Talk:Infomercial Information & Talk:Infomercial Links at HealthHaven.com

This page has been cited as a source by a media organization. The citation is in:

Traci Purdham (March 18, 2005 (yes, the article says April 1, we found this on March 18)). "But Wait! There's More!". Industry Week. http://www.industryweek.com/ReadArticle.aspx?ArticleID=10059. (details)

[edit] "Lecturing"?

Portions of this article seemed like it was lecturing the reader into how to approach infomercials. For example, "...So that when next you are shopping you will remember the advertisement and be more susceptible to buying their new product", seems inappropriate for an encylopedia entry.

I'm still questioning the line that now says, "Because of the nature of infomericals, consumer advocates recommend carefully investigation of the claims made on infomercials, including the company behind the product, before purchasing the featured products", is appropriate. it's not nearly as bad as the other line since consumer advocates do recommend investigation of claims.

I went ahead and added a link to the National Assoc. of Consumer Advocates. I'm not sure that was a good idea, but I guess it'll stay until someone decides it wasn't appropriate.

Ash Lux 22:59, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)

[edit] US vs International

I've added a first discussion to try to help the entry become worldwide. However, I'm not sure that adding the international flavor to this entry is the right answer. Every country has unsual specifics that could end up making the page unmanageable. Should this entry become a "US specific" entry with the addition of a page (or pages) to deal with international? Open to suggestions... --Dsgarnett (talk) 19:50, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

It shouldn't have a 'US' and 'International' section. The article should deal with the concept of infomercials in general and then move on to country specifics (whether USA or elsewhere). Whatever is done it should clear that the practice is most common in the USA (why don't Americans get fed up of being force fed so much commercialism?) and that they are banned in man countries (UK for instance).--Xania

^talk 21:04, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Lists of Infomercials?

Could someone make a list of infomercials on late-night TV? The Magic Bullet is one, but I can't for the life of me remember any others right now... Well, at least in full detail. Dwarves selling real estate, RonCo, "Three way cooking conducters", and other countless infomercials all deserve to be in a list for no other reason then encyclopedic intregity. If the list is already there, and I'm just so oblivious I don't see it, then a link may be in order? Anyway, there is my request... 65.96.98.74 11:13, 29 January 2006 (UTC) U SUCK

I think the "Craftmatic adjustable bed" is one that has run many times. --66.102.80.212 (talk) 21:37, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

There are lists to be found on the internet. Given that 400 to 500 infomercials and thousands of direct response spots are released each year, let's not make this entry into a list. ...--Dsgarnett (talk) 19:47, 23 December 2008 (UTC)dsgarnett

There's also the not-so-minor detail that some of the items mentioned as associated with the as seen on TV gimmickry are promoted using more conventional-length advertising spots; k-tel, ronco, teevee records and the like are more known for their advertising than the quality of their products, but aren't primarily infomercial. --66.102.80.212 (talk) 20:43, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

[edit] that guy from the 80s

does anyone remember that guy from all the infomercials in the 80s? he was white, with brown hair & glasses. he wore these crazy bill cosby style sweaters & was kinda geeky. he sold the bedazzler & paint stripper stuff & a stained glass kit & probably some other stuff too. anyone know who i'm talking about? 24.124.29.130 07:02, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

I think you're talking about "Mike Levy". His company was "Incredible Discoveries". There's a Wikipedia entry for him. Oct 4, 2007

[edit] Coining of the term "infomercial"

Could a mention of the word be included in the article? Bob Coburn of Rockline coined this word back in February of 1984 and here's the proof. Maybe it could be written in a similar fashion as the term Acadiana. Jungworld.com 07:53, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Improper info in the parody section.

Most of the parody section is used talking about one parody. I'm going to fix this unless someone can present me with an intelligent reason it should stay the same. ~Neon Legend

[edit] Using This Page for Promotions

I keep seeing infomercial companies trying to place inappropriate content in order to get mentioned. Sad. Latest (and there's no trace to know exactly who did it) is that someone added the term "Snuggie" inappropriately into the page.

This is an "encyclopedia" entry, not a sales page. Can we stop, please? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.171.173.10 (talk) 03:16, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

[edit] US bias (widely used pitches)

I appreciate that "dollar" is used here partly as example not as ipsos factos but not all the world works in dollars. Could we possible rearrange this to remove "dollar" as such? The word is used in three places in this section (and only in this section):

"A (amount) dollar value, absolutely free (if you call now/within the next (number) minutes)!" "If you call within the next (number) minutes, we'll cut (amount) dollars off the price!" "If you're one of the first (number) callers, we'll cut (amount) dollars off the price!"

I am not sure what I would do here since it is undoubtedly succinct and unlikely to be misinterpreted. But it lays heavy with the fact other parts of these sentences are put as (amount) (number) etc. Either choose one or the other:

"A (amount) (currency) value, absolutely free" ... [clumsy] "a $25 value, absloutely free"... [too specific?]

Personally I would tend to the latter. I think there would be little likelihood they would be taken as anything other than examples (even if made-up ones; obviously real ones would be better; I live in the UK so can't harvest the myself).

So e.g.

"A $25 value, absolutely free, if you call within the next 5 minutes!" "If you call within the next 5 minutes, we'll cut $25 off the price". "If you're one of the first 5 callers, we'll cut $25 off the price".

I can see the advantage in keeping the numbers consistent if the examples are not verifiable. e.g. use ridiculous figures like £250,961 and 681 minutes.

SimonTrew 2009-Jan-14 17.16 GMT

I agree, saying 'e.g.: "A $12345 value, absolutely free!" is better. MarkRobbins (talk) 17:31, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

I doubt the value of this section. Is it Wikipedia's role to become a repository list of different pitches? Perhaps this should become a separate article. (User:dsgarnett 17:30 27 February 2009) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.11.112.161 (talk) 01:30, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

-Well that section was a valuable resource while i was writing a parody. thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.76.91.26 (talk) 13:23, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Glad it helped that article. But it doesn't really belong in an encyclopedia. I see that someone took it out. Good choice. --Dsgarnett (talk) 19:04, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Contents