Roy Schestowitz wrote:
> __/ [ Leslie Danks ] on Friday 21 April 2006 09:31 \__
>> It is generally acknowledged that rubbishing competing products is poor
>> advertising because it insults those people who have already bought them
>> and implies that they are stupid, gullible, etc.
> Is that why the States is fairly well-flooded by Microsoft advertisements
> (with all due discretion and respect)? I have never seen anything like
> this before. Here in the UK it is rather rare.
With the market share Microsoft has already it probably doesn't matter much
what they put in their ads. If they are serious they would be commissioning
surveys to find out if abusive advertising pays or not - maybe they do and
maybe it does, but I have my doubts. If someone constantly tells me I'm an
idiot for using Linux I would be more inclined to stay with it than change
to something different.
>> Explaining the advantages
>> of your product might persuade them to try it; insulting them is more
>> likely to have the opposite effect.
> Coca Cola seem to choose their commercial carefully for that reason. It's
> down to the /way/ you promote your business. Big brands keep the brand
> name in the dark until the very end. No adverts at all is another thing
>> IMHO some of the people contributing to this NG might like to think about
>> that if they are really want to advocate Linux rather than simply indulge
>> their penchant for invective.
> How so? There can be no Open Source adverts.
You're splitting hairs here. In terms of the intention there is no essential
difference between a commercial entity hiring an advertising agency to
produce expensive promotion material and someone here advocating Linux. It
could even be regarded as better targeted here because of the audience
reached. And aren't RH or Novell adverts indirectly advertising OSS?
> The incentive and support can
> only come from the people, who happen to be the only force behind
> development as well.
True, but beside the point - which was about how to advocate Linux
effectively and persuasively rather than putting people's backs up against
it and the people who advocate it.