Lori: According to the statistics of the Advertising Association, 77% people support advertising. If the other party says that good advertisements only account for a small part, why do 77% people still agree with the existence of advertisements?
Huang Jingwen: Another debater believes in advertisements, because he doesn't know the delivered part.
Xiao Huimin: We say that public service advertisement is also a kind of advertisement. The advertisement tells you not to buy pirated products. Does this directly affect your consumption behavior? Why is it not conducive to mass consumption? Please answer?
Zhuang Zhikai: We have already told you that public service advertisements have not caused mass consumption. But what I want to ask another debater is, why does the product pass on the advertising expenses to consumers, which is beneficial to mass consumption and really does not affect consumption? Isn't it a consumption behavior to ask you to buy genuine products? Why is this beneficial to mass consumption? You haven't answered.
Huang Zhizhong: My opponent, I think the proportion of public service advertisements in all advertisements is very small. I'd rather discuss the mainstream of commercial advertising with you. Can your opponent tell us that you just said that advertising causes competition, but is its competition in advertising or in promoting the quality of goods?
Chang Yang: We advertised Project Hope, asking you to save a dollar for ice cream and donate it to the children of Project Hope. Does this tell a correct view of consumption?
Liang Youcheng: Another debater should stop pestering public welfare, because I made it clear to you when I answered the guest's question just now. I ask you, it should be said that the competition of advertising itself will be beneficial to this kind of mass consumption. Is it quality competition or price competition?
Xiao Huimin: Summarizing each other's views so far, I dare not answer directly. As for public service advertisements, they say that public service advertisements only account for a small part. But we introduced many examples of public service advertisements, and he didn't answer any of them. Is this a digression? Is this a problem to dare to face?
Zhuang Zhikai: Excuse me, IBM's annual budget is RMB 3 billion. I don't know if this is just a competition for funds, not for quality!
Liu Lujia: The other debater didn't answer our question. Is inviting people from all over the world to visit China harmful to mass consumption?
Huang Zhizhong: Once again, let's answer your question directly. As we have said before, the advertisements published by such government units are not strictly called advertisements, but strictly called propaganda stories. Let me ask you again, a professor at Harvard University once said that in the past 30 years, the residential area of Americans has increased by 1.5 times, but the main reason is precisely because Americans over-consume, and those 1.5 times are used to display things that are usually bought but not used. What's good for the public?
Xiao Huimin: Let me see what the other person's problem is. He said that advertising for travel is not advertising, but I clearly saw this in the advertising section of the newspaper. It says that everyone should travel to Taiwan Province Province more often. What's the harm of this advertisement to mass consumption? Please answer directly.
Liang Youcheng: Debaters, you only read this advertisement in the newspaper asking everyone to travel to Taiwan Province Province. You can't see another advertisement asking everyone to come to the mainland. Do you know that?/You know what? Do you know that?/You know what? The person who spends this money on advertising will know his information. How can it be beneficial to our consumption choice?
Xiao Huimin: So rich people use money to advertise, and poor people use money to advertise! I can only talk about the advertisements in the newspaper today. Signs are also advertisements. How can you find out what you want to buy if you don't look at the signboard? Huang Zhizhong: My opponent said that he can advertise with money if he has money, but he can't advertise without money. I have no money with me. Which advertising company should I go to advertise for me?
Xiao Huimin: I still want to ask you to answer. Today's advertising festival saves you time to consult this product. Why is this a disadvantage? Please answer.
Zhuang Zhikai: Because it reports good news instead of bad news, it only says good news, not bad news. So when you were cheated, you thought I was smart and chose by myself.
Chang Yang: Some advertisements are big and some are small, all according to its product characteristics. You can say that you are a secluded orchid, and I can say that I am a beautiful country. The key depends on consumers. When consumers see advertisements, they will choose.
Huang Jingwen: Another debater wants to ask you, when did you buy a hamburger as big as an advertisement in a fast food restaurant?
Xiao Huimin: What the other party means is that it is good for me to see the exact shape in the newspaper. Then, in my real estate advertisement today, should I print the whole building in the newspaper?
Liang Youcheng: What does your opponent mean? Is it good for our consumers when the information printed in our advertisement is inconsistent with the real product?
Xiao Huimin: Obviously the advertisement only tells you one message, but you impose requirements. How can it be beneficial to consumers? Why is it bad to reduce your time? You haven't answered.
Huang Zhizhong: Let's take a look at each other's debate on advertising! The advertisement on this instant noodle is called "big bowl satisfaction", which is really interesting. The ribs above are so big. Open it and have a look. This is its ribs and this is its vegetables. Are you as satisfied with the big bowl as other debaters?
Liu Lujia: The other side thinks this is a music advertisement. I would like to ask you, why is it not conducive to general consumption to give you multi-level consumption choices?
Huang Zhizhong: Debate friend, many music groups can't afford this advertisement. None of them play better than them? Rich people can advertise.
Lori: Consumers are hurt because the other party thinks the advertisement is exaggerated. Let's see how big the heart is, and how big the stage is. Isn't that a little exaggerated? Isn't it good to advertise in the advertising department of CCTV?
Liang Youcheng: Do you know that the advertisement of your music group was originally sold in 200 yuan just now, but after this advertisement, it became 500 yuan? Do you think this is a good performance for us?
Chang Yang: What do you mean, pass it on? Do I really have to pay a high price after the advertisement? For example, concerts and football matches, because of the participation of advertisers, we can enjoy this game at a low price, right?
Concluding remarks
Anti-Fang Shixin University Team
Huang Zhizhong: Hello, everyone! We are here today to tell you that advertising is not conducive to mass consumption. In fact, we are not trying to eliminate advertisements, nor are we hostile to advertisements, nor are we hostile to businesses. We say we should report good news instead of bad news. What we emphasize is just an instinctive reaction of anyone when selling themselves. This is human nature. We can understand this kind of behavior, but we can't mistakenly think that it is actually beneficial. Another debater just talked about Beijing's bid for the Olympic Games. Of course, Beijing's Olympic bid presents the best side of Beijing. How can it present any bad side? This is human nature. But when we bid for the Olympic Games, the consultation we provided in Beijing was beneficial to Beijing. Will we take the initiative to provide beneficial advice to each other? It's impossible. So we tell you logically that any product, no matter how well-intentioned you are, no matter how conscientious you are as an advertiser, has inherent limitations, but you can only report good news instead of bad news. Whether the other party is looking for a job or we are debating, it is good news instead of bad news. This is a congenital limitation, and this is the first point.
Second, after understanding this congenital limitation, we will continue to talk about it. What kind of relationship does the consumer have with the manufacturer? Manufacturers want to sell, consumers want to go to buy buy to buy. For manufacturers, what it wants is to make money in consumers' pockets. How can we make money? How good is my goods? I will do better, but I will do better. This is the common sense of everything. I won't criticize manufacturers, but we must warn consumers. We don't criticize the plaintiff, but we always remind the defendant that this is a simple relationship in today's market. Another friend who defended us told us that many people bought the advertisement once it was broadcast, but my cost was reduced. But if you think about it clearly, there should be no advertising fee at all. Why did we buy a mobile phone today, only to find that this mobile phone advertisement is not only about the performance of the mobile phone, Maggie Cheung, Gong Li or Brad? 6? 1 Pete's head will be bigger than his cell phone. Why? Just consulting? I didn't buy Brad. 6? 1 Pete is not Maggie Cheung either, so advertising is not simply to convey product consultation, but to induce your desire. You are not handsome enough, not beautiful enough, your son is not happy enough, and life is not satisfied enough. You will be happy to buy my product! So we will overspend, so why do people continue to borrow credit cards once they have the opportunity to spend tomorrow's money on today's things? So why does the American consumer debt have a debt of RMB 30,000? So why has the number of houses in the United States increased by 1.5 times in the past 30 years, and all the results are useless? How do other debaters explain it? We must understand that today we are not here to eliminate advertisements or be hostile to enterprises. We just tell you to be careful, be careful what the matchmaker says and the candidate's lines. That's all. Thank you!
University of Melbourne, Zheng Fang team
Xiao Huimin: What the other party said today, although very expressive, is more exaggerated than rational. Now let me tell you bit by bit.
First of all, the other party told us that they didn't come to eliminate advertisements today, but I was surprised. A bad thing for you, a bad thing for you, won't you get rid of it? It can be seen that the other party is wrong on this point. Let's take a look at the overall position structure of the opposing debater today. First, they say that advertising is only beneficial to businesses and not to consumers, but he takes defendants and plaintiffs as examples to describe the relationship between businesses and consumers. I feel strange. Are businesses and consumers firmly opposed today? We say that the relationship between consumers and merchants is only the relationship between transmitting information and receiving information, which shows that the other debater does not understand advertising, and today merchants and consumers are still win-win. Second, the other debater told us that advertising is good news but not bad news, but we asked, what is the essence of advertising? The essence of advertising is not to report both joy and worry to you. The essence of advertising is to introduce its characteristics. Is it wrong to introduce its characteristics? There is nothing wrong. Third, the other party argued that you can advertise only if you have money. We have suggested that you can advertise if you have money, and you can advertise if you have no money. For example, cheap advertisements, yellow pages signs are also advertisements. The other party has never seen this before. The other party said that there would be two consequences. He said that he would overspend, so it can be said that advertisements will constantly tempt you. I wonder, if Tong Ren Tang in Beijing advertises Baifeng Pills today, will it tempt the other three men to buy them? When the other party talked about the increase in cost, we argued that the cost would not necessarily increase after advertising.
Next, let me summarize our views. Why do we think advertising is good for mass consumption? Because advertising meets the two major needs of mass consumption. First of all, advertising allows consumers to get information about different products, services and activities, so that consumers can save time and get advice faster and more conveniently. I want to buy toothpaste. I want to buy something else. When I see the advertisements, I can find them. Why do you have to drive to them one by one? Secondly, why is advertising beneficial to mass consumption? Advertising supports many media and activities. We said that without advertisements, many newspapers and TV stations could not support it. Without advertisements, we might buy a newspaper at the price of a book. If there is an advertisement, we can buy a newspaper at a cheaper price. Why is this not an advantage? Thirdly, the other party just mentioned to us that many tickets are even more expensive after being advertised, as if the debater of the other party has never participated in an activity, because we know that many football matches and concerts are reduced in price because of advertisements and sponsors. Isn't this beneficial to consumers? Why can't the opposing debater see this?
So to sum up, today, the other side's point of view is to impose a lot of non-advertising essence on advertisements, which is very difficult for strong advertisements, and they don't understand the nature of advertisements and the needs of different levels of mass consumption, so their position cannot be established. And we firmly believe that advertising is conducive to mass consumption, thank you!
Excellent debater in this competition: Huang Zhizhong, the rival Shixin University team.
Guest comments
Zhang (deputy dean of Guanghua School of Management, Peking University, economist): The two sides have clear theories, fierce confrontation, vivid forms, beautiful language, accurate words and graceful demeanor. Theoretically, Melbourne has a problem, that is, the theory has not been finished. Shixin University's theory is a little biased, but it is still round. In addition, in the cross-examination, the opposing side is better, very witty, and the positive side is a little too anxious, so many opinions are not fully expressed. In rebuttal, we think that the opposing party is better, and in free comments, it is generally good, but it may be that the positive party spends too much time on advertising tourism. To sum up, both sides are very good, especially those who are in favor can list the opposing views one by one and then refute them separately, so this on-the-spot effect is very good.
Then a common shortcoming of this debate may be that neither side can give a positive answer to the questions raised by the guests. In addition, the strength of the two sides and the strength of the debaters are not very balanced. We think that the distribution of the debaters of the opposing side may be more balanced, but the pros are slightly unbalanced. But let's repeat, on the whole, tonight's debate is wonderful. I don't know which one is right after listening to it myself, which binds me. Ok, thank you!
Game result
Melbourne University Team: 85 1.
Against Shixin University Team: 89 1 point
The rival Shixin University team won.