I've flagged the original submission as the sort of fluff best pushed elsewhere, but to answer your earnestly-offered question:
Ad language of the past is very odd for modern hearers/listeners -- moreso, I think, than normal conversation would be, because advertising communication is trying so hard to be fashionable, be convincing, and stay ahead of audience rhetoric-resistance. Those weird appeals worked once, then burnt out from overuse. Our own era's commercial puffery will seem even more odd, decades from now.
If you want to see real dated ad copy, James Lileks' 'Lint' Tumblog is great:
(These Facebook/Skype/YouTube mockups don't quite get the voice, typography, or design right -- despite a valiant effort, they veer a little more in the direction of broken chinglish than 60s product touting.)
2 comments
[ 2.2 ms ] story [ 17.8 ms ] threadAd language of the past is very odd for modern hearers/listeners -- moreso, I think, than normal conversation would be, because advertising communication is trying so hard to be fashionable, be convincing, and stay ahead of audience rhetoric-resistance. Those weird appeals worked once, then burnt out from overuse. Our own era's commercial puffery will seem even more odd, decades from now.
If you want to see real dated ad copy, James Lileks' 'Lint' Tumblog is great:
http://lileks.tumblr.com/
(These Facebook/Skype/YouTube mockups don't quite get the voice, typography, or design right -- despite a valiant effort, they veer a little more in the direction of broken chinglish than 60s product touting.)