DVD Talk
Time to ban automobile commercials! [Archive] - DVD Talk Forum
 
Best Sellers
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
DVD Blowouts
1.
300 [Blu-ray]
Buy: $34.99 $22.95
2.
3.
4.
5.
24 - Season Six
Buy: $59.98 $19.99
6.
7.
24: Redemption
Buy: $26.98 $14.99
8.
9.
10.

PDA
DVD Reviews

View Full Version : Time to ban automobile commercials!


movielib
02-07-06, 11:55 AM
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2006/02/06/EDGU9GJCDM1.DTL

San Francisco Chronicle

OPEN FORUM

Coming to Terms With Our Obsessions
Time to ban car commercials?

Bob Ecker

Monday, February 6, 2006

Social engineering is a concept many Americans naturally abhor, because it attacks our deeply held freedom, and we have always believed in doing virtually anything we want. Free-market capitalists feel this way, and most citizens usually go along for the ride.

But our country's obsessive consumption of oil to fill the tanks of our auto-centric culture may eventually kill off the world, and believe it or not, Mr. and Mrs. America, you and I will go down, too. Our love affair with cars has to change, sooner rather than later. The hubris of excess (see Hummer) has gotten our society into a pickle, and it's time to take a novel approach with this problem.

Let's tamp down the future demand side -- to put it another way, like a diet, we must somehow decrease our appetite. Cars are wonderful machines, I'll freely admit, and powerful tools that help us maintain our modern lives. But this obsession has gotten way out of control and threatens the very air we breathe, the earth beneath our feet, our overflowing landfills and even the worldwide political landscape. If every American drove less, kept the same car longer or thought about cars as a well-being issue, then perhaps we can yet avert catastrophe.

I suggest looking at a successful model from our past that effectively tackled a serious societal problem. This drastic transformation eventually brought about positive social change, despite the bleating of mega-corporations. I am referring to the tobacco industry and its cigarette advertising on TV and radio. Until 1970, U.S. consumers were bombarded by advertisements in all forms of mass media, including the most popular, television. People knew that something had to change and lobbied the government hard.

Congress finally passed a law, heavily fought by the tobacco and broadcasting industries as well as the Nixon administration. Nonetheless, the Public Health Cigarette Smoking Act of 1969 was signed into law by President Richard Nixon, on April 1, 1970. It ended cigarette ads on TV and radio forever. When the last cigarette commercial ran during Johnny Carson's "Tonight Show" (an ad for Virginia Slims) at 11:59 p.m., Jan. 1, 1971, roughly 44 percent of American men and 31 percent of American women smoked cigarettes, according to the federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

Today, the CDC estimates that those numbers have dropped to 23.7 percent for men and 18.5 percent for women, respectively. The Tobacco Outlook Report (written in 2005 by the U.S. Department of Agriculture) calculated that Americans 18 years and older smoked 4,287 cigarettes per capita in 1966 (the highest level in U.S. history) before the ad ban was enacted. The latest figures from 2004 estimate that number at 1,791 per capita.

Many factors, of course have driven the numbers of U.S. smokers down, but clearly the omission of smoking ads from the airways made a large difference. The ban has become a positive development for our country, managing to change the behavior of many Americans.

I propose creating a similar ban on all automobile-related television and radio advertising in the United States. I am asking Congress to take the lead in helping to wean Americans, particularly the younger generations, off the fixations that glamorize cars. Getting rid of the TV ads will mitigate the lusting after cars and the constant purported need to purchase a new one every few years.

"Ram Tough -- I've heard enough!" Most older cars work just fine, and do not need constant replacement. Our landfills alone can't handle the millions of pounds of auto junk poured into our earth. Our continual quest for more and more oil causes problems around the world, for both humans and the environment. I drive a car and am happy to do so, but I recognize that people do not need two, three, or four cars per person. We don't have the room, resources or enough ozone to support this type of mindless consumption ad infinitum.

A shift is in order. I am not suggesting that cars be made illegal, or tire shops raided. New and used car dealerships, gas stations, repair and painting facilities, oil changers, tune-up shops and the like will still be needed. I'm only suggesting that we start to alter the emotional as well as economic landscape before it's too late.

Sure, the auto industry won't like this proposal one bit, and neither will politicians raising big bucks from oil and auto-manufacturing lobbyists, but upon reflection, the auto industry might come around. It won't have to spend billions of dollars on producing and airing expensive television ads that compete with each other.

If the world begins to think of cars as, for instance, washing machines, then we may be on to something. Washing machines are mighty useful, but aren't lusted after. We don't have Maytag commercials hitting us over the head every time we turn on the TV, or listen to the radio. We don't need to see them sliding over slick roads in super slow motion. Washing machines are important tools that work well and help us in our daily lives, just like cars.

Though difficult, this type of change is within our power, just as brave politicians and consumer groups in the late 1960s were eventually able to pass regulations banning broadcast smoking ads. My suggestion may be a small step, but it's truly time to think big, reclaim the airwaves and make a positive difference that will affect future generations -- for the better.

Bob Ecker, a writer who lives in Napa, is president of Bay Area Travel Writers.
Of course, it seems crazy now but we know how the slow but steady erosion of freedom is quite effective. By the time the frog in the slowly heated to boiling water starts to realize it's getting a little too hot it's too late.

First cigarettes, now they're working on fat and sugar, why shouldn't cars follow?

Groucho
02-07-06, 12:01 PM
I agree. That commericial where the godzilla and the giant robot have sex and birth a Hummer was the breaking point for me.

Vandelay_Inds
02-07-06, 12:12 PM
Put me in the anti-car side.

BigDaddy
02-07-06, 12:14 PM
Put me in the anti-car side.



Where do you live? How do you get to work?

Groucho
02-07-06, 12:15 PM
Based on his location, he's on a mysterious island somewhere. My guess is that he gets to work on a polar bear.

Brain Stew
02-07-06, 12:18 PM
Yeah, losing those ads where actors claiming to be doctors said that smoking was good for our lungs was a real loss. Also, where does it say that you can't advertise products containing fat or sugar :confused:?

Vandelay_Inds
02-07-06, 12:18 PM
Based on his location, he's on a mysterious island somewhere. My guess is that he gets to work on a polar bear.

:lol: you're actually not far off. I ride a marsupial :eek:

bhk
02-07-06, 12:21 PM
That commericial where the godzilla and the giant robot have sex and birth a Hummer was the breaking point for me.

I want to see that commercial. My life will be incomplete until I do.

Vandelay_Inds
02-07-06, 12:21 PM
How do you get to work?

http://www.kenlight.com/photos/tothepromisedland/feet.jpg

movielib
02-07-06, 12:24 PM
Yeah, losing those ads where actors claiming to be doctors said that smoking was good for our lungs was a real loss.
Actually, ads such as that could be banned on the basis of fraud. Ads that are not fraudulant should never have been banned.

Also, where does it say that you can't advertise products containing fat or sugar :confused:?
I said, and I quote:

now they're working on fat and sugar

al_bundy
02-07-06, 12:25 PM
This is a SF newspaper. It will never happen.

bhk
02-07-06, 12:31 PM
Apparantly, this is one of those people who believe in freedom of speech as long as you agree with him.

Groucho
02-07-06, 12:33 PM
I want to see that commercial. My life will be incomplete until I do.They played it during the Superbowl, so imagine it's making the rounds out there.

VinVega
02-07-06, 12:39 PM
If the world begins to think of cars as, for instance, washing machines, then we may be on to something. Washing machines are mighty useful, but aren't lusted after. We don't have Maytag commercials hitting us over the head every time we turn on the TV, or listen to the radio. We don't need to see them sliding over slick roads in super slow motion. Washing machines are important tools that work well and help us in our daily lives, just like cars.
I see Maytag and Whirlpool commercials all the time. How about those magical vacuum comercials? I see them too all the time. It's a product, they want to advertise, so why can't they?

The funny thing is that market forces are already putting an end to the monstrous vehicle. People can't afford to fill them up if gas is consistanly hitting $3 a gallon. The folks who hate the gas guzzling cars will get their wish anyway as many car companies are going to start making smaller, more fuel efficient vehicles since that's where the demand is heading.

CRM114
02-07-06, 12:52 PM
The funny thing is that market forces are already putting an end to the monstrous vehicle. People can't afford to fill them up if gas is consistanly hitting $3 a gallon. The folks who hate the gas guzzling cars will get their wish anyway as many car companies are going to start making smaller, more fuel efficient vehicles since that's where the demand is heading.

rotfl They said the same thing in the late 70's.

http://www.roadcompanion.ca/edito/mag/articles/3130/CivicCVCC1975_g.jpg

dtcarson
02-07-06, 12:52 PM
Kick gas up to 5, 6 bucks a gallon long term, SUV/big car sales would plummet. Some people, however, would still find that extra cost worthwhile, and continue to buy the gas/big vehicle. That's the wonder of capitalism, you can sell something for what the market will bear, and the consumers will pay what it's worth to them.
And demand is cyclical--the reason the Japanese carmakers have such a large part of the market, is smaller cars. Detroit reacted, too late and not with enough quality; then it swung the other way toward larger cars, first minivans, then the eeeeeeevil SUVs.

And here's where we differ on our views of government:
"The [government] ban has become a positive development for our country, managing to change the behavior of many Americans [to behavior I support]."

mosquitobite
02-07-06, 12:57 PM
Just like pharmacutical ads. People butting their nose in where it doesn't belong.

VinVega
02-07-06, 12:57 PM
rotfl They said the same thing in the late 70's.

http://www.roadcompanion.ca/edito/mag/articles/3130/CivicCVCC1975_g.jpg
CRM, I'm sure if gas was $8 a gallon you'd be tooling around in an SUV. I don't know much, but I do know that. You've been brainwashed by "the man." ;)

CRM114
02-07-06, 01:09 PM
CRM, I'm sure if gas was $8 a gallon you'd be tooling around in an SUV. I don't know much, but I do know that. You've been brainwashed by "the man." ;)

That yellow Honda is exactly the car I used to drive in college. :)

I'm not wed to an SUV. I'd gladly drive a car and keep my SUV at home for when its needed. But alas, I only have a 2 car garage.

kvrdave
02-07-06, 01:25 PM
Driving is something many people enjoy doing. Put gas up to $5 and some people will quit driving as much. Personally, I will cut other things out of my life....especially since I get to write it off as an expense. Praise be to the complicated tax system. :)

wendersfan
02-07-06, 01:31 PM
I want to see that commercial. My life will be incomplete until I do.For once, we are in <b>COMPLETE</b> agreement.

classicman2
02-07-06, 01:50 PM
Driving is something many people enjoy doing. Put gas up to $5 and some people will quit driving as much. Personally, I will cut other things out of my life....especially since I get to write it off as an expense. Praise be to the complicated tax system. :)


What's the price of cigarettes and smokeless tobacco?

I don't believe price is the principal reason for the reduction in smoking.

X
02-07-06, 01:52 PM
What's the price of cigarettes and smokeless tobacco?

I don't believe price is the principal reason for the reduction in smoking.It certainly is in adolescent smoking and that's where most smoking habits begin.

http://www.nber.org/digest/may05/w10948.html

classicman2
02-07-06, 01:53 PM
Has teen smoking declined?

X
02-07-06, 01:54 PM
I believe it has where the price of cigarettes has risen greatly. Like in California.

http://caonline.amcancersoc.org/cgi/content/full/52/1/3
http://www.tobaccofreekids.org/Script/DisplayPressRelease.php3?Display=356

RoyalTea
02-07-06, 01:56 PM
That commericial where the godzilla and the giant robot have sex and birth a Hummer was the breaking point for me.I want to see that commercial. My life will be incomplete until I do.http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-6547777336881961043

wendersfan
02-07-06, 01:58 PM
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-6547777336881961043
I tear up a little every time I see it. :lol:

Is that Everything But the Girl's version of "Love Is Strange"?

Brain Stew
02-07-06, 02:29 PM
I said, and I quote:
Oh ok, so since you said it means it's happening! Stick to the facts and only discuss the article, please :).

grundle
02-07-06, 05:16 PM
Our landfills alone can't handle the millions of pounds of auto junk poured into our earth.

That's not true.

http://www.williams.edu/HistSci/curriculum/101/garbage.html

Recycling Is Garbage - By John Tierney

The New York Times Magazine, June 30, 1996, pps. 24-29, 44, 48, 51, 53

A. Clark Wiseman, an economist at Gonzaga University in Spokane, Wash., has calculated that if Americans keep generating garbage at current rates for 1,000 years, and if all their garbage is put in a landfill 100 yards deep, by the year 3000 this national garbage heap will fill a square piece of land 35 miles on each side.

This doesn't seem a huge imposition in a country the size of America. The garbage would occupy only 5 percent of the area needed for the national array of solar panels proposed by environmentalists. The millennial landfill would fit on one-tenth of 1 percent of the range land now available for grazing in the continental United States. And if it still pains you to think of depriving posterity of that 35-mile square, remember that the loss will be only temporary. Eventually, like previous landfills, the mounds of trash will be covered with grass and become a minuscule addition to the nation's 150,000 square miles of parkland.

The most sensible comment I've heard on the subject of garbage was uttered by Linny Miles as we were looking at a mountain of it near his farm. Miles grows wheat and raises Thoroughbreds in Charles City County, Va., which has 6,000 residents and one stoplight. Next to his farm, 20 miles southeast of Richmond is a landfill that accepts 4,000 tons of trash a day, much of it from the New York area. Private carters deliver trash from Manhattan restaurants; sealed rail cars bring municipal waste from suburban New Jersey.

The trash is surprisingly hard to spot. I got lost on the way to the landfill and drove around the perimeter of the wooded property without realizing there was garbage hidden back there. I finally got a view of it from Miles's house, which sits on a rise 200 yards from the edge of the landfill's property. He pointed to a brown ridge rising above the pine trees. The ridge was maybe 75 yards high, and the lower slopes were already covered with grass. Miles said he was occasionally bothered by odors and noise from the unloading operations, but overall he thought the landfill was good for the county. When I asked if he objected to New Yorkers using Charles City as a dumping ground, Miles shook his head and explained his reasoning in one sentence: "They brought something to the party."

Ten years ago, Charles City County had much in common with New York today. It had no money to fix its decrepit schools. Its economy was stagnant, its tax rate was among the state's highest and it was being ordered to shut down its old dump. Now, thanks to its new landfill, the county has lower taxes, better-paid teachers and splendid schools. The landfill's private operator, the Chambers Development Company, pays Charles City County fees totaling $3 million a year -- as much as the county takes in from all its property taxes. The landfill has created jobs, as have the new businesses that were attracted by the lower taxes and new schools. The 80-acre public-school campus has three buildings with central air conditioning and fiber-optic cabling. The library has 10,000 books, laser disks and CD- ROM's; every classroom in the elementary school has a telephone and a computer. The new auditorium has been used by visiting orchestras and dance companies, which previously had no place to perform in the county.

If you are heavy with garbage and guilt, Charles City is the place to lay down your burden. There you can see garbage the way Linny Miles regards it: not as a moral issue but as an economic commodity. New Yorkers get rid of their garbage cheaply; Charles City's children get new schools. Why should New Yorkers spend extra money to recycle so they can avoid this mutually beneficial transaction? Why make harried parents feel guilty about takeout food? Why train children to be garbage-sorters? Why force the Bridges school to spend money on a recycling program when it still doesn't have a computer in the science classroom?

bhk
02-07-06, 05:31 PM
Thanks for the link that was great.

CRM114
02-07-06, 05:41 PM
^ One of the few convincing arguments in John Stossel's book.

movielib
02-07-06, 06:37 PM
Thanks for the link that was great.
The Tierney piece is one of the two best I have ever read on recycling. Here is the other one:

http://www.perc.org/pdf/ps28.pdf

Numanoid
02-07-06, 06:49 PM
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-6547777336881961043That is not even freakin' close to being Godzilla. :grunt:

bhk
02-07-06, 06:50 PM
Ha! I was talking about the commercial video link.

movielib
02-07-06, 07:34 PM
Ha! I was talking about the commercial video link.
:(

Well, try grundle's and mine. You'll like them. :)

kvrdave
02-07-06, 07:53 PM
Having been to one of the largest landfills around, we don't ever have to worry about filling it all. Never. Not going to happen.

Myster X
02-07-06, 11:57 PM
This is a SF newspaper. It will never happen.

Not only that. You won't believe how many so-called environmental conscious San Franciscians drive around in their SUV with a John Kerry for President or John Kerry sticker on their back bumper.

Thor Simpson
02-08-06, 12:06 AM
We should just ban everything. Screw this.

[climbs back into his metal container]

Numanoid
02-08-06, 10:05 AM
Not only that. You won't believe how many so-called environmental conscious San Franciscians drive around in their SUV with a John Kerry for President or John Kerry sticker on their back bumper.How many?

VinVega
02-08-06, 10:08 AM
How many?
Well, I know John Kerry ran around in an SUV during the campaign. But then again he was also seen duck hunting, so you never know. ;)

Y2K Falcon
02-08-06, 10:27 AM
Most older cars work just fine, and do not need constant replacement. Our landfills alone can't handle the millions of pounds of auto junk poured into our earth.
Meh... Many "older cars" leak more emissions than their newer counterparts.



Our continual quest for more and more oil causes problems around the world, for both humans and the environment. I drive a car and am happy to do so, but I recognize that people do not need two, three, or four cars per person. We don't have the room, resources or enough ozone to support this type of mindless consumption ad infinitum.
The author does realize that despite having more than one car per person, that they usually only drive one AT A TIME. And, as referenced earlier, that can be a help if the second vehicle is a larger one, but a smaller one is used for most commuting/etc., therefore, reducing overall emissions, all other things being held constant.



Does the author LIVE in SF? My understanding is that many folks there (like Manhattan, etc.) wouldn't have the same need for vehicles as someone in a place without the same centralization and mass transit. Of course, in Manhattan, there a many cabs producing emissions. Much fewer of those here...