__/ [ Leslie Danks ] on Friday 21 April 2006 09:31 \__
> It is generally acknowledged that rubbishing competing products is poor
> advertising because it insults those people who have already bought them
> and implies that they are stupid, gullible, etc.
Is that why the States is fairly well-flooded by Microsoft advertisements
(with all due discretion and respect)? I have never seen anything like this
before. Here in the UK it is rather rare.
> Explaining the advantages
> of your product might persuade them to try it; insulting them is more
> likely to have the opposite effect.
Coca Cola seem to choose their commercial carefully for that reason. It's
down to the /way/ you promote your business. Big brands keep the brand name
in the dark until the very end. No adverts at all is another thing
> IMHO some of the people contributing to this NG might like to think about
> that if they are really want to advocate Linux rather than simply indulge
> their penchant for invective.
How so? There can be no Open Source adverts. The incentive and support can
only come from the people, who happen to be the only force behind
development as well.
Roy S. Schestowitz | Useless fact: Falsity implies anything
http://Schestowitz.com | SuSE Linux ¦ PGP-Key: 0x74572E8E
9:25am up 43 days 23:08, 7 users, load average: 0.87, 0.45, 0.41
http://iuron.com - next generation of search paradigms