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?
When a show host says "and now a word from our sponsors" that's a 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?
Even in print, publishers are required by UK law to clearly state that a
feature is an advertisement, under the CAP Code:
[quote]
23.2 Marketers and publishers should make clear that advertisement
features are advertisements, for example by heading them "advertisement
feature".
[/quote]
http://www.asa.org.uk/asa/codes/cap_code/ShowCode.htm?clause_id=1564
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?
> 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.
> 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. 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.
> I seem to recall some pop star who was endorsing a certain brand of
> caffeinated carbonated beverage got caught drinking another brand. If
> I recall correctly, the pop star lost the contract but wasn't
> actually dragged into court for misleading the consumers or lying.
See above.
>> OTOH when one sees "[Vendor] recommends Vista" next to a PC on a
>> Website or in a store, it is /not/ obvious, to those other than
>> cynics like me,
>
> I think you put too little faith in the intellect of consumers in
> general
The onus of responsibility for truthfulness and transparency in
advertising lies with the /advertiser/, /not/ the viewer/reader.
It may well be that a certain proportion of viewers/readers are
astute enough to tell when a "recommendation" is not impartial,
and is in fact a paid advertisement, but their ability to avoid
being manipulated does not somehow make manipulation acceptable
or even legal.
> 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?
Does that include children too?
Just curious.
>> 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.
> 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.
> 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).
And again you show more sympathy for the violators than their victims.
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.
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.
>> Example:
>>
>> [quote] Why? Because, according to the Morning Herald, both the
>> Beijing Olympics committee and Lenovo, a major backer of the games,
>> had deliberately chosen to run XP operating system on the games'
>> PC because they didn't trust Vista. Turns out they shouldn't have
>> trusted XP either, but they should have known that.
>>
>> 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."
>>
>> So, next time you go to an online PC sales Web site and you see
>> that line about "We recommend Genuine Windows Vista Home Premium,"
>> just remember: They're lying. [quote]
>>
>> http://blogs.computerworld.com/the_b..._of_death_ever
Malformed URL restored:
http://blogs.computerworld.com/the_biggest_blue_screen_of_death_ever
Original article:
http://www.smh.com.au/news/off-the-field/bills-blue-screen-of-death-malfunction/2008/08/12/1218306871673.html
>> 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. 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/.
> 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.
>> [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?
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? Their true opinion of Vista, one way or another, doesn't alter
that fact.
>>> 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.
>> the fact that the promoter is also blatantly lying (not just
>> exaggerating - as is usual in advertising, but actually lying)
>> merely compounds the issue.
>
> You mean like those hair products that's been "tested at an
> independant swiss hair institute"? If any of those bottles have been
> even used at a swiss barber school I'll eat my hat.
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.
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". Do you think
/all/ crimes should go unpunished, or just the ones you don't care about?
>> "[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.
> 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. 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.
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.
Mine will.
> [..]
>
>> 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.
--
K.
http://slated.org
.----
| "At the time, I thought C was the most elegant language and Java
| the most practical one. That point of view lasted for maybe two
| weeks after initial exposure to Lisp." ~ Constantine Vetoshev
`----
Fedora release 8 (Werewolf) on sky, running kernel 2.6.25.11-60.fc8
03:45:53 up 29 days, 11:28, 4 users, load average: 0.06, 0.07, 0.02
|
|
