Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:
No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.
If you are already a member then feel free to login now.
Kroem wrote: I don't think you're allowed to say anything objectively false, but you can misrepresent the significance of data.
Most shampoo adverts say something like "95% of women said their hair was softer and cleaner after just one application!" when the small print at the bottom says it was a survey of 56 women done in 2011 or something XD
Ah. That reminds me of the horrible soap ads currently infesting Youtube. They're creepy and disturbing on a lot of levels, but they also toss around 'facts' that are meaningless, but designed to frighten people. 'Other soaps are classified as detergents' and 'ours won't affect sperm count'
privateer4hire wrote: I was watching a ton of ads on YouTube and suddenly they were interrupted by content!
It was horrible. Fortunately, more ads came along soon.
You could, you know, PAY for ad-free. How would YouTube make money without the income that comes from ads or subscriptions? Advertising is what allows content to be free or cheap. Been the broadcast business plan for decades because it works.
It’s also important to remember that the YouTube channel can choose how many ads, and where they go.
This is why I like FactFiend. If they do a sponsorship, it’s on Karl’s terms and he doesn’t otherwise monetise the video. And where there are ads (dudes are making a living after all), they save them for the end of the video.
Fed up of Scalpers? But still want your Exclusives? Why not join us?
I never used to bother with an add-blocker on youtube. A few adds here and there was no big deal. Then the combination of umpteen US election adds and them demonitizing channels like TimeGhostHistory got to me.
Now, seeing an add is just a reminder to update either Firefox or AdBlock.
Kroem wrote: I don't think you're allowed to say anything objectively false, but you can misrepresent the significance of data.
Most shampoo adverts say something like "95% of women said their hair was softer and cleaner after just one application!" when the small print at the bottom says it was a survey of 56 women done in 2011 or something XD
Ah. That reminds me of the horrible soap ads currently infesting Youtube. They're creepy and disturbing on a lot of levels, but they also toss around 'facts' that are meaningless, but designed to frighten people. 'Other soaps are classified as detergents' and 'ours won't affect sperm count'
This was a big thing back in the '90s when everyone became terrified of cholesterol, and brands started marking products that naturally don't have cholesterol in them anyway as 'cholesterol free' as if it was a selling point.
My current personal 'Feth, that's dodgy' winner is a milk brand here in Oz. There's a product here called A2 Milk, which is milk with only the A2 protein. For the uninitiated, cow's milk normally contains two proteins that are referred to as A1 and A2. Some research has suggested that milk that doesn't contain the A1 protein is easier to digest... and so A2 milk was born, without the A1 protein. One of the other big milk brands started labeling their perfectly normal milk with a big tag saying 'Contains the A2 protein!' in order to mislead people looking for A2 milk into buying their regular milk instead. This has managed to slip by the advertising standards because it's not a false claim - the milk does contain A2 protein, as all milk does. It's just as irrelevant a selling point as the 'contains nuts!' warning on bags of peanuts.
And don't even get me started on burger advertising...
privateer4hire wrote: I was watching a ton of ads on YouTube and suddenly they were interrupted by content!
It was horrible. Fortunately, more ads came along soon.
You could, you know, PAY for ad-free. How would YouTube make money without the income that comes from ads or subscriptions? Advertising is what allows content to be free or cheap. Been the broadcast business plan for decades because it works.
It’s also important to remember that the YouTube channel can choose how many ads, and where they go.
This is why I like FactFiend. If they do a sponsorship, it’s on Karl’s terms and he doesn’t otherwise monetise the video. And where there are ads (dudes are making a living after all), they save them for the end of the video.
Well, I'm sure no one watches those end-of-video ads, which makes me equally sure that advertisers don't pay very much for them. Offering placements where they won't be seen isn't a terribly smart business plan.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Matt Swain wrote: I won't pay to support youtube because of their policies that basically demonitize people who have channels that advertisers find unacceptable.
Okaaaay. But by choosing the free version, you're supporting the advertising-driven business model. In which advertisers will (rightfully) have something to say if their paid placement is paired with some goofball jackhole spewing offensive gak.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/03/18 21:07:34
Well at the risk of getting yet another thread of mine locked i will say that youtube basically launched an assault on atheist channels, and openly said that atheist channels that refuted mainstream religion would all be blanket demonitized because advertisers did not want to support a platform that let atheists make money.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2021/03/18 21:25:40
"But the universe is a big place, and whatever happens, you will not be missed..."
I got a good chuckle from the "Gluten Free!" label placed prominently upon yogurt. I got another good chuckle but was also a little disappointed when I saw the same on canned tuna.
Don't get me started on organic and non-GMO labeling, which border homeopathic medicine levels of crap in their totally-not-claims.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/03/18 23:20:04
privateer4hire wrote: I was watching a ton of ads on YouTube and suddenly they were interrupted by content!
It was horrible. Fortunately, more ads came along soon.
You could, you know, PAY for ad-free. How would YouTube make money without the income that comes from ads or subscriptions? Advertising is what allows content to be free or cheap. Been the broadcast business plan for decades because it works.
Nah. Gives me time to hit the bathroom or grab something in the kitchen.
Matt Swain wrote: Well at the risk of getting yet another thread of mine locked i will say that youtube basically launched an assault on atheist channels, and openly said that atheist channels that refuted mainstream religion would all be blanket demonitized because advertisers did not want to support a platform that let atheists make money.
And this is why I have an ad-blocker on youtube. If they want to demonetise atheist platforms, they won't be making ad money from me.
I'm OVER 50 (and so far over everyone's BS, too).
Old enough to know better, young enough to not give a ****.
That is not dead which can eternal lie ...
... and yet, with strange aeons, even death may die.
NinthMusketeer wrote: I got a good chuckle from the "Gluten Free!" label placed prominently upon yogurt. I got another good chuckle but was also a little disappointed when I saw the same on canned tuna.
Don't get me started on organic and non-GMO labeling, which border homeopathic medicine levels of crap in their totally-not-claims.
To be fair, gluten is used as a thickener in all sorts of things you'd never expect to find it in. People with gluten allergies and such find such notices extremely valuable.
A lot of food is processed on shared production lines and regular tuna fish could be packed right after a flavored version. Listing it as gluten free means it was made on a dedicated line, or was thoroughly cleaned before switching over.
For the Starkist brand, a number of their Tuna Creations do indeed have wheat in them. From a quick look they all get it from added soy sauce. So yes, at least in the US, listing it as gluten free means they are ruling out cross contamination.
This is a personal pet peeve with me regarding Frito-lay. Some of their products are listed as being gluten free. Others have no gluten containing ingredients, but are not listed because they are made on shared lines.
I recall watching a short bit on peanut free chocolate production and the reason many firms don't do it (and thus cannot put "nut free" on the packet) is because it basically requires a whole separate side of the factory totally isolated from any nut using segment even down to staff requiring full body cleaning if moving from the nut region to the no-nut region.
Basically big firms that do production at a single factory and then ship out just can't afford to rebuild part of the factory to do it; which is why smaller firms that fill a niche can often slip in to fill the gap because for them they just don't produce any nut flavourings and everything is thus nut free etc...
And yeah it can be odd what ends up in our food. Fishmeal appears in a lot of pet foods, even when they aren't listed as "Fish Flavoured". Even food for cattle and other herbivore livestock will have a content of fishmeal included.
Of course something like glutin is a double edged sword. It's great for those who do suffer from an intolerance, however at the same time some have come to think that glutin is a "bad thing" and that glutin free food is healthier when in reality its only healthier for those who have an allergy/intolerance to glutin.
A lot of food is processed on shared production lines and regular tuna fish could be packed right after a flavored version. Listing it as gluten free means it was made on a dedicated line, or was thoroughly cleaned before switching over.
For the Starkist brand, a number of their Tuna Creations do indeed have wheat in them. From a quick look they all get it from added soy sauce. So yes, at least in the US, listing it as gluten free means they are ruling out cross contamination.
Fair enough, I suppose cross-contamination from flavored tuna lines is pretty plausible.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Overread wrote: I recall watching a short bit on peanut free chocolate production and the reason many firms don't do it (and thus cannot put "nut free" on the packet) is because it basically requires a whole separate side of the factory totally isolated from any nut using segment even down to staff requiring full body cleaning if moving from the nut region to the no-nut region.
Basically big firms that do production at a single factory and then ship out just can't afford to rebuild part of the factory to do it; which is why smaller firms that fill a niche can often slip in to fill the gap because for them they just don't produce any nut flavourings and everything is thus nut free etc...
Dunno, that it would take such measures to remove the allergen seems pretty nuts.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/03/19 03:24:07
Matt Swain wrote: Well at the risk of getting yet another thread of mine locked i will say that youtube basically launched an assault on atheist channels, and openly said that atheist channels that refuted mainstream religion would all be blanket demonitized because advertisers did not want to support a platform that let atheists make money.
Half of American Youtubers out there got demonetized for some reason or other if they were a channel covering anything other than children's toys.
Remember, we yanks have a bit of a "thing" for boom sticks, and anyone making a boomstick channel got their money making abilities taken away. A few scale modelers that I have watched recently were also hit for demonetizing, and they build scale models!!! My dad only found out about demonetized channels when he asked me about what a certain video was talking about on his favorite youtube golfer channel. Like, how bloody offensive is golf for feth's sake?!?
I think the one thing that we all could agree on, regardless of each of our individual P-word leanings, is that we wish the platforms were more even-handed about this stuff. Seems like for everything that got demonetized, there's a channel devoted to another subject that could produce just as offensive content. Or, there are channels that make no bones about what they are about. See the gun channels. . . None of them try to sell themselves as anything other than firearms enthusiasts. Many of them will even produce age restricted content, which now is an automatic demonetized channel. None of the social media platforms are immune from this criticism either: every single one of them, we have plenty of examples of wholly arbitrary enforcement of "community standards", and that's pretty much what anyone who's been vocal in the fight about demonetized channels has been asking for.
And, in terms of what ads youtube forces on us (ie when im at work and don't have an active ad blocker), even their targeted advertising algorithms are steaming piles of garbage. . . Either that or the things that I am into that would actually generate clicks if I saw them in an ad are so obscure that those companies cant even pay for that level of advertising.
NinthMusketeer wrote: I got a good chuckle from the "Gluten Free!" label placed prominently upon yogurt. I got another good chuckle but was also a little disappointed when I saw the same on canned tuna.
Don't get me started on organic and non-GMO labeling, which border homeopathic medicine levels of crap in their totally-not-claims.
To be fair, gluten is used as a thickener in all sorts of things you'd never expect to find it in. People with gluten allergies and such find such notices extremely valuable.
My Lass is coeliac, and severely so. I’m not, in fact I have no food allergies whatsoever.
As you say, people would be surprised where Gluten is used as filler or thickener. So prominent GF labelling is welcome, as I don’t want to be buying snacks or treats she can’t enjoy when we’re allowed to see each other again.
It may also be of interest that one can be fine, then become coeliac later in life. Trev for instance developed coeliac during pregnancy (can’t remember which of the girls it was), and don’t quote me on this, I think it was linked to gestational diabetes. So she found bold GF labelling an aid whilst she got used to living with it.
Fed up of Scalpers? But still want your Exclusives? Why not join us?
Overread wrote: I recall watching a short bit on peanut free chocolate production and the reason many firms don't do it (and thus cannot put "nut free" on the packet) is because it basically requires a whole separate side of the factory totally isolated from any nut using segment even down to staff requiring full body cleaning if moving from the nut region to the no-nut region.
Basically big firms that do production at a single factory and then ship out just can't afford to rebuild part of the factory to do it; which is why smaller firms that fill a niche can often slip in to fill the gap because for them they just don't produce any nut flavourings and everything is thus nut free etc...
And yeah it can be odd what ends up in our food. Fishmeal appears in a lot of pet foods, even when they aren't listed as "Fish Flavoured". Even food for cattle and other herbivore livestock will have a content of fishmeal included.
Of course something like glutin is a double edged sword. It's great for those who do suffer from an intolerance, however at the same time some have come to think that glutin is a "bad thing" and that glutin free food is healthier when in reality its only healthier for those who have an allergy/intolerance to glutin.
I was under the impression than many foodstuffs can't be labelled as nut-free because nut oils are often used as lubricants in the mechanical assembly lines (because they are edible and cheap) so they are unable to guarantee no contamination. No idea where I heard this though so i might just be mis-informed! Anyone no if there is any truth in this?
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/03/19 13:22:06
Overread wrote: Of course something like glutin is a double edged sword. It's great for those who do suffer from an intolerance, however at the same time some have come to think that glutin is a "bad thing" and that glutin free food is healthier when in reality its only healthier for those who have an allergy/intolerance to glutin.
That's just ignorance at play. But at least here it does something useful. The money spent in ignorance helps fund more - and more affordable - products for those who truly need them.
I’d wager women’s cosmetics constantly harping on about “flaws, blemishes and imperfections”.
That’s...not healthy wording, at all. Saying your skin is flawed, suggests there’s such a thing as normal. Imperfections? You’re not imperfect, you’re just you.
All part of a media seemingly hellbent on inflicting mental health issues on girls and young ladies.
Mitchell and Webb nailed it, basically (SFW link)
Fed up of Scalpers? But still want your Exclusives? Why not join us?
They couldn't do it without a literal buy-in from the people they are 'inflicting' that viewpoint on. In this case I think the industry is just feeding a mindset that is already more ingrained than any amount of advertising could ever achieve; the human capacity for cultural norms of appearance. It would not be a problem if people just... chose to stop caring. That one is on the people.
The wording has an impact, the product promises to fix that impact. We know it probably doesn’t, because the benefits are overblown.
And I think you underestimate the impact of advertising. We might like to think it doesn’t really influence us, but that’s clearly incorrect, otherwise the advertising industry wouldn’t exist. After all, advertising isn’t cheap. If it didn’t produce the desired return, nobody would invest in it.
I like to think I’m largely immune to it. Certainly “grrr! Manly men manly! Grrr” type stuff mostly just makes me laugh. That’s down to my own comfort in my body, rather than a particular strength of mind. And it helps fluke of DNA has see me conform to many classical male traits without ever seeking it (tall, chonk build, full beard, ridiculous alcohol tolerance, deep voice etc. None of that is the result of a particular desire, other than the beard I guess. Oh, and full head of hair when the other blokes in my family are balding). Others may feel influenced to take action, and fair enough, I’m not judging anyone here.
Yet....I might be watching something, and see an ad for KFC. And I’ll order some, because I like KFC. I don’t like it because of advertising, but the advertising reminded me I like it, so the influence works.
Fed up of Scalpers? But still want your Exclusives? Why not join us?
There's always ads we are resistant too and ads we are susceptible too. The whole "I'm immune to ads" often means "I'm immune to some ads that are commonly weak things for others"
Eh car and alcohol ads have no effect on me; nor to shaving ads. However they are very popular product lines with high profits that lets them market a lot. Instead I'm more likely to be swayed by "Oh dragon KS ad". Something that "the masses" might not fall for, but I will.
So I'm not ad immune I'm just not common with the ads I'm immune too
A few months ago, YouTube seemed to be putting whole music videos in as "adverts" - I've no idea who or what the point was. One seemed to have some plot line involving gangs in London, drug dealers and Jamaican Yardies murdering one another.
Now, I got an ad for some dodgy Yank banker (both literally and euphemistically, by the look of him) wanting to be mayor of London. No idea why, as the ad was just a five minute attack on "politicians" in general, and nothing to say what this guy will do. Plus, I'm nowhere near London, so it's pointless showing me.
All part of a media seemingly hellbent on inflicting mental health issues on girls and young ladies.
I don't think it's deliberately trying to create mental health issues, but it is certainly done with little regard for the consequences. The key to so much successful advertising is to create a problem and then provide the best/only solution. Hence, your skin is flawed, you should buy our moisturiser which targets however many causes of skin damage we've decided looks good on the pack!
Hell, the entire deodorant industry was created by cosmetics companies telling everyone that their natural body odour was unpleasant and needed to be dealt with, and it worked so well that they trained entire generations of people to think that way. Ditto women's hair removal products.
Advertising has a huge impact on people--the massive amounts of money spent on it testify to that. I am just pointing out that when it comes to cosmetics/appearance standards advertising is taking advantage of something already present. Does it have an effect on those standards? Very much so. But the origin is still with the people. Advertising could be stripped out of the equation entirely, there would still be appearance standards and negative feedback for individuals that lie outside a given culture's idea of what someone 'should' look like. To put the blame on advertising is to both ignore the real cause and to frame such standards as an artificial construct of modern society instead of something that has been inherent to humanity for our entire existence.
As for advertising 'immunity' I have mixed feelings about the term. After all, what does it really mean? To use myself as an example, the majority of adds have no impact on my purchasing habits because I am not the target demographic. An add for a medicine to cure X is irrelevant when I do not suffer from X. An add for a new car (there are a TON of these in the US) is irrelevant because I am not currently seeking to get a new one. Refinancing, lawn care, floodlights, irobot, any number of things that I personally have no use/desire for but are aimed at others viewing the same content who might want those things. Am I demonstrating 'immunity' here? Not really, because there was never a chance for the add to affect me in the first place.
But what about the more grey area, where it is something I could theoretically want if I totally bought into the add's presentation? Like that commercial for Dr. Squatch (I think that's the name) soap which rails against 'normal' soap being classified as detergent and listing off its herbal-sounding ingredients. If I were the naive type to take that at face value I might buy the soap. But I'm not, I see the logical fallacies at work and know them for what they are. I think when people refer to immunity this is what they mean. After all if the soap really was that great compared to the competitors I would indeed buy it, and the reason I am not interested is because it is not. The add failed in its attempt to deceive me.
However, adds need not be so overt. Perhaps the constant bombardment of car adds makes me more likely to evaluate if I want a new car, and influencing me in that manner. For many it goes further and they might convince themselves they want a new car when without the adds they would not. But on that initial subtle level I feel it is impossible to draw a line where the influence of adds ends and ones own legitimate desires begin. Maybe I really DID want a new car and would have realized it the next day when I was getting into my old one. Did the advertisement influence me by prompting that realization earlier? Well... sort of?
And finally we get to that very tiny fraction of adds that actually interest me. I would say the most common add that influences my purchasing directly would be one showing off a new deal or menu item at a fast food franchise* and prompting me to visit that location over others. But it is really the product itself driving that choice and the add only served to notify me. If I got a text from a friend saying 'hey this place has this deal' I would still take the same action. So the add did affect my actions directly, but only in that it provided me information I did not otherwise have. The blast of color, music, and extremely unrealistic depiction of the menu item that is actually served don't play a big factor because I am (very) well aware at this point of what I will actually be getting. Does this mean I am not immune to the add, or that I am?
It adds up in my eyes to 'advertisement immunity' not being a good descriptor because the whole concept doesn't really work that way. Yet, I find what people mean when they say that is 'good at seeing through the species of bs traditionally used in advertisements' which is rather wordy and so having a shorthand referring to the concept is useful in conversation.
*I eat fast food a lot as a conscious choice because it is something I enjoy--my overall dieting/budgeting takes it into account and as such there is a relatively fixed frequency of purchase. So nomming down on some blended animals pressed into the shape of different animals at a certain rate is an inevitability but the location of purchase is not.
