Coffeehouse Thread

54 posts

Forum Read Only

This forum has been made read only by the site admins. No new threads or comments can be added.

Interesting Cisco commerical

Back to Forum: Coffeehouse
  • User profile image
    evildictait​or

    , Sven Groot wrote

    So if you remove the logo at the end, would you still be able to tell who this was an advert for?

    I find that it is true with most adverts that you don't know exactly what the product is until the logo is shown at the end.

  • User profile image
    Sven Groot

    , evildictait​or wrote

    *snip*

    I find that it is true with most adverts that you don't know exactly what the product is until the logo is shown at the end.

    The problem is that with most adverts like that I end up remembering the advert, but not what it was advertising. Hence, it does not have its intended impact on me.

  • User profile image
    Bas

    I'd imagine that it's quite hard to tell what makes an effective ad without a comprehensive study in psychology, advertising, or both. There's just too many conscious and subconscious factors at play.

  • User profile image
    davewill

    @Bas: Your on the right track I think. When watching the ad for the first time my brain was holding a blank space ready to be filled in. And it was filled in when Cisco was stated. Association made.

  • User profile image
    davewill

    , evildictait​or wrote

    *snip*

    Who defines correct? You? The Chicago Manual of Style? No. English has nobody who defines "right" and "wrong".

    Mrs. Pritchett defines it and if you don't get it right, look out! Smiley

     

  • User profile image
    exoteric

    The music plays a big role. Anyone recognize it? - Is it unique to this advertisement? (I couldn't get Shazam to recognize it.)

  • User profile image
    evildictait​or

    , davewill wrote

    Mrs. Pritchett defines it and if you don't get it right, look out! Smiley

    Mrs. Pritchett is not the boss of English. If more than half of English speakers are writing English "wrong", then perhaps it's your definition of "correct English" that's in need of repair.

    Interesting video.

  • User profile image
    Bass

    , Sven Groot wrote

    *snip*

    The problem is that with most adverts like that I end up remembering the advert, but not what it was advertising. Hence, it does not have its intended impact on me.

    People generally don't like ads. Lots of companies these days make "viral videos" where the advertisement is only a small portion of the ad or even subliminal. I assume they didn't want the advertisement to be blatant because people are less likely to share blatant advertisements. If it was just a video showing how awesome Cisco products are I would see no reason to post it...

  • User profile image
    davewill

    @evildictaitor: Neat video.

    , evildictait​or wrote

    *snip*

    Mrs. Pritchett is not the boss of English.

    uuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuu ..... you might as well start filling out some of the Behavior Reflection Forms Smiley

  • User profile image
    cbae

    , evildictait​or wrote

    *snip*

    Mrs. Pritchett is not the boss of English. If more than half of English speakers are writing English "wrong", then perhaps it's your definition of "correct English" that's in need of repair.

    Interesting video.

    "But that's an issue of fitness, of suitability, it has nothing to do with correctness."

    I contend that the sloppy use of the apostrophe is no more suitable for a serious advertisement of this nature than spelling "exponentially" as "exponetially" is. It connotes an impression of "not caring" about spelling or style.

    There. Stephen Fry agrees with me.

  • User profile image
    evildictait​or

    , cbae wrote

    I contend that the sloppy use of the apostrophe is no more suitable for a serious advertisement of this nature than spelling "exponentially" as "exponetially" is. It connotes an impression of "not caring" about spelling or style.

    But you are beginning with the assumption that the use of the apostrophe is sloppy. The use of the apostrophe to pluralize numbers such as the 1960's and the 90's is not sloppy. It is grammatical.

  • User profile image
    cbae

    , evildictait​or wrote

    *snip*

    But you are beginning with the assumption that the use of the apostrophe is sloppy. The use of the apostrophe to pluralize numbers such as the 1960's and the 90's is not sloppy. It is grammatical.

    Who says it's grammatical? Mrs. Pritchett?

  • User profile image
    evildictait​or

    , davewill wrote

    uuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuu ..... you might as well start filling out some of the Behavior Reflection Forms Smiley

    There are lots of English teachers who will happily tell you rules about English that don't exist.

    Like that a preposition is not a thing to end a sentence with. And that you can't begin a sentence with "and". Or that they ain't got no time for sentences with double negatives. Or that long sentences; such as those by Virginia Wolf; like a stream of consciousness; perhaps with too many semicolons; that can seem to go on excessively; but which are really OK; are somehow invalid.

    And don't get me started on people who think that the Oxford comma before "and" in a list is verboten, controversial, and just downright wrong. Or their counterparts who insist that it is mandatory, logical and not using it is a crime against language.

    English is what the English use. Today, a full third of English speakers write 60's with a pluralizing apostrophe rather than with an elided apostrophe ('60s) or with no apostrophe at all (60s). Indeed in the 1960's more people wrote "1960's" with the apostrophe than without.

    To say that those who write anything other than '60s is wrong, is to declare more than half of English writers to be wrong. Or in other words, what you define arbitrarily to be "wrong" is what English people are using, whilst only a minority of English writers are using what you artificially decided was "right".

    In the UK we had a bit of a go teaching people what the "rules" of English were. But the problem is that English doesn't really have many rules. The pluralizing of numbers with apostrophes goes back to at least the 1700's, and not long before that they didn't even have apostrophes, so it's difficult to claim that this was ever a real "rule".

    Modern English majors tend not to think of what English ought to be, but rather study what English actually is.

    "I learnt how to pluralize with an apostrophe in the 1960's" is grammatical not because there is a rule that tells me so. But because it is unambiguous, it is consistent with other English writers, and it is how a significant number of English speakers pluralize "1960".

    English is not a language burdened with rules made by old and bearded men. It is a truly democratic language defined by the people that speak it, not some committee of prescriptivists writing heavy tomes in dusty libraries atop an ivory tower.

  • User profile image
    evildictait​or

    , cbae wrote

    *snip*

    Who says it's grammatical? Mrs. Pritchett?

    A full third of English speakers:

    Generic Forum Image

  • User profile image
    elmer

    , Sven Groot wrote

    *snip*

    The problem is that with most adverts like that I end up remembering the advert, but not what it was advertising. Hence, it does not have its intended impact on me.

    Out of interest, I actually tested this yesterday.

    I asked about 12 people I knew (yes, small sample) none of whom were employed in IT, to watch the video. Afterwards, I asked them what it was an advert for, and EVERYONE answered Cisco.

    Things got a bit more interesting when I asked them who Cisco were. I got answers like - I guess they invented the internet ?

  • User profile image
    cbae

    @evildictaitor: It's actually not even that close:  http://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=60%27s%2C60s%2C%2760s&year_start=2000&year_end=2013&corpus=15&smoothing=3&share=

    As you alluded to before, the English language evolves based on usage, and since the 2000s, the effect of Internet pedants have taken hold, and the language has evolved to the point where it's way more common to use either 60s or '60s than it is to use 60's.

  • User profile image
    Sven Groot

    , elmer wrote

    I asked about 12 people I knew (yes, small sample) none of whom were employed in IT, to watch the video. Afterwards, I asked them what it was an advert for, and EVERYONE answered Cisco.

    You should've waited at least a week before asking.

  • User profile image
    evildictait​or

    It's a lot of people who say "the 90's", "the '90s" and "the 90s", so all are grammatical. In the past hundred years there have been several occasions where what you are claiming is "wrong" was actually the majority view of how to write plural number:

    Generic Forum ImageThis is not similar to the greengrocer's apostrophe, which is basically unused in literature (and is therefore ungrammatical):

    Generic Forum Image

     My point is only that your assertion that "writing 60's is wrong" is based on a flawed premise. It's not wrong. It's just old fashioned.

Conversation locked

This conversation has been locked by the site admins. No new comments can be made.