xkcd

by **quantumcat42** » Fri Jun 10, 2011 10:49 pm UTC

Dear Pizza Hut:

Your Cheesy Bites Pizza can be "revolutionary" or "for a limited time only". Pick one.

by **felltir** » Sat Jun 11, 2011 5:31 pm UTC

Wat. Why not both?

by **bigglesworth** » Sat Jun 11, 2011 5:35 pm UTC

Yeah, ever heard of the French Revolution? Back to kings just a short while later.

by **quantumcat42** » Sat Jun 11, 2011 8:07 pm UTC

bigglesworth wrote:Yeah, ever heard of the French Revolution? Back to kings just a short while later.

And that's what they planned all along, right? "Come join the revolution! We will throw off the shackles of oppression! For a limited time only!"
When you claim something is revolutionary, you're claiming that it's going to... what's the word... revolutionize the industry. You don't plan on it just being a blip in a stream of business-as-usual.
Maybe this comment should be in this thread instead...

by **uncivlengr** » Sat Jun 11, 2011 10:08 pm UTC

There's a very strange radio commerical for a local gas station that's been playing lately.

"When you get gas at _____, you pay two cents less on every litre. With an average gas tank, you'll save... every time you fill up."

Can't argue with that math!

by **Magnanimous** » Sat Jun 11, 2011 11:09 pm UTC

Sport Clips is an actual thing.

It's for manly men-people. It's got what men crave. Not like women, like from the toilet.

by **GenericPseudonym** » Sun Jun 12, 2011 6:23 am UTC

There's one of those a very short distance away from my house. The whole "you have a penis, therefore you like sports" thing seems rather silly to me.

by **a_fuzzyduck** » Sun Jun 12, 2011 11:13 am UTC

ahahahaha, a sport-themed barber? I'm choking with laughter at that. Surely an excuse for the gullible to pay more for haircuts than before?

by **You, sir, name?** » Sun Jun 12, 2011 12:07 pm UTC

GenericPseudonym wrote:There's one of those a very short distance away from my house. The whole "you have a penis, therefore you like sports" thing seems rather silly to me.

That attitude is demeaning to men. The attitude you quote that is, not your attitude toward the attitude.

by **SlyReaper** » Sun Jun 12, 2011 12:33 pm UTC

My attitude is 0° roll, 10° pitch, 0° yaw. I'm going up in the world.

by **pizzazz** » Mon Jun 13, 2011 1:08 am UTC

Most advertisements I laugh at, but don't get mad at, because advertising content by and large doesn't actually affect sales, just the fact that the advertising exists provides most or all of the impact.

However, one political ad had my mouth hanging open in disbelief, as I recall it was for the Congressional elections in 2008. The democrats ran an ad in which all their opponents, literally every single person in the group that was supposed to be opposing this particular measure (implied to represent the Republicans, obviously), was a middle-aged white man with some sort of sneer and wearing a suit. And then on the other hand, the group of supporters (supposed to be Democrats), consisted of one or two senior citizens, one middle aged man, and a bunch of young minority women and children. Never mind the state is so white that if the local political demographics actually ran that way, this would be the reddest state in the Union, instead of moderately blue. I guess I can even pass on the fact that none of thisanything to do with the bill in question, since it affected pretty much everyone the same way. But the ad provided no useful information whatsoever. It didn't say what the bill was about, or what it was changing. I had to look that part up myself. The voiceover basically just said that the poor, minorities, women, and seniors had been "fighting for this chance" (or something similarly vague) out of the kindness of their hearts, while middle-aged rich white men opposed their efforts because money. The condescension absolutely disgusted me.

by **Ross1** » Mon Jun 13, 2011 1:39 am UTC

Theres been a series of magners adverts which say at the end "Thats why people say 'theres method in the magners'".

I cant help but scream 'no-one says that!' at the telly (well computer, i use a DVB card for all my tv watching).

by **wtspman** » Mon Jun 13, 2011 2:06 am UTC

Magnanimous wrote:Sport Clips is an actual thing. It's for manly men-people. It's got what men crave. Not like women, like from the toilet.

So, does this mean that you can go in there and get a really bad haircut, just like your favourite pro athlete? I can see lines of happy dads and their sons walking out proudly showing off their mullets.

by **felltir** » Mon Jun 13, 2011 3:13 am UTC

Ross1 wrote:Theres been a series of magners adverts which say at the end "Thats why people say 'theres method in the magners'".

I cant help but scream 'no-one says that!' at the telly (well computer, i use a DVB card for all my tv watching).

Ah, but maybe it'll catch on?

There's method in the Magners.

by **Magnanimous** » Mon Jun 13, 2011 3:14 am UTC

Method? In my Magners?

by **felltir** » Mon Jun 13, 2011 3:17 am UTC

You're magnanimous *nods*

by **Magnanimous** » Mon Jun 13, 2011 3:36 am UTC

Felltir? I 'ardly know 'er! Unless that's pronounced like "fell-teer". In which case, disregard this.

by **felltir** » Mon Jun 13, 2011 5:36 am UTC

Disregarded.

Ears of felt, I tell ye!

by **Adacore** » Mon Jun 13, 2011 5:40 am UTC

I dunno - Magnanimous's pun was good enough that I'm considering the way I pronounce it to 'fell-ter' just to make it work.

by **felltir** » Mon Jun 13, 2011 5:44 am UTC

It was a good pun, but I go by this name day to day, so I'd like to be able to pick how it's said, thanks.

Although most people just call me fell.

by **Chuff** » Mon Jun 13, 2011 6:15 am UTC

Felltir wrote:Disregarded.

Ears of felt, I tell ye!

HWAT?
*sound of glass shattering*

Tbc, it's the pronunciation, not the joke about ears, that made the glass shatter.

by **SecondTalon** » Mon Jun 13, 2011 2:24 pm UTC

Felltir wrote:Disregarded.

Ears of felt, I tell ye!

... Felt Ear and Felt Her are close enough in my accent for the joke to work. I mean, I couldn't rhyme them, sure, but it's close enough. Like horseshoes. And hand grenades.

by **KrazyerKate** » Mon Jun 13, 2011 3:44 pm UTC

pizzazz wrote: The voiceover basically just said that the poor, minorities, women, and seniors had been "fighting for this chance" (or something similarly vague) out of the kindness of their hearts, while middle-aged rich white men opposed their efforts because money. The condescension absolutely disgusted me.

Strawmen and Caricatures are all over the place in politics*, it drives me crazy. I fantasize about someday a politician airing a radio/tv ad where (s)he says something like "listen, I strongly disagree with nearly every opinion about policy that my opponent has, but at the end of the day I know (s)he's just trying to do what's best for our country. Read up on the beliefs of each of us and figure out which you like better. Here are a couple links to impartial research sites to get you started. See you at the ballot box!"

*American politics. I don't know much about foreign politics.

by **TimelordSimone** » Mon Jun 13, 2011 4:20 pm UTC

It is the same here. Most recently we had a referendum on the voting system, and both Yes and No seemed to spend a lot more time bad mouthing each other than they did actually discussing the proposed voting system. Both campaigns seemed to be: "They do/don't want AV because they're corrupt and lazy."
It's hilarious because student politics (at Staffs Uni anyway) you aren't allowed to badmouth other candidates or the current system at all. To the extent that my friend running for student president nearly got in trouble because a vocal supporter of his was badmouthing one of the other candidates. Means you actually have to convince people why you're worth voting for on (shudder gasp) your own merits.

by **philsov** » Mon Jun 13, 2011 5:07 pm UTC

ahahahaha, a sport-themed barber? I'm choking with laughter at that. Surely an excuse for the gullible to pay more for haircuts than before?

Heh, pretty much. It comes complete with locker-decor for all the stylist's equipment and each stylist is in a ref-like shirt. There's small TVs all around, usually tuned to ESPN or whatever game is on. But these TVs are angled flush with the wall, and most of the time you're getting a haircut you're sat at a like 30 degree angle, so there's no way to actually watch the sports. Plus all the cuttings are sports based! Child's is junior varsity, normal mens is varsity, shampoo + cut is an MVP, etc...

And, yes, a cut there is $3-4 more than the Supercuts directly across the street. I do go when I get the occasional $5 coupon in the mail though.

by **GhostWolfe** » Tue Jun 14, 2011 9:11 am UTC

SlyReaper wrote:There's a new anti-piracy advert I encountered the other day on one of my DVDs. On the one hand, you have a family who bought the DVD legally. Everything is brightly coloured, they're all attractive white americans, smiling from ear to ear and obviously very excited because they're about to watch their legal DVD. On the other hand is a geek sat alone at his computer waiting for the file to download. There's a filter on the camera to make everything look greyish and washed out, and he's sat there all bored and miserable because he's waiting for a download to complete. Never mind that he could be doing other things while waiting. Eventually the download conks out, saying "file corrupted".

I've also seen the version where two guys invite their friends over, but one of them pirated his DvD. At first they can't even get the disc to play, then the picture is terrible and it's in the wrong language, and eventually pirating guy's friends all get huffy and leave.

Pirating movies will make your friends hate you.

/angell

by **phlip** » Tue Jun 14, 2011 11:22 am UTC

What.

I knew the tobacco-company-sponsored political ads over the plain packaging thing were getting pretty stupid, but this...

by **a_fuzzyduck** » Tue Jun 14, 2011 12:01 pm UTC

Chuff wrote:
Felltir wrote:Disregarded.

Ears of felt, I tell ye!

HWAT?
*sound of glass shattering*

Tbc, it's the pronunciation, not the joke about ears, that made the glass shatter.

STUNNERS ALL ROUND

by **Jesse** » Tue Jun 14, 2011 12:03 pm UTC

GODDAMN YOU I CAME IN HERE TO MAKE THAT JOKE!

by **a_fuzzyduck** » Tue Jun 14, 2011 12:31 pm UTC

Jesse wrote:GODDAMN YOU I CAME IN HERE TO MAKE THAT JOKE!

WHAT? (etc)

by **felltir** » Tue Jun 14, 2011 1:26 pm UTC

a_fuzzyduck wrote:
Jesse wrote:GODDAMN YOU I CAME IN HERE TO MAKE THAT JOKE!

WHAT? (etc)

I DON'T GET IT

by **pseudoidiot** » Tue Jun 14, 2011 1:27 pm UTC

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9t4QoVgJ3KY

by **Nomic** » Tue Jun 14, 2011 4:06 pm UTC

phlip wrote:What.

I knew the tobacco-company-sponsored political ads over the plain packaging thing were getting pretty stupid, but this...

...Yeah, that's pretty stupid. I'm not even sure what plain cigaret packaging has to deal with the nannys state or, for that matter, why should there be a law that requires it. Only thing I can see it doign is make life a little more annoying for people who like to smoke a specific brand of cigarettes.

One add that had me scratching my head was a cookie add advertizing a new smaller package. Like it was a good thing. You can bet it doesn't cost (much) less, so you'd get less worth for your money. Now, I get that smaller packaging size means less for you to eat, which means less calories etc. That makes sense for stuff like candy bars which you can't really leave lying around for long, but cookies don't really go bad all that fast and usually come in boxes you can easily store on a shelf. I just got the feelign that they're tellign their customers they have no impulse controll and can't resist eating all their cookies at once. Ok, that is completely true in my case, but it feels kinda condencending.

by **Whelan** » Tue Jun 14, 2011 8:25 pm UTC

Smaller packaging to me means less waste. Like when you buy a bag of air and find out it's half full of crisps.

by **pizzazz** » Tue Jun 14, 2011 11:51 pm UTC

Nomic wrote:
phlip wrote:What.

I knew the tobacco-company-sponsored political ads over the plain packaging thing were getting pretty stupid, but this...

...Yeah, that's pretty stupid. I'm not even sure what plain cigaret packaging has to deal with the nannys state or, for that matter, why should there be a law that requires it. Only thing I can see it doign is make life a little more annoying for people who like to smoke a specific brand of cigarettes.

In the current economic climate, unless Australia has magically escaped the economic crisis, I can't imagine how this legislation was considered a priority. Or what the government hopes to accomplish; the only affect I can imagine is a slight increase in prices (maybe), but without any of the revenue that taxes would bring.

edit--that said, the ad does seem a bit over-the-top and charicateurish.

by **You, sir, name?** » Wed Jun 15, 2011 12:00 am UTC

It's strange. Sweden was barely touched by the economic crisis. Unemployment went up a bit in early 2008. But then everything went back to normal in some 6 months. Is it really still going on in some places?

by **phlip** » Wed Jun 15, 2011 12:03 am UTC

They're trying to make it harder for cigarette companies to advertise. They already can't advertise in most ways, pretty much the only way they have left is making a fancy package and trying to get it in good view of the customer. The govt is trying to make it so they can't do that either, by enforcing that the packaging is plain and generic, and that they're stored out of sight of the customer. Honestly, I don't have much faith in it actually doing anything (though I haven't looked into it, there could be some research that shows it will work, that I haven't seen), but the way the tobacco companies have been fighting it is just hilariously bad. But then, I guess "it probably won't do anything" isn't sensational enough for a political ad, which is kinda sad on its own.

But yeah, the tobacco company's position has been variously: It won't do anything, because the out-of-sight laws have already passed. It'll make small retailers and corner stores go out of business as people buy less cigarettes (wait, wouldn't that mean it will do something?) - they even created a retail-shop-owners-association front to push this one. It'll make it easier for black-market counterfeit cigarettes to be made (Seriously). And now the "nanny state" thing... which they did the same thing back when the no-smoking-in-pubs laws were introduced (which they reference in this latest ad), framing it as a nanny-state thing, and not a "no, you don't get to harm other people to get your fix" OH&S thing. Also, push-polling... I've gotten two calls in the past that have claimed to be political surveys but have turned out to be push polls on this matter.

by **Adacore** » Wed Jun 15, 2011 12:40 am UTC

phlip wrote:They're trying to make it harder for cigarette companies to advertise. They already can't advertise in most ways, pretty much the only way they have left is making a fancy package and trying to get it in good view of the customer. The govt is trying to make it so they can't do that either, by enforcing that the packaging is plain and generic, and that they're stored out of sight of the customer. Honestly, I don't have much faith in it actually doing anything (though I haven't looked into it, there could be some research that shows it will work, that I haven't seen)

I'm pretty sure I have seen research saying it decreases the likelihood of young people starting smoking and reduces the amount people smoke. For example, from a quick search, this article (published in a mexican journal of public health, but it's the most recent literature review I can find) claims that there is significant evidence for plain packaging having primary effects of increasing the impact of health warnings, reducing misconceptions about 'light' or 'mild' cigarettes (since they can no longer be differentiated by colour), and reducing the likelihood of young people having a positive attitude to smoking and starting smoking.

by **pizzazz** » Wed Jun 15, 2011 2:02 am UTC

Rather than get into a debate about what the government should be doing, I'm just gonna summarize:

People are overreacting to stuff.

by **EmptySet** » Wed Jun 15, 2011 5:45 am UTC

pizzazz wrote:In the current economic climate, unless Australia has magically escaped the economic crisis, I can't imagine how this legislation was considered a priority. Or what the government hopes to accomplish; the only affect I can imagine is a slight increase in prices (maybe), but without any of the revenue that taxes would bring.

Australia did mostly escape the economic crisis. We're actually in a reasonably strong economic position right now.

Who is online