a financial incentive to get the model right, was good for me. It trained me to look at the instrument that was used to derive the numbers. To ask if the questioner was asking the right questions.

So my brain perked up when I saw this article on the decline of newspapers:

Big whoop. After several statistical triple back-flips, we now know that 96 percent of newspaper reading is done in the printed product. That’s like talking about modern transportation by pointing out that 96 percent of buggy drivers use buggy whips. Hello? We switched to cars 100 years ago.

Writing on the Nieman Journalism Lab Web site, Martin Langveld made some valid statistical conclusions about newspaper readership. The problem is that he was asking the wrong questions. It isn’t about newspapers; it’s about news.

Read more

Poorly Thought-Out Marketing Slogan

by

My son is watching TV and he sees an add in Microsoft’s new marketing campaign. Their slogan?

Windows: Life Without Walls

My son quipped, “If you don’t have any walls, why do you need windows?”

It’s the kind of joke that writes itself. Did no one at Microsoft or their ad agency think of this pun or the impression it creates? Seems to me like an unforced error.

Brain Rinse

by

“The cat, having sat upon a hot stove lid, will not sit upon a hot stove lid again. But he won’t sit upon a cold stove lid, either.” Mark Twain

My friend, former Chief Warrant Officer Jim Wright, has made several interesting posts on information warfare.

Of all the words he’s written on the subject, the most important quote is this one:

When information arrives, how many folks ask themselves: How was this information acquired? Is it complete? Is it accurate? Is it biased. Is it relevant? Is there enough detail? Do I accept it because it reinforces what I think I know, or do I reject it for the same reason? How can I verify it? How can I test it? If I can’t test and verify the information, do I accept it anyway? If so, why?

_

Those who fail to ask themselves such questions place themselves and those who depend on them, at a significant disadvantage – they will always be at the mercy of those who can observe the universe critically, adjust their worldview appropriately, decide and act.

I have an affinity for that type of inquiry because I am an accredited professional in information warfare I hold an MBA with a subspecialty in marketing. Some segment of society wages information warfare on the individual practically every day of his or her life. And the individual wages it right back.

Read more

The Good Old Days

by

Cross posted at LITGM.

Good Idea, Wrong Place to Advertise It

by

This morning on the radio I heard a promotional advertisement for Feed the Pig.   I have heard things about this site before and decided to check it out.   It is outstanding.   They have calendars so you can see ways to save money throughout the year, and there are  many tips on how to pinch pennies.

Basically the concept is to teach people how to save, knock down their debt, and generally help them to not waste money  (things that many modern day Americans are horrible at).   I can’t really see a downside to this.   The site is sponsored by the American Institute of CPAs.   I am not sure why they put up the site, but I wholeheartedly support it.

I give the site a big thumbs up, but think I will give their choice of advertising venues a small thumbs down.   I was reminded this morning of  Feed the Pig  while listening to Bloomberg Radio on XM  on the way in to work, getting my business news for the day.  

**Quick aside:   I have three choices of business news to pick from on XM:   Fox Business, CNBC and Bloomberg.   I choose Bloomberg because it is just the facts, with interviews sprinkled in – and the interviews are with interesting and smart people.   In addition, the interviews are always respectful and low key even if people are disagreeing, unlike some of the other places where there are a bunch of idiots yelling and screaming at each other.   In other words, Bloomberg Radio seems more professional to me.**

I really don’t think that anyone who seeks out Bloomberg Radio doesn’t understand the simple concepts of saving and debt that Feed the Pig is trying to teach.   I just think that these are wasted advertising dollars.   A better target IMHO  would be radio stations, magazines  or TV networks that reach places where the people are perhaps not educated or are  unaware of the concepts that Feed the Pig is educating people on.

It is almost like putting ads up for scrap booking during an NFL football game.   Not the right demographic.

Cross posted at LITGM.