Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

Adverts that make you want to hit things.

rubbershoes said:
that's the whole point kyser. we know that the voice over has been chosen simply for that reason. it makes us aware that the advertiser is trying to manipulate us

Thats what i ment. It's just so blantant the thing, not the fact i ment it.
 
kyser_soze said:
Statisically yeah you can. Women make fewer and lower insurance claims across all age groups then men as a % of the total driving population. THey couldn't say it about men because it isn't true.

It's not an incorrect statement.
Doesn't mean you can necessarily extrapolate for each individual, its not like all women have less accidents, just less women have accidents.
 
That fucking ad for confused.com. Some wanker screaming at the camera "does searching for car insurance drive up the wall". No but your fucking ad does
 
That one with the elephant in it. Him and the bloke are both as annoying as fuck :mad:

And the other one where the old guy says in a dodgy voice 'Confused about hidden charges'

So fucking sincere :mad:

I feel better now :o
 
30 years worth of TV and radio research says that over 70% of people prefer to hear a Northern accent when being sold any product that requires 'trust' - financial services for example.

They're trying to appropriate West country accents now. Check out First Directs latest ads. I hate it.
 
fear-n-loathing said:
That fucking ad for confused.com. Some wanker screaming at the camera "does searching for car insurance drive up the wall". No but your fucking ad does

And the Admiral one with the talking parrot...and the elephant.co.uk one. Cheaply done, crap and annoying.
 
How do those pampers 'potty trainer nappies' work that let you know you need to go???

Non-absorbent? The trickle of piss down your leg gives the game away.

Battery powered? You get electrocuted if you piss yourself.

:confused:
 
In Bloom said:
Doesn't mean you can necessarily extrapolate for each individual, its not like all women have less accidents, just less women have accidents.

No, but they are making a legimate claim about car insurance - as a woman you can get cheaper car insurance than men.

Can't work out how this is so hard to get your heads round really. For the purposes of the product being advertised (car insurance) they are making a statistically verifiable claim, are introducing a little sexist humour to bring some levity and a bit of 'wink wink, all girls together' thinking, especially about a gender divisive subject like driving.

There is no attempt or implication that they are extrapolating this to any individual case, but even with one or two accidents, women will still find it cheaper to buy insurance than men because as a group women make less insurance claims, ergo they are 'better' drivers.

If you want to get onto the semantics and legality of using words like 'better' and other intensifiers in advertising I refer you to the Ofcom and the FSA websites dealing with the advertisements of financial services products which are tightly regulated (I've had to get online ads passed by the FSA and they are the biggest pain in the butt), and another reason, aside from being cheap ads, that insurance ads are almost uniformly crap.
 
Yep. To be honest (and this is not advertising related at all), I'm far more likely to be watching BBC than ITV or Channel 4 anyway. Not that I watch a large amount of TV anyway.

Sky gets the mute on a regular basis when on, though, with their increased-volume ads.
 
Get a TiVo or Sky+ box, it may well cost a lot, but it'll help lower your blood pressure massivly by letting you fast forward through comericals...
 
Bob_the_lost said:
Get a TiVo or Sky+ box, it may well cost a lot, but it'll help lower your blood pressure massivly by letting you fast forward through comericals...
I'm waiting to see how the NTL takeover of Telewest goes - my main complaint has been the rubbish programme guide and lack of decent advance programming - maybe Sky+ would help me watch a bit more intelligently (though I bet I'd watch even more TV :eek: )
I'm a major TV abuser - I can watch a whole day of "How Clean is Your House" before I actually do the washing up ;)
("Life of Grime" tends to make me feel better about my own squalor :D )

One day the advertisers will have to realise that there's no point making me watch cosmetics and car adverts and maybe give the slot over to something more appropriate .....
 
The ones that really piss me off are the ''sponsored by...'' for programmes like 'Six Feet Under'' and ''The Sopranos'' on E4.
Oh and the brylcreem ads during every fucking break on 'Soccer AM''.
 
kyser_soze said:
There is no attempt or implication that they are extrapolating this to any individual case, but even with one or two accidents
By definition they are though, as an individual, my insurance would be higher because men as a group are statistically more likely to claim on car insurance, regardless of how well I might drive individually. That I'm best off taking the bus is irrelevant ;)

women will still find it cheaper to buy insurance than men because as a group women make less insurance claims, ergo they are 'better' drivers.
Perhaps for the insurance company.

If you want to get onto the semantics and legality of using words like 'better' and other intensifiers in advertising I refer you to the Ofcom and the FSA websites dealing with the advertisements of financial services products which are tightly regulated (I've had to get online ads passed by the FSA and they are the biggest pain in the butt), and another reason, aside from being cheap ads, that insurance ads are almost uniformly crap.
Personally, I'm not arsed about the legal aspect, though I'm sure you'd be far better versed in it than me.
 
In Bloom said:
By definition they are though, as an individual, my insurance would be higher because men as a group are statistically more likely to claim on car insurance, regardless of how well I might drive individually. That I'm best off taking the bus is irrelevant ;)


Perhaps for the insurance company.


Personally, I'm not arsed about the legal aspect, though I'm sure you'd be far better versed in it than me.

I was under the impression the eu had banned this kind of thing and that insurance prices should be based on the history of the person applying for insurance not their gender !
 
Savage Henry said:
I was under the impression the eu had banned this kind of thing and that insurance prices should be based on the history of the person applying for insurance not their gender !
Nope, got thrown out.
 
Back
Top Bottom