tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19937890.post787683672344277481..comments2023-10-15T08:15:46.205-04:00Comments on Mike's Eyes (Spotted By): Stealth Advertising?Michael Neibelhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15321103608597264855noreply@blogger.comBlogger7125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19937890.post-66968375498931644852008-07-14T20:14:00.000-04:002008-07-14T20:14:00.000-04:00Amy:" The downside is that, if people didn't see t...Amy:<BR/>" The downside is that, if people didn't see the reveal on CNN, they were left to believe that cell phones actually had damaging effects."<BR/><BR/>So true. I don't remember who said it but a man once said in print that you can't unring an alarm bell. Someday I'm going to post on that thought. (It was said in the context of the GW scare.)Michael Neibelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15321103608597264855noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19937890.post-63662310786479651812008-07-14T13:30:00.000-04:002008-07-14T13:30:00.000-04:00Wow, Mike. This is awfully funny. As I work in a...Wow, Mike. This is awfully funny. As I work in advertising, I know that this is a growing (and legitimate) form of advertising. Sure, no one could see that brand name of the cellphones -- BUT -- Cardo was able to get a 2 minute gig on CNN (worth thousands). <BR/><BR/>The upside is that is was fun to find out it was a hoax. The downside is that, if people didn't see the reveal on CNN, they were left to believe that cell phones actually had damaging effects. But then -- the other upside for Cardo was precisely that the phones were unrecognizable, so no harm done to their brand name if people were left thinking that the phones were dangerous. The CNN time used to get their name out was the purpose.Amyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15959611659473389454noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19937890.post-31470358069811289692008-07-10T22:06:00.000-04:002008-07-10T22:06:00.000-04:00Thanks Cal for providing the link.Thanks Cal for providing the link.Michael Neibelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15321103608597264855noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19937890.post-49554827057970478802008-07-10T22:05:00.000-04:002008-07-10T22:05:00.000-04:00Max;It's my understanding that companies get to wr...Max;<BR/>It's my understanding that companies get to write off or deduct so much of their advertizing expendatures from taxes. Without those deductions, advertising would look differently I do believe.Michael Neibelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15321103608597264855noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19937890.post-68621767990847102162008-07-10T14:12:00.000-04:002008-07-10T14:12:00.000-04:00"in which he opined that today's advertising looks..."in which he opined that today's advertising looks the way it does mainly because of our income tax laws."<BR/><BR/>I'm curious as to how the income tax laws affect advertising. Could you briefly elaborate?madmaxhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14375140131881725965noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19937890.post-26965988416524316902008-07-10T13:45:00.000-04:002008-07-10T13:45:00.000-04:00Here's the Snopes link. The ad was for a company s...Here's <A HREF="http://www.snopes.com/science/cookegg.asp" REL="nofollow">the Snopes link</A>. The ad was for a company selling bluetooth headphones, "Cardo".cshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08653963848261068919noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19937890.post-28575650184081971442008-07-10T13:30:00.000-04:002008-07-10T13:30:00.000-04:00Both links are to the video (i.e. not to Snopes).Both links are to the video (i.e. not to Snopes).Aaron Davieshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05334056755840192313noreply@blogger.com