Or was it good tv advertisement message?
134217
I have realized that TV advertising affects my buying pattern, but the most effective is word of mouth... it really works.
442812
These last few weeks, being bombarded by political ads, made me think, just for a bit, that a dictatorship might not be so bad after all...\n\nThe ads are just terrible. Mostly filled with lies about the other person (telling less than the whole truth is a lie - just ask God).\n\nThank God I don't have to deal with that crap for another 2 years.
677148
this sounds sarcastic, but it's not\n\nthey sound louder because they are\n\nnetworks broadcast commercials at ahigher volume than regular programs in order to get your attention
93257
Yes, I remember the ad -- or rather, the big flap about it after the Gore campaign contacted the New York Times about it and it was suddenly front page news in all the major media.  I also remember thinking how silly all the fuss was.   A few things to note:\n\n1) The first news outlet to draw attention to the "RATS" screen and discuss the matter was FOX News!  This was more than two weeks before the New York Times article.   And no one in the major news outlets saw any problem with the NY Times making it front page news (and others running all sorts of stories on it) as soon as the GORE campaign contacted them  (contrast their response to the NAACP ad mentioned below!!)\n\n2) The "RATS" screen was precisely ONE frame out of 900 in a 30-second commercial.  It displayed for 1/30 of a second, and there is no evidence any viewer could even NOTICE it unless they were slowing down and freeze-framing it!\n\n3) There is little basis for the claim that it was attempt at sending a "subliminal message", esp. that "Democrats are rats"\n    a) the larger word in question was not even "Democrats" but "Bureaucrats" --  the full line was "Bureaucrats decide", a criticism of Gore's healthcare proposals (that they would take the decisions away from doctors and patients)\n\n   b) few if any even believe that this type of "subliminal message" (reaching and prompting the 'unconscious mind' without the person's knowing it) works.  Claims about their successful use in devious ad campaigns turn out to be urban legends\n\n   c) the producer of the ad immediately explained that it was HIS idea, not the Bush campaign's.  He said he chose to do it as a "visual drumbeat" to accentuate the line.  There is no record in his work of the sort of "gimmicks" that a "subliminal message" would involve\n\n4) Gore was immediately available to talk to reporters about this 'unprecendented' ad.  He and many other Democrats were appalled, and went on and on about this ad... even after the election. \n\n   But, curiously, they were all curiously SILENT about a much more important ad put out by the NAACP in the closing weeks of the 2000 -- the famous "lynching ad". Remember THAT one?!\n\n    The ad, run in areas with high black population, criticized then Governor Bush for not supporting a hate-crimes bill in Texas. It featured a pickup draw dragging a chain down a dirt road.  This was to call to mind the means of the vicious murder of James Byrd in Texas two years earlier.  Then we heard the voice of Byrd's daughter telling us that when Bush failed to support the bill "It was like my father was killed all over again." \n\nThe message was not explicit -- not "subliminal" but VERY obvious! was that Bush was perfectly OK with lynching and didn't care about the death of a black man.\n\nWhat the ad failed to mention was that the two people principally involved in the murder were sentenced to DEATH (under a law that Bush supported and the NAACP does not!!)  third man was given a life sentence.   And nothing in the hate-crimes law would or could have made their sentences more severe!!\n\nAgain, the response from the Gore campaign (and national Democrats) to THIS despicable ad.. . .   NOT ONE WORD of CRITICISM!!!  (I believe they tried to make a point that it the Gore campaign and Democratic National Committee were not part of making the ad . . . but still, NO criticism.)\n\nSo, just who was it that was about 'winning at any cost' ?!\n\n(It was actually about the time of the Byrd ad that I began paying close attention to the campaigns.  Then, during the six-week post election legal battles I watched everything I could, read the court decisions, etc. ...  and was thoroughly appalled at Al Gore's truly "win at any cost" slash-and-burn tactics...   and since then at all the DEBUNKED cla
36113
Is this an advertisment?
331750
Your question does not make any sense: "free advertising of tv of newspapers for a website"? What does that mean? You want to run an ad on TV for newspapers on a website? Or you want to newspaper ads on TV about a website? Huh?
497406
commercials now a days have no relevance to the product.. it makes u think about the product doesnt it... thats what the advertisers want... to think about it.. and go buy it... or talk about it.. its their advertisement.
589004
Reported, Personal ad.
299132
Boy, that's a vague assignment. If you can write on anything, how about writing about advertising and marketing that makes big blunders, like the Campbell Soup ad for chicken soup. They had the kids eating big lumps of chicken and saying, wonderingly "I didn't know there was CHICKEN in this soup!"--supposed to say "wow our soup is improved" but ended up sending the message that the soup had been watery and inferior. You can think of other examples--the Burger King King mask, so dumb it's a cult classic, etc.
654426
These billboards are all over the US as of a few weeks ago.  Atlanta has been plagued with "I pooted" and "My boogers itch".  These phrases are from Fosters and Ed Edd and Eddy.  Other cities have seen "I have a meat beard" and "clowns hate tangelos".  These are from other cartoon network shows.  They possibly dis-included logos to get a better buzz, but children have a great recall quality that will enable them to remember lines like these from thier favorite television shows.  Since they are ads, the  purpose still is yet to be seen.  Have fun watching them pop up!
272690
This sounds more like an advertisement than a question.
508758
it depends on what you are advertising if you wanted to explain delivery of the item....then transportation available would be more descriptive......but it is hard to advise correctle without knowing the rest of the text involved...
295996
WELL.A GOOD SHOW.\n\nWHY DONT YOU REVEAL THE TIP TO US?
305675
No matter where you are in the world, people want the same things.Sadly, these are primarily to be richer (or at least appear richer) and look better. So any advert which offers these things will be effective. The main differences in the markets would be in how the message is put across. Overtly sexy images might be offensive in some cultures, for instance.
423457
this is no scam. it was featured in good morning america
320947
here is my answer with thanks to Roy H. Williams Nicknamed "the Wizard of Ads" i have editted some of the contents though\n\nOutdoor advertising/billboards: this reached out to more people but are limited to a picture and usually no more than eight words. \n\nRadio: Reaches the second most people for a dollar, however it can only be loosely demographically targeted. \n\nCable television: offering the impact of moving images as well as spoken words. It can be targeted geographically \n\nBroadcast television: Big prestige. Big bucks. But is able to target psychographic profiles. do note to buy specific shows and never to buy a rotator. \n\nNewspapers: Reach customers who are in the market to buy today. Unfortunately, people not currently in the market for your product or service are less likely to notice your ad than if it had appeared in another media. \n\nMagazines: may be expensive, but high-impact with tight targeting. Weakness is infrequency of repetition. \n\nDirect mail: Highly targeted, all the way down to the level of the individual but it is not cheap. \n\nYellow Pages: for customers who has yet to make up his or her mind.\n\nhope this helps =)
668001
An advertising agency would be a good bet