yogert909 Wrote:I can't speak to madman because I've only seen one episode. But being that I work in the advertisement business, I'm not about to criticize advertising or banner ads. But then again everybody knows banner ads are advertisements. But if somebody paid me to write in this forum how great a product was, nobody knows I'm being paid and have a reason to be biased. I'm not sure I even think it should be illegal, but I do believe it is slimy. You don't?
It's not illegal or anything even close to it. I am not even sure it can be seen as slightly unusual. Slimy maybe. But that's advertising/information control in general.

History lesson about why marijuana was ever made illegal is on point here. Hearst owned newspapers and timber forests, and use one to sell the other. Is is not advertising just because he never labeled his entire newspaper chain's slant as an advertising agency?

Recent history lesson here: Fox News is the advertising agency of the military-industrial complex. Fox made a multi-millionaire out the the Vice President, and made Halliburton billions of dollars, and no one called that advertising, but that's exactly what Fox News is, an advertising agency for the military industrial complex.

I am in love with FOSS (free open source software) because that is the one time that internet mentions are not tied to profit.

Other than that, from the very beginnings of the non-academic form of the internet, every time a commercial product gets mentioned, it takes a naive person, or one not aware of history to *not* assume that some good percentage of mentions (up to and including 100%, positive or negative) are done by people paid to post about it.

Microsoft paid minions to post FUD on newsgroups about IBM's OS/2 Warp. It's also worth pointing out that IBM was not an injured innocent, since the word FUD can be traced back to the line "No one ever got fired for buying IBM."

In the age of Yelp, where one person with a grudge can hurt a company, a company would be stupid not to have a good portion of its advertising budget on 'social' advertising.

If an employee is spreading the word about a company on social media, or if the companies are paying a person to spread out and post about it, how is the fact that one person is an employee and the other freelance make anything different?

It is clear (to me at least) that if there is a product, someone is getting paid to mention it/use it/hold it in their hands in a scene. Sometimes the person mentioning it (use it/hold it in their hands in a scene) is directly receiving money, sometimes they aren't.

But someone is getting paid. Or a viewpoint is getting sold. Or a brand is getting established.

Messages In This Thread