Pajiba

Love Bill Hicks, and I can't wait to see this.

While I agree with a lot of what Bill Hicks says, he never really struck me as a comedian. His routines seem to vacillate between poetry and preaching, sometimes near a sort of performance art, or else just a caustic diatribe. I barely laugh, I just find myself nodding and going, "Yeah, ain't that the truth." A smile here or there. I suppose I can see (especially from that second video clip) where people can find him comedic, but he still doesn't feel like a "comedian" to me.

Still a lot more humorous and ballsy than most who profess to have that job description, though...

LOVE the Hicks and so thrilled about this little project. Can't wait.

Oh, and I was in advertising/marketing and pretty much wanted to kill myself for the two years I could stand it, ethically. Then fled. :)

Hey, now. Without advertising, how else would you sheeple know what's cool? Or how to dress? Or what to drive? Or what TV shows are awesome?

You actually think you make your own decisions? Please. Most of you can barely negotiate great taste vs. less filling.

But seriously, I have a degree in journalism, work in advertising now, and I'm pretty sure I'd feel like much more of a soulless whore if I worked in journalism. Believe me, advertising is more honest. At least it's up front about being for sale.

Hicks is one of those very smart and perceptive people that I don't always agree with, but I still appreciate. I think he's very close to right in the first clip, but there's a major issue there. As much as he tries to defuse it by tipping his hat to what a PR/marketing hack might say about what he's saying (a tactic that the hacks themselves might consider, as he meta-meta acknowledges), it remains true that he, like everyone but the most innocent of innocents, makes subtle and deliberate changes to his presentation and appearance in order to influence what people think of him.
Apparently he forgives himself because he feels he's not out to make a buck by tricking people into buying something they might not otherwise, but what kind of distinction is that? Hicks wore black clothes and big black hats and expressed himself with specific intonations in order to influence people's perception of him and their acceptance of his message. He made money by attracting a following that loved what they felt he was, as shaped by that message. I LIKE the message, because I don't like it when people get away with encouraging irrational behavior using irrational propaganda, but I don't like that he thinks that some people, particularly himself, are above that somehow, and that thinking otherwise is the result of the tricks of the marketing hacks.

Man....I do not like Bill Hicks.

/kills self

/will come back later to read other reviews

The thing is, Hicks was right that marketing people (the account side, anyway) are almost impossible to insult. They really do break everyone down into marketing segments, and see nothing wrong with this. You are nothing more than a demo to them. They are always looking for a way to monetize a movement or philosophy or a trend. The internet isn't gonna change this. They're trying to monetize Twitter right now, and the guy who invented Twitter is more than happy to help them do it.

There is an easy answer to the marketing thing, though. You don't have to listen to it or act on its suggestions. But most people do. We have literally billions of dollars worth of research that proves it. None of you younger people (ie, 20- and 30-somethings) are any less susceptible as a group to advertising than older people are. Most of the shit you own, you own because you saw an ad for it or saw a celebrity wear it/use it/consume it. Or you saw it in a movie.

Most of your buying decisions are influenced by some kind of advertising. Most of you probably own iPhones. You think you own an iPhone because it's cool. And it is cool. But Apple spent nearly $500 million on advertising in 2009 (that makes them one of the biggest accounts in America; Microsoft spends about a billion a year). And Apple made a deal with AT&T to sell the iPhone (known as a "cross-promotion"). If you own an iPhone, you're part of the herd.

We tell you what to buy. We just need to figure out how to convince you that it was your idea to begin with.

That first clip did not appeal to me one bit. I'm not bothering with the others. I'm also not bothering with listing why I didn't like it, but I do need to say this:

"We made arsenic childhood food"? That would be the responsibility of the inventors and the crappy regulators who aren't checking products intended for human consumption. Not the marketers.

If you own an iPhone, you're part of the herd.

An oversimplification. If you extend the logic, then the next step is "if you own anything, you're part of the herd." Marketing people sometimes give themselves too much credit, which is one more reason people hate marketing execs. Yes, they clearly wield a certain power over people, but the fact of the matter is, people have to own shit. Sometimes it's because of marketing, sometimes it's because of informed decisions.

That kind of simplistic statement basically pigeonholes everyone, and the herd argument is tired. Of course we're part of a herd. We're a society which is, in the loosest definition, simply a large, well-organized herd. It doesn't necessarily automatically translate into meaning all people can't think for themselves.

It's like the iPod argument. People who refuse to buy ipods or digital music think they're somehow more individualistic than others. They're not. They're just buying into a different herd mentality. It doesn't make them stupid or wrong, nor does it say that of those they disagree with.

RE: Skewicide Blonde

Sure, we're all part of a herd. I just meant that if you think you're a rugged individualist who is not influenced by evil advertising, you're in denial. Before we called it advertising, we called it something else. "The way everyone else does it." Or "The way things are." Or "The gods demand it to be thus." Or whatever. I used the iPhone example because everyone knows what it is.

Yes, marketing pigeonholes people. Because people can be pigeonholed. If we know your age, gender, ethnicity, your address, how much formal education you have, your religion, marital status, political affiliation (if any), and income, we probably could name by brand at least half of what you own. Because we sold it to you. People really aren't that hard to figure out. Not in their purchasing behavior, anyway.

Yes, sometimes marketing fails. But a lot of times, it's not the ad people's fault, it's the client. Sometimes they don't listen to us. We tell them how to sell something, they don't want to do it that way, for whatever reason, the campaign fails. Our research will tell them something they don't want to hear, so they refuse to act on it. Sometimes we actually tell them to not do a hard sell, but a lot of them don't like subtle messages. They think they have to beat people over the head with their sales pitch. That's why they plaster their logo all over everything.

Also, yeah, people have to own shit. But most people have brand preferences, preferences that were nurtured by advertising. They just don't like to admit it. Why do you think so many people in America own big SUVs? They don't need them. Most people don't need a giant storage area in their vehicle and 4-wheel drive. Ad agencies convinced them that they needed that stuff, plus the safety and comfort that large vehicles provide. Unless you drive through a forest to get to work every day, you don't need 4WD. But lots of people have it, because advertising convinced them (by showing SUVs driving up 45 degree grades and through snowy landscapes) that SUVs will drive through anything. I wish I had a dollar for every SUV in Dallas, I could probably have enough money to quit my job.

Advertising isn't about need. It's about want. And people react strongly to wants. Some products can be sold on a strictly utilitarian basis, but most aren't.

Sure, we're all part of a herd. I just meant that if you think you're a rugged individualist who is not influenced by evil advertising, you're in denial. Before we called it advertising, we called it something else. "The way everyone else does it." Or "The way things are." Or "The gods demand it to be thus." Or whatever. I used the iPhone example because everyone knows what it is.

Now that, I agree with. I took issue with your prior comment because it came of as contemptuous of people's individuality. If that wasn't the case, then my mistake. Of course, marketing works. I'm typing this on a computer that I bought because I saw an ad for it. But I also did the research, tried to find as impartial a review as possible, and proceeded. The initial feeling I got from your statement was that we are some sort of thoughtless slaves to marketing, and that's not quite right (although in many cases, perhaps it is).

People need phones. That's the core dependency. Of course, there is brand loyalty, and people impulsively buy dumb shit because of glitzy ad campaigns -- I don't deny that. But I also think that's the cruz of Hicks' issue -- less the need for marketing, but rather the methodology. And that's what gets me too, I guess.

Bill Hicks was a fucking GOD.

And Denis Leary -- YOU KNOW WHAT YOU DID.

That is all.

Sadly, I'd never heard of Bill Hicks before now (what rock was I hiding under?). And although I don't believe in "God" or go to any church, I hereby nominate him for sainthood. Are you sure he died that long ago? This stuff is incredibly relevant today. I'm off in search of more!

"How about DON'T FUCKING MARKET POISON YOU SHAMELESS WHORES."

There's not a lot of money in logic. Go west, young fucked up thing.

As for iphone zombies- what can one say
except that the idiots shall inherit the earth-
such as it is? (Go ahead and sign, but know at least that you're already underwater, hurah, hurah!)

RE "If you believe marketing is a service performed on behalf of those who wish to sell, directed towards to those who already possess the desire to consume, marketing is not a sin but a source of information intended to guide the purchase decision."

There you go. Advertising is information. Granted, it's not objective, completely fact-based information, but it's not supposed to be.

FWIW, I kinda hate that we can't go anywhere without seeing ads. But I'm not in charge, plus advertising is speech, protected (with a few exceptions) by the First Amendment. I dislike most advertising. But it provides my paycheck, so...

And the only thing I dislike about iPhone owners is their constant dicking around with the thing. In hallways, in elevators, at the table while we're all having lunch together. I'm surrounded by them. Maybe other phone users are just as annoying (actually, that's a pretty safe bet), but most of my officemates have iPhones, so that's the one I'm most aware of. I don't have a problem with simple ownership of it, just the assholish behavior that it seems to inspire.

Also, someone already markets poison: it goes by the brand name of "Botox." It's owned by Allergan (the same people who make contact lens solution). They also own the Lap-Band device (used in the Lap-Band surgery). And they own Latisse (the eyelash growing drug).

So if you want to hate someone for marketing products nobody really needs, Allergan is a really good candidate.

Dang. That's just about the most jacked up piece I've heard today. But somehow, I'm not sure, myself.

Dealing gift certificates is one way satisfied customers can pass on your identify to their acquaintances and beloved ones, founding a referral plan is another means. In that case, you ask content clients to pass on your occupation cards. If a acquaintance or family member comes in and refers their name, that client gets some form of appreciation from you: a gracious thank you card, a discount on their future appointment, or an additional 15 minutes when you have time!

Hi, I just wanted to let you all know that there is a project being conducted at Harvard trying to compile the most effective arguments for and against Wikileaks. I think it's a brilliant idea and would be an interesting read for many of you. http://www.voteonwikileaks.com

Jeez, it's unusual to find such a great posting

Good points made and I have to say I do agree with you for the most part.

Great post. I am continuously checking this blog and I am impressed! Extremely helpful information, especially the last bit of info was very helpful. I was looking for this certain information for a very long time. Thank you and good luck.