Talk:Criticism of advertising/Archives/2012

Clean-up/Neutrality Tag Placement

I placed the clean-up tag because the "Influencing and Conditioning" section. It begins mid-sentence, possibly continuing from the previous section. The article also uses improper citation styles: " (Miller and Rose, 1997, cited in Thrift, 1999, p. 67)" as well as European style number format (22.000 $) in an English article--I'm not actually sure that this is a problem, but at the very least the dollar sign precedes the amount in dollar-denominated numbers.

As for the neutrality tag: the article reads, ironically enough, as an advertisement against advertising. "A person can hardly move in the public sphere or use a medium without being subject to advertising" is an exaggerated, qualitative opinion rather than a statement of fact. The article is littered with these.

A few more examples:

• "As far as a growth based economy can be blamed for the harmful human lifestyle (affluent society)"
• "Through long-term commercial saturation, it has become implicitly understood by the public that advertising has the right to own, occupy and control every inch of available space."
• "Urban landmarks are turned into trademarks."

The article is written in essay format and, while I understand the title of the article, is so overtly biased, it is tempting to recommend the article for deletion.

If you're wondering: No, neither I, nor anyone I know of, have any affiliation with advertising companies, nor do I receive advertising revenues. I'm just concerned about the quality of Wikipedia articles. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sheridp (talk • contribs) 16:26, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Just a few...

It is the "advertising industry's provider and distributor of educational content to enrich the understanding of advertising and its role in culture, society and the economy,"[81] sponsored for example by American Airlines, Anheuser-Busch, Campbell Soup, Coca-Cola, Colgate-Palmolive, Disney, Ford, General Foods, General Mills, Gillette, Heinz, Johnson & Johnson, Kellogg's, Kraft, Nabisco, Nestlé, Philip Morris, Quaker Oats, Schering, Sterling[disambiguation needed ], Unilever, Warner Lambert, advertising agencies like Saatchi & Saatchi, and media companies like ABC, CBS, Capital Cities Communications, Cox Enterprises, Forbes, Hearst, Meredith, The New York Times, RCA/NBC, Reader's Digest, Time, and The Washington Post, just to mention a few.

That's a lot more than 'a few', but I don't know which ones to cut, bias and all that. I'd suggest cutting the whole thing, but it seems relevant. Thoughts? 109.155.42.250 (talk) 18:49, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Section about Costs

A reference in the section about Costs is a Der Spiegel article that states, among other numbers being cited, that the US spent 147 billions in online advertising. This feel too high. See http://www.emarketer.com/blog/index.php/numbers-major-media-ad-spending/ or http://www.go-gulf.com/blog/online-ad-spending — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.149.72.211 (talk) 20:05, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

NPOV problems still plague this article

It's been years since this article was tagged for problems with its neutrality. It is still "overtly biased" as noted above (years ago). I've done a minor amount of cleanup, but much more is needed. I just wanted to point this out, so that someone doesn't come along and simply remove the template indicating the problem just because it has been there so long. Happy editing! (talk) 21:23, 9 August 2012 (UTC)