So anyway, it was like, 04:46 CET Dec 05 2008, you know? Oh, and, yeah,
Homer was all like, "Dude,
> Verily I say unto thee, that Johan Lindquist spake thusly:
>> So anyway, it was like, 20:00 CET Dec 03 2008, you know? Oh, and,
>> yeah, Homer was all like, "Dude,
>>> Verily I say unto thee, that Johan Lindquist spake thusly:
>>>> So anyway, it was like, 03:42 CET Dec 03 2008, you know? Oh, and,
>>>> yeah, Homer was all like, "Dude,
>>> An avert on TV (or elsewhere) is very obviously an advert, and
>>> regardless of who is promoting what product, it is equally obvious
>>> they are only /working/, not giving a personal and impartial
>>> recommendation.
>>
>> I think neither is more obvious than the other.
>
> Eh?
>
> Do you even watch television?
Not in your country so much, but in this one I've seen enough sitcoms
and televsion series to know that they usually aren't hosted and that
there's no voice-over that warns the viewer that the next five minutes
are completely made up messages to peddle products they neither want
nor need.
> When a show host says "and now a word from our sponsors" that's a
Did you know, on some shows they just say "We'll be right back
after this!" and then they start the commercials? The humanity!
> pretty big clue that what follows is an advert. When a programme
> is interrupted and the next 30 seconds comprises a shot of a man
> drinking Guinness, and a voiceover actor describes how great it's
> supposed to be, do you really think you're still watching the
> programme?
No, I don't, but then I'm not fooled by the stickers that says
"[computer maker] recommends [operating system]" enough to blindly use
that and only that on their hardware either.
> Even in print, publishers are required by UK law to clearly state
> that a feature is an advertisement, under the CAP Code:
[..]
That's some strict laws you have there. I'm not aware of such a law
in this country, but from the lack of labels in magazines that point
out that the advertisments are indeed advertisments, I strongly doubt
there's such a requirement here.
> Given that we now know for a fact that "[Vendor] Recommends Vista"
> is a paid advertisement, but that none of these vendors sites label
> them as such, then they are clearly in violation of the CAP Code.
>
> What is so difficult to understand about that?
Maybe UK is not the world and you falsely assume I'm either aware
of where you live and your local laws, or you believe it's the same
in the entire world? (I'm sorry if I missed the part which said this
applied to brits alone.)
>> TV chefs who say they recommend (yes, "recommend", not just grin
>> and stick their thumbs up) certain brands of spices or kitchenware,
>> are they any less misleading than the computer makers?
>
> If they make that "recommendation" in a context that is not clearly
> an advertising feature (e.g. a commercial break or a printed feature
> with the label "Advertisement" ... *and* they are being paid by
> the product maker to give that "recommendation", they yes it /is/
> misleading.
So do you think they and their sponsors need to be indicted along with
microsoft and the computer companies then?
>> Do you really think all those professionals privately and
>> professionaly use the brands they endorse, and nothing else?
>
> Irrelevant. The point is about transparency in advertising, not
> brand loyalty.
You were all up in arms about Lenovo not using the prodcuts they
recommend just before, though.
> When someone is /paid/ to endorse a product, then it should be made
> /clear/ that endorsement is actually a paid advertisement, and not
> an impartial recommendation.
Apparently we're in disagreement on this part. I'd rather consumers
learned to take advertising for what it is, it would make for a more
aware general public who doesn't depend on the authorities as much.
[..]
>> Those of us who build our own computers, or have the inclination
>> to switch out the os on a laptop for something we prefer, either
>> already know about the options and go with what works best for us,
>> or choose microsoft for some other reason than it being promoted on
>> a sticker or website.
>
> So basically you're saying that it's OK to manipulate people if
> they're gullible enough to be manipulated, and that the law should
> not protect such people by enforcing certain advertising standards?
If there's a law that says "advertising should be clearly marked as
such", then it should obviously be followed. I wasn't aware of any
such law until you pointed out the existance of one in your country.
I don't quite see the need for such a law, though, to expressly point
out that anything a vendor "recommends" is *not* to be taken as the
honest-to-bob truth. Especially when people are (hopefully) already
aware that other things are indeed regularly being advertised and not
necessarily in the most objective of presentations.
> Does that include children too?
>
> Just curious.
Ooh, nice "who will protect the children?" card you managed to play
there.
Since you're curious, I can tell you I haven't really considered
how many children buy computers and get tricked by the type of
recommendation we're discussing.
However, if the children are old enough to have their own money to
buy things with, unsupervised, then I think they should have received
some sort of teaching from their parents or legal guardians on how to
interpret "messages from our sponsors", regardless of being clearly
labeled as such or not.
In fact, I think the type of television advertising that is usually
aired during children's shows is far less obvious in its manner of
trying to trick the children into persuading their parents to buy the
latest cool stuff than a "Lenovo recommends Vista" sticker could ever
be to the parents themselves.
Since you apparently have these laws in your country, in what manner
does the TV commercials that sell "Transformer" toys there point out
to the children who are just watching the "Transformer" animated show
that they're no longer watching the show and should be aware that the
following messages should not be taken at face value?
>>> that this "recommendation" is actually paid advertising, and
>>> should be viewed with scepticism (or IOW understood that it is
>>> basically false).
>>
>> You're of course as entitled to your opinion as I am to mine, so
>> I'll just have to conclude that we put different meanings into the
>> word "recommends" in this case.
>
> The meaning of the word is not in dispute, it's the context in which
> that word is used which is misleading.
Yes, and that is the part we're disagreeing on - whether the context
is sufficiently misleading to warrant legal action against the third
party who apparently paid for the recommendation, especially in the
light of all the other forms of paid advertising that's out there.
>> If you think it's sufficiently misleading to warrant a lawsuit,
>> then I presume someone else will too, and something will be done
>> about it. Unless you or mr. Schestowitz is going to take action
>> yourselves, that is.
>
> The correct procedure is to make a formal complaint to the
> advertising standards authorities, who then investigate that
> complaint and take remedial action if required. It's highly unlikely
> that a civil court case instigated by the complainant would be
> necessary.
Fair enough, let's call it "legal action" instead of "a lawsuit" then,
and you can tell me if you or anyone you know of are currently taking
such actions instead of teaching me how it should be done.
>> I still view it the same as any other (paid) advertising, if you're
>> willing to believe anything people, stickers or web sites tell you,
>> then you're going to be fooled most of the time. I also don't see
>> it as illegal to promote your own product over another.
>
> But again you miss the point that this is not about the mere act
> of advertising, it's about the fact that this particular advert
> disguised itself as an impartial recommendation, and did not (and
> still /does/ not) even declare that it is a paid advertisement at
> /all/. /That/ is why it's misleading, and /that/ is why it is in
> violation of advertising standards (the CAP Code for a start).
You mean "again we disagree on whether this is misleading or not".
> And again you show more sympathy for the violators than their
> victims.
"Violators" and "victims", now? Are you going to start comparing it to
some heinous crime soon, or what?
> If a man doesn't look where he's going, and steps out to his death
> in front of a car, then certainly there is no one to blame but
> that man. He was stupid and careless, and therefore his death was
> entirely his own fault. But this is quite different to some trusting
> pensioner being robbed by a fake door-to-door salesman. In such
> a case it may well still be true that the victim was stupid and
> careless, but (unlike the hapless car driver) the fake salesman was
> /not/ conducting himself legitimately.
>
> Society has a responsibility to protect the weak from such
> predators, by ensuring that these predators are not allowed to
> conduct their illegitimate business with complete impunity. If we
> /don't/, then /we/ are equally culpable, since we chose to ignore
> the threat presented by that predator. This is, after all, why we
> have laws in the first place.
Oh, hey, deadly accidents and predators. Close enough.
Unless you get back to the perspective of economics rather than,
subtly or not, make it all into some sinister plan to wipe out the
human race anytime soon, I don't think I'm all that interested in
discussing truth in advertising with you.
> Without those laws, society would descend into a corrupt cesspool
> of thugs exploiting the weak ... victimising our children and
> grandparents. Maybe you don't give a damn about them, but I do.
"Thugs"?!? Don't try to make this into some "you're an evil dude" who
don't care about the sick and elderly now.
"thugs [..] victimising our children and grandparents"? Seriously?
Is it so bad now that if grandma buys a computer with microsoft
windows on it because she read that it was recommended by the laptop
manufacturer she's a victim of a brutal crime?
Regardless of whether it does, actually, work as advertised or not?
[..]
>>> Best of all, Lenovo chairman, Yang Yuanqing, said Lenovo had
>>> chosen not to use Vista because, "If it's not stable, it could
>>> have some problems."
>
> http://blogs.computerworld.com/the_biggest_blue_screen_of_death_ever
[..]
>>> So the chairman of Lenovo believes Vista is "not stable, it could
>>> have some problems," and yet:
>>
>> Actually he didn't say right out that he thought it wasn't stable,
>> the quote above is rather more conditional than you make it out to
>> be.
>
> Irrelevant.
Hardly. If you're going to quote someone, do it correctly and don't
change the meaning of their words.
> The chairman of Lenovo lacks confidence in a product that his
> company nonetheless "recommends" ... because they're /paid/ to. IOW
> when Lenovo makes this recommendation they're /lying/ to fulfil the
> obligation of a /bribe/.
Ok, so you are confident he's lying. Well, by all means, then you
should indeed work towards some sort of legal action to prevent this
sort of thing. I'm not convinced, though, and your willingness to
interpret statements like "if it's not stable" into something more
resembling "I really don't think it's stable" isn't helping either.
>> It doesn't really help your side of the argument that you
>> misinterpret (I won't say "misquote", although it was rather
>> changing the meaning to cut out some of it) the people you use as
>> an example of false advertising.
>
> Nitpicking doesn't help your case either, which AFAICT is a case of
> chronic apathy in the face of something that /should/ illicit at
> least /some/ sense of injustice, if not actual outrage.
Nitpicking? Let's try something out on your statement above:
> [y]our [..] face [..] /should/ illicit [..] outrage.
See how I did that? I totally changed the meaning of your words,
even though your words was all I used. (And for the record, I don't
appreciate the faked implication that I'm hideous!)
>>> [quote] Lenovo recommends Windows Vista� Business for Business
>>> Computing. Lenovo recommends Windows Vista� Home Premium for
>>> Personal Computing. [/quote]
>>
>> Perhaps the official opinion of Lenovo is that it's stable enough
>> to recommend to the public at large, but it was not proven stable
>> enough to use for their own mission-critical tasks (or whatever the
>> "games' PC" did).
>
> Why are you making excuses for them?
I'm trying to provide a balanced view where you apparently just want
someone to blame. I suspect your calling it "making excuses" is meant
to make me out as a supporter of the organisations you've already
labeled as "predators". It sort of goes with the whole "you don't care
about the children" brush you're trying to paint me with too.
Do you have a career in politics at all?
> And moreover, what does this have to do with the fact that they
> present a paid advertisement as though it were actually an impartial
> recommendation, without clearly stating that it is in fact a paid
> advert?
You apparently don't get the whole "that's the thing we disagree on"
part.
> Their true opinion of Vista, one way or another, doesn't alter that
> fact.
To you it's fact, to me it's what we're discussing. If we can't even
agree on what we disagree on, maybe this is just not leading anywhere.
>>>> Sure, advertising is almost always misleading.
>>>
>>> It's because it is not clearly presented as advertising that it's
>>> misleading;
>>
>> Oh, come on. How many adverts are *really* presented as
>> advertising?
>
> The legal ones, presumably ... according to UK law, at least.
So apart from the talk shows, how are the commercial blocks in
broadcasted television indicated where you live?
[..]
> You should save your hat for a more useful purpose, and just
> contact the ASA instead, since it's their job to investigate false
> advertising claims.
Well, see, since I'm not as enraged as you are about the whole trying
to trick the unsuspecting public with obviously commercial messages
thing, it's not really my job to contact anyone.
> You seem to have taken the rather odd position that if there are
> any advertisers violating advertising standards, then it must be
> acceptable for them to do so, or IOW "that's just the way it is".
Well, around here that is the way it is. I'm at least not aware of any
local laws here that work like the one you mentioned in the UK, so my
position isn't really as odd as you make it out to be, since as far as
I can tell, the advertisers aren't actually violating standards.
> Do you think /all/ crimes should go unpunished, or just the ones you
> don't care about?
See, now you're doing the whole "you're an evil dude" thing again, but
with the addition that I'm also somehow supporting criminal acitivies
in general. It's not a really nice way of trying to discuss a subject,
you know.
(Did you have a career in politics or not?)
>>> "[Vendor] recommends Windows [x]" needs to be clearly labelled
>>> as a paid advertisement, or removed by advertising standards
>>> authorities.
>>
>> Until the authorities clamp down on this despicable behaviour
>
> They /do/ if you actually bother to make a complaint.
Let me know how that goes then. No, really, I'm actually curious.
>> I guess we'll just have to use our own criticism and awareness as
>> consumers and/or human beings and not believe everything we read.
>
> That's all very well for those who actually have that capacity.
> Others aren't so lucky.
This is a case where luck really has nothing to do with it.
> Of course advertisers /depend/ on that fact, which is why we have
> regulatory bodies to ensure they don't overstep their bounds. Of
> course for those bodies to be effective, they do actually require
> some help in the form of complaints.
I just don't see it as such a big deal as you do that a commercial
isn't clearly labeled as such, that's more or less what this whole
storm in a tea cup (and by that I'm referring to this discussion we're
having, which is really getting out of proportion by now) is all
about.
> Now that the facts of this case have been made clear, presumably
> there will now /be/ some complaints, although apparently yours will
> not be one of them.
I'm afraid it won't.
> Mine will.
Good for you. Will you also take action against any other advertisers
who are in violation of the code in question?
>> [..]
>>
>>> For a start, this is one of the core "initiatives" central to
>>> Microsoft maintaining their monopoly, exposing their bizniz� for
>>> the racketeering operation that it is.
>>
>> You'll excuse me if I don't put on my tinfoil hat just yet, I hope.
>
> It may well be a /conspiracy/, but as the evidence now shows quite
> conclusively ... it's certainly more than mere /theory/. Neither
> your sarcasm nor your apathy will change that.
Apathy, eh? Let's just say I have other things to worry about than
whether a message from the sponsors is clearly identifiable even to
the most gullible or not. (As far as sarcasm, guilty as charged,
m'lud.)
Don't get me wrong, it's great that someone does, though the goal
here would unfortunately seem rather to go on a crusade against a
particular software company than to generally make sure a particular
law is being enforced in all markets.
--
Time flies like an arrow, fruit flies like a banana. Perth ---> *
08:58:50 up 42 days, 21:46, 2 users, load average: 0.13, 0.13, 0.25
Linux 2.6.27.2 x86_64 GNU/Linux Registered Linux user #261729
|
|
