![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
My Dear John Moment
Dec. 14th, 2010 07:10 pmWell, I've gone and done it. My local public radio station, KUOW, sent me a nice pre-addressed mailing envelope and a request for a nice donation. 
( Here's the letter they will get instead. ) Essentially, it's a "we're done" letter with a caveat that things could be rosy once again if they shape up.
Advertisers and public radio stations suffer an asymmetry when it comes to their knowing the results of their actions. In the business world, people respond positively to "good" or effective ads that draw in a marked increase in sales. Therefore it can be pretty easy to tell which ad campaigns should be continued or expanded. Bad ads, though, can be attributed to downturns in the economy, a competitor's new product, everyone out drinking the day the ad ran, phases of the moon, whatever. By the same token, NPR stations that run these "enhanced sponsorship" spots see the cash they bring but can write off the cash they lose from now-disgruntled listeners who fail to make their contributions to any number of circumstance, related or not. That's why I felt a letter of explanation necessary. I want them to know why contributions might be down this year.
( I also remembered an anecdote regarding bugs that might, if better known, highlight the dangers to increasing advertising presence. )
Bugs and ads share quite a bit in common. Both attempt to brand media content just as flaming or freezing metal rods with shaped appendages brand cattle. And just as in the cattle analogy, both hurt those on the receiving end. My example and -- to a much greater extent -- the threatening letter writer's both show how some people feel so much more much psychological pain from this branding than others.
Maybe we are too thin-skinned, I don't know. By the same logic, perhaps people suffering from malnutrition can supplement their diets with the same stuff that helps pigs in factory CAFOs get fat with less food, trench liquor. Just dilute their own shit and piss in their drinking water and serve. Most will survive, and those will get fat. Or perhaps, just as I noted in the first Culture of Whores post from over 3 years ago, dates should expect to put out for those buying their dinners rather than just coyly reserving the "option" of sex.
Such speculation is quite beside the point. We can -- indeed we must -- understand that the increasing amount of advertising to which we are all subjected has to have some psychological effect on us. We must become either overtly inured to this bombardment, or suffer from it in ways we may only be beginning to understand.
On that note, I'm saying No More! with a note. Maybe someone will take heed. I doubt it, but a guy adverse to adverts can hope. Even so, at least it doesn't threaten grievous bodily harm.
( Here's the letter they will get instead. ) Essentially, it's a "we're done" letter with a caveat that things could be rosy once again if they shape up.Advertisers and public radio stations suffer an asymmetry when it comes to their knowing the results of their actions. In the business world, people respond positively to "good" or effective ads that draw in a marked increase in sales. Therefore it can be pretty easy to tell which ad campaigns should be continued or expanded. Bad ads, though, can be attributed to downturns in the economy, a competitor's new product, everyone out drinking the day the ad ran, phases of the moon, whatever. By the same token, NPR stations that run these "enhanced sponsorship" spots see the cash they bring but can write off the cash they lose from now-disgruntled listeners who fail to make their contributions to any number of circumstance, related or not. That's why I felt a letter of explanation necessary. I want them to know why contributions might be down this year.
( I also remembered an anecdote regarding bugs that might, if better known, highlight the dangers to increasing advertising presence. )Bugs and ads share quite a bit in common. Both attempt to brand media content just as flaming or freezing metal rods with shaped appendages brand cattle. And just as in the cattle analogy, both hurt those on the receiving end. My example and -- to a much greater extent -- the threatening letter writer's both show how some people feel so much more much psychological pain from this branding than others.
Maybe we are too thin-skinned, I don't know. By the same logic, perhaps people suffering from malnutrition can supplement their diets with the same stuff that helps pigs in factory CAFOs get fat with less food, trench liquor. Just dilute their own shit and piss in their drinking water and serve. Most will survive, and those will get fat. Or perhaps, just as I noted in the first Culture of Whores post from over 3 years ago, dates should expect to put out for those buying their dinners rather than just coyly reserving the "option" of sex.
Such speculation is quite beside the point. We can -- indeed we must -- understand that the increasing amount of advertising to which we are all subjected has to have some psychological effect on us. We must become either overtly inured to this bombardment, or suffer from it in ways we may only be beginning to understand.
On that note, I'm saying No More! with a note. Maybe someone will take heed. I doubt it, but a guy adverse to adverts can hope. Even so, at least it doesn't threaten grievous bodily harm.
