| ensenadajimXXX@yahoo.com |
One of the threads here concerns advertising ending up juxtaposed with a
news story that is negative in content.
I've maintained that it does happen in media where the news breaks quickly
such as TV news or something big after the advertising department goes
home for the night and the news content is still in a state of flux.
You know who says posh, doesn;t happen.
Looks like I should have added web news to my list:
http://www.adrants.com/images/cnn_earthquake.jpg
Enjoy my proof that it doe happen. What remains to be seen is whether or
not Swatch has a hissy fit like you know who says they will.
Now, about those contracts saying this is not allowed to happen when news
breaks - still waiting to see an example that deals with any of these
media I have addressed specifically, pastorio. You see, just because
magaznes and newspapers are media, does not mean their standards are the
rule of the road for other media.
jim
|
|
|
| Bob (this one) |
ensenadajimXXX@yahoo.com wrote:
> One of the threads here concerns advertising ending up juxtaposed with a
> news story that is negative in content.
No matter how you try to change the subject of the thread, no mater how
you trim a bit off the edges to make it conform with what you're about
to argue, the simple fact is that the discussion was about ads run next
to news stories that specifically disparaged the stuff being advertised
directly or categorically.
Almost *all* news is "negative in content."
> I've maintained that it does happen in media where the news breaks quickly
> such as TV news or something big after the advertising department goes
> home for the night and the news content is still in a state of flux.
Not a single example shown... Jim Lane thinks that when the 11:00 news
comes on TV, the whole rest of the station is dark. Nobody home. Just
the guy reading news. No producers. No directors. Nobody working the
board that has all the commercials stored in the computer that can be
manipulated right up to the time the spot runs - or doesn't run.
No one watching anything else but that lonely guy up in front of the
cameras. <sob> It's such a lonely life...
Idiot.
> You know who says posh, doesn;t happen.
>
> Looks like I should have added web news to my list:
>
> http://www.adrants.com/images/cnn_earthquake.jpg
Bonehead. Why would Swatch take offense at this? You still don't get it.
You never will. It looks like you have what to your tortured mind is an
example - the first one. It really looks like the only example. And it's
not what we were talking about, anyway.
Do you not know that the banners aren't controlled by the web site
operators? So this might be the only setting where this thing might happen.
Your density is the new standard. More dense than lead. More dense than
depleted uranium. Jim Lane - depleted Uranus.
> Enjoy my proof that it doe happen. What remains to be seen is whether or
> not Swatch has a hissy fit like you know who says they will.
Jim Lane, give it a rest. Were I the ad manager at Swatch, I'd have not
a single issue with this. It makes the ad memorable. And no one will
*not* buy a swatch because of this.
> Now, about those contracts saying this is not allowed to happen when news
> breaks - still waiting to see an example that deals with any of these
> media I have addressed specifically, pastorio. You see, just because
> magaznes and newspapers are media, does not mean their standards are the
> rule of the road for other media.
Jim Lane, you're an idiot desperate to gain some traction back from your
shabby display here recently. You know nothing about the field of
advertising, nothing about news, nothing about media management, nothing
about marketing. Yet you continue to try to argue what you know nothing
about. And you can't even imagine how it makes you look. Your frantic
bluster about the .22 thread and how you triumphed over me when I hadn't
posted anything about guns to it says all that needs to be said. I note
nothing approximating an apology for the misunderstanding and the posts
where you gloated so stupidly over a triumph in a contest that never
happened. You were absolutely, completely, utterly, unarguably dead
wrong. I note no recognition of that fact from you.
It's painful to watch you obsess on your ego. It's a sad thing to watch
a grown man so captured by trying to save face when there's none left to
save.
So, Jim Lane. Did you ever figure out how you screwed the pooch so badly
and didn't know who was kicking your ass after all in that .22 thread...?
Um, I don't really care. Just felt like poking you in your obsession,
again because you wear so many "kick me" signs. Had enough yet...?
Idiot.
Pastorio
|
|
|
| ensenadajimXXX@yahoo.com |
In <434d6454$1$rafranqnwvzkkk$mr2ice@news.nethere.net>, on 10/12/05
at 12:22 PM, ensenadajimXXX@yahoo.com said:
>>One of the threads here concerns advertising ending up juxtaposed with a
>>news story that is negative in content.
>>I've maintained that it does happen in media where the news breaks
>>quickly such as TV news or something big after the advertising department
>>goes home for the night and the news content is still in a state of flux.
>>You know who says posh, doesn;t happen.
>>Looks like I should have added web news to my list:
>>http://www.adrants.com/images/cnn_earthquake.jpg
>>Enjoy my proof that it doe happen. What remains to be seen is whether or
>>not Swatch has a hissy fit like you know who says they will.
>>Now, about those contracts saying this is not allowed to happen when news
>>breaks - still waiting to see an example that deals with any of these
>>media I have addressed specifically, pastorio. You see, just because
>>magaznes and newspapers are media, does not mean their standards are
>>the rule of the road for other media.
<><><><><><>
I missed Pasotio's reply in editing down this ng, but googled it and found
his insipid response about Swatch, so an cnp here:
Bob (this one) Oct 12, 2:20 pm show options
Newsgroups: rec.food.cooking
From: "Bob (this one)" <B...@nospam.com> - Find messages by this author
Date: Wed, 12 Oct 2005 17:20:36 -0400
Local: Wed, Oct 12 2005 2:20 pm
Subject: Re: News and Advertising
Reply | Reply to Author | Forward | Print | Individual Message | Show
original | Report Abuse
ensenadajim...@yahoo.com wrote:
>> One of the threads here concerns advertising ending up juxtaposed with a
>> news story that is negative in content.
>No matter how you try to change the subject of the thread, no mater how
>you trim a bit off the edges to make it conform with what you're about
>to argue, the simple fact is that the discussion was about ads run next
>to news stories that specifically disparaged the stuff being advertised
>directly or categorically.
pissantbobbie, no matter your smokecreen - the OP specifically said "cut
away from TV news to ads." Consequently, you are the one trying to move it
elsewhere and you are a liar. I maintain trueness to the OP. I've been
maintaining that bad juxtapositions do happen and you have maintained that
they cannot because of contract (not a single one of which you have
provided in terms of TV, radio or, as the case now includes, the interet).
That is the fact, you cannot provide a single contract in those media, so
you dance around it with hollow rhetoric, ad hominen attacks and lies.
>Almost *all* news is "negative in content."
Nice waffle, bobbie, but irrelevant to the discussion. We specifically
have been discussing where and when an advertiser ends up wiht a negative
news story next to their ad. See the opening paragraph to refresh your
memory.
> I've maintained that it does happen in media where the news breaks quickly
> such as TV news or something big after the advertising department goes
> home for the night and the news content is still in a state of flux.
>Not a single example shown... Jim Lane thinks that when the 11:00 news
>comes on TV, the whole rest of the station is dark. Nobody home. Just
>the guy reading news. No producers. No directors. Nobody working the
>board that has all the commercials stored in the computer that can be
>manipulated right up to the time the spot runs - or doesn't run.
Nice try at obfuscation, but your comments are irrelevant. I did give a
perfect example of my radio news shift when the plane hijacker executions
came down the net feed immediately after some local commercials. Who would
want their ads next to that? That probably happened elsewhere as there was
no forewarning for that story nor net advisory prior to its running.
Excuse me? The Swatch ad URL pointed to a headline has and the earthquake
story (which is negative news) does happen. Do you think Swatch was trying
to predict the earthquake's time, bobbie? Do you think they wanted to be
right next top that story? Of course not, but the juxtaposition is not too
cool. I don't see them protesting and if they did, CNN would apologize at
best and blow it off. It is a news site.
>No one watching anything else but that lonely guy up in front of the
>cameras. <sob> It's such a lonely life...
I said only after the ad department was gone for the night. Never
addressed anything else. Noted that you are now relying on lies instead of
facts related to the issue.
> You know who says posh, doesn;t happen.
> Looks like I should have added web news to my list:
> http://www.adrants.com/images/cnn_earthquake.jpg
>Bonehead. Why would Swatch take offense at this? You still don't get it.
>You never will. It looks like you have what to your tortured mind is an
>example - the first one. It really looks like the only example. And it's
>not what we were talking about, anyway.
Look at the juxtaposition. You said running an ad next to a negative story
is a no-no. This proves it happens. Period. You lose, bobbie.
>Do you not know that the banners aren't controlled by the web site
>operators? So this might be the only setting where this thing might happen.
I have given the airplane hijacker example well back in the original
thread, didn't I? Sure did, pissingonyourfootpastorio.
>Your density is the new standard. More dense than lead. More dense than
>depleted uranium. Jim Lane - depleted Uranus.
Your blindness to facts that disagree with you is legendary as are your ad
hominen attacks when you are caught with your pants down.
>> Enjoy my proof that it doe happen. What remains to be seen is whether or
>> not Swatch has a hissy fit like you know who says they will.
>Jim Lane, give it a rest. Were I the ad manager at Swatch, I'd have not
>a single issue with this. It makes the ad memorable. And no one will
>*not* buy a swatch because of this.
Irrelevant. I did prove my point.
You are not the ad manager. The ad did run adjacent to a negative news
story with a classic headline for that situation. It proves this happens.
Face up to it, bobbie, you've not been able to provide ONE iota of
evidence supporting your position vis-a-vis broadcast news. Where's that
contract for your program bobbie? Surely you must have one.
>>Now, about those contracts saying this is not allowed to happen when news
>> breaks - still waiting to see an example that deals with any of these
>> media I have addressed specifically, pastorio. You see, just because
>> magaznes and newspapers are media, does not mean their standards are >>the rule of the road for other media.
>Jim Lane, you're an idiot desperate to gain some traction back from your.
>shabby display here recently. You know nothing about the field of
>advertising, nothing about news, nothing about media management, nothing
>about marketing. Yet you continue to try to argue what you know nothing
>about. And you can't even imagine how it makes you look.
Noted that you have not one fact so you resort to ad hominen atttacks.
That's a loser's (and losing) strategy, isn't it?
The only evidence (two pieces) that go directly to the thread (news events
that break suddenly and advertising) have been provided by me. You have
only tried to steer the topic away from the issue of broadcast and
negative news stories' placement adjacent to news papers and advertising.
IT IS ABOUT TV NEWS, bobbie, try as you may to smokescreen that fact and
turn it into something else. Keep on trying, I'll pull you back and
continue to prove you have nothing directly relevant to TV news and
advertising. You are even unable to produce a contract supporting your
position from your pissant radio program. Don't you even have one? Or do
you and it does not address the issue so you cannot put it up?
>Your frantic
>bluster about the .22 thread . . . I note
>nothing approximating an apology for the misunderstanding and the posts
>where you gloated so stupidly over a triumph in a contest that never
>happened. You were absolutely, completely, utterly, unarguably dead
>wrong. I note no recognition of that fact from you.
I did make that apology, bobbie. Even used "mea culpa."
>It's painful to watch you obsess on your ego. It's a sad thing to watch
>a grown man so captured by trying to save face when there's none left to
>save.
More ad hominen attcaks and not a fact to prove your point in evidence.
>So, Jim Lane. Did you ever figure out how you screwed the pooch so badly
>and didn't know who was kicking your ass after all in that .22 thread...?
He lost. Nice of you to defend him and try to spin it in his favor. Too
bad he didn't have more experience with guns.
>Um, I don't really care. Just felt like poking you in your obsession,
>again because you wear so many "kick me" signs. Had enough yet...?
You still lose, bobbie. No where have you provided one bit of proof in
terms of TV advertising and news.
>Idiot.
Liar.
jim
--
-----------------------------------------------------------
ensenadajimXXX@yahoo.com
-----------------------------------------------------------
|
|
|
|
