My friend, you do realise that you are in fact AGREEING with me? In that last statement you've just said it yourself that we learnt how to hunt and gather by (probably very painful and tragic) trial and error. So it WASN'T instinctive. To stuff something into your mouth because you are hungry is instinctive. To pick and choose carefully what is safe to eat; to figure out ways to hunt animals who are far faster and larger and with bigger, nastier claws and teeth takes practice, experimentation and trail and error as well as ingenuity. Hardly instinctual.banana wrote:Like all animals, human beings hunted and gathered for survival. And through sheer ingenuity, trial and error that we improved the way we hunt and gathered. And we taught these improvements to future generations. Significant difference between between being taught to hunt and taught to hunt better.
So again you agree with me - body language (which is obviously a form of selling) is instinctive. i.e. hardwired into us!banana wrote:Body language, at its most instinctive level, is just that. Instinct. A physical reaction to certain needs and desires. It is only in the last what, 5000 years? that we have learnt to control, even fake, these reactions. And that is where selling comes into the picture.
banana wrote:...that we have learnt to control, even fake, these reactions. And that is where selling comes into the picture.
No. You are damn right I don't want to go there. You seemed to have learned from Superglide the art of trying to change the subject when realise that you are at the losing end of a particular argument!banana wrote:Of course you can dismiss this with a belief that humans are not just highly evolved animals... ...bordering on theology and we don't really want to go there, do we?
"Good" is an inherently subjective word, in both philosophy and practice. I quote thee Shakespeare: "There is nothing either good or bad, but thinking makes it so." Therefore perhaps a good ad is simply one that successfully influences people's thinking?Addadude wrote:Here's an interesting question. Is whatever constitutes a good ad subjective?
Thanks for the props KSL. I believe Banana is indeed involved with the "artistic creation" aspect of the business but then so am I. And I can assure you that genuinely good creative work will always be backed up by the ultimate fact of all: increased sales and measureable effectiveness. The Gunn Report is an industry-wide annual publication that examines the effectiveness of creative award-winning ads. And in quite literally every case (of award winning ads that actually ran), the award winning ads outperformed other ads in their category. Even the global head of marketing for Proctor & Gamble recognises a direct correaltion between creative excellence and sales success. (Shame that it doesn't seem to reflect this in P&G's major campaigns though...)ksl wrote:Addadude, your on the ball, spot onand I think banana is probably more and involved in artistic creation, without the business aspect, unfortunately its not possible to back up with any facts.
Actually I don't think it is very fair to link Banana to Superglide. They are actually approaching this discussion from VERY different perspectives. Banana dislikes equating advertising with selling because he feels that it diminishes advertising in some way. Superglide on the other hand is very clear in his view that to link advertising with sales is to elevate advertising to a status it doesn't deserve! And, by all accounts, Superglide is in fact the businessman who guiding the agency... which is a very scarey thought!ksl wrote:It is the businessman, that needs to guide the advertiser to what the business need otherwise we get, the results of Banana and superglide! for an arts exhibitionAlthough i am not saying they cannot be used in the industry.
These are the very questions I had hoped to tackle before we got sidetracked by the whole selling debate. Masterful move Mr Addadude.Addadude wrote:Here's an interesting question. Is whatever constitutes a good ad subjective?
This is a comment I have heard so very often - from account servicing people (the 'sales people' within an ad agency) and clients. Occasionally I have heard it from creative people too. I have my own opinion (there's a surprise...) but I am very curious to hear what others think first. Especially those who don't work day-to-day in the ad business.
My second question.
Can an ad be magical?
No, I haven't been drinking. Well not THAT much anyway. I think people who work in the ad industry might have inkling as to what I mean...
why the delayed response Banana, research required!Banana: These are the very questions I had hoped to tackle before we got sidetracked by the whole selling debate. Masterful move Mr Addadude
Playing the player yet again, ksl. Or perhaps simply fishing. But no matter.ksl wrote:Well Banana, your opinion is also welcomed, although I have yet to see anything to back up your opinion, even though i have searched the internet, for your take on the matter, zilch!
I am now asking you to help here, and provide at least something which will support your theory, or even your own statistics to show, that your creative side is working for you and your clients, or maybe statistical feedback doesn't support such theories?
ksl wrote:why the delayed response Banana, research required!Banana: These are the very questions I had hoped to tackle before we got sidetracked by the whole selling debate. Masterful move Mr Addadudeor side tracking, let's face it, your style appears a little allusiveness more than anything else, just now.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests