Amy J, OTOT Re:"unintentional subliminal messages they deliver to the people around them by use of certain patterns and trends in their language."
I think you read too much into my statement. If I offended you or other members of the female gender, then I apologize. It was unintentional. I showed my wife and daughter the passage and they were not offended by it. They were amused.
Re:"some of these images are especially harmful to society when their "artificial" non-congruent meaning (to the essence of the product being sold) lack social responsibility"
I agree. Cigarette ads (joe camel) are a prime example (in addition to the ones you gave). Pardon my asking but, what does this have to do with selling PC's that have a smaller footprint and are more attractive to the eye? Are you saying this is an example of socially irresponsible marketing? If so, can you explain why?
Re:"smart children do not waste money on artificial imagery"
It depends on how you define "artificial imagery". Even so I would tend to disagree with your statement. Let me ask a rhetorical question. Imagine you had the opportunity to observe the children in honors classes or schools for the gifted, or the most prestigious universities across the nation for an experiment. As part of this experiment, you were to take a survey of the clothing that the "smart" kids were wearing, or the cars they drove, or the make-up they used (I am told that guys wear make-up too, gotcha!), or the jewelry they have (guys too), or the PC's they use (girls too), etc... Do you think you would find a lower proportion of Nike Tennis Shoes, Tommy Hilfigger shirts, Lancome cosmetics, Levi's jeans, or Swatch watches, or HP Jornada's??? I would propose you wouldn't. Smart kids are in to status, image (artificial or not) and being cool just as much as the next kid.
I would further propose that smart kids (male and female) are more likely to have these image enhancing items than kids of lesser intellect. Reason being: they are more likely to use their mental capabilities by whatever means (including getting good jobs with higher incomes) to get these things. If you asked these smart kids if they were "wasting money" do you think they would reply in the affirmative? I don't think so. Plenty of big companies (clothing, cosmetics, automobiles) are making enormous amounts of money betting that they won't.
All just my opinion.
Personally, I like the idea of nice looking or alternate style PC's. I think the idea could go along way toward selling alot more PC's. It might be one way to get 2 or MORE PC's into a single PC household. Image and beauty sells! This is a fact! Not in computers very much yet(except for Apple's Imac) but I suspect it will soon. In that light I interpreted your previous post to mean that "good packaging" was one way that OEM's could ADD VALUE.
It now appears that I was confused.
Regards, |
