5 ms·

> Evidently people don't pay attention to what is said and will go off and do their own thing. It's almost like that was the intention. It's weird how the ad d

> Evidently people don't pay attention to what is said and will go off and do their own thing. It's almost like that was the intention. It's weird how the ad doesn't prominently show the eggs, beans, etc. and talk about how great they are, and instead focuses on how you can totally eat cookies for breakfast! Here's an example: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YnvHUXssIAo https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YnvHUXssIAo "Not Candy! Resees Puffs cereal!" It is candy. Like 1/3 of the mass is added sugar, and the other 2/3 is more carbs. And what's the complete breakfast that goes with it? Two slices of white-bread toast, a glass of milk, and a glass of juice. Even the "complete" breakfast is garbage. The bowl almost certainly has more than the 1 cup serving as well. The purpose of this commercial is not to inform you about how to use their product as part of a healthy diet (because it isn't a part of a healthy diet). It is to turn your brain off and get you to buy something that you intuitively know is not appropriate. People received the intended message. Even if they did show their product as a small side (rather than a centerpiece) of an otherwise healthy breakfast, it's still ridiculous to suggest that you should be giving your kids candy with any regularity. My oldest kid is 3, and I don't think she has had an Oreo. Will she before she's 18? Probably. Has she had some other treats? Sure. But it's not at all a regular thing. It's certainly not part of a daily diet.

randomdata 2y ago
> The purpose of this commercial is not to inform you about how to use their product Assuming we watched the same video, the purpose is to inform the offer of a solution to a problem: The problem of parents needing to rush off to work and the kids off to school, without time to prepare a proper healthy breakfast, with the kids crying "I'm hungry" yet turning their nose up at anything that might be even reasonably healthy. Hell ya I've given my children candy for breakfast on occasion. We seem to both accept that the occasional treat is not the end of the world. Why not at breakfast? I certainly wouldn't want to make it a habit, but I can also say that from a point of relative privilege in time and resources to cater to other choices. While I think we can agree it is not ideal to turn it into a habit, I can empathize with the parent who is trying to cope with a hard situation by resorting to something that solves the immediate problem. > ...as part of a healthy diet While this ends up being true, does this caveat not imply that health is the only problem people face? Clearly that is not true. > It is to turn your brain off and get you to buy something that you intuitively know is not appropriate. Like you imply, I expect most parents have a pang of guilt when buying breakfast candy for their children, but I expect they also don't know what is a better alternative that fits within their life constraints. If you could market to them something that is at least as equally palatable to the picky child, at least as easy to prepare, and actually healthy, I bet you could destroy the cereal market overnight. But without consumers becoming aware of that better solution...
- ndriscoll 2y ago
  Again, this is a problem the advertisers create. My kid doesn't turn her nose up at healthy food; she asks for it. Want to know why? She doesn't know things like cereal exist. She wouldn't know to ever ask for it, much less demand it. In her mind, strawberries are a treat. We don't eat candy for breakfast because candy is not food. Thus the issue of fighting to enforce good habits never arises. Without advertisements undermining us, the idea simply does not exist. If it ever occurred to her, it's easy to say "no, candy is not food" and we don't have a TV telling her otherwise.
  - randomdata 2y ago
    > My kid doesn't turn her nose up at healthy food; she asks for it. Yeah, so did my kids at that age. In fact, if given the choice, they would choose the healthy food over the candy. Get back to us in a few years. On that note, there is nothing to me that suggests the ad in question is even trying to convince you that your unruly 3 year old that you are rushing to get off to school is a problem. It clearly portrays older children. You appear to be the exact embodiment of the idea that ads are not likeable when they are not applicable. What does seem applicable to your preferences is healthy food. Would you be this miffed if you were shown an ad in a similar vein about a new food product that tastes great and has proven to be healthy? Or would you be glad to learn about it? > She doesn't know things like cereal exist. Without some kind of advertising, she also wouldn't know anything exists – even healthy food. Seems you're trying to go down the same road as the parallel thread of "advertising is only bad if the product is bad". Which is hard to deny on some kind of superficial level, sure, but seems to conflate a number of ideas that I'm not sure should be conflated.
    - ndriscoll 2y ago
      Of course she would know healthy food exists: her parents show her. That is fundamentally different from a paid message. I don't see why you wouldn't tie those ideas. Sure, ads that remind you to do some push-ups and tell kids how cool it is to be strong would be great, but they don't exist. Talking about decent adverts might as well be talking about how "true" communism hasn't been tried. In the real world, the product generally is somewhere between unnecessary and outright bad. It's obtuse to ignore that. One of us is talking about hypothetical ads for fantasy products. The other is talking about actual ads.

randomdata 2y ago

> The purpose of this commercial is not to inform you about how to use their product Assuming we watched the same video, the purpose is to inform the offer of a solution to a problem: The problem of parents needing to rush off to work and the kids off to school, without time to prepare a proper healthy breakfast, with the kids crying "I'm hungry" yet turning their nose up at anything that might be even reasonably healthy. Hell ya I've given my children candy for breakfast on occasion. We seem to both accept that the occasional treat is not the end of the world. Why not at breakfast? I certainly wouldn't want to make it a habit, but I can also say that from a point of relative privilege in time and resources to cater to other choices. While I think we can agree it is not ideal to turn it into a habit, I can empathize with the parent who is trying to cope with a hard situation by resorting to something that solves the immediate problem. > ...as part of a healthy diet While this ends up being true, does this caveat not imply that health is the only problem people face? Clearly that is not true. > It is to turn your brain off and get you to buy something that you intuitively know is not appropriate. Like you imply, I expect most parents have a pang of guilt when buying breakfast candy for their children, but I expect they also don't know what is a better alternative that fits within their life constraints. If you could market to them something that is at least as equally palatable to the picky child, at least as easy to prepare, and actually healthy, I bet you could destroy the cereal market overnight. But without consumers becoming aware of that better solution...

ndriscoll 2y ago
Again, this is a problem the advertisers create. My kid doesn't turn her nose up at healthy food; she asks for it. Want to know why? She doesn't know things like cereal exist. She wouldn't know to ever ask for it, much less demand it. In her mind, strawberries are a treat. We don't eat candy for breakfast because candy is not food. Thus the issue of fighting to enforce good habits never arises. Without advertisements undermining us, the idea simply does not exist. If it ever occurred to her, it's easy to say "no, candy is not food" and we don't have a TV telling her otherwise.
- randomdata 2y ago
  > My kid doesn't turn her nose up at healthy food; she asks for it. Yeah, so did my kids at that age. In fact, if given the choice, they would choose the healthy food over the candy. Get back to us in a few years. On that note, there is nothing to me that suggests the ad in question is even trying to convince you that your unruly 3 year old that you are rushing to get off to school is a problem. It clearly portrays older children. You appear to be the exact embodiment of the idea that ads are not likeable when they are not applicable. What does seem applicable to your preferences is healthy food. Would you be this miffed if you were shown an ad in a similar vein about a new food product that tastes great and has proven to be healthy? Or would you be glad to learn about it? > She doesn't know things like cereal exist. Without some kind of advertising, she also wouldn't know anything exists – even healthy food. Seems you're trying to go down the same road as the parallel thread of "advertising is only bad if the product is bad". Which is hard to deny on some kind of superficial level, sure, but seems to conflate a number of ideas that I'm not sure should be conflated.
  - ndriscoll 2y ago
    Of course she would know healthy food exists: her parents show her. That is fundamentally different from a paid message. I don't see why you wouldn't tie those ideas. Sure, ads that remind you to do some push-ups and tell kids how cool it is to be strong would be great, but they don't exist. Talking about decent adverts might as well be talking about how "true" communism hasn't been tried. In the real world, the product generally is somewhere between unnecessary and outright bad. It's obtuse to ignore that. One of us is talking about hypothetical ads for fantasy products. The other is talking about actual ads.