Ads are annoying, but you can always change the freq/input. It starts to become a problem when the commercials are exceptionally louder than whatever was on before. It shocks the driver, and if they're sensitive to loud noises or disruptions, they may be liable to jerk the wheel in response.
Even more so when the ad creators knowingly place in car crash/swerving and police siren sounds. It's dirty and unethical.
> Marketing is a necessary function in capitalism.
All I can say is that necessary evils are evils nonetheless and "good people" do terrible things all of the time.
> Even more so when the ad creators knowingly place in car crash/swerving and police siren sounds. It's dirty and unethical.
This I agree with, and they were specifically against policy at my last station. I ended up with copy that called for one and refused it, and the sponsor understood and sent new copy. This is not uncommon, particularly in larger markets, and it is a well-known problem amongst production types. And yes, production can refuse copy. They're often not empowered to at smaller, broke stations.
> It shocks the driver, and if they're sensitive to loud noises or disruptions, they may be liable to jerk the wheel in response.
I have a hard time imagining a scenario where this is the fault of the radio station. Trust me, I can see both sides, I just don't know if I can assign fault the same way. To be clear, on-air responsibility is not overlooked, though... "War of the Worlds" would, without question, never happen today. I'd just hope your hypothetical driver would maybe not max out the volume during dynamic programming if they're susceptible to that.
If there's a >20% difference between normal programming and the rest, the station you listen to needs new engineering and operations. That's just sloppy. Especially on AM, one should be compressing the living shit out of everyone speaking, so...
> All I can say is that necessary evils are evils nonetheless and "good people" do terrible things all of the time.
Yeah, no, that's not how that works. Found a startup without sales or marketing and get back to me.
> Yeah, no, that's not how that works. Found a startup without sales or marketing and get back to me.
Entrenched legacy B2B is one example where the level of marketing can be close to nil (if we don't include "sales" in our definition of marketing, otherwise there's no reason to argue), but still allow the business to prosper.
But that ignores that you haven't refuted the point. The advertising part of marketing, in its current form, is a net negative ("evil") to consumers. I'm not specifically signaling out the entirety of the "marketing" umbrella, but one of its subsections.
Can you tell me how advertising directly benefits the consumer?
Ads are annoying, but you can always change the freq/input. It starts to become a problem when the commercials are exceptionally louder than whatever was on before. It shocks the driver, and if they're sensitive to loud noises or disruptions, they may be liable to jerk the wheel in response.
Even more so when the ad creators knowingly place in car crash/swerving and police siren sounds. It's dirty and unethical.
> Marketing is a necessary function in capitalism.
All I can say is that necessary evils are evils nonetheless and "good people" do terrible things all of the time.