Beware TV Ads

Watch much TV? Do you view those irritating ads for products you order by phone, or by going to a web site? Here are some marketing practices that you should be aware of.

It's become common for these ads to offer you (for example), a second what-ever-it-is for free; "just pay separate fee."

First, I don't know how much that "separate fee" is likely to amount to, but you should consider that, with this fee, it's not actually free.

Second, consider this: Say the item costs $19.99 and the second one is "free." I think you should understand the offer this way: The item really costs $10 each but you are being forced to buy two of them.

And then, have you noticed that all prices are "just such-and-such an amount" or "only. . ."? This is a bit of psychology practiced upon you by the merchandiser, trying to make you think (usually unconsciously) that the offering price is low, cheap, a bargain. Maybe a little less subtle is when they say "For the amazing low price of . . . ." Or they imply that the price is lower than formerly. Probably you can't verify that, and I suspect it's most likely not true.

Another trick to make you think the price is a good one is when the screen shows a price with a big red "X" through it and then a lower price, meaning (again) that the price has been reduced. Again, be suspicious of this.

Sometimes, if the price is for some cosmetic is, say, $39.95, maybe you are getting two or three items and the ad will say, "A $170 value." There is no way you can verify that and you should consider it totally phony and made-up.

For more expensive items, it might be something like, "For just five easy payments of $29.99 each." (Note the inevitable "just.") First, I suspect they don't expect you to multiply the amount of the payment by the number of payments to determine the total cost you'll be paying. Face it, you're lazy, and maybe also not good at mental math. And, sometimes the screen will show (for example) five payments, which (again) is crossed out by a big red "X", and then it's four payments--again to make you think you're getting a price reduction and a bargain.

Are these TV offers ever a good deal, or at least reasonable? In one case I compared the TV price with the price for the same item on Amazon. The same.

Sometimes the items advertised on TV--even if the ad says "Not sold in stores"--are in fact available in stores. For example, Bed, Bath & Beyond carries many "As Seen on TV" items--and if you buy the item from BB&B, you won't pay the shipping charge, though you may have to add sales tax to the price.

I frankly don't know whether, buying from TV vendors, you get an okay product, or reasonably fast shipping (the ads often say "Allow 4 —6 weeks for delivery"), or whether you get ripped off on the shipping charges. That's because I've never ordered from a TV ad; I'm too cautious. Though I have occasionally bought "as seen on TV" products, and I would not generalize to say that they are no good.

A final word: A lot of what I say here may be pretty obvious to the more shrewd among us, but, judging from how frequently I hear on the news of scams and so on that people fall for, I do have to believe that, if not actually stupid, my fellow man sometimes is naive, incautious, or just not critical.

Update, May 16, 2018:  Another device may be subtle (well, maybe they're all subtle). "You may qualify" for a hearing aid or for their life insurance. Qualify? To be sold something? You bet you qualify, as long as your money is good. They want to make you think you're lucky that they're willing to let you buy their product; but who really is the lucky party when you shell out your money, you or they?
Added, July 17, 2019: Yes, that is the tactic of a vendor of hearing aids. They make you think you are lucky if you are "accepted" into their 30-day trial period to "evaluate" their revolutionary new hearing aid. But if you are smart you will recognize it's simply "we sell, you buy."
Also, you can dial the number shown on your TV screen to learn about extra benefits that maybe not all Medicare beneficiaries (What, not me? Horrors!) may be receiving. It really is just about an insurance agent on the other end of the phone line who wants to sell you their particular health insurance scheme.

© 2018 by Richard Stein

Invented by Whom, Where, When?

The other day I happened to hear about the invention of the garbage disposal. Also at around the same time I heard about when the first automatic washer came on the market, and the first hermetically sealed refrigerator—these latter two a little before my time.

I was somewhat astonished to realize that I had never thought about when the garbage disposal was invented. It's one of those things that you take for granted.

Of course what you are aware of as an innovation within your own lifetime, and what you take for granted, depends on your age.

Children today—well, probably anyone under about 30—have always known computers, so they don't even think about a time when home computers didn't exist. And cell phones are only a bit more recent so kids take them for granted, too, and have no notion that they didn't always exist.

In my family, some fairly well-off relations got some gadgets at a time when they were not yet really common: the automatic washer, air conditioning, even TV. My own family was the third one on our block to get TV, in December 1950. My grandparents, aunt and uncle, and several of my friends already had it in their homes. Everyone wanted one—of course it was something of a status symbol—even though we had one channel, and there was no 24-hour broadcasting, so when there was no program we actually stared at the "test pattern" on the screen. I suppose it sounds like some third-world country but it really was just a smallish city in Pennsylvania.

Copyright © 2011 by Richard Stein

I Hate TV Commercials

TV commercials are annoying. Worse, much of the time they're obnoxious. My current most-hated are two IKEA commercials. I don't hate the company; I have generally a favorable view of them, but if these commercials keep up I will soon learn to hate IKEA.

One shows a couple racing into their kitchen to cheer (that's the best word I can think of) their kitchen appliances for just having produced a delicious dinner for them. The husband belly-bumps (is that the word?) the refrigerator on his way out of the room. Sure, we'd all do that after an enjoyable meal, right?

After a bit more thought, I want to admit that the concept of the commercial is creative. What is annoying about it is that it begins with what amounts to shouting, and the sudden loud noise is very jarring. (See comment below on loud commercials.)

IKEA's other commercial has two young identical twin girls who go through an incredibly annoying monotone chant—in front of the same pair of double ovens as in the other commercial. I don't know what they say. God bless the "mute" button on the remote.

We have a local bankruptcy attorney who does his own TV commercials (almost always a mistake for the small business owner: better to use professional actors). He used to stare into the camera and talk in a droning voice. He's gotten better, and at the same time his face has gotten fatter--but his commercials are still deceptive, and annoying in their frequency and ubiquity.

It's also extremely annoying when a TV station runs the same commercial twice in one commercial break. I'm sure the sponsor would not be pleased at that practice, if they were aware of it. I think the FCC should crack down on that practice, as they are (supposedly) going to rein in another very annoying practice of TV stations, ramping up the volume on commercials. (My theory is that they do that to wake you up, if you've fallen asleep. After all, the commercial being the most important part of the broadcast, they want to ensure that you don't miss it.)

Here's a link to an article on obnoxious, loud commercials:

http://www.walletpop.com/blog/2010/04/27/ad-rant-after-obnoxious-staples-ad-give-me-higher-prices-and-l/


Besides commercials which are annoying in and of themselves, I really hate tuning in the TV or radio right in the middle (or even worse, just at the start) of a run of commercials. It seems to me that there are now more TV commercials in every commercial break than there used to be. (At one time, if you recall, the FCC had a rule limiting commercial content as a proportion of program content. Since that rule was rescinded we now have the blessing of infomercials.) I know that a commercial break can have at least eight commercials. If you count "spots" (ads for other TV shows), and if some of the commercials and spots are only 30 seconds, there might be 12. When a movie is showing, once you have gotten hooked on the program, the commercial breaks become more frequent (e.g., after only 7 minutes of the program), and longer, as well, with more individual ads.

With TV, I will often let one or even two commercials play. When another one comes on, I hit "mute." With radio, after one or two commercials, I switch it off if it's within reach. I can switch it on again in a couple minutes, when the commercials are done.

Someone once gave a number for the number of advertising messages we are subjected to on an average day, via all media. It was some staggering number, like a few thousand. I'm pretty sure we are normally not even aware of how many TV commercials we watch, and would be surprised at the number. Count them some time.

I used to work with a guy who was pretty pro-business. When I complained to him about commercials, he pointed out to me that commercials are why sponsors pay the money that makes TV and radio programming possible. Of course that's true, but (as I mentioned in an earlier posting on this blog), I as a consumer find it hard not to look askance at businesses when they get ever more ingenious at finding new places to put advertising. Has it appeared on chewing gum wrappers yet? The walls of public toilet stalls? Just wait. (I should be careful, I may well be giving someone an idea here.)

Anyone who can remember back a few decades, when I was a child, might recall that, before cable TV was a reality and was just one of those to-come, futuristic ideas, it was called "pay TV," and the appeal for the consumer was that it would not carry commercials! Now, of course, all cable TV networks, even the "premium" ones, carry advertising. Why? Just one of countless cases where someone found out that they could introduce advertising (or more advertising) and customers would accept it without protest.

Copyright © 2010 by Richard Stein

Becoming a Millionaire, for Dummies

Sometimes I watch "Who Wants to Be a Millionaire," but I much prefer "Jeopardy!"

"Jeopardy!" gets some pretty bright contestants, and I try to match wits with them. (When it comes to current culture--movies, music-- or technology, these people have it all over me; but when it comes to things like classical music, opera, Greek mythology, I typically know answers when they do not. That's the difference between what I know and what younger folks know these days.)

On the other hand, I don't think that "Millionaire" contestants are very bright. There was the famous instance (I didn't see this one myself) where, as the first, $200 question, the contestant was asked "Which of these is the largest?" and three of the choices were "a peanut; an elephant; the moon." (I don't know what the fourth answer choice was, but on those $200 questions the fourth choice is always something comical and really preposterous, and the audience laughs--just in case the contestant didn't get the point that that is not a serious option.)

And--do you believe?-- the contestant didn't know. She used one of the "lifelines," "Phone a friend." The friend urged her to say "The moon." She said, "Are you sure?" and was doubtful, and did not give that as her answer!

Another gripe of mine about the show is how the contestants are coddled and have things made so easy for them. The show has had--counting as a single contestant--newly-wed couples, and other couples such that two people could put their heads together. Makes me want to say "No fair!"

Also, the show didn't used to have any time limit. The producers finally wised up and, to make things a little harder, started using a clock. But the contestants still get those lifelines, so that they themselves don't have to know the answer. What is up with winning money when it's someone else who knows the answer? One day, on a question involving knowledge of Moroccan cuisine, the contestant was able to ask George Stephanopoulos, who knew the correct answer, and thus won $25,000. I thought the money should have gone to George Stephanopoulos, although these days, I guess, George is doing okay and probably does not need that money. Another time a woman won $15,000 when she did not know two consecutive questions.

Also, Millionaire questions are still multiple-choice, whereas Jeopardy! questions are not. Still, on Jeopardy! you can guess, and one contestant sometimes gets a helpful hint from the wrong answers of one or both of the other contestants.

I feel Jeopardy! contestants have to work pretty hard to win a few thousand dollars, whereas a Millionaire contestant can answer the first few questions and win a few thousand dollars by not knowing any of the answers him or her self!

Copyright (c) 2010 by Richard Stein

A Cheesy Subject

I recently happened to think about "The Whiffenpoof Song" (don't ask why!), and it occurred to me to wonder what some of the words referred to. So I went to that wonder of the modern, on-line world, Wikipedia. I found there some info on the song and also on "The Whiffenpoofs," who were (and still are!) a Yale singing society.

The Wikipedia entry immortalized (in infamy) a man who was a contestant on Jeopardy! Here is the quote from Wikipedia:

"On one episode of Jeopardy!, aired July 23, 2009, contestant Stefan Goodreau responded to the Final Jeopardy! clue of 'This cheese was created in 1892 by Emil Frey & named for a New York singing society whose members loved the cheese' with 'What is Whiffenpoof cheese?' He was incorrect (the correct response was 'What is Liederkranz?') and lost $20,065 but still won the game.^"

Even if Mr. Goodreau did not know that Liederkranz means "circle of song" (and probably he does not know German), it seems to me he still might have known that the "Whiffs" whom he was thinking of are not a "New York singing society" but a Yale (and thus New Haven) singing society.

Anyway, of course there is no such thing as "Whiffenpoof cheese," but this got me thinking about Liederkranz, and wanting some. I happen to like ripe cheeses. I didn't find any Liederkranz in my local supermarket (I know another store at which I could be pretty sure of finding it), but I merely bought Limburger, instead, because I think it's similar. They both are, shall we say, odiferous, and that no doubt keeps a lot of people away. I, on the other hand, love stinking cheeses--might be the German in my ancestry--and I am enjoying my Limburger, thank you very much.

Copyright (c) 2009 by Richard Stein

Queer Eye for the Straight Guy

I only watched the TV show, "Queer Eye for the Straight Guy," a couple of times, but I have to say that I agree with its premise: that when it comes to matters like style and grooming, gay men know what they are doing, and straight men are clueless.

Let's just take haircuts or hair styles. I used to observe, on the commuter train, that so many men had just dreadful haircuts. I'm sure these guys go to barbers (no barber has cut my hair for maybe 40 years) and get a very poor haircut. You have to wonder why their wives don't tell them and try to get Hubby to get a better haircut. (Well, come to think of it, it probably wouldn't do any good—although these same men are ruled by their wives when it comes to clothes. What percentage of men let their wives pick out their clothes? Do I have to tell you?)

Today I had my hair cut. I go to a stylist. Most of those chain or franchise haircut places aren't very good; their people either can't or won't cut my hair the way I expect it. Nevertheless, one of those outfits--maybe a little better than its competitors-- is where I've been having my hair cut for some months now. I've generally been satisfied with the cut I get there or, you can be sure, I wouldn't go there. 'Cause I'm a gay man and I care about things like how my hair looks. (But, so as not to be over-generalizing, let me admit that I have some geeky gay friends who are just as bad as any straight.)

As I was waiting for my stylist to finish another customer, I was watching the cut this guy was getting: Very closely trimmed on the sides, with the clippers, and longer on top. I thought it was very unbecoming. There's no excuse for a haircut like that unless you're in the Marines. I was considering saying to the stylist, When a guy comes in and asks for a cut like that, you should tell him that you can't do it, because it's illegal.

And, as my hair was being cut, I saw a fairly nice-looking dude come in and sit in the chair of another stylist. His hair, I thought, looked good just the way he had it when he came in. But with this one, too--out came the clippers, and after a bit of buzzing, his hair was too short to look good on him. Little short of a tragedy. Gawd, I wish I could tell these people what they don't seem to be able to see.

And while we're on men's hair, let's talk about facial hair. It's been the fashion for some time for younger guys to have these "goatees" (the quotes are because that term properly applies to a pointed beard, like a goat's). I think that, in about 96% of cases, these are not becoming. Darker-haired guys, like Latinos, often look very sinister with moustaches and goatees. And the guys with lighter hair, if they have a longish tuft of hair on their chins, it simply looks disgusting.

Many guys have long hair together with full beards. Hair just surrounds their faces. There was one like that at a place I was working. Every time I passed him, I wanted to say, Too much hair!

So, sadly, straight guys just can't judge what is or is not good for their appearance. Now, when do I get on that TV show?

Copyright © 2009 by Richard Stein

Television makes us fat

You've probably heard over and over—it's even discussed elsewhere on this blog—that Americans are increasingly becoming overweight and even obese. There's been a lot of discussion among experts as to what the causes are.

I want to suggest that television is at least one possible cause. No, I don't mean the inactivity of sitting and watching TV; I mean the advertising of food on television.

Just to make a very rough and random sample, in three or four days of my own televiewing, I saw commercials for some half-dozen fast-food chains (one of them at least four times), one for yogurt, two for sausages (one of those at least twice), ice cream, a pancake house, raw chicken, baked beans—and paper plates, piled high with food to show that they can hold it. This is not an exhaustive list. The Fourth of July is approaching so the sausages and paper plates are to be expected, I guess.

My theory is that watching food commercials—seeing the sponsors' food items shown, often in close-up, in their best make-up (and that's not totally facetious: food is doctored for still photography, as in magazines, and I'm sure something similar is done for TV) so as to look as appetizing as possible—doesn't this make us hungry? Some social scientist needs to do a study to show just how often seeing a TV commercial for food makes the viewer get up during a commercial break and go to the refrigerator. Meanwhile, I've got this bit of advice: the next time a food commercial comes on, showing that double cheeseburger, quickly change the channel, look away--anything but watch it and start to salivate.

And then there are the cooking shows on TV and other food programs. I know that those make me hungry, maybe more so that the food commercials. I'm pretty much immune to most of the food commercials because I almost never eat fast food and I eat almost no red meat. So because of how I have conditioned myself, that close-up shot of a big, juicy burger isn't going to do it for me. But I'm in the minority.

Update, June 28, 2012
Yesterday the TV news reported on a study done by the University of Southern California that shows that TV ads for fatty foods make the viewer crave fatty foods. I feel this shows that I was right in what I said in 2009.
Copyright © 2009 by Richard Stein

TV Has Come to This?

I was channel surfing today. I don't know what channel or network this was, but I stopped at a guy sitting on a stool, holding a microphone. There was silence for a second or so, and then he loudly belched into the microphone.

I don't wish to be non-hip, or curmudgeonly, but is this art? Is this even entertainment? Does watching this enrich the lives of its viewers? Maybe this is some less highbrow (i.e., Joe Sixpack) version of a nihilist movement in art? I guess I should have perceived sooner that this is what TV has come to, since Homer Simpson and Peter Griffin ("Family Guy") love to make various biological noises. And I have to assume that this amuses some people. But it can't really require much talent to do this. What is the going rate for sitting on a stool in front of a TV camera and belching? Maybe there was more to this dude's act than that, but I didn't stick around to find out.

Copyright © 2009 by Richard Stein