Why is this an ad?


  • Discourse touched me in a no-no place

    From Youtube. Apparently Google thinks I'm in the market for electronic warfare fighter jets?

    This whole trend of faceless multinational purveyors of industrial and government hardware advertising at consumers is kind of annoying. To my memory, the first time I saw it happen GE was advertising Evolution locomotives on radio and TV. And then there are ads for airliner engines. And now fighter jets? WTF.

    There is precisely ZERO advantage to advertising these things to the general public, because there isn't a single person involved in procurement of any of these goods and services that are going to give a single fuck about a TV commercial.



  • Boeing used to advertise hundred-million dollar aircraft on TV in this area a decade ago. I never figured out why.

    EDIT: I should mention a friend's theory was so that it would show in local hotel rooms while airline execs were in town. That's a one-in-a-million shot, but at least it's a reason.

    But then again, "plastics" used to advertise. Like... the plastic industry wanted you to use more plastics. To talk you out of, for example, buying that wooden laptop or stone car dashboard. Apparently.


  • Discourse touched me in a no-no place

    Oh jeez I'd forgotten that one. "Plastics make it possible"



  • At least those are tangible things that one might conceivably buy if one had the resources. The ones that get me are Google ads for intangible, abstract concepts: Google for "stupidity;" get ads for "Buy stupidity at online-merchant.com."



  • @Weng said:

    This whole trend of faceless multinational purveyors of industrial and government hardware advertising at consumers is kind of annoying.

    So wordy that I zone out after about 6 words, no matter how many times I try to read the sentence in its entirety.

    Anyway, to actually answer your question, it's both to increase investor interest (you might buy Boeing or GE stock) and to improve public image. You can find a more comprehensive answer here: https://www.quora.com/Why-does-a-company-like-Boeing-advertise-on-T-V


  • Discourse touched me in a no-no place

    Is "daytraders so dumb they pay attention to advertisements" an addressably large population?



  • Apparently it is; are they just jacking off onto piles of money and then spending it on advertising? Or do you think they do lots of research beforehand to see if it's fiscially viable? Hmm...

    @Weng said:

    There is precisely ZERO advantage to advertising these things to the general public, because there isn't a single person involved in procurement of any of these goods and services that are going to give a single fuck about a TV commercial.

    "I know everything and I am right because I have used my massive amounts of experience and knowledge to declare my opinion to be a fact."


  • Discourse touched me in a no-no place

    Yes. Also, my direct experience with the senior management of 0.2 percent of the Fortune 500 leads me to believe that all decisions are made by jacking off onto piles of money.



  • Evil, oppressive dictators are people too!

    After spending the day wracking your brains trying to figure out how you can make an undetected airborne first strike against your neighbouring dictator, you go home and chill out watching TV.

    Up pops the ad, profit!


  • BINNED

    Filthy rich monarchs with shitload of money and no brain who try to hide their nation's lack of technological progress behind purchased high tech airplanes and super computers. Meanwhile the military industrial complex sells them even more on support and training, read very highly priced contracts and contractors who end up actually operating the technology because no one in those countries bothers with learning it :) sell it, charge for it and still own it.


  • Discourse touched me in a no-no place

    @rc4 said:

    improve public image

    This is probably the single biggest reason. It's often extremely useful (but not always) for a large company to have the public aware in general of what they do. Yes, it's a diffuse benefit, but it's a relevant one. It feeds into stock activity, whether the company gets considered for contracts, how it is regarded by other companies, all sorts of things.

    It sometimes backfires horribly too. :smile:



  • @dkf said:

    all sorts of things.

    Including local issues, like "Oh, they make the planes I fly on when I visit Aunt Gertrude, and they pump umpteen gajillion into my city's economy; maybe the noise and the traffic driving by my house at 6AM aren't so bad after all."



  • @blakeyrat said:

    To talk you out of, for example, buying that wooden laptop or stone car dashboard.

    Quaint My Ride with Jeremy Clarkson - Top Gear - BBC autos – 09:12
    — Top Gear



  • @rc4 said:

    do you think they do lots of research beforehand to see if it's fiscially viable?

    I can think of no reason why the C suite should be any more resistant to the blandishments of advertising sales droids than to those of software sales droids.

    Filed under: blandishments



  • See also Parkinson's law of triviality (a.k.a bikeshedding).



  • @Weng said:

    There is precisely ZERO advantage to advertising these things to the general public, because there isn't a single person involved in procurement of any of these goods and services that are going to give a single fuck about a TV commercial.

    Well... there is a few advantage for the company: it makes a perfectly justified account-line in the finance of the company.

    On that line, they can charge the specification, conception, realisation and broadcasting of the spot. And the various bills might be from friendly-politic's company or holding. With accomodations also charged on that same line.

    "Senators, we would like your advice on the place the spot would be done. We have elected a small island near Hawai and some desert near Las Vegas, we are not sure. Of course the travels and hotels are on us. And there is a small contract for your report too, we are liberal, we know time is money."



  • Obviously we don't give them enough development aid, the poorest 2080% of the population are still about to starve.

    @dse said:

    Filthy richBarely equipped with sufficient resources monarchshereditarydemocratically elected presidents

    FTFPC


  • Discourse touched me in a no-no place

    @Jerome_Grimbert said:

    "Senators, we would like your advice on the place the spot would be done…"

    "Sounds like a fact-finding mission is in order."



  • Nope, ads are meant to create brand recognition, even to people who won't ever pay for a product.

    Some luxury brands advertise to "poor people" just to make them aware that their brand exists and they should see anyone who wears it as richer and better.



  • @anonymous234 said:

    Some luxury brands advertise to "poor people" just to make them aware that their brand exists and they should see anyone who wears it as richer and better.

    Probably true, but that alone wouldn't help without making "rich people" believe that "poor people" do that. And/or that other "rich people" will think that anyone who can afford this is rich too.

    People buy things that a) are useful, b) are convenient, c) are amusing, and d) make the neighbors envious. And this d) is the market gap we have to go into.

    (from an Asterix adventure I don't know the English title of)


  • Discourse touched me in a no-no place

    @PWolff said:

    Probably true, but that alone wouldn't help without making "rich people" believe that "poor people" do that. And/or that other "rich people" will think that anyone who can afford this is rich too.

    Status symbols are not a new thing; they've been part of human society for thousands of years.



  • @dkf said:

    Status symbols are not a new thing

    Neither is exploiting them in marketing.


  • SockDev

    @Weng said:

    This whole trend of faceless multinational purveyors of industrial and government hardware advertising at consumers is kind of annoying. To my memory, the first time I saw it happen GE was advertising Evolution locomotives on radio and TV. And then there are ads for airliner engines. And now fighter jets? WTF.

    I imagine it's a tax dodge. they get brand recognition and they can write off the advertizing monies through loopholes in the corp tax code (possible loopholes that they paid to have put there in the first place)



  • @accalia said:

    (possible loopholes that they paid to have put there in the first place)

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hanlon's_razor


  • SockDev

    I don't think Hanlon applies to the current state of US politics....

    /me has negative trust in both the Republican and Democrat parties (and trusts Independents even less than that!)



  • @accalia said:

    current state of US politics

    Admittedly, we cannot assume they're too uneducated to know about a tradition of honest and incorruptible government, unlike a "third world" country where people always have been used to pay small clerks for doing their assigned work..


  • SockDev

    Are you saying corporations don't buy laws that favour them? Because that's exactly what they do. Why else would garbage like the DMCA have gotten through?



  • I wasn't referring to laws in general but to this one law of tax reduction for advertizing. I think it is quite plausible nobody thought of such things in parliament.


  • SockDev

    @PWolff said:

    parliament

    You mean Congress. And by my understanding, Congress critters don't actually read a lot of the bills that come before them; they just listen to who can make them richer.

    Not that the UK parliament is much better...


  • Discourse touched me in a no-no place

    @RaceProUK said:

    Not that the UK parliament is much better...

    They're distinctly better in at least one way — bills tend to stick to the topic rather than being stuffed with pork — but worse in other ways (notably, government is stronger relative to parliament than the administration is relative to congress in the US).



  • @RaceProUK said:

    @PWolff said:
    parliament

    You mean Congress.

    TIL Brits are peeved when someone uses the word "parliament" in the outdated sense of any legislative entity consisting of delegatees and not for the British one only.


  • SockDev

    It's nothing to do with that; it's more the US political system is not a parliament, but a congress.


  • I survived the hour long Uno hand

    Is there a razor for "Never attribute to stupidity that which is adequately explained by the tax code"?



  • @RaceProUK said:

    it's more the US political system is not a parliament, but a congress.

    I think I should learn lots more about politics. So far I naïvely thought that any democracy bigger than San Marino would have a parliament, maybe under a different name.


  • SockDev

    A parliament is just one way of structuring government ;)


  • SockDev

    @PWolff said:

    I think I should learn lots more about politics. So far I naïvely thought that any democracy bigger than San Marino would have a parliament, maybe under a different name.

    One thing i'm constantly amazed at is the number of people who think the USofA is a Democracy. It isn't.

    The USofA is a Federalist Republic.

    there are a lot of similarities to a Democracy, but also some pretty key differences.



  • @RaceProUK said:

    A parliament is just one way of structuring government

    In a way, right. An absolutist monarchy can have a parliament too, albeit only for advisory purposes.

    I've had a look into the Wikipedia articles about that matter, both English and German ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Congress , https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kongress_der_Vereinigten_Staaten , https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Senate , https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Senat_der_Vereinigten_Staaten , https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_House_of_Representatives , https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Repräsentantenhaus_der_Vereinigten_Staaten ) and it is actually the case that the Congress is not called a "parliament" in English, but it is called a "Parlament" in German. So the words "parliament" and "Parlament" are probably "false friends", and dangerous ones too, for they are too similar in meaning to be immediately noticed as such.


  • area_deu

    Wait.
    I thought republic was a form of representative democracy.



  • Okay, I'll concede that that may be how they make most of their decisions.



  • @accalia said:

    The USofA is a Federalist Republic.

    there are a lot of similarities to a Democracy, but also some pretty key differences.

    This seems to be another difference between English "democracy" and German "Demokratie". We are inklined to think that a county in feudalism is still governed by a king, albeit indirectly, and as such a monarchy (or, in this case, part of a monarchy, because it doesn't cover all of the area of the king's realm).

    And if the inhabitants of an association of a country can't (indirectly) decide about what the association does, at least one of the countries is not a democracy, and therefore the entire association isn't a(n indirect) "Demokratie".



  • @aliceif said:

    I thought republic was a form of representative democracy.

    Maybe - I think I ought to look that up too. (Knowing languages - in this case Latin - isn't helpful all the time.)


  • area_deu

    @PWolff said:

    Knowing languages - in this case Latin - isn't helpful all the time.

    Public thing


    Filed under: not descriptive enough


  • Discourse touched me in a no-no place

    @Yamikuronue said:

    Is there a razor for "Never attribute to stupidity that which is adequately explained by the tax code"?
    "My accountant's gold plated razor"



  • Uhm, no. What you're suggesting is that business should be taxed on gross receipts rather than on profit realized.


  • SockDev

    I'm not suggesting anything of the sort.

    I am suggesting that this behavior may be a tax dodge, and further that the tax dodge may have been enabled by the corporations themselves lobbying for certain changes in the tax code (as they are wont to do) to create the loophole that allowed them to perform said tax dodge.

    I will not even pretend to understand enough economics to have a better tax solution.

    /me thinks that tax would be better applied to money spent rather than money earned, but admits that she merely thinks this would be a good idea and has no idea whether or not it would actually work if implemented.

    /me furthermore wishes to point out that she has approximately zero control over the tax code, not having millions of dollars to spend on lobbying.


  • Discourse touched me in a no-no place

    @accalia said:

    /me thinks that tax would be better applied to money spent rather than money earned, but admits that she merely thinks this would be a good idea and has no idea whether or not it would actually work if implemented.

    That would backfire in different ways, by encouraging massive cheap-ass-ness. We're already rather a lot of that about.

    It might be better to consider a loan to be income or a special type of taxable asset.


  • SockDev

    @dkf said:

    That would backfire in different ways, by encouraging massive cheap-ass-ness. We're already rather a lot of that about.

    see? that's why i wouldn't be the right person to ask about how to fix the tax code!

    @dkf said:

    by encouraging massive cheap-ass-ness.

    that could possibly be fixed by taxing liquid assets at a higher rate than debt or expenditure?

    although i'm sure that would also backfire somehow too.



  • @RaceProUK said:

    And by my understanding, Congress critters don't actually read a lot of the bills that come before them; they just listen to who can make them richer.reelect them

    Actually, they mostly just listen to whatever the party leadership says to do.



  • @PWolff said:

    TIL Brits are peeved when someone uses the word "parliament" in the outdated sense of any legislative entity consisting of delegatees and not for the British one only.

    There are no parliaments (aside from the Funkadelic and cigarette sorts) in the US.



  • @PWolff said:

    So far I naïvely thought that any democracy bigger than San Marino would have a parliament, maybe under a different name.

    This is perhaps an ESL issue. The word you're thinking of is legislature. That's the more generic term.


Log in to reply
 

Looks like your connection to What the Daily WTF? was lost, please wait while we try to reconnect.