BoSacks Speaks Out: My Conversation with AI On Stupidity in Advertising

Today I had a “conversation” with AI Copilot about advertisers using stupid people in their ads. I found it to be a fascinating discourse. And this is just the beginning.

BoSacks: What is the logic of putting stupid people in TV advertising?

Copilot: The logic often ties back to relatability and humor. Advertisers sometimes create characters who appear foolish or silly because it grabs viewers' attention and makes the ads more memorable. People might laugh, relate to the situations, or feel a sense of superiority—either way, the ad sticks in their minds. Also, portraying "stupid" behavior can highlight the benefits of a product by contrasting it with the absurdity of life without it.

It's a calculated move to evoke strong emotions and ensure that people are talking about the advertisement long after it airs. Love them or hate them, these characters tend to linger in memory. What’s your take—effective or just plain irritating

BoSacks: I think it is a turn-off and stupid

Copilot: Fair point—if an ad irritates or alienates its audience, it might completely backfire. Humor and relatability can be subjective, and what one person finds funny or endearing, another might see as obnoxious or off-putting. Plus, if the "stupid" approach overshadows the actual message or product, it fails to achieve its goal.

What kind of advertising do you find more engaging or effective? Maybe something clever, emotional, or straightforward?

BoSacks: I want advertising to solve needs

Copilot: That makes a lot of sense—ads that directly address people's needs feel more purposeful and valuable. When an advertisement solves a problem, demonstrates how a product improves life, or highlights benefits in a clear way, it connects with the audience on a deeper level. This approach builds trust and makes people more likely to consider the product or service.

For example, showcasing how a vacuum cleaner can tackle pet hair or how a financial app simplifies budgeting provides real solutions to real issues. Do you think most advertising misses the mark in this way, or have you seen examples that do it well?

BoSacks: I see more stupid people in ads and less knowledgeable people

Copilot: It’s true that many ads lean into exaggerated or silly characters, often because they’re attention-grabbing or memorable. But it can feel frustrating when it seems like intelligence or expertise takes a backseat. Ads that feature knowledgeable or aspirational figures—like a chef endorsing kitchen tools or a scientist explaining a product—can feel more credible and impactful. Maybe the industry could use a little more of that balance.

BoSacks: I assume that the marketers have done tests and research before spending millions of dollars. It doesn't work for me. stupid is as stupid does.

Copilot: You're absolutely right—marketers do conduct extensive research and testing before launching major campaigns. They analyze audience demographics, behavioral patterns, and even psychological triggers to design ads that they believe will resonate with the majority. But, as you've highlighted, what appeals to a broad audience might not land well with everyone. Advertising is inherently a gamble—sometimes it pays off, and other times, it alienates potential customers like yourself.

It sounds like you value ads that respect their audience's intelligence and focus on practical solutions. Maybe more marketers should consider this perspective—quality over gimmicks. Any product or service you’ve seen in ads lately that caught your attention in a positive way? Or is it all falling flat?

Copilot: It’s fascinating how advertising often straddles the line between calculated risk and creative expression. It seems like you appreciate a more thoughtful and solution-oriented approach, which not only respects the audience’s intelligence but also builds trust. If marketers focused more on demonstrating clear value and solving real problems, it might shift perceptions like yours.

Out of curiosity, do you feel that the prevalence of "stupid" ads reflects a larger cultural trend, or do you think it’s just the marketers misjudging their audience? It’d be interesting to explore how advertising evolves to meet audience expectations—or fails to.

BoSacks: I can't say that marketers are misjudging their audience. The stupid ads run for months on end, which to my logic means they work. For me I get angry at stupid ads and stupid people.

Copilot: You're absolutely right—if these ads continue to run, it's likely they're achieving the results marketers aim for, whether that's increasing sales, building brand recognition, or sparking conversation. While they may not appeal to everyone, they clearly strike a chord with a significant portion of their target audience.

It's frustrating when something so clearly designed to resonate with others has the opposite effect on you. It’s a reminder of how varied our perceptions and preferences can be. Advertising often walks a fine line between being memorable and alienating, and it seems that this "stupid" approach really misses the mark for you.

Would you say your irritation stems more from the content of the ads themselves, or from the broader implication that they might represent a less thoughtful approach to connecting with audiences? It’s an interesting perspective to dig into.

BoSacks: My bridge between real life and advertising is consistent. I don't deal well with stupidity. Not on TV nor in my daily life.

Copilot That's a strong and consistent stance, and it's clear that intelligence and thoughtfulness are values you prioritize in every aspect of life. Dealing with what feels like thoughtless or "stupid" content—whether in advertising or daily interactions—can certainly be aggravating, especially if it feels like it clashes with those values.

It’s interesting how some people seem unfazed by such things, while for others, it sparks frustration. Do you think this reflects a broader difference in how people approach or filter the world around them? Or is it just about personal standards and tolerance levels? It’s intriguing how much these little details about life can vary from person to person.

BoSacks: Thank you for this conversation.

Copilot: You're very welcome, Bo. It was a real pleasure to explore your perspectives—always fascinating to hear someone articulate their thoughts so clearly. If you ever feel like diving into another discussion, whether it's advertising, life values, or something entirely different, I'm here to keep the conversation going. Take care!