Wednesday 9 March 2011

Comic 870: Randall learns about advertising


I remember the exact moment in my childhood when I realized, while reading a flyer, that nobody would ever spend money solely to tell me they wanted to give me something for nothing. It's a much more vivid memory than the (related) parental Santa talk.

I almost liked this one. I almost fell for it. I mean, who doesn’t like to bitch about advertising? It is a natural, almost instinctive, reaction, like despising humanity. It is good and right to hate those who will bullshit us.

Which is, of course, why we must hate Randall Munroe.

Look at the phrase in the first panel, “Up to fifteen percent or more”. When have you ever seen that phrase in an advert before? Try googling it. Notice how there aren’t any fucking adverts in there. Hell, a lot of them are people trying to be helpful. Compare it to googling “up to * percent off”, if you want. So why do we find nothing? Because no worthwhile advertiser would make that fucking mistake. If you want to laugh at the innumerate, go ahead. Don’t try getting us to tag along by conflating them with a rightly hated demographic.

Oh fucking hell, that second panel. Question to all of you: how many times did you have to read the sentence in that panel before it made sense? The wording is horrific. Sometimes I wish Randall would take a liberal-arts course, so he could learn to write like a human fucking being. Unfortunately he thinks learning about something completely relevant to what he does for a living is less important than pretending he is still a scientist.

And finally, why precisely did he write ‘negative slope’? I am honestly baffled by it. Does he think that needs explaining, or that it wasn’t clear from the picture? Or did he do it just so we could say he fucked up every single panel? Although, from reading the forums I discovered some people got ‘confused’ because the dependent variable should be on the y-axis. Strange, seeing as fixing this would not change the shape of the graph, and Randall has described the relationship in case you couldn’t work it out. Oh wait, I forgot they are all desperate to prove what intellectual giants they are over there. Cunts.

On the plus side, ad-blockers are apparently hiding the comic because it is named ‘Advertising.png’. Irony will never be the same.

In summary, I am an intellectual giant and I hate each and every one of you.

BINGO TIME!

Well fuck. Bingo is completely ruined by Rob actually writing a review.


Also, it appears that the phrase 'up to X% or more' is used in adverts. I've never seen it, but enough people have done so to make the point. That's the closest to a retraction I'm willing to make.

18 comments:

  1. See, this is why you should keep these up. Rob clearly got bored of XKCDSucks shortly after Carl left and entertains himself repeatedly trolling people who just don't seem to get it, and yet XKCD is still sucking hard, and I still enjoy reading other people's opinions about how hard it's sucking.

    ReplyDelete
  2. My addblocker blocked it, and I thought it was quite funny. I was like, 'thank you, computer. You wanted to spare me from this update!" But. . . unfortunately, to read such fun reviews, I have to read the initial comic itself. . .

    Keep it up!

    ReplyDelete
  3. Strictly speaking, it's very possible to save more as you spend more. I buy a ten dollar item at 20% off. I save two dollars. I buy another item at the same price. Now I've saved four dollars.

    Wait. Just a second. Let me check the math.

    4 > 2

    Oh hey, it works out! Imagine that. Randy's argument is only valid if you assume that savings are impossible; that is, even if you buy one item at 90% off, you still don't "save" any money because it still costs you some amount. Even a liberal arts major could tell you that's stupid.

    BTW, keep up the good work, guys. It's a shame that xkcdsucks went the route it did.

    ReplyDelete
  4. @Gamer_2k4 - On a strict level, Randy is right to say you can't save (that is, put aside or avoid spending) money while spending it, and it is a trick advertisers use frequently. How many times do you see 'Save X% if you spend more than £Y', for example? A lot of people spend more than they otherwise would based on that. No, I've got no problem with the sentiment on that last panel, just its execution is terrible.

    ReplyDelete
  5. It's all based on perceived worth though. If I buy something I can sell on the street for more than the (MSRP - discount) then I have just profited/increased my savings/etc...

    Also if I have bought something that I truly "need" (as in I would be buying it regardless of the price, within reason), then by buying it at a discount I have saved money, because I would have spent that money anyway.

    He is incorrectly grounding himself in the belief that the only thing that you can 'save' that has any value is money. Which is just plain wrong.

    Is it misused by advertisers, yes. Does it have some grounds in fact, yes. Has Randy brought anything new to the table with his self perceived insightful wit, no. Is he in fact using the notion that you can only maintain value by maintaining money, yes.

    ReplyDelete
  6. I've seen with "X% more" or "at least X% more" on things like toothpaste and cereal. But what's wrong mathematically is that there isn't any obvious base to that percentage off of then what they would put out there generally.

    I've never seen "at least X% more". I think Randy dear just switched it around in his head, because if advertisers did use it, it would make for a much better comic. Instead it's just a contrived situation.

    ReplyDelete
  7. "Up to 15% or more" sounds like somebody misquoting a Geico commercial.

    Wait, it IS somebody misquoting a Geico commercial:
    http://www.facebook.com/pages/GEICO-15-minutes-can-save-u-up-to-15-or-more-on-car-insurance/315190857272

    Coincidence? You decide.

    ReplyDelete
  8. (Same guy as above)

    Also I'd like to add: Keep this blog up. I discovered xkcd sucks a few days ago and am currently trawling through the archives, which is really fun but is slowly driving me insane. Anyway, xkcdsuxksuxk.com etc. etc. so keep up the good work.

    Although I will openly admit I love the Randy fanfics.

    ReplyDelete
  9. "I've seen with "X% more" or "at least X% more" on things..."

    "I've never seen "at least X% more"."

    Racism addles the mind, Capn.

    @16:42 - It appears I have forced Rob into making an actual review through my brilliance. That is my opinion and you cannot take it away from me.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Also, to actually say something relevant, 'spending more to save more' really cannot be true simply because 'save' in this context literally means 'not spending'. If it was 'spend more now and save overall', then you would have a point Capn.

    ReplyDelete
  11. I've seen "at least X% more" on things that cannot be preciously measured like cereal. I've seen it before, do your own shopping every once in awhile you adolescent turd.

    If it was "spending more money to save more money" then you would have a point. But it doesn't, so if I want to use words like value to make my point I damn well can.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Jeeeez, you get angry quick. Cool your beans Rambo, I thought we were having a civil discussion here.

    Of course you've seen 'at least X% more" on things. So have I. That's not the same as "up to X% or more" though is it? I honestly couldn't work out what you were trying to say in your previous comment. You say you've seen a particular phrase and then say you haven't.

    Actually, the last paragraph in the last post is pretty obscure to me too. Are you suggesting we can spend and save 'value'?

    Why do you think I'm an adolescent? Are you trying to troll me? I hope not because that would be mean :(

    ReplyDelete
  13. I'm quick to childishly insult people, not quick to anger, the difference is subtle, but it's there. For a Kitten of Hate you sure are tame.

    Second paragraph, first comment is a typo: I've never seen "at least X% more" should be I've never seen "up to X% or more".

    Yes you can more spend money but actually save money overall. If you always spend $1 on toilet paper every week and somebody is selling it on sale for $0.80 you will save money by buying more toilet paper that week as long as your consumption of it stays the same and you have room to store it and you have the disposable income to allow buying it all at once.

    There is a limit though, as money now is worth more than money later, but saving money by spending money is possible.

    Will you save more money by never buying toilet paper again? Yes, but only if you're willing to trade that for the cost of having a smelly ass or installing a bidet.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Huh, and you say I'm the adolescent one.

    I am aware of the benefits of bulk buying Capn. That is why I said "If it was 'spend more now and save overall', then you would have a point Capn."

    You save money in bulk buying because you are spending less in the long run. You cannot 'spend more to save more' because the two have completely opposing meanings. It's like saying 'heat this pan to cool it'.

    Also, stop anonymously telling Mole to STFU. Your bigotry offends me.

    ReplyDelete
  15. ???

    I like mole, he's like the untrolliest member of the lot.

    Well if you're going to be sophomorically pedantic about semantics ...

    What part of the statement: "The more you spend the more you save." makes you think that they are automatically implying that it happens instantaneously?

    Where in there is one supposed to automatically derive, spend more now, and then instantly save more now?

    ReplyDelete
  16. I like Mole too. It was a long shot that it was you and you would admit it, but I lose nothing in checking.

    I get the feeling you're not really reading my comments Capn. I'm saying that if you spend £5 in one day on your weekly toilet rolls, rather than £1 per day for seven days, you have saved more by spending less. 'Save' literally means 'not spend' in this context. You simply can't 'spend more to not spend more'.

    Anyway, there is a new comic to argue over now. And Rob appears to have awoken from hibernation. If he keeps this up I'm gonna start writing Megan fanfics.

    ReplyDelete
  17. You just want save to literally mean not spend in this context.

    There is a logic to saying "Spend more to save more", the fact that it looks like its saying "Be more negative to be more positive" is the reason why its so memetic in advertising.

    There is a logic to saying "less is more" too, but if you want to be mindlessly pedantic about it then more power to you I guess.

    ReplyDelete

Note: only a member of this blog may post a comment.