You hit a nerve with this one. Advertising is one of my all time greatest pet peeves. I have never understood companies spending millions of dollars trying to insult my intelligence to convince me that I need, have to have, or can't live my day to day without their product! And you are totally correct in saying it is forced in to our faces and ears each and every day. We literally don't have a choice about it. I don't choose to see or hear every ad on T.V. or radio, Youtube, Amirite, Yahoo, etc. There is no end to it. To me, it is mind bubble gum, and it takes up way too much of my time and demands my attention. That is why I mute all ads. That is the one thing I can do. But that only stops the auditory aspect of them. I still have the visual every where I turn - magazines, billboards, signs......it is unbelievable. I would be first in line for any movement or method offered to stop it. I literally loathe and despise it.

by Anonymous 10 years ago

I've always felt the same way (not as preoccupied by the notion, but still the same opinion of it).

by Anonymous 10 years ago

It is called free enterprise. Can't have it both ways, either you support free speech and open markets or you don't. If you pick and choose then you are a hypocrite.

by Anonymous 10 years ago

So do I have the "right" to physically and in person show up at anyone's house or business and try to sell or even tell them whatever I want them to hear? No, I do not. I would be arrested or at the least thrown out. I support free speech, but because of the media being set up the way it is, I am literally exposed to and forced to see and hear messages all the time that are NOT of my choosing. My free speech is being violated at the expense and violation of the advertisers. You surely see that.

by Anonymous 10 years ago

No, I guess I don't. I do not watch TV because I do not want to be exposed to ads. I only listen to public radio for the same reason. There are ads on the internet that I ignore. I turn off my cookies on my computer because I do not want to be targeted with ads or to get spam e-mails. I am not sure where the ads you wish to avoid are coming from?

by Anonymous 10 years ago

They come from companies advertising their products. My point is, all rights have to come in moderation, and advertisement pushes the limits of said right to the point where I think moderation is in order. It's not an all-or-nothing right- we should be able to regulate something that's out of hand.

by Anonymous 10 years ago

And nobody's right should lead to the exclusion or trampling of another's right. They may have a right to advertise, but I should still be able to maintain a full right to not being forced to see or hear it.

by Anonymous 10 years ago

OK...now you have me completely interested. I am not asking you to defend your view, but I am really trying to understand exactly where you are coming from on this. Help me out. Not watching T.V. and listening to Public radio to avoid advertisement seems to MAKE the OP's point. You have had to discontinue doing something or alter the way you would like to do it BECAUSE of the incessant bombardment of advertising. Turning off cookies: I think mine is off, but even on Amirite, the pages are loaded with advertisement mixed in with the posts and I even have them start talking without warning and I CAN NOT STOP THEM! That is way overboard and unwarranted. Are you telling me you have never read a magazine? They are loaded with advertisements. Billboards are everywhere when you drive. Taxis are covered in advertisements, as are public transportation busses and subway cars (inside and out). Restaurants are covered in advertisements for their products. Banners, signs, flyers put on our doors or under a windshield wiper while I am in getting a few groceries. Junk mail coming to your mailbox at home and online - all advertisement. The better question is WHERE AREN'T THE ADS I WISH TO AVOID?

by Anonymous 10 years ago

I don't know what to tell you. I do not feel inundated with ads. I have no problem either avoiding them or ignoring them. I know there are ads here, but honestly I could not tell you what they are for because I do not read them. When my computer starts talking to me unsolicited, I hit the mute button.

by Anonymous 10 years ago

Well they seem to be almost haunting me. Maybe I am overboard, but I think the advertisers are moreso than myself. They just all run together like a blur and brain chatter. And they clutter my mind with nonsensical unusable junk. I do mute the T.V. and turn the radio down. But even that has me doing a whole bunch of "hopping" that I would prefer not doing. And I don't want to turn off the T.V. or radio, because there are things I actually enjoy watching and listening to. I do know I have never gone out and purchased any specific product as a result of advertising, so I have succeeded in not letting them persuade me. I have almost decided that the only way to avoid all advertisements is to seal myself inside a cardboard box and stay there. But then I realized I would have to stare at the name of the company that made the box, and my purpose would have been defeated.

by Anonymous 10 years ago

Is it that you don't feel bothered yourself and therefore don't think anything should be done, or that you don't feel anybody has a problem with it and reject the premise?

by Anonymous 10 years ago

It's complicated. I guess given the current state of the world I am against most forms of regulations. In a perfect world (my vision of perfect) there would be no technology with which to advertise, or "companies" to advertise at all. But that will not happen without some very impractical and catastrophic changes to the world as we know it. Given that we have evolved into a society of private ownership that is driven by profits, I do believe that any attempt to regulate advertising would open the door to further erosion of our first amendment rights. So yes, I reject the premise that "we should do more to regulate" (what I see as ) freedom of speech.

by Anonymous 10 years ago

I don't know if you have ever done reading about advertising itself, but years ago I read how advertisers actually WORK and go out of their way studying ways to target humans. They spend tons of money studying human behavior, colors, arrangement of products, etc. just to get our attention. Their goal of course is not only to get our attention, but to get us to make the purchase. Advertising is actually a science and extremely powerful.

by Anonymous 10 years ago

Yes. In fact I minored in "propaganda, mass persuasion, advertising and consumer" in college. And I don't believe that just because it is a science that it should be exempt from free speech. Speech writing is a science, journalism, film making, and even music are studied and often concocted scientifically. They are still form of free expression.

by Anonymous 10 years ago

I don't think myself or the OP was seeking an exemption from free speech. I believe in their right to say what they want - it is more the METHOD of how they IMPOSE it upon the masses that I have an issue with. I even illustrated that to you by the example of me not being able to go to any business or home and without warning or invitation, being able to storm in and say whatever I want to them. THEY do that to me every single day. I kind of equate it with consensual sex verses rape. Both are sex - one is invited, the other is not.

by Anonymous 10 years ago

Interesting debate, and I still don't see your point. They can't come in if you don't let them. I said I don't watch TV. Not completely true - I have a TV but 95% of what I do with it is DVDs and streaming. I watch what I want without commercials. True it is all "old" shows from last season or before - but I am protected from "rape". Perhaps it is because I studied these topics that I am sensitive to them and am willing to forgo the satisfaction of immediate gratification to avoid propaganda. For example I enjoy //Game of Thrones// the third season came and went. I will watch it next March. I simple do not watch commercial television - So I guess the bottom line is probably DO agree there are a lot of ads - but I disagree that society gives them the liberty to force them upon us. To carry your analogy a step further - if you walk around naked with grease between your cheeks you are more likely to become of victim of a buggering. That doesn't mean society have given rapists the liberty to violate you, it just means **you** have made it easier. Wipe that Vaseline off your thighs. Stop watching commercial TV, stop feeding them an audience and they will go away.

by Anonymous 10 years ago

With TV there is also DVR, but vulnerability is not the point. I'm saying that it would be a better world if we didn't have to be constantly in conflict with advertisements and be pestered with them. I understand that you don't feel it's pestering, but others do, and the fact that we have to go to such lengths really shows it. We end up plagued with billboards, magazines, popups, and it has actually began to affect society as a whole, mostly women. It has changed our standards of women and that's had a harmful impact, and that should be a call for us to change something, because now even kids are being manipulated. Either we have to do all we can to shield ourselves, which is a burden on the people, or companies need regulation, which seems far more reasonable to me.

by Anonymous 10 years ago

Regulation is generally bad, it should only be use for antitrust. People have the power. Companies would not spend money on ads if there were not effective. I agree with what you are saying - it sucks, but regulation is not the answer.

by Anonymous 10 years ago

If we do not regulate, then the results will be children who get eating disorders from lack of self-esteem, care far too much about material wealth, and society will shift to money. Oh wait- //that's already happening//. This cannot go on or else it will get even worse. If regulation is not the answer, then what is? We have to get people away from commercials, and I'd rather hold the companies back than let them walk all over us.

by Anonymous 10 years ago

Well I suspect you won't like "the answer" but here it is. I did not allow my children to watch TV, or use the computer, or game consoles, or cell phones, or mp3 players until they were 16. They grew up with very little media influence. They are top scholars, community activists, and open minded thinkers. They eat healthy foods and read avidly. They never felt deprived, because we simply did not have those things in the house. They have never been to a Mall; but they have been to every museum, concert hall and arts venue in the city (hundreds of times). I don't know if that would work for everyone but the "answer" is for parents not to fall for the media bullshit, so that they don't raise their kids steeped in it. We cannot rely on the government to protect us from our own foolishness ourselves. We need to just stop falling for their crap, and live a more simple life. We need to teach our children to live a more simply way. Life is not about fancy clothes, fancy cars, fancy gadgets, fancy restaurants etc. It is about learning, experiencing culture, taking care of others, enjoying nature and being kind.

by Anonymous 10 years ago

You have given a valid real life experience that did in fact work for you and yours. But you are correct in saying it would not work for everyone or even most people. And just for the fun of it {and I have no qualms whatsoever with how or why you did what you did}, why is it that every time a Christian says they give up T.V. or radio or whatever, they are labeled and targeted as sheltered backward right winged crazies? Just curious and not attacking.

by Anonymous 10 years ago

While I'm not questioning your parenting methods, I don't think it should be this important to protect kids from the media. I think that kids should be able to occasionally watch TV in moderation (as I think there's little wrong with TV itself), without having parents worry about advertisements. If you didn't expose your children to TV until that age, there is nothing wrong with it, but such measures should not need to be taken just because of media influence (not saying they were in your case). While there is more to life than all the things media has the power to influence, we should not have to forsake that which is can influence just because of it. We should still get to enjoy things like TV and the internet without being manipulated by professionals. Your answer just seems to be to stop doing all the things that advertisements can show up in, and while that may work for some, that's not a measure we should be forced to take. It's not wrong in any way to watch TV or go online, and it doesn't necessarily have to make us materialistic or blind to life's fruits. What advertisements are doing is completely immoral and detrimental to society, so why should we let such a thing continue to control us and interfere with something we shouldn't have to avoid?

by Anonymous 10 years ago

Just one more thought. Unless we move to a socialist society then there would be no TV programming or internet social site without advertising. Unless the people are willing to chip-in (a la public TV) there will be no way to pay for the programming. Even satellite radio thought it could live off subscriptions but soon found it needed to sell ads to pay the bills. They don't call it commercial TV for nothing. A lot of conservative voters rally against government subsidize for public broadcasting and public arts venues. Sorry but you can't have it both ways. Either you pay for it with taxes or you pay for it with ads. There are subscription based print media with no ads but the subscription rates are very high.

by Anonymous 10 years ago

We can make advertisement space much more expensive

by Anonymous 10 years ago

Then only the biggest corporations will afford it, and the small competitors would get muscled out. Monopoly would ensue.

by Anonymous 10 years ago

Hmmm, you got me there. Suppose we just be more harsh about content? We could enforce laws regarding messages sent out by them. I still think it wouldn't hurt to limit the amount just a bit, too. Just a bit, although content is a bigger concern.

by Anonymous 10 years ago

Surprisingly effective are boycotts. With social media it is possible to get grassroots movements rolling. There have been successful boycotts against shows that air controversial ads; boycotts have gotten shows to drop ads for Planned Parenthood, Beneton Sweaters, and Nestles Quick. And the other way as well: boycotting advertisers products have gotten them to drop shows, think about the loss of ad revenue for Rush Limbaugh, and recently Paula Dean.

by Anonymous 10 years ago

I suppose so, but if we boycott every commercial that shows an unfair depiction of people, then we'd do nothing but boycott. There needs to be a better way to report them and get them off the air, and eventually the standard will change to allow only commercials that we approve. That solves the problem of altering standards of people, but they're still so annoying. I can't believe they're actually effective at all. I mean, who really buys things from commercials?

by Anonymous 10 years ago

I thought the discussion was about advertising and how to limit it. Your last comment here seems to advocate the use of boycotting to target specific people or groups. Is that what you are saying?

by Anonymous 10 years ago

I think he was referring to boycotting advertisements or specific corporations for their advertisements, if I understood correctly.

by Anonymous 10 years ago

WQ has it right. If you don't like the way xyz corp uses ads then use FB or Twitter to start a campaign, get everyone to boycott that show until the ads are changed. This has been successful as my the examples I gave.

by Anonymous 10 years ago

So in a very real sense, are you not then punishing or targeting xyz corp. for their usage of the ads? If the goal is going after the advertising, why couldn't you directly go after them instead?

by Anonymous 10 years ago

Free speech - free assembly. A person (corporation) has the right to say what they want and to rent a venue to say it in. We have the right not to go listen. If xyz corp wants to say "skinny women are best" and pay NBC/ABC/CBS/FOX to let them say it during prime time, they have that right. That is free speech. I have //only// the right //not// to listen to it or watch it, and the right //not// to buy xyz brand products. And I exerciser that right every chance I get. "Going directly after them" is censorship, something I seek to avoid.

by Anonymous 10 years ago

I think it's exactly the same censorship as that which forbids kids' shows from swearing, because it's the exact same negative influence. I have to acknowledge the importance of the profit made by commercials, so I guess there will have to be a lot of them to retain that. I just think we should remove those which have a negative influence, pop up at you, and generally interfere directly with things. Something on the side should be mute, in my opinion, and nothing should force you to listen to it or have to find where on the page it's playing and make you chase it down. I'm fine with something just on the side silently, or on billboards, and in TV breaks, and in magazines, with appropriate content.

by Anonymous 10 years ago

OK. I respect that you feel that way. I am still against regulation and censorship. I don't think the censorship that prevents "swear" words on kids shows is necessary. If there are swear words in a kids show I just turn it off.

by Anonymous 10 years ago

I mean like little kids' shows. In America, the FCC would not allow something like that to air. And I think it's for the better.

by Anonymous 10 years ago

And I disagree. Parents should decide what their children can see, not the government (where are we China?) If I find something objectionable I will not allow my children to watch it. I don't need the government to make those decision for my family.

by Anonymous 10 years ago

You're right to a degree, but don't you think there needs to be a base line that can't be crossed?

by Anonymous 10 years ago

I guess I do, but it is pretty low. I don't think it is ok to show actual footage of people enjoying the act of debasing/torturing/killing/raping/etc other humans. But I do not watch depictions of these things either, but I do think that, if it was //actual// (not reenacted) images or sounds of people suffering for the amusement of others, that should not be allowed. Scenes of accidents, war, "news" events should be allowed, but just not **real life scenes** of depraved people doing horrific acts, like those depicted in //Saw// or //Hostel// series, but actually real and not fake. The fake stuff is covered by free speech, as much as I hate it and don't watch it, it is still "art" to some people.

by Anonymous 10 years ago

I get what you mean, and I think that that line just needs to be adjusted to the target audience.

by Anonymous 10 years ago

This explanation helps much more. I would love to hear more about your studies and knowledge regarding this topic. I read a whole book on advertising tactics and strategies, and the complete goal is MANIPULATION to the point of getting a desired response from the average everyday person. That response of course is to make a PURCHASE. After I realized how calculated it actually was/is, I have despised it ever since. In a sense, many companies/industries (pharmaceutical, advertising, & education especially) view humanity as their LAB RATS - and I don't want to be anyone's experiment. I am working hard at minimizing my contact and association with mass advertising. Hopefully I can throw the Vaseline jar to the curb.

by Anonymous 10 years ago

Yes, I know of all this. I'm not against advertising altogether, but I feel that people should be able to have more power over what they're exposed to.

by Anonymous 10 years ago

I agree. Pornography is protected under Free Speech, but we are not exposed to nude ads everywhere we turn or look {even though it might be kinda cool at times}. They are limited and regulated as to who and even how they advertise and sell their product.

by Anonymous 10 years ago

I don't know which way to go on this one On one hand I like free stuff on the other I don't like how much power ads can hold

by Anonymous 10 years ago