Complaining with a purpose

I'm wondering if we "haters" should have some sort of a agreement.

      I believe that there should be some bylaw or understanding that any listing of why we hate a commercial should have actual reasons why it's bad.

      I'm not trying to be holy than thou or be a thread policeman but there is a practical reason why I suggest this. I have the sneaking suspesion that we are visited by real marketers and business owners who are seeking feedback or input as to how not to make a commercial. I know it's easy just to say "this commercial sucks and I hate this product". This really doesn't prove anything other than it bugs you personally and it just kind of makes such complaints seem petty.

      However I think we actually have a chance to improve the commercial environment. By making note of what turns us off from buying their product, those people who actually make commercials will get a clue on what to include\not to include. Thus we complain with a purpose.

BTW I'm not a marketer or advertiser. However I do work in broadcasting and have taken some clues.

Naw, it's payback for all the suffering they put us through, if they enter the site, they get what they deserve.

I try to explain why I hate them, but I'll don't know if we should make it easy for them.
I know for a fact that we are visited by them and it bothers me that some come here and give us attitude.  They tell us to get a life or get over it, I say don't come here unless you legitimately want to hear from us.

If they want answers, they can compensate the site.
Ad holes make a sight more than I do and I will NOT help them shine and get a big raise on my ideas.

Nathan does need a new coat and he could use some socks as well.
If they wish to donate to the site, Nathan can set up a section where we could volunteer aid to the benefactor.  This panel of viewers is a gold mine to them and they can afford to help.

shadow wrote: I try to explain why I hate them, but I'll don't know if we should make it easy for them. I know for a fact that we are visited by them and it bothers me that some come here and give us attitude.  They tell us to get a life or get over it, I say don't come here unless you legitimately want to hear from us. If they want answers, they can compensate the site. Ad holes make a sight more than I do and I will NOT help them shine and get a big raise on my ideas. Nathan does need a new coat and he could use some socks as well. If they wish to donate to the site, Nathan can set up a section where we could volunteer aid to the benefactor.  This panel of viewers is a gold mine to them and they can afford to help.

HollyRock wrote: I wonder if this would work:   Nathan creates (yet another) section, $ponsored by advertisers that specifically want our input.    They submit the ads that they want us to review in that section.   We provide honest feedback, with detailed responses.   ...this would probably have to be moderated, possibly post-by-post before they are displayed on the forum.  Moderators would keep the threads from going off-topic.   Just a thought; I'd like to see Nathan get some dough for something like this.

Nathan's 'nemisis' were actually going to do exactly that...

HollyRock wrote: He's got a decent, upright idea.  I give him credit for suggesting it, and seeing how the rest of us respond.   As far as clues - I truly hope one was not "please use the word 'douche' freely and often."

UhOh, maybe I shouldn't have used that word so much in last Sunday's newsbroadcast!

PaWolf wrote: Vindicated wrote: ...BTW one of my duties is to select which PSA's get played at the radio station I work for. If a PSA is extremely annoying I won't inflict it on our listeners. Unfortunately I don't have the same controls over our commercials. THAT is admirable - Thank You for doing Your job. Although, having witnessed some of the ugliness that provide the reason for a PSA, I personally believe in leaving the public with something that might just turn their stomach (not the silly humor of the anti-smoking 'low-weight baby' commercials)...

Some of the worst offenders aren't even real PSA's but are what I like to call "stealth commercials". They are presented by certain organizations as PSA's. In my early days I'd be reading the transcript and half-way through the PSA would quickly turn into a darned Carnival Cruise Commercial!   

HollyRock wrote:   OMG   I wonder if this would work:   Nathan creates (yet another) section, $ponsored by advertisers that specifically want our input.    They submit the ads that they want us to review in that section.   We provide honest feedback, with detailed responses.   ...this would probably have to be moderated, possibly post-by-post before they are displayed on the forum.  Moderators would keep the threads from going off-topic.   Just a thought; I'd like to see Nathan get some dough for something like this.

What if it does, just plain SUCK?

Big Momma wrote: What if it does, just plain SUCK?

Of course, if you wanted to use a group that was considered stupid, you would have to use one that is extinct.  Otherwise it would offend a real person, and everyone knows you're not allowed to offend anyone today.

PaWolf wrote: Big Momma wrote: What if it does, just plain SUCK?  I...I...I..just can't seem to read it right! Are we "smokin' an' paintin'" tonight, BM?!

If Nathan was interested, I would be willing to dedicate some time to help Mod it.
This has win/win all over it.  Of course the disclaimer would have to be that the agencies should not participate in the local flavor in a professional capacity.  They would be asked to stay within the new section.  Otherwise, I think flame wars would flare up.  This would also prevent freeloaders from gleaning data without donating first.

If this grows legs, I'd love to help out.