5 ms·
Oh you're right, how much do you think they paid to broadcast those advertisements?
by trixie_ 5y ago
Oh you're right, how much do you think they paid to broadcast those advertisements?
- clouddrover 5y agoHow much do you think they paid to make those advertisements?
- tempestn 5y agoThey paid for this marketing, obviously, but by definition an ad is a paid placement.
- clouddrover 5y agoIt's an ad, plain and simple. Here's some more advertising. Tesla offers you the exciting opportunity of a religious experience at a live infomercial: https://www.inputmag.com/culture/tesla-cyber-rodeo-rabid-elon-musk-cult-gigafactory-cybertruck-model-y-electric-vehicles https://www.inputmag.com/culture/tesla-cyber-rodeo-rabid-elo...
- heavyset_go 5y agoThis is revisionism and just plain wrong. From OED: > a notice or announcement in a public medium promoting a product, service, or event or publicizing a job vacancy. From Merriam-Webster: > a public notice especially : one published in the press or broadcast over the air
- zaroth 5y agoThe MW definition is obviously wrong, it vaguely describes every piece of text on the Internet.
- clouddrover 5y agoSure. It's the dictionary that's got it wrong. The mental gymnastics Tesla fans perform to desperately rationalize Tesla's obvious lies ought to be an Olympic sport. Tesla advertises. Accept it. Embrace the reality of it.
- tempestn 5y agoI'm no Tesla fan, but I maintain that the standard understanding of an "advertisement" implies paid. Just because a company puts something out there into the world doesn't make it an advertisement. (Things like classified job posting "ads" notwithstanding.)
- clouddrover 5y agoThat's nothing to be embarrassed about. You're wrong, that's all. This kind of silly semantic argument is both weak and tedious. They're ads, start to finish. It's advertising. There is no other honest description.
- tempestn 5y agoIs that kind of hostile/dismissive language actually necessary or helpful do you think? What if instead we investigate the disagreement in good faith? One of the two definitions of an "advertisement" from Webster was quoted. The other is this: > the act or process of advertising something Which links to "advertising": > the action of calling something to the attention of the public especially by paid announcements Emphasis mine. So perhaps we have some middle ground here. I would argue that this is the advertising definition we're talking about when we're discussing whether something is an "advertisement", not the sort of public event or job posting, commonly referred to as a "classified ad", referred to by the other definition. Maybe that's where we disagree. Or maybe it's the salience of this "especially by paid announcements". In my experience, that is the general understanding of the term: advertisements are generally paid. But I acknowledge that it says "especially by", not "only by", so some room for interpretation is left. So, given all that, I figure if you want to label this an ad, that's reasonable. What I find less reasonable is declaring anyone who disagrees to be objectively wrong, and then using dismissive language like the above to try and win an unnecessary argument.
- epgui 5y agoYou guys are all debating different things and talking past each other.
- clouddrover 5y agoNo, it's all very simple. There's what's true and there's what's false. What's false: Tesla doesn't advertise. What's true: Tesla advertises. See? Simple.
- trixie_ 5y agoPedantic. (Almost) Everyone understands what 'Tesla doesn't advertise' means.
- rootusrootus 5y agoBut everyone also recognizes this video as the ad that it is.