3 ms·

I would say that Apple's advertising has become far more relatable recently. Most people can relate to a christmas event with a detached kid, or calling home to

I would say that Apple's advertising has become far more relatable recently. Most people can relate to a christmas event with a detached kid, or calling home to Facetime with their family. Granted, the people are unrealistically good looking and well dressed, but it's far more down to earth than this Facebook piece. I found the overly-hip nature of the characters in this extremely un-relatable. I could feel the jealously and dislike inside me. I know that's horrible, and I suppressed it like a good social being, but it was there. Advertising shouldn't create those kinds of feelings. I don't know what the trick is to avoiding them, but many successful advertisers do.

jodrellblank 13y ago
"I could see the SQL injection happening; I pretended it wasn't happening, like a good developer, but it was there. Website users shouldn't create those kinds of problems. I don't know what the trick is to avoiding them, but many of users do".
- derefr 13y ago
  Er, you totally read that wrong. Switch the terms "developer" and "user" in your analogy.
  - jodrellblank 13y ago
    I don't think I misread it; I was poking at you to illustrate that your internal feelings of jealousy and anger are not the responsibility of the advertiser to avoid triggering, and suppressing them is not "being a good person" (or a 'bad' person), it's "covering over a problem you have and pretending it's not a problem hoping it will go away". Correctly functioning (neither judged as good or bad) humans don't get angry and jealous at seeing imaginary people's imaginary success, or real people's real success for that matter.
    - derefr 13y ago
      > your internal feelings of jealousy and anger are not the responsibility of the advertiser to avoid triggering. They kind of are. I mean, for most other jobs, you're right--your emotions are your own responsibility. But advertising (inasmuch as it's more than simply "getting the word out") is all about harnessing peoples' irrationalities in profitable ways. And that means avoiding triggering irrationalities and biases people have that might scare them away from buying what you're selling. For example, the last thing you want to show in a computer ad is a picture of the machine with an IDE open. Because IDEs are intimidating to a lot of people, reminding them of skills they lack ("I'm not good with computers.") And "intimidated" is not a buying mood. (Also, as an aside, I'm not sure in which sense you meant "you," but to be sure, I wasn't the poster you first replied to.)
    - bradleyland 13y ago
      It's worth noting that the person you're replying to wasn't me. I don't mind being poked fun of. I often do it myself :) Framing this as a "responsibility" is the wrong way to look at it. If an advertisement makes a significant number of people feel negative emotions, it won't be effective, and what good is ineffective advertising? Who cares who's right, wrong, good, or bad? Much less who is responsible? I'm a flawed person. I openly accept that. I don't think my emotions in this situation are unique though, and I don't think they're basis to refer to someone as incorrectly functioning. It's what we do with those emotions that make us "correctly functioning" or not.
deleted 13y ago
[deleted]

jodrellblank 13y ago

"I could see the SQL injection happening; I pretended it wasn't happening, like a good developer, but it was there. Website users shouldn't create those kinds of problems. I don't know what the trick is to avoiding them, but many of users do".

derefr 13y ago
Er, you totally read that wrong. Switch the terms "developer" and "user" in your analogy.
- jodrellblank 13y ago
  I don't think I misread it; I was poking at you to illustrate that your internal feelings of jealousy and anger are not the responsibility of the advertiser to avoid triggering, and suppressing them is not "being a good person" (or a 'bad' person), it's "covering over a problem you have and pretending it's not a problem hoping it will go away". Correctly functioning (neither judged as good or bad) humans don't get angry and jealous at seeing imaginary people's imaginary success, or real people's real success for that matter.
  - derefr 13y ago
    > your internal feelings of jealousy and anger are not the responsibility of the advertiser to avoid triggering. They kind of are. I mean, for most other jobs, you're right--your emotions are your own responsibility. But advertising (inasmuch as it's more than simply "getting the word out") is all about harnessing peoples' irrationalities in profitable ways. And that means avoiding triggering irrationalities and biases people have that might scare them away from buying what you're selling. For example, the last thing you want to show in a computer ad is a picture of the machine with an IDE open. Because IDEs are intimidating to a lot of people, reminding them of skills they lack ("I'm not good with computers.") And "intimidated" is not a buying mood. (Also, as an aside, I'm not sure in which sense you meant "you," but to be sure, I wasn't the poster you first replied to.)
  - bradleyland 13y ago
    It's worth noting that the person you're replying to wasn't me. I don't mind being poked fun of. I often do it myself :) Framing this as a "responsibility" is the wrong way to look at it. If an advertisement makes a significant number of people feel negative emotions, it won't be effective, and what good is ineffective advertising? Who cares who's right, wrong, good, or bad? Much less who is responsible? I'm a flawed person. I openly accept that. I don't think my emotions in this situation are unique though, and I don't think they're basis to refer to someone as incorrectly functioning. It's what we do with those emotions that make us "correctly functioning" or not.

deleted 13y ago

[deleted]