iRant: Stupid annoying adverts!

I'll be the first to tell you that I'm not the brightest spark in the box. In fact I love to put that across before I'm misunderstood. Due to my knowledge of this fact, I like to take my time to think about things. I can't stand to be rushed to come to a quick conclusion because, like taking your car to the car wash, it never really gets as clean as if you took your time and slowly went over each detail yourself.

So some people will have an opinion out immediately to catch the 'wave', whilst I'll come in like the tortoise.

Which then leads to this rant...

I never studied Marketing or Advertising as stand alone subjects at university, nor have I taken particular interest in them since. I used to put it down to necessity. Its never been beneficial for me to be proficient in either study, although I do appreciate that knowledge, no matter how under used, is not useless.

I know Marketing and Advertising are different subjects, but I consider the underlying principles to be the same, or at least remarkably similar. That principle is isolating a target audience and inveigling them into buying 'something'.

I've specifically used the word inveigle with regard to this subject, because I'm of the opinion that the moment 'something' has to be advertised it is beyond necessity. As part of our natural survival technique there are 'needed' things that we have no choice but to seek if we wish to survive/live, with that said everything else is advertising.

So now that we've established that marketing and advertising in fundamental real life terms are superfluous, lets take a look into the technique and examples of how these two methods of creating awareness are utilised.

Marketing is the process used to determine what products or services may be of interest to customers, and the strategy to use in sales, communications and business development.[1] It generates the strategy that underlies sales techniques, business communication, and business developments.[1] It is an integrated process through which companies build strong customer relationships and create value for their customers and for themselves.

In short, that basically means "Let's find inventive ways to raise awareness about the 'something' we wish to push this season"

Advertising is a form of communication used to persuade an audience (viewers, readers or listeners) to take some action with respect to products, ideas, or services. Most commonly, the desired result is to drive consumer behavior with respect to a commercial offering, although political and ideological advertising is also common.

So again, that basically means "Let's raise awareness about the 'something' we wish to push this season"

So now we've gotten over the drug dealer parallels...O_o

Let's get to the adverts themselves, I do not for a moment buy into the idea that 'Sex sells'.
Now before you start rolling your eyes, I'm a member of the target audience that is supposed to be most susceptible to this 'Sex sells' idea and mantra and I'm telling you right now, that a semi-clad or naked woman won't make me anymore likely to buy, or want to buy a product. In fact I'll go as far as to say that, said women in advertising campaigns actually draw your attention away from the product.

Let me give you an example: -




Now in this video, I saw, women, rubbing themselves provocatively, bending over and removing their bra's to expose breasts (that I didn't get to see) to the world. I have no idea what was on sale, because I was waaaay to busy hoping I'd see a nipple or areola. This advert thus becomes self defeating...

As if that wasn't bad enough, take a look at this: -




Now, allow me to be COMPLETELY honest with you, this advert, just made me want to copulate with my significant other. I think there were about 4 different women in this advert, but I can only be sure of seeing one....she was wet and showing me how pleasured she was for being wet...
Now this time around, I think it had something to do with a hair care product, possibly a shampoo, but that is purely because of the soap suds. Aside from that, it just made me want to have sex...notice how I have absolutely NO desire to buy anything?

The idea that 'Sex sells' is a complete FAIL!


Let us move away from lustful endeavors and consider the idea that comedy can sell a product, surely if an advert is funny and has a catchy song attached people will automatically want to buy the product being sold right?



I'm sorry but WHO APPROVES these adverts?!??!
The tirade of "We buy any car" ads with their stupid dance routines and tacky, crappy music annoyed me beyond rational reason.

I literally had waves of violence flow over me, EVERYTIME I heard this excrement I just wanted to dropkick my TV. Seriously who comes up with this stuff?

And just when I didn't think it was possible for there to be a worst advert: -



Somebody pray for me.

People have no desire to buy insurance off its own merit, what made the advertising agency think this song and dance, would in any way, make it more attractive?


The interesting thing that I note about this trend of stupid and annoying adverts, is they all seem to have popped up around the same era. I'm not suggesting stupid adverts didn't exist before cos they did, but 'in the old days' adverts seemed to meet purpose, get the message across and invariably encourage you to buy the product.

Example: -



There is absolutely no doubt what was on sale here, but the song was fun/silly and this is/was an enjoyable advert...I want to drink R-Whites Lemonade this very moment based on watching this ad! I even named the product in full! No sex, but I WANT the product.




Another stupid advert, but for some reason I wanted to buy a can of Tango to see if an orange man would even dare to try it...so I could kic....erm

Look I don't know what I'm trying to say in full here, but I do sense in all our gains in technology and sophistication we've lost site of 'something'.

Creativity in certain areas has become a numb reproduction process, where inaccurate replicas are made in honour of greatness but don't do the originals any real justice, example: -



vs



I'm sorry but, even when a formula for a great ad has been copied, the result is still not as compelling as the original...*sigh* I really don't know what to say....

In truth, I dislike adverts, but if they are a bug that one has to bare, please please PLEASE TV people, make them concise, enjoyable, original and relative.

Thank you please about it...

iRant because this has been getting on my nerves for a while!

iRant: It should have been different..pt2

The purpose of this 'iRantiMoan' blog, was to provide a means by which I could vent my grievances about things in the world that irk me. I trust most may come to that conclusion based on the name of this blog, or upon reading the intro or something...right?

I guess that is what makes this next posting kinda strange... its less of a 'rant' and more of an observation.

Right, firstly let me apologise to YOU the reader, I'm gathering if you live in the UK and haven't been in a coma or some crazy drug induced stoop-er for the last 2 months, you'd have heard about the 'London riots/uprising/looting/criminality'. Unfortunately for YOU, this 'observation' is about that I'm afraid (though I do suspect it'll turn into a rant too).

So...amidst all this media frenzy, political spin, purposeful mis-information, racial profiling, shifting and appointing of blame and selective degrees of repair action by demographic. I came to notice a few patterns, these patterns were both active and passive, but more than anything 'interesting'.

I guess the easiest way for me the break down these observations will be for me to isolate and catergorise the active members of the action of the last few days. I will do so as follows:

Destruction and theft squad

Rioters - Individuals that threw projectiles towards authority figures, kicked in shop fronts and set fire to things.

Looters - Individuals that only destroyed businesses they had the intention of 'destocking'

Opportunists - Individuals that were neither 'Rioters' nor 'Looters' but just so happened to be walking by 30mins after all the 'action' had moved to another area and felt it harmless to relieve establishments of some stock. (I know what you are thinking, but I see a slight difference between them and the 'Looters'.)

The Media

The reporters - Mainly news reporters, the ones who were supposed to be impartially handing out the facts as they unfold.

The Specialists/Experts - Individuals who are consultants to governments on civil unrest, hostage negotiations, psychology and policing.

To your surprise I'm going to leave the politicians out of this, not because they aren't involved, but more because I really don't think they have done or said anything that wasn't expected.

Observing the roles:

Rioters; if we were to look at the assembly of these people and liken them to that of an army formation, the rioters would be considered the 'front line'.
These are the soldiers sent in to:
a) catch the enemy by surprise,
b) assess the ability of the enemy,
c) soften up the enemy defences.

Due to the strategic lack of action from the police, part c) wasn't ever really required. a) definitely worked and b)was deduced as the 'enemy' (this case the authorities from a rioters view point) didn't really retaliate and so by default they displayed no ability or action or....you know what I mean.

I guess, the most interesting thing about the action of the 'Rioters' was the damaging and destroying of their own local neighbourhood.

Now, everybody has their view on this and most agree that it makes little or no sense...I too went down this road initially, then found solace in the fact that I consider wearing your jeans low enough to display your underwear as a nonsensical act, but its been widely accepted as 'fashion'. With that being said, sense and logic have little opportunity to reign on this part of the subject.

I too know frustration, all types, for a number of reasons. I too, feel frustrated about the way the country is run and the distribution of wealth among the population and all that fine jazz, but to torch your own neighbourhood, your neighbours who are not necessarily doing any better than you are, i̶s̶ ̶f̶o̶o̶l̶h̶a̶r̶d̶y̶ ̶f̶o̶r̶..... no in fact its fucking crazy, let me be honest!

Although that is on the surface...if for example, you smashed up your own neighbourhood in a fit of rage and frustration, but then proceeded to neighbourhoods that didn't resemble your own economically, that is a different scenario altogether. (Simple Simon does NOT condone Rioting, rioters, or destruction of private property).

Last thing on the rioters, I don't think the burning of private properties (houses) was intentional, I think that was a matter of poor thinking, as most of the residences affected were above retail establishments.

The Looters; back to army strategy...these individuals represent a 'disabling' force, normally used to survey the ground that the 'frontline' (rioters) have gained and remove all usable supplies...in this case retail stock. Now the looters didn't necessarily cause as much damage as the rioters in terms of destruction, but they did however, in terms of collateral damage...Nike anyone?

Saying "Nike", does bring me on to my observation about the looters, they seemed to hit the same shops in each and every town (JD, Comet, Currys, Pc World, Argos, Santander, HSBC). I believe a news reporter raised this question and was quickly hushed with the notion that it was 'kids, displaying a demand for what kids desire, fashion and technology'. Now off the cuff, that explanation satisfied my brain for a moment or two, but then I couldn't understand why these same 'kids' were also smashing up HSBC's and Santanders but NOT trying to steal any money out of them?

With noticing the pattern of stores that were 'hit' I decided to try and find out who owned these stores. I did this because the student riots a few months back, saw certain brand names being specifically targeted because they (or their business group) didn't pay corporation taxes in the UK

Upon looking, I couldn't find anything to say they didn't pay tax....so maybe it was people stealing what is popular?

Opportunists; now these unfortunate bunch could be seen as the victims of the unrest that made the best of a bad situation. These were literally people who were going about their normal way and just so happened to be passing shops that had their inventory sprawled out on the pavement and they just so happened to pick up 'something' they wanted/needed...no harm done right, insurance will cover it? That is the plight of the 'opportunist'.

Reporters; I'm disappointed with these individuals with regards to their reporting of the whole event. Sometimes I'm naive, naive enough to believe that reporters actually report things impartially, unbiased and without an agenda, but in reality the news reporter is just a pawn in a corporation and so the similarities between their reports shouldn't have been surprising...

In typical media fashion, each crisis is somehow homogeneously linked with a 'new' term/catch phrase. Of course there really isn't a link between the elements that are combined, but with constant strategic rhetoric a sleeping audience will soon find a synergy between the elements and so form a homogeneity. An example of this was that all too over used term 'Terrorist'.

Thanks to an unwavering constant blasting of the term 'Terrorist' in relation or conjunction with people from the middle east, the average Joe, has created a homogeneous relationship between 'Terrorism' and the population of the middle east and or Muslims in general. As I said before, there isn't anything 'homogenous' about the relationship between the two elements.

This same tactic was used with the London riots... The 'new' term used for this incident was 'Criminality'. Now, I like the English language, well I like it enough to be interested in words and their meanings, but when I heard the term 'Criminality' I really struggled to acknowledge it as a 'proper' word. It almost sounded like a construct developed purely to coin the incident occurring. After looking the word up in the book of diction, I found it to indeed be a genuine term

Criminality

1. the state of being criminal.

2. a criminal act or practice.

Use of this generic term allows the user to be able to address a group of people without getting into the specifics of 'who' those people are or what they represent. This, I feel, was of value to the media as the participants of the rioting and looting were NOT of one ethnicity. In fact they were not of one ethnicity in particular, it was truly a mixed bag of faces and genders who participated in the acts. Despite boroughs such as Harringey, Hackney and Brixton being notorious for being predominantly Afro-Caribbean in population, the pictures on the news represented all nations, a rioting 'UN' if you will.

In addition to 'criminality' there was another term banded about and that was 'Youth riots'....yet again another attempt by the media to single out a portion of the public in the process of assigning blame. The media failed here, the participants were NOT all of the same age group, in fact there were reports of parents and children looting/rioting side by side.

I guess my biggest disappointment came when Clapham Junction and Eailing came under attack. The level of shock displayed by the media, made me realise that although its not often addressed, there is a two or three tier social system at work in the UK. When the Tottenham incident broke out, reporters were shocked by the damage being done and the rate of escalation of the incident, but I got the impression the location wasn't a surprise. Now given the events that proceeded the unrest I can understand that. When Hackney broke out, the same response as Tottenham was repeated, again same in Brixton. The only time the reporters seems to be shocked about where it was happening was when news of unrest in Clapham and Eailing was made public. It was almost as if those two boroughs weren't in London, or were possibly above such events....almost as if 'people' don't live there.

All of a sudden MP's/PM's who weren't cutting short their vacations (I agree with them on that by the way) were all of a sudden cutting short their vacations with news of Clapham and Eailing being the 'new' rioting zones. It could of course have been coincidental, even if Clapham and Eailing just so happen to be Conservative strong holds....I'm just saying...


Specialists/experts; this group of intelligent people did me proud. Of all the interviews I saw with regard to the unrest, these individuals were the only ones who were broad of mind enough to see that this was not an isolated issue, subject to a few members of society. They were the only group of people that acknowledged the systemic marginalization of whole sections of society. The same individuals were smart enough to acknowledge the issues go far beyond race now...as this event cannot be seen as a race specific incident.

They also acknowledged that its not even entirely a wealth specific incident as 'Leafy Eailing' and Clapham proved.

Unsurprisingly these intelligent people didn't feature on the news too many times...not much in the way of constant repeat of their interviews either...in fact if you want to hear a professionals take on what occurred in London, you have to look on YouTube. I guess the public is supposed to remain aloof of whats really going on....?


What did I gather from the whole thing?

I thought long and hard about the events, about the causes, about the mentality of the people involved. About the events around the world that were/are similar and although I didn't come to a firm conclusion, here are my findings:

1. Lack of direction - If one were to look at the other events....in fact don't. Lets just look at this for what actually happened. Outside of the unrest in Tottenham, which was directly linked to a police murder and the physical assault of a 16yr old girl, a spectator would be hard pressed to positively identify what the riots were actually about. I'd go as far as to say, that some of the rioters themselves couldn't articulate whatever compulsion had them behaving the way they did. For me this is an issue because it means you are failing to express yourself in a fashion that others can understand. Yes we get that there is an element of frustration about you, but over what?

2. Lack of police action - Probably the most telling of the events. The police have played a very intelligent game with the handling of the riot situations. It would be extremely silly to suggest that the officers couldn't deal with the riot situation. Simply because we've just recently had the student riots, in which the police killed someone else (sorry if that came across as a dig). There are a number of anti-riot techniques that could/should have been deployed.

Contrast this lack of action with the political situation of financial cuts to the police force and you can start to see that maybe....just maybe someone is trying to force the hand of someone else. In this game of chess the public take the position of the pawns!

3. Pseudo-unity - This subject prompted a long debate amongst me my kin and in the end I had to concede that what I was terming as 'Unity' was in fact a pseudo-unity. You know the kind that allows the term 'United Kingdom' to have any relevance in the world today. I considered the inter-gang, inter-postcode 'ceasefire' to be a sign of unity and in many ways it was, but it was pointed out to me that once the rioting was over, the relationship between rival gangs would soon deteriorate back to former standing. A common enemy too mighty for one party, will see the weaker parties combine to extinguish the powerful enemy, without any fore sight and without the common enemy, there really isn't a huge need for peace or unity.

4. Impartiality is a rare necessity- Among all the 'social commentators' political correspondents and generally 'important' people...there were very few impartial opinions aired. It seems as if objectivity had become a concept for the archives. Of all the news that I watched I can count on two hands, the number of people who spoke from the point of view of what happened, leaving out all salt, pepper and additional seasonings. One person in particular was a negotiator and rioting strategy expert.

He was the only person that didn't get into colour or socioeconomic profiling, he literally just said that there is due frustration among the general population and he wasn't surprised it was happening, in fact the only thing that did surprise him was the scale of disruption, in his opinion he was expecting it to be bigger. He even eluded to the fact that it won't be the last time either.

Everybody else was too per-occupied with who was to blame. Normally that would be OK as you can then assess the causes of the problem and prevent them from happening again. Unfortunately the reason for finding who is to blame on this occasion, was so that people could be identified and then thrown in jail...cos that fixes the problem...NOT!

iRant, even when I try my hardest not to...


!!!Update!!!

This post has been written over a number of weeks [Yes its a little lazy] and this last bit has just been added.

I have respect of historians, right up until the point they make stupid generalisations like this - Dave Starkey interview

iRant: It should have been different...

[Excuse] Hey lovely people of the world, I've been on a serious hiatus....I mean a SERIOUS hiatus. This is officially my first blog of 2011, that means I didn't get the chance to wish you a 'Happy New Year' or even a 'Happy Easter'. I won't insult your intelligence by telling you some story about how busy I've been....because in truth....

OK so I have been busy, in fact I've been quite busy involved in something, but I won't go into the details of that, just know I'm not engaged and 'she' is not pregnant....not that I have a 'she' to impregnate...anyway that's, yet another story.[End of Excuse]

So...given the period and duration of my absence loads of 'things' have happened, there has been global 'freaky' weather, Earthquakes, civil uprisings, assassinations and the release of some pretty good films. Given how eventful the world has been, you'd think the thing to bring me back with a rant would be something of epic proportions, right? right? .....WRONG!

The 'thing' that has bought me back...the issue of paramount importance that has seen me grace my page again, is probably the most unlikely of issues to raise my concern, I'm even somewhat ashamed that this issue has summoned me. The truth is my simple brain is unable to see past the blatant cheek of it...I guess, you've guessed it by now?

Prince Williams WEDDING!

Yes, I know, loads of people have given their view on this subject over and over and over again! But I REALLY consider the funding of the Royal wedding to be a major piss take.

Lets take the patriotism out of the equation and look at this objectively. I'm firmly of the opinion, that a man shouldn't marry a woman unless he can afford to. Now don't get me wrong, I'm not talking anything particularly 'posh' or 'over the top' public displays of opulence, I'm just talking about the fundamental principle of the ceremony (registry office included).

Therefore I take great offense to my tax contributions being used to pay for Prince William to be wed. Not only can he afford it, he is a member of a vast financial support network that comprises mainly of blood relatives...for f@*k sake they are ROYALTY!

Sympathy

Let us suggest for a moment that Prince William didn't have the money for the wedding (we know he does, but work with me here), surely his father should be honoured to pay for his son's wedding, isn't that something a father would feel happy to do? Maybe happier if it was a daughter, but happy non-the-less, no?

OK, so for one minute let us suggest, Charles doesn't have the funds for whatever reason, there is the Queen, Williams grandmother. Now what more of a gift can a grandmother give her grandson than a paid for wedding? £80mil is a drip to the Royals and to HRH especially.

I've only mentioned the big heavy hitters here, but I'm sure you can see where I'm going with this? Given the above I find it EXTREMELY difficult to understand, overstand or justify why we the public have had to fork out for this wedding.

There are people who have no roof over their heads and could do with a little financial aid. There are people who are working and making a contribution to society but the cost of living sees them balancing the tight rope of 'staying afloat', these same people have mastered the art of working without getting to enjoy their labour.

In short there are too many people that are from all walks of society that could have done with not having to pay for this wedding....£81m would normally be a 'modest' amount of money, but in this time of 'austerity' even nationally this figure is useful....yet I saw Prince William and his bride prancing around on my TV and the TV of millions of others world wide.

Not to be totally ignorant, I heard that the 'event' of the wedding should generate around £100m (loose info don't quote me) from all the TV rights and coverage. This was part of the justification used to swindle...I mean inveigle the £81m out of the coffers in the first place, its seen as a business transaction. The premise was to spend £81m to make £19m..... now given the possibility that the rest of the world could have said "Why would I want to watch a wedding with the price of wheat being so damn high?" this 'business' move was quite risky...if the world had said that and nobody bought into the rights to air the wedding, if nobody showed interest in the wedding at all, we'd have paid £81m for nada!

What would the explanation for that outcome have been?

Summary

Prince William, I appreciate your family has been taking the micky out of the British public and all members of the British empire since 'Jesus was a boy', but if I remember rightly your mum was against it and did her best not to fall fowl of certain elitist ways...notice how the public loved her? Please do not fall shy of her grace and glory and become...(for poorer choice of words) "one of them".

Prince William, your a cool cat, just a shame you come from such a tight fisted family. On a serious note though, pay for your own stuff in the future....there is a certain dignity and pride about it... Thanks!

iRant cos surprisingly I have the appetite for it again!