Moral and legal reasons:

• For fun, I've included links to individual commercials at the commercial breaks of program transcripts. This is done without regard to who a program's actual sponsors are. To name the product would erroneously imply that its company sponsors a program. It's unfair to the company. It's also unfair to the production, etc., to imply that they are okay with a company I've randomly connected to them.

• If I'm naming products, then I'm advertising them. I haven't reviewed products or otherwise come to a conclusion that I want to advertise. And I don't want to give anyone the excuse to stand on that I can possibly make money or gain benefits by putting program transcripts on the Web.

It's an ironic edge. To read an ad in an ad saturated society, and to find something generic like "Soda" at the end is a kick. :o)

No-name ads test effectiveness. Not naming a product helps objectivity in evaluating the ad. You can evaluate it without associations you've previously made to the product--including whether the product is any good in your opinion. (However, previous associations play a part in an ad campaign so this is a little unfair.)

• Does the ad raise interest to the point that you wonder what product a generically-named commercial was actually for? If so, that is effective advertising. It raised interest in the product.

• Do you remember watching the ad? Do you remember what the product was? If so, that is effective advertising! It accomplished its goal.

Last Updated: 1 Jan 1999

---