Quote:
Originally Posted by Devils'Advocate
I've always thought that for every dollar a company spends on advertising, they should have to give a dollar to a NGO that will dispute whatever they have to say in their advertisement. If there is absolutely nothing wrong with the company/product, the NGO couldn't find anything.
|
Is this what we call "Guilty until proven innocent"? I think it is!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Devils'Advocate
At the very least, there should be stricter laws about what a company can imply that their product does. Every second ad on TV suggests that their product will get them sex.
|
There are laws regulating what they can say their product does.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Devils'Advocate
As for those that say "oh, the ads don't impact ME, I'm NEVER swayed by advertisements", well there is a reason that companies use them. You may not think that they influence you, but most of us, subconsciously, will pick up a product only on brand recognition. You want to buy an air freshener and you see Glade and some brand you've never seen before.... you pick up the one you saw an ad for yesterday without even thinking about it. They don't plaster our lives with ads because they want to throw money around for no good reason.
|
It absolutely does work. People can be influenced to buy stuff. Creating an even larger army of bureaucrats to sift through it all before it reaches the consumers, which is what you appear to be suggesting, isn't going to change that.