Clever logo… (well I thought so anyway)

Overall it is of much s#less significance that the adherents would have you believe

I’m pretty sure it has the significance level as reported in those findings 😛

Taking it seriously? Not fully; at the end of the day, I don’t really care about what you believe the magnitude of the effect of marketing is. But it is an interesting debate nonetheless. For one thing, it’s insightful what people believe they can and cannot control, in terms of how marketing affects them. You seem to believe that although marketing affects you, you can overpower its effect with rationale?

Immune – it has no effect. You don’t catch the disease

activity disregard – ignore it, discount it,

You seem to believe that although marketing affects you, you can overpower its effect with rationale?

Indeed I can. I do not just believe this – I know I can as do many other people. – Not 100% effectively 100% of the time perhaps but the vast majority of the time.

Only 300 odd posts to go chaps. Shall I throw in another astrology reference

For one thing, it’s insightful what people believe

Indeed – that everyone can tell the character of someone by the font they use and some of the other waffle

I’d still like to know what colour TJ has painted the rooms of his house.

All woodwork white, some rooms white, some gray, some pale yellow.

Immune – it has no effect. You don’t catch the disease

activity disregard – ignore it, discount it,

Yeah, but either way it has no effect on you, right?
The outcomes are the same, it has no effect on your actions

In relation to the associating meanings of fonts;

TandemJeremy – Member
there is no other information there

Suggests to me if there is no other information [than the words], then it can’t have any effect

TandemJeremy – Member
There is no intrinsic meaning in one font over another. Non at all.

Again, fairly clear that’s you saying there is no meaning other than the words – ie not any effect

TandemJeremy – Member
[the social construct] has no meaning beyond this in the general public at large

That’s pretty firm too. I’d say you had scaled back from that… 😛

can tell the character of someone by the font they use and some of the other waffle

Has anybody actually said this?

You did!

Indeed I can. I do not just believe this – I know I can as do many other people. – Not 100% effectively 100% of the time perhaps but the vast majority of the time.

I think I saw some telly a few years ago that took someone who thought they disregarded marketing and chose products on their own merits. Programme hooked him up to an eyetracker etc. and sent him off shopping. He fell for a fair few marketing ploys, much to his embarrassment. No way of finding that clip in the depths of the internet… 🙁

Did I…?

Programme hooked him up to an eyetracker etc. and sent him off shopping. He fell for a fair few marketing ploys, much to his embarrassment.

could you be more specific? All the products were advertised/marketed therefore it would seem to me that no matter what he bought/did you would be able to claim this – unless he walked out with nothing which would defeat the object of shopping.

You seem to believe that although marketing affects you, you can overpower its effect with rationale?

we all can. Do you buy everything that you have seen advertised or marketed without any discretion? I can sing the bodyform tune but have never bought them for example. Have you bought any? I assume you get the point

The other point is that I can disregard it and make free choices – and I do so deliberately and actively. as do many other people

Right so this bit is fairly clear, you disregard marketing, but when I directly asked yout that exact question a few pages back,nyou replied ‘Mu’. It’s all very well trolling and poking sticks. But when you do this so poorly, it’s doesn’t reflect well on you.

On fonts.

TJ above
Its not a scaling back – thats what I said about the overall exercise of marketing right from the beginning – in specific areas and instances it makes no difference at all. Overall it is of much less significance that the adherents would have you believe

The only scale back was rightfully pointed out to me that it should be “some people” not “the general public” around page 9 IIRC

“can tell the character of someone by the font they use”
Has anybody actually said this?

Yes

Right so this bit is fairly clear, you disregard marketing, but when I directly asked yout that exact question a few pages back,nyou replied ‘Mu’

You did not ask me the same question IIRC.

Great can you just explain if disregarding something means it has a relevant effect on you?

nedrapier – Member

You did!
I did not!

could you be more specific?

Umm, not really as my memory is hazy! I think he bought things he didn’t need or plan to buy, or bought products that weren’t the best value, that kinda stuff. They cross referenced it with the eyetracker and showed his attention being drawn by their BOGOFs and shelf placement.

I wish I could find everything I’d ever read, watched and heard for times like this.

militant: not you, sorry. ref my seminal “I never”, “You did.” post of page 41.

So if those bits weren’t scaled back – you still include font style in with the specific areas and instances it makes no difference at all?

Oh thank god for that! I know I had a bit to drink last night, but sheesh – didn’t think I’d spouted that nonsense 😮

Around page 4 and 5 IIRC.

Right so this bit is fairly clear, you disregard marketing, but when I directly asked yout that exact question a few pages back,nyou replied ‘Mu’
You did not ask me the same question IIRC.

CharlieMungus – Member
No, you haven’t answered the specific question of whether or not you disregard marketing. It’s why I keep asking it. When you have answered it we can move on. A simple yes / no response would be good.

As before, do you disregard it?

What now?

Mu

was it not in relation to a hypothetical situation you posed that was incomplete so was unanswerable?
And you asked for a simple yes / no which is impossible as as I have continually tried to state its qualified not absolute.

No, Tj, the whole question’s right there. Stop wriggling, you were and are being dishonest

I even say right there, it is a specific question

You seem to believe that although marketing affects you, you can overpower its effect with rationale?

we all can. Do you buy everything that you have seen advertised or marketed without any discretion? I can sing the bodyform tune but have never bought them for example. Have you bought any? I assume you get the pointYes, I see what you mean. That’s a fairly easy effect to overcome, as a bloke!

My wording does make me sound sceptical. I wasn’t. I was seeking a bit of clarification of TJ’s view.

charlie – edited above

I am not being dishonest.

you asked for a simple yes / no which is impossible as as I have continually tried to state its qualified not absolute

Cheeky rhetorical trick.

I struggle with long sentences – Synopsis?

Look, earlier, this is pretty absolute. I asked if you did it or not.

Here you say you do, the answer is clearly yes.

The other point is that I can disregard it and make free choices – and I do so deliberately and actively. as do many other people

Not only is it explicit, it is one of your 2 points.

Surrounded By Zulus – Member
I struggle with long sentences – Synopsis?

I’m not going to attempt to compete with Jackthedog’s thread in a post. Not much has happened since…

C’mon TJ, it’s nearly over

So, just to make it easy for you, and labour the point, you do disregard marketing don’t you?

My wording does make me sound sceptical.

No I am the sceptical one who thinks it is not as powerful or as important as some people think. I am not quite at TJ’s level of thinking it does nothing but more that there is no real way to test it’s effectiveness.
I would not say it does nothing [brand awareness for example]but i would say font and colour have little bearing.

but i would say font and colour have little bearing.

Go on…?

Not being sarcastic; but have little bearing…on what? People’s perception of a product/advert/etc.?

I pity anyone who believes in all this stuff and who wastes their life and / or money doing it.

This whole thread has become one of the most bizarre things I have ever seen on an internet forum. Why, if you choose not to engage with something would you spend the best part of four days almost continually arguing about it?

Indeed – that everyone can tell the character of someone by the font they use and some of the other waffle

Mmmm… that’s a bit of a twist TJ. I don’t think anyone suggested we could identify murderers by their use of bold Garamond. 🙂

The assertion is that fonts and styles do convey a message/meaning which most* people “get” (even those who haven’t been told the secret code).

So as exampled earlier, the majority of people would recognise that an undertaker who uses a jaunty comical font would not be their first choice for a traditional sombre funeral.

This was backed up nicely by the peer-reviewed evidence you asked for.

Militant_biker posted two papers that explicitly dealt with this. and many of the other papers posted mention it as an important part of the advertising (e.g. the fags with a plain font appearing to be lower quality than the same fags in real packaging).

Where is your peer-reviewed counter evidence that Militant_biker asked for?

–

* yes “most” not “everyone”. Only you deal in absolutes. I’d qualify most as a very sizable majority though. Even you rejected some logos based on fonts that were “too winky” and said you prefer logos that use plainer fonts.

Why, if you choose not to engage with something would you spend the best part of four days almost continually arguing about it?

Symptom of some sort of psychological problem, would be my guess.

Graham – thats exactly what was claimed – check page 4 / 5 IIRC

OMG!

I see no mention of Garamond or murderers on pages 4 and 5. Quote me.
Neither do I see any mention of “character” – a term I think you’ve just introduced.

Nice attempt to ignore and derail the thrust of my entire post by getting into irrelevant arguments around a quip made on the first line though.

Quite clearly it was said that the character of the person could be assessed from the font used.