Sonofglion:"Sadly thinker there is no way back for you or I as the new young set the standards not the previous generation."

No, no, no, we are their bosses, their parents, their supervisors, we are the judges, we are the politicians that make laws and the police that arrest them, we run the prisons and welfare agencies.

We are the CEO's of the companies that hire us to make the adds.

What they do is done with our permission.

You're taking it all far too seriously, thinker2.
Advertising has never been about "truth". Nor has it ever been about lies, either.
Posted by Pericles, Friday, 5 November 2010 9:29:00 AM

Dictionary.com says that Advertising is "the act or practice of calling public attention to one's product, service, need, etc., esp. by paid announcements in newspapers and magazines, over radio or television, on billboards, etc."

Calling public attention to a product, service, need or business does not require of the advertiser the encouragement of amoral behaviour, deceptive collusion to the detriment of another or the overt promotion of selfishness and disregard.

Nonetheless, advertisers are seeking to promote their goods, services and business through the promotion of such things as described above and then some; including gender denigration.

Given that Australia has the highest saturation of advertising with approx 18 mins or more per one hour block of programming, I think that Thinker is not taking it too seriously at all. It is a serious issue worthy of discussion, and you Pericles are not taking it seriously enough.

If business can brand us with their business name and motto so easily as they do, limiting our consumer inclinations to those that are branded into our brain (Nike "just do it" but what Asics?) then it doesn't take a master of psychology to see that we can equally be branded into engaging in amoral behaviour if it is sanctioned in our daily tv viewing

I guess that's why this Forum's title contains the word "Opinion", George Jetson.

>>It is a serious issue worthy of discussion, and you Pericles are not taking it seriously enough.<<

It is only a "serious issue" to a section of the population. Personally, I cannot see myself taking it more seriously than I do at present, for the simple reason that I do not belong to that particular group.

>>If business can brand us with their business name and motto so easily as they do, limiting our consumer inclinations to those that are branded into our brain...<<

Well you see, that's where you and I differ.

I do not consider myself "branded" with anyone's business name or motto. Nor are my "consumer inclinations" limited. I view any advertising that stretches itself further than simple information-transfer as an amusing, if trivial, art form.

I enjoy the beer commercials on TV, but they do not influence my purchase, which is purely based upon taste. I am entertained by the car and ute commercials, but haven't bought a new vehicle - or even a second-hand one - in twenty years. I had to physically check which brand of leisure footwear I sport.

As a result, I tend to treat people who take advertising seriously with an element of suspicion: are they actually in control of their lives, I wonder. Should they be allowed out of the house...

>>it doesn't take a master of psychology to see that we can equally be branded into engaging in amoral behaviour if it is sanctioned in our daily tv viewing<<

And there's the reason why. Right there.

The waltz was once considered "amoral behaviour"

http://www.examiner.com/ballroom-dancing-in-san-francisco/the-history-of-the-waltz

Have you ever waltzed, George Jetson?

Did you feel that you had been manipulated into amoral behaviour?

Or was the amoral behaviour in which you indulged, entirely of your own volition?