|
On April 28 2012 19:49 Talin wrote:Show nested quote +On April 28 2012 19:31 HwangjaeTerran wrote:
Sorry, but a grown-up doesn't make his/her dietary/any choices based on advertisements. The nature of advertisements is to provide information about the product. Instead of allowing them to spout bullshit and then choosing to ignore what they say (in which case they are a waste of everybody's time), is it not more logical to force them to describe the product accurately, so that people could make informed decisions based on what they hear in ads? What is so wrong about making every food ad at the very least display a nutrition table at the end of each advertisement, or warn against possible harmful substances included within it? It's easy to act superior and condescending towards people who are ignorant of something, but like it's been stated many times in the thread, nobody has a complete enough knowledge to be properly informed about every product they buy (not just food), and many people don't even have means of obtaining such knowledge. And they're still very much "grown up". Ignorance is not a crime. Manipulation through mass media, however, should be - if for no other reason, than because it actively SPREADS ignorance.
Manipulation doesn't spread ignorance, it just feeds on it.
I think that if you are watching ads you are already actively being ignorant.
Forcing advertisers to accurately describe the product just means there won't be too many ads around.
Giving out millions to ignorant people is SPREADING ignorance.
|
People talking about ridiciloous lawsuits and the McDonalds + coffee case should watch the documentary Hot Coffee, it snot free so i cant link it but the creator talks about it with Stephen COlbert here: http://www.colbertnation.com/the-colbert-report-videos/400684/october-25-2011/susan-saladoff and summarises it a little bit and the terms friviloous lawsuits etc.
THe documentary is a good watch and shines some light on corporate america and media spinning.
|
Loses: $3.5m
Profits: Loads of people remember 'Oh, Nutella... Should buy some of that'.
Seriously though... Crazy story. Either this woman is insane or a genius. I guess they say the line between insanity and genius is pretty thin...
|
On April 28 2012 08:40 flamewheel wrote:
Coffee is hot. Don't stick forks in electrical sockets. Don't jump off building roofs.
People are just eh.
With that attitude you'll never have $3.5 million!
|
I wouldn't be too quick to form an opinion on this lawsuit.
I'd imagine that the typical user on TLnet is more educated than the average person on the street, and to us it seems "obvious" that Nutella is not at all healthy, and we're cynical enough to be able to take the commercial literally and understand that it does not state that Nutella is healthy.
However, the ad is obviously (IMO) intending to mislead people into thinking that, and you can't just extrapolate your own education onto the whole population. Don't blame the consumer for being uneducated - that's prejudice.
If it weren't for lawsuits like this, cigarette companies would still be allowed to advertise smoking as being cool and trendy and directly cause millions of deaths annually.
|
oh great.. now what I am going to feed my kids with?
|
Someone in marketing is getting his ass FIRED.
|
On April 28 2012 23:06 Xpace wrote:
Someone in marketing is getting his ass FIRED.
Doubt it, the marketing has undoubtedly increased sales enough so that they can spare whatever they lose in this lawsuit.
Instead they will most likely try to debunk the whole thing as frivilous and push for a tort reform, there have been exstensive campaigns like this in the past by big corporations so i doubt this will be anything different.
|
SoCal8907 Posts
you know, god forbid we read the labels of the food we buy. do they not do this in health class anymore? i remember learning how to read one in like 5th or 6th grade lol.
ignorance is bliss in America, though. *sigh*
|
Wait, so in the US you don't have to write nutrition data on your product???
|
On April 28 2012 23:12 dicex wrote:
Wait, so in the US you don't have to write nutrition data on your product???
My thoughts exactly, is this true?
|
On April 28 2012 23:24 The_PhaCe wrote:Show nested quote +On April 28 2012 23:12 dicex wrote:
Wait, so in the US you don't have to write nutrition data on your product??? My thoughts exactly, is this true?
You couldn't figure out the answer from the post directly above his? 
|
On April 28 2012 23:12 dicex wrote:
Wait, so in the US you don't have to write nutrition data on your product???
You do but no one reads it. Or more accurately no one probably knows what any of it means.
|
On April 28 2012 11:04 Talin wrote:Show nested quote +On April 28 2012 10:40 TALegion wrote:
Abuse of quotes make it seem like your questions are objective and rhetoric, which is kinda makes you look like an asshole if someone disagrees. Yes, I'd say it's their fault for drinking it. Nutritional information is mandatorially put on everything for the use of consumers, and if they don't read it cause they're fucking lazy and just go by subjective advertising done by a company who wants nothing more than to universally promote their product by any means necesarry, then it's their fault for drinking it. What if you don't have any knowledge of nutrition? What if you don't know what a "cholesterol" is? According to this thread, we should just call these people stupid and decide we don't give a shit about them and pretend they somehow don't matter. Which is actually many times more stupid than not knowing something, and let me demonstrate why. Let's say you know the basics about nutrition enough to determine Nutella isn't, in fact, healthy. It's hardly an arcane knowledge. But do you have a similar - or higher, as is usually required - level of knowledge for each and every type of product you buy? Computer hardware, software, cars, clothing, pets, houses, literally everything you've ever bought and used? Likely, you don't. You could look it up on the internet, sure (and at least for as long as your country doesn't pass some of the more oppressive laws being proposed lately, you might even find objective information there!). But then what if you don't have an internet connection? You could look it up in books, but it is time-inefficient and finding relevant and recent information can be problematic. The bottom line is, you can be the smartest, most informed and the most knowledgeable person around, and there will still be plenty of holes in your knowledge that you can get screwed over when deciding to purchase something. Moreover, even if you were absolutely committed and pedantic about informing yourself about things you buy, there's still a limit called TIME. You simply don't have enough time to research and understand the background of every product you need in detail. It's humanly impossible. And the reality is that most people won't even be all that knowledgeable and informed in the first place. You can look at it from another perspective as well - what is the purpose of advertising? Advertising, like many things, is a service - an ad IS information, so why settle for allowing companies to intentionally provide false or misleading information? Do you think false information is somehow beneficial to anyone except the company in question? What you hear in an advertisement should be the relevant information about the product that helps you could make an decision on whether to purchase it or not. You should not have to spend additional time elsewhere double-checking the information you already heard - don't you see how that's bad for you? At best you're either wasting time or money. At worst, you're unknowingly consuming some product that's actually horrible for you. If you willingly put the burden of being informed on the consumer alone and remove all responsibility companies have when it comes to product presentation, you're literally screwing yourself over, and pretty much everybody else. So why do it? This is what bothers me. Why willingly accept this burden when it's a dozen times more rational, logical AND practical to force companies to provide accurate information about their product, without lies and deception? If the so-called "stupid people" bother you so much, you need to realize that allowing companies to get away with lying in mass media and blaming people who "fall for it" instead never made ANYBODY less stupid, it never educated anyone. In fact that whole attitude is reminiscent of "it's her fault that she got raped" argument.
This void of information can't be cured by anything but the consumer, though. The nutritional information on the back is the most they can put without including a biology lesson on every single product. The same goes for electronics and computer science, drugs and a medical degree, and a housing with architecture. If this women truly believed that the advertising for Nutella truely did convey its nutritional value without their explicitly saying so, then she must believe that everything commercial every conceived does the exact same:
Every movie is the best movie of the year. Every car is the safest. Every Insurance company has the best deals and coverage. Every resteraunt has the best food. If one truly believes that all, then that is definatly within the borders of legitmate medical mental retardation.
If you don't know what you're getting used to, the world cannot cater to you. You cannot expect everything and everyone to fit you personally and cover all of your wants and needs generally without your own effort and input, more or less something as specific as the nuritional value of a food spread.
Maybe it comes down to opinion, but for me, I believe that if you get into something without proper research, it's your fault. It's your duty to make your own choices based on your opinion derived from your own research of whatever you're looking into.
When you go to Bestbuy, do you buy the first thing that the sales people point to without asking question? They can't lie to you, so you're in charge of balancing the actual pros and cons of everything they have.
When you're researching a pet, do you go to PetCo and get the first thing they point out without researching it yourself? You should probably research pets from anywhere you can, starting with species, breed, gender, attitude, cost, etc.
I guess that's the boundry where opinion is drawn
|
On April 28 2012 08:50 Aunvilgod wrote:
Gotta love America for all these law-stories. Americans really are the most fun people on the planet.
User was warned for this post
Why warning?
In every other country we make fun about the American law-stories. T-T
|
On April 28 2012 23:38 Peqqz wrote:Show nested quote +On April 28 2012 08:50 Aunvilgod wrote:
Gotta love America for all these law-stories. Americans really are the most fun people on the planet.
User was warned for this post Why warning? In every other country we make fun about the American law-stories. T-T
Cause its annoying.
|
at least its a good cause in terms of its publicity
|
Sometimes I just have to wonder how people think. Like, did she not realize that its obviously isnt healthy. :-(
|
On April 28 2012 23:38 TALegion wrote:Show nested quote +On April 28 2012 11:04 Talin wrote:On April 28 2012 10:40 TALegion wrote:
Abuse of quotes make it seem like your questions are objective and rhetoric, which is kinda makes you look like an asshole if someone disagrees. Yes, I'd say it's their fault for drinking it. Nutritional information is mandatorially put on everything for the use of consumers, and if they don't read it cause they're fucking lazy and just go by subjective advertising done by a company who wants nothing more than to universally promote their product by any means necesarry, then it's their fault for drinking it. What if you don't have any knowledge of nutrition? What if you don't know what a "cholesterol" is? According to this thread, we should just call these people stupid and decide we don't give a shit about them and pretend they somehow don't matter. Which is actually many times more stupid than not knowing something, and let me demonstrate why. Let's say you know the basics about nutrition enough to determine Nutella isn't, in fact, healthy. It's hardly an arcane knowledge. But do you have a similar - or higher, as is usually required - level of knowledge for each and every type of product you buy? Computer hardware, software, cars, clothing, pets, houses, literally everything you've ever bought and used? Likely, you don't. You could look it up on the internet, sure (and at least for as long as your country doesn't pass some of the more oppressive laws being proposed lately, you might even find objective information there!). But then what if you don't have an internet connection? You could look it up in books, but it is time-inefficient and finding relevant and recent information can be problematic. The bottom line is, you can be the smartest, most informed and the most knowledgeable person around, and there will still be plenty of holes in your knowledge that you can get screwed over when deciding to purchase something. Moreover, even if you were absolutely committed and pedantic about informing yourself about things you buy, there's still a limit called TIME. You simply don't have enough time to research and understand the background of every product you need in detail. It's humanly impossible. And the reality is that most people won't even be all that knowledgeable and informed in the first place. You can look at it from another perspective as well - what is the purpose of advertising? Advertising, like many things, is a service - an ad IS information, so why settle for allowing companies to intentionally provide false or misleading information? Do you think false information is somehow beneficial to anyone except the company in question? What you hear in an advertisement should be the relevant information about the product that helps you could make an decision on whether to purchase it or not. You should not have to spend additional time elsewhere double-checking the information you already heard - don't you see how that's bad for you? At best you're either wasting time or money. At worst, you're unknowingly consuming some product that's actually horrible for you. If you willingly put the burden of being informed on the consumer alone and remove all responsibility companies have when it comes to product presentation, you're literally screwing yourself over, and pretty much everybody else. So why do it? This is what bothers me. Why willingly accept this burden when it's a dozen times more rational, logical AND practical to force companies to provide accurate information about their product, without lies and deception? If the so-called "stupid people" bother you so much, you need to realize that allowing companies to get away with lying in mass media and blaming people who "fall for it" instead never made ANYBODY less stupid, it never educated anyone. In fact that whole attitude is reminiscent of "it's her fault that she got raped" argument. This void of information can't be cured by anything but the consumer, though. The nutritional information on the back is the most they can put without including a biology lesson on every single product. The same goes for electronics and computer science, drugs and a medical degree, and a housing with architecture. If this women truly believed that the advertising for Nutella truely did convey its nutritional value without their explicitly saying so, then she must believe that everything commercial every conceived does the exact same: Every movie is the best movie of the year. Every car is the safest. Every Insurance company has the best deals and coverage. Every resteraunt has the best food. If one truly believes that all, then that is definatly within the borders of legitmate medical mental retardation. If you don't know what you're getting used to, the world cannot cater to you. You cannot expect everything and everyone to fit you personally and cover all of your wants and needs generally without your own effort and input, more or less something as specific as the nuritional value of a food spread. Maybe it comes down to opinion, but for me, I believe that if you get into something without proper research, it's your fault. It's your duty to make your own choices based on your opinion derived from your own research of whatever you're looking into. When you go to Bestbuy, do you buy the first thing that the sales people point to without asking question? They can't lie to you, so you're in charge of balancing the actual pros and cons of everything they have. When you're researching a pet, do you go to PetCo and get the first thing they point out without researching it yourself? You should probably research pets from anywhere you can, starting with species, breed, gender, attitude, cost, etc. I guess that's the boundry where opinion is drawn
Yeah, but the UK (and presumably the US) have "fair trading" laws for advertising, to prevent adverts that they consider intentionally misleading. That's not just adverts that are factually untrue, but also include adverts where the trading standards bodies consider that the impression given to the average consumer by the advert (with no other information required) does not reflect reality.
Of course it's a very subjective boundary, but IMO
- adverts such as Red Bull adverts, which say "Red Bull gives you wings", would not be considered intentionally misleading because the vast majority of people will not interpret that literally, even with no prior knowledge of what Red Bull is or what it does
- adverts such as the Nutella advert linked earlier could be argued as intentionally misleading, because a significant proportion of people with no prior knowledge of what Nutella is or what goes into it may get the impression that feeding their children Nutella for breakfast every day is a Good Thing
Now a misleading advert in the UK will usually receive an order from the advertising standards agency to be removed. However, I can imagine that if you can argue that the advert is intentionally misleading, you probably have a valid case to take to court.
|
brb eating nutella on my diet and not knowing why i dont lose weight.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
