Privacy from whom?

[Rodney R. Korte]

On Sat, 05 Aug 2000 19:13:22 -0400 (EDT), Ralph Cohen wrote:

>On Sat, 05 Aug 2000 18:01:52 -0400 (EDT), Rodney R. Korte wrote:

>>manipulation is not far behind.  Think about what products
>>you buy, and then think about what commercials or
>>advertisements you like.  Be honest- there's a correlation.
>>Need something that you've never bought before?  There's
>>a good chance you'll think of the brand you saw an ad for.
>
>Not necessarily.  I like the Taco Bell commercials with the little dog
>but I've never even been to a Taco Bell.  I like the new Red Lobster
>seafood-eating-seafood commercial too, but I ate there once and I'd
>never go back.  The Mountain Dew commercials are great but I prefer
>root beer.  And, as much as I may like the Victorias Secret commercials
>I have never, ever been the slightest bit tempted to buy any of their
>underwear.<g>

I'll pull a Mr. Lamb and say: I didn't say that you would rush
out and buy and prefer all the things for which you see ads,
did I?

>By the time my daughter was 4 years old she was able to recognize
>advertising fluff and crude attempts at manipulation in advertisements,

My children as well, so there. 8-P  However, I am not so blinded
that I cannot, at times, see where advertisers have succeeded
as well.

>commercials and children's programs.  I'm pretty confident, in fact,
>that anyone with an IQ of 90 or above is able to successfully resist
>this insidious form of "brainwashing" you describe.

Really.  Good thing for advertisers that not all ads are "fluff"
and are "crude attempts".  Long term advertising strategies are
much better than this.  I guess you think that the cigarette
industry wastes its millions (billions?) of $$$ on advertising, eh
(for example).  Or the automobile industry (at least in the States).

>>Do I even need to bring up blatant examples of suggestive
>>manipulation like Hitler?
>
>No, please don't.

Why, because it would provide a poignant point opposite your
opinion?

Rodney