Following the lead of our tort reform brethren, this website will continue its crusade to reduce the cost of products to the American consumer by stamping out expensive, frivolous advertising. The cost of such advertising is a direct add on to the cost of goods and services paid for by the American public. These frivolous ads tell us nothing about the inherent value of a product. Why should you and I subsidize greedy advertising executives? Why should manufacturers of good products be forced to compete with the makers of the cheap and the shoddy, just because the makers of junk have hired hot shot ad execs? Why should a venerable old insurance company have to develop its own talking reptile (with comic accent) to merely to compete with GEICO? How much does GEICO spend on the talking lizard? Don't we all pay higher premiums as a result. Huh? HUH??!!
Today we have a magzine ad. Can you guess what is being sold?
Bowling balls?
Tooth whitener?
Low cut, gravity-defying women's tops?
Breast implants?
No, no, no and no. Now here is the original ad, with the product information included:
Men's shoe polish, of course, because the shine on your shoes will really "bowl them over". Not that the young lady is looking at your shoes. Frankly, no reader is either.
Contact your Congressperson immediately. This frivolous advertising must be stamped out. I am sure even the Tea Party can get behind government intervention on this.
I'll have to stop this rant now, so I can watch the Capital One Bowl. Those Viking, Vandal, Barbarian or whatever ads just "slay" me.
Did you really write this? And will you apply this (very interesting) analysis to all businesses? Or do personal injury attorneys receive a free pass? For, without frivolous advertisements, clients would receive a greater share of their compensation and cases would be more equitably spread out among all attorneys -- instead of a few capitalist hogs hoarding them all. Right?
Posted by: Freddy Counsel | January 11, 2012 at 11:53 AM
Freddy, thanks for the comment.
The "American Billboard" category is entirely tongue in cheek. The name is taken from the "American Courthouse" blog run by the American Justice Partnership, a tort-reform lobbying outfit. Every time they see a goofy lawsuit they seem to think it proves that the whole legal system is screwed up and that the right to apply to the courts for redress should be restricted or eliminated. Suggesting that goofy ads be similarly restricted just takes the AJP's logic to its illogical conclusion.
By the way, I don't give the lawyers a free pass. My "Tastless Attorney Ad" category has many more posts than "American Billboard".
Be well.
Posted by: Mike "AttorneyButler" Butler | January 11, 2012 at 04:22 PM