Has anyone else noticed the Google Bots they show up down where it tells people who is logged on, fairly often.
One said “Adsense” but there aren’t really ads to look at. Are they collecting info to better figure out how to make more effective ads?
One bot didn’t say that, is it collecting info on our posts and what we think?
How do they login?
Can or should the administrators do something about this?
When you do a Google search, it searches even these threads for key words for whoever initiated the search. It is a feature that comes with the forum package.
Google bot and other search engine bots are very common (and sometime annoying) visitors to any web site.
Many search engines send bot in the way the site doesn’t get bombed by massive visit because it can slow normal traffic and even crash the server.
So, bots are nearly always fetching the data and show up in the “who’s …” section.
Nothing to worry about, unless the web site is a slow/weak one and can’t take lots of visit from bots.
PS. Bots don’t visit sites when someone search the site.
Bots fetch and gather the page data, periodically. When we use a search engine, it searches these pre-fetched pages (and usually already indexed in different ways).
Which means this pre-fetched data is stored somewhere, and could later be used for all sorts of things…but then i guess you doing it on the internet where anyone can see anyways.
I just don’t like the idea that they could be using the data to make more effective/manipulative adds.
Abstract, that’s the entire point of ads. To get people to notice them, to notice their product. Advertising 101.
Having someone recognize a good product is one thing, having people think a bad product is good is another.
Like for example: There was an add on Tv for metal detectors, it said this one person found a large cash of treasure.
Some people are going to think oh kool!
But then in reality one needs to ask, how many have been sold over time?
I would bet they have sold more than 1,000,000 and only that one guy found anything big.
And then it would also be good to see the average amount of valuable things found and the average amount of value gained of the time of the use of the product, taking in account say battery usage and all that as well (thought battery usage isn’t exactly as important) because in the end it may be that on average purchasing the product is going to result in a net loss…
And then some people say well that’s the “stupid” peoples fault, but then that is exactly who they are going after, and that isn’t fair.
And plus the pervadence of these adds gets us used to them and there logic from the day we were born, not so we can see how it is bad so much as accept it and respect there evidence, one isn’t likely to begin to see the lack of value in a commercial unless they are educated on specific things…
One might say most people wouldn’t even recognize or pay attention to statistical data.
I disagree, I think that at first that may be the case, but as such pervades it will result in more people accepting, and expecting such…
I think most people see the lack of value in commercials. I don’t know many people who like ads. People are stupid, yes, but I don’t think the general public is as stupid as you assume them to be, and it’s really quite stupid to make such an assumption, you know. Yes, people get “won-over” by ads, and sometimes get ripped off, but life is a live-and-learn process, man.
.
I didn’t mean to suggest that people were stupid, nor would I think that the way in which you think I am suggesting people getting won over is most typical. To me it isn’t always a matter of seeing a commercial and recognizing it is wrong and not buying the product. That commercial still got in you head. If it used a specific jingle that can lead people to subconsciously think of the ad or the subject of the ad when that jingle is heard. Or a funny commercial gets discussed by people which effectively spreads the advertisement. And again it would seem to me that the longer all this pervades our culture the more susceptible our children and children’s children will become to it, especially as the adds get better and better…
And then I might ask, how many products are typically bought as the result of an advertisement, whether watched directly or herd of; or due to pervadance of an idea due to, as compared to products bought on a basis of need?
To the first part, the answer is, apparently, enough.
To the second part, you advertise need-based products just as often as want-based (disposable income) products.
For the time being, I’ll just touch on a few random points concerning advertising:
NOTE: When I use the word, “Goods,” I am referring to either goods or services, whichever is applicable.
1.) Unsought Goods:
-First of all, an Unsought Good is basically an item that you’re not going to go out of your way to look for, so advertising is pretty essential for an unsought good. Obviously, that means that a Sought Good is something that you regularly plan on buying. Many items fall somewhere in between being an entirely Unsought Good and an entirely Sought Good.
Furniture is a good example of an in-between item. Furniture is typically something that you are only going to be seeking if you are replacing a broken or worn item, unless there is an unpassable deal of some kind. Of course, were there no advertising, you wouldn’t know of a deal that could not be passed up.
My favorite example of an Unsought Good to use as an example is auto insurance. If you watch much TV, go on-line (which you obviously do) or listen to the radio, we are constantly bombarded with auto insurance commercials. That’s unsurprising because, even though it’s a necessary item in every state except Virginia, we typically don’t wake up in the morning and say, “You know what, I think I’ll change my auto insurance provider today.”
As you would expect, the only thing that the auto insurance companies really have to use as an advertising tool is price, which is either in the form of, “You save on average,” or discounts, or potential discounts (i.e. accident-free). The beautiful thing about the, “You save on average,” advertisements is the fact that everyone can use them because, if you couldn’t get a better rate at Progressive as opposed to State Farm, then you probably wouldn’t switch from State Farm. You’ll notice the language of those commercials advertising $200/year saved on average is, “On customers who switched…” as opposed to, “Our prices are $200/year lower on average.”
The only other thing that auto insurers have to advertise is if they will take absolutely anyone, which you see a good deal with The General auto insurance commercials, if you’ve ever seen those.
In any case, they have to advertise, or people would just have the auto insurance deducted monthly from their checking accounts and forget about it. Another thing worth mentioning is that the majority of people that switch auto insurers and save money do so only because they end up with a policy with higher deductibles, or less coverage. They probably could have done the same thing with their current insurers, but obviously, their current insurers don’t advertise that to them.
2.) Sought Goods
-Sought Goods are simply goods that people go out with the intent to buy. For example, most grocery items are going to be sought goods. Hotels are sought goods.
Sought Goods are just a matter of trying to get people to buy the goods from one manufacturer/merchant as opposed to the other.
For instance, bread is often advertised via sale pricing as opposed to commercials or anything like that, but the breadmaker wants people to try their bread and maybe they’ll prefer that to the other bread. They’re getting bread from one place or another anyway, but it’s about preference creation and you can’t create a preference for Schwebel’s over Wonder if the customer has never even tried Schwebel’s.
There are other examples too, like I said, pretty much any grocery item is the same general statements as the bread.
Hotel chains advertise mainly with points and guest loyalty programs. The reason that you do that is because you have so many different markets and different demand seasons that you can’t really flat-price anything on a national (or even regional) level, and you can’t say we guarantee to beat our competitors by x% because you don’t know what the competitors’ rates are on a day-to-day basis.
There are more sought and unsought goods, of course, if you want to know about anything specific, I’ll give you my best guess.
3.) In-Between Goods
-That’s just what I call them. In-Between goods are goods that can either be sought or unsought. You could make a case for just about any good being in this category (it just depends on the potential buyer). Even auto insurance can be in this category, because sometimes the customer is a first-time driver so he is seeking auto insurance.
Anyway, a new automobile is a good example of an in-between good. That’s why you have to advertise all kinds of, “Deals,” to see if you can strike the customers’ fancy. The auto manufacturers want to get out there and tell you what is great about their automobiles, while the dealers advertise mainly on prices, rebates and incentives.
Let’s assume for a second that someone has already decided that they would like to buy a new Chrysler 300. The manufacturer’s advertising is irrelevant at that point, but the dealerships’ advertising may be quite relevant. Let’s assume that two dealerships have the same general base price on the vehicle, maybe within a couple hundred of one another. One dealership is advertising 0% financing for qualified buyers while the other is advertising a $1,500 cash-back rebate:
If you’re paying cash for the vehicle up-front, then you’re going to go for the cash-back rebate because 0% financing on $0.00 doesn’t do anything for you anyway. Likewise, if you know that you’ll qualify for the car loan, but not for the 0% financing, (it goes by credit score, and you can call ahead of time to see what kind of score you need) then you’ll still get the rebate. If your credit is good enough for the 0% and you will need an installement loan, then you’ll go for the 0%. Another thing that the dealerships can use to advertise is guaranteed trade-ins, or you can hop from dealership to dealership to figure out how much they’ll give you in trade and then go to the delaership that has the incentive you want and tell them to match the other dealership’s trade-in offer.
4.) You Pay for Advertising:
-They pay for it, and then you pay for it. Can of Bush’s Kidney Beans vs. Kroger Brand Kidney Beans. Loaf of Wonder Bread vs. Generic Bread. Typically, the generic bread actually is a national brand bread. I know that when I worked at one grocery store our bread was Schwebel’s, our milk was Dean’s Dairy, and our eggs were Hillendale Farms, which also happened to be the only other brand of eggs on the shelf at +$0.69!
The auto manufacturer charges the dealerships to advertise the manufacturer’s own automobiles (though, generally it’s not an explicit charge, but built into the price that the dealership pays to have that car on their lot), and then the dealership advertises and that advertising is worked into their price. It’s the same with any item, even auto insurance which basically must advertise.
It is true that goods would be cheaper without advertising, but there wouldn’t be as much product differentiation. For example, Henry Ford made the automobile affordable for the common man through the advent of assembly-lines to build autos cheaper and more easily. He didn’t really have to advertise because all people had to know was this was a motorcar at a price they could afford. Of course, no competition meant no differentiation, as the man himself said, “Any customer can have a car painted any colour that he wants so long as it is black.”
I should have said: “And then I might ask, how many unneeded products are typically bought as the result of an advertisement, whether watched directly or herd of; or due to pervadance of an idea due to, as compared to products bought on a basis of need?”
Hmmmm… thats a different categorization methods I would say, but it provoked some good thoughts. I think of it like this:
I could say we have needs which are things we must have to have a good life, which would include things that make us happy so long as those things don’t simply make us happy in the short term such as to result in a net loss of happiness later. And then we have what most people call luxuries meaning things that are nice but don’t harm us. Except I would go farther and say that if we don’t need it then in order to make it we are having to consume from the things that we do need and thus we are incurring a negative effect. One might think that we don’t need this or that but in order to make anything we must consume energy, and energy is needed to prolong a good life, as such if we are producing unneeded things we are shortening the amount of time we can survive by consuming more energy that could have in the long run been used to produce needs. (remember I don’t mean need just to survive as I include happyness as a need not just survival.)
As odd as this seems to people used to a high luxury consumption state:
Back in time we survived fine we were used to that time no matter how barbaric it seemed, our times now might seem barbaric to the far future. It is a matter of perspective. When born into a situation it is not that bad, it is when faced with extreme and/or sudden change that we incur pain and displeasure. I.e. we get burned; sudden alteration in temperature. That is not always the case as i would say there are somethings we naturally find painful without there being a sudden change involved. And I’m not saying the past was better or that we don’t have technologies that are beneficial and make life truely better. But so many of the things which we consume nowadays, may say make life simpler but aren’t actually needed in order to enjoy life, and many actually weaken us and cause problems. For example eating too much causes fatness which causes heart problems and many other problems and shortens life and most often reduces pleasure. And a lot of the things that we do we do because we think that in making life easier it will allow us to accomplish more in a shorter period of time, and while that may be good, many of the things we think are doing such aren’t. For example we might think that a reduction of oil prices will help our economy and allow us to function better et all. But are people considering that oil is non-renewable and that if we lower the prices we increase the rate at which we consume the product, and that it is possible that we may run out before we develop the technology or let the tech pervade such that 94% of our transportation isn’t reliant on oil. Because lowering oil prices also reduces the encouragement onto people to buy electric cars and other non-gas-reliant vehicles, as well as reducing the interest people have in inventing such things. And you might say it is unlikely the oil will run out faster than we figure things out, but we don’t actually no how much oil there is, we have no idea when we will run out, and as such it would seem best to take precautions…Or there are things like shaving one’s beard. I would call it unneeded. the only reason we think it is important is because people think it is important. It is circular logic to think it actually a need. While it can be the case that one might need to do such in order to survive in case people say killed people who didn’t shave, in our society it is unneeded. You might say women like it, but that is not always the case, and you might say it is expected in a formal setting. but none of that is needed we only do it because we do it. in the long run it could be stopped as being at all relevant if more people just didn’t do it then it would become more common and eventually liked and eventually respected. And in doing this unneeded thing we consume our time shaving, we damage our skin (if you shave close enough or against the grain), and then many take it farther and use electric shavers which uses electricity which relies 39% on petroleum according to this Wikipedia diagram: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:USenergy2009.jpg. Not only does it require energy if you use an electric shaver but it requires energy to make shaving cream and the can it comes in. And it requires energy to make after shave and what not. Now I do imagine that some shaving might be good, like say if you have a really long beard and it is getting in the way but in that case you could simplify it all and just use some scissors, a lot less time and energy… And it seems that so many of these “unneeded” things are being done in society some because we think there good, some because we don’t care, some because we think it doesn’t matter, that overall result in negative effects specifically through consumption of energy. And at the same time as we do more and more of the things we think are luxurious because they make us feel happy at least in our lives (not considering our children’s) or as far as we can see, these things are unneeded and so we easily through them away and get board with them and when we do we end up wanting more and more and more…ultimately i just don’t see how this form can continue to exist for a very long time as it is consuming from its needs to supply things it doesn’t. And there are so many other things we don’t need or just think we need in order to fit or be normal.
I don’t know, need is in the eye of the beholder. You’d have to look at that on a product-by-product basis, and even then, it would be tough to accurately determine.
For example, beer is a sought-after, yet unneeded, product. I think the main goal of beer commercials is to get people to buy one beer as opposed to the other, but generally, if someone is going to buy beer, they are going to buy beer, I would think.
This is definitely a topic of interest to me, though, so just out of curiosity, is your question more geared toward unneeded AND unsought products? If so, I’ll have to give it some thought.
I’m interested in both. but my question specifically I believe was oriented towards what was unneeded.
The interesting thing that you lead me to consider although I don’t know that it is directly linked to what you said. Is that in order to have non-monopolized institutions we have to have advertisements that don’t give the absolute truth. It would seem… Because otherwise all people would buy from the same place constantly and it would dominate the market perfectly… unless perhaps because there could be no deceptiveness or whatever everyone in a given market sold everything at the same price, and then it would be random as to who bought what. But then people could alter likely hoods of product selling by location of business and all sorts of non-commercial things…And if one company dominated a market it would seem such could only be good if we lived in an ideally moral society. Otherwise the dominating company might raises prices to high when it dominated. And there would likely be other problems too…
I’m going to break your post up a little bit, because it briefly addresses many different aspects of advertising, marketing, and product wants/needs in general.
I’m not sure what you mean by a net loss of happiness later. Would you mean, as an example, something like buying a luxury car as opposed to buying an economy car (and saving the difference) and then it gets repossessed later because you lose your job or something and you no longer have an automobile?
To that effect, it would really be a want moreso than it would be a need.
I’m pretty strict about seperating wants and needs, with more items falling in the category of the former. You know, anything over-and-above your most basic product of a product-type that could even be described as a need even becomes a want in that sense. That’s why I tend to designate between sought/unsought goods moreso than I do wants/needs.
I doubt that, because you have to look at factors such as employment. If there was only one type of automobile available to everyone, for example, the effect on decent-paying jobs would be disastrous. It would take far less labor to produce 100,000 like cars, for example, than to produce 10,000 of ten different cars. You’d also have less manufacturing buildings, which of course have to be built and staffed in their own right. You see where this is going…
I disagree mainly for the reasons stated above.
I strongly disagree. The increase in average lifespan, in and of itself, refutes your argument. Adaptation and change are one in the same in this case, and even though humans occupy the top of the food chain, except when a human is left alone in the wild, we still must adapt to increase our lifespan, if we are to consider that a worthy cause. We make cars safer than they used to be, we develop treatments, vaccines, but all of these things reflect change.
I can agree with that to an extent, but eating too much doesn’t owe itself to new technology so much as it does some sort of social dynamic. A person could certainly eat too much prior to the widespread use of processed foods.
That is a good argument, on the surface, but if we raise oil prices sharply and drive the price of gas to $1,498/gallon, I think that would obviously speed up the rate at which people attempt to invent alternative transportation, but it really doesn’t do anyone any favors in the short-term. I think that the goal that you propose is to attempt to find a balance between long-term needs and short-term needs/wants, so then it just becomes a matter of where each individual person draws their line in the sand.
In all fairness, saying the only reason we think it is important is because we think it is important is pretty circular. Honestly, though, I would imagine that nobody ever would have done it were there not a pragmatic argument (of some kind) for doing so. I would imagine, of course, that humanity predates the razor blade, so someone decided it’s a good idea for something.
[/quote]
That goes back to the economic impact of permanently losing a product/industry.
Generally speaking, an advertisement can still be truthful but speak to the differences between one product and another. You are correct that without product differentiation most institutions would end up being a monopoly. Or, in the alternative, you might end up with a market with two or three competitors and price being the only point of comparison, but that would lead to advertising. It would eventually be a monopoly due to the cost-saving effects the institutions that merge would have.
It would still lead to monopoly.
That’s the downside of a monopoly. Even supposedly regulated monopolies such as electric comapnies still find a way to charge out the ass. In a perfect world, public utilities would be de-privatized and would provide their services at a break-even amount, but that’s not going to happen.
I might actually leave the idea to not only extend to what most consider the self. but rather any and all people in so ar as such can be done and seen to be done.
Something i might think of though your example may be the same ultimately is my example of shaving facial hair: it expends energy, which reduces the energy future selfs have to spend, and costs money to spend that energy, if you use say an electric shaver. And at the same time the only reason most do it is to alter the way others might judge them, when that typical judgement is illogical, and is only made more common by your doing, and thus more likely to be an issue for your children as well.
I think we all want what we need. but then want is the set within which these things are subsets of. one wants what they need and what they don’t need, or so some would say but by my definition of need one would recognize that the unneeded is not desirable as it results in a what one doesn’t want in the long run.
sought/ unsought goods seem as much related with regards to wants, one Recognizes they do want a sought good, so a sought after good is a want, an unsought after good is one that is not wanted initialy but ends up being bought as a result of being convinced that one would want it.
If that product supplies jobs without having other effects that negate that, then it would seem that product would be a need so long as jobs are needed. (which that may not change) But i would think not all products generate jobs to the degree that negates the negative effects of the thing…
Which is more important increase in life span or overall happiness? but I didn’t mean to say in the past was good in all ways, just to suggest that in the case of the non bad things like war, short lifespan for the most part, disease and such are reasonable to avoid, so long as the avoidance of such doesn’t lead to more need of more avoidance measures…
It is because of technologies that we were able to increase are production of foods, and alter the nature of our foods, such as to lead to higher levels a fatness. In other words social dynamics are effected both by our environment and of course by how we alter our environment. the people around us and the technologies we create and use are a part of our environment/habitat.
Exactly it is about finding the balance, the just-right-point. But then there are other considerations for some might think we i am then against drilling on our land. That would lower prices, so maybe then we should tax it…IDK, but reducing foreign dependence may be crucial lest someone decides to stop selling to us and F us up. That is a matter of national security it would seem. Some might say that if we buy from others we will have more for us when stuff starts running out, that may be the case but that seems selfish to me, and regardless without the infrastructure in place we would be screwed.
I thought I said it wasn’t always the case but whatever. your right though there are some reasons now one might do it, and I have good ideas why it started: Like it may have started because warriors cut their beards for fighting, woman liked warriors, other man saw that and started cutting of their beards (or shortening them) to look more attractive.
That’s true especially in this economy, if to many industries are lost then Jobs are lost. but it would at least point to the idea that we need to try and stop encouraging such industries from arising in the first place so we don’t have to worry about unneeded things, and don’t reduce our ability to consume needs in the future.
Maybe we should rather be investing in the things that are needed by any population, like food and water… of course you would think that we might end up producing more than is consumable, and that could be a problem. but I don’t know that such would be the case it would be more of a matter of producing more than we can sell. Plenty of 3rd world countries don’t have food or water, if we were producing these things in excess and giving them out isn’t it possible that rather than storing the money we would be spending it and thus having it circulate, by giving these products away we would be increasing the ability of others to survive and contribute and at the same time would be gaining by means of reputation which is effectively like a monetary vow-ture, with limits. Not to mention that having a good food infrastructure is a good safetey measure, but not necissarily when it relies on gas to power the combine.
Which indicates another problem resultant of tech, while automation aids functioning, accuracy , and is needed for many things, there are many cases where without automation there would be more jobs…
Why would that not happen? Can we fix the why it wouldn’t?
Whoa, whoa, what? Say the ads lay out the “absolute truth.” It doesn’t mean people will believe or agree with the advertisement. Nor might people be able to afford the best product/service available. So I think you have to rework this theory on market monopoly…
I would consider it as if people would accept it, in other words, perhaps when I say absolute truth i mean not what is objectively ultimately true, but what everyone subjectively agrees with.
but then that is a good point in that it suggests that even if a group or person arrived at and established laws with regards to optimal advertising people would still end up not agreeing with those adds and thus there would be some variation in brand buying. But that depends on how optimal the advertisement control was and how generally respected it was, you wouldn’t need all people to buy from a specific brand for that brand to begin to become a monopoly… but then it is possible it would never monopolize, but you would think that if a large amount of population agrees with something the more others have a tendency to agree with it as such over time all people could begin to regard the advertisements as respectable and believe in a specific brand…
